36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 103
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 30, 2000
1005
| ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
|
| The Speaker |
| INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Library of Parliament
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
1010
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Grandparents Rights
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| St. John's Harbour
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1015
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Library of Parliament
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
| Motion for concurrence
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—National Transportation Policy
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Motion
|
1020
1025
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1030
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1035
1040
| Amendment
|
1045
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1050
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1055
1100
1105
1110
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1115
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1120
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1125
1130
1135
1140
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1145
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1150
1155
1200
1205
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1210
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1215
1220
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1225
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1230
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1235
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1240
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1245
1250
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1255
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1300
1305
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1310
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1315
1320
1325
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1330
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1335
1340
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1345
1350
1355
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-34. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| BRAD BOWDEN
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| BLYTH FESTIVAL THEATRE
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
1400
| CULTURELINK
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| RIMOUSKI OCEANIC HOCKEY TEAM
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1405
| BUFFET DES NATIONS IN SHERBROOKE
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR AWARD
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| QUEBEC'S WEEK OF THE DISABLED
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1410
| CRAB FISHERY
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| HUNTINGTON'S DISEASE
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| NEW MEMBER
|
| The Speaker |
1415
| NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West)
|
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1425
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1430
| AIRPORTS
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1440
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1445
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| ACOA
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1450
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1455
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| CULTURAL HERITAGE
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1500
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—National Transportation Policy
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1510
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1515
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1520
1525
1530
1535
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1540
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1545
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1550
1555
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1600
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. John Herron |
1605
1610
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1615
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1620
1625
1630
1635
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1640
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1645
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1650
1655
1700
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1705
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1710
1715
1750
(Division 1324)
| Amendment negatived
|
(Division 1325)
| Motion negatived
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-12. Report stage
|
(Division 1326)
| Motion No. 1 agreed to
|
1800
(Division 1327)
| Motion No. 2 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
(Division 1328)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1805
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-205. Second reading
|
1815
(Division 1329)
| Motion agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1820
| CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-16. Third reading
|
1825
(Division 1330)
| Motion agreed to
|
1830
1835
(Division 1331)
1840
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| SAMUEL DE CHAMPLAIN DAY ACT
|
| Bill C-428. Second reading
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1845
1850
1855
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1900
1905
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1910
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1915
1920
1925
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Motion
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1930
1935
| Mr. John Duncan |
1940
1945
1950
1955
2000
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
2005
2010
2015
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
2020
2025
2030
| Mr. John Herron |
2035
2040
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 103
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 30, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table,
pursuant to subsection 23(2) of the Auditor General Act, the
report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development to the House of Commons for the year 2000.
[Translation]
This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.
* * *
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
The Speaker: Pursuant to section 39(1) of the Access to
Information Act, I have the honour to lay upon the table a
special report from the Information Commissioner on the meeting
of deadlines.
[English]
This report is permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights.
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 two
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table in the
House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, as
well as the financial report.
The report relates to the meeting of the commission on
co-operation and development held in Bamako, Mali, from February
21 to 23, 2000.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the second
report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of
Parliament.
With leave of the House, I move that the second
report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of
Parliament, tabled earlier this day, be concurred in.
1010
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations and I believe you would find unanimous
consent for the adoption of the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, on
Tuesday, May 30, 2000, when Private Members' Business has been
completed, the House shall continue to sit and Government Order,
Government Business, Number 11 shall be deemed to have been duly
moved and seconded, provided that, during consideration thereof,
the Chair shall not receive any dilatory motions, quorum calls or
requests for unanimous consent and, when no additional member
rises to speak, the motion shall be deemed to have been
withdrawn, the order discharged and the House shall adjourn to
the next sitting day.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by 43 of my
constituents, which states that whereas marriage is and should
remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others, the petitioners request that parliament take all
necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of
Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada, and
they further ask that parliament withdraw Bill C-23 and affirm
the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation.
GRANDPARENTS RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to present a petition signed by many constituents from across the
country, asking parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include
the provision supported by Bill C-340, which is the right of the
spouses' parents, that is, the grandparents, to have access to or
custody of the children. In the present situation they have to
go through all kinds of procedures to do that.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition today on behalf of approximately
200 people in the riding of St. John's East. The petition
states: “Whereas Canadians are horrified by pornography which
depicts children and are astounded by legal determinations that
possession of that kind of pornography is not criminal; and
whereas it is the duty of parliament through the enactment and
enforcement of the criminal code to protect the most vulnerable
members of society from sexual abuse; therefore, your petitioners
pray that parliament take all measures necessary to ensure that
possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal
offence and that federal police forces be directed to give
priority to enforcing this law for the protection of children”.
ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to present a second petition from approximately 100 people
in the riding of St. John's East, which states: “We, the
undersigned citizens of the province of Newfoundland, wish to
draw the attention of the House to the polluted condition of St.
John's harbour; and therefore your petitioners request that the
House encourage the federal, provincial and relevant municipal
governments to financially support the sewage treatment system
required for the clean-up of St. John's harbour”.
This issue I have brought to the attention of the House on at
least four, five or perhaps seven different occasions. It is a
very serious issue and I would ask parliament to consider it.
1015
MARRIAGE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the
constituents of New Brunswick Southwest.
The petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation, such as
Bill C-225, so as to define in statute that a marriage can only
be entered into between a single male and a single female. There
are thousands of these and I am pleased to present them to the
House.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
seek unanimous consent to move that the report I presented
earlier concerning the Library of Parliament be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Raymond Lavigne: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Second
Report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of
Parliament, presented earlier today, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) moved:
That this House recognize the urgent need to address the serious
transportation problems facing the Canadian people, and call upon
the government to establish a comprehensive national
transportation policy that demonstrates leadership on this issue
and which provides solutions to the problems shared coast to
coast by all Canadians.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this issue. My
interest in transportation goes back a long way, perhaps to the
early 1990s and probably into 1996, because of a project I wanted
developed in my riding but there was a lack of federal government
policy on funding for our national highway system.
The province of Nova Scotia, faced with a dangerous highway, no
money and unable to establish an agreement with the federal
government, tried to come up with an unique and innovative way to
build part of our Trans-Canada Highway. It is now known as the
Cobequid Pass and it is a toll highway. It is the only toll
highway on the Trans-Canada Highway system right now and it runs
entirely through my riding. It certainly focused the issue of
transportation for me.
It is not only highways where there is a lack of co-ordinated,
consistent policy, where there is a policy of long range planning
rather than just react, react. It applies to the rail system;
the airline system, as we have just seen recently; the port
policies; shipbuilding; and passenger rail service. Again, there
is just reaction. There is no long range plan, no consistent
approach and no thought put behind these issues.
The ferry system in Canada, especially Marine Atlantic, is now
coming under fire and criticism because again, after years of
having one system of supplying and managing the Atlantic ferry
system through Marine Atlantic, all of a sudden there is a new
system and nobody understands what it is. The people in charge
of Marine Atlantic are circumventing the process and nobody knows
the thought processes, if there is any protection for consumers
or if there is any accountability.
In this debate I will be focusing on some of the issues I have
just listed. My very learned colleague from Brandon—Souris will
be discussing rail and grain issues, which are in his area of
expertise. The very distinguished member for St. John's East
will be discussing the Marine Atlantic issue. I will also be
focusing in on some airline issues.
1020
This morning, for example, when I flew from Montreal to Ottawa,
the plane was delayed for a little while. I called my office and
said that I would be delayed and that I would be in Ottawa for my
presentation this morning but that it would be close. When we
were ready to get on the plane there was another delay. This has
happened to consumers right across the country. I do not want to
hone in on that because I know there are transitional issues, but
delays for consumers now are completely unacceptable. There are
consistent delays. I hope the new dominant airline can address
these issues and bring them back to the former standards.
However, the problem is not Air Canada or the airline mergers.
It is that there was very little government involvement in this
merger issue. It was almost all private sector driven. The
government should have been establishing plans years ago to
predict the collapse of Canadian Airlines. It should have been
prepared for it but it was not.
As things got worse and worse for Canadian Airlines, another
private sector company, Onex, became involved and made a
proposal. It looked like that was going to happen, then it did
not happen. Then we had all kinds of other proposals and
jiggery-pokery with American Airlines and many other partners in
this whole issue. Again the private sector determined the
aviation policy in this country, not the government. The
government was behind the eight ball and it fell far short of the
expectations of the Canadian people.
The first issue that I brought up was highways. This is
probably the only country in the world that does not have a
highway policy. Right now there is not one provincial
transportation minister who can tell us what the federal
government's policy is on highways. They have been making sounds
about maybe some day establishing a policy, but right now there
is no policy on highways. It is amazing that a country that is
so dependent on highways like Canada, perhaps more than any other
country in the world, has no highway policy. Years ago the
provinces could make co-operative highway funding agreements with
the federal government and now they have all expired except for a
few. The remaining policies are now completely inconsistent.
To point out the inconsistency in my area over the next two
years, the province of Newfoundland will get $55 million this
year and $50 million in funding next year from the federal
government, for a total of $105 million. That is on one side of
Nova Scotia. On the other side of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick
gets $102 million over the next two years. Nova Scotia, in the
middle, gets zero. I point out that this is completely
inconsistent. I do not say either one of them is right but the
point is that it is completely inconsistent.
The road builders, the governments, the shippers, the
manufacturers and the industrial parks cannot make plans on how
they will establish their facilities, where to build their
buildings, where they will hire people and how they will ship
their products to market without a co-ordinated, long range, long
term policy. That policy has to tie in rail with highway,
highway with air and all these have to be tied into municipal
passenger systems too. None of that is being done. We are
addressing the issues as they come up: bang, there is a highway
program, we will build a toll highway; VIA Rail is broke, we will
give it more money; Canadian Airlines is in trouble, we will let
them merge or whatever. This country, which is so dependent on
transportation, perhaps more than any other country in the world
because we are so big and our populations are so focused in
certain areas, needs a transportation policy.
We want to grow, compete and be in the global market but we
cannot be without a transportation policy that ties them all
together. That means the government must work with the
provinces, the industry, the shippers and the transportation
industry to come up with a co-ordinated policy that handles all
these issues.
Instead, we have piecemeal deals where the government decides to
privatize the airports. This has not happened yet, but I predict
that some of the smaller airports in Canada, which are the
lifelines and the hope for economic development in small
communities like Saint John, New Brunswick for instance, will
suddenly find themselves unable to survive and compete.
It is critical that the small airports be brought into an
overall policy of the government. We must not just diversify,
privatize, commercialize or divest all the airports in Canada.
They have to be part of an overall plan.
1025
The big airports will survive. They will do well and prosper. I
see great things in the future for the major airports.
Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention that I will be splitting my
time with the very hon. member for Brandon—Souris. He is very
anxious to get up and talk about wheat. He knows a lot about
wheat and I know very little about wheat, but I do know something
about transportation. I do know that there should be a policy
that co-ordinates all these issues together.
What has happened is that instead of having a department of
transportation, we now have a profit centre. When the government
came to power in 1993, the department virtually broke even or
lost money. According to a Manitoba study, in the year 2002-03
the department will have a profit of $3.9 billion, counting all
the fuel taxes, all the taxes it brings in, the rents from the
ports and the rents from the airports.
I do not know how members feel, but the Department of Transport
should not be a profit centre. It should not be an avenue to
make money on behalf of the government. It should provide the
very best transportation and infrastructure possible for this
country. It cannot be done on a wing and a prayer. It has to be
long range. Highways, rail lines, and airports take decades to
plan and decades to build. It cannot be done in the haphazard
manner that is happening now.
I will just go back to the aviation merger which changed things
so much in the last few months. The divestiture of the ports and
the airports are not all bad but they are not part of an overall
plan. They have to be part of an overall plan.
There is no plan for highway construction in the country. When
I was first given the position of transport critic for the
Progressive Conservative Party, I wrote every provincial minister
of transport in Canada. I asked them what the number one issue
was facing ministers of transport. Every single one said that it
was highways and that they needed highway money.
This is a critical issue because there is now such a large
transfer of goods and services to the highways from rail. It is
more economical, more efficient and more practical to ship by
truck. Trucks are getting bigger. The provinces are all asking
for permission to have bigger trucks and bigger regulations,
which will put more workload on the highways, causing more damage
to the highways.
The provincial ministers of transport, absolutely together, say
that they need a transportation policy for highways, one that
they can plan on for 10 to 20 years and one which they can count
on for certain amount of funding based on the gas and oil tax
that is collected. It is only fair. Right now only 5%, 6% or
less than that goes back into highways. If 15% of the gas and
diesel oil tax went back into highways it would resolve most of
the issues in the country. It is not a lot to ask.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I thank my hon. colleague for his speech on transportation today.
I also arrived late from New Brunswick. I was caught at the
Montreal airport with my colleague.
What does my hon. colleague think can be done to rectify the
problem with transportation in Canada? When I talk about the
problems with transportation, I am talking about VIA Rail and the
airlines. Should there not be a national policy on
transportation that includes every region of every province?
VIA Rail was taken away from Saint John, New Brunswick not too
long ago under this government. Today that region is looking for
new ideas on transportation.
What does my hon. colleague think can be done if the government
has done everything it can to guarantee access by all Canadians?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the
government has done anywhere near enough to address the problem.
The problem is fundamental. We need a co-ordinated
transportation system. We cannot make these decisions based on
putting more money into small projects, or making a deal on
certain provincial highways, or pouring more money into VIA Rail
to help it survive but not making a change. There is no
fundamental change.
The minister should co-ordinate fundamental meetings with agendas
to address all our transportation issues to try to co-ordinate
all our modes of transport.
1030
Some of the issues are being dealt with in the airline merger
now with competition from companies like WestJet and all other
charter airlines. My colleague just raised delays and such
things a minute ago. I believe they will be addressed
eventually, but still we do not have a co-ordinated approach.
When we go to other countries we can see where they have had
long range planning. They have the rail lines co-ordinated with
the ports, with the subway systems and with the highways systems.
They have highways that go directly from the airports non-stop
right into the centres of towns or industrial areas. The rail
lines and the subways come directly to the airports.
We need a total co-ordinated transportation package in Canada,
not piecemeal approaches to resolving the issues.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. colleague for bringing this issue to the floor of
the House again. Obviously it is a serious issue. There is no
question that there is a lack of vision in the transportation
policy within the country in all modes of this sector.
I want to comment on one of the points the hon. member made. We
have privatization of the airports. Certainly some airports will
make dollars but there are those that will not.
In the hon. member's view is it okay to privatize as long as the
privatized company or authority will make money but not okay if
the others will not? Is it one or the other, or should we be
looking at a policy that is there for all of Canada where we all
support each other?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, the member's question is
interesting. That is exactly the policy we used to have. The
member for Churchill has described a policy we used to have
wherein the Department of Transport managed and operated all
airports in Canada. The stronger ones which had more economic
opportunities and were more viable supported the weaker ones.
This is not a matter of poor management on the part of small
airports. They just do not have the volume of passengers going
through the small airports to establish alternative sources of
revenue.
An airport like Calgary, for instance, has established itself
almost as a destination point. It is almost worth going to
Calgary just to see the airport. Such a dynamic business
community has been created within the airport because millions of
passengers go through there every year.
A small airport like Saint John, as I mentioned earlier, does
not have the traffic to support the alternative sources of
revenue like the stores, the food shops, the rental car
facilities, et cetera. The small airports have no ability to
generate alternative revenue. They have just a fraction of the
revenue of big airports from terminal fees and landing fees. They
do not have a chance to compete. Even though their expenses may
be lower, their opportunities for revenue are much lower than
those of the big ones.
The Government of Canada has to go back and revenue this
decision. I do not disagree with turning the airports over to
the communities, but the government has to review the decision
and find a way to make it equitable for the small airports
through negotiations on rental deals, a supply of capital or
operating expenses to maintain their operations. We cannot let
our small airports decline, become unsafe and deteriorate.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will start by thanking my illustrious colleague from
Cumberland—Colchester who without doubt is the best and
certainly the most informed member of the transportation
committee and a critic par excellence. Other members of the
other opposition parties could take some lessons from the
illustrious member for Cumberland—Colchester.
Let me indicate exactly where I was heading. I would feel much
more confident in the national transportation policy and where
the country would be heading in the future if my colleague from
Cumberland—Colchester were sitting in the minister's seat. He
could put into place at least some of his understanding with
respect to national transportation and some of his vision with
respect to where the country could and should go with those types
of policies put into place.
Let me talk about the motion before us today. We had some
difficulty as a party trying to figure out which of the
ministries was the most mismanaged because there was a
smorgasbord of mismanaged departments.
1035
We could talk about health care, which was put on the agenda
previously by the NDP. We could talk about mismanagement of
HRDC, which has been in the House continuously. We could talk
about agriculture, which this party put forward as a topic of
debate in a supply motion. That department is totally mismanaged
to the point where there is no vision as to where agriculture in
the country will go. However we came upon national
transportation. When we started looking at a national
transportation policy we discovered very quickly that there was
none and that the government was heading in an ad hoc direction.
Transportation breaks down into a number of areas. I will speak
to one on which I have a bit of understanding. Obviously that is
grain transportation. I will not talk at length about it because
there are other deficiencies in other areas of transportation and
the non-transportation policy of the government.
Let us first open debate with respect to the grain
transportation. Back in September of last year Arthur Kroeger
tabled a report on grain transportation. Grain transportation is
not something that just fell out of the sky. We have been
talking about grain transportation in western Canada since the
first kernel of wheat was planted in the western prairies. The
fact is that the government did away with the crow rate benefit
back in 1995. Since that point in time there has been absolutely
nothing in place to help serve the farmers of our great country,
particularly those in western Canada.
The problem is that one-third of the total value now being
achieved through commodities that are grown is going to
transportation costs. Unfortunately farmers cannot survive on
two-thirds of the commodity price, pay their costs or make any
type of a profit so they can continue on in the business. This
should have been dealt with a long time ago.
What will happen today, tomorrow, this week or early next week
is that the Minister of Transport will be tabling a bill. That
bill could have been tabled two months ago when we could have
debated that piece of legislation logically, openly and
transparently. We will have to push the bill through before we
rise in three weeks so that the government can put forward the
legislation and it is effective by August 1, the new crop year.
I will have opportunity to tell the country why it is that the
government has failed in its responsibility to put forward
possibly the best legislation for producers and farmers.
Let us talk about other transportation issues which the hon.
member talked about in his dissertation. One of them is
highways. The country was built, developed and started on
transportation. Does anyone remember the last spike? Does
anyone remember bringing our country together from coast to coast
with a transportation web, a rail web?
Our country still depends on transportation. The majority of
what we produce is exported. It is either exported by sea, by
land or by air. We depend on export commodities. We depend on
international markets. Our transportation infrastructure is
coming to the point now where it is deteriorating beyond that of
a third world country.
Let us talk about those three areas. Let us talk about highways
on which I have some knowledge. In a previous life I was a
chartered member of an organization called the Highway No. 1 West
Association. Our major land link, our number one highway, the
Trans-Canada Highway, is absolutely deplorable. In areas of
western Canada the number one highway is to the point now where
truckers and people moving commodities and goods will no longer
use it. They now go through the United States of America
bypassing Canadian highways, come back up into Canada and deliver
their goods. That is deplorable.
The government takes a gasoline excise tax every year in excess
of $4.4 billion. The same government puts back less than 4.4% of
that into our great highway system throughout Canada. The
responsibility falls on the shoulders of the provinces. The
provinces have a road network. They have to deal with provincial
roads and municipal roads. Now they have to deal with national
roads.
As my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester asked, why is
it that we cannot work with the provincial governments? We
tried to work with the provincial governments when we were in
power and were getting to a point of putting together a national
highways program.
1040
Unfortunately this government does not wish to deal with a
national highways program. When I talked with the minister of
transportation and highways in the province of Manitoba, he too
came forward and said that the best thing we could do now is to
have a long term national highways program.
What does that mean? That means stable funding over a period of
years that will be distributed equally, honestly and fairly
between all provinces to put in a national highways program.
Right now we have ad hoc programs that come forward from the
government whenever there is an election. What a wonderful way
to run our infrastructure, particularly our national highways
program. Whenever there is an election the government will drib
and drab a few dollars.
We have $175 million now for rural roads in the grain
transportation strategy the government put forward. We have an
infrastructure program of $100 million for this coming year for
all of Canada. I believe that works out to $3.5 million for the
province of Manitoba for its infrastructure program next budget
year. Whoop-de-do, $3.5 million will do three kilometres of
highway. It is not a sufficient program.
Let us talk about air service. My hon. colleague certainly
understands air service better than the government side does.
There is no vision. There is no policy. There is no
understanding which is necessary so that we can continue to
compete internationally and nationally with our competitors. No
strategy has been put forward on transportation.
Another issue is sea transportation. Being from
Brandon—Souris, I can honestly say that I do not speak with a
lot of experience on open sea transportation, but the hon. member
for St. John's East will speak to it a little later because he
understands marine transportation.
The issue we are talking about now is the ideology or psychology
that has escaped the government. It is an ideology or psychology
on what we have to put into place so Canadians can compete in the
international market for years to come.
We have heard that the majority of our future will be with
knowledge based industries. I do not dispute that, but there has
to be a balance. Not only are our knowledge based industries
very important for us so that we can sell that knowledge
throughout the world, which, by the way, the government does not
really have a grasp of. We can talk about the numbers of
knowledge based industries personnel leaving the country in the
brain drain. At least we recognize there is a real advantage. We
also have to recognize that the country was built on
manufacturing, processing and commodities that have to be
transported.
In western Canada the major transportation requirements are for
potash, grain and fertilizers. We need rail transportation that
is of a proper standard. We need infrastructure that can be
continued into the future. We have nothing put forward by the
government which indicates that it is prepared to invest in that
infrastructure.
I ask the Minister of Transport to put before the House a well
thought out, long term strategy and plan for a national highways
program for rural roads throughout the country, as a well as a
rail transportation policy not only for passengers but also for
commodities. There is nothing I can put my hands on that will
show me where those issues will be within the next two, five or
ten years. I find it deplorable that the government has no
vision for transportation. I would like to move the following
amendment:
1045
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will ignore the splitting
of the infinitive and rule the motion in order.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be giving the government's view in a minute,
but both the member for Cumberland—Colchester and the member for
Brandon—Souris took us to task on a lack of vision with the
airline policy. That party supported the government on Bill C-26
and I was very glad of that support.
I would like to ask my colleagues over there what was the
alternative they wanted to what we actually did. Did they want
the Government of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada, to bail out
Canadian Airlines yet again? Did they want a bankruptcy of
Canadian Airlines like some of their columnist friends in the
national newspapers? Did they want 16,000 people put out on the
street, including many in western Canada, Manitoba, the province
of the hon. member for Brandon—Souris? I put that to them.
Would they have wanted an incredible disruption at Christmas
where there was not capacity from Air Canada, U.S. carriers or
our own charters? Thousands and thousands of people would have
been stranded and in chaos at the airports. Is that the kind of
chaotic policy response the Conservative Party follows?
We can see the chaos in their own party on an ongoing basis. It
is okay for them to muck up their own party but do not ask us to
muck up the airlines system just to emulate their own lack of
cohesion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, if anybody mucked up the
airline industry it was the government. I would suspect that
anyone with an ounce of management ability would be a little bit
proactive and would be able to see what was happening in the
airline industry.
Why was the country put into that position? Why is it that
customers of those airlines were made to have no choice on that
December rush that the minister speaks about? Why was the
government minister sitting back in his chair on his tush without
putting something proactive in place instead of just simply
reacting to a very, very serious circumstance?
Why were there plans not in place prior to Bill C-26? Why did
the minister not have some discussions and put into place some of
those solutions prior to the urgency with which it came forward?
I still blame the government and will always blame the government
and the minister for putting Canadians in that situation.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
truly a treat to be here today to listen to the members on the
government side of the House and members from the opposition
party down at the far end argue over who has been the worst at
managing Canada's transportation system. That should tell
Canadians up front and absolutely positively that neither of
those parties or any like them are going to do what is best for
Canadians in regard to the transportation industry.
Both of those parties have fought time and time again to
privatize our entire system solely on the basis of privatization
being the best answer to transportation in Canada and it has
failed. What they should do is look back at what was really best
for transportation in Canada which was a policy that was there to
meet the needs of Canadians, not just for companies to make a
profit off the backs of Canadians.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I assume the member for
Churchill is speaking in favour of the motion. What it says right
now is what we would like to put forward to the Canadian people.
It calls upon the government to establish a comprehensive
national transportation policy that demonstrates that leadership
she is speaking of on this issue and which will provide solutions
to the problems shared coast to coast.
I suspect that the member is speaking in favour of the motion
because we agree with her. We believe there has to be a long
term, well thought out transportation policy.
By the way, that also includes the port of Churchill with
respect to grain transportation. We as a party have always
accepted Churchill as part of the grain transportation system. I
know she would agree with us in saying that. I thank the NDP for
supporting the motion.
1050
Hon. David M. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
asked where the government was in foreseeing the problems with
the airline industry. Where was he last August when we invoked
section 47 of the Canada Transportation Act for the first time
because we foresaw the difficulties, we foresaw the bankruptcy of
Canadian Airlines at Christmas?
We did it. We set in motion a private sector practice that
brought forward three alternatives, one of which we now have in
place today. That was foresight on the part of the government.
That was good planning and it has made for good airline policy.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, that was not good
planning. It was a response to one corporation, Onex
Corporation, which came forward with a suggestion as to how it
could fix the airline situation. The government did not have any
understanding as to what was happening until Onex made its
proposal.
Why was it that the government was not looking for proposals
from other corporations that could make the system work a lot
better than what the Onex Corporation put forward?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are so many erroneous assertions and false
assumptions being made that I am pleased to rise in this debate.
I listened with amazement to the criticisms from my colleagues
opposite. I believe this motion has it all wrong. When the facts
are looked at, and I hope to put those facts rather succinctly in
the next few minutes, I think I will have demonstrated that we do
have a transportation policy which addresses the needs of
Canadians from coast to coast. The government has demonstrated
strong leadership in the transportation sector. As a result,
perhaps even the Conservatives could rethink their motion and
work with all of us tonight to defeat it when it comes to a vote.
The fact is the many reforms the government has put in place in
the transportation sector since 1993 have followed a pattern and
a philosophy that work today.
First of all, as the hon. member knows, we came into power in
1993 with a $41 billion annual deficit courtesy of the Mulroney
Tories. We came here with no money having been spent on airports
and infrastructure for nine years. While the Tories wantonly
raised taxes to the highest levels in Canadian history, they
never invested a nickel except some highway money in the
transportation sector. We had to look at every single component.
We looked at airports. We had to get an investment of $8
billion or $9 billion into airports within a short period of
time. How were we to do that? Transport Canada was taken out of
the day to day management of the airports and local airport
authorities were put in place. Those local airport authorities
do not constitute privatization. We followed the Canadian model
and the crown and the people of Canada still own the airports.
They will be ours forever.
We have entered into 60 year management agreements with local
airport authorities whose members come from the surrounding
communities and understand their communities. I am speaking of
people such as those the hon. member for Saint John knows who
know all about the specific needs of her community. They are
running the airport authority. They are coming forward with plans
for new terminals and new infrastructure. This is working at the
larger airports in the country. I grant that at smaller airports
we have to keep an eye open especially given the airline
restructuring. We have to keep an eye open to what has happened
and we are monitoring the situation.
We are also looking at the larger airport authorities and
reviewing all the leases. We want to see whether there are
inequities. The Tories came into power and gave one deal to
Vancouver, one deal to Calgary, one deal to Edmonton and another
deal to Montreal. There was no consistency like all the other
programs they put in place during those nine years. There was no
consistency to the local airport authorities. We did some
amending and we will be doing more.
When we came into power we brought in an airport policy which
standardized the rules across the country. In this lease review
we want to bring all of the airports under the ambit of the
Canadian airport authority so there is transparency,
accountability and a proper management regime which all Canadians
can be proud of. A bill will be brought in later this year to
effect these particular changes.
1055
That is one example of where we took the lead. We have put the
financing of these airports to the users, financed through
charges, new rents and new revenues that come from the airports.
That is much better than what Transport Canada was doing.
Let us look at the railways. There is the Canadian National
Railways, an amalgam of bankrupt railways. To the credit of the
Tories they came up with a good idea. It was either the
government of Arthur Meighen or R.B. Bennett, one of those two
shortlived Tory governments back in the nether part of the last
century. They put the railways together under Canadian National
Railways and the government invested heavily over the years.
That railway was fat. It was inefficient. It was improperly
managed. As a result we privatized Canadian National Railways
and it has been a success story.
There are aspects of the Canadian National privatization which I
am uncomfortable with but we cannot cry over spilled milk. We
have to look at the success. The fact is it is a company that
has pared down its labour force, opened new markets, forged new
alliances in the United States and is truly becoming a North
American railway and an institution of which we can be proud.
It wants to go even further with a consolidation with Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Corporation. That is a subject of controversy.
The U.S. service transportation board has said it wants time to
think about it. It has put a moratorium on such discussions,
although CN is appealing it in the U.S. courts. CN knows and hon.
members know that I have asked the transport committee to look at
that merger to see if it is in the best interests of Canada. The
fact is this was a bold move that worked.
Air Canada was privatized by the Tories. That party loves
privatization. Some people say that maybe we should have
commercialized it and kept the ownership but they privatized it
and got rid of the whole thing. Not only did they privatize Air
Canada in 1988, the year before, they deregulated the domestic
airline system. Part of the problem we have had with Canadian
airlines over the last 10 years is that the Tories truly mucked
up. They privatized a national carrier which was heavily
invested in by the state. At the same time they deregulated and
put Air Canada at an incredible advantage to all those other
private companies that were then consolidating.
Remember in the 1970s and the 1980s Canadian Pacific, EPA,
Transair and PWA were making money and even Québecair made money.
What happened was the Tories came along and deregulated it. They
would deregulate their uncles, brothers, everybody just out of
ideology. And they privatized at the same time. This created an
incredible problem for them and for us. Quite frankly, we should
have moved to effect the private sector reorganization of the
airline industry earlier in our mandate but we had so much on our
plate we could not do it. We did it last year and I think it has
worked extremely well. I will come back to that a little later.
We also commercialized the air navigation services. We were the
first country to do so. Other countries around the world are
emulating us. This has caused a great reorganization and
investment in new capital equipment for air navigation. Now
Canada has the best air navigation system certainly in North
America if not the world.
The poor U.S. cannot cope. It has an explosion of flights and
passengers. The air navigation services in the United States are
creaking under the strain. Hopefully this will not cause a
safety problem. In Canada we took a bold move. We have new
systems and new equipment coming in. We will continue to have
the safest and the best air navigation system in the world.
We commercialized ferry operations. We commercialized the St.
Lawrence Seaway. We deregulated the trucking industry. Forget
about the reorganization, we liberalized the air market and
recently the charter market.
Charters almost have the ability to operate both as charters and
scheduled carriers. There are no stopoff provisions and
prepayments have been waived. The charter companies have
responded. How have they responded? They responded by putting
in new orders for equipment: Canada 3000, four A319s; Royal Air,
another 757; Air Transat, a new A330; and so on.
The charters are responding and filling the void that needs to be
filled.
1100
The CTA, the Canada Transportation Act, was brought in in 1996.
It has had some success, but there have been some criticisms.
Those criticisms can be examined in the debate that will follow
in the next year.
However, there is no denying that under the Canada
Transportation Act, of all of the railway lines that are up for
abandonment, 80% are still being operated by short line railways,
operating under provincial charters, responding to local needs,
such as the Essex Terminal Railway in Windsor, which is operating
on small trackage, Omnitrax to Churchill, and RailTex. These
railways are there, they are making money, they are providing a
service and they have allowed CN and CP to concentrate on their
core activities.
The Canada Transportation Act is up for review as of July 1.
Very shortly I will be appointing prominent individuals to
conduct that review. That review will be very important. If the
hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester does not think we have a
transportation policy, this review will give him and his party
the chance to say “Let's have a national transportation policy
that we, the Tories, can live with”, because the whole act will
be up for review. It will take one year. We can look at every
single aspect of the act.
If members from the west are not happy about the abandonment of
track, we can look at that. With regard to urban Canada, I am
meeting with my friend from Vancouver Quadra this afternoon about
the Arbutus Corridor, a freight line that goes to downtown
Vancouver which should be saved for a link to the airport. CP
wants to sell it for $100 million. Is it right that the railways
have the latitude, unfettered, to get rid of these rail lines in
urban corridors? That is a matter that we should be looking at
in the CTA review.
Parallel to that the committee will be looking at the BN-CN
merger to see whether it is in the best interest of public
transportation policy.
Not only is there a transportation policy, not only has it
worked, we now have a vehicle, the CTA review starting in July,
where for the next year we will be able to embellish that policy
and change it however hon. members would wish to improve the
entire transportation system in the country.
All of the things we have done in the last seven years have
contributed to the prosperity of Canada and have resulted in
reduced transportation costs. In fact, if we had not brought in
the reforms of the last seven years transportation costs would be
$8 billion higher today.
Because of the intense competition brought about by deregulation
and all of the changes, most of the gains, which amount to $8.1
billion, have been transferred to consumers and shippers in the
form of lower prices. Because transportation is part of
everything that we buy, import or export, these gains have
contributed to making the Canadian economy more competitive and
to improving the standard of living for all Canadians.
I am not supposed to talk about what goes on in cabinet, but we
had a good briefing from my colleague, the Minister of Industry,
about the various productivity in industrial sectors in the
country. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what the most productive
sector was in the last seven years? It was transport. Do you
know why it was transport? Because of the policies of this
government. I am saying we got it right. We can refine some of
our policies, we can deal with airport leases, and we can even
look at the rents. We will do that because we are not dogmatic.
We are flexible. We can build on all of these successes and
improve the transportation policy.
I want to say a few words about my time in this portfolio. Let
us look at the accomplishments: Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act.
Two of my predecessors worked on that bill. We were not able to
get it through the Senate. We got that bill through the House
with the co-operation of colleagues on either side and in the
other place. That bill allowed the 18 biggest ports to be
commercialized, which has been a success that is working well.
Great ports like Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax are doing even
better because of those reforms that we brought in, as well as
all of the smaller ports across the country.
1105
Secondly, there was the airline rationalization. I gave my
views the other week at third reading of Bill C-26, but somebody
from outer space could only come to the conclusion that the
government did not do the right thing. We have taken the largest
airline in the country, the second largest airline in the
country, 41,000 employees, 350 aircraft, serving hundreds of
destinations, and have merged them in an almost seamless fashion
across the country, without a nickel from the taxpayer by way of
subsidy or bailout, with no job losses, with no communities
disturbed. In fact, Charlo and Miramichi have had their air
services restored. No one has lost their air service.
Air Canada can compete with the biggest and the best in the
world. That will be good for overseas pricing because it will
take on British Airways, Alitalia and Cathay Pacific. Before the
merger we had 55% of the transborder routes between Air Canada
and Canadian Airlines, and now it will grow even higher. We have
beaten the Americans at their own game. That has been done by
Canadian air carriers and we will improve their ability to
compete even further with the Americans.
I will grant that we have a problem in domestic competition. As
I have said in the House before, we will not open up the skies
and let the Yanks come in with their huge fleets. United
Airlines has 1,100 planes. It wants to merge with U.S. Air,
which has 500 planes. Mr. Speaker, do you know what they could
do? I know they are part of the Air Canada lines, but let us
take American Airlines and let us take Delta Airlines. They
would come in here like vacuum cleaners. They would not be
interested in serving Churchill. My NDP friend from Churchill,
our colleague from Yukon and my friend from Saskatchewan would
not be served. Those airlines would not want those smaller
communities. They would want to gobble up all the big bucks
between Toronto and Vancouver or Montreal and Calgary.
It is like the old argument to privatize the post office.
Remember all those people, those flat earth people, who said we
should privatize the post office. We know what would happen if
we privatized the post office. All of the FedExes, the
Purolators and the UPSs would have their trucks whipping around
between Toronto and Montreal on Highway 401, and they would be
charging a premium. Who would give mail service to Iqaluit, to
Amherst, Nova Scotia, to Medicine Hat, to Churchill or to any of
those small communities? The good old muggins, the Government of
Canada, the taxpayers would have to do that. We would have to
subsidize it. We will not let the U.S. carriers in because I
believe and this government believes that Canadian entrepreneurs
can do the job.
I read all of the editorials and columns by all of the so-called
experts. I do not want to debate with them on every point, but
what a pathetic lot. They say “We cannot compete. We let the
Americans in. They are the only ones who can do it”. If that
is where the Canadian journalistic elite is going today, this
country is in sad shape. They have no faith in Canada and no
faith in Canadian entrepreneurs. All they have to do is look at
the charter airlines. Look at the WestJets. Look at the smaller
carriers. Look at First Air, which is owned by aboriginal
Canadians. These carriers make money. These are Canadian
entrepreneurs and we will give them time to fill the slack and
give us the competition. It is happening.
Ken Rowe from Halifax has six 737 aircraft, plus he has his
feeders. He is starting on August 1 and he will take on Air
Canada in Halifax. He will take them on in Toronto, in Montreal,
in Ottawa and in Winnipeg. I say more power to him. He is from
Nova Scotia, a great province with entrepreneurs. Why do we need
Americans when we have people from Nova Scotia, western Canada
and elsewhere to do these jobs?
Before I finish I want to say a little about VIA Rail. That is
an accomplishment. All the cuts the Tories made cut the
lifeblood out of the passenger rail system. For the first time a
government said “No more. We are committed to passenger rail.
We will give you the subsidy for 10 years. More than that, we
will give you $401 million for capital expenditures”. It has
not been done before in Canada. This is a seminal mark in our
history. The Government of Canada is committed to passenger
rail.
1110
The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester says we are just
throwing good money after bad. He should tell that to his
constituents because VIA Rail goes through his constituency. We
just restored the tourist train up to Cape Breton and we want to
do more. Is he going to tell the people of Nova Scotia that $400
million should not be spent because it is throwing good money
after bad? I dare him to say that to his constituents.
My last point, before I get totally wound up, is on grain
transportation. This was a tough file. As a guy coming from
Toronto, I had doubts sometimes about whether we could get a
deal. We consulted stakeholders. We had two of the finest minds
in the country, Mr. Estey and Mr. Kroeger, who came forward with
reports. We spoke with everyone: the railways, the grain
companies and the producers. Not all producers are happy about
it. Some are opposed.
We studied this to death. We had tough arguments in our own
caucus. I talked to opposition members. We got a compromise
which starts us on the path to true commercialization in grain
transportation.
I apologize for the fact that it comes so late. I will come
back at 12 o'clock, after I go back to cabinet and get
authorization for the bill, and introduce it. I cannot believe
that anyone in the House would want to delay the grain bill and
stop $178 million from going into the pockets of Canadian
producers.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister says he does not speak out of cabinet and he has
been briefed. I hope he was briefed by the HRDC minister
throughout all of this mismanagement.
[Translation]
The minister was singing the government's praises earlier.
[English]
This is the same government that said it would scrap the GST in
its red book. Remember that? This is the same government.
The minister stands today, looks Canadians in the eye and talks
about Charlo Airport in New Brunswick. I am glad he knows about
Charlo Airport. It was because of this government that this part
of the country was cut off from the rest of the country with no
air transportation.
Today I want to thank the Charlo Airport commission for the
excellent work it did in restoring air service to Charlo.
What about rail service in New Brunswick? VIA Rail was there
during the Tory government, but when the Liberal government came
in it was taken out of Saint John and Edmunston, New Brunswick.
These people as well were cut off from the rest of Canada.
I met with some students from McGill University and the
University of New Brunswick. They said that the problem with
Canada is that people do not know the country. They do not know
what goes on in Quebec City. They do not know what goes on in
western Canada. They do not know what goes on in Atlantic
Canada. We have one part fighting with another part. They said
it is too expensive to travel within Canada.
What has the government done? What does the government intend
to do to restore VIA Rail service in New Brunswick, to Edmunston
and to Saint John?
Hon. David M. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my
friend listened closely to my speech. The $400 million is to
provide new equipment, track improvements and signalling, not
just in the Windsor-Quebec corridor, but right across the
country.
In the business plan, which I happen to have on my desk, which I
am reviewing, I am asking VIA management to take a look at every
single line which was cut in the last 10 to 15 years to see if
there is a business case to bring that service back over a
certain period of time.
I assume the hon. member from Madawaska—Restigouche agrees with
me, but he should talk to his buddy in front of him, his
transportation critic, who was the only person in the country who
slammed the government for providing $400 million to revitalize
passenger rail. Where is the consistency? Where is the logic in
the Conservative Party?
With respect to Charlo and Miramichi, that had nothing
whatsoever to do with the merger. InterCanadian was a private
company, not part of Canadian Airlines. It was badly managed.
It was overextended. It tried to blame airline restructuring for
its own follies.
1115
I felt badly for those people in those two communities and those
in the other two communities in Quebec and Newfoundland. Happily
the service has been restored, which shows how there can be
flexibility. The experience has always been, and that is why we
improved the exit provisions in Bill C-26, that someone will come
into a market and offer the service if the market is there. The
market is there in northern New Brunswick and it should be used.
On the last point, the hon. member from Saint John was heckling
me about Saint John, Moncton and Fredericton. I want to pose a
question to her and maybe she will answer it. She has to
understand that there are three airports, Moncton, Saint John and
Fredericton, all within a two to three hours drive. I guess the
market will have to make some choices as to which airport will
actually be the main airport.
I come from greater Toronto. We have one airport that serves
eight million people. Someone coming from Cobourg or Kingston to
Pearson has a three hour drive on Highway 401 and then has to
park at alarmingly expensive rates. The minister of state for
Parks Canada is up in Muskoka. He has to drive another two and a
half hours. We are used to that kind of sacrifice, and I hope
the people in New Brunswick could make some accommodations during
this very difficult transition.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport certainly
is waxing eloquent in a high, wide and handsome fashion with the
facts as far as I can see.
I have two short questions. The minister spoke about no one in
the House delaying the bill with regard to the rail
transportation of grain in western Canada in particular. When
did the minister receive the recommendations of the Kroeger-Estey
commission that he commissioned? Why did it take until the first
of June to bring forward the changes to the rail transportation
system?
When the minister received that report, with the tremendous
amount of research and consultation that went into it, did he not
implement the very recommendations of the Kroeger-Estey report
including the backup from the five big grain companies? In order
to help the minister a little, I will just point out that I know
the reason that did not happen. The reason is that the Canadian
Wheat Board minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs told him
that he could not implement that report.
Hon. David M. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, we had the views
of the experts, Mr. Estey and Mr. Kroeger. They were asked for
technical opinions, their best work on what would make an
efficient system.
We do not live in a perfectly technical world. We live in a
world with real people who have real aspirations and we in this
Chamber are all engaged in politics. Mr. Kroeger and Mr. Estey
did not address the political issues. Someone had to, and it is
us in the Chamber.
Granted, there was intense debate on this side of the House and
trade-offs were made, but ultimately the package that came
forward starts us on our way to a true competitive system and
puts $178 million in the hands of prairie farmers. I think it
will herald even more reforms once the logic of those reforms is
accepted.
On a procedural matter, I said I would come back in a little
while once we get approval in cabinet for the bill to try to get
consent for first reading of the grain bill. I should also say
that I have been talking with my colleague responsible for the
wheat board because we together and our bureaucrats have been
working on the MOU with the wheat board. I would like to have
that MOU in the hands of the opposition before debate starts on
Monday. We will try to get that organized.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
minister mentioned airports and one large airport. I want him to
know that I have the largest city in the province of New
Brunswick. It is Saint John, New Brunswick, not Moncton. That is
the largest city.
1120
When our party was in government we had 4,000 men working at the
shipyard. What has happened? No one is working at the shipyard.
We had 325 people working at the sugar refinery. What has
happened? The sugar refinery, which dates back to 1903, closes
down today. We had VIA Rail and a brand new train station built.
What has happened? Mr. Doug Young closed down the train station
and took away VIA Rail.
It is time the government sat down to look at what this means to
the economy. The minister should come to Saint John. For the
first time in the history of Saint John, New Brunswick, he will
find paper bags on windows in the business sector of our city.
This has never happened before. We need this turned around. If
we are to have one airport, it better be in Saint John, New
Brunswick, the industrial and business centre for the province of
New Brunswick.
Hon. David M. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I think my
colleague from Saint John got me wrong. The government is not
advocating the consolidation of the three airports in New
Brunswick or the building of a superairport at Sussex.
What I am saying is that I would hope the people of New
Brunswick would understand that, given the kind of commercial
environment we live in, it will be the marketplace that will
determine which of those three airports in effect gets the best
options from the travelling public. It is not for us to say it
is Moncton, Fredericton or Saint John. We have to give the local
authorities there the ability to market their services and to go
out and compete.
On the last point, the hon. member talked about the dearth in
shipbuilding jobs in Saint John. I sympathize with her. I am a
great advocate of the Canadian shipbuilding industry. The
government is working on a new policy. The hon. member talked
about all the jobs in shipbuilding from the frigate program.
Guess who started the frigate program? It was the government of
Pierre Trudeau in 1978. I was a proud member of that government.
It carried Saint John through for 15 or almost 20 years. They
built great ships. Let us try to build some more.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that
transportation in the history of this great place has been a hot
topic. It probably will not be the last time. It is probably
the reason that the transport committee room is the largest and
at one time was considered the most important committee as the
country developed.
It is interesting to note the sparring between the Progressive
Conservatives and the government. This is May 2000. We have to
look at what we have now and we have to look to the future.
Trying to score political points on the past does not solve any
transportation problems across Canada.
I congratulate the member for Cumberland—Colchester who serves
on the transport committee. He is indeed a good member. His
colleague inferred that he was the best member of the transport
committee. I have been on the committee for three years. All
parties are represented. No one on that committee behaves in a
manner superior to somebody else. I find that a great insult to
a committee that has worked on issues very co-operatively over
the last three years. We may disagree on philosophy at points,
but we have turned out a lot of work for the House. I take
exception. I know the hon. member from the PC Party is on that
committee.
It goes without saying that we cannot talk about Canada without
talking about transportation. I do not suppose we ever will. In
the first class on Canada at university one of the statements
heard is that the very existence of Canada is a sin against
geography, and it still is.
1125
There are members sitting to my right from Churchill and from
Yukon. What is their big problem? Transportation. What is the
big problem in the prairie provinces, particularly in my
province? Oh, boy, it is transportation. Members from the
maritimes today raised their unique problem. Transportation.
It has always been a Canadian problem. It will always be a
Canadian problem because the existence of Canada came about in a
contradiction to geography. We are here and we are proud of it,
but in the year 2000 we are facing some very difficult times in
transportation.
From time to time Canadians have overcome many of their
transportation problems. Let us look at the history of our
country and the promises made. British Columbia came into
Confederation because of a promise. What was that promise? It
was the promise of a railway.
It is not possible to provide transportation to the scattered
areas of Canada without transportation being expensive. Let us
make no mistake about that. I happen to come from a province
that has 240,000 kilometres of roads and one million people. With
the railways disappearing, we have a serious problem. Is this
the first time we have ever had a serious transportation problem?
No. Is the problem today as serious as it has ever been? The
answer to that question is yes.
This motion is asking the Government of Canada to pull together
with its counterparts in the provincial and municipal governments
to develop a strategy so that we do look ahead into planning for
the future. Some bad things have happened in the last two
decades. Let us take a look at them.
The west has lost thousands of miles of railways. For the most
part of the prairies we have basically lost VIA Rail service. It
is gone from most areas. I can catch an Amtrak train at a point
south in the United States with fewer miles to travel than if I
drive to Saskatoon. We have those problems, but those problems
will not be fixed without a politically unbiased move to bring
the country together to take a look at what has happened. I want
to mention just one or two points.
It is obvious that today's Minister of Transport of Canada does
not carry the same clout in federal financing as his predecessors
once did. I could not believe it when I looked at past budgets.
At one time the transport file was the big spender. That is not
so today.
In many provinces including my own at one time 100% of
everything taken in by Saskatchewan in fuel tax was spent on
roads. Some provinces spent 110% or more than what was taken in.
I believe the province of Manitoba was in that general area. To
have that happen in Saskatchewan at the present time may not be
possible.
Today our economy depends on a very good seamless transportation
system. Earlier this morning I had the privilege of having
breakfast with the Canadian Trucking Association. It desperately
needs this policy to be in place. It desperately needs a sound
transportation policy from the government in co-operation with
the provinces and municipalities. We must interconnect all modes
of transportation and we cannot do it on an ad hoc basis.
1130
What must happen is that the federal government has to quit
using fuel taxes as a cash cow. Therein lies the problem. Last
year the federal government collected $4.5 billion in fuel taxes,
I repeat $4.5 billion, and it has put back only $150 million.
That is a national disgrace.
No one on this side of the House and I am sure no one on the
government side would even come up with the idea that 100% has to
be put back. The Canadian Automobile Association has stood by a
figure of 20%. If 20% of the fuel tax collected by the government
were to go back to the provinces, we would be in good shape.
A study by the University of Manitoba Transport Institute shows
that the government collects a disproportionate share of fuel tax
from the prairie provinces. I know we all guard our own little
areas, the maritimes and so on. I want to point out very clearly
that in the fiscal year 1998-99, the federal government collected
$4.4 billion. The same year, according to the study by the
University of Manitoba, the federal expenditures on road
infrastructure were $198 million, less than a nickel out of every
dollar collected.
Whether we are in the maritimes, on the coast, in the north or
in the prairie provinces we cannot maintain our transportation
road network on a mere five cents on the dollar being returned.
It cannot be done. I cannot even travel my constituency now and
use all of the highways. I have to go on gravel country roads
because the highways are unsafe to travel. We could blame it on
heavy trucking, we could blame it on many things but it is simply
a fact. If Saskatchewan were to get 60% of the money that has
been allocated through the grain transportation bill and if I
could somehow persuade that it would all go to my constituency,
it would not bring Highway 13 up to standard, it would not bring
all of Highway 18 up to standard, it would not bring Highway 47
up to standard and it would not bring Highway 8 up to standard.
We are at a point in our history where the money has to be
refunded. If we do not move up the scale to 25%, there are parts
of Canada, including Saskatchewan, which will have to take away
what pavement is left and return the roads to gravel. That is a
conclusion which most people could draw.
There is no national highway program. There was when the
Trans-Canada Highway was built. Some 25,400 kilometres was
identified in 1992, eight years ago, by a joint
federal-provincial highway policy study. There has been no
administrative framework for maintaining or upgrading that
highway and no national program since that time, for eight years,
in a country that is totally dependent on its highway network.
Again, in the United States when I cross the border into North
Dakota and get gas I see on the bowser the federal input, the
state input and how much taxes are being paid.
1135
In the United States transportation equity act, $26,174,381,000
in federal funding is going to be invested over the next five
years. That is a tremendous amount of money. Almost 50% and in
some cases 80% of what they collect goes back and we send 5%
back. It just will not work. There are areas of Canada which
just will not be able to do it. I believe if the House takes a
look at our policy and the motion by the member, the need is very
important.
Politics in fuel tax is a recent thing in our history. If we go
back 25 years, a tax on fuel was used for that purpose. Now, in
particular in this House and in some provinces the motor vehicle
fuel tax is not being directed to roads. I suppose one could say
politics is the art of the impossible and the federal government
is severely addicted to tax revenue. That addiction is killing
transportation in Canada. I wonder if the government would
consider a proposal like that of the Canadian Automobile
Association, that 20% of the funds be returned to the provinces.
My parents asked me to drive them to Ontario. Anyone who leaves
my province and drives to Ontario, what route do they do? Those
people who live in the southern part get on Highway 39 and get to
U.S. 2 and come all the way through the United States. Why?
Because of the roads and because of the cost factor. The trucks
are doing it as well. It is because we have not had the ability
or the common sense to put back into our transportation system
the money that has been taken out. Is the money there?
Absolutely.
When my colleagues and I on the transport committee discussed
the airline bill, Bill C-26, I was amazed at the entrepreneurship
out there to bring good air travel to Canada. I am amazed at the
number of private entrepreneurs like WestJet and there are many
more. As a result we are going to be well served in the future.
I am not even questioning it.
However we should not expect a return in Canada to the VIA Rail
service we once had. There is not enough money in the country to
support that service as we have in the past. There is no
passenger rail link anywhere in the world that does not have to
be subsidized. When we in Canada have to subsidize up to 40% of
what is called the most lucrative runs in Canada, we can readily
understand why Canadians cannot expect to have the passenger rail
service they once had. Would I like to see it? Yes I would like
to see it. Does it sound good? Yes it sounds good. But let us
deal with reality.
Let us look at these problems in the light of what we are facing
in the year 2000. Never mind the bickering of the past and the
political points to be scored.
Let us go forward here. My colleague's motion is a good one. It
does not deal with ideology. It does not deal with privatization
against crown ownership, knowledge, regulatory features and so
on. It is a good motion. The motion simply says that we should
on a non-political non-partisan basis get together and establish
a framework whereby we can look at the various transportation
issues facing Canada.
1140
I support that motion simply because Canadians need it.
Canadians look forward to having some concrete body in place. The
provinces are looking for it. The municipalities are looking for
it. The lead has to come from the government. I will brag a
little and say we certainly have a good transport committee to
deal with it and to feed that information out to our counterparts
in the municipalities.
In conclusion, it is 2000. Let us go on. We cannot forget the
past, but let us not let the past dictate what we are going to
have in the future. We must look ahead and we must do it
co-operatively. When it comes to transportation, Canadians
really do not care too much about the political debate in the
House. They want to see something concrete.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Souris—Moose
Mountain. He has given us a very passionate and common sense
view of this issue. That is what is sometimes absent from the
debates. He hit the nail on the head when he said that this is a
straightforward issue, one of practicalities and one of
priorities. When it comes to an issue such as this one, much like
health care, one of the fundamentals has to be that the funding
must be there at such a level and standard that the objectives
can be achieved.
The hon. member brings that same common sense approach to the
committee, as does the member from Cumberland—Colchester, the
mover of the motion. They call upon the government in a very
straightforward and principled way to address the issue at the
very least by restoring funding to a level that will allow the
fundamental aspects of transportation to be achieved. Whether it
be a national highways program, whether it be a return to some
sort of fundamental approach to shipping, or shipbuilding, all of
this has to be given at least a base level of support from the
government in terms of resources.
This issue is analogous to health care. The pivotal point in the
history of the country when deterioration started, whether it be
in health care or our national transportation system, was when
the government changed in 1993. I do not want to come across as
being too partisan, but I ask him to be honest. This is a
question of truth and reconciliation. Is it not fair to say that
when the government changed in 1993 and the funding was
withdrawn, whether it be from health care, social transfers, or
transportation, that was the point in our country's history when
our transportation policy deteriorated, our roads deteriorated,
and the shipbuilding policy started to come apart at the seams?
Will the hon. member acknowledge that under a Conservative
government things were better?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly not the
political move I would like to get in. I do not want to go back
and have those mind-boggling deficits and debt because that does
not serve any purpose.
I will say to the hon. member if we are going to have a highway
program, we are not going to have it without co-operative
funding. The funding must be known ahead of time. For example,
if the Canada Health Act and health care across Canada is to be
successful, it can only be successful with a promise of 50:50
sharing.
Whatever reason the government can give for taking that away is
exactly the same reason we are facing a health crisis today. It
is exactly the same reason the highways, particularly in western
Canada, are depreciating at a rate faster than ever before in our
history.
1145
The hon. member is quite right. I will not get into the
political part of this issue, but the premise upon which he posed
the question is quite correct.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I agree that this is a parallel situation to medicare
because this is an instance where the federal government has been
asked to spend in an area that is 100% provincial responsibility.
When it comes to the percentage of fuel tax that the federal
government is collecting, I remind the member opposite that the
federal government under the constitution has an obligation to
guarantee supply. Our percentage of the fuel tax goes toward
guaranteeing the oil supply from Saudi Arabia, for having the
Department of National Defence helicopters, the border customs
controls and the trade infrastructure. We have to spend on those
areas in order to guarantee supply.
I have a great deal of sympathy for our national highway
program. The member is asking the federal government to invest
in the national highway program, which is essentially a 100%
responsibility of the provinces. Is it not a conflict,
especially with his party, when he asks that the federal
government cut back in taxes, cut back on the debt, and in the
same breath he wants the federal government to spend in areas of
provincial jurisdiction?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, let me make one point clear.
I never said that the government should cut back on taxes. It is
how it uses the taxes after it gets them. That is the
difference.
All I am saying is that if the government wants to keep the
federal excise tax on fuel at its present level that is its
responsibility. The reason that tax went on in the first place
was for highways. There is no question about that. All we are
asking for is a mere 25% to go back to highway structure across
Canada.
To answer the second part of the member's question, the Canada
Health Act was formulated and came into being on the assumption
that Canadians would have a universal health system providing
that 50% of the funding came from Ottawa. Now we find ourselves
in the position where it is not coming from Ottawa. Health care
across Canada is in a crisis and the crisis is growing. There is
the answer. They cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments of the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
I probably agree with 80% or 85% of what he had to say.
I am very familiar with Saskatchewan. The member obviously has
some firsthand knowledge as to the deplorable state of
Saskatchewan highways and roads, particularly municipal roads. He
is absolutely correct that 25% of the excise tax raised could go
into a long term, well thought out infrastructure plan and
program which would be accepted by tripartite municipal,
provincial and federal funding.
However, the one point the member mentioned that perhaps he and
I would disagree on was VIA Rail. I would like to extend it into
public transportation and I would like to hear his views and
thoughts. He said that a 40% subsidy is too much money to be
putting into any type of transportation. He referred to VIA
Rail, but there is other public transportation such as buses,
LRTs in Alberta and subways in other major metropolitan areas.
Does the hon. member believe that any type of subsidization for
public transportation is certainly not within the parameter of
the federal government? Does he wish that public transportation
did not exist?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, there is not
a passenger rail system anywhere in the world which does not
receive some form of subsidization, even the great passenger rail
service in Japan or in France. It does not make any sense to
provide a service that would break the country and bring it to
its knees.
1150
Let us make it clear. If the most profitable route of passenger
rail has to be subsidized by some 40%, what would it cost Canada
to return VIA Rail service to all places? We would not have
enough money in the whole Department of Transport to keep it
going. We have to use logic. I am not against subsidizing
transportation, but there comes a point in the philosophy of
things that we have to say no.
I do not know of any city in Canada that has a public
transportation system which makes money. There may be some but
they all receive some subsidy. If we have to spend billions and
billions of dollars to provide a passenger rail train which
people are not using then governments have to make a decision.
They should be subsidized but within reason. That is where the
federal, provincial and municipal governments come in.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion tabled by my
colleague from Cumberland—Colchester, who, like me, sits on the
Standing Committee on Transport.
For the benefit of those watching, it might be relevant to
reread the motion in order to properly establish the position of
the Bloc Quebecois regarding the vote that will be held on this
motion.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House recognize the urgent need to address the serious
transportation problems facing the Canadian people, and call
upon the government to establish a comprehensive national
transportation policy that demonstrates leadership on this issue
and which provides solutions to the problems shared coast to
coast by all Canadians.
I would point out right off that the Bloc Quebecois members will
vote against this motion, and I will explain why.
I will look at parts of the motion. It reads “That the House
recognize the urgent need—”. We agree that there is some urgency
and that there is an urgent need “to address the serious
transportation problems”.
Yes, there are serious transportation problems. It goes on
“—facing the Canadian people, and call upon the government to
establish a comprehensive national transportation policy—”.
This is where the problem arises. It is primarily because
nowhere in the motion is there mention of respect for provincial
jurisdictions that the 44 members of the Bloc Quebecois will
oppose the motion.
I want my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party to
know that, had the motion contained reference to provincial
jurisdictions, the situation would have been quite different.
It is primarily for this reason that our party cannot support
this motion.
Since they have been in power, the Liberals have shown a total
and obvious lack of concern for transportation matters. The
last thing that we of the Bloc Quebecois would ask of them is
for them to set up national transportation policies in areas
that are not under their jurisdiction.
Once again, we have differing visions of Canada. That is why I
say this will never work. The Canada of today does not work,
and it never will. We in Quebec no longer believe the attempts
to revise the federal system, the fine promises the Canadian
Alliance candidates are making about redesigning Canada and have
a more decentralized country.
We have been there, done that, and it will not work.
1155
At present, in the House, we have two visions of Canada. On the
one hand, we have the MPs from pro-centralist provinces or
parties, those who envision a Canada in which the central
government would set national policies and the provinces would
be branch plants of this central power, no more and no less.
On the other, we in Quebec are calling for a state of Quebec
that is capable of managing itself, taking its own decisions. I
do not think that Quebec has to take a back seat to any province
of Canada, still less to the central government, in the area of
transport. Our lack of faith in the Liberal government makes it hard for us
to vote in favour of this motion.
Because of the geography of Quebec and Canada, transportation
infrastructures are especially important. The great distances
and the difficult winter weather conditions have often isolated
regions far from the major urban centres that are economic
centres as well. Our metropolis, Montreal, whose economy is on
the upswing, will be dynamic if the regions in Quebec are
dynamic.
We have seen this happen with air transportation. The airports
of Montreal, Dorval or Mirabel, will only develop effectively if
passengers from the regions use these airports.
If we were compiling statistics, I am not sure that the vast
majority of passengers passing through Dorval airport are
Montrealers necessarily.
Airports are primarily transit points, we must not forget.
People pass through them to take another form of transportation
or to get to another destination. A lot of people using the
Montreal airports come from Quebec's regions as well, be it from
the Saguenay Lac-Saint-Jean, Lower St. Lawrence, North Shore or
Abitibi-Témiscamingue areas.
So, transportation is a factor in regional economic development.
This fact has been all too often ignored by the Liberal
government since 1993.
Whether it is deregulation of airlines, bus companies or
railways, divestiture by the federal government of ports and
airports that are not cost-effective, icebreaking fees, the
present cost of gas, or possible restructuring of the airline
industry, the present Liberal government is systematically
ignoring the vital importance of effective and accessible means
of transportation to the development of regions, such as the
North Shore or the Gaspé, which need to be linked more closely
to large centres through effective means of transportation, not
isolated.
Let us remember how the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in getting the
federal government to backtrack on its bill to deregulate bus
transportation, Bill C-77. We know that the Liberal government
wants to revive this bill in the fall.
We are certain that our partners in the bus industry, the
members of the Association des propriétaires d'autobus du
Québec, will support us in our fight against deregulation of bus
transportation.
1200
We also know about the plans there were to cut back Via Rail
services in the regions, the plans to franchise Via Rail. There
is no guarantee that there will be franchisers fighting over the
Montreal-Gaspé line.
The Bloc Quebecois remains vigilant so that these regions, not
just the Gaspé, but all outlying regions of Quebec, can have an
effective transportation system.
We know that trucking is costly in time, because of distances,
but also in money, because of the price of gas.
As I have said, bus travel from one region to another would have
ceased to exist if the Minister of Transport had been allowed to
deregulate it as he intended to.
As well, for many months now, the devolution of regional
airports by that same minister has been at a standstill, as he
nibbles away at the envelopes designed to support those
airports, which are not always cost-effective from a business
point of view, but are cost-effective from the point of view of
well-thought-out economic development.
As for the ports, the minister has decided to devolve
unprofitable ports, once again based on a short-sighted approach.
Is the role of a government to administer only cost-effective
facilities and to refuse to support infrastructures that are a
little less profitable but still an essential instrument of
economic development?
Let us not forget that the people of Quebec, who pay $32 billion
in taxes every year, are not asking for handouts when they ask
for services from the federal government. I trust that no one
here in this House and no one in our audience thinks that the
government is doing us a favour when it maintains ports,
airports or transportation infrastructures such as VIA Rail. I
trust no one sees this is a gift. Those are our tax dollars.
We in Quebec pay $32 billion in taxes annually.
Let us stop believing that the federal government, in its
generosity, in its great goodness, is agreeing to maintain some
facilities that are a little less cost-effective. It is quite
simply just part of our tax money we are getting back.
Since 1993, the government's general transportation policy,
whether land, sea or air transportation, has been one of
withdrawal.
Naturally, the most distant regions are the ones that suffer
most.
In the last throne speech, the government reminded us of our
19th century role as coureurs des bois. It seems that this
Liberal government's policy for the 21st century is to revive
this tradition in the regions by destroying all other means of
transportation.
To remind hon. members of the background, let us recall how this
abandonment of the transportation networks in the regions has
taken shape since 1993. There was a policy of devolution of
ports and airports, which left many a distant community with no
transportation infrastructure, or with very little.
There is also the financial abandonment of rail passenger
transportation, despite its essential nature for distant regions.
We must not forget that the federal government has some
responsibility under the Constitution in interprovincial
transportation.
There are the icebreaking fees proposed by the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, who wanted the ships using Quebec ports to
pay 80% of the fees, although they use only 33% of the services.
With a coalition of shipowners and the various users of the St.
Lawrence—Great Lakes system, the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in
getting the Liberal government to back down, otherwise the ports
of Quebec would have been at a competitive disadvantage compared
to the ports of the maritime provinces.
I have already mentioned another example: the minister's desire
to put an end to the principle of cross-subsidization in bus
transportation.
1205
In conclusion, I would like to stress that the Bloc Quebecois
will not be able to vote for this motion by the Progressive
Conservative Party for, among other things, one very important
reason: nothing in the motion confirms respect for provincial
jurisdictions.
Since we do not trust the Liberal government, which has been so
slipshod in a number of areas relating to transport, we cannot
give it carte blanche to establish national transportation
policies as it likes.
As my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party will
recall, the Minister of Finance was gloating in his latest
budget speech in February over the $95 billion in budget
surpluses for the next five years.
Do you think we are going to let this government spend without
control and run roughshod over provincial jurisdictions? No
way. This is why agreeing with this motion would mean
supporting the government's, especially the Liberal
government's, desire to steamroller over provincial
jurisdictions.
These are the reasons why we will oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I acknowledge the remarks made by the previous speaker
from the Bloc. He said that he was not going to support the
motion because there was nothing in it that dealt with the
jurisdiction of the provinces over the feds. I just wondered if
he would elaborate on his view of the subject.
Do we need a policy to correct some of the wide variety of
problems, which he has outlined in his speech, on air, sea and
land transportation from an economic development perspective, and
on the problems with airports, including Montreal?
Aside from the fact that the motion does not acknowledge his
concerns about the jurisdiction of the provinces, does he
acknowledge that there are problems in our transportation
situation?
Does he acknowledge that there is an inconsistent approach to
transportation where some provinces may get a highway agreement
and some provinces may not, where some may get money for the
elimination of the Atlantic freight rate assistance program and
some may not?
Does he agree that there are inconsistencies in the applications
to privatize the airports, and that the way the government
applies its policies are inconsistent and unco-ordinated from one
transportation mode to another?
Does he agree that we need an overall policy that should be
developed by all of the stakeholders, including the provinces and
the provincial ministers of transport?
Would he agree, other than the fact that the motion does not
address the provincial jurisdiction, that there are problems and
an inconsistent, unco-ordinated system by the Department of
Transport?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, in fact, I share the member's
views. There is a problem, and a much more consistent approach
needs to be developed. Thought should also perhaps be given to
intermodality.
I have no problem with that, but the motion we are debating
today does not mention respect for provincial jurisdiction. It
does not talk about a role for the provinces.
The member's explanation with respect to consulting the
provinces is all very well, but there is nothing in the wording
of the motion requiring respect for provincial jurisdiction. I
will give him an example.
The Canada-Quebec municipalities infrastructure program should be
in place by the end of the year. There were negotiations and
agreements with the provinces.
The Bloc Quebecois agreed with this program. We agreed that the
municipalities should get two-thirds of grants for municipal
projects such as water systems, sewage systems, asphalting, the
construction of recreation centres or community centres.
1210
Bloc Quebecois members agreed, provided that provincial
jurisdiction was respected and that, in the case of Quebec, its
department of municipal affairs had the last say in the
selection of projects.
If the federal government came back with an infrastructure
program that did not include this obligation to consult and that
did not respect provincial jurisdiction, the Bloc Quebecois
would not be in agreement. The same is true for transportation
infrastructures. A $600 million envelope will apparently be set
aside for the provinces for transportation infrastructures.
We will have no problem with that, as long as the exclusive
jurisdiction of the provinces is respected and the provinces are
consulted and take part in the decisions, always bearing in mind
their jurisdiction.
The key is there, and that is what I wish to say to my
colleague. There is nothing in his motion about a consultation
process and respect for exclusive jurisdictions, so that the
provinces have the final say in their respective areas of
responsibility.
That is why we are unable to support the motion as moved.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak to the
motion from the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
I will read the motion just so that everybody can hear it. My
hon. colleague from the Bloc had some issue with the provinces
not being acknowledged. Personally, I do not see anything in the
motion that negates the provinces from being involved in this.
However, I think it is extremely important for the government
side of the House to hear and think about the motion because the
minister said that he could not support it. I am at a loss to
understand why he cannot support it because if the government is
not doing these things it has a serious problem.
This is what the motion states:
That this House recognize the urgent need to address the serious
transportation problems facing the Canadian people, and call upon
the government to establish a comprehensive national
transportation policy that demonstrates leadership on this issue
and which provides solutions to the problems shared coast to
coast by all Canadians.
How on earth can the government not support that motion? If it
is not doing that, what the heck is it doing there? If it is not
doing that it should not be there.
If the members on the government side vote against this motion,
everybody in Canada better be giving their heads a knock in the
next election. If the government cannot address this issue and
have a transportation policy in place, we have serious problems.
It would be like the finance minister not having a plan for what
we will do years down the road.
Before I go any further, and before I get too involved in the
whole issue of transportation, I want to mention that I will be
sharing my time with my hon. colleague from the Yukon.
Without question, my fellow New Democratic MPs and I will be
voting yes to this motion. There is also no question that the
Liberal government has completely dropped the ball when it comes
to transportation, and we will see that clearly tonight for sure.
There is also no question that Canada needs the federal
government to show leadership in dealing with national
transportation issues. As the New Democratic transportation
critic, I have been saying this for a long time, and I am glad to
see that the Conservative Party has been listening.
I have to say that it seems very odd that this motion today is
coming from the Conservative Party. After all, when that party
was in power during the Mulroney years—and the transport
minister mentioned this as well—it was just as bad in
transportation policy as the Liberal government is today. In a
lot of areas, the Liberal government has just continued with the
policies put in place by the Mulroney Conservative government.
All of a sudden the Conservatives say that the government has to
show leadership on national transportation policy. Where was the
leadership when the Conservatives were in power?
Let us look for a moment at the Mulroney Conservative
government's record. This is the party that deregulated the
airline industry in Canada causing the crisis we have today. Of
course the Liberal government continued the deregulation so it is
just as much to blame. It can go ahead and blame it on the
Tories, and go back and forth, but the bottom line is that it is
just as much to blame.
As a result of deregulation, Air Canada drove its only
competitor, Canadian Airlines, out of business and now we have a
monopoly, making things very tough for Canadians to get around
and to fly.
1215
Where was the reform alliance? Where were its members through
all these last six or seven years while all this was going on?
They were there cheering the Tories and the Liberals on
deregulation and privatization and not doing anything to force
the government into going against the policy of privatizing. They
were doing nothing to force the government to come up with a
transportation policy that addressed the social needs of
Canadians as well as just making a buck.
The Mulroney Conservatives were also the ones who made the
deepest cuts to VIA Rail. Of course the Liberal government
continued that policy too which has caused a lot of problems for
communities in my riding of Churchill and many others across the
country.
When we look closely we see that the Liberal government did not
change much of anything when it replaced the Mulroney
Conservative government in 1993. It reminds me of a fable Tommy
Douglas used to tell, the story of Mouseland. Many New Democrats
and people with any kind of social conscience in Canada have
heard the story of Mouseland, but I would urge those who have not
to take the time to watch it on video or read it. It is fairly
easy for people to understand if they are willing to take the
time to view it.
The mice in Mouseland always elected cats to parliament. There
was one party of white cats and one party of black cats, and we
all know who those are, the Tories and the Liberals. But no
matter which party the mice elected, the government always made
laws that benefited cats instead of mice.
For anybody out there who has not figured it out, all of those
ordinary Canadians out there, the everyday people putting in
their 8, 10, 16 hours of work every day toiling to make a dollar,
and all those people out there fighting to improve things for all
Canadians are the mice that are not being represented by those
parties and not having policies come forth that benefit all
Canadians. What the mice needed to do was elect a government of
mice instead of cats. It seems pretty obvious does it not?
The point Tommy Douglas was making is as true today as it was 40
years ago. There really is not much difference between the
Liberal government and the Mulroney Conservative government. The
Liberals are red, the Conservatives are blue, but they are both
cats. That is why no one should be surprised when the Liberal
government gets elected and continues Conservative policies.
While we are talking about cats, we now have the green cats, the
reform alliance. I mention reform alliance because although the
party has changed its name, people still see the Reform Party.
The Canadian Alliance tries to get them to not think of reform
because a lot of Canadians now realize that what the Reform Party
did was to continue to support those policies. Those members
will try to fool a few Canadians as to who they are voting for in
the next election, but Canadians are a whole lot smarter than
that. They will know, and we will make sure they know, that the
reform alliance party is still the party that supports
Conservative and Liberal policies that do not benefit all
Canadians.
The man who set most of the Liberal government's transport
policies was none other than Doug Young. Doug Young was a
minister in the Liberal government until he lost his seat in the
1997 election. For a lot of that time he was the transport
minister.
One of the first things he did as transport minister was to
eliminate the Crow rate subsidy for western farmers. There was no
question the Mulroney government would have eliminated the Crow
subsidy. It would have taken a period of time to eliminate it,
but the bottom line is that it would have eliminated it. This
was the single biggest blow to the western farmers. It is one of
the biggest reasons for the crisis facing so many farm families
on the prairies today.
It is pretty obvious that if we do one thing downward, we see
the crisis that develops as a result of it. What did members of
the Reform Party say when Doug Young and the Liberals got rid of
the Crow rate? They supported it. The Reform Party out there
fighting for farmers in Canada supported the elimination of the
Crow rate. Meanwhile other countries were still receiving
subsidies. The party which says it supports the west sided with
the Liberal government, the big banks and the rail companies
against farm families.
Whatever happened to Doug Young? We all know what happened to
Doug Young. He is with the reform alliance. What is extremely
interesting is that Doug Young, the former transport minister who
set all these policies the Liberal government is following is now
with the reform alliance. And the Liberal government continues
with the policies he set as transport minister. Is there any
difference? Not a bit; Canadian Alliance, Conservative or
Liberal, there is no difference. As Tommy Douglas would have
said, a cat is a cat whether it is red, blue or green.
1220
I want to talk about the New Democratic Party's transport
policy. The most important thing is that our transport policy
benefits ordinary Canadians, not corporate special interests.
Canadians pay millions each year in fuel taxes and only a tiny
fraction of that money goes back into transportation. The roads
and highways in many parts of the country are in terrible shape
because of federal neglect. This hurts our economy because most
trade in goods is conducted by road and it makes the roads less
safe for Canadians to drive on. For the amount Canadians pay in
fuel taxes, they deserve quality roads.
It also goes beyond that. We heard my hon. colleague from the
Bloc talk about it. The people of Quebec have given up hope on
the federal government because they have seen that unless there
is a federal government which supports all communities and all
the provinces, we cannot survive. They have given up hope on
Canada. The rest of us have not. We are not going to give up
hope. We are going to fight. We are going to keep the federal
government honest and make it put some dollars back into all of
Canada.
I am going to conclude my remarks by reiterating that the New
Democratic Party believes the federal government has a vital role
to play in transportation. Federal investment in transport is
important for the economy as well as the safety of Canadian
travellers. Transportation is vital to linking the communities in
our country from coast to coast to coast. It has been falling
apart under the Liberal government. Train stations are closing,
airlines are shutting down, communities are being cut off and
highways are crumbling. The federal government has to make a
commitment to ensure that our country has a safe, effective and
efficient national transportation system and it has to do it now.
If the government does not agree it has a part in that, it will
vote against this motion tonight. But if it truly is a
government that is out there to ensure we have a national
transportation policy, I cannot see how it could possibly not
support this motion.
Hon. David M. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I wonder if I could have the indulgence of hon.
members to get unanimous consent so that we could briefly revert
to introduction of bills to permit the introduction and first
reading of a bill entitled an act to amend the Canada
Transportation Act.
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that I tabled a draft bill
yesterday afternoon at three o'clock. This is the so-called
famous grain bill. If we could have first reading right now, we
could proceed expeditiously to debate this matter later in the
week.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert
to introduction of government bills at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank the member from the NDP for her support even
though we have fundamentally different perspectives on how this
should work out and how it should be handled. I do take exception
to her statement that the Conservative policy is much the same as
the Liberal policy.
I would like to refer her to a study done by the University of
Manitoba Transport Institute. It is from a very distinguished
province with a very distinguished university. I am sure she
will agree with me on that. It reports that when the Liberals
came into power there was zero revenue surplus in the Department
of Transport. Considering all the revenue in and all the
expenses out, it pretty much broke even according to the Manitoba
study. It projects that by next year the Department of Transport
will have a surplus of $3.9 billion based on revenue from gas
taxes, fuel oil taxes and all the other sources of revenue and
its expenses. That is $3.9 billion that has been taken out of the
transportation system since the Liberals came to power.
Does the hon. member think that the $3.9 billion would have had
an impact on the roads in Manitoba, perhaps the viability of the
airports and the possibility of a mass transit system in the
country?
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is
any question that more dollars should be going from the federal
government to the provinces on transportation throughout Canada.
That is all the provinces. There is no question those dollars
need to go there. Taking dollars from the fuel taxes is what
Canadians are indicating they want to see happen.
1225
It is a lot easier for government to go out, spend dollars and
have support for spending those dollars if Canadians can see the
direct relationship of fuel tax dollars going into roads,
infrastructure and also the environment. There is no question
that people think that dollars coming in from fuel taxes should
be going into the environment as well.
We have seen the Liberal government create one slush fund after
another with taxpayer dollars. It is not providing the services
such as health care and education. It is not putting enough
dollars into the environment and transportation. It is creating
its own little slush fund. I do not know about other Canadians,
but quite frankly I expect to see a lot of those slush fund
dollars pop up in Liberal ridings prior to the next election. The
bottom line is, that is not how government should operate. We
should not have to wait until prior to an election to see some of
our taxpayer dollars benefiting all Canadians. Those services
should be provided all the time. That is what we want to see the
government do.
Forget about the slush funds, a slush fund for the HRDC
minister, another for the justice minister and another for the
transport minister. There is nothing for the speakers, but there
are slush funds here, there and everywhere. The government is
going to get everybody onside prior to an election and then it is
just going to give them a good one after the election.
Hon. David M. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I was on my way over to see the member for
Cumberland—Colchester when my friend from Churchill finished her
speech. I did not have the opportunity to ask him and his party
for consent to revert to introduction of bills, which I had asked
of the other parties earlier and to which they agreed. We are not
trying to put anything on anybody. We are just trying to get the
bill read for the first time right now so that we can start
debating it. All members have the bill. It was tabled
yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to seek unanimous consent to revert
to the introduction of bills.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I find it
fortunate that we are having this debate on transportation for a
few reasons.
A short time ago I listened to the Minister of Transport say
before the merger of the two major airlines that we faced a
duopoly which was not very good, that it was a terrible situation
to have a duopoly and that somehow having a monopoly was going to
be a better situation. I have a couple of current examples since
the merger has taken place to show quite clearly that it is not a
benefit to Canadians.
The first is a letter I received from a constituent. I have to
explain that in the Yukon and all of the north we depend on air
travel more than any other mode, beside the one road out of the
Yukon which is the Alaska Highway. The Yukon has the Frostbite
Music Festival, the Sourdough Rendezvous Festival, the Arctic
Winter Games and various conventions. The storytelling festival
is coming up, as well as the Dawson City Music Festival.
A very able travel agent managed to negotiate a special rate to
assist cultural groups to bring people north. Otherwise one
positively could not afford any of this to happen. I will quote
from her letter.
Since the merger took place, Air Canada has done the following.
Individuals who had purchased regular fare tickets and had asked
to change their flight dates by a few days were told that their
tickets could only be changed if they paid full fare rates,
$1,500, as opposed to the $100 to $200 fee that Canadian Air used
to charge for such a transaction.
People who have electronic bookings, tickets, now can't get them
changed to hard copy regular tickets.
Canadian Air used to have zone fares for arts groups which
allowed tickets to be purchased at less than regular fare rates.
Zone fares have now been cancelled.
That is the end of cheap fares to the Yukon. She mentioned that
it is almost impossible now to get a booking on air mile points
out of the north and that there are rumours that the requirements
will go up to 25,000 points. It used to be considered a short
haul of 15,000 points out of the north.
I have another example. As a member of parliament, I travel
extensively. I was heading home from Ottawa last week.
We were told that our regularly scheduled flight No. 3139, which
was supposed to be direct from Ottawa, leaving at 6.30, would be
delayed. It did not have enough gas so we would be stopping in
Winnipeg to refuel. When we got to Winnipeg we were informed
that the pilots had already exceeded the time they were allowed
to work but out of consideration for their passengers they would
continue on the flight all the way to Vancouver.
1230
There is no way they would not have known these pilots would be
exceeding their allowed working time before they had even left
the airport in Ottawa. The fact is we could not get off the
plane in Winnipeg. There was no choice of airline to take.
I would like assurances from our Minister of Transport that this
is not the regular practice and that this is not what travellers
will face. We are talking about the safety of Canadian citizens
in the air as well as the pilots. What kind of choice did the
pilots have? Obviously there were none. They were expected to
carry on with the flight. The fact that we were given the
impression the pilots had agreed to do it at the last moment was
completely unacceptable.
Canada does not have a national highway policy. The motion
today is a chance for us to highlight that point. It is also a
chance to highlight what we are looking for in transportation
policy overall.
It has to be linked to a rational energy policy. It has to be
linked to our use of fossil fuels. It has to be linked to our
environment and the effect of fuels on our environment and on the
ozone layer. Canada is a northern climate and is more
susceptible to the ravages of environmental degradation from the
use of fossil fuels. We should take all those issues into
consideration when it comes to transportation.
Another point I wanted to raise is that as a representative of a
northern riding I want to stress that the north depends on air
travel. Yukon has one road. There is one road into the
Northwest Territories. We have to fly into Nunavut. The rest of
transportation depends on either water in the summer or airlines
in the winter. It makes living extremely expensive.
I mentioned the effects on cultural travel, but the effects on
medical travel can be considered a crisis in some situations. In
case anybody does not know the cost of a ticket out of Yukon, it
is $1,500 just to Vancouver. If one needs to get anywhere
eastward one is looking at $4,000 for a regular ticket to Ottawa.
There are no bargains for people who have family crises outside
Yukon. They have to pay $4,000. The flights are absolutely,
incredibly packed and oversold. If one has an emergency one is
lucky to even get out.
Very few people can come up with $4,000 for one person to get
out of Yukon if he or she has to go to a funeral, attend a family
member during a medical emergency, or accompany a family member
who has been Medivaced to either Vancouver or Edmonton. Those
are the usual places. They cannot afford to do it. I do not
think that is fair. I do not think that is what we should be
accepting.
I would like to raise one last point. The last part of the
motion indicates that the government needs to demonstrate
leadership on this issue and provide solutions to the problems
shared from coast to coast. We have a third coast. I would like
the Conservative Party to think about that today and for the rest
of its tenure. Canada goes from coast to coast to coast. We
have an Arctic coastline as well.
Part of being a northerner is being forgotten about. It is like
a huge piece of our country somehow does not exist. Often I will
get maps from different people which completely cut off all three
territories. I do not think a political party that claims to
represent the complete country should neglect the north and not
recognize the third coastline which belongs to this country.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to
the two NDP members and the specific examples they gave regarding
the kinds of problems in our transportation network.
We must keep in mind that we are talking about a network that is
composed of thousands of components. One of the most crucial
components besides the federal government is the provincial
governments.
1235
I would like to hear from the NDP representatives the definition
of co-operation to which they keep referring, the co-operation of
the federal government with the provincial government. How in
their policy would they be able to get provincial input into
their so-called co-operative model and liaison with provincial
governments if the provincial governments have only one track or
one goal in mind, would like to have everything their way and no
other way is acceptable to them?
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, I did not raise
co-operation though I think it is critical. The northern
highways I have been on are in incredible shape. The last time I
drove out I took the B.C. highway. I swore I would never take
the Stewart-Cassiar again. It was beat to pieces by the great
big trucks travelling on it. It had not been maintained. I drove
for hours and hours and hours, 10 hours in some cases, and there
is no gas station. I do not think that is acceptable and I have
decided that I will not drive on it again.
As far as co-operation goes, we have one road and one airline
out of the north. Who are we supposed to be co-operating with?
We do not have a choice. Transportation is very limited. The
provinces and territories should co-operate federally so that we
can have a cohesive transportation network which makes it
possible for Canadians to get where they need to go and to be
able to afford it. It is a three day drive from Whitehorse to
Vancouver or a three day drive from Whitehorse to Edmonton. The
distances are immense. The cost of gas is immense. People still
have to eat and sleep and need places to go. Yes, we do need to
co-operate.
When it comes to safety, I gave an example of flying from Ottawa
to Vancouver where for me the issue was safety. I do not want to
fly with pilots who have overworked. I know what I feel like
when I am tired. I do not want to be in a bus when someone is
tired and driving. I certainly do not want to be in an airplane
when somebody is flying who should not be flying and has exceeded
his or her hours of work.
I do not see safety as something that can be compromised or
about which we can say we will have some sort of voluntary safety
standards. Safety has to be clear cut. We have to expect a
standard of safety. Now that we have a monopoly does not mean we
should not expect a level of safety that will keep us all getting
from one airport to the next.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport in his questions to you.
The Deputy Speaker: They were not to me. They were to
her.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I thought I had to go through you,
Mr. Speaker. I know there was an implication from the
parliamentary secretary that the reason the government could not
accomplish anything is that it cannot seem to get the provinces
onside. My question to you is that I am—
The Deputy Speaker: The question is for the member for
Yukon.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, this is almost becoming
like a trick way to get my question out. Fair enough.
The implication is that the government cannot get the provinces
onside. Is the member willing to accept the defeatist attitude
by the government that we should give up if we cannot get the
provinces to agree with everything? Should we just not bother
with anything and say to heck with a national transportation
policy?
If the government is doing that, as far as I am concerned it is
doing exactly what the Bloc is saying with respect to Quebec. It
has given up on the federal government. It will not work so it
wants out of here. Is that what she thinks the parliamentary
secretary is saying as well, that they will just give up on the
provinces?
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, I hope that is not what
the parliamentary secretary was saying because it just leads into
the whole sense that parliament is irrelevant and why are we
bothering to be here if we have no role.
We do have a role. We cannot compromise when it comes to safety
and issues of national importance. We have to expect, demand and
put in place the laws we need to make sure we have what we need
and that parliament is worth something.
1240
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Saint John. I would
like to say a few words in the transportation debate. Coming
from an island province, transportation is very important to us
and is always uppermost in our minds.
Canada is a physically huge country. From the very beginning of
its history as a nation, transportation issues have been very
prominent on the national stage. At first it was the building of
our Transcontinental Railroad. Then came the highways and the
airports. It seems we are always talking about transportation in
the House of Commons. Well we should be, because it is very
important to every province in Canada.
When Newfoundland joined Confederation back in 1949, our
transportation link to the mainland was written into our terms of
union, which are part of the Constitution of Canada. It meant
that we had a constitutional guarantee of passenger and rail
ferry service between the island and the mainland of Canada.
In the 1980s, with the railway still losing money and the
service being taken over more and more by trucks in the province
of Newfoundland, the federal government and the province of
Newfoundland signed a deal to give up the railway in exchange for
about $1 billion. Those $1 billion were used to upgrade the
Trans-Canada Highway, to rebuild it.
However we still have a constitutional guarantee of a car-ferry
link to the mainland. That link is often in the news, as we are
all very much aware. When I say our current ferry service is
often in the news, it is not often good news. It is generally
bad news with continual complaints of poor scheduling, poor
accommodations, long lineups and whatnot.
It is a very costly service for the people of Newfoundland. Let
me give an indication of how costly it is. A family of four,
travelling in a car from North Sydney to Port aux Basques pays
$62 for the car, $20 for each of the two adults and $10 for
children under 13, for a total of $122 not including the cost of
food and other incidentals.
If the family were travelling by way of Argentia to the mainland
of Canada it would cost $124 for the car, $55 for each adult and
$27.50 for each child, for a total of $289 to travel that small,
narrow body of water between Nova Scotia and the province of
Newfoundland. That is cost prohibitive.
It is no wonder that three-quarters of American tourists who
head into the maritimes never make it to the province of
Newfoundland. The Atlantic Ocean is there. The ferry lineup is
there. The cost is there. All these factors serve to deter
tourists from coming to the province of Newfoundland.
We in Newfoundland have always made the point that our ferry
link with the mainland is part of our Trans-Canada Highway.
Therefore, why should it cost a traveller more to travel by ferry
than it does to drive a similar distance on the Trans-Canada
Highway? There is no reason in God's earthly world why that
should happen. Instead the rates keep going up and the service
seems to be continually getting worse.
1245
Not long ago I raised in the House of Commons the possibility of
freezing these rates for an indefinite period of time. The
minister was not very receptive to that idea. The government did
freeze the rates for this season only, mainly because of the St.
John's West byelection. In order to strengthen our growing
tourism industry I feel there is a case to be made now for an
extended freeze.
I would prefer that the rates be reduced to reflect the cost of
equivalent highway travel. Given the reaction last week when I
raised this issue with the minister in the House, I do not think
he would agree with that. In any case, there is a case to be
made for it. Prince Edward Island has a fixed link. Therefore,
I cannot see why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should
not have a fixed rate.
Another matter which comes up continually in Newfoundland with
respect to the ferry service is the labour relations issue. The
workers on the ferry are unionized and have the right to strike.
Year after year we are threatened with a strike at the height of
the tourism season, about this time each year, just as that very
important season is about to begin. That takes its toll on
tourists, who do not want to run the risk of being stranded on
Newfoundland because of a labour dispute. Sometimes the
possibility of a strike is almost as detrimental as the strike
itself.
The solution here—and I want to offer the minister a solution
instead of a complaint—is to have the ferry service declared an
essential service, with workers being given the right to some
kind of binding arbitration mechanism. That way both the workers
and the travelling public would be protected. However, to date
no federal government has come up with a satisfactory answer to
that problem.
The majority of the board of directors of the ferry service
should be from the province of Newfoundland. Unless it has been
changed recently, I do not think the majority of the board of
directors is from Newfoundland. After all, the only reason the
ferry system exists is to serve the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador and people who want to visit the province. The reason
the majority of the board of directors should be from
Newfoundland is because if we inundate Marine Atlantic's
corporate culture with Newfoundlanders we can make service to the
Island of Newfoundland its reason for being, instead of a
sorrowful duty that it is compelled to perform under the
constitution of Canada.
The federal government and Marine Atlantic make the people of
Newfoundland feel that they are doing us a favour by providing
the service. That attitude seems to permeate the entire
operation. That attitude has to change if the service is to be
improved.
The importance of improving the ferry service has been made even
more important, given the fact that the airline industry has
become a monopoly. Air Canada has a virtual monopoly in the
outlying areas of the country, making it even more difficult for
the travelling public. It is hard to get a flight. Flights are
overbooked and flights are cancelled. The service, generally, is
not what it used to be. Competition is the best cure.
Competition is very important for people who live on an island.
1250
The problem, again, is that Newfoundland is an island province
with a very small population. Under these circumstances it is
difficult to get a break. Fighting those circumstances was one
of the reasons I was sent here to the Parliament of Canada with
six other MPs.
I am very disappointed with the Liberal members from
Newfoundland. They do not seem to be doing the job of raising
the important issues that need to be raised, like Marine
Atlantic, like harbour clean-up, like the health issue which is
plaguing our province, like Voisey's Bay and Churchill Falls and
so many more issues that are vital to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised and
shocked by the comments which the member for St. John's East has
presented to this House regarding the ferry service. He knows
very well that this government has gone full speed ahead, has
increased capacity and has leased a larger vessel. We will have
a brand new vessel crossing the strait next year. We are dealing
with the huge problem of capacity. Millions of dollars have
already been devoted to that service.
I want to go back to the comment the member made pertaining to
the freezing of the rates, and even the lowering of the rates.
The rates are determined by a multitude of factors, which are
cost factors, such as the depreciation of the vessel, labour
costs, fringe benefits, maintenance and landing fees. I could go
on and on. Collectively, those result in what we call a fee per
customer.
What the member is recommending is that this whole host of costs
be frozen. I would ask the member if he and his party are
recommending cost controls, cost freezes and the freezing of all
prices in his province.
Mr. Norman Doyle: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that
there should be cost controls on everything in the province, if
that is what he is asking. I am not saying, either, that some
significant improvements have not been made to the ferry service
in Newfoundland.
What I am saying, however, is that there has to be some
recognition of the fact that we are an island province. There
has to be some recognition of the fact that the distance between
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland should have a rate charged which is
equivalent to what it would cost to travel the same distance on
the Trans-Canada Highway. I do not think that is an unreasonable
request.
Yes, I am very much aware that there are heavy costs associated
with running the ferry service between Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland. No one can deny that. However, the point has been
made continuously to the federal government over the last 15 or
20 years that people should pay an equivalent cost to that which
people pay when travelling on the Trans-Canada Highway.
I quoted to him a moment ago the rate if we were travelling from
Port-aux-Basques to Argentia. The fee is $124 for the car, $55
for each of the adults and $27.50 for each child, for a total of
$289. That is cost-prohibitive. Is it any wonder that people
travelling from the United States to Atlantic Canada will very
often stop in Nova Scotia? They will not take the time to go
across to Newfoundland because it is cost-prohibitive.
We are asking the federal government to recognize that and to
say that the costs will be the equivalent rate that travellers
would pay on the Trans-Canada Highway for that distance. That is
not an unreasonable request.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I just wondered if the hon. member for St. John's East
could help us. It is my understanding that Marine Atlantic had a
board of directors that spent about a year travelling around the
world looking for alternative craft, alternative ferries, to
provide better service.
1255
It is not only money that discourages tourists from travelling
to Newfoundland; it is also the service.
This week a lady asked me how to contact Marine Atlantic. She
wanted to make a reservation. She was unable to make a
reservation for her family to travel to Newfoundland this summer.
We are trying to help her. If she and her family are not able to
go to Newfoundland, that will mean lost tourism dollars.
Could the hon. member enlighten us as to how Marine Atlantic
goes about purchasing new ferries? These are substantial
investments of $40 million to $70 million. There was a recent
deal on one new ferry, plus a short term fast ferry for the
summer. Could the hon. member elaborate on the process?
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, arrangements were made for
the purchase of a new ferry. We have been receiving quite a
number of complaints from brokers who were supposed to be given
an opportunity to bid on the purchase of the ferries. Some of
the brokers have been telling us that the system that is
currently being used by Marine Atlantic for the purchase of these
ferries is not a good system, that it leaves a lot to be desired
and that it does not seem to be a transparent system. We have
received quite a number of complaints about that.
The making of reservations on the ferry continues to be a
nightmare for people who want to travel to the province of
Newfoundland.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my hon. colleague from St. John's East, Newfoundland for sharing
his time with me.
This morning we heard the hon. Minister of Transport state that
I was not going to lose my airport in Saint John. I want him to
know that I have a few questions and I wish he were in the House.
I would like to know why the minister has made a deal whereby I
have to pay $800 and only get a muffin when I fly to Ottawa. If
I was to fly out of Moncton, I would pay $300 and I would get a
full course meal. I have not figured this one out yet. I will
speak to the Minister of Transport to see if he can get me a
little more than a muffin.
If the government wants the economy to boom, there is a need for
all modes of transportation. If the government wants the economy
in the maritime provinces and Newfoundland to boom, give us all
our modes of transportation, which we had before the Liberal
government came into power. We had all modes of transportation.
We had VIA Rail. A brand new train station was built. Then, Mr.
Young, who was the minister of transport, came to Saint John and
closed the brand new train station that was built just six months
before the 1993 election.
We have the most modern shipyard there is in Canada. When it
comes to the shipbuilding industry, let me say that we would like
to have built a ferry for Newfoundland. Why was the government
going all around the world looking for a ferry? We could build a
ferry. My understanding was that there was some sort of
agreement that if the government needed ferries they would be
built in Canada.
On October 8, 1999, Frank McKenna, the previous premier of the
province of New Brunswick, openly criticized the federal
government's lack of vision for Atlantic Canada. He is quoted as
saying that the Liberal record is terrible and that the
government exhibits total ignorance when it comes to
shipbuilding. This is from Frank McKenna, who the government
just asked to run as a Liberal in the next election. I have to
say that he knew what it was doing was wrong for Atlantic Canada.
My understanding is that a report was presented by the members
of the Atlantic Liberal caucus which states that the Atlantic
Canadian economy is hitting an all time low and that part of the
solution to the problem is to bring the shipbuilding industry
back up to its potential and proven strength by adopting a new
national shipbuilding policy.
This is the Liberal's Atlantic caucus making this statement.
1300
However, the Minister of Industry, with whom I have spoken, has
told me that I also have to deal with the Minister of Transport.
I want to know what we can do about shipbuilding. As everyone
knows, we need ships if we are going out on the water. We are
not going to swim across the Bay of Fundy, that is for sure.
We have been asking for a national shipbuilding policy. All we
have been asking for is to make us equal with all the other
countries around the world. The contents of a shipbuilding
policy would be the provision of an improved export financing and
loan guarantee program, similar to the title 11 program in the
United States.
Here we are with the Jones act. What do we do? The U.S. is
allowed to bid on ship repairs throughout Canada. It can also
bid on shipbuilding contracts if the ships are needed in Canada.
Can we do that down in the United States? No we cannot. It is
now time for the government to take the stand it must take to
correct this.
There is the exclusion of new construction ships built in
Canadian shipyards from the present Revenue Canada leasing
regulations, and also a provisional refundable tax credit to
Canadian shipowners or shipbuilders who contract to build a ship
or contract for conversion with change of mission, mid-life refit
or major refit in a Canadian shipyard.
We could put our shipyards to work in Quebec, Ontario, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and right out to B.C., right
across the country. I am talking about 25,000 people. They have
to get the parts and the equipment and it is all produced right
here in our own country. Why are we not doing this? Why has the
government not done this?
There was an Ernst & Young report that was done in 1993 for the
government on the future of shipbuilding in Canada. On page 119
of that report it stated that if the government did nothing to
help the industry become more competitive, then an estimated
5,000 jobs would be lost just in the shipyards.
Right now 4,000 jobs have been lost in Saint John, New
Brunswick. They came up from Louisiana, U.S.A. and interviewed
our people. They said that they were the best shipbuilders they
had ever interviewed and they offered them jobs down in the U.S.
Why would we train and put our people to work building the best
ships in the world and then turn around and see them going to the
United States or to other parts of the world building ships
because we have not done anything?
Earlier today I mentioned that I had never seen Canada's first
incorporated city by royal charter, which is mine and which had
its 215th anniversary two weeks ago, like this. Our city was
booming in 1993. The young people who went to Bishop's
University used VIA Rail. When the last VIA Rail passenger
service came into my city I went down to meet with the passengers
and there were tears in their eyes. They said “Mrs. Wayne, we
have to do something”.
We tried. I have to say that if we want to put the people to
work, where the men and women can feed their families, if we want
to give them dignity, educate them and look after them, we must
make sure they can go to work each day and have money in their
pockets to do that. The only way this can be done, the only way
jobs will be created and the only way industry will move is to
provide all modes of transportation. We need to get the politics
out of this.
I talked earlier about what has been happening to us back home.
I look at our sugar industry. Do members know that our sugar
refinery was upgraded by the previous government? What did this
government do with Canada's oldest sugar refinery when it came to
power? It went to the United States and worked out a deal for it
to ship in by truck, by ship and everything, over 100,000 tonnes
into Canada and we lowered our quota to 8,000.
This put the truckers out of work, the shippers out of work and
even the airplanes, everything.
1305
There has not been a good vision for the future. I am really
concerned about what will happen to us in the maritime provinces.
The Ernst & Young report definitely stated that there was a need
for a shipbuilding policy. Of the 68 shipbuilding nations on the
planet today, 67 of them have a national shipbuilding policy. We
are the only country that does shipbuilding that does not have
one.
The issue of IMF money supporting Asian shipyards is cause for
concern. The bottom line is that tax dollars from our own
shipyard workers are potentially being used to put them out of
work by unfairly subsidizing the competition through the IMF.
I want our people to have their dignity. I want our people to
be treated fairly. I want the House of Commons to have a better
understanding of the Atlantic region, for there has not and it
has hurt the people dramatically. I will continue to fight for
our people until we get all modes of transportation back where
they should be.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, there is no stronger defender of the province of New
Brunswick than the member who just spoke.
The member mentioned the shipyard in our home province of New
Brunswick, specifically the Saint John shipyard. About 10 years
ago the Government of Canada awarded the largest contract ever, I
believe, to the private sector to build our frigates. It
accomplished a couple of things. Not only did it put our
shipbuilders to work—and the member commented on the expertise
and the level of proficiency in those shipyards—but it also
strengthened our military, something that the present government
has not done very much about.
The point I want to make and the question I have for the member
is on a national shipbuilding policy. The member mentioned in
her speech that there are now 4,000 workers less in the port city
of Saint John because of the lack of a shipbuilding policy. In
fact, I think we are the only industrialized country in the
western world without a national shipbuilding policy. The United
States has one, although we never want to admit it and neither
does it, but it does have one in terms of tax incentives and
whatnot. It is the same for the European countries.
When the province of New Brunswick went out to secure a new
ferry for the Grand Manan run in my riding of New Brunswick
Southwest I believe that the shipyard that was awarded that
contract was from the Netherlands. Again, that is another
country that has a shipbuilding policy.
The situation we now have in New Brunswick and the rest of
Canada is that when provinces, communities or the private sector
go out to secure a vessel they are often underbid by those other
countries, those jurisdictions that do have a policy that
supports their shipbuilders.
What reason does the government give her as to why we do not
have a shipbuilding policy to help those people who need help,
and in fact helping Canada and the provinces along the way by
doing that?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I have risen 28 times in
the House of Commons with regard to shipbuilding and I have
received the same reply each time from the Minister of Industry.
The reply is “We have a national shipbuilding policy”.
The national shipbuilding policy that we have dates back to the
early 1980s when all the countries in the OECD entered into an
agreement. However, we are the only country adhering to that
agreement.
When we talk about what is required, there are only three or
four things that are required in order to make us competitive. We
must become competitive.
It is estimated that for every shipyard worker's job there are at
least two others created in the support industry. It is not just
us, it is the industries out there as well.
1310
I had an opportunity to speak to the Canadian Construction
Association in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago. At the present time
the Canadian Construction Association pays out $31 billion in
wages. Of the $31 billion, $16 billion in taxes goes back to
Ottawa so we can create more jobs in other industries.
We must have a national shipbuilding policy. When we do, we
will see what will happen to the people in the maritime
provinces. It tugs at my heart when I hear people say that they
are sitting there with their hands out. No, they are not sitting
there with their hands out. We have been exporting grains from
central and western Canada to other countries for centuries. We
want to keep our people. We want them and their families to
stay, and we can do that if we get a national shipbuilding
policy.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I actually wanted to rise to ask a question of the hon. member
for Saint John. However, I am sure she is listening carefully
and will ponder what I will ask and then get back to me later.
As members know, the member for Saint John is a very passionate
person who always defends what she thinks is appropriate, and I
quite respect that.
At the recent policy convention that the Progressive
Conservative Party held, it seems to me that it wanted to spend
$23 billion a year in debt reduction and another $100 billion in
tax relief over the next number of years. This would total in
excess of $200 billion. This was all before even a cent was
allocated for infrastructure in this all important transport
area.
The member spoke a minute ago about the early 1980s, which was
the time of Mr. Mulroney and high deficits. She knows this
better than I, but the hon. member's former colleague, Mr.
Crosby, one of those great Mulroneyites, even questioned the
wisdom of that. I thought that would be a good question to ask
the member for Saint John, but I am sure she will get back to me
at another time.
It is a great honour to speak to this particular issue. It is
very important in terms of what we on the government side are
doing in this area. I am pleased to speak on the many
initiatives that are under way that respond directly to the
motion that has been raised by the Progressive Conservative
Party, misguided as that motion may be.
Transport Canada's top priority is safety. We all know that and
we support it because that is a key objective. Our objective in
that fashion has always been to ensure high standards for safe
transportation systems. Because of these, Canadians can count on
one of the safest transportation systems in the world. It is not
every country that can say that, so I think we should be grateful
for the kinds of benefits that are in place as a result of these
initiatives.
The safety and the security of Canada's transportation system
continues to lead the federal government's initiatives. This
commitment is reflected in all the activities of Transport
Canada. I would argue and the people of Waterloo—Wellington,
the area that I represent would argue that indeed is a good
objective.
The department's focus is on developing practical safety
programs, effective regulations and on ensuring that these
regulations and standards are followed, in particular, it
regulates and co-ordinates safety related matters in several
areas. I want to take a moment to outline what they are:
Aeronautics at airports, air and marine navigation, marine
shipping facilities, commercial shipping, new motor vehicle
standards, railways, bridges and canals connecting provinces with
each other or with the United States of America.
Responsibility for transportation safety in Canada involves many
stakeholders, including the federal, provincial, territorial and
municipal governments as well as industry and non-governmental
organizations.
Transport Canada works closely with all stakeholders to ensure
high standards in transportation safety, but especially with the
Transportation Safety Board and the provincial governments to
maintain nationwide system safety.
Co-operation with foreign government agencies and organizations
on several international safety initiatives is also being carried
out. That is important in bilateral and multilateral ways.
1315
As I said earlier, the Canadian transportation system is
considered one of the safest in the world. Transportation
occurrence statistics published by the Transportation Safety
Board for the marine, aviation and rail modes show long term
downward trends in accidents, accident rates and fatalities.
Similarly, Canada's road safety record has continued to improve
steadily over the last decades. That is important because
Canadians want that and Canadians expect their systems in place
to ensure that.
In 1999 accidents in aviation, marine and rail were down 8%, 16%
and 6% respectively, below the previous five years average.
Fatalities in aviation were 20% lower, in marine 17% lower, and
in rail 6% lower. The aviation sector showed the fewest
accidents involving Canadian registered aircraft in the last 25
years. Likewise road collisions also represented the lowest
number during this period as well.
Transport Canada has a vision to have the safest transportation
system in the world, a vision shared by all of us I would hope,
with long term outcomes of protecting life, health and the
environment, as well as property and maintaining public
confidence in the safety and security of our transportation
system. The department continues to strive for this through
education, safety awareness, the establishment of effective
policies and rules, continuous monitoring of the transportation
system, as well as the enforcement of the laws governing
transportation safety.
It is recognized that transportation safety is a shared
responsibility between the federal and the provincial governments
as well as industry stakeholders. And let us not forget of
course the travelling public who are all important in this
equation.
The government is moving toward a greater emphasis on
performance based regulations where demonstrating the achievement
of results is key. People want that kind of accountability. Mr.
Speaker, you want it, I want it, parliamentarians want it, and
all Canadians want it.
Greater emphasis is placed on industry to demonstrate that its
practices are safe, that safe practices are reinforced, and
safety information is systematically shared among the partners in
a meaningful way.
Greater use is being made of the full range of compliance tools
available to promote the use of safe practices and to reduce
risk. This does not imply that the department's resolve to
interfere where necessary is lessened; rather its intention is to
rely less on traditional policing and prescriptive approaches.
On another front I want to point out because it is important
that the department is pursuing broad strategies to respond to
its business environment. For example, it is continuing to build
a new safety culture in transportation circles by collaborating
with industry and other interested parties in the development of
systems and programs to encourage the adoption and reinforcement
of safe practices.
Alternatives to regulation are encouraged. Where regulations
are required, the focus is on regulatory efforts, on the safety
objective to be achieved, rather than on the process by which it
is to be achieved. That is an important point to note because it
speaks volumes in terms of the department's direction.
In this technological world government organizations need to
bring together data that is held in a number of disparate ways
and areas. Organizations that put safety as a priority need to
be available to selectively access and share that data with
partners and stakeholders so that we can serve Canadians more
effectively and efficiently. That is important for all of us.
For these reasons Transport Canada undertook to establish a
safety data management framework to promote sharing constant
access and integrity of safety data. For the same reasons
internationally and nationally, Transport Canada is also playing
a strong role in modernizing information management systems and
focusing on collecting data and safety information that
contributes to the measurement of results. The analysis of the
resulting policies will also contribute significantly to the
safety culture.
1320
Along with partners, Transport Canada is developing common
measures of safety performance and broadening systematic and
constructive consultation feedback. As I said earlier, safety is
not a responsibility of Canada and of Transport Canada alone, we
all share collectively in that responsibility. In recognizing
this the department is fostering constructive relationships with
stakeholders by developing or participating in joint safety
promotion and safety awareness programs, continuing to
participate in forums and exchange programs, identifying and
responding to stakeholder concerns, recognizing and rewarding
stakeholders' contributions to transportation safety.
One of the best ways to establish constructive and beneficial
relationships with industry, other government identities,
transport operators, user associations and the public is to work
with and consult extensively with them on important safety
programs. Together we are developing new methods of intervening
to promote safety and to better serve the public as a result.
Transport Canada intends to enhance its contribution to Canadian
transportation safety by looking ahead and ensuring that what we
do is linked to clear objectives and outcomes for instance by
adopting a more systematic approach to risk management. That
will include engaging the public and other stakeholders in an
ongoing dialogue about what constitutes an acceptable level of
risk, improving data collection, data quality, data sharing and
enhancing analytical tools to measure results, identify hazards,
identify trends and finally, by assessing the level of risk in
adapting its safety programs and resources to respond
appropriately to any emerging safety issues.
With the right information and analysis the department can do a
better job of identifying safety trends, tracking safety
deficiencies and targeting its resources to where they can be
most effective.
On the regulatory side I want to take a few moments to talk
about tools, practices and techniques that are being improved by
identifying alternative policy instruments and compliance tools
to promote and reinforce safe practices ensuring that transport
policies, rules and standards are accessible and written in plain
language and by increasing the use of explanatory material,
guides, training and support of departmental policies,
regulations and standards. This is done by clearly defining
measurable objectives and evaluating policies, regulations and
standards against them and by linking the use of policy
instruments with safety objectives, those very objectives I spoke
about at the outset.
The department is also involved in intervening on the
international scene by contributing to the development of
international standards and other initiatives that can lead to
cost savings for the department and for all Canadians. We should
be proud of that in terms of celebrating the good work and vision
that Transport Canada has in this very important area.
The department is also participating in national and
international transportation safety forums and by using all
available opportunities to develop, improve and promote Canadian
safety technology and practices. These are complementary aspects
of our safe transportation system but they represent important
assets for Transport Canada to maintain our high safety
standards. What a great goal that is not only for
parliamentarians but for all Canadians wherever they live in this
great country of ours.
By doing this Transport Canada is also opening doors to
international markets for safety, environmental practices and
technologies for Canadian industries. What an enormous benefit
that is to our economic cycle and our businesses as well.
The department at the same occasion takes advantage of the
international recognition its safety and security professionals
have earned to promote best practices and expertise. Transport
Canada is working closely with stakeholders to market Canadian
safety transportation and practices internationally.
I have taken some time to present the overall strategies in
place to maximize impact on transportation safety. Transport
Canada has completed or has under way several initiatives
consistent with the strategic directives I have just provided.
1325
To name a few, the department has revised the Railway Safety Act
and is in the process of modernizing the Canada Shipping Act.
Clear language regulations have been developed in dangerous goods
and regulations on safety for railway management systems and they
have been recently published in the Canada Gazette part I.
There presently exists well structured consultation mechanisms
such as the Canadian Aviation Regulatory Advisory Council, the
Canadian Marine Advisory Committee and the Railway Safety
Consultative Committee. These are important to note because they
underscore the commitment of the government in this all important
area.
Several awareness and educational initiatives are under way such
as Direction 2006 in rail and Vision 2001 in road with strong
participation from industry and the provinces as well. The
department has also developed modal strategic plans such as
Flight 2005 in civil aviation and The Way Ahead in marine. These
are visionary moves that underscore the commitment of the
government in this all important area of transportation.
The department and my speech underscore the established specific
strategic objectives that determine Transport Canada's long term
vision as well as strategic direction with respect to the safety
and the security of the transportation system in Canada. It sets
out a vision for proactive measures to maintain our world class
safety system, something we should applaud and celebrate knowing
that around the world Canada is known as having one of the
finest, if not the finest and safest system that exists.
With all the safety initiatives under way, Canadians can have
the assurance that we are constantly striving to improve an
already very good system and an already very good transportation
safety record that we have acquired over the years. We should be
proud of that as I know most Canadians are.
In response to the matter raised by the opposition, I can simply
state without a doubt that the federal government continues to
exercise the leadership Canadians expect in this all important
area. I can reinforce and say that not only do the folks in
Waterloo—Wellington, my constituents, but most Canadians
wherever they live in this great and wonderful country of ours
understand that and are proud of the kind of safety initiatives
we have put into place.
Canadians are proud of what we have done over time. They have
faith and assurance in the government's ability to carry forward
into the future, not only with vision and insight, but with the
kind of notions in place that underscore our commitment to doing
the right thing when it comes to transportation in Canada. We
know it is what Canadians want, need, expect and deserve.
Canadians know that we on the government side will continue to
provide good government essential to Canadians from coast to
coast. I can assure the House that the government will continue
to do that in a manner consistent with the values of Canadians.
Why do we do that? We do it because it is the right thing to do
and it is the right thing Canadians want us to do in this very
important area.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I come from
Nova Scotia, specifically the riding of West Nova. A couple of
issues stand out clearly when we talk about transportation, but
specifically Highway 101 which has seen some 50 fatalities since
1993. It is a fairly dangerous stretch of road and a couple of
concerns come to mind. First, further twinning is required from
Halifax toward Yarmouth as much as possible. Second, there is a
stretch of highway between Digby and Weymouth in my riding that
is not completed and it basically is still the number one
highway. This creates a lot of difficulty when it comes to
safety, tourism and other issues.
A government that collects over $4 billion in fuel tax every
year and returns just a mere 4% of that to the provinces concerns
me greatly.
The other issue is that in the estimates for Nova Scotia in
1999-2000, under a Liberal government I might add, a $1.8 million
fund was set out for highways.
In 2000-01 under a PC government the amount to be transferred is
zero.
1330
I have a question for my colleague across the way. What will
the federal government, along with the provinces, do to ensure
that we have safe highways and that there is a proper amount of
funding from the federal government for highways?
Another issue I forgot to mention in my comments is that it is
not just the twinning or the completion of the Highway 101. It
is also the condition of those roads. They have been left to
deteriorate to the point where it is almost dangerous to drive on
some highways.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, there are places across
Canada where we continue to do the kind of work necessary to
ensure that roads are consistent with what local residents and
constituents want. As a government we will continue to do so.
The member is right and I thank him for it. We will work very
hard with our provincial and territorial counterparts, as we have
done in the past, to ensure that the roads will be fixed in a
manner consistent with local needs. It is important that we work
with our provincial partners as well as with our territorial ones
to do precisely that.
The member spoke about fuel taxes and moving money around for
highways. I find those kinds of comments quite disturbing in the
sense that there disingenuous, if I might use that term. It was
not so very long ago, during the last election to be precise,
that Progressive Conservative Party members talked about
Transport Canada's budget being cut by $35 million.
They said one thing before and now they are saying something
again today. They are masters of the flip-flop as usual. Once
again they are sucking and blowing when they should come straight
to the heart of the matter and say the right thing.
We on the government side say the right thing. We are
consistent in terms of what is needed. We are consistent with
the wishes of our constituents. We work very hard. Instead of
flipping around as the PCs do, the Minister of Transport and his
provincial and territorial counterparts worked very hard to
ensure they were consistent in what they do and to ensure that
the transportation infrastructure is what Canadians want, need
and quite frankly deserve.
We will continue to provide that without the disingenuous nature
of the Progressive Conservatives and in a manner consistent with
what Canadians want.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it takes a great deal of courage to
stand and make a speech like the one of my hon. colleague
opposite.
I ask the member to bring forward information on any country in
Canada or in Europe that returns to its provinces a mere four
cents on the dollar of the excise tax. I can say right now that
no country in the world contributes 4% of what is taxed out of
motorists and truckers. I would be ashamed to say that the
government is marching forward with a vision. That is stealing.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I remind the member opposite
that there is no country in Canada. We are a country.
When the reformed alliance members were called Reformers, those
extremists opposite, they brought out that party's now infamous
policy blue book which said that the Reform Party supported
removing all measures that insulated businesses, industries,
financial institutions, professions and trade unions from
domestic and foreign competition. They would strip away every
support necessary for transportation and its infrastructure.
They would support the stripping away of every kind of subsidy
that exists for this all-important area. They would strip away
everything that they could to defend the regions of our great
country.
1335
Why would they do that? Why, pray tell, would they do that? The
reason they would do it is that they are a bunch of flat taxers,
17% flat taxers. All they want to do is strip away good
government. They want to strip away effective and safe
government. They want to strip away the very things that
Canadians depend on. These extremists are outrageous.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On
numerous occasions the Speaker has ruled as to the name to be
used for the party on this side. It is the Canadian Alliance.
This member has frequently today used different terminology. I
wonder whether you would call him to account and ask him to be
respectful of the ruling of the Chair.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair was being very attentive to
what the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington was saying. My
recollection of the words was when hon. members opposite were
called Reform. He then quoted from a document that apparently
had been a Reform document. I sensed he did it for that reason.
I do not believe that he was referring to hon. members in the
official opposition currently as Reform members. He said the
alliance members when they were Reformers. I believe those are
the words he used.
If the hon. member for Elk Island reviews the blues and comes
back to the Chair with some other error, the Chair will only be
more than happy to look at the matter and enforce the consistent
rulings of the Chair on this important point.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying
that the very same policy document of those reformed alliance
people went on to say that the Reform Party opposes the use of
infrastructure funds for projects which could be better managed
by the private sector. Shame on them. Imagine saying that then
and today supporting the motion.
Talk about the masters of flip-flop. Talk about people saying
one thing when it is convenient and saying quite another when
they want to get their point across in another part of the
country. They are good at that. They are good at saying one
thing in the east and another thing in the west. They are good
at saying something in the north and quite the opposite in the
south. That is who those people are. It is unfortunate.
I was listening to the member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley. What did she say? She went so far as to say
that when it comes to transportation their party wants a central
plan for a national continental strategy. Imagine. Imagine them
saying that. These people are extremists in the extreme, if that
is possible. Imagine what they are saying.
We have to think about where they are going. They are doing the
kinds of things that would strip away the very foundation of what
it means to be Canadian. They would strip away the very values
of our great country.
We on this side of the House, the government, will not allow
that nonsense to be brought forward by way of their agenda. We
will stand firm, knowing that we have the safest and most secure
transport system in the world, bar none. We will continue on
that track because that is what Canadians want. They do not want
the politics of grievance as those people do.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member has used the word extremists in regard to me
and other opposition members on this side of the House. He used
it in such a derogatory sense that my privileges and my
reputation in the House of Commons have been denigrated by the
member. As an example of extremism, I think he is providing a
good example of Liberal extremism, to the point of being
ridiculous.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member has made a
good point in debate perhaps but not on a point of order.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite
gives me the opportunity to point out once again the very thin
skin of those opposition members. They are very thin skinned. It
is interesting in debate to watch them try, and try is the
operative word, to dish it out. When it comes to taking it they
cannot seem to take it very well. They cannot have it both ways.
1340
My point is that we on the government side continue to provide
safety and security for our transportation system. We will
provide the resources necessary to have infrastructure in place.
I ask all members to vote accordingly when it comes to this
motion. It really is out of place and not in order in that
sense. We will continue to work very effectively on behalf of
all Canadians, unlike those people opposite who seem to want to
rip Canada apart province by province.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of the
Canadian Alliance to bring this debate back to the intent of
parliament to have honest interaction between the parties
debating the issue as opposed to the type of extremism being
experienced by the House due to the Liberal speakers on this
issue.
The Progressive Conservative Party has brought forward its
supply day motion with regard to transportation issues in Canada.
I have to agree this is an important issue that we should be
debating. The reason for that is that the federal government and
the provincial governments across the country have not been able
to manage their moneys to the point of being able to keep our
basic infrastructure, primarily roads and rail, in a condition
that our economy can continue to flourish. As a result we find
that we are approaching a crisis situation with regard to roads
across the country, not only in western Canada.
As I go through my speech I think we will find that what is
giving rise to this crisis is not the lack of money. As a result
of the taxation of the Liberal government this place is awash in
money. It is the problem of how the Liberal government is
spending the tax dollars it is taking from Canadians.
Transportation is the fabric and the economic lifeblood of the
country. It is of such importance that it should not be let to
slide as the government has done through its heavy taxation and
not returning taxation dollars to the provinces with regard to
road programs, which has caused us to lose a certain level of
competitiveness. One good example of that lack of
competitiveness is in our international grain trade where some of
our major customers like Japan and the Asia-Pacific rim countries
have found that we cannot deliver our grain to port on a basis
that would give them confidence that we are suppliers that can be
totally trusted.
The reason I bring that forward is that it has to do with rail
transportation. The government on this very day has the
opportunity to fix our rail transportation by bringing in a
commercial competitive contract based system of rail
transportation. However, what we find is a continuation of the
very highly regulated, top down, government driven transportation
system which all parties have found to be inefficient,
unaccountable and incapable of supplying our customers with the
amount of grain they need at the time they need it.
The government bears a lot of the fault for our transportation
system being in the state it is and our now having to debate it
in the House to try to give the government suggestions as to what
can be done.
Besides exports, interprovincial transportation is of vital
importance. We consume and sell many product between provinces.
We only have to drive from Manitoba to northwest Ontario to see a
road that is virtually incapable of carrying with any efficiency
the amount of goods that move between Manitoba and Ontario and
east to west.
1345
It is obvious that this national highway, which the federal
government has responsibility for, has not been upgraded over the
course of time.
In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake we have export companies such
as Gerdau Steel. Many of our agriculture products have to be
exported both by rail and by road to different countries. We
also export fresh pork products by air to places such as Russia
and Asia.
If road, rail and air transportation are not kept in good shape
our economy will continue to suffer because of a lack of
direction in spending by the federal government.
People ask: “The government is spending. The Canadian Alliance
is advocating more spending on roads. Where would the money come
from?” That is one of my favourite questions. With the amount
of money that comes into the federal government, there is plenty
enough for health care, roads, rail transportation and whatever
else is needed with respect to transportation.
The reason there are not sufficient moneys, aside from the
patronage appointments and waste and abuse that we see in HRDC,
is the spending. I would like to give some examples. I will not
belabour the point because these things are disgusting for people
to hear. In Manitoba $15,000 was spent to hang dead rabbits in
trees as an art exhibit. Our local humane society did not even
see fit to condemn this artist or the fact that federal money was
being used for the exhibit. That can only be classified as
waste. In Paris, foreign affairs was setting up what could only
be called a call girl situation in the embassy. People from
France could go into the embassy and engage a woman dressed as a
prostitute. Once again, federal tax money was spent. I could go
on and on with these disgusting examples of government waste, of
money that could have gone into our transportation system.
The importance of rail transportation to the economy is
important for those of us who are here today. However, as
members of the Parliament of Canada, we are supposed to be doing
everything with reasonable prudence and forethought for the
benefit of our children, our grandchildren and their children.
That is not happening because of the high taxation policy of the
government, which is being abused. Instead of the money being
left in municipal and provincial coffers to be used for roads, it
is taken away and used for a lot of useless things.
I would like to give a couple of facts. Federal gas tax
increased over 500% between 1985 and 1995, from approximately 1.5
cents to 10 cents per litre. The argument for fuel taxes was
that the money would be used to keep our infrastructure and roads
up to snuff.
Ottawa spends only 5% of its $5 billion in gas tax revenues on
highway renewal. I assume that I can use the word deceptive.
The people of Canada have been deceived into believing that if
they pay their fuel taxes they will be able to drive on roads
that are safe and an efficient mode of transportation.
1350
These billions of dollars flowing to Ottawa, sent by Canadians
to be used for our roads, are not being used for our roads, but
are going into general revenues.
Ottawa increased the federal gas tax from 8.5 cents to 10 cents
per litre in 1995 as a deficit reduction measure. The deficit is
gone, but the tax remains, to my knowledge. Once again I ask, is
this deception? Is it mismanagement? What is the reason for
this? Maybe we will hear it from the government.
The government is also taxing taxes. That is a most vile
situation. The GST is charged on the full pump price, gas taxes
included. It is a tax on a tax. It looks to me like the
government has no intention of spending the fuel tax on roads and
in fact is just using it as a tax grab.
Gas prices in Canada are a big issue in all parts of the
country. According to facts which were compiled, without
provincial and federal taxes our gasoline prices would actually
be cheaper in Canada than in the United States.
The problem we are facing has a solution. It is a problem that
has been made primarily by the actions of the federal government,
which has been in power for two terms, so it cannot say “We
would fix it if we had time”. It has had since 1993 to come up
with a national road program, to increase funding, to cut waste
and to use that money for road and rail transportation.
In essence, all the money for roads and other modes of
transportation comes from the public purse. Some people would
argue that if we put a toll on a road, that is not a tax.
However, I would point out that tolls on roads are a tax the same
as any other user fee. Roads are for the use of everyone and
when we impose a toll we are in essence imposing a tax.
I once wrote a letter to the revenue minister asking him why
fuel taxes could not be dedicated to road construction and
repair. He wrote back, clearly stating that the government does
not believe in dedicated taxes; that is, identifying a clear
problem or issue for spending every year. There should be road
spending every year throughout the life of this country. The
government refuses to acknowledge that it has a responsibility
for the infrastructure of the country, including transportation
and, in particular, roads. Until we get the government to admit
there is an ongoing need for funding for roads we will be up
against the same crisis year after year.
It has been mentioned that Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta
will receive some $175 million as offset compensation for the
lack of rail transportation which is due to the abandonment of
branch lines by the railways. Farmers are incurring greater
costs to haul their grain to the main terminals.
Once again, that money is inadequate. The $175 million will be
spread over five years and over three provinces.
I do not know how much good that will do in repairing some of the
roads. It certainly will not build new ones.
1355
The Speaker: The hon. member still has about six minutes
remaining for his speech. It would probably be better to take
the full six minutes after question period.
Hon. David M. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for
interrupting my colleague from the Canadian Alliance at this
stage. I am glad he will have the opportunity to finish his
remarks after 3 o'clock.
There have been discussions among members of the parties about
seeking unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of bills
so that we may have first reading of the grain transportation
bill. I understand there is agreement among all parties to allow
this at this time.
We are doing this to facilitate an early debate at second
reading this week so that we can get the bill to committee. This
bill must be passed by both houses before the summer recess in
order for the savings to farmers to come into effect August 1,
the beginning of the crop year.
The Speaker: Does the hon. minister have permission to
put the motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-34, an act to amend the
Canada Transportation Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
BRAD BOWDEN
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the outstanding
athletic accomplishments of Brad Bowden, a high school champion
in my riding who has the golden touch in sports.
Even at his young age, Brad is no longer a stranger to winning
gold medals. In March, he and his Team Canada teammates struck
gold when they won the Ice Sledge Hockey World Championship in
Salt Lake City, Utah. Brad managed this incredible
accomplishment while continuing his studies as a student at
Westside Secondary School in Orangeville.
Recently, Brad helped to lead another team to gold winning
victory. He was named the most valuable player when his Variety
Village team won the Canadian Wheelchair Basketball Association's
junior championship in Toronto. They also won gold in 1995 and
1996.
The year 2000 is shining brightly on Brad Bowden. I join with
other proud members of our community in congratulating him on his
great accomplishments in sports.
* * *
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, one of the cruel anomalies of our
criminal justice system must surely be the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, which allows for statutory release and
automatically paroles all inmates after serving two-thirds of
their sentences.
A justice subcommittee studying this mockery of the sentencing
system came close to recommending an end to the statutory
release. That was before the Liberal MPs on the committee
changed their minds after a short visit to the whip's office
decided to give credence to the corrections commissioner that
statutory parole was a great thing.
There is a litany of abuse of the statutory release, but none as
glaring as Kelly James Bedard. In 1994 he was arrested for
murder, having slashed the throat of his victim. His rampage
came three months after being released from prison, having served
the necessary two-thirds of his sentence for aggravated assault.
Today Kelly is on the street despite a parole board assessment
that Kelly was at high risk for violent offences. I hope the
Liberals are happy with themselves.
* * *
BLYTH FESTIVAL THEATRE
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, hark,
what talent through yonder benches breaks.
Each year for the past 26 seasons the Blyth Festival Theatre has
been delighting audiences with its world-renowned performances
chronicling all the aspects of our national experience.
1400
With this, I am pleased to inform the House that joining with
the ranks of Shakespeare is one of our very own. I congratulate
the hon. member for Dartmouth as this year her play,
Corker, will be showcased at the festival. This satirical
comedy pokes fun at our society and underscores the surprises
that life often produces.
On behalf of the festival and the citizens of Blyth, I invite
all members of the House to review the brochures I have provided
to their offices and to then take the time to join me at the
festival sometime this summer.
* * *
CULTURELINK
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on May 24 I had the pleasure of attending the ribbon
cutting ceremony and open house for Culturelink which recently
relocated into my riding.
Founded in 1989, Culturelink is a non-profit community based
organization that facilitates the settlement of newcomers to
Toronto. It offers a wide variety of programs which promote
self-sufficiency, positive interaction and understanding between
the host and newcomer communities, and the overall well-being of
all its participants.
Culturelink programs include the host program, English
conversation circle and job search workshops. These workshops
also include employment counselling, resumé clinics, TOEFL
classes and youth programs.
Culturelink has been made possible through partnerships among
the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of
Canadian Heritage, the Ontario government, the city of Toronto,
the Counselling Foundation of Canada, the United Way of Greater
Toronto and the Trillium Foundation.
I would like to welcome Culturelink to Parkdale—High Park. I
wish it continued success in its new location.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in this
era of globalization, our communities must make a place for
themselves in the vast world market. Municipal politicians and
those responsible for economic development are aware that they
must be equipped to deal with the new challenges all of us are
faced with.
We can help our small and medium businesses to become major
players on the international scene by keeping them informed, and
by providing them with needed support.
For this reason, I organized the first International Day this
past February, and I am doing it again now for the ridings in
central Quebec.
This day offers an opportunity to discuss international trade,
the contracting process, CIDA and Team Canada. It is a day for
acquiring information on matters of an international nature,
which may prove useful for municipal politicians and those
responsible for economic development.
I congratulate my fellow MPs, particularly the hon. member for
Beauce and the hon. member for
Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet. The dynamism of those
attending today reflects the vitality of our communities.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate Robert Mundell, Columbia
University's Nobel prize winning economist, for recognizing and
encouraging efficiency.
Mr. Mundell just received an honorary degree from Queen's
University at its spring 2000 convocation. His endorsement of
Estonian and Hong Kong tax systems is fitting. Single rate
income taxes result in less complexity and greater productivity.
That is why Alberta is adopting a 10.5% single rate tax.
The Canadian Alliance has adopted a 17% across the board federal
income tax rate. Further, personal exemptions of $10,000 and
ending tax discrimination against married people would remove
thousands from the tax rolls altogether.
Congratulations to Robert Mundell and single tax rate advocates
everywhere. May even Liberals one day learn to embrace less
government and less tax. Vote Canadian Alliance for a 17% single
rate tax. Praise Robert Mundell, a son of freedom and single
rate taxes.
* * *
RIMOUSKI OCEANIC HOCKEY TEAM
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate the Rimouski Oceanic of the Quebec Major Junior
Hockey League on winning the Memorial Cup played in Halifax last
week. To win the Memorial Cup, emblematic of the best junior
team in Canada, ranks as the achievement in junior hockey.
I am particularly proud of the Oceanic team members, not just
because they won and were a great example of team play, skill and
dedication, but also because the most valuable player of the
tournament and one of his teammates both come from Prince Edward
Island.
Brad Richards from Murray Harbour and Thatcher Bell from Gurnsey
Cove played outstanding hockey and represented their league,
their hometowns and province with enormous class and enthusiasm.
Congratulations and good luck in their futures to Brad and
Thatcher. Also to the Barrie Colts captain Sheldon Keefe who also
hails from P.E.I., best of luck in his future.
Also, Maurice “The Rocket” Richard, my first hockey hero, rest
in peace. You were a great man and a first class Canadian.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a growing number of motorists and
truck drivers in Saskatchewan for safety reasons are choosing the
municipal roads for travel instead of the provincial highways.
The provincial highways, handling the increased amount of grain
transportation, are deteriorating very rapidly.
1405
Within the proposed grain bill the $175 million to support grain
transportation over the next five years simply breaks down to $35
million for the three prairie provinces. Saskatchewan would
probably get 60% of that amount, or $21 million a year. If that
entire amount were to be spent within my constituency, it would
not even bring Highway 13 up to the standards for modern trucking
demands.
* * *
[Translation]
BUFFET DES NATIONS IN SHERBROOKE
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Saturday,
May 27, I visited 40 countries and tasted the typical foods of
many of them, all in the space of a few hours.
I managed this lightning world tour by joining some 800 other guests
at the 29th Buffet des nations, organized in Sherbrooke by the
Service d'Aide aux néo-Canadiens.
The purpose of this great annual event, unique in Quebec and in
Canada, is to raise funds to organize activities to help new
immigrants integrate.
In Sherbrooke alone we had some 3,740 new immigrants in 1996,
370 more than the figure in the 1991 census. Immigration is, I
feel, a source of great wealth for my riding.
In closing, I wish to congratulate the President of the Service
d'aide, Nicole Robitaille, and her 300 or so volunteers who
worked so hard to ensure the success of this great international
festival of gastronomy.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR AWARD
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Thursday, May 25, at the Mississauga Board of Trade's 2000
Outstanding Business Awards, Ms. Kate Bird, president of Career
Essentials Inc., received the young entrepreneur of the year
award.
Career Essentials, with outlets in nine Ontario cities, provides
a variety of assessment, training, tutoring and job search
services through the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board,
primarily to assist injured workers with reintegration into the
workplace. It also offers a certificate course entitled,
“Teaching English as a Second Language”, as well as one on one
student tutoring, training options for the corporate market and a
variety of career services to people searching for employment.
This is not the first award for Ms. Bird. She has previously
received the young entrepreneur of the year award and the
business startup award, both from the Scarborough Chamber of
Commerce.
Congratulations to Kate Bird. Way to go.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the CBC announced that local TV news will be cut by two-thirds.
Shame on the Liberal members who cut $400 million from the CBC
and then feign outrage when the cuts are actually implemented. Do
they not read their own budgets before they vote?
Shame on the Prime Minister for making the CBC slice up
successful shows like 24 Hours, Here and Now, 1st
Edition and Compass. His approach is the wisdom of
Solomon gone horribly wrong.
The most cynical part of this whole affair is that the Liberals
will promise yet again to support the CBC when they go to the
people in the next election, and then will break that promise one
more time, this time killing regional programs forever.
I call on the government to recommit to the dream of public
broadcasting which truly reflects regions to regions, and take
the CBC off life supports now.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S WEEK OF THE DISABLED
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more than a
million people have to overcome impediments to their involvement
in society everyday.
Yesterday, May 29, in Laval and elsewhere in Quebec, we kicked
off Quebec's week of the disabled.
Between June 1 and 7, through discussions, artistic and sporting
activities, people with disabilities will have their say. By
listening to what they have to say, we will perhaps understand
that a disability is not necessarily a handicap. The real
handicap is not being able to study, work, enjoy oneself, travel
or communicate with others.
By working together to help people with disabilities integrate
into society by implementing progressive measures to ensure their
right to education, to work and to enjoy recreation, we will all
come out ahead, and our society will be more humane, because it
will be more just.
I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those
volunteers who work to improve the living conditions of persons
with disabilities—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week was designated Aboriginal Awareness Week across the federal
public service.
I am pleased to inform the House and Canadians that across the
national capital region there were many celebrations of
aboriginal arts and culture. Aboriginal performers entertained
and led demonstrations in traditional arts and crafts.
Ceremonial songs and colourful workshops gave everyone an
opportunity to experience the aboriginal lifestyle, from sampling
traditional foods to participating in cultural workshops and
listening to special guest speakers.
These kinds of opportunities are very important for they
recognize the contributions of aboriginal people to our country.
1410
Next month all Canadians will have the opportunity to share in
the celebration of National Aboriginal Day on June 21. I
encourage all citizens to take advantage of that opportunity.
* * *
CRAB FISHERY
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
week we heard from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that the
crab quota for eastern Nova Scotia was being increased to three
times the quota allocated last year, approximately a 6,000 tonne
increase.
This is being done even though fishers have opposed such large
increases in the quota and scientists acknowledge that there have
been wild fluctuations in the snow crab population over the past
20 years. The minister is increasing the quota in the face of
opposition simply to score some pre-election points. He is
jeopardizing the long term sustainability of the crab fishery in
order to make a good news announcement from a government with
nothing but bad news announcements.
At what cost? When fishers applaud conservation efforts and
smaller crab quotas, why is the minister providing a 240%
increase in crab fishing area 23 and a 212% increase in crab
fishing area 24? Obviously the election campaign for the
government has already begun.
* * *
HUNTINGTON'S DISEASE
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to inform members of the House and all Canadians that May
has been proclaimed Huntington's Disease Awareness Month.
It is estimated that this disease affects one in every thousand
Canadians. The Huntington Society is dedicated to finding a cure
for Huntington's Disease.
I ask members to join me in wishing the Huntington Society of
Canada a very successful Huntington's Disease Awareness Month.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, when 18,000 Canadians requested copies of their own
files, the government shut down the database. Did the human
resources minister have a conscience attack and realize that her
massive files violated individual privacy rights, or was she
afraid of how people would react when they found out how closely
their government watches them?
Two weeks ago the minister denied there was a problem. Then she
lurched into damage control with the all too familiar refrain,
“Don't worry, trust me”. Canadians do not trust her. They
were horrified to learn that the minister who cannot keep track
of grant applications and bungled a billion dollars on job
creation programs had their most personal information.
The Liberals' campaign team saw their re-election dreams going
up in smoke. Shovelgate deeply wounded them and big brother was
sure to bury them. With her image consultant coaching from the
sidelines, the minister made a U-turn and became Ms. Privacy
Protector.
Once again big sister is asking Canadians to trust her.
Canadians are asking, “Why should we?”
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, recently
parliamentarians attended an ecological summit and yesterday a
forum on aboriginal health.
The summit included a presentation by Dr. Schindler from the
University of Alberta who said that considering the importance of
water to all life, it is strange that freshwater has been
Canada's most mistreated and ignored natural resource. Canadian
citizens are paying the price for governments not protecting our
water supply and the environment.
The quality of drinking water is a major issue in Ontario. For
the north the concentrations of PCBs and other pollutants in
fish, caribou and birds are high enough to require human
consumption of traditional aboriginal food to be restricted. The
government is fully aware that in the north we have PCB levels
five times higher than anywhere else.
It is time that the Liberal government changed its cavalier
attitude toward the environment and enforced environmental laws
and regulations. We demand action and remedies on the cumulative
effects of organic pollutants. The government is responsible for
the price that northerners are paying due to these pollutants.
* * *
NEW MEMBER
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral
Officer a certificate of the election and return of Mr. Loyola
Hearn, member for the electoral district of St. John's West.
* * *
1415
[Translation]
NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
Mr. Loyola Hearn, member for the electoral district of St.
John's West, introduced by Mr. Peter MacKay and Mr. Norman Doyle.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, more than 18,000 Canadians have
written to the human resources department asking for copies of
their files from the big brother database. According to the
Privacy Act, the minister has 30 days to respond to that and
comply.
Yesterday the minister suggested that Canadians who have asked
for that information will have to write again and tell her that
they really, really want copies of their file.
Why is the minister not complying with the Privacy Act?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should quit chasing
headlines and get her facts straight. No one has to reapply. If
they have asked us for the information, they will receive it.
She is right that it will take us some time because we have
dismantled the files. We have been working with the privacy
commissioner's office so that we will not have a significant
delay. No one who wants the information will have to reapply.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are chasing
headlines, we are chasing the truth. It would be just slick if
we could find it as soon as possible in the House.
Yesterday the minister claimed in the House and in her press
release that she had dismantled the big brother database. She
also claimed that she would respond to the thousands of requests
from Canadians to see their personal files. On the one hand she
said that she had destroyed that database, and on the other hand
she said that she will provide copies of it to Canadians.
It is pretty simple: Does she have access to that information
or does she not?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member should review
Hansard from yesterday where I said that indeed the system
had been dismantled and that we would ensure that those Canadians
who want their information will get it. We will help them
facilitate getting that information from agencies like the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency which now has its information that was
in our consolidated files back in its hands.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, now you see it, now you don't. The
minister's track record proves that she simply cannot be trusted
and yet she does have access to all Canadians' most private
information. Her own press release said that access to the big
brother database would still be granted on a case by case basis.
Not only is the information still there somewhere buried in a
computer, I bet she can find it, but it also will still be used.
The question is this: Is it not true that the only thing this
minister has really dismantled is her own credibility?
1420
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the opposite is quite true. It
is the hon. member opposite who continues to bring fear into the
hearts of Canadians. She should pay attention to what happened
yesterday, look at the response of the privacy commissioner and
actually accept that we are in the process of dismantling the
file. The privacy commissioner is overseeing its dismantling.
She can go to him and ensure that the job is done.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, talking about yesterday, the minister
said that she acted quickly to deal with concerns about the big
brother database.
It turns out that what really happened was that the privacy
commissioner spent months trying to get the government to
dismantle the database and only when he hit roadblocks with the
minister did he go public.
Why did the minister give the impression that she acted quickly
when in fact her hand had to be forced?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me just quote what the privacy
commissioner said yesterday. He said “I think it is fair to say
that from the outset the department recognized that major changes
had to be made and I did not have to persuade them at all”.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will quote from yesterday's
Hansard where the minister said “I announced the
dismantling of the longitudinal labour force file. It comes less
than two weeks after the privacy commissioner tabled his last
advice on this file”. This gives the clear impression that the
minister acted very quickly. That in fact is not the case, is
it?
The privacy commissioner has been urging this minister for
months to get rid of this big brother database file and she
refused. Only after the public found out about it did she act.
Why did it have to take public disclosure to force her hand?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been consistent on my views on
this issues right from the start. I continue to believe that
good information is required to build good public policy. I
continue to believe that the privacy of Canadians is paramount.
I have said in the House that I will work with the privacy
commissioner to ensure that we continue to have the balance, and
that is exactly we have done.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the government has been gathering personal information on members
of the public unbeknownst to them since 1979, with some
information dating as far back as 1971. Human Resources
Development Canada has announced it will dismantle the megafile.
The link may be dismantled, but the data will be kept. What
guarantee can the Prime Minister give us that all this
information will not be combined again one day, and unbeknownst
once again to the public?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would direct the hon. member to
look at the commentary from the privacy commissioner, the officer
of the House that we trust to safeguard the privacy of Canadians.
He has identified that he is in full support of the undertakings
that we announced yesterday.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
for two years the privacy commissioner had been telling the
department to intervene, and nothing was done.
Action was taken because the matter became public. The Prime
Minister even told us last week that the megafile was legal,
necessary and useful. Those were his words. This same government
is today guaranteeing that the file will not be rebuilt in some
other way.
Are we to understand that our only guarantee of protection of
people's privacy is the word of this minister, who, just last
week, said that the megafile was legal and necessary to
government administration? These are her words.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the system that we had in place was
completely compliant with the Privacy Act. Indeed, as the
privacy commissioner indicated, there were no breaches of
information. What is important to look forward to is the future.
With the actions we took yesterday, in full compliance,
recognition and support of the privacy commissioner, we have a
system that will take us in secure privacy into the 21st century.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister said in the House “Everyone knows that the
department has had this information for a long time, since well
before we took office”.
Why is the Prime Minister trying to shift his responsibilities
onto the backs of others, when the file came about between 1971
and 1979, during the term of a Liberal government, of which he
was a cabinet member? He was therefore perfectly aware of the
existence of this file and cannot pass the buck this time.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems so concerned about
databases and about personal information. I wonder if he is
aware that the PQ in the province of Quebec have recently tabled
bill 122. In that bill, the Institut de la statistique will be
gathering and consolidating personal data from different
provincial departments for research purposes. I wonder if the
hon. member will be asking headquarters back in Quebec City about
this.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should know that it was because of Quebec, and that it
was Quebec that wanted nothing to do with the sort of situation
she is describing today.
Furthermore, the only guarantee we have that this will not
happen again is the government's word. It is frightening.
Would she not agree that the only real guarantee for the public
that it will not again be taken advantage of by the government
would be for the Privacy Act to be reviewed as soon as possible,
immediately?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not have to take my
word for it. On May 29 the privacy commissioner's office, in its
press release, said:
The Commissioner sees the department's decision as a recognition
that departments can discharge their responsibilities and do the
necessary research for the benefit of Canadians without
sacrificing their privacy. In the Commissioner's view, the
measures outlined by the Minister balance Canadians' right to
privacy and the government's need for information on which to
base policy decisions.
It is, I say again, the officer of this House responsible for
privacy who supports this undertaking.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
According to the final report of a water issues case study in
March 1998 by Environment Canada:
Given the concern about water safety that we all have
understandably had in the last few days, is the minister's
department now reviewing these cutbacks to see what can be done
to make sure that the federal government is never complicit in
any tragedy like we have experienced?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the hon. member and to the
House that in the two years that has passed since the report that
the hon. member has quoted, there has been more of a
consolidation within the Department of the Environment. We have
increased budget contributions substantially to the Department of
the Environment. We are working closely with the provinces on
the accord on water.
In answer to his very general question, he will in fact have
much better success at finding where responsibilities actually
lie today than two years ago.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is now 15 years since the Pearse report called for a
comprehensive water policy by this government. I can remember a
time in the late 1980s and early 1990s when the member for
Davenport and members of the NDP were calling for a national safe
drinking water act. Pearse himself said that if nothing was
done, that the federal government should show leadership in this.
It is clear that whatever policy we have in place at all levels
is not working now.
Is the federal government prepared to take some initiative in
this area and make sure that this kind of thing never happens
again?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the first question related to a report two years
ago. The next question related to a report 15 years ago.
1430
If the hon. member would persuade the NDP provinces of British
Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to sign on to the national
accord on water, we would be substantially better off. I expect
they will.
* * *
AIRPORTS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this morning the Minister of Transport made some questionable
remarks about the airports at Moncton, Fredericton and Saint
John.
In those remarks he said “I come from Toronto. We have one
airport that serves eight million people. If someone wants to
come there it takes a three hour drive. We are used to that kind
of sacrifice, and I hope that people in New Brunswick could make
some accommodations”.
Is the minister trying to get the people of New Brunswick ready
for news about Saint John, Fredericton or Moncton airports? Where
does the government stand on the future of those airports?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it would be better to pursue this line of
questioning in debate after 3 o'clock. I will be pleased to
participate in that debate.
The point I made is that the marketplace will determine under
the local airport authorities those airports that have the best
means of serving the public.
The point I raised was that while a lot of people had talked
about how far it is to drive to and from the various airports in
New Brunswick, I was contrasting that with the numbers of people
who have to drive to Pearson airport. These are accommodations
that people make on a daily basis. I assume they make them in
Ontario and they make them in New Brunswick.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, that is a nice long answer, but the only conclusion I
can draw is that he is getting the people of New Brunswick ready
for some bad news.
Will the minister just stand and say that Saint John, Moncton
and Fredericton will keep their airports as they have for decades
and decades and decades?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no pretence at all that those airports
should disappear. In fact there is the Moncton Airport Authority
and the Saint John Airport Authority which have 60 year leases
with Transport Canada. We are now in the process of Fredericton
having the same.
How can the hon. member stand in the House and talk about those
airports going or being closed when we have entered into deals
with two and we want to enter into a deal with the third?
* * *
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the revenue minister's track record
in abusing the privacy of Canadians is just as bad as that of the
HRD minister.
Just ask Suzanne Thiessen of Winnipeg, Manitoba. Revenue Canada
turned over her confidential tax information to the Manitoba
Public Insurance Corporation without her authorization. Why can
the government not be trusted with the confidential information
of Canadians?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government can be trusted
with the confidential information of Canadians. We have an
excellent record in that regard.
Only a few days ago some other members in the House were
accusing the government of not providing Revenue Canada
confidential information to people when they thought it was a
good idea.
Under section 241 of the act our government does protect, as it
always should, that kind of information in the interest of all
Canadians and in the interest of our tax system.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let us just have a look at this great
track record to which the minister is referring.
Winnipeg resident Jackie Courteau was appalled to learn that
Revenue Canada had turned over her personal tax information
without authorization. Jackie Courteau has been forced to turn
to the courts because the government refuses to address the
infringement of her privacy.
Why do Canadians have to go to court to protect their privacy
from the government that they elected?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite knows
of all the procedures and all the safeguards that exist at the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. Obviously I will not disclose
publicly a particular case. He would be the first to criticize
it. He actually did so in the preamble so I will not do that.
He knows that even members of parliament need waivers before we
can have confidential information. He knows about the privacy
protection and he knows of the importance of doing so for the
integrity of our tax collection system in Canada, and we respect
that.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canada
Information Office, the propaganda arm of the Liberal Party, as
is well known, has spent $2.7 million on all manner of contracts
to finance Liberal ministers' travels around Quebec.
The minister made the following statement before the standing
committee on government operations, “I can tell you we will
continue to arrange such visits, whether some people like it or
not”.
1435
How can the Minister of Public Works, who is also the chief
organizer of the Liberal Party of Quebec, announce unabashedly
that he is going to continue to dig into public funds to organize
pre-election tours by the Liberal Party?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that
we are going to continue because Quebecers and all Canadians want
to receive information from the government.
The ministerial tours in question are specifically for the
purpose of informing Quebecers about the programs the Government
of Canada has put in place for them, which the Bloc Quebecois
members do not promote. The only thing they promote is
destruction of the country.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is true
that the credibility of Liberal ministers in Quebec is close to
zero. Still, a modicum of decency is in order here.
Administration Leduc et Leblanc received $85,000 in contracts
from the CIO and donated $15,000 to the Liberal Party. GPC
International and Rémi Bujold received $87,000 in CIO contracts
and donated $25,000 to the Liberal Party. Everest received
$75,000 in contracts from the CIO and donated $20,000 to the
Liberal Party.
Is this going to go on much longer, this scandalous use of
public funds, with no bidding process, giving contracts to
buddies of the Liberals in order to get funding for the party?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Information Office
follows Treasury Board guidelines—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano: —and all contracts relating to the
ministerial tour were tendered.
I understand that the Bloc Quebecois does not take kindly to the
ministers' visit to Quebec. It bothers then that Quebecers are
made aware of what the Government of Canada is doing for them.
That is what makes them uncomfortable.
Yes, we are going to continue, because Quebecers are entitled to
have all—
The Speaker: The hon. whip of the official opposition.
* * *
[English]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the HRDC minister has announced that
the big brother database is being dismantled and tax files
returned to Revenue Canada in order to secure the privacy of
Canadians.
Yet in the Thiessen case in Manitoba the privacy commissioner
stated “Personal information was disclosed as a result of
negligence on the part of Revenue Canada”. Given this, why
should Canadians trust the government with their most personal
and private information?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they can trust the government because we
respond to their concerns.
When we look at the longitudinal file that was held in my
department, I want to remind the hon. member opposite that the
privacy commissioner said time and again there had never been any
breaches of that file. He commended the department for ensuring
that information was held secure.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this minister has announced that
information is now being transferred to Revenue Canada and it
certainly cannot be trusted, given its track record.
When CINAR, a Montreal animation company, was investigated for
fraud the RCMP were denied access to CINAR's tax record by the
Privacy Act. Yet when the Manitoba Public Insurance Company
wants tax information on its clients Revenue Canada freely gives
more than it even asks for.
My question is for the revenue minister. Why does his
government protect the tax records of federal fund recipients but
not those of private citizens?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mixing
apples, oranges and bananas together and is not doing a very good
job at making a fruit salad.
The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency makes every effort to
safeguard the security and confidentiality of all client
information. That is what it does.
As a result of our investigation of the allegation of
unauthorized release of confidential information to the Manitoba
commission an internal investigation was undertaken. The
investigation concluded that there in fact was no intent to do
any—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
commissioner of the environment said in his annual report that
the federal government is having a hard time acting on its
commitment to sustainable development. He cited serious
problems in connection with smog, climactic change and
biodiversity.
How can the Minister of the Environment let us think he wants to
act on these issues, when his government offers only fancy words
by way of solutions?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member attentive though she is perhaps has
missed some of my recent speeches at the Globe in Vancouver, in
Toronto and in Seattle. We have stressed time after time—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. David Anderson: On the issue of smog, we have a
three pronged process. We are working with the provinces on
Canada-wide standards on benzine, ozone, particulate matter and
mercury.
We are working with the United States on an ozone annex to the
clean air agreement that we have with them. We expect that to be
signed in November.
We are working directly with the new CEPA, the Canada
Environmental Protection Act, so that we could, as indeed the
Minister of Health and I did only last Saturday, put particulate
matter 10 microns and below on the list of toxic substances. We
have a three pronged approach.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
just heard more words from the Minister of the Environment.
Greenhouse gas emissions were already 13% above the 1990 level
in 1997. They are forecasted to continue increasing.
What is the minister waiting for in order to develop approaches
and strategies for the development of sources of renewable
energy?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once more I thank the hon. member for her pertinent
question. We have had an increase in some greenhouse gas
emissions since the period she suggested, 1990, and particularly,
I might add, since the tremendous burst of economic activity that
took place since 1993 when this government took office.
The result however is that we do have a bigger problem to deal
with greenhouse gases than we would have had if the party over
there had remained in power or that party had taken power,
because then the economy would have collapsed and the problem of
the environment would have disappeared.
I am suggesting that we will have in place in the next five
months a plan to deal with greenhouse gases—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, three weeks ago the minister insisted that golf courses
could not obtain grants from ACOA. In fact his own words were
“For the last five years we have been giving only loans that
have to be paid back”.
In 1998, ACOA approved a $1 million non-repayable contribution
for a golf course in the minister's own riding and, to sweeten
the pot just a bit, HRDC gave it another $200,000. When will the
minister put an end to this boondoggle spending?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member thinks he has made a
hole in one with this one he has double bogeyed again. ACOA does
not fund golf courses. How many times do we have to repeat that?
It did under the Conservative government that was in power prior
to the Liberals, but under the Liberals ACOA does not fund golf
courses at all, not one penny from the ACOA fund.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I guess the Liberals were not in power in 1998. The
minister sounds like a bit of a duffer—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace
River may begin his question.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Someone asked me if it was doofus,
but it was duffer that I said.
Not only is the Atlantic Canada overblown agency a waste of
taxpayer dollars, the program simply does not work.
1445
For the $1.2 million that ACOA and HRDC spent on the golf course
project, the long term benefit will be the equivalent of five
full time jobs at the golf course. That works out to $240,000
per job.
When will the minister discontinue this kind of spending? How
can he possibly justify spending of this kind on golf courses?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the hon. gentleman how
golf courses have been funded in eastern Canada in the Atlantic
provinces.
They have been funded by federal-provincial agreements for such
things as the infrastructure program, being one-third municipal,
one-third provincial and one-third federal. The point is that
the money in Atlantic Canada came through ACOA. It was the
agency that delivered on behalf of the three governments. That
is where the confusion exists. ACOA does not fund golf courses.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his report
tabled today, the commissioner of the environment deplores the
federal government's approach to biosafety and more specifically
to GMOs.
In black and white, the report states that the final bargaining
position, in both Cartagena and Montreal, strongly reflected
Canada's commercial concerns.
Does the Minister of the Environment intend to ratify the
protocol on biosafety, which is currently being discussed, in
order to put human health and the environment ahead of
commercial concerns? Will he sign the protocol?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
It is true that there is a difficulty facing many countries in
the world, in fact all trading nations, in making sure that
environmental considerations are taken fully into account when
economic decisions on trade are made.
Nevertheless, in Montreal in January we managed to agree to the
Cartagena protocol on biodiversity. We think that provides a
real opportunity for all the nations of the world under the
United Nations to move successfully to reconcile these
difficulties.
* * *
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the access to information commissioner tabled a report
today in which he expressed concern about the time it takes the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration to process access to
information requests.
Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell the House
what she plans to do to address the commissioner's concerns?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner actually
acknowledged the excellent progress that citizenship and
immigration has made in meeting the requirements.
Last year we were at 51% and this year we are at 75%. We are
hoping to improve that record so that we can join the privy
council office and Health Canada, which both received an A
this year with 95%.
I want to point out one thing. When I went to high school 75%
was an A. While we have to do better to achieve the 95%
required by the information commissioner to get his A, we
are making progress and we do want to do better.
* * *
ACOA
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in
charge of ACOA.
He said they did not fund one penny for a golf course in his
first answer. In his second answer he said that golf course
funding is one-third municipal, one-third provincial and
one-third federal. If ACOA did not fund it, where did the
one-third federal money come from?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure program was a national
program. It gave funds right across the country on the same
principle: one-third federal, one-third provincial and one-third
municipal.
However, in the case of Atlantic Canada the funds were delivered
through ACOA on behalf of the federal government. The funds did
not come from the ACOA budget. ACOA does not fund golf courses.
1450
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister can play golf
better than he can answer this question.
Could the minister explain? He talks about one-third,
one-third, one-third. We understand that one-third came from the
federal government. The federal government is the taxpayer.
Will the minister agree that one-third of the funding for a golf
course in his riding came from the taxpayers of Canada?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the research work
from the official opposition be improved.
The last time the hon. member asked a question on ACOA it was
alleged that ACOA gave grants to big corporations like Global and
IBM. After we checked we found out that the so-called grant to
Global was for studio time and the IBM grant was $29.40 for a
floppy disk. Their research work is a flop.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, today's report from the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development exposed the government's
failure to deliver on a range of environmental promises.
For example, the commissioner says that the government and the
provinces have been talking about smog reduction for 10 years,
but that virtually nothing has been done. This deadly smog kills
an estimated 5,000 Canadians every year.
Last week the minister did begin to play catch up, but the
government has been in power for seven years. What has taken so
long and how does the minister explain this lack of leadership?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once more one of these questions from the NDP, which
is stuck in the past.
I outlined to the House very recently the steps that are being
taken on smog. This requires international action with the
Americans on the ozone annex. It requires co-operation with the
provinces, including the three provinces which have NDP
governments, on Canada-wide standards for things like benzene,
mercury, ozone, as well as particulate matter and others.
We then have domestic Canadian actions, which the Minister of
Health and I are undertaking under the new CEPA which came into
effect April 1.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it was the environment commissioner himself who said
this morning that we need leadership, not more talk.
The government has promised to lead by example, but today's
report shows that government departments do not even know how
much water they use, how much electricity they use or how much
waste they produce.
How can the government set targets for the efficient use of
water and electricity or greenhouse gas reductions if it does not
even have this basic information about itself? How can Canadians
trust the government to clean up their environment when it cannot
even begin to manage its own?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know this is question period
and when he asks a question and gets words he should not complain
about hearing talk. That seems to be ridiculous.
With respect to the programs we are putting in place, I trust
the NDP will support us and make sure the provincial governments
which are controlled by the NDP similarly support us because, as
the commissioner made clear, it is the failure of the provinces
to proceed which is at the core of our problem.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
A short while ago I asked the minister for an indefinite rate
freeze on the ferry run from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland and the
minister scoffed at the idea. Even though this ferry route is
essentially part of the Trans-Canada Highway, the cost of travel
on it is much higher than an equivalent trip by road.
Given the importance of the ferry link to the future development
of Newfoundland, and given that P.E.I. now has a fixed link, why
can we not have our fixed rate?
1455
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I might remind the hon. member that there has been
no increase for three years. Recently on a trip to St. John's I
said that we had no intention of increasing the tariffs this
year.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
asked the minister about freezing the rate.
Given that he continues to evade that answer, let me try him on
this one. Quite often the threat of a strike by workers disrupts
tourists headed for Newfoundland. Given the importance of this
ferry link to the economy of Newfoundland, would the minister
consider having that service declared an essential service with
no strikes facing the travelling public and some form of binding
arbitration for the workers?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, these are questions that really should be addressed
to my colleague, the Minister of Labour.
However, there are ongoing discussions and some disagreements
among the workforce as the result of the temporary ferry, the
Max Mols, coming into service this summer. I hope that the
collective agreements will be used to settle those particular
disputes.
I might say that this government delivered on extra ferry
capacity for the gulf service this summer. We are going to give
Newfoundlanders the best service they have ever had. There will
be no more rotting vegetables, no more rotting meat, no more
stranded passengers. There will be first class service for a
first class travelling public.
* * *
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration inform the House as to the status of the criminal
prosecution of the nine people accused of people smuggling with
the boat arrivals off the coast of British Columbia last summer?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, people smuggling is an international
issue and every country of the world that cares as Canada does
about both trafficking and smuggling is taking action to address
this matter.
At the present time there are charges before Canadian courts
and, while I cannot speak to the individual cases, what I can
tell the member is that it is the intention of this government to
prosecute to the full extent of the law so that we can send the
strongest possible message to those who would traffic in human
lives and smuggle people around this world. That is our policy.
* * *
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on March 17 CSIS released a southeast Asian security
report written by Professor Peter Chalk of Queensland University
in Australia. That report identifies the Federation of
Associations of Canadian Tamils as one of the most active and
vital fundraising bodies for the Tamil Tigers.
When the finance minister said yesterday that he likes to
celebrate the cultural heritage of such groups, what exactly does
he mean; that Tamil Tigers supporters wearing combat fatigues and
carrying replica assault rifles in a Toronto elementary school,
as pictured in today's National Post, is the sort of thing
Canadians should celebrate?
The Speaker: Before the minister answers, I find that the
question does not relate directly to the duties of the minister.
However, I see that he is on his feet. If he wishes to answer
he may, but the question is out of order.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that the question is out of order.
The motivation behind it is out of order as well.
This was a cultural event, with a group of Canadians celebrating
the Tamil new year. These were young people. They were
professional people. They were people with a vast range of
occupations who had come to celebrate a period of enjoyment. The
minister and I and others from the provincial government and
municipal governments were there.
To condemn these people, to call them terrorists, is
anti-Canadian. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is Irish
blood coursing through my veins, and I am not a member of the
IRA.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Bloc Quebecois moved amendments requiring Air Canada
subsidiaries to comply with the Official Languages Act.
The Minister of Transport opposed these amendments and thus
jeopardized a significant presence of francophones in the
airline industry.
With the warning from the Association des Gens de l'Air du
Québec, does the Minister of Transport not realize that, by
rejecting our amendments, he has himself compromised the
francophone presence in Canada's airline industry?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Not at
all, Mr. Speaker, because we introduced amendments to give full
expression to the feelings of francophones and to provide means
of ensuring good service to francophones throughout the country.
If there is a problem in future, it can be addressed in another
bill, but it is very important that this bill be passed as
quickly as possible. I must point out that consideration of the
bill in the House has been concluded and that it is now before
the Senate.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
president of the CBC has said that the broadcaster is not a
priority for the government and that the CBC is on life support
due to underfunding.
Due to passionate protests by Canadians from coast to coast, the
CBC has pulled back from axing regional shows entirely. But the
problem remains and it is one of money and political will.
My question is for the finance minister. At a time when the
federal coffers are overflowing, why is it that the government is
leaving the CBC, one of our most revered national institutions,
on life support?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is
not totally fair to the president of the CBC. What he did say,
and he did correct his statement at committee when the member was
there, was that the priority was not to add money to the current
envelope of $901 million plus what CBC can get from the
television production fund.
For the member to say that the CBC is not a priority is totally
erroneous. The president of the CBC said no such a thing.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, here we
go again. Today the commissioner for the environment released
another damning report over the government's dismal environment
record. He pointed out the government's lack to grasp or
understand the benefits of aggressive tax incentives to support
energy efficiency initiatives, not just lip service. Alberta's
environment minister, Gary Mar, has recognized the need for this
particular initiative in his best effort strategy.
Is the reason the government continues to flounder on climate
change because the Minister of the Environment is fighting over
the file with the Minister of Natural Resources, because the
Prime Minister has no grasp of the file, or because the finance
minister has no clue what a tax cut is?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in terms of internal political battles within a
party, we certainly will say that the Tories have far more
experience and are much better at it than we are. They have many
more corpses on the floor.
I would say to the member that he has chosen the one minister of
the environment from all the provinces, who drives the largest
SUV with the worst gas mileage, to cite as his example for the
rest of us. I think it is quite ridiculous that he would make
such a suggestion.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of His Excellency, Mr. Dieng Boubou
Farba, Speaker of the Senate of the Islamic Republic of
Mauritania.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, before question period I was talking
about toll roads as being one method by which some governments
have seen fit to put spending back into roads.
I received a letter from Bruce Law from the Lundar area of
Manitoba. His opinion was that tolls on roads are another form
of taxation. He was also concerned that the money collected from
tolls on a specific road or bridge would eventually find its way
to another fund. There is an element of distrust on the part of
many Canadians with regard to the government taking in user fees,
tolls and those sorts of thing for a specific purpose and then
using those moneys for a totally unrelated initiative.
While I recognize that provincial jurisdiction primarily
prevails in regard to highways, the federal government does take
in the larger portion of tax money from Canadians and, as a
result, has a responsibility not only for the national highway
system but also to assist the provinces with their major roads.
The reason we have a crisis in transportation, particular on
roads, is because the government has given no long term plan in
conjunction with the provinces for infrastructure. It has
indicated no long term funding. It is more a case of letting it
get bad, letting it become a crisis and then it will do
something.
With regard to the railways, in the past, when the Government of
Canada owned the Canadian National Railway it was at the height
of being a regulated system. However, we saw that the Canadian
National Railway, in its contracts with employees and different
things, was a very inefficient railway. It signed contracts out
of convenience. It made it hard for the normal competitive
commercial industry. It is only now, with Canadian National
being a private company, that we see it moving toward a more
efficient system.
We see some of the same problems that Canadian National Railway
had showing up in the case of VIA Rail. It is my personal
opinion that the user fees being charged by VIA Rail are probably
not sufficient and should be a little higher. As long as VIA
Rail is totally protected from the marketplace, I think it will
continue to have to be highly subsidized by the federal
government. There needs to be some marketplace discipline
associated with the operations of VIA Rail.
My final comment on transportation and this supply day motion is
with regard to the airline industry.
This is a current issue that is underdeveloped and is continuing
to evolve. However, the one thing I do know is that we need
airline competition in this country, real competition that puts
the consumer and the air traveller first, not second.
1510
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the member with regards to the
transportation policy or the lack of a transportation policy.
I think the member would agree that there is a huge difference
between western and eastern Canada. I contend that one of the
reasons that eastern Canada does not have the economic clout that
it should have and deserves to have is because of a lack of a
cohesive transportation policy that allows us to transport goods
in and out of Atlantic Canada. This goes back to the free trade
debate in 1988.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, and I know the member knows, the
party opposite railed against the free trade debate. After
forming the government, it embraced it as if it had invented it.
If there has been any shortcoming in that free trade agreement
with the Americans, it is the fact that we never actually
developed transportation links in Atlantic Canada heading north
and south which would have allowed us to move our goods out of
the area. This has hampered development in Atlantic Canada.
To this day I cannot understand why the government has not come
up with a policy that recognizes that difficulty. From
confederation up until 1988, our trade links were east and west
which benefited, for the most part, central Canada.
Does the member have any understanding as to why the national
government, the Liberal government of the day, has not addressed
the problem of modern transportation to our neighbours to the
south?
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I agree with those
comments in general. The Liberals do have a history of saying
one thing, doing another and not living up to promises. The
member pointed out many times the example of the GST.
The maritimes and western Canada do have a lot of similarities
as well as some differences. The similarities are that they are
small in population and that they have limited influence in the
Parliament of Canada at times when Ontario and Quebec seem to
hold sway.
The west has traditionally had north-south trade routes but they
were artificially changed by government policies. The Crow rate
was one example of artificial regulation by the federal
government that did not let normal commercial patterns develop. I
think the maritimes suffered from that same situation.
What the government should now do is make sure that trade
between the maritimes and the United States is not hampered and
that there is harmonization in any area where there is a need,
for instance on trucking regulations and criteria like that.
The member has a valid comment in that the federal government
should make sure there is road infrastructure. It should also
get out of the way of the railways so that they can put in the
type of rail service that is needed to deliver goods both north
and south from the maritimes to the U.S.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, our point with this motion today is not actually on
specific issues but on the concept, approach and inconsistency of
the transport policies and unco-ordinated approaches. I am sure
the hon. member does not have the 1999-2000 estimates at his
fingertips, but I will read a couple of numbers for him and ask
him to comment on them.
1515
In the estimates for transport the government has allowed for
funds to pay provinces under the elimination of the Atlantic
regional freight subsidy program. The province of New Brunswick
for instance gets $500,000 under the elimination of the Atlantic
regional freight subsidy program whereas the province of Quebec
gets $15,747,000. Perhaps the hon. member could comment on why
the province of Quebec gets $15.7 million and the province of New
Brunswick only gets a half a million dollars under the
elimination of the Atlantic regional freight program.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, certainly I do not know
the details of those agreements. No doubt there is some
justification for Quebec receiving more. It is a much larger
province with its economy being that much larger. I am sure it
was prorated on an equitable basis. If it was not, I would ask
that the member submit the figures which show that it was done on
an inequitable basis or in preference of one province over the
other.
The bigger issue in rail transportation is that the federal
government continues to want to highly regulate and micromanage
every aspect of the rail economy when it comes to grain
transportation in the west. I am not sure what the major use of
rail transportation is in the east. Certainly logging is a major
issue there and mining is coming along with the nickel mines.
Railways are important in the east too.
It is a matter of the government making sure that the
marketplace is free to work in the manner in which it was meant
to. It should not be artificially designed through freight rate
subsidies to help one region over the other. That probably did
not occur with Quebec and New Brunswick.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was particularly interested in the comment made by the member
of the Conservative Party who said that his party put the motion
not to deal with specifics but rather to deal with the big
picture. I am not surprised. I do not think the Conservatives
would want to deal with specifics when we consider that at their
recent policy conference they approved $23 billion a year to be
spent in debt reduction and over $100 billion over five years for
tax relief.
Just about everybody who knows anything about what is going on
around here knows that the total surplus that has been announced
as available is about $95 billion. Both private sector and
government figures have confirmed that. I would not want to get
into specifics too much about a transportation policy if my
party's policy called for spending in the area of tax relief and
debt reduction $123 billion out of a surplus of $95 billion. That
would not leave a lot for specifics or spending on
transportation. That was just a side point with regard to the
member's comment.
When talking about national transportation in this country, it
is most helpful if there has been an opportunity to travel in
Canada and see exactly what our transportation networks are
about. I recently had the distinct privilege of spending four
days with my wife travelling through Nova Scotia up into Cape
Breton and around the Cabot Trail. I would also point out that
it is a province which is represented by many Progressive
Conservatives.
We had the pleasure of landing in Halifax, renting a vehicle and
travelling to Digby. Members will know that Digby scallops are
the finest in the world. We enjoyed the wonderful friendship of
the people, the seafood, the ambience. Interestingly, we enjoyed
some incredible highways. Having travelled in every province in
this country, the transportation network in Nova Scotia is second
to none. It is quite remarkable.
We drove almost 2,000 kilometres exactly. When we got the
rental car back to the airport, we had done 2,000 kilometres
around Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.
I do not intend to give a travelogue, but I was so impressed with
the quality of the roads, the lack of congestion, the monitoring,
the safety and everything that I saw. Of course to do that kind
of mileage we were in the vehicle eight and nine hours a day
travelling from point to point.
1520
We left Digby and went up through Mahone Bay. My wife did a bit
of shopping. This was a vacation opportunity for us to see that
part of Canada. We went into Lunenburg and from there up to
Truro where we spent the night. Once again I was immensely
impressed with the quality of the roads. Even the roads that
were off the beaten path seemed to be very well maintained.
From there we travelled across the Canso Causeway into Cape
Breton and the home of Al MacInnis, a terrific hockey player in
the NHL. We went up what I believe is the north coast of Cape
Breton Island along the Cabot Trail. It was spectacular scenery
but I must say quite spectacular roadways. The Cabot Trail of
course is historic and known throughout the world. There is a
transportation system that is truly a marvel. We went right into
Sydney, then on the last day from Sydney down the south coast and
back through the heartland to the Trans-Canada Highway at
Antigonish and from Antigonish back into Halifax. We flew home
the next day.
My point is that the quality of the roads was superb. The
traffic management systems were superb. It is interesting to
have the party that represents most of the ridings in that
province, unfortunately for us at the moment, telling us that we
need some kind of transportation strategy. I think Nova Scotia
has obviously done very well.
On other occasions I have had the privilege of driving from
Halifax through New Brunswick and across the bridge into Prince
Edward Island. The fixed link is truly a wonder of the world. It
finally brings P.E.I. into the world of modern transportation. I
am not 100% sold that the islanders necessarily want to be
brought into that world. I think they quite enjoy their
beautiful island and are happy to be left alone in some
instances. But in all seriousness, they understand the
importance not only for tourism, but also for moving goods to and
from their island for export. They are very successful in
exporting a number of their products, in addition to potatoes.
On the east coast we see a situation where transportation on the
roads is second to none. I did not hear members opposite
representing the Conservative Party say that. If I lived in that
province I would be shouting about the successes that exist in
that spectacular part of Canada. I would be telling Canadians to
come and enjoy Nova Scotia, Halifax, the Cabot Trail, Sydney,
Rita MacNeil's beautiful tearoom in Big Pond and all of the
spectacular things that are there, and to admit that there is a
physical infrastructure in place in that province that is second
to none.
It brings me to the concept of a national policy. Let us look
at Ontario. People would recognize in my case at least, I come
from the city of Mississauga where one of the great strengths is
the transportation available to us on the Great Lakes, on the
roads, on the rail system and certainly in the air with Pearson
International Airport.
There has been some concern about toll roads. The province has
sold Highway 407 to a private sector consortium which in turn
will be increasing the tolls to replace the income that was lost
in the share that goes to the government.
There is a double sided edge with toll roads. Was it Nova
Scotia that eliminated the toll road? The member opposite would
know.
An hon. member: New Brunswick.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: It was New Brunswick. I thought it
was. Premier Lord closed the toll road.
The problem is that it is fine to do that, because I am not
particularly a fan of toll roads, but what was it replaced with?
It drove up the debt.
1525
The federal party has decided to endorse that. I guess that is
not a great shock when we consider the fact that the
Conservatives left a $42 billion deficit when they were in
government. They shout over there because they hate for us to
remind them of that, but it is the truth and it needs to be told.
It needs to be spoken about because the obvious solution to
their spending plans is to somehow take us back into the era of
deficit financing.
I am really surprised at that. I would have thought that the
Progressive Conservative Party had learned its lesson and had
realized that the running of deficits every year is like running
an overdraft. I have said it many times. When they run an
overdraft, how do they pay it off? They pay it off by piling it
on top of the national debt. If we equate it to a family, it
would run an overdraft and pay it off by putting it on top of the
mortgage on the family home. We all know we can only do that for
so long. At some point in time something has got to give.
We do not have the answers. It is so easy to stand and
pontificate, as the Conservatives have done in their motion, that
we need to address the serious transportation problems facing the
Canadian people. They do not have any specifics. They do not
have any answers. They do not have any solutions they are
prepared to put forward. They simply want to say that someone
has to fix this problem.
Let us address the problem. I have already spoken about what
would appear not to be a problem. Look at the shipping which
comes into Halifax harbour. Are they going to tell us that there
is not an infrastructure in the harbour in Halifax to accommodate
international ocean-going vessels that come there on a regular
basis? Are they going to tell us that the airport in Halifax is
not capable of handling the traffic that comes into that
province? Are they going to sit there and tell us that their
province is full of congested roads with potholes when we know
that it is not true?
I would suggest that the crisis they are talking about is a
fabrication in their own minds. It is all because of one issue.
It has to do with the so-called merger, although it is more of a
takeover, of Canadian Airlines by Air Canada. Let us analyze
that. Certainly there have been and will continue to be some
route justifications in parts of the country, but the government
realizes the importance of providing good quality service in the
air. Look at the size of the country. We cannot expect that
people are going to be able to get around without some kind of a
national airline system.
The cry is that we need more competition. I hear the official
opposition—I can never remember the new name, I am going to have
to sit down and write it out 100 times or something, but whatever
it is, the reform alliance conservative progressive whatever—
Mr. Stan Keyes: CCRAP.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Oh, I would not say that. This is a
family show so I cannot use that.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On
numerous occasions the Speaker has ruled that the name of this
party should be used as it is properly registered. It is
Canadian Alliance and I would urge the member not to demonstrate
his total inability to learn two words by actually using the name
Canadian Alliance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Mississauga West is correctly admonished and I hope illuminated
and elucidated.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I have two words for the
member and they are not Canadian Alliance, but that is another
story.
I stand to be corrected but I think that it is the Canadian
Conservative Reform Alliance Party. That is five words. That is
the registered name or something like that. There are five words
in the registered name, not two, so if the member thinks that I
have a problem, maybe that explains why.
However, I want to get back to the issue of a national
transportation strategy, because the reform party, or the
Alliance Party, pardon me—
Mr. Ken Epp: Canadian Alliance.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The Canadian Alliance Party. They have
a party. I will call them what they want but the people will
understand what they are voting for, believe me.
They will be voting for the same old thing when they get an
opportunity after the same leader is re-elected. We know that.
1530
We also know that party's position. By the way, they are all
over the map in this regard. The position of the official
opposition is that all transportation issues should be run by the
private sector, that there is no reason for government to be
involved in providing any kind of infrastructure. Its own
members have criticized the infrastructure program.
They love to throw around the word boondoggle. I think they
learned it as a new phrase this year when they were away at a
caucus retreat. We can just see them all gathering around going
boondoggle, boondoggle. Anyway, they learned this word and have
suggested that the infrastructure program is in some way not a
proper expenditure of federal government money.
There has never been in my view a more successful uptake of a
program that I can recall than the infrastructure program
launched in 1993. Why? Because it involved the entire
community. It was not the government coming out, cutting a
ribbon and passing out a cheque: “Me and the Prime Minister
brung you the cheque”. It was not done that way. There was
involvement with the municipalities across Canada. All the
provinces had an opportunity.
Some hon. members: Nonsense.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: How can members opposite say that is
nonsense? It is absolutely the truth. There was involvement
with the private sector, the municipal sector, the provincial
government, the territorial governments and the federal
government. It was a true partnership. By and large, with a few
exceptions, the money was used to build core infrastructure which
included things like sewers, water pipes and roads.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Don't forget the golf courses.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: We need roads to get to the golf
course. There are some beautiful ones in his part of the world.
The roads to get there are wonderful. I was not talking about
them. I was talking about the official opposition and its
position.
Here is a statement by the member for St. Albert, a man for whom
I have respect as chair of the public accounts committee. I
serve as vice-chair. It is meeting at the moment so I will try
to hurry. The member for St. Albert said that the newly
announced infrastructure program had all the makings to become
another administrative fiasco.
Was it an administrative fiasco in 1993? No. Was it a success?
Absolutely. It was a success from sea to sea to sea. It seems
that members of the official opposition in particular cannot take
yes for an answer. If we looked in every one of their ridings in
addition to the Conservative ridings that I referred to, I
suspect we would find infrastructure programs where the entire
community including the provinces were all involved in delivering
high quality transportation systems to the people.
Let us ask another question. We all know that opposition
parties submit closet budgets, phantom budgets, would be budgets
or hoped for budgets. How much money did the official opposition
budget for transportation infrastructure? Never mind the Tories.
We know what the Conservatives have done. They said they would
spend about $30 billion more than already is available on debt
reduction and tax reduction to help their rich friends. They
would not do anything for transportation except maybe pray to the
sky and hope that someone would solve the big picture problem.
How much has the official opposition put in? Nothing. How can
its members stand with any kind of credibility and vote for a
motion like this one? What do they call their alternative
budget? They call it solution 17.
In their budget there was not one dollar, not one loonie, toonie,
or anything for transportation infrastructure. Their finance
critic wrote about an alternative budget. He put the entire
surplus of $95 billion over the next five years toward a plan of
tax cuts in debt retirement. The official opposition is actually
a bit better than the fifth party. The reason is it has spent
all the surplus whereas the fifth party spent the surplus plus
$30 billion and still did nothing for transportation.
1535
I listen to the policies and to the ongoing leadership debate in
the official opposition. I listen to candidates like Tom Long
from Ontario. He goes around the country and gives one message
in the west and another one in the east. He insists on telling
people that he will cut their taxes and get an economic boom
going in the country even though we are currently sustaining an
unprecedented economic boom that is second to none.
It is amazing to see what is going on all over the country. All
we have to do is travel to find out. Yet we have no commitment
from any of the candidates who would be prime minister of this
great land on what they would do for transportation
infrastructure. At the same time we have a fifth party who
stands in this place and whose leader will not run for a seat in
the House. I wish he would. I would love to see him in here.
I should officially welcome the new member from St. John's to
his new seat. I guess they did not tell him that it would be
that far back in the corner. I am sure, with his credentials,
that he will be moving up. He is a former minister of education
in the wonderful province of Newfoundland. I sincerely welcome
him to the House and into the fray.
Hopefully he will bring some good old down home Newfie common
sense and recognize that when you put forward a statement on a
national transportation policy you should try to gild the lily a
bit and include some specifics. You should not just stand to
make grandiose statements that everybody else should fix all the
problems, especially when you come from a part of the country
where you would be hard pressed to try to convince anyone who has
been there that transportation is not in any kind of difficulty.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I find it interesting that the hon. member who just
finished speaking has been in the House for many years and does
not even yet know the most rudimentary rules of this place. For
example, he spoke about our new colleague in the first person. He
cannot learn anything. He cannot learn the name of our party. He
is clueless.
I have two or three questions or comments. The first one is
with respect to debt retirement. We in the Canadian Alliance are
promoting that we should get the debt reduced because it has a
huge impact on our budget. Large amounts of money go to pay
interest. To retire our present debt in 25 years would mean
applying a total of $50 billion in surplus every year for 25
years to pay the principle and interest on it. That is assuming
that interest rates do not rise too much above what they are now.
I do not think that I will get—
Mr. Stan Keyes: From where will you get the money?
Mr. Ken Epp: The question is from where will we get the
money. That is a good question. Meanwhile the Liberals are
trying to figure out how to spend the bit of surplus they get.
They should be applying more of it toward the debt. That is
exactly my point.
The other question I have is for the hon. member who gave his
speech and not the parliamentary secretary who feels obliged to
heckle me while I am making this wonderful dissertation.
Mr. Stan Keyes: You cannot get it right. I am not a
parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Ken Epp: Are you not a parliamentary secretary?
Mr. Stan Keyes: Not for over a year now.
Mr. Ken Epp: The hon. member is not a parliamentary
secretary. He could be but he is not.
1540
In his speech the member indicated that the infrastructure
program had nothing to do with politics. Then I have a very
simple question. If it does not involve politics, why is it that
the cheque was delivered by none other than the Liberal Minister
of Justice who found it necessary to travel to my riding in a big
flurry for only one purpose, to deliver the cheque?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister
wanted to ensure that the cheque arrived safely. I am not sure
why it was done. In any event, it is nice that the member has
acknowledged that indeed the cheque did arrive and the project
was a go.
Let me just make one correction. I referred to the newest
member in the House as the member from St. John's. Some may
think he is a saint. People in his riding may think he is a
saint but that is not his name. I did not refer to him in the
first person. I referred to him as the member from St. John's.
There are five names in your new silly party, not two. You
should perhaps learn them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Let us just stop
there and stick to the debate on transportation at hand.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I guess you could say he
started it but I will not get into that. Who cares? You are
right, Mr. Speaker. We should stick to the debate on
transportation. That is the important thing.
It is important that we pay down the debt and the government has
started to do it. If we put all our eggs in one basket we wind
up with nothing but broken eggs. That is exactly what the
official opposition is doing.
Speaking of eggs, if we take a look at the policy of the fifth
party, that is exactly what it is doing. Its members are not
only putting all the eggs in one basket. They are adding eggs to
it that they do not even have yet, that the chicken has not laid
yet. How in the world will they fill a basket with non-existent
eggs?
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the nice travelogue about
Nova Scotia. He is absolutely right. It is entirely beautiful.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: A great transportation system.
Mr. Bill Casey: Yes, there are some good highways in Nova
Scotia, but there are also some bad ones. It is interesting that
he missed those highways. He missed the 101 where in the last
few years 50 young people have been killed because there is no
federal-provincial agreement to upgrade that highway. For
decades there was money available from the federal government to
be applied to main highways, but now there is none. Not one cent
is budgeted for this year or next year in Nova Scotia where for
years there was money to address those dangerous issues.
I want to go through some of the points he made. He mentioned
that the fixed link is a wonderful piece of transportation
infrastructure. He is absolutely right. That was a Conservative
project right from beginning to end.
He did not mention the toll highways in Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. He missed the toll highways in his travelogue. He
went all around the toll highways. He did not go across the toll
highways. He probably does not like paying tolls any more than
we do every day of coming and going. He avoided that toll
highways.
I will tell the hon. member who did not avoid the toll highways.
It was the voters in the last elections in Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. We cannot find a Liberal anywhere near either of the
toll highways in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. The hon. member
may think the Liberal policy is great, but I can tell him the
voters know that it is not a good policy.
He went on to talk about the great port of Halifax. He is
absolutely right. There is infrastructure there, but last year
when Halifax needed help to compete with other ports in the
United States for post-Panamax containers where was the federal
government? It was hiding somewhere. It was completely
invisible. Even though other governments in other countries
helped, Canada did not help the port of Halifax and it lost that
competition.
The hon. member mentioned that we were complaining about
potholes. We are not complaining about potholes in our
infrastructure. We have a highway in Nova Scotia, to go back to
the highway that he missed, highway 101. It is between Halifax
and a large university community. Some 50 people have been
killed on that highway since 1993. A lot of them were young
people. We are not talking about potholes. We are talking about
serious business.
I want to read something from the Globe and Mail this
morning and then have him comment on it. It is a comment about
France's policy on highway reconstruction. It reads:
According to Le Figaro, even though France has Europe's
third highest road mortality rate...bureaucrats won't fix deadly
stretches of highway if the work costs most than...$750,000.
German planners, however, will spend up to $937,000 to save a
life while the Swiss will go as high as $2 million.
We have a highway in Nova Scotia on which we have lost 50 lives
in seven years and not one penny has been assigned to Nova Scotia
for highway work this year. I would like to hear the member's
comment on that.
1545
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about issues
concerning young people who are killed on what could be
considered low grade roads, those are not matters which should be
bantered about in this place. These are matters on which all
levels of government have to work together. They all have a
responsibility.
By the way, I was close to that highway, but the hon. member is
right in that we turned off at Highway 104 to go into Halifax.
The Government of Nova Scotia has a strong responsibility within
its local community, if it has those kinds of tragic numbers, to
ensure the road is upgraded. As I have said, and the hon. member
has agreed, it has managed to do it throughout the entire
province with a transportation system that is second to none. If
the hon. member can point to the stretch of highway that has had
the carnage and loss of lives of the nature and the magnitude he
has just told us about, then I believe he should take it up with
the minister of transportation in that province and he should ask
that it be addressed as quickly as possible.
We have problems in our own communities. In Ontario young
people are killed on our roads. Tragedies occur and we must do
something to stop them. We must continue to fight drunk driving.
We must continue to educate our young people through better
licensing programs and better education to try to deal with the
carnage on our roads. To turn it into a political issue by
saying that the federal government has somehow not addressed a
national roads policy or a national transportation policy and to
use that kind of statistic is most unfortunate.
I would support the hon. member in his attempts to have that
road upgraded and fixed so that we can put an end to the terrible
tragedies.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is unfortunate that I did not have a chance to
question the hon. member from Ontario who just spoke. As usual,
he is fast and free with the information, but when he is taken to
task by anyone in the House to either back up what he is saying
or provide us with some real information, he always falls short
of the mark. Is that not the Liberal way? We have been waiting
seven years for a national highways program. The hon. member
completely ducked the issue because the Liberals do not want to
take responsibility. It is as simple as that.
This year, just as a note, the federal government will take in
about $4 billion in fuel taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel.
Transport Canada will have a surplus of approximately $3.9
billion this year, but again there is no highway policy.
I want to compare our position with that of the United States to
give an example of where we are really falling behind in terms of
infrastructure; that is, highways and those things that are
needed, whether it is highways or air transportation, to move our
goods and people around and to grow the economy as we would like
to see it grow.
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member
for West Nova. I am sure you will be interested to hear another
Nova Scotian go into detail on some of the shortcomings of the
federal government in that province.
Getting back to our case versus that of the United States, just
a couple of years ago the President of the United States
announced the TEA-21, the transportation equity act for the 21st
century. I have a summary of the act which I would be pleased to
table for any member who might want to take a look at it.
On June 9, 1998, President Clinton signed into law the
transportation equity act for the 21st century. This guaranteed
a level of federal funding for surface transportation. I will
give an example of how much the Americans are putting in at the
federal level on highways alone.
1550
The amount guaranteed for surface transportation under that act
is estimated to be $198 billion. In essence, the guaranteed
amount is the floor. It defines the least amount of the
authorizations that may be spent. The least amount that would be
spent is $198 billion. Let us assume, and for the most part
everyone would agree with me, that the American economy is
basically ten times that of Canada's. At a minimum, if Canada
were to reflect what the U.S. is doing, we would be spending $20
billion on surface transportation in this country. We simply are
not doing that. We are falling behind.
The member for Cumberland—Colchester mentioned the number of
deaths on the infamous Highway 101 in Nova Scotia. There have
been over 50 deaths in the last seven years alone.
Not only from the public safety point of view should the federal
government be doing something, but also from the standpoint of
growing the economy.
I had a question for one of the Reform members—
Mr. Ken Epp: The Canadian Alliance.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Excuse me, the Canadian Alliance.
The question concerned the free trade agreement. We remember
the huge debate that we had in 1988 leading into the election.
In fact, the 1988 election was called the free trade election
because that was the number one issue that dominated the
hustings. We know that the Liberals, in fact every member seated
opposite, raged against the free trade agreement.
When the Liberals took office in 1993 the economy was growing
and it has been grown ever since. We have not had a downturn
since they took office. Eventually it will happen and none of us
wants to see that. However, the truth is that the Canadian
economy has grown largely because of our export capacity, largely
because of the free trade agreement which they railed against,
but now they embrace it as if they invented it. We know full well
they did not invent it. In fact, they were going to tear it up.
They were going to nullify it.
With that growth in the economy comes an obligation on the part
of government to do something about transportation. What I am
leading to is that there are some parts of the country which are
suffering because of our transportation links. One of those
areas is Atlantic Canada. Unfortunately, the Canadian Alliance,
formerly the Reform Party, looks at Atlantic Canada and says
“What is wrong with you people? Why can you not get your act
together? Why do you not have the kind of prosperity that we
witness in western Canada, particularly Alberta and B.C., or the
type of economic growth that we see in Ontario?” That party
misses the point that we have been trying to make for years in
this House, particularly the last three or four years, with
respect to transportation. If we are going to grow the economy
we have to have links in and out of our provinces to trade goods,
which other areas of the country have been able to do
successfully. Ontario has great transportation links to the
United States.
We embraced the free trade agreement, along with the Liberal
premier of New Brunswick at the time, because we saw it as an
opportunity to enhance our markets to the south of us, because we
are always forced to trade east and west from one end of Canada
to the other. Since then we have not seen growth in
infrastructure, particularly highways, to move our goods and
people in and out as efficiently as might be the case. That has
certainly hampered us.
1555
I really believe the government has a responsibility to build
that infrastructure. What we are saying is, give us a chance to
compete and we will compete successfully, which we are doing.
However, we are certainly denied some of the growth that other
parts of Canada have experienced because of the lack of efficient
transportation in and out of Atlantic Canada.
To add insult to injury, when the member for
Cumberland—Colchester questioned the minister in the House
today, the minister alluded to the airport in Toronto and the
travelling time of two to three hours for people travelling to
that airport. He inferred that in the province of New Brunswick
we will at some point be left with one airport. Which one will
it be? Will it be Moncton, Saint John or Fredericton? The
government does not understand Atlantic Canada and it is not
willing to do anything to help Atlantic Canada. It does not
understand the big picture.
My party is saying that the government has to come up with a
policy. The Liberals cannot fly by the seat of their pants on
every issue. They have done it on health care and
transportation, and the Canadian public will simply not tolerate
that type of make it up as they go along, fly by the seat of
their pants attitude.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I want to compliment my colleague from the Conservative Party on
his perspective as an Atlantic Canadian.
I would concur with him that for far too long those of us in the
Atlantic region have been disadvantaged because of the historical
trading links that went east to west. At the time of
Confederation, we in the Atlantic region gave up the natural
north-south trading routes, and we did so in good faith. As the
member said, today we find that without the necessary
infrastructure it is difficult to compete.
I would question my colleague on the issue of airports because I
found his comments to be most interesting. We have a small
airport in Cape Breton that is absolutely essential if we are to
develop and grow an economic base. Yet we are threatened at
various times with the loss of the flight service station and the
loss of the people who operate the runway. We have been told
that this could be centralized and done from Halifax.
The member spoke about the loss of two airports in New
Brunswick, but I think we face the same thing in all of the
Atlantic region. The government's philosophy might be to have one
central airport, not in New Brunswick, but maybe in Halifax. I
wonder if the member would care to comment on what the loss of
these vital airports would do to areas like Prince Edward Island,
New Brunswick and Cape Breton.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comments. I do not think we disagree on what we see
happening.
I wonder if Doug Young is going to be the author of the
privatization or the elimination scheme when we take a look at
airports in eastern Canada, as he was with port privatization.
That is a name that would probably shell shock everyone on the
Liberal side and send them into hiding.
It is frightening to think about what might happen. Who knows?
We will just have to wait and see. That could be in the works
for New Brunswick.
I know the airport authorities in Fredericton, Saint John and
Moncton are pretty concerned about it, but there is no evidence
coming out of Ottawa that we want to grow those areas. They could
abandon them at a minute's notice. None of us know.
1600
It is quite disturbing, and it goes back to what I concluded in
my speech, it is sort of like flying by the seat of our pants,
with no long range planning. The premiers across the country are
screaming for a plan. If there is a plan, not everyone will get
everything their way, in particular premiers or even the federal
Minister of Transport, but there is always a little give and
take. Canadians deserve a plan.
Only in that way can we plan for the future. We want to make
the right decisions as we go along but we cannot make the right
decisions if we are flying by the seat of our pants in a sort of
ad hoc planning committee, if there is one. We want to see a
plan. Until we see it we are going to be pretty concerned about
what might happen in Sydney or in Saint John, New Brunswick.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask the member's opinion on something to
emphasize my position that the policy of the government is
inconsistent and does not make any sense.
In the government's transport projections for spending next year
under contributions to provinces toward highway improvements, it
says that under the Outaouais development agreement it gets $4.7
million, whereas the province of Nova Scotia gets $1.8 million.
The Outaouais area, wherever the Outaouais area is—
An hon. member: That is right here in Ottawa.
Mr. Bill Casey: —gets two and a half times as much as
the entire province of Nova Scotia for highway funding, even
though—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are going to give
the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest 30 seconds.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will get
unanimous consent to go on and on because I am sure the
government wants to hear more of what I have to say.
The member is right. I believe the Outaouais is the Ottawa
area. Obviously the Ottawa area is represented by a Liberal
member of parliament. That is probably the difference.
An hon. member: Is that what it is?
Mr. Greg Thompson: I am sure that is what it is, but I
could be proven wrong on that.
The province of New Brunswick, under that agreement, is getting
about $56 million, which would build about 10 kilometres of
highway if we are lucky, not to mention any bridges or
infrastructure.
At the end of the year 2050 we would have about half of the
province completed under the scheme that the federal Liberal
Party is suggesting.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
indeed a pleasure to have a chance to participate in this debate.
It is an issue that all Canadians, regardless of where they
reside in Canada, feel that parliament should have had quite some
time ago.
I want to take this particular moment to commend the hon. member
for Cumberland—Colchester for his work as transport critic in
actually raising this particular issue and bringing this debate
to the floor of the House of Commons today.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you understand this particular issue as
I do. When it comes to long range planning, whether it is on
transportation issues, environmental issues, climate change, or
the development of tax policy or trade policy, the government is
absent in terms of actually having a long term vision, regardless
of what the actual topic might actually be. Whether it is the
need to develop an implementation strategy for the Kyoto climate
change, whether it is planning in advance to avoid a pollster
strike which we had just a few years ago, or whether it is the
same kind of vision that we actually had when we were in
government with respect to trade—our trade with the United
States was around $90 billion each and every year and today we
trade over $260 billion each and every year—it was that kind of
long term planning for which this government is absent.
What all the provinces have been advocating for quite some time
is to have some federal leadership with respect to a
transportation policy for this country. One of the greatest
challenges that a country as complex and as large as Canada is,
is the geography from coast to coast to coast.
The size of this country gives us as a nation an immense amount
of challenges that we have to recognize. It was the same kind of
challenge and vision that actually built the railroad that we
have from coast to coast. Now we need to take that vision that
we had for the 19th century and put it into a 21st century
context.
1605
The transportation challenges that we have right now in this
modern, globalized world is that we need to be able to move our
goods and our people from point to point in rapid fashion in
order to stay competitive, to be able to function as a modern
country and to maintain our place in the global economy.
We know now that the stresses of our cities, which have changed
just over the last two or three decades in the population growth,
whether it be in Vancouver, Halifax or Toronto, is that from an
urban planning and an urban transportation perspective the
federal government has a role to help maintain that public
transport infrastructure so it does not wear down our roads and
wear down our other infrastructure so that we spend so much money
in maintenance. More importantly, we need to encourage and have
modern up to date transportation policy so that people can
commute to and fro from our cities which would actually put less
stress on our infrastructure and less environmental pollution
with respect to smog or that of climate change.
The government went to Kyoto in 1997 to establish and agree to a
target and a timeline without any consultation with the
provinces, the municipalities or Canadians in terms of accepting
a target to reduce greenhouse gases by 6% below 1990 levels by
the year 2008 to 2012 with no plan on how to do that.
One of the things the government should be doing, and with what
I call no regrets, things that we should be doing for many
reasons, whether it be human health, smog or just saving money on
urban infrastructure, is to develop a sound urban transportation
policy. The federal government has a role to work with the
provinces and municipalities in that particular fashion.
I also want to comment on some callous remarks that were made by
the Minister of Transport earlier today to the member for
Cumberland—Colchester and to the member for Saint John. When
it comes to an airport perspective in the province of New
Brunswick, he said that he would let market forces decide what
happens in terms of the principal airports between Saint John,
Moncton and Fredericton.
We can let market forces actually make that decision to some
degree or we can do what the Progressive Conservative Party wants
to do and our transport critic wants, which is for the federal
government to demonstrate leadership for the maintenance of those
three airports or to actually develop a vision in terms of what
air transport policy should be in the province of New Brunswick,
but not from a top down perspective by waiting to see what
happens or letting the chips fall where they may.
The government should be working in conjunction with the
province of New Brunswick, with Premier Bernard Lord and with the
municipalities that are serviced by those three cities to
determine what the best thing would be to do, as opposed to just
ignoring the remarks by the member for Cumberland—Colchester. At
a minimum, the government should be stating that all three
airports will be maintained in their present fashion unless the
federal government provides some vision that the province, the
municipalities and all citizens in southern New Brunswick could
actually concur with.
We need to upgrade our transportation system because it is
deteriorating. We do have challenges today that we did not have
a few years ago. The member for Cumberland—Colchester showed me
statistics from 1993 and the number of accidents involving
dangerous goods was approximately 250. Today, on average, each
and every year there are almost 450 accidents involving dangerous
goods. I maintain that because of our growing economy, our
growing population and the growing stresses in our transportation
infrastructure that these kinds of things are bound to happen
unless we actually make the investment in our rail systems, our
trucking system and our roads, including the Trans-Canada
Highway.
We are bound to have these kinds of accidents time and time again
unless we actually modernize our infrastructure to maintain the
record growth that we have had.
1610
The provinces have stated that the government's policy with
respect to transport has been inconsistent, unco-ordinated and
perhaps, above all, reactionary.
If we look back to the airline merger, everybody knew that
Canadian Airlines was in financial trouble and that it was about
to unfold but instead, the federal government allowed the market
forces to decide the airline's fate. In some communities for a
number of months transportation strategies were causing an
immense amount of problems with respect to air transport and
being able to move people the way that we wanted to do.
I would also maintain that when this government took office in
1993 the revenues for the Department of Transport from fuel taxes
and user fees, whether it was leases on airports or whatever,
were essentially equal to its expenditures. Right now the
Department of Transport takes in $3.9 billion more each and
every year from resources, such as fuel taxes and leasing fees. I
guarantee that the provinces are not getting anywhere near that
kind of return on their highways.
At a minimum, the federal government should be dealing with
these four particular issues: first and foremost, working in
collaboration with the provinces to develop a national
transportation strategy for highways; second, having a clear
vision in terms of urban transportation; third, working with the
municipality so that we can develop the infrastructure for public
transport; and fourth, to recognize that the transportation
strategy that it has will assist in its strategy with respect to
greenhouse gases and climate change.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the
comments from that part of Canada. It is rather interesting to
compare the thinking in different areas of Canada.
In my province we have two airports, which is all we have ever
had and I guess all we can ever expect. The minister and other
members mentioned three airports this morning. I believe they
were Moncton, Fredericton and Saint John. I can appreciate that
those members have the airports, and I hope that they can keep
them, but it is very difficult for me to understand the concept
of distance. Where I come from the joke is that if our dog runs
away we can see the dog going for two days.
I want to draw a comparison here. I come from a rural
constituency. If I really step on it I can get to the airport in
an hour and a half to two hours, and I am one of the the lucky
ones. My colleague from Yorkton—Melville is two to two and a
half hours from the airport. My colleague from Cypress
Hills—Grasslands is five hours from the airport. In those
terms, I have never heard anyone in my province complain about
having only two airports.
In getting to the airport, is it the time restraint the member
for Fundy—Royal has or is it the mileage? For instance, when I
stayed with my brother in Burlington it sometimes took him two
hours to get me to Pearson airport.
I think we have to put things in perspective. I am not trying
to criticize the hon. member's position. I am just trying to get
a picture in my mind of what the problem is with the airports. Is
it the distance or the obstacles in getting to the airport?
1615
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, the issue at hand here is
that the three towns, Moncton, Saint John and Fredericton, are
about the same size. If they were on their own, clearly they
would have some kind of an airport. It is paramount for economic
development reasons.
I accept the argument that those three airports are within an
hour or an hour and a half driving distance. As opposed to
taking a hands off approach and saying whatever happens happens
between those three airports or whatever happens happens to the
economic development in those three towns, the federal government
owes it to the citizens in those three towns to step forward and
provide leadership in terms of other solutions with respect to
air transportation, whether it is one centralized airport or
whether it is rebuilding one of the existing airports. That
becomes a very difficult issue to manage. It is very parochial
in nature regardless of where we live.
The issue is that the federal government at a minimum should
maintain those three airports unless it has agreed with its
provincial partners and the citizens who reside in those three
towns to build a better transportation system.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I find it fascinating to listen to my hon. colleague
with respect to the motion by the Conservative Party.
Recently in Nova Scotia Premier Hamm announced his government's
intentions to privatize a large portion of the department of
transportation. From what I understand after talking to
individuals, Cumberland—Colchester is going to see about
two-thirds of the department of transportation privatized. I
heard the member talk about the federal government's obligation
for a national transportation policy.
Is he in agreement with the premier of Nova Scotia's intentions
to privatize the department of transportation?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I am quite proud of the
initiatives John Hamm is taking for the province of Nova Scotia.
Because of the tax and spend liberalism and the socialist
individuals who have created the financial crisis in that
province, Premier Hamm has had to make some choices.
This is a mere experiment within the government to see how it
can deliver some services in a more cost effective manner. My
perspective is I support my provincial cousins in their
initiatives to deliver services in innovative ways. If it turns
out that it was not the best course, it was an experiment.
The Government of Nova Scotia has been forced into making some
tough choices. We should give that government the chance to get
its fiscal house in order.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know quite where to begin. There is so much to offer on the
motion of the day by the Conservative Party, particularly the
member for Cumberland—Colchester.
We heard the Tories say it was the Liberal way. Then we heard
some Liberals say it was the Tory way. A constituent just called
me and said, “You can all take the highway”.
The debate has to centre around whether or not it is the
responsibility of government to proceed in the fashion it is
proceeding and to gain the support of the public that elects it.
So far since 1993 that has happened and as far as I can tell, it
may happen again for another four years at least. Why is that?
The Canadian public sees that the government does have control of
the agenda and that it does have a plan for the many different
ministries the opposition are raving about today in the House of
Commons.
Let us read again the Tory motion by the member for
Cumberland—Colchester:
That this House recognize the urgent need to address the serious
transportation problems facing the Canadian people, and call upon
the government to establish a comprehensive national
transportation policy that demonstrates leadership on this issue
and which provides solutions to the problems shared coast to
coast by all Canadians.
1620
Establish a comprehensive national transportation policy that
demonstrates leadership. The member for Fundy—Royal kicked off
his address by talking about the need for infrastructure in a
country this size in order to maintain the transportation links
in a safe manner so that we can proceed to build economically in
this country and be successful as a country in a globally
competitive world, or something to that effect.
Let us start from the premise that Canada's transportation
infrastructure extends over some nine million square kilometres,
includes almost one million kilometres of road, 50,000 kilometres
of rail lines, 646 certified airports, and over 300 commercial
ports and harbours. This network involves millions of components
and thousands of people all working together to keep the system
running smoothly. It is not the member for Hamilton West saying
this, that is according to the World Economic Forum's global
competitiveness report.
Canada's transportation infrastructure is ranked first among the
G-7 countries. Why do we suppose that is? Is it because, as the
member for Cumberland—Colchester suggests, the government has
not established a comprehensive national transportation policy
that demonstrates leadership? Nonsense. This is a nonsensical
motion that we are debating today quite frankly for many of us in
the House, and there are not too many of us probably because the
motion is highly partisan and quite ridiculous.
What have we been doing for infrastructure over the years we
have been in power? Before I get to that, before we came to
power in 1993, I had the privilege of being elected back in 1988.
From the first week that I was elected in 1988 I sat on the
Standing Committee on Transport. I remember fondly old Pat
Nowlan sitting in the committee in 1988. In those days we could
smoke in the House of Commons. He would be charged there with a
huge cigar and next to me was Les Benjamin. Now there was a guy
who knew about trains. And there was Iain Angus. We could
always judge how long the transport committee meeting would be by
the number of cans of Coke Iain Angus had lined up in front of
himself.
We did a lot talking back then. We travelled the world and
looked at high speed rail systems. After having been here for 12
years I look back at those five years fondly and as a great
experience being in opposition with a Tory government. But then I
look back and ask what we accomplished back then.
In the five years that I was there in transport, we accomplished
zip as a government. We travelled a lot. We went around the
world and saw many countries. We saw ports. We saw harbours and
did not do anything with them under the Tories. We studied all
kinds of high speed rail in five or six countries. Now the TGV
is a huge success in Paris. We did not do anything with it back
then. The Conservatives did not want to touch it. Why did we
study it if we did not want to touch it?
Then I remember fondly, or maybe not so fondly, Mr. Corbett. I
think the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester will remember
Mr. Corbett who was the chairman of the Standing Committee on
Transport. Now there was a leader among leaders. Imagine, and I
do not like to speak disparagingly about people, but we did not
have a committee meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport
for nine months. Why? Because the chairman was recreating the
sailing adventure of Christopher Columbus from his east coast
riding to Europe. For nine months we did not have a meeting of
the Standing Committee on Transport and the Conservative Party
has the gall, the unmitigated nerve to stand in the House today
and say that the government does not have a plan for
transportation.
As I recall it was this government two weeks after we were
elected in 1993 that brought forward an infrastructure program.
Why did we bring it forward? Because this government recognized
that the cities, the municipalities, the provinces, indeed the
country, needed help with infrastructure. We did not want to go
the way of Pittsburgh or Buffalo where the infrastructure of the
city, the very heart of the city, the water, the sewers, the
roads, was crumbling underneath their feet. We did not want that
to happen. We did not want to go that far.
1625
We had a comprehensive plan and a commitment. We have a
commitment to negotiate an agreement by this fall with the
provinces, the municipalities and the private sector for a
multi-year plan to improve provincial highways and municipal
infrastructure in cities and rural communities right across
Canada.
We also have a plan to allocate hundreds of millions of dollars
over the next five years for municipal infrastructure in cities
and rural communities right across Canada, including affordable
housing, green infrastructure and up to $150 million for
highways. Does that sound like a government that has not
established a comprehensive national transportation policy that
demonstrates leadership? I do not think so.
We have just invested hundreds of millions of dollars into VIA
Rail. We did not do that under the Tories. In fact I remember
the member from London and I getting on a train going across
Canada and wearing yellow VIA Rail hats trying to convince the
Conservative government of Brian Mulroney to spend some money on
VIA Rail to keep it alive. It did not happen, but it did under
the Liberal government. This government has demonstrated some
foresight. It has demonstrated some investment in VIA Rail.
The member for Cumberland—Colchester who moved this nonsensical
motion today sat in committee with us. There were 53 meetings of
the Standing Committee on Transport that dealt with airline
restructuring. The government was not about to put tens of
millions of dollars into an airline called Canadian. We tried
that. We had promises from it. We tried it and it failed. Why?
There was a lot of capacity and not enough people flying. It was
a simple business response. Canadian Airlines did not have the
passengers and could not compete.
The member for Cumberland—Colchester sat with us in committee
day after day. The committee produced a solid report which was
unanimously endorsed by members of the standing committee who
told the government that it had to address the issues of fair
pricing, competition, Canadian ownership and control, service to
small communities and fair treatment of employees. We all agreed
on that. We had a terrific report which was praised even by the
National Post. Imagine that. Everybody thought it was
great.
Then we came back with legislation in short order because we
realized the circumstances facing the airline industry in Canada.
The committee sat again for weeks and came up with legislation.
Was it good enough for the committee as it came to us from the
government? No. It was the committee that struck nine
amendments to the bill. Everybody agreed that it was the right
thing to do and the amendments carried and they made the bill
stronger.
The member who moved today's motion sat in committee and said
that he was going to move a motion because he felt we should have
an ombudsman to look after customers' concerns. The committee
said it was a good idea. But the government had the foresight
and it had a plan. It said, “We do not want to create a new
infrastructure for an ombudsman with the staff and all the costs
associated with it. We already have something in place”.
The government moved an amendment to have a watchdog. The
Canadian flying public and businesses could complain to that
individual. This individual was put under the auspices of the
CTA because the infrastructure was there already.
1630
The minister had the vision and the foresight to realize that we
had to have something in place for the flying public. We were
already down the road. The minister had already initiated a
venue for the public to make complaints.
The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester even admitted that it
was a lot stronger than even his amount. He pulled his limit and
went with that of the government. That is good planning. Then
he came to us with the motion today saying that the government is
not establishing any kind of comprehensive national
transportation policy that demonstrates leadership.
I had a great speech on intelligent transportation systems which
I could give. It is a wonderful speech. It talks about
government planning an intelligent transportation system and
about how we are planning ahead and dealing with provinces and
the private sector. We are dealing as a government to have a
comprehensive plan on how to deal with the new way we do
transportation.
The transportation system has changed. We no longer depend on
the ribbon of steel taking us from coast to coast. People want
to get to where they are going yesterday and so they hop on a
plane. That is the way it is. If that is what the people want
then the people shall receive that.
I look back over my five years in opposition, sitting on the
committee day after day and researching everything we had done to
try to move transportation ahead. Nothing seemed to come of it,
but when we took government in 1993 things sure changed.
Hon. members opposite spoke a bit about Doug Young. Let me tell
the House about Doug Young. At least Doug Young had a vision and
it certainly has worked out. The first thing the Standing
Committee on Transport did when we became government was to
privatize CN Rail.
The NDP said it was a terrible thing to do that to the national
railroad company. It was the most successful privatization in
the country. It has done a magnificent job. Look at the stock
exchange. There it is and it is doing well. The government had
a vision with respect to a railroad and decided to move ahead,
and we did with 51% Canadian ownership.
What did we do next? It was the commercialization of airports
across the country. The taxpayer was looking after hundreds upon
hundreds of airports. It was incredible. Some of them were
landing strips with gravel on them perhaps twice as long as the
House of Commons. We were paying money out hand over fist to
keep the airports. What did the airports look like? We did not
know but we had to give them money to keep them going. Now look
at our airport system. It is highly successful. Nav Canada
privatized our air navigation services.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: And don't we all feel a lot
safer?
Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, we should feel a lot safer. If the
hon. member has a complaint about Nav Canada and its record of
safety, I challenge her to walk out the door and say it in
public. She knows she would not do that. I do not think she
would because she knows that Nav Canada is doing the job and is
doing a much better job than I dare say the government did.
Then what did we do? We looked after the airline industry.
We came up with something called the Keyes report. I am damned
proud of it because the Keyes report was the result of weeks of
work by the Standing Committee on Transport and all its members
travelling the country from port to harbour to port. We obtained
all the information we could from those witnesses on how to make
a better port system.
1635
We created a report much like the airline industry report our
committee wrote and we submitted it to the government. The
government took it in hand, said that it was a damned fine report
and built legislation around it. What was the result? The
Canada Marine Act. Again more vision and more planning.
The Canada Marine Act today is successful because every port and
harbour on that list, save one, is now a Canada port authority.
They are all very successful because they are community led. The
community is doing with its port what it thinks is right to do
with its port.
NDP members laugh. That is typical of the NDP. It drives me
crazy. They have no idea how many ports and harbours there were
in the country before we brought forward the Canada Marine Act.
There were hundreds upon hundreds. Can we imagine a port being
no longer than 30 feet off the end of some soil and going out to
wherever on the east or west coast with a harbour master being
paid to look after it? The taxpayers were supporting it.
We had to look at the whole picture and ask how much the
taxpayer could really support. We changed it. Again, does that
demonstrate, as the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester
stated, that the government has not established a comprehensive
national transportation policy and leadership? I do not think
so.
I am standing here living proof that for five years under Tory
rule we did nothing. From 1993 to this day we have looked after
harbours and ports, air navigation, airports, highways, ferry
services and many other things. That demonstrates leadership. I
would hope the hon. member would now take the opportunity to rise
in his place to say that the chairman of the transport committee
is absolutely correct and withdraw his motion because it truly is
a foolish one.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure I heard the last sentence. I think the
member said I should stand and say that he is foolish. Is that
what he said? It sounded something like that.
Certainly that was nothing less than what we should expect from
the chairman of the committee who I certainly acknowledge ran a
very tight committee in which we did a lot of good work. However
he has certainly taken a lot of licence with the things that have
happened and what we did.
I notice both he and the minister focused on the airline merger.
It is just part of the transportation infrastructure although an
important part of it. They both focused on it, on Bill C-26 and
on how they managed to negotiate a wonderful merger which they
did not negotiate at all. Mr. Robert Milton negotiated the
merger and they are playing catch-up, as we all are. They cannot
take credit for establishing an aviation policy because Air
Canada did that.
The member also suggested that he had travelled a lot when he
was an opposition member. He said he travelled all over on VIA
Rail issues. It seems to me he travelled in government on VIA
Rail issues looking for options. He went to Europe and the
committee went several places. I did not go myself, but I
understand committee members travelled a lot.
What did they do? They did not do a thing. They did not come
back with any innovative ideas. They did not come back with one
new innovative approach. All they did was say that they had to
put back in some of the money they had been robbing out of the
VIA Rail system for years. It was not to increase capacity or
improve the system but to replace the rail cars that had fallen
apart and to replace the switches that were failing and things
like that.
It was not to increase capacity, availability, routes or
anything else. It was just to do some maintenance and repairs
and to replace the deficient equipment that expired for all
intents and purposes years ago. To say they did something with
VIA Rail is just not true. They put some money back in after they
reduced it year after year after year.
1640
The member also talked about $150 million for highways over so
many years and over 10 provinces. That will not do anything.
That is a joke when it comes to highway work.
Almost every provincial transportation minister has written to
me. I will just read from a couple of letters. The chairman of
the committee keeps talking about how they have leadership. The
minister from Alberta wrote that the federal minister expressed
his support for the strategy of a highway system and further
outlined his views on the essential components of a possible
program but that there was no discussion on how the program was
to be funded. Is that leadership?
The minister from Newfoundland said that the province would be
pushing for a national highways program that addresses the
serious concerns. I could quote the minister from the Northwest
Territories, and on and on and on.
There is no leadership. There is a complete hodgepodge of
highway programs right now. Actually there are very few. I
think Newfoundland will get $100 million over the next two years.
New Brunswick will get $100 million over the next two years.
Nova Scotia will get zip.
Again I ask the chairman of the committee where is the
leadership. Where are the programs? Where is the overall
comprehensive policy on transportation that ties it all together?
There is none.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, as I always do, I take the
hon. member's question very seriously. He said that the minister
and I had focused somewhat on the airline industry. Rightly so, I
say to the member. Quite frankly the government should take
credit for the work it did on the airline industry.
The hon. member opposite who just asked the question, the member
for Cumberland—Colchester, should take credit for the hard work
he did on the Standing Committee on Transport in order that the
government, with his assistance, could save 16,500 jobs in the
country.
One week before Christmas last year, that is how many people
could have been out on the street without a job. It was the
government, with the assistance of the hon. member opposite as a
member of the committee, that decided what the criteria would be:
fair pricing to look after the consumer; competition to look
after the consumer; Canadian ownership and control, a big bugaboo
of the NDP; service to small communities, very important to the
Conservatives especially on the east coast that they represent;
and fair treatment for employees. We answered every call. Every
one of those calls were answered thanks in part to the member who
moved this motion. We did demonstrate leadership.
In his second question he mentioned that we travelled a lot and
he did not see much happen as a result. I was in opposition. If
he wants me to, I will supply him with every one of the reports
produced by the Standing Committee on Transport and he will see
the opposition at the time and its dissenting views of the
government in those reports.
His third point was that the commitment to highways is a joke.
Only a Mulroney Tory would call $100 million in 2000-01, $350
million in 2001-02 and $550 million per year for the next four
years up to 2006 a joke. Only a Mulroney Tory would take all
that money and say it is a joke.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the member a very pointed question.
He likes to talk about the rating among the international scene
of Canada as one of the best in infrastructure. I am sure we can
go to countries where the infrastructure is not as good, but we
have some large problems in this country.
Even though it is not in my riding, I am thinking of that area
in Saskatchewan where my kids live. The roads are being beaten
to pieces by huge trucks hauling grain, now that the rail system
is being dismantled.
1645
The Trans-Canada Highway is the country's major artery from east
to west. In Saskatchewan and I understand in other parts as well
including parts of Ontario, it is a narrow two lane road which is
so incredibly dangerous it is not acceptable.
We had the occasion to visit Swift Current shortly after a
horrendous accident on the Trans-Canada Highway just west of
Swift Current. It involved a half-ton with some workers for a
siding outfit. Two new buses that were being transported were in
that accident. They all were completely destroyed in the fire
that ensued. It involved two semi-trailer trucks. If I remember
correctly there were three deaths on that one occasion.
My brother took me over to see the wrecks. Our hearts went out
to the families whose loved ones had been needlessly killed on a
highway that is totally inadequate as the Trans-Canada Highway,
the main transportation artery across the country.
Surely the member must feel at least a little tinge of
conscience and must admit that our system is just not quite up to
where it should be.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I feel more than a tinge, I
tell the hon. member. If we were flush with money and we could
put it into changing every road in this country to make it a
better road; if we could put up medians in the middle to ensure
that cars would not cross over; if we could ensure that every
driver knew how to drive properly, wore their seatbelt, did not
drive drunk, obeyed all the rules of the road, did not tailgate
and did not speed, it would be perfect.
For all the highways across this country that the federal
government looks after, we would have to come up with $17 billion
to repair them all. It is a lot of money.
We are trying to do it incrementally. We have made commitments
of hundreds of millions of dollars. We will attempt to fix each
one of these roads. Everything has to be done in balance. Roads
and highways are not the only preoccupation of the government.
There are many issues that are very important to Canadians. We
have to find that balance and we have to stay within our means so
that, and I am sure the hon. member would agree, we do not climb
back into a deficit situation again.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the very eloquent member for
Palliser.
I want to comment on some of the comments made by the chairman
of the transport committee on a number of issues. He bragged
today about the privatization of CN. He bragged today about
Nav Canada. He bragged about the privatization of the airports.
He bragged today about the privatization of the ports.
He pointed the finger at the NDP. He said that this was the
bugaboo of members of the NDP, that they believe the government
should be involved to ensure that communities do not face
economic devastation. He is right. We do believe that. I thought
at one time he might have believed that as well.
I will quote from a book I picked up the other day. “The
question is who puts bread on the table when the private markets
fail to do so? The long term role of the state will not be
determined by the necessity in the short run to solve fiscal
problems. There are signs now that the fashion of denying on
principle a positive role for the state is losing its grip. The
avoidance of social disharmony makes it imperative that those in
authority will not lag behind their public in realizing that the
state still has a role in keeping bread on the table. The people
as a whole will have the final say in determining the future role
of government and I am content to rely on their judgment”.
Those are the words of the Hon. Allan MacEachen, a well
respected former Liberal.
I wonder how he would feel about the comments of the
transportation chair about the great, wonderful role of
privatization of the transportation industry in this country.
1650
I also think that the chairman and some of the members need a
little history lesson. In condemning the Conservatives, he
talked about how the Liberal plan has benefited the country.
There may be some truth that it benefited parts of the country.
Probably Toronto is doing very well. I pick up the Globe and
Mail and I read about the economic growth in parts of Ontario.
However there is a history here.
There was a time a hundred years ago when the economic centre of
growth was Atlantic Canada. The transportation routes to
Atlantic Canada were the most travelled in the country. A deal
was made. It was called confederation. As part of the deal,
some of the transportation routes would be bypassed in order for
the country to forge into the west. For a hundred years we
developed a transportation policy that allowed that to happen. We
enhanced the St. Lawrence Seaway which allowed some of the ships
that would normally stop in Atlantic Canada to find their way
through the continent to the port of Montreal and the ports of
Ontario.
Now Atlantic Canada finds itself in a most difficult situation.
As the government of the day decides that privatization and the
natural market forces are the way to compete, we find ourselves
scratching our heads asking what happened to the concept of
confederation where we were going to give a little bit in the
interests of building a nation.
Now that the playing field is tipped a little bit in central
Canada's favour, all of a sudden that does not matter anymore.
All of a sudden we are all supposed to compete. Atlantic
Canadians, and when I say this I know I will be supported by my
colleagues in the Conservative Party who represent Atlantic
Canada, can compete with the best of them when the playing field
is level. But it is not and it has not been for some time.
When the member of the government says that there is a
transportation policy in place that has created economic growth
in this country, I say again maybe for some parts. In the region
of the country I represent we are fighting desperately to keep in
place a rail system so that when the federal government withdraws
from the Cape Breton Development Corporation we have something to
attract businesses so they can ship goods out.
They keep telling us in Atlantic Canada to pull ourselves up, to
be competitive and to manufacture goods. We agree with all of
that, but it is not much good to manufacture goods if we cannot
get them to market. We do not have a sufficient population base.
We rely on markets to the east where Europe is, to the south
where there are huge markets in New England, and to the west, to
Ontario. Without substantial investment from the government in
the infrastructure of Atlantic Canada, we simply cannot compete
and find our way to the same level of prosperity as other parts
of the country.
We require a strategy that will invest heavily in those areas of
the country that are not benefiting from the current economic
growth. Atlantic Canada is one of them. That can be done in a
number of ways.
I have advocated for some time the restoration of passenger rail
service in my own hometown. We had a passenger rail service
until the Conservative government took it out in the 1980s. It
was a well used and profitable VIA Rail line. There was no
reason to take it away. The city of Saint John found itself in
the same situation. It had a rail service that was profitable.
Prime Minister Mulroney said if the rail line was used, he would
not take it out. We used it. We took him at his word and it was
gone.
Consequently the community I represent is faced with an aging
population. The major medical centres are in Halifax. People
have the choice of driving to Halifax in a minivan at
considerable cost or driving themselves on highways which have
become incredibly terrifying for senior citizens because of the
trucks and increased traffic.
It is not like it was 25 or 30 years ago.
1655
One of the things the government could do is re-establish
passenger rail service in the communities where it was
profitable. That would maintain the rail lines so that as we try
to develop some economic growth, the rail line is there and is
used and maintained for both passengers and freight on which we
could build an economy.
Let me talk a little about the airports. The chairman of the
transport committee talked about what a wonderful job Nav Canada
was doing, how good it was that it had been privatized out to a
private corporation. Let me relate some of the experiences we
have had.
There was a period of time about two years ago where Nav Canada
decided it would downgrade the airport in Cape Breton. Again, as
we are trying to build an economy, trying to take the government
at its word and trying to be innovative and entrepreneurial, not
only did we have a problem with the rail lines, but we also heard
that the flight service centre would be removed from our airport.
Being a member of parliament and a community activist, I got the
community involved. I said, let us talk to the people at Nav
Canada. Surely they would be reasonable and understand that we
need to maintain this service. Their response to me was that
this was community consultation but they would make the final
decision. They said, “We are a private corporation. What
matters to us is the bottom line. It does not matter that you
guys are trying to pull yourselves up. It does not matter that
you need this airport if you are going to build any kind of
economic infrastructure. We are interested in the bottom line
and whether you are making money right now”.
Fortunately we are a tough lot in Cape Breton. The community
got together. We fought hard enough and we kept the flight
service station. Had it been government that was involved in
that, it would have at least understood there was a social policy
attached to the dismantling of that airport. However, the
Liberal government in its move to privatization and its newfound
zealot's belief in the private market, decided it would disband
that.
That was the consequence for small communities in the country. I
know what we face is no different from small communities in the
west and in northern Ontario that are trying to build up their
economic base.
The chairman of the transport committee, with some wry humour I
suppose, talked about the small little ports in the east and the
west. Those little ports represent an opportunity for economic
growth for many of those communities. Maybe it is because I
represent an island that has an inland sea in the centre of it
that we are so sensitive to the ports. Those small communities
rely on the ports to ship gypsum and lumber in and out. They
rely on them as they plan their economic future for tourism and
all kinds of activities.
When we got word that the government was divesting itself of the
ports, the community was concerned because the economic base is
not there for the community to say it can afford to take it over
and have a port authority maintain it. Many communities in
Atlantic Canada cannot afford that at this point in time, yet the
port is essential if they are ever going to get to a point where
they can afford to maintain their own ports.
Once again the playing field has been shifted. We have to run
uphill and just as we are about to get there the ropes are being
pulled away.
I accept the motion moved by the Conservative Party today. It
provides important debate in terms of the transportation problems
facing the Canadian people.
I want to talk about one other aspect of transportation. It is
one which I do not think has been mentioned yet, although it may
have been by the newest member of the House of Commons. I am
sure he will find some interest in it as will my other colleagues
from Newfoundland, and that is Marine Atlantic. It is a vital
transportation link for the people of Newfoundland. It is a
partnership between the Government of Canada and the province of
Newfoundland.
1700
I conclude by saying that those are all vital
transportation links to Atlantic Canada. We will fight to
maintain them and we will demand from the government the
honouring of the contract that was made so long ago.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his words today. I share with him many
of the views he expressed relative to the malaise in our federal
transportation policy, if I could call it that, particularly
relative to Atlantic Canada.
I am not certain whether the hon. member was able to hear the
member for Mississauga West speak of the highways and roads in
Nova Scotia earlier today. The member for Mississauga West went
on at great length about how Nova Scotia had excellent highways,
that there was nothing to complain about, that the main highways
were excellent and that the byroads were terrific.
I would like to know whether the hon. member agrees with me that
the member for Mississauga West was clearly misinformed. He is
one who is sometimes prone to hyperbole and exaggeration and
maybe he had fallen into that trap. Would the hon. member agree
with me that rural roads in Nova Scotia are in significant
disrepair and that the issue has to be addressed from a tourism
perspective?
Where I live, in Cheverie, Hants County, it is so bad that I
have to go to the dentist every six months to have my fillings
replaced.
Secondly, not just from a tourism perspective, but from a safety
issue, Highway 101 has been an issue for a number of years.
There have been over 40 deaths on the highway since 1993. It has
the highest level of traffic in the province of Nova Scotia.
The federal government is now investigating the notion of a cost
share program with the provinces. Does the hon. member share
with me the concern I have about cost sharing programs? Because
of the mess that the current government in Nova Scotia inherited
from the government of Russell MacLellan, the province does not
really have the ability to match funds. Should the federal
government not be more proactive in addressing these safety
issues and spend some of the money that it receives by way of
fuel taxes, of which only 5% is invested in highways?
In view of the fact that the province of Nova Scotia is clearly
not in a financial position at this time to enter into a cost
sharing agreement, why is the federal government not recognizing
the safety issues, including Highway 101, and spending a greater
level of the tax money collected from fuel taxes on highway
priorities like Highway 101 instead of simply creating these
straw man arguments around cost sharing programs in which clearly
the province is not in a position to participate?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
the question. If we wanted to look at what was the growth
industry in Atlantic Canada or where we should invest funds, the
auto repair industry, the shop industry, is probably the only
bright light in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia at the current time.
I share with the member that concern. That is not just my
concern. I have received a number of letters from constituents
in my riding who talk about that very issue. They say that we
are supposed to be developing tourism as an alternate industry in
Cape Breton. As the government withdraws from Devco it keeps
pointing to tourism as one of the areas of potential economic
growth. However, as the member says, for people to get from one
place to another with their car intact is no easy feat. We could
all participate in some international races because we have
learned to weave in and out and around the potholes. I share
with him that concern.
I also share the concern that the smaller provinces or the
provinces that find themselves economically strapped simply
cannot afford the kind of extensive repairs that are needed. If
the federal government wants to enter into some kind of
agreement, there has to be the recognition that not all provinces
have the same resources. That is one of the founding principles
of this country and Confederation. I will be getting a sign
again, but I would concur with the member and his comments.
1705
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the member for Sydney—Victoria for allowing me to share his
time.
The member for Hamilton West, who is the chair of the
transportation committee, talked a few minutes ago about what has
transpired in this country for the last 133 years with
governments alternating between the Liberals and the
Conservatives. When the Liberals are in everything is great and
it is the fault of the other guys. It is a game that is wearing
a bit thin. I am sure it is for you too, Mr. Speaker, as it is
for those of us in the New Democratic Party caucus.
I want to talk about transportation policy from the point of
view of Saskatchewan, which is a landlocked province. I want to
talk a bit about air, rail, highways and roads. There is not
much point in talking about shipping unless we want to go
canoeing in northern Saskatchewan where there are some terrific
canoe routes.
Transportation for the New Democratic Party and for our
constituents is absolutely vital to Canada's future economic
development. We need an efficient, high quality and safe network
of highways, railways, ports and airports to move not only goods,
but people as well.
Our transportation infrastructure has deteriorated under this
government, as it did under the Mulroney government in the 1980s
and early 1990s. Despite the member for Hamilton West, we insist
that this government lacks the vision and the will to develop
transportation infrastructure worthy of the 21st century.
Let me talk a bit about the airline industry. We feel it has
been in a state of perpetual crisis since the late 1980s as a
result of unregulated competition. More recently we saw the
total demise of Canadian Airlines and the creation of one big
airline. On this side of the House we have consistently called
for a modern regulation regime to protect the public interest.
I will make a few observations on air travel as it has affected
people coming in and going out of Saskatchewan since the merger
took place. I do not believe that I have been on a flight
recently from Ottawa to Regina—and other members fly the same
route—that has not been positively and absolutely booked. Of
course, the flight from Ottawa to Regina is not a direct,
non-stop flight. It either goes through Winnipeg or Toronto, and
occasionally both. Often they try to bribe people with $300, for
those who do not need to get there yesterday, as the member for
Hamilton West was suggesting. The flights are full, there are
fewer seats on the planes and it is very expensive.
Not everybody needs to get there yesterday. Some people would
enjoy taking the train. In the southern part of Saskatchewan
that is very difficult to achieve. People either have to go to
Saskatoon, which is almost a three hour drive from Regina, or
perhaps two and a half hours from Moose Jaw, to get a train
usually at 2 o'clock in the morning, or they can go to Melville,
which would take a couple of hours, to get the train at 4 o'clock
or 5 o'clock in the morning, depending on whether the person is
heading east or west. The train station in Regina is now a
casino. The train station in Moose Jaw just recently reopened as
a state of the art liquor store.
Despite the injection of hundreds of millions of dollars into
VIA Rail which the government announced recently, I doubt very
much whether VIA passenger train service will ever be restored in
southern Saskatchewan, except perhaps for the occasional high
priced tourist train that will go through in the summer months
between Winnipeg and Vancouver.
1710
We do not all need to get to our destination yesterday. Some of
us would like to take the leisurely route, but it makes it very
difficult given the logistics of getting to where the train is at
these days.
The riding of my colleague for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is
situated on the VIA line that goes from east to west. The train
that runs through Biggar in the middle of the night requires
people to stand outside in summer or winter because the station
is not open to allow folks to board the train. People stand at
the side of the tracks, which is clearly not an incentive to take
the train.
Let me turn to the highway system. I think we are the only
country in the world that does not have a national highway
transportation system. About three or four years ago the
Government of Saskatchewan committed some $1 billion over the
next 15 years to be spent on upgrading highways. Work has been
undertaken to twin the highways. There is work being done in the
area of Gull Lake, on the east side of the province, that the
member from the Canadian Alliance spoke about. There is no
question that work would be done much faster if some federal
money went into the program.
I read recently that the twinning which is scheduled to be
completed in about five or eight years could be cut in half if
the federal folks would step up to the plate and put some money
into our highway infrastructure program to get the death traps
cleaned up and turned into four lane highways. It would be safer
for the travelling public and a lot more enjoyable.
There is no question that big trucks are a cause for grave
concern. That is part and parcel of our grain transportation
system. I will not get into that issue because we will be
debating it over the next couple of weeks. As farmers have to
move their grain farther and farther to inland terminals and
other elevators to get to the main lines, it is putting
additional pressure on roads that were never intended to carry
the kind of weight that the tandem and the Super Bs are putting
on our highways. That is part and parcel of the problem.
The $175 million announced by the government a couple of weeks
ago as part of the grain transportation bill that is coming
forward will be welcome news. However, we need to note that it
is $175 million for western Canada, so it will not amount to a
heck of a lot. If it were $1.75 billion it would be significant.
Nobody is going to turn down $175 million, but nobody is jumping
too high about it either.
We in the NDP support the motion presented by the Conservative
member for Cumberland—Colchester, my well travelled colleague.
We support this call for collaboration between all levels of
government and the private sector. These groups must work
together to make sure that our national transportation
infrastructure serves the public interest and meets the needs of
all.
The federal government must, in partnership with the provinces,
invest in highways to facilitate the movement of people and
goods. If the government allows the deterioration of our
highways to continue, the economic cost will continue to rise.
The federal government must commit to ensuring that our national
transportation system serves all parts of the country. That is a
concern of my party. The member for Sydney—Victoria indicated
that it is a concern in Cape Breton. I am trying to signal that
concern from my part of the world. The government has 101 seats
in the province of Ontario. It has very little understanding or
recognition of the problems that many constituents in the
so-called hinterland of this nation feel, the difficulty we have
in getting our products to port and getting our people, goods and
services moved from our part of the world to tidewater, to the
big smoke of Toronto or wherever.
This is a timely motion. I hope the government takes it very
seriously, although I am skeptical that will be the case.
1715
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The first question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1750
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Hardy
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(North Vancouver)
– 65
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Assad
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 169
|
PAIRED
Members
Copps
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion
now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Hardy
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(North Vancouver)
– 65
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Assad
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 169
|
PAIRED
Members
Copps
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed from May 19 consideration of Bill C-12, an act
to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part II) in respect of
occupational health and safety, to make technical amendments to
the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to the order made on Friday, May
19, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at the report stage of Bill C-12.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yes.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening will be voting in support of this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members
will vote against this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP will vote in
favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting in favour of this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bertrand
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert – 199
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Brien
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
– 35
|
PAIRED
Members
Copps
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that we are
voting on Mrs. Lalonde's motion, that is, Motion No. 2.
The Speaker: It is Motion No. 2, but the name I have here is that
of Mr. Crête. So it is Motion No. 2 moved by Mr. Crête on behalf
of Mrs. Lalonde.
The question is on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like a bit of information to be sure we are indeed voting
on the right thing. Mrs. Lalonde here present informs me that
she was in the House and that she moved this motion. Mr. Crête
confirms this. A correction should perhaps be made. This is
Mrs. Lalonde's motion.
The Speaker: So this is the motion moved by Mrs. Lalonde,
seconded by Mr. Laurin.
1800
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Brien
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
– 35
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bertrand
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert – 197
|
PAIRED
Members
Copps
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost.
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply in reverse the results of the vote just taken to
the motion now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bertrand
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert – 197
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Brien
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
– 35
|
PAIRED
Members
Copps
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1805
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-205, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools required in
employment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Monday, May 29,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-205
under Private Members' Business.
1815
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Brison
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Crête
| Cummins
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marchand
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Penson
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert – 213
|
NAYS
Members
Beaumier
| Brown
| Bryden
| Caccia
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Finlay
| Grose
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Reed – 11
|
PAIRED
Members
Copps
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly,
the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1820
[English]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the
third time and passed, and of the motion that the question be now
put.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question
at the third reading stage of Bill C-16. The question is on the
motion that the question be now put.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
as described by the chief government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1825
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anderson
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Collenette
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 135
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Beaumier
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hearn
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marchand
| Mark
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Peric
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
St - Hilaire
| Steckle
| Strahl
| Telegdi
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver) – 88
|
PAIRED
Members
Copps
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
The next question is on the motion for third reading.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
1830
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1835
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anderson
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hearn
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 153
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
|
Bryden
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Peric
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Steckle
| Strahl
|
Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| White
(North Vancouver) – 74
|
PAIRED
Members
Copps
| Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
1840
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 6.40 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
SAMUEL DE CHAMPLAIN DAY ACT
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved
that Bill C-428, an act establishing Samuel de Champlain Day, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting bill that we will
be debating. I have had a lot of support from my colleagues on
both sides of the House. To begin, I want to go through exactly
what the bill really does.
This is a bill to establish what we would call a day for Samuel
de Champlain. What would happen is that beginning in the year
2004, June 26 from then on would be known as Samuel de Champlain
day.
I know that raises a number of questions in the minds of
everyone here and some of those listening, particularly those
back in Quebec. There has been a lot of interest in the province
of Quebec on this bill for obvious reasons. Champlain is known
as the founder of New France and has been recognized as a
significant part of their history for many years. The question
that I often get asked is why an anglophone member from New
Brunswick would come up with the idea of recognizing Champlain.
Champlain first settled on a little island on the St. Croix
River in the year 1604. Just as a note, it was the first
European settlement on the north Atlantic coast. If you are a
historian, Mr. Speaker, this might be of interest to you. It
preceded both Jamestown in 1607 and Plymouth, Massachusetts in
1620. There is a lot of history on this little island on the St.
Croix River, the island being situated about halfway between the
town of St. Stephen and the town of St. Andrews, New Brunswick.
It has international implications as well.
The Americans have taken a great interest in this little island
called St. Croix Island because it is actually American property.
The island itself now belongs to the United States government.
Although we are more closely associated with it, the Americans
recognize it as a piece of their territory. They themselves have
been doing a number of things to commemorate this event, marking
just slightly short of four years from the 400th year celebration
of the founding of this little settlement by Champlain. The
United States is getting ready to celebrate the historical
significance of the settlement on this island in a big way.
I want to quote an editorial from the St. Croix Courier
that was written on this very topic. It is entitled “It's time
for Canada to move on St. Croix Island's 2004 celebration”.
1845
The editorial goes on to say:
Congratulations to the Maine Delegation in the U.S. Congress. It
is taking major steps to celebrate the heritage of our area and
Saint Croix Island. Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia
Snowe are co-sponsoring The Saint Croix Island Heritage Act,
legislation which will help develop a heritage centre in Calais.
Most Francophones pronounce Calais the French way but the
Americans have anglicized it. It is a little border town that is
across from St. Stephen, New Brunswick.
The people in the United States are making moves to recognize
the importance of this island. What I am suggesting to the House
is that we do the same thing, hence, the idea of recognizing a
Champlain day. The date that is mentioned in my bill identifies
June 26 as being the most likely date for this.
I have talked to some of my friends in Quebec, and in particular
René Lévesque, a historian and archaeologist in Quebec City, who
many of my colleagues from the Bloc will know. The last time we
met he suggested to me that we might consider altering the date.
In other words, I am suggesting June 26, because that is the
likely date in the year 1604 that Champlain settled on that
island, but he has said that because July 1 is Canada Day and
July 4 is the American Independence Day, where they celebrate
their birth as a country, that some date in between might be
better. He has suggested that July 3 might be the date because
it has historical significance in Quebec. I am very open to
that.
I am very open to any changes that have to be made in this bill
to make it work. We are not fixed on anything that cannot be
changed to make the bill better.
The trick now is to make this bill votable, which it obviously
is not at at this time. Therefore, I will call on my colleagues
from the Bloc and the other parties to help me expedite the
passage of this bill. We must make this bill votable and get the
attention of the government on it.
When I met with the heritage minister she told me that she was
anxious to help. She recognizes that as Canadians we do not
acknowledge our heroes as much as we should. She has suggested
that we do something for the schools so there will be pamphlets
and historical reference to Champlain, et cetera, so that when we
get to the year 2004 our children and teachers will know a bit
about him and the historical significance of this man who has
played such a huge role in the development of what we now know as
Canada and whose early beginnings was on that little island in
the St. Croix River.
Aside from giving credit to my colleagues on the American side,
Senators Snowe and Collins, I want to acknowledge the work that
the mayor of the town of St. Stephen has done on this issue. He
is a bit of an amateur historian and is really working hard to
get this date recognized and get some celebrations on the
Canadian side of the border in recognition of this date. That
would be Mayor Allan Gillmor of the town of St. Stephen, New
Brunswick. St. Andrews is also working on this, but I wanted to
single out the work of the mayor of St. Stephen, New Brunswick,
in particular.
St. Stephen has also hired or commissioned a young lady for this
project, so that by the time we get to the year 2004 we will have
something for which we can be proud. This is little bit of
history that we simply do not want to lose.
1850
I hope I will get support from my colleagues tonight. I hope
that in their remarks they will suggest ways we can improve the
bill.
I did hear one complaint about the bill. We often hear of
Champlain and de Monts. Mr. de Monts is sometimes credited with
being the leader of the expedition. I think that is legitimate
but I want to point out that de Monts went back to France and
left Champlain basically in charge of the outpost. It was
Champlain who was buried in Quebec City.
When I was in Quebec City not too long ago, René Lévesque, who
has done a lot of work on this file, actually took me to the
gravesite which is considered the gravesite of Champlain. It is
in the basement of one of the older buildings in the historic
section of downtown Quebec City. It was quite a moment to get
into the building and witness firsthand what is considered to be
the gravesite of Champlain.
I think the argument on the de Monts side is worthy of comment,
discussion and debate, but the true historical character who has
to be recognized is Champlain. It is important that we do that
simply because we can also have be a day for de Monts if we wish.
We do not have to limit the scope of the bill or limit the
possibility of bringing other names before the House in terms of
discussion on a day of recognition.
I am certainly not trying to diminish the role of de Monts. He
obviously is a very important part of this picture. At some
point some of the other members can stand on their feet and
introduce a bill that would in some way honour his contribution
to the country as well. I am not against that at all.
One of the points that the heritage minister made to me was that
maybe we should have a day honouring our first prime minister, or
perhaps Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I think that is all credible and
worthy of discussion, but the point I go back to is that we do
not do enough to recognize our own heroes in this country.
Most of us know who Davy Crockett was but a lot of us never paid
attention to Champlain. I have because when I leave my door I am
looking at this little piece of history in my backyard. It is
significant I guess that I should do something in the House, as
opposed to any other member, but I am going to count on the
generosity of the members in the House, which we often see in
this place, to help me get this through the system. It is very
seldom that we get a private member's bill through here.
This is actually the start of the process. I know it is not
votable at this point, but I am going to ask my colleagues to
help me get this votable. I have even suggested that if the
government, in its generosity, wants to take control of this file
and introduce the bill itself, I have no difficulty with that. I
do not care who gets credit for it, I just want it to happen.
The Bloc members can also introduce it if they wish. If there
is some way they can introduce the bill to make it votable, they
will have my support. In fact, a senator in the Senate of all
places, to show just how nonpartisan it is, told me “Greg, I can
introduce it in the Senate and we will bring it over to the
House”. That is a possibility as well.
What we are attempting to do is use the generosity of this place
to pay tribute to someone I think is important to this country. I
do not think there is anyone any more important than Champlain.
The discovery of New France, the settlement in Quebec, is a rich
part of our history and we do not want to lose that.
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate any suggestions from you,
because I know you are somewhat of an amateur historian.
I hate to use the word amateur because you are a professional in
your own league. However, if there is any way in terms of the
rules and procedures of the House that we can use to expedite
this bill, please let me know because I am open to suggestions
and I certainly need help to recognize Samuel de Champlain in the
way that we should.
1855
The date that we have in mind is June 26 but that date can
change subject to debate in the House. The year we are looking
at is 2004. For once we are doing something ahead of time. We
have a four year lead on this project. The way things move
around this place, four years might not be enough to make it
happen but I am certainly hoping it will.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to make this bill
votable?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to make
this bill votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-428, an
act establishing Samuel de Champlain day. The bill is sponsored
by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.
Under this bill, commencing in 2004, June 26 will be designated
as Samuel de Champlain day. The timing of the enactment is to
coincide with the 400th anniversary of the establishment of the
first French settlement by Champlain on St. Croix Island in 1604.
The hon. member, when introducing the bill in the House,
mentioned that passage of this bill would be important to those
in New Brunswick due to the planned celebrations for the 400th
anniversary of Champlain's first North American settlement.
It should be remembered that Champlain's association with New
Brunswick is but one small component of a life of much larger
travels. If Champlain were to be honoured for his discoveries,
that honour should be shared by southern Ontario, the northern
United States, southern Quebec, as well as New Brunswick. It
should also be remembered that Champlain's discoveries were on
behalf of France. His reward for those discoveries was to be
named the governor of New France.
While Champlain's voyages were on behalf of France, some might
argue that there was no Canada at the time to reference
Champlain's accomplishments. People might then be inclined to
argue that Champlain's discoveries were closely tied to the
French origins of New France. In my view this misses the point.
If Champlain is so important to Canada as we know it today, he
should be equally heralded in the United States. After all, the
majority of the territory that Champlain discovered and mapped is
now part of the northeast United States.
Champlain's famous 1632 map of New France, while lauded as a
demonstration of the extent of his discoveries, in fact includes
land that was mostly explored by others. Who explored the
Labrador, the Hudson Bay, the Rupert's Land and the Northwest
Territories coastlines? It was not Champlain. It was Henry
Hudson, the discoverer of Hudson Bay; Captain Vancouver, after
whom the city of Vancouver was named; and John Cabot, considered
to be the first discoverer of Canada. Their discoveries are no
less significant to the establishment of Canada than those of
Champlain, yet we do not honour them or accord them any
particular federal honours.
In my opinion, exalting Champlain's accomplishment in the
manner proposed demonstrates an elitist-centrist approach to the
discoveries of our country. Many appear more than willing to
honour anyone who explored in the area around the St. Lawrence
rather than those who bravely mapped our significantly more vast
northern and western territories. People who consider the north
to be Lake Nipissing ignore the reality of geography and history
of 80% of Ontario.
In my view, an appropriate manner by which to view Champlain's
accomplishments is illustrated by how he was honoured by Canada's
Merchant Navy during World War II. The Merchant Navy fleet had
many ships known as park ships. In time of war, when an accurate
representation of a nation was crucial, there was no Champlain
fleet delivering supplies to the troops. Rather, Champlain's
name was on but one of the ships in the fleet.
In a similar vein Champlain's accomplishments should be viewed as
part of a much larger group of discoveries. No one person is
accorded a federal honour. Rather the federal honour is to the
collective effort.
1900
The bill is too narrowly focused and it is for this reason that
I am reluctant to support it. Samuel de Champlain is more
commonly more known as the father of New France, relative to his
later establishment of settlements in Quebec. This fact is
acknowledged in the preamble of the bill where it is stated that
he was influential in the development of two further settlements:
one at Port Royal on the Bay of Fundy and one at Quebec. The
Quebec settlement was established in 1608, four years after the
events which are to be commemorated by the bill currently under
consideration.
The issue raised here is whether it is more appropriate for
Samuel de Champlain day to be proclaimed by the New Brunswick
legislature rather than by this House. At the federal level we
should acknowledge Champlain for his discovery or for the
discovery that he is best known nationally. Even the Acadian
Centre in a publication on Champlain acknowledges that Champlain
is above all recognized as the founder of Quebec.
Champlain exemplified the multi-talented nature of many of our
nation's heroes. He was both an explorer and a cartographer. He
also wrote much about his travels and lived from 1567 to 1635.
His first voyage in 1599 is when he explored the West Indies and
Mexico. In 1603 at the age of 36, sponsored by a fur trader,
Champlain commanded a ship that explored the St. Lawrence River
as far as Montreal is located today. The purpose of this voyage
was to colonize the new world though this objective apparently
was not accomplished.
Champlain's 1604 actions in Acadia on the Isle of St. Croix
appear to be categorized by its nature as a trading post
creation. While Champlain arrived in Acadia in 1604, the first
fort in the area, Fort Latour, was not constructed until 27 years
later in 1631. In fact, at least one historian considers that
Champlain essentially lost his optimism for the future of Acadia
after having spent three winters there. This is one of the
explanations given for Champlain's 1608 voyage and consequent
founding of Quebec City.
It was in 1608 that Champlain is regarded as having established
his first European settlement in what is now known as Quebec
City. One reason for this is the official capacity in which
Champlain returned to North America. He was the lieutenant
governor of New France. The Quebec City settlement was followed
by the establishment in 1611 of a settlement in Montreal.
In 1629 when Quebec was captured by the English the 62 year old
Champlain was sent back to England as a prisoner. Champlain only
was able to return to Quebec after New France was returned to
France. He returned to his trading post in 1663 and to his
position as governor of New France where he died two years later.
Acadians in New Brunswick understandably have an identification
with Champlain and he should be honoured accordingly. His
identification with Canada as a nation as well as his association
with North America generally are somewhat different. In Acadia
Samuel de Champlain is honoured by an educational school and a
community centre being named in his honour as of 1985.
Champlain's name is also encountered on educational and other
buildings throughout Canada. Lake Champlain is named after him,
a lake that Champlain discovered in 1609. The Centre for Study
of Canada at Plattsburgh State University has an annual scholarly
symposium named after him. Ironically the theme of this year's
Samuel de Champlain symposium 2000 is “The Quiet Revolution in
Quebec: Looking Back After 40 Years”.
Based on the foregoing sentiments Champlain may certainly be
viewed as having involvements in some significant events prior to
the founding of Canada. I believe that his official role as
governor of New France points to the greater appropriateness of a
Quebec based commemoration of his life. Accordingly I cannot
support the bill before the House as it is currently worded
because it focuses too narrowly on one man when many more
explored and established Canada.
1905
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-428
proposes the creation of a Samuel de Champlain Day.
As you and everyone else are aware, Mr. Speaker, Samuel de
Champlain founded what was to become Quebec City, where I had
the pleasure of growing up. He is commemorated all over the
city, by statues and in street names, with the boulevard
Champlain and an absolutely charming street called rue du
Petit-Champlain.
The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest's bill proposes that
a federal statute institute a Samuel de Champlain Day. In his
opinion, the contribution of Champlain merits a day right across
Canada in his memory.
The date the hon. member recommends to us to honour Champlain is
June 26, because he supposedly established the first French
settlement on that day in 1604.
The hon. member refers here to the colony on St. Croix Island in
New Brunswick, an island the hon. member for New Brunswick
Southwest says he can see from his home every day, when he is in
New Brunswick, not when he is here, of course. His bill
proposes that throughout Canada, in each and every year,
beginning in the year 2004, the 26th day of June be known under
the name of “Samuel de Champlain Day”, because that date will
mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of that island
settlement.
For Quebecers, Samuel de Champlain is first and foremost the
founder of Quebec. In 1608, Samuel de Champlain founded what
was, in fact, the first city in New France, and now the national
capital of Quebec.
It is not just Quebecers who associate Champlain primarily with
the founding of Quebec. There are also thousands of Canadian
and foreign tourists who visit Quebec City every year and who,
walking along the famous Dufferin terrace, admire the imposing
statue erected in honour of the founder of the city. As you can
see, Quebec did not wait for the federal parliament to act in
order to honour this great man.
But let us talk about the Isle of St. Croix. The French settled
first on this island under lieutenant general de Monts, assisted
by Champlain. They numbered about 80. The winter of 1604-05 on
the Isle of St. Croix was disastrous because of the terrible
cold and scurvy—35 colonists died. The colony was therefore
moved the next year to Port-Royal, an area Mr. de Monts hoped
would be more favourable to the establishment of a permanent
colony.
Life in Port-Royal was no doubt more comfortable for the
colonists. It was here in Port-Royal that de Champlain founded
what is known as the Ordre de Bon temps in an effort to break
the monotony of the long North American winters. Thus, the
Ordre de Bon temps was a sort of brotherhood where members took
turns putting game or fish on the table for a festive and well
lubricated meal.
Can we say, though, that Champlain played a greater role in
establishing this second colony? Historian Trudel, in an
authoritative publication, the Dictionnaire biographique du
Canada, answers the question, saying that in Port-Royal Champlain
was a simple observer. He says that Champlain was not in
command either on the Isle of St. Croix or in Port-Royal.
Thus, we have before us today a bill which, in order to
commemorate Samuel de Champlain's contribution to history, picks
the anniversary of an event in which the person in question
played, to all intents and purposes, a secondary role.
Of course, I understand the member, who probably chose this date
because of a sentimental attachment to St. Croix Island, which
he can see out his window every day, but I feel that the
commemorative date chosen should have reflected the historic
contribution for which Champlain is really recognized, which is
the founding of Quebec.
That is where he made his real mark. In 1608, on his fourth
voyage to North America, Champlain landed at Quebec and built a
settlement there.
1910
It was thus that Quebec's history began. The settlement was to
become the birthplace of New France and that is why historians
referred to Champlain as the Father of New France.
During the decade following the founding of Quebec, Champlain
travelled back and forth between North America and France. It
was in 1620 that he really began developing the new colony.
Between 1620 and 1624, on his tenth voyage, he set about
constructing fortifications and renovating the settlement, which
was home to about 60 people. During an eleventh voyage in 1625,
he strengthened the fort. Quebec was captured by the Kirke
brothers in 1629, but was returned to the French in 1632.
Champlain's twelfth voyage in 1633 was his last, since he died
in 1635 after serving as governor of the colony for two years.
At the time, Quebec was simply a trading post. Despite
everything, Champlain had time to note the promising start of
the colony before he died.
Although he was given the title of the father of New France,
Champlain is one of a gallery of historical figures who built
New France. In other words, he is not the only famous person of
the period.
There was, to start, Laviolette. Sent by Champlain in 1634, he
had a fort and a settlement built at the fork of the
Saint-Maurice and St. Lawrence rivers. Missionaries arrived
there the following year. Trois-Rivières was founded. After
Laviolette came Maisonneuve, who founded Ville-Marie in 1642.
Ville-Marie later became Montreal.
There were courageous women as well in the gallery of heroes of
New France. There was, first, Jeanne-Mance, who established the
first hospital in Ville-Marie. Marguerite Bourgeoys established
the first school in New France.
Dollard des Ormeaux is also an uncontested hero of New France.
While the natives were preparing to destroy Ville-Marie, des
Ormeaux decided to fight and save the colony. He and his
companions died in the fight, but they saved New France from
destruction.
And what about Madeleine de Verchères, who, in 1692, for eight
days in a wooden fort, fought off almost single-handed an
Iroquois attack until reinforcements arrived from Ville-Marie.
Her courage was heroic.
Finally, the historic figures of New France must also include
those who explored the vast North American continent.
I am thinking here of Joliet and Marquette, who discovered the
Mississippi, and La Salle, who was to follow them and take
possession of the Mississippi delta in 1682, giving these
territories the name of Louisiana in honour of the King of
France.
These are just some of the heroes who have left their mark on
the history of New France along with Samuel de Champlain. I
could name many more, but I will stop there in order to go on
with my argument.
Were we to comply with the wishes of the hon. member of the
Conservative Party to establish a Samuel de Champlain Day, it
would be difficult, in my opinion, not to also recognize all of
the other men and women who built New France. Would there have
to be one for Maisonneuve, one for Laviolette, one for Madeleine
de Verchères, and so on?
The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest certainly means
well, but he is putting us in a problematical situation. Bill
C-428, which is intended to honour an important figure in the
history of Quebec and of Canada, leaves in the shadows all the
other historical figures who have marked the history of Quebec,
Canada and the United States. Indirectly, the bill obscures the
accomplishments of all these other builders.
This is why I cannot subscribe to the good intentions of this
bill, out of respect for all these other men, all these other
women, who left their mark on the history of Quebec over 300
years ago.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is often said that
Canada is a young nation. But our heritage and our development
as a society can also be measured by criteria that go back much
further than our 133 years of official existence as a country.
[English]
Indeed our ability to truly understand and appreciate who we are
is enhanced when viewed in a much broader context.
1915
The Canada of today has been shaped by events and people whose
importance and contributions we must not allow to be forgotten or
diminished by the passage of time.
[Translation]
So let us take a brief look at this important explorer. For
over 40 years of his life, between the time of his first visit
to Canada in 1603 and his death on Christmas Day, in 1635, in
the settlement at Quebec, Samuel de Champlain devoted himself to
building what would become a strong and vibrant French colony in
North America.
Samuel de Champlain's courage and perseverance in pursuing his
dream left a legacy that we should preserve and celebrate. That
is the underlying purpose of the bill before the House today.
Bill C-428, an act establishing Samuel de Champlain Day, calls on
the government to pay tribute to this great Canadian explorer
each year on June 26, beginning in 2004.
According to some, this date is an extremely important one in
our nation's history because it is recognized, at least by some
historians, as the 400th anniversary of the establishment of the
first French colony on St. Croix Island, in Acadia, on the
border of New Brunswick, in the Bay of Fundy. Marking the 400th
anniversary of the founding of this community is quite an
occasion.
Champlain, who was a geographer on the de Monts expedition, which
landed in Acadia in 1604, was looking for a location for a
permanent French colony.
With Mr. de Monts, Champlain chose this island at the mouth of
the St. Croix River, because of its central location and its
accessible and sheltered harbour.
His interest in this region in southern Acadia also had to do
with his primary concern, which was to find a passage to reach
China's riches. The west facing slopes of the Atlantic coast in
the area made Champlain believe that such a passage might exist.
As we now know, Champlain was going to be disappointed in his
quest for the East's wealth, but very pleased with his discovery
of Canada's riches.
As some members mentioned, the first winter in New France for
Champlain and the members of the new settlement was terrible. Of
the 79 men that accompanied him, 35 died of scurvy. This was
definitely not a promising start, but these difficult beginnings
eventually led to a lively and solid French presence in the New
World.
Champlain spent three consecutive winters in the Bay of Fundy.
During his stay, he explored the region between the Isle of St.
Croix and the settlement of Port-Royal, now Annapolis, in Nova
Scotia. He also ventured south as far as Cape Cod.
For Champlain, the second voyage in New France was soon followed by
a third one. The highlight of this trip occurred on July 3,
1608, when the great explorer founded a small colony in Quebec—a
colony that slowly grew to become the very heart of the French
language and culture in North America.
Samuel de Champlain had done great things as early as the summer
of 1608, but many of his trips and discoveries would come later.
One year after founding Quebec, he travelled with the Hurons,
the Algonquins and the Montagnais to explore the area, including
the lake south of Montreal which now bears his name.
Married to Hélène Boullé during a brief trip to France, in 1610,
Champlain returned to Canada less than a year later, continuing
his exploration of the St. Lawrence and opening a trading post
in Mont-Royal. Those who have visited Place Royale in the
historic old port of Montreal have been struck by the spirit of
one of its first European visitors, Samuel de Champlain.
In 1613, Champlain left the island across from the port of
Montreal, Île Sainte-Hélène, which he had named in honour of his
wife, and began to explore the sites familiar to generations of
Canadians who have visited Parliament Hill, the Gatineau River,
the Rideau River and the Chaudière Falls.
[English]
Subsequently, Champlain would extend his travels as far westward
as Lake Huron in 1615 and southward along the Trent River to the
Bay of Quinte crossing Lake Ontario to portions of what is now
New York State.
I would be remiss not to mention Explorer's Point Park in my
hometown of Mattawa which was dedicated to the memory of Samuel
de Champlain, and the Samuel de Champlain Provincial Park a few
kilometres up the Mattawa River between Mattawa and North Bay.
Honoured for his accomplishments, Champlain was entrusted with
the overall direction of political affairs in New France. The
explorer's considerable talents and stamina had already been
tested by his arduous journeys, hostile encounters and struggles
against the harsh Canadian climate.
1920
The task of colonizing this new outpost of the French empire
proved equally challenging for Champlain. He understood the need
to encourage and foster human settlement, agriculture and
commerce if these new territories were to remain under the flag
of France. While dealing with the challenges posed by his
various political enemies at home, his repeated trips between new
and old France gave him the opportunity to encourage settlers to
join him in building a new society on the shores of the St.
Lawrence River.
[Translation]
In 1629, Quebec fell to the English forces. The colony
surrendered, and Champlain was taken to England as a prisoner.
Four years later, following the signing of a peace treaty, he
returned to Quebec with the title of commander and remained
there until his death in 1635.
All told, Samuel de Champlain made more than a dozen crossings
between Europe and the new world, changing both the map of the
known world and the course of history.
[English]
Champlain might be surprised to know that almost four centuries
after the founding of the first French settlement on St. Croix
Island his name and legacy enjoy an honoured place in the history
of our nation. Today a country called Canada flies neither the
flag of France nor England but proudly celebrates the heritage of
both these founding cultures.
Through his remarkable achievements Samuel de Champlain helped
to secure the presence of the French language and culture in
North America. In very real terms Champlain helped define who we
are. At the dawn of this century and millennium, Canada is a
modern outward looking nation that recognizes and celebrates the
contributions of cultures from every corner of the world.
Anchoring this vision of openness and accommodation is our
official recognition of not one but two official languages.
Samuel de Champlain was a key contributor to Canada's evolution.
Because of our history based on two of the great languages of the
world, we are a society that easily communicates and interacts
with a great number of other nations.
[Translation]
Canada's role as a leader in the Francophonie is an important
example of this scope and influence. In this major
international forum, Canada plays an active role in promoting
French language and culture and building ties among the
francophone peoples of the world.
This is an achievement that would no doubt bring great
satisfaction to Samuel de Champlain.
The approaching 400th anniversary of Champlain's participation
in the first French colony on the Isle of St. Croix will provide
an opportunity to mark this stage in our life as a nation
significantly.
This would be a proud anniversary for Acadians, who can trace
their heritage back to these courageous ancestors, for all the
people of New Brunswick, the frontier where this modest first
colony was built, and for all the people of Canada.
This serves as a reminder that, while our country is considered
still relatively young, we are beginning to measure our history
in centuries. We can be justly proud of our history and of the
famous figures, such as Samuel de Champlain, not to exclude the
others, who contributed to the writing of that history.
The spirit of Champlain is a presence for us until today. Not
far from this House, visitors to the Museum of Civilization in
Hull can see the astrolabe Champlain used to navigate his way
through the Ottawa valley four centuries ago.
It is highly unlikely that this great explorer would have
expected his lost instrument to someday find a place in a major
national institution. It is even less likely that he would have
dreamed that the nation he helped found would one day be
recognized as one of the best in the world.
Our history teems with examples of women and men whose heroism,
leadership, energy and vision have contributed to the growth and
development of Canada. Samuel de Champlain is among their
number.
[English]
Without question we must ensure that Canadians keep alive the
memory of this great explorer. We must ensure that his
extraordinary efforts to help the French language and culture
take firm root in North America are both remembered and
celebrated.
[Translation]
During the debate on this motion, it is obvious that the concept
on which it is based is worthy of our recognition and
appreciation. This concept is of vital importance, and we hope
to be able to continue to celebrate our heritage, through either
legislative measures or some other means. Building our future
together requires us to keep alive the memory of our past, and
to honour that past.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for
New Brunswick Southwest. I should advise the House that if the
hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate. The hon. member
will have five minutes for his remarks.
1925
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I will say from the outset that I am a little disappointed in the
remarks that were made by the member of the CA, formerly known as
the Reform Party. I guess that is what we would expect from that
party in terms of recognition. I was extremely disappointed when
he termed the bill “an elitist centrist approach”. I cannot
believe he would say that. I think he loses the generosity which
this bill encompasses. I am very disappointed in his remarks.
Again I am somewhat disappointed by the Bloc. I was told by
some people that the members of the Bloc would probably not
support the bill simply because they did not invent it. I am
very disappointed. It does not exclude anyone who contributed to
the establishment of Quebec and those other great explorers and
cartographers. This bill simply does not do that.
There are other members who do support it and I am somewhat
encouraged by what the government has had to say. The generosity
of this place indicates that we should go back to the drawing
board and find a way to make this happen, whether it is through
the legislative process of a bill or something else. I think
this is a Canadian who deserves recognition. I do not think we
should get lost in the semantics. Was he Canadian, was Canada a
country, et cetera, is all lost in debate. Nobody wants to debate
those issues.
We are talking about an individual who very much contributed to
what we know as Canada today. It is not at the exclusion of
anyone else regardless of who that anyone else might be, whether
it is Henry Hudson or Jacques Cartier. That is not the point of
the bill. It is simply to give recognition to someone who had a
significant contribution to the founding of what is now known as
Canada. It is as simple as that.
I take heart from the support I have had in the House. I am
sure that with a little re-engineering and ingenuity we can find
a way to honour what we consider to be one of Canada's heroes in
what we now know as Canada. We will continue the debate on this
issue at a later date.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
Pursuant to the order adopted earlier today,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Government
Business No. 11.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) moved:
That this House take note of the Order amending the Schedule to
the Migratory Birds Convention Act to incorporate the Parksville
Protocol, which amends the 1916 Migratory Birds Convention,
tabled on Thursday, May 18, 2000.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, amending the migratory birds
convention represents the fulfilment of a goal particularly to
ensure its conformity with the aboriginal and treaty rights of
the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The migratory birds convention
is North America's oldest international wildlife conservation
pact. Together with the sister treaty between the United States
and Mexico, it provides the framework for the management and
conservation of migratory birds in North America.
The convention was created to preserve species of migratory
birds considered beneficial or harmless to people. Since 1916
Canada and the United States have achieved a remarkable story of
conservation success. This act enabled us to end an era of
severe overexploitation of migratory birds by market hunters and
nest collectors. Today together with Mexico our unique
tri-national partnership is continuing to respond to the changing
conservation needs of these species.
The conservation of habitat is key to the conservation of
species. For migratory species like birds, it is essential that
our countries work together to conserve breeding areas in the
north, staging and stopover sites along flyways and wintering
areas in the south. The North American bird conservation
initiative ensures we accomplish that goal.
1930
Let me tell all members of the House that I had the great
privilege of being at Last Mountain Lake in Saskatchewan where we
have the most amazing flyway. I encourage everyone to take the
chance to get out there and see the magnificence of our nature
and the great conservation system that is in place.
We are relying on sound science. We are identifying bird
conservation priorities, expanding traditional partnerships and
working on a co-operative basis, particularly with landowners and
users, to conserve birds and their habitats. The foundation of
this effort is the international migratory bird treaties.
The need to amend the convention has long been recognized, but
previous efforts were not successful. The protocol to amend the
migratory birds convention is the product of extensive
consultations in Canada and the United States that began early in
the last decade. The protocol was negotiated and signed in 1995
and was formally ratified by Canada and the United States in
1999. Its entry into force is an important event.
At their core, the convention amendments are migratory bird
conservation amendments. They make more explicit the
conservation principles underlying the management of these
continentally shared species.
The protocol itself represents the first ever amendments to the
convention and sends a compelling message that we cherish the
richness of our shared migratory bird species and their critical
habitats, that we respect the diverse cultural traditions and the
subsistence way of life of our aboriginal peoples, and that we
understand the imperative to expand and strengthen our
partnerships for responsible conservation and stewardship of
migratory birds.
Among its amendments the protocol removes inconsistencies
between the 1916 migratory birds convention and aboriginal and
treaty rights protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act,
1982 by recognizing that aboriginal and treaty rights to harvest
migratory birds may exist. It opens year-round hunting
privileges to qualified non-aboriginal residents of Canada's
northern communities who depend on a subsistence lifestyle where
relevant aboriginal agreements permit the activity. It permits
an earlier opening date for the fall hunting season in northern
Canada, allowing more equitable access for qualified northern
residents. It recognizes the traditional harvest of murres in
Newfoundland and Labrador, an activity not recognized in the
convention which was signed more than three decades before
Newfoundland joined Canada in Confederation.
The need to amend the migratory birds convention has existed
since the convention was first drafted and was heightened with
the Constitution Act, 1982. It must acknowledge the customs,
traditions and rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples.
The protocol accommodates traditional and customary hunting
patterns that were not part of the 1916 treaty and brings
provisions into line with Canada's constitutional obligations to
our aboriginal peoples.
The migratory birds convention prohibits hunting migratory game
birds from March 10 to September 1 and all other migratory birds
year-round. Migratory birds have left large areas of Yukon,
Northwest Territories and Nunavut by mid-September and in these
areas they generally do not return before March 10. As a
consequence, much of the traditional harvest of migratory birds
in the territories has taken place, and continues to take place,
during the closed season portion of the year, especially in the
spring.
Aboriginal and subsistence hunters in Canada want to hunt within
the law when they take what is often the first meat that is
available in the spring. It is an important part of their food
supply. Aboriginal and subsistence hunters want to participate
in managing the birds they share in common.
Active participation by aboriginal hunters and co-management
councils will help make sure that these important changes to the
convention are successful both legally and practically, leading
to substantive improvements in the conservation of waterfowl and
other migratory birds. The protocol before the House will do
this.
It provides a platform to involve aboriginal people in the
management of these species. It will improve efforts to conserve
migratory birds by allowing sound scientific data and traditional
and local knowledge to be collected on the spring harvest.
1935
Included in the amendments is the authority for Canada to manage
the hunt of murres by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
This issue was in need of being addressed since Newfoundland
joined Confederation in 1949.
Amending the convention has heightened the ability of Canada and
the United States to manage for sustainable use the migratory
bird populations of North America. It contributes to our
government's “Gathering Strength” initiative aimed at renewing
our relationship with our aboriginal peoples.
May I offer my congratulations and the congratulations I am sure
of the entire House to the team members responsible for bringing
this important initiative to fruition. It is a crucial step
toward protecting wildlife species and their habitats across
North America and in acknowledging the customs, traditions and
rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the Migratory Birds
Convention Act and the amendments thereto, and I have boiled it
down to three main messages that I would like to deliver tonight.
The first is, basically, that this take note debate tonight and
the lack of a ratification process in Canada points out the
inadequacies of our Canadian parliamentary practices and our
system very clearly. Here we have a bilateral agreement with the
United States and essentially this agreement comes into play when
the U.S. ratifies it through its senate and then through
presidential signature. In our case we do not have any checks or
balances.
The second major message is that there is another bilateral
treaty on migratory birds in North America. It is not the one
between Canada and the U.S., it is the one between the U.S. and
Mexico. That migratory birds convention treaty will have some
ramifications on the Canada-U.S. treaty. I think we ought to
recognize that and talk about it a bit.
The third message that I have is that the language which Canada
has chosen to use in dealing with a very important amendment to
the migratory birds convention, which is a schedule to the
Migratory Birds Convention Act, that deals with aboriginal issues
uses open ended language that will lead to open ended issues. It
requires better clarity and better language in order to avoid
creating the problems that will derive because, once again,
Canada chooses to use a waffle in the language. It is very
apparent when we read the U.S. legislation that enables the
amendment that applies to indigenous peoples' issues in Alaska
that they have done everything they can to narrowly define their
terminology, and we have done everything we can to do just the
opposite. Those are my three main messages.
The migratory birds convention was ratified by the U.S. and
Canada in 1916. The parliamentary secretary described quite well
why that came about. There were many vanishing species of birds
as a consequence of things that were happening at the time. It
is a pioneering document. It was an important international
treaty.
The main thing it did was to control the hunting of migratory
birds, primarily by prohibiting hunting during closed seasons.
1940
The other treaty I referred to between Mexico and the U.S. came
along 20 years later, in 1936. The Canada-U.S. model was there
to act as a prototype.
Since the inception of the migratory birds convention there have
been problems in the U.S. and Canada where the act or the
convention has not corresponded with the traditional hunting of
birds by aboriginal or indigenous peoples and aboriginal people
have been charged under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. This
has been an ongoing conflict.
We would be the first ones to agree that amending the migratory
birds convention, because it is an international treaty, is
politically and procedurally difficult. Therefore, there have
been no amendments to date.
Since at least the 1975 James Bay and northern Quebec agreement
the federal government has been promising the aboriginal peoples
that there would be amendments. In 1990 the Canadian Wildlife
Service began meetings with governments, non-governmental
organizations and aboriginal people. Finally, in December of
1995 this led to the U.S. and Canada signing a protocol to amend
the migratory birds convention to allow traditional hunting by
aboriginal people.
In 1997 the U.S. senate gave its advice and consent. That is
what the U.S. senate is for. It is the elected senate. The
President of the United States finally signed the protocol to
allow its implementation in late 1999.
On the Canadian side we had the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
I am not sure in what capacity she signed that document in 1995.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: She was then Minister of the
Environment.
Mr. John Duncan: The Minister of the Environment. In our
system there is no check or balance whatsoever. In our system
that constitutes ratification.
I have a basic fundamental problem with that, as does the
opposition. However, that is the way it is. Our signature meant
nothing until 1999 because it was not ratified by the other
party. Now that it has been ratified by the other party, our
signature is taken for granted. That is a fine way to do
business. I am being facetious, of course.
The protocol entered into forced when the instruments of
ratification were exchanged on October 7, 1999.
In 1997 a protocol on changes to the Mexico-U.S. migratory birds
convention was also consented to by the U.S. senate. That has
happened along the same timeframe.
What we are debating tonight is basically an amendment to the
old 1916 migratory birds convention, which is a schedule or an
appendix to the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. That is
what we are talking about.
1945
Ours is called the Migratory Birds Convention Act. The American
legislation is similar but different. I think theirs is called
the migratory birds conservation act, for example. There
certainly are major differences in how they deal with aboriginal
peoples in our case or indigenous peoples in their case.
The new regulations include a whole new section, section 4,
which basically talks about harvesting by aboriginal peoples. It
says that migratory birds and their eggs “may be harvested
throughout the year by aboriginal peoples of Canada having
aboriginal or treaty rights”.
It further states that inedible byproducts may be sold but the
birds and eggs so taken shall be offered for barter, exchange,
trade or sale only within or between aboriginal communities as
provided for in the relevant treaties, land claims agreements,
self-government agreements or co-management agreements made with
the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
That is one of the proposed sections in our amendment to the
Migratory Birds Convention Act. I just want to point out that
the old language did not use the term aboriginal. The old
language, which is still in the regulations, does not talk about
aboriginals. It talks about Indians and defines the word as
having the same meaning as in the Indian Act. It talks about
Inuk and defines it as meaning a person who is a direct
descendant of a person who is or was of the race of aborigines
commonly referred to as Eskimos and possesses at least
one-quarter Inuk blood.
I am very familiar with the Indian Act. I am very familiar with
all the definitions surrounding the terms Indian, Inuk, Inuit,
Metis and several others. I was unaware until today that
Canadian documentation anywhere referred to blood quotient, but
indeed I find it in the regulations attached to the Migratory
Birds Convention Act when it talks about Inuk. I was quite
surprised to see that. It tends to be an American convention or
way of doing things. I had not seen it in Canadian statutes or
regulations at any time before. It was a bit of a surprise.
At least we have a pretty clear definition in the regulations.
Where we have a problem now is that this new amendment states
that migratory birds “may be harvested throughout the year by
aboriginal peoples of Canada having aboriginal or treaty
rights”.
That was probably imported from the constitution because similar
language is used in section 35. However, if one wanted to define
aboriginal it is simply not there. I looked. It is not defined
anywhere in the act or the regulations. Neither are aboriginal
rights defined. We all know what a treaty is. It either is or
is not, but aboriginal rights are not defined either. This is
totally open ended and I will relate some the ways it is open
ended.
1950
We may have one definition in Canada but we cannot constrain
this agreement to Canada alone. This is a bilateral agreement.
Let us talk about the Nisga'a treaty which we debated at some
length in this place. It said that Nisga'a citizens had the
right to trade or barter among themselves or with other
aboriginal people any migratory birds harvested under this
agreement.
I went to the glossary in the Nisga'a agreement. There is no
glossary in the Nisga'a agreement. I went to the definitions.
There are definitions in the Nisga'a agreement but they do not
cover that part of the alphabet or do not cover aboriginal,
aboriginal rights or aboriginal people. None of those words were
defined. The only thing relied upon in the Nisga'a agreement
once again is the Indian Act definition of Indian. That is how
the Nisga'a define themselves in terms of whether or not they are
eligible to become Nisga'a citizens. That does not help.
Why am I expressing a concern? One of my concerns is who are
other aboriginal people. Are they confined to Canada? Are they
confined to British Columbia in this case or are they not? Is it
confined to status Indians and Inuit? Is it confined to status
or non-status Inuit? Is it confined to status or non-status
Metis and Inuit?
This is not good enough. Let us look at the American language
and the following terminology:
The protocol establishes eligibility for the indigenous
inhabitants of Alaska. Indigenous inhabitants are defined as
permanent residents of a village within a subsistence harvest
area, regardless of race. Subsistence harvest areas are
established to include most village areas within the Alaska
peninsula, Kodiak archipelago, the Aleutian Islands and areas
north and west of the Alaska range. Areas that would generally
not qualify include the Anchorage, Matinooska, Susitnu and
Fairbanks North Star Burrows, the Quini peninsula roaded area,
the Gulf of Alaska roaded area and southeast Alaska. Exceptions
to these areas can made through a deliberative process which
includes the management bodies established by the service.
It is pretty definitive. There is a lot of clarity. Is this
important? I believe it is.
First, the primary goal of the whole treaty process is
conservation. Conservation is achieved most successfully when it
is rules based and everyone knows what the rules are and to whom
the rules apply.
Second, we are now at the point where what was clearly
aboriginal harvest for domestic use has been expanded by the
amendment and by the terms of the Nisga'a agreement. It is
clearly a new direction to include the sale or possible
commercial exploitation of migratory birds.
1955
Any sale of migratory birds will be in accordance with federal
and provincial laws of general application and with any Nisga'a
law in respect of the sale of migratory birds harvested under the
agreement. Nisga'a citizens have the right to sell inedible
byproducts including down of migratory birds harvested under the
agreement. It does not even constrain that by saying they have
that right to sell only to other aboriginals.
Given that we do not have a high level of historical
exploitation, I am suggesting that this could lead in that
direction. We ought to be concerned about the clarity of the
language and the clarity of the language is simply not good
enough.
I will go back a bit to the second major point I want to talk
about. The Canada-U.S. treaty is impacted by the Mexico-U.S.
treaty on migratory birds. We could look at that plus the fact
that we want the agreement to deal with conservation of species.
We also want the agreement to allow for the fact that some
species listed under the migratory birds convention have become
pests since 1916 or even since 1985.
Snow geese are one example. The nesting grounds in the Arctic
were getting beat up. They were taking a major hit. It took
quite an effort by the federal government to come up with a way
to get around the constraints of the migratory birds convention
and allow a targeted hunt of snow geese to prevent the habitat
destruction.
We currently have a similar situation in the middle part of our
country and the middle part of the U.S. I spoke with a
congressman from Minnesota last week who said they have the same
problem there with cormorants. Cormorants are a listed species. I
understand one of the reasons has everything to do with the
reverence attached to blackbirds by the people of Mexico. That
kind of got translated into the Canada-U.S. agreement.
We should be able to deal much more quickly with that issue than
we have done up till now. Cormorants are major fish eaters. They
are cleaning out lake habitats in the spring and summer in the
prairies and in the mid-west. They are becoming very much a
pest. We need to do something in that regard.
Those are the points that I wanted to make. I very much want to
say that I think we all agree with the intent of the migratory
birds convention. It is the role of the opposition to point out
some inadequacies. We have some shortcomings here. We have some
inadequacies in the way we have handled this issue. Because these
agreements are so difficult to amend, when we do it we should do
it right. We should clarify our language very precisely. That
simply has not happened.
I hope we do better next time. Who knows when the next time
will be? There is no doubt that an agreement which dates back to
1916 has basically stood the test till now.
2000
Probably it will not be that long again until the next episode,
simply because the world is changing and we are much more attuned
to the environment that surrounds us. There is a degree of
management that has to happen. Species do require some
management from time to time.
We look forward to seeing some productive changes to the
Migratory Birds Convention Act in the future.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the order in council introduced on May 18 to
amend the schedule to the Migratory Birds Convention Act so as
to include the Parksville protocol, which amends the 1916
Migratory Bird Convention.
The government's proposal is merely intended to inform us about
the change which will be made to this legislation. Members are
not required to comment in any way on this legislative
amendment.
Like the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, I find this situation
unacceptable because I feel it is essential to debate the issue
of migratory birds today. I cannot but deplore the fact that
the House of Commons is not permitted to take a stand with
respect to international treaties, such as the biosafety
protocol, which Canada did not sign, despite its fine promises
in Montreal last winter.
The biosafety protocol is based on the concept of prior
agreement reached with all the facts on the table, so that
countries will consider the harmful effects that a genetically
modified organism could have on their biodiversity before
importing it and introducing it into the environment.
I am dismayed to note that the right to ratify international
agreements is limited to the executive arm, which is peculiar to
the British parliamentary regime on which our system is based.
It should be noted that the situation is very different in the
United States, where the separation of the legislative,
executive and judicial arms proposed by the French philosopher
Montesquieu is followed to the letter.
I will now address Bill C-214 introduced by the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, which would correct this situation. Under
this bill, the Canadian government could not negotiate or
conclude a treaty without first consulting provincial
governments and the House of Commons.
As well, Bill C-214 would not in any way limit the royal
prerogative of provincial governments to negotiate and sign
treaties in an area under provincial jurisdiction. Bill C-214
would mean that Canada could not ratify any important treaty
without the members of this House having first approved that
treaty by resolution.
The case before us today is the order-in-council amending the
schedule to the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which constitutes
an important treaty because its implementation has, among other
things, brought about the enactment of a federal statute. Why
then does this government not want to consult members of
parliament on this?
Just as was the case for MOX, it is obstinately forging ahead
without consulting parliamentarians or the population, despite
the recommendations of the Seaborn report, which stated as
follows, in subsection 6.2.1.1 that the public must accept the
plan for importing and stocking nuclear wastes before it is
implemented.
2005
I believe that, when Canada plans to ratify a treaty, this must
not be done unless the Minister of Foreign Affairs has first
tabled the treaty in the House of Commons, with an explanatory
memorandum concerning the subject matter and the effects of the
treaty, not later than twenty-one sitting days before it is to be
ratified.
Thus, Canada should not ratify a treaty amending a treaty that
it has ratified, as is the case today, unless it has notified us
with an order making it possible to include in its federal
legislation the amendments to the international agreement that
has already been in place for some time. The Minister of Foreign
Affairs should also have first tabled it in the House of Commons,
not later than twenty-one sitting days before the amending treaty
is to be ratified, with a note explaining the contents and
effects of the treaty.
There is one very important point still to be mentioned.
The intent of this bill is to fill a democratic gap resulting
from the lack of real participation by the House of Commons and
its members in all stages of the conclusion of international
treaties.
We parliamentarians do not have a very high trust rating with
the public. According to a poll taken in 1995 for the magazine
L'Actualité, 4% of the population had full confidence in us.
This poll stopped me in my tracks. At the time, I was not a
member of parliament, but I was political assistant to the late
member for Jonquière, André Caron, and I could not imagine such
a thing.
The situation before us today does not improve our image with
the public. I would hope that the bill of my colleague, the
member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, will be passed thus correcting
the current situation.
One thing is sure. The government could have arranged for the
provinces and the House of Commons to have a say on this piece
of legislation. We must not forget that the federal government
asked the provinces to decide on the coming into force of the
free trade agreement with the United States in the 1980s. Doing
the same with the order amending the schedule to the Migratory
Birds Convention Act would not have set a precedent.
Now that I have concluded these few introductory remarks, I will
focus more specifically on the government's motion.
At the beginning of the century, in 1916, Canada and the United
States recognized the need to protect certain common species of
migratory birds. They signed an international agreement to
protect those migratory birds considered useful or harmless to
humanity. For almost 80 years, the 1916 Migratory Bird
Convention provided the framework for the conservation of
populations of migratory birds common to both the United States
and Canada.
In 1994, the Canadian parliament introduced the Migratory Bird
Convention Act, paving the way for tougher legislation to better
protect migratory species. This legislation is administered by
the Department of the Environment's Canadian Wildlife Service in
co-operation with the governments of the provinces and
territories. In fact, the provinces are responsible for
enforcing the legislation. It is the provinces who are in a
position to keep an eye on the public.
2010
Through the enforcement and administration of this legislation
in Quebec, the Government of Quebec was able, in April 1996, to
hand out an initial important sentence in a case where the former
owner of an outfitting operation was fined for using bait to hunt
ducks, which is contrary to the regulations under the Migratory
Bird Convention. Quebec is thus doing its job under the
legislation.
However, certain species seen as harmful at the beginning of the
century, and subsequently left unprotected, are now recognized as
important to the environment and to our ecosystems.
Similarly, the guidelines set down at the beginning of the
century are no longer completely consistent with today's reality.
Increasingly, there is agreement that effective protection of
species is not possible if we do not take into account all the
factors that affect them, such as their habitats. Close and
ongoing co-operation is essential between the various levels of
government involved.
I will, if I may, quote from the report by the Commissioner of
the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled this morning
in the House, which says, and I quote “—the shared nature of
environmental jurisdiction requires close co-operation between
federal, provincial and territorial governments”.
It is sad to see this increasingly centralizing attitude on the
part of government members regarding environmental issues.
Instead of working with the provinces, the federal government
ignores their specificity and comes up with new programs or acts
that encroach on their jurisdictions.
Migratory birds know no borders. Therefore, it is important to
legislate at the international level. The protection of
migratory species comes under federal jurisdiction, while the
protection of their habitats is a provincial responsibility.
This is why it is important to have sound agreements between the
provinces and also adequate provincial laws. We do not question
that reality, but we have a right to expect that much from the
federal government.
Still, as I said before, what upsets me about the Migratory
Birds Convention Act is not the need for international
agreements on the protection of migratory birds, but the way the
negotiation, signing and ratification of international
agreements are conducted in Canada. That approach is seriously
flawed.
We feel as though we are back in the 19th century, when it was
common to sign bilateral agreements, including mutual defence
agreements, in absolute secrecy. How can parliamentarians fulfil
their responsibilities if the executive branch does not allow
them to do so?
I remind members of the executive branch that they do not enjoy
more public legitimacy than I do. They were elected, just like
me, as parliamentarians and, if they hold a cabinet post, it is
simply because the Prime Minister decided so, not because they
were mandated by the public.
But the public should be aware of our frustration as
parliamentarians when we cannot express our support for or
opposition to a treaty ratified by the executive branch. The
public might wonder, and rightly so, what we are doing here.
What is the point of going to the polls if members of parliament
only enjoy limited power?
All these questions remain unanswered with the government's
proposal before us.
2015
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
want to start off by saying that the migratory birds convention
in North America has a history dating back to 1916. The
amendments that are taking place today are probably long overdue
in terms of the relationship this country and the nation to the
south of us called the United States have with aboriginal people.
It would be more clearly rectified on the rights and the
privileges that the indigenous populations have here in this
country and this continent.
We sit in the House of Commons. The original protocol was
signed in 1916 and was between the United Kingdom and the United
States of America, which brings us back to recognize that Canada
at the time was a colony of Britain. Under these perspectives I
draw to the attention of the House that the indigenous and
aboriginal peoples of this country should have been dearly
respected right from the creation of this country as opposed to
being marginalized by an Indian Act, by the crown defining who is
an aboriginal person, who is an Indian child, or who is an Indian
mother. All these terminologies are a grave mistake. To correct
and update the migratory birds convention to May 30, 2000 is what
we are debating in the House today.
I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. member who
spoke on behalf of the opposition that we do not share some of
these views. The views may change in light of respecting one's
place and one's rights, Canada being a country which is part of
North America. I wanted to jump up and say something at one point
in time here.
We are dealing with the migratory birds convention and luckily
so. Ducks may fly high enough that we do not get them all when
we are harvesting or hunting, but we should have had a migratory
bison convention. The buffalo were wreaked to the point of
extinction on this continent for the mere purpose of
marginalizing the dependency of aboriginal people. It is truly a
travesty in our history.
Bison should still be roaming free on the prairies and plains
but we did not have regulatory systems. There were no regulatory
systems because they wanted to make the indigenous population
dependent on the newcomers and their new foods. An independent
nation or an independent people would be a lot freer to negotiate
their way into this constitution or to any other constitution.
At this time in the year 2000, we now have a government that is
willing to negotiate on behalf of the aboriginal people of this
country, to negotiate with another country a rightful place for
harvesting for food and sustenance, and down to protect ourselves
from the winter cold. Down comforters are probably the best way
to fight off the winter cold no matter where we live.
The snow goose and the cormorant are two contentious issues. I
have never heard that the U.S. and Mexico migratory birds
convention deals with cormorants as a recognized black duck. I
call them Daffy Ducks because that is what they look like when
they fly by.
They do wreak havoc in the fishing population in our northern
lakes and northern states.
2020
The culling of the snow goose may have been too reactionary. I
believe a proper harvest could have been planned without being
detrimental to its habitat as was highlighted.
There is a need for an international convention and that is what
this is. The protocol that was negotiated after some public
consultations brought forward three provisions: to provide
year-round access to migratory birds for food by qualified
non-aboriginal residents of northern Canada living in a
subsistent lifestyle; to allow for earlier opening of the fall
hunting seasons for residents of the northern territories; to
enable partnerships to be developed for migratory bird
conservation and provide a mechanism for input by aboriginal
communities into the continental management regime for migratory
birds.
These are the major components of the protocol. A specific
convention in this protocol states to be aware that changes to
the convention are required to ensure conformity with the
aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples of Canada. As
I mentioned, this is a long overdue amendment. It can be found
in subsection 4, “In the case of Canada, subject to existing
aboriginal treaty rights of aboriginal peoples of Canada under
section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the regulatory and
conservation regimes defined in the relevant treaties, land claim
agreements, self-government agreements and co-management
agreements with aboriginal peoples of Canada”.
All this language is required today because there has been an
evolution of different terminologies, different arrangements and
also court decisions. I would also like to challenge the present
environment minister to have a legal grasp of some of the recent
decisions being made and to acquire an up to date knowledge on
the matters of aboriginal rights and treaty rights that have been
brought down by supreme courts and lower courts.
The other point I would like to raise is the signature at the
bottom of the protocol. As we all know, in 1995 the then
Minister of the Environment signed this protocol. We also have a
history of some other protocols and agreements that the
government has signed, one of them being on MMT. The hon. former
Minister of the Environment had signed this agreement recognizing
the international concern of MMT and banning the interprovincial
trade of MMT as an additive in this country. Now the government
has reversed its perspective on MMT. It has signed off, paying
off the MMT Ethyl Corporation and has now sanctioned MMT as a
fuel additive.
I would just like to stay on the record of the government for
the time being. There might be differing opinions of our minister
or some international criticisms that come his way. I just want
to share this one with the House.
Recently an esteemed environmental guest visited our country.
Robert Kennedy Jr. was here on the Hill speaking on issues of
concern. He is an internationally respected and recognized
conservationist. Upon reflection our minister stated that Mr.
Kennedy should have perhaps thought about politicking and failed
to understand the constitutional division of Ottawa's powers.
Our environment minister had high hopes of improving the
environmental standards and the reputation of Canada. I say to
the House that a lot of improvement is required in the present
government.
The current federal government has had a lengthy record since
1993 of signing protocols and then not following through with its
international commitments. This has been an embarrassment to
Canada's once noble and honourable reputation on the
international environment stage.
2025
This government's limited effort to meet our limited protocol
requirements is proven by the increase in our targets and our
lack of hitting these targets.
There is also the government's refusal to sign the Basel
convention side bar agreement to ban toxic waste shipments to the
developing world.
There is the government's continual refusal to appoint a new
ambassador for the environment, who plays a major leadership role
in negotiating international protocols. The new ambassador of
the environment should be named immediately.
That role is needed now for a protocol such as the precautionary
principle. It was needed in the POPs protocol at a recent
meeting in Bonn, Germany. The persistent organic pollutants
treaty is an international United Nations protocol yet Canada
neglected to follow its Rio protocol to which we are all
signatories. Domestic law has included the precautionary
principle but it is rarely followed in our country. The list
continues.
We welcome this protocol to the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
It is a much needed amendment to bring us to the point of
recognizing aboriginal rights in dealing with migratory birds.
But do we believe in our hearts that the government can ensure
the commitments and timetables can be met?
There are commitments here that our country would stand by
protecting the habitat. If pollutants have infiltrated the
migratory birds' habitats, would our country uphold these
obligations to stop polluting the habitats? The government has
not recognized and has not been able to enforce the adequate
habitat protection commitment. It is weak.
It is also highlighted in terms of the new legislation being
debated in Canada now, the endangered species legislation. If the
Americans are listening, we do not have an endangered species act
in this country. Many Americans may be surprised to hear this
since they have had theirs for many decades.
Our American neighbours would be more surprised to learn that
specific recommendations of endangered species listings would be
political as opposed to scientific decisions. If an endangered
migratory bird flew from a rock on federal land and landed on a
field outside federal land, it could be shot. These issues have
to be resolved here in this country and by a government that has
the will and the resources to enforce these protocols and
regulations and the protocols we have with other nations.
With regard to an issue that is dear to our community, I just
came back from my constituency. Many residents back home, my
father included, for years have harvested duck eggs. Little did
we know it was illegal. He is a Metis person and all his life he
has been illegally harvesting eggs.
Birds are a good source of nutrition. Ducks are usually saved
in the spring because they provide young ones. Nowadays a lot of
hunters will not select a duck arriving in the spring because it
comes from polluted areas down south. They prefer a cleaner duck
that has been hatched and is ready to fly south in the fall.
The Migratory Birds Convention Act is certainly a much needed
protocol between two countries to save the species. At this time
this amendment has corrected the wrong by our country in
overlooking aboriginal rights to harvest migratory birds, giving
special preference to northern locations where the hunting and
harvesting seasons might be different from those in the south.
At this time, I congratulate the former Minister of the
Environment for boldly negotiating an issue that is really needed
at this time. I also caution some of the hon. members who have
raised a concern about specific rights, privileges and
definitions. This continually requires a whole new will from the
government and the House to find a rightful place for the
indigenous and aboriginal peoples in the government, this
parliament and the legislatures of this country.
2030
I believe there is a time and place for that, and it is
certainly a welcome opportunity to see these amendments come
before the House.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, as a
blue heron it gives me great pride to participate in the debate
this evening concerning migratory birds.
It will come as a surprise to no one that what we are talking
about this evening is an act about protecting and maintaining the
populations of birds of a migratory nature between Canada and the
United States. This is an environmental initiative and I know,
being the knowledgeable man that you are, Mr. Speaker, that it
comes as no surprise whatsoever that this environmental
initiative was brought forward by the Conservative Party of
Sir Robert Borden when he was the prime minister of this country.
In the true essence of the word conservative, he was a
conservationist of the finest kind before we even thought about
having an environment minister. It was because of that kind of
leadership that was brought forth by perhaps one of Canada's
greatest prime ministers that his legacy remains and the act
remains on which we are having the opportunity to speak in this place
this evening.
This convention was a response to a drastic decline in migratory
bird populations in the early 1900s. The legislation was the
first legislative effort designed to regulate hunting, prevent
trafficking and control the uses of migratory birds through
permits. It also created migratory bird sanctuaries that were
intended to control and manage areas important for the protection
of migratory birds.
Behind the legislative framework between the United States and
Canada, I would like to take this opportunity to point out the
many private citizens who reside in the United States and indeed
within the borders of this great country, Canada, who have taken
it upon themselves to maintain wetlands for migratory species.
The organization I am speaking about, which I am quite sure
members are familiar with, is Ducks Unlimited. I have witnessed
the preservation activities of the DU groups in the wetlands of
Fundy—Royal and throughout Atlantic Canada. More money is
raised for the preservation of wetlands on a per capita basis for
Ducks Unlimited in Atlantic Canada than in any other region in
North America. That initiative is fundamentally critical
because, from a wetlands and waterfowl perspective, Atlantic
Canada is one of the most critical migratory habitats that
exists.
However, weaknesses in the convention such as the lack of
protection of habitat led to the call for strong endangered
species legislation. We now are debating the initiative brought
forth by the government known as the species at risk act, Bill
C-33, which is intended to help maintain the biodiversity legacy
that we wish to leave to future generations. My primary analysis
of the bill is that it dovetails with the Migratory Birds
Convention Act quite importantly. The issue we are concerned
about primarily is the fact that the species at risk act is
perhaps too discretionary in nature.
2035
Our first objection to Bill C-33 is that the very listing of
whether a species is at risk is a matter of political choice and
not merely that of science.
Clearly the Progressive Conservative Party understands that the
listing of a species, and the habitat restoration perspective, is
that we must take into account social and economic implications
as well.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Let's talk about the Migratory Birds
Convention Act.
Mr. John Herron: The parliamentary secretary, once in a
while, gets a little concerned when we criticize a particular
piece of legislation that is part of the framework. The
Migratory Birds Convention Act and the species at risk bill are
critical pieces of legislation in the overall framework. We only
have to refer to the position paper of the Minister of the
Environment released at the Calgary zoo. He referenced that act
when he brought forth his species at risk bill.
It is indeed very relevant to speak about both pieces of
legislation, and I am sure there have been other speakers who
have referenced both pieces of legislation this evening.
Our concern is that there are not enough financial incentives,
not enough carrots, and there is too much emphasis on sticks.
The carrots are needed to help the stewards of this land. The
best stewards of this land for quite some time have been the
farmers and the woodlot owners. They have been the best stewards
at maintaining species at risk.
Whether it is a migratory bird which is of concern or whether it
is another species, it is critical that we have legislation that
works.
I cite this example to illustrate my point. Because the
burrowing owl is not deemed to be a migratory bird, it does not
have the same protection as a bird that might be migratory in
nature, such as a blue heron.
It is fundamental for us to maintain the biodiversity of the
country and for us to have strong species at risk legislation as
well.
Since the parliamentary secretary is listening so intently, I
want to reiterate where this species at risk legislation is at
fault. Listing is a matter of political choice, not of science.
The protection of habitat is discretionary.
Habitat loss represents 80% of the reason a species becomes at
risk in the first place. The species at risk bill does not
necessarily make habitat protection mandatory for a listed
species. That is part and parcel of why this bill, if it becomes
an act, would not work. It does not have the financial levers or
incentives to help the stewards of our land, our farmers and
woodlot owners, to maintain those good practices which are
required to protect species that are endangered in Canada,
whether they are migratory in nature or whether they are a
species maintained within our own borders.
I think it was healthy to have a chance to speak about this
pioneering piece of legislation, which was founded long before we
ever thought we would have a Department of the Environment.
The Conservative government of Sir Robert Borden recognized the
fact that it was imperative that we conserve the biodiversity of
the country. The fact that we are speaking about that
Conservative prime minister's legacy in the House is indeed a
pleasure. I reiterate that we need to have a species at risk act
which is strong and effective, which does not penalize our
farmers and woodlot owners, so that it will complement, dovetail
and support the initiatives that first began in 1916, which we
are discussing here tonight.
2040
On that note and on this take note debate I want to thank the
House sincerely for the opportunity to participate in this
mandatory review. I wish you all the best this evening, Mr.
Speaker, at this late hour. I would like to extend an invitation
for you to attend our Tory Tuesday activities in West Block after
you finish your activities here.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Was that for me too?
Mr. John Herron: If I may, I think the Progressive
Conservative Party wants to build a broad coalition. We have
always been successful when we have invited a number of
individuals to actually form coalitions, whether it was the
Cartier and Macdonald coalition, the coalition that Robert Borden
of whom we spoke today formed during wartime leadership, the
coalition that Diefenbaker formed with the Union Nationale, or
the coalition that was formed by the Conservative government of
1984 and 1993.
I would like to invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of the Environment and the Speaker tonight—I am not
sure if he is independent. I know he will soon be a provincial
Tory and I wish him all the best in that election—to our Tory Tuesday
activities.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no
members rising, pursuant to order made earlier this day the
motion is deemed withdrawn.
(Motion withdrawn)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 8.41 p.m.
the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8.41 p.m.)