36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 16
CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 2, 1999
1005
| PRIVILEGE
|
| National Defence—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1010
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-293. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
1015
| EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT
|
| Bill C-294. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT
|
| Bill C-295. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| BEVERAGE CONTAINERS ACT
|
| Bill C-296. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-297. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1020
| PETITIONS
|
| Justice
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CIVIL INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
|
| Bill C-4. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1025
1030
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1035
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1040
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Mr. Randy White |
1045
1050
1055
1100
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1105
1110
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1115
1120
1125
1130
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1135
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1140
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1145
1150
1155
1200
1205
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1210
1215
| Mr. John Cummins |
1220
1225
1230
1235
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1240
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1245
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1250
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1310
1315
1320
1325
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1330
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1335
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1340
1345
1350
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| LAKE CHAMPLAIN
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1400
| WOMEN VETERANS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| REMEMBRANCE DAY
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| AUTHOR ABLA FARHOUD
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| SPORTS
|
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1405
| KARINE VANASSE
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| EGYPTAIR FLIGHT 990
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| JEAN COUTU
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| NATIONAL MUSEUM OF CIVILIZATION
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| JEAN COUTU
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1410
| NORTEL
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| DIABETES
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| FOOD LABELLING
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| LEONARD PELTIER
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BUDGET SURPLUSES
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| POVERTY
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1430
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| ELECTIONS CANADA
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1435
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| SOCIAL HOUSING
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| INDIA
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
1445
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1450
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CANADA
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1455
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| FEDNOR
|
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CANADA
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CORPORAL DANIEL AUBUT
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
1500
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Question Period
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1505
| Mr. John Solomon |
| THE LATE RODERICK WEBB
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1510
| Mr. Randy White |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1515
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CIVIL INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
|
| Bill C-4. Second reading
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1520
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1525
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1545
1550
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1555
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1600
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
| Mr. John Bryden |
1630
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1635
| Mr. John Bryden |
1640
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1645
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1650
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1655
1700
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1705
1710
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1715
1720
1725
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1730
1735
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1740
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1745
1750
1755
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1800
1805
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1810
1815
1820
1825
| Mr. John Solomon |
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Air Canada
|
| Motion
|
1900
(Division 51)
| Amendment negatived
|
1910
(Division 52)
| Motion negatived
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Natural Disasters
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1915
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1920
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1925
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 16
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, November 2, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
PRIVILEGE
NATIONAL DEFENCE—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question
of privilege raised by the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla
on October 21, 1999 concerning delays in the release of
information under the Access to Information Act caused by staff
of the Minister of National Defence.
Before beginning, I would like to thank the hon. member for
raising the matter. I also want to acknowledge the contribution
of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon.
member for Langley—Abbotsford, as well as the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Leader of the Government to this matter.
The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla has argued that his
privileges, as well as those of other member,s were breached by
the actions of two employees of the Minister of National Defence,
namely Mr. Aldege Bellefeuille and Mr. David Robinson, who
delayed the release of information thereby obstructing him in the
performance of his parliamentary work.
The member went on to assert that the delays in question
constitute a contempt of the House.
[Translation]
Contempt as described by Joseph Maingot in his book
Parliamentary Privilege in Canada is “an offence against the
authority or dignity of the House”.
[English]
The 22nd edition of Erskine May states that:
any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of
Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which
obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the
discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or
indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt
even though there is no precedent of the offence.
The member for Okanagan—Coquihalla did not state clearly in his
presentation on this question of privilege nor in the
supplemental material submitted to the Chair that he personally
had been obstructed. The facts, as I have them, indicate that
the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla had placed requests with the
Department of National Defence to obtain information under the
Access to Information Act and received the answers to his
questions after what he stated was an intentional and deliberate
delay initiated by Messieurs Bellefeuille and Robinson. Following
this series of events, the member then proceeded to inform the
Information Commissioner of his criticisms of the process. The
Information Commissioner in his report found the instructions
issued by these individuals to constitute improper interference
with the lawful processing of access requests. As a result of the
members complaint and the commissioner's report, the Department
of National Defence was informed of the misconduct and acted to
remedy the situation.
While the actions of Messieurs Bellefeuille and Robinson may
have been deemed improper under the terms of the Access to
Information Act, this is not a matter that the Speaker can judge.
As Speaker Fraser eloquently stated in his ruling on January 28,
1988:
I would remind the House that it is not the duty of the Speaker
to judge the actions of public officials in the fulfilment of
their duties. It is my duty only to determine whether or not
sufficient evidence has been presented to judge if there has been
a prima facie breach of privilege or contempt of the House.
The fact that these public servants were not properly fulfilling
their duties is not de facto in itself grounds for a charge of
contempt.
[Translation]
Technically, obstructing members in the discharge of their
responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its
proceedings is considered to be a contempt of the House.
However, as Joseph Maingot writes, in his book Parliamentary
Privilege in Canada, on page 82:
—the member must be exercising his functions as a member in a
committee or in the House in the transaction of parliamentary
business. Whatever he says or does in those circumstances is
said or done during a “proceeding in Parliament”; in other
words, while the member is functioning as a member, not in his
constituency, but while actually participating in parliamentary
business and saying or doing something necessarily incidental to
parliamentary business.
1010
Thus, in order for a member to claim that his privileges have
been breached or that a contempt has occurred, he or she must
have been actually participating in a proceeding of parliament.
[English]
Joseph Maingot reiterates this point on page 86 of his book:
A Member is doing something inherently connected with a
“proceeding in Parliament” when putting down a question on the
Order Paper, a notice of motion, a notice of motion for the
production of papers, or a report stage amendment; when obtaining
assistance to do any of these; or when obtaining assistance to
draft a bill.
In order to fulfil their parliamentary duties, members should of
course have access to the information they require. The Chair is
mindful of the multiple responsibilities, duties and activities
of all members and of the importance they play in the work of
every member of parliament. However, the gathering of
information by an elected representative through means other
than those available exclusively to members does not, in and by
itself, necessarily constitute “a proceeding of parliament”.
As stated in the 22nd edition of Erskine May on page 121:
Correspondence with constituents or official bodies, for example,
and the provision of information, sought by Members on matters of
public concern will very often, depending on the circumstances of
the case, fall outside the scope of `proceedings in Parliament'
against which a claim of privilege will be measured.
Let me stress to all members of the House that any matter
concerning the privileges of members, particularly any matter
which may constitute a contempt of the House, is always taken
seriously. At this time, however, based on the facts presented
on this matter, the Chair cannot determine that the member has
been obstructed in the performance of his parliamentary duties.
I am therefore bound by practice to conclude that there are not
sufficient grounds to find a prima facie case nor to proceed
further at this time.
I thank the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla for bringing
this matter to the attention of the House.
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 Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-293, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(political activities by charities receiving public funds).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill once enacted
would disqualify from charitable status corporations, trusts and
organizations that have received discretionary funding from the
public money of Canada or a province if they give direct or
indirect support or endorsement to parties or candidates for
election at the federal level.
There is a gaping wide loophole at the moment in the act which
allows charities to engage in political activities with no real
accountability.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1015
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-294, an act to amend the Employment Equity Act
(elimination of designated groups and numerical goals) and the
Canadian Human Rights Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once this bill is adopted it will get rid
of the ridiculous provisions of the Employment Equity Act, which
I have mentioned in the House, which result in the sort of
perverse discrimination that one of my constituents has
experienced, and it would completely derail the government's
agenda in that regard.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-295, an act to establish principles of
responsible fiscal management and to require regular publication
of information by the Minister of Finance to demonstrate the
government's adherence to those principles.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, once adopted, would cause
there to be responsible fiscal management by the Minister of
Finance. Not only would the minister have to make a forecast of
the fiscal state of the nation for the year on what the policies
are for the government, but he would be required to report
regularly to parliament to show that those things are being
achieved.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BEVERAGE CONTAINERS ACT
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-296, an act respecting beverage containers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would ensure that all beverages
sold in Canada are sold in bottles upon which a deposit would be
chargeable. It may be that the amount of the deposit would
differ from some of the existing programs, such as those found in
the breweries of Canada, but the principle is very important to
ensure that we help the environment by having all of these
bottles and containers returned for deposit.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-297, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to reintroduce the
bill formerly known as Bill C-260, an act to amend the Young
Offenders Act, to make the offence set out in section 7.2 of the
Young Offenders Act a hybrid offence.
I appreciate that the Minister of Justice has recognized the
value of this legislation as it is incorporated in its entirety
in government Bill C-3.
1020
I am forced to keep my bill alive as it has received the support
of the majority of members of the House. As well, it is my bill
that keeps the clock ticking to force the government to deal with
this issue. There is no guarantee that Bill C-3 will even pass
successfully from this place or that it will pass in its entirety
with the issue raised by my legislation.
The bill was a votable item in the previous session. On May 25,
1999 it was referred from this place to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights. The bill is in the same form as it was
in the first session of this parliament. Pursuant to our present
rules, I am requesting that it be returned to the position it
held prior to prorogation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair is
satisfied that the bill is in the same form as Bill C-260 was at
the time of prorogation of the first session of the 36th
Parliament. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 86(1), the
bill is deemed to have been read the second time and referred to
a committee.
(Bill deemed read the second time and referred to a
committee)
* * *
PETITIONS
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present the latest instalment of this petition on
behalf of Diane Sowden of Coquitlam, British Columbia. The
petition contains the names of some 7,100 citizens. It brings
the total to some 11,500 Canadians who are calling on parliament
to enact legislation raising the age of consent from 14 years to
16 years for sexual activity between a young person and an adult.
* * *
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 Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CIVIL INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
ACT
The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement among the
Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the
European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of
the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States
of America concerning co-operation on the civil international
space station and to make related amendments to other acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely
delighted to finally be able to speak to Bill C-4, the civil
international space station agreement implementation act. This
bill will allow Canada to fulfil its obligations under the
agreement concerning co-operation on the civil space station.
Bill C-4 legally formalizes Canada's partnership in the space
station.
Members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will
work co-operatively with the government to ensure speedy passage
of the bill. Why would we not? It is the culmination of a
process that was started by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and
President Ronald Reagan at their infamous shamrock summit. I am
sure I do not have to remind the House that it was that
conference which saw Canada-U.S. relations begin to thaw after
the acrimonious Yankee baiting Trudeau years.
It was due to this new co-operative relationship that the
Progressive Conservative government was able to successfully
negotiate the free trade agreement, an agreement that has
provided the present finance minister with balanced budgets and a
fast track to the leadership of his own party. I am sure he
joins me in congratulating the foresight of the previous
government, just as my party congratulates his government for
continuing this positive relationship with Bill C-4.
There are many issues I want to touch on regarding the
initiative to have a permanently inhabited space station, but for
just a moment I would like to pay tribute to the powers of the
dreamers. One man had a dream, a dream that many different
friends and allies could design, construct and permanently
inhabit a space station, a station whose sole purpose would be
for peace and scientific study. What is even more remarkable is
that this vision arose in the midst of a cold war, a time when
new space initiatives were routinely judged by their strategic
benefits, not necessarily by their humanitarian and scientific
attributes.
1025
This bill honours the dream of former President Ronald Reagan,
as well as the vision of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and other
world leaders who quickly coalesced behind the initiative.
I do not wish to have my words misconstrued by detractors in our
ranks. Certainly my party is not advocating carte blanche
spending on any and all flights of fancy. Quite the opposite,
since my party created the Canadian Space Agency in 1989, frugal
spending with an eye to the return on investment has been the
hallmark of this institution.
In this case it is the return on investment that I want to deal
with. Over a 20 year period the government is telling us that
Canada's total investment will be $1.4 billion, with 90% of that
investment going to Canadian industry. Projected returns on
investment are three to four times that amount, or at least $5
billion. Thus, from a business perspective, this investment
makes good sense.
Why is Canada involved? Is it because we are good friends and
neighbours with the Americans? Of course not. If that were not
the case we could certainly expect to be excluded. The point
here is that Canada has been invited to take part because of our
own scientific merits. Our contribution to the space station
includes the design, construction and operation of the mobile
servicing system, plus responsibilities for the operation and use
of the space station.
This high tech repair system will feature an agile robotic arm
with a sleeve bearing the Canada wordmark. This remote
manipulator will be monitored on the ground by the Canadian Space
Agency headquartered in St-Hubert, Quebec. Clearly, Canada has
made a name for itself in arming spacecrafts for peaceful
purposes.
The Canadarm has become a cliched reference to our contribution
to space study. I have no desire to belittle that important
innovation which put us at the table with other world class space
studying nations, but the reality is that we have moved
exponentially beyond those days in both our research and
capabilities.
Our capabilities in space robotics are renowned around the
globe. In fact, it would not be arrogant bluster to state that
this project simply could not go ahead without Canada's
involvement. Our investment provides us with one laboratory
shelf per year for science and technological experiments. This
will allow us to further our research in the microgravity field
which has already produced medical benefits for us in several
areas, including the treatment of osteoporosis.
Since 1987 the Canadian Space Agency has allocated over 150
contracts to Canadian firms and universities for automation and
robotics technology developed projects, resulting in the
development of several new technologies which have already been
alluded to by my colleagues in the House. In many ways this is
remarkable considering the shrinking budget that the CSA has had
to endure over the last several years.
Since the Liberal government was elected in 1993 it has cut the
budget to the CSA by 7% thus far. In the 1999 budget the
Liberals bragged that they were giving new money to the Canadian
Space Agency, but in reality the government was cutting the
budget by 21% from when it was first elected. We all realize
that hard decisions have to be made so that we live within our
means. However, when a sector of the economy provides so much
spinoff and keeps racking up success after success, I really
think we should re-evaluate our goals.
This project goes beyond technological and scientific
advancement. As we are all aware, it was due to the hard work
and lobbying efforts of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney that Canada
gained entry, along with Italy, into what was the G-5. Membership
in the G-7 guaranteed that no longer would Canada be relegated to
afterthought status when it came to important international
initiatives. At that point we graduated to the big leagues.
Bill C-4 continues that status for us.
Along with the United States, the space station's other partners
include Russia, Japan, Brazil and 11 other European countries.
It is interesting to note that whenever this agreement is
referred to in terms of its partners, it almost always lumps the
11 European countries together as one, while leaving Canada as a
stand-alone.
Even the NASA website does this. The message from the rest of
the world is clear. We have assumed the natural leadership
mantle that the 20th century promised us.
1030
My party's support for this bill is both resolute and strong.
However, I would be remiss if I failed to mention our
disappointment with the way the Liberals have dragged their heels
in getting this bill before the House.
The partners in the international space station signed the
original agreement in January 1998. This agreement provides a
legal framework for the operation of the space station, including
provisions for each inhabitant of the station to be subject to
the laws of their own nation, a very important sovereignty issue
for all the participants. The question though is why the delay?
The bill seems simple enough yet it had not been called for
second reading before the House prorogued.
It is now the beginning of November. This agreement has sat
around for 21 months. What is the Prime Minister afraid of? In
all fairness, I do not see any reason to be suspicious, but it is
easy to see how waiting until the last minute when this bill must
receive royal assent by mid-December can raise questions. These
questions are entirely unnecessary when a government respects the
role that parliament and the parliamentary committees have to
play.
Having said that, I will not delay the bill any further. Let us
move this bill along and give Canada's best scientific minds one
more reason to stay and work in Canada.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-4, the civil international space
station agreement implementation act. I should say at the outset
that the NDP supports this legislation. Let me give a little
background on the legislation.
In January 1998 Canada, Japan, Russia, the U.S. and 11 European
countries signed the civil international space station agreement.
Bill C-4 provides the legislation needed for Canada to meet its
commitments for ratification by all signatories before January
2000.
The lifespan of the station we are told is 10 years, from 2005
to 2014, and it will house seven astronauts. The purpose of the
station is to do research in the areas of biotechnology,
engineering, Earth observation and telecommunications.
Canada's contribution to the international space station is the
next generation of the Canadarm, the space station robotic
manipulator system. This system plays a crucial role in
assembling and maintaining the international space station while
in orbit. It will be used to move equipment in space, help
astronauts during space walks and it will manipulate the various
instruments and experiments docked on the ISS. We are all very
proud of this Canadian invention and the role it has played thus
far in the whole area of space development.
What rewards are there for Canada? The cost of Canada's
participation over a 20 year period is approximately $1.4
billion. Ninety percent of that investment is being spent in
Canadian industry and universities. Indeed we know the
importance of our universities to our society and to our young
people.
Since 1987 the Canadian Space Agency has allocated 150 contracts
for robotics development technology to firms and universities
from British Columbia right through to Newfoundland. Already the
technology is being used in such diverse areas as prosthetics,
the deployment of airbags in vehicles, and in a digital imaging
system for medical radiology.
Firms have landed international contracts based on the expertise
they have acquired through their work with the Canadian Space
Agency or by supplying equipment and expertise to some of the
other signatory countries to the agreement.
From our participation in the international space station we
received one rack, or what is known as a laboratory shelf, per
year for science and technological experiments. These shelves
will allow Canada to expand its research in the microgravity
field which will aid research carried out here in areas such as
osteoporosis. It is very important to have this kind of research
in our society. Certainly the benefits of this technology will be
great for our nation.
I also noticed that the bill talks about establishing an
international space station for peaceful purposes.
I want to take a moment to comment on that. I certainly support
the concept of a space station, but I find it somewhat disturbing
that we can spend lots of money and move forward with great
urgency and a certain sense of determination on things that are
outside of this Earth, the space element.
1035
It would be good if we could put as much energy into finding
peace here on Earth and working toward establishing peace within
the many troubled countries throughout the world. If countries
across the world would put the same effort that is being put into
the development of the space agency into establishing peaceful
negotiations and peaceful relationships between countries, the
world would certainly be a much better place. If ultimately we
have an elaborate space station in outer space but we are killing
each other off here on Earth, what good does it do us in the long
run?
The space station will house seven astronauts. The term house
draws to my attention that here on Earth on the streets within
our communities many people are homeless, yet we are providing
very elaborate and costly facilities to advance the cause of
science and business industries. I am not saying it should not
be done; I am saying that we should devote as much attention to
looking after the kinds of concerns that we see as we walk out of
our doors and down our streets.
I am sure many people living in constituencies right across the
country have more concern about putting bread on their tables and
about providing the homeless with shelter than they do with
proceeding with space development. That is not to say it should
not be done and I emphasize that. People will probably want to
say I am putting down that effort. I am not putting down that
effort. What I am saying is let us bring other efforts up to that
same level of advancement.
Finally, this project emphasizes industrial development and
economic development. It is very important that we as a nation
move forward in those areas. But again I would say that we must
also move forward in the area of social development and meet the
social concerns that face many of us. It would certainly be good
to see the kind of money that is being put into space development
being put into many of the problems that confront our young
people and the citizens of this nation.
With those remarks and that footnote about balancing the kinds
of priorities we deal with, I would say that I am pleased to
support this legislation.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to the NDP member's speech with some interest. He touched on a
very important subject and that is to what extent we support
investing in these high tech projects that take a lot of money
from the taxpayers.
It must be recognized that when we engage in these projects,
none of the money really goes up there. It involves supporting
our people and businesses that develop the space stations and
that do the work there. The money actually stays on planet Earth.
Most of it that is spent in Canada stays in Canada. It is spent
here by the people who have earned it, thereby providing jobs for
a lot of people. If these people did not have that employment in
the high tech area, then obviously they would leave Canada to go
to the United States or elsewhere.
I picked up from the member's speech that he generally supports
the government's involvement in the international space agency
projects. I would like him to respond to the issue of its
funding. By providing jobs and greater economic activity in
Canada as a result of it, in fact that does almost directly but
certainly indirectly help our economy. It helps all of the
people in this country, many of whom are struggling economically.
It would increase the proportion of jobs that are available to
them as they demand services and products that are put together
by Canadians. I would like the member to respond to that.
1040
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has
indicated, projects of this nature keep money within our
communities and they do generate economic activity. I believe I
did cover that point in my comments by mentioning that for this
very reason we support the project.
We also have to look at priorities in terms of our communities.
We have to use the same kind of energy and enthusiasm to tackle
some of the problems which are very evident in our society such
as the homeless, the lack of opportunities for some of our young
people and the concerns they have around education and so forth.
I am not disagreeing with the member's comments. They are well
taken. We did touch upon that and we do agree with that.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always very interesting to read, learn and
discover how people in our country are participating in the
leading edge technology in this way. Without technology I
suppose we might argue that perhaps we would not even be in caves
and tents because even that is some technological advancement.
However, at a time when we are looking at the enormous burden of
taxation on our people, the costs and the prioritizing of the
moneys that are raised is extremely important.
I would like to ask the hon. member about another aspect of
this. He mentioned the peaceful programs. Humankind has had
difficulties in reserving the technological advances for strictly
peaceful purposes. We have seen space surrounding Earth explored
for more than peaceful purposes. I would like to have the
member's comments on the peaceful purposes of the project. Is
there any danger of it going beyond that?
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
I too would have concerns about the possibility that a space
station could lead to another space station and that some rivalry
could take place in space. Many of us have watched Star
Trek and Star Wars. We would certainly hope that this
kind of development does not reach the point where we are not
only carrying on wars here on Earth but we are carrying on wars
in space or using the technology that has been learned through
these programs to further devastate ourselves on Earth. We have
to be vigilant about that.
It is for that reason I commented that it would be nice if we
could put energy into finding peaceful solutions here on Earth.
If we find peaceful solutions among the countries here on Earth,
then whatever we develop beyond should be guided by the same
principles. If we have wars going on here among countries and we
cannot come to some solution on those issues, then the member is
quite right in being concerned that perhaps the development of
more technology might lead to further disaster.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am happy to speak to Bill C-4, the civil international space
station agreement implementation act.
We talked with the people responsible for the development of the
Canadian aspects and the participation internationally on the
space station. I was impressed by the technological advances
which Canada is making and the contribution we are making toward
this space station.
I have a number of questions more than concerns. We certainly
support the bill. I have questions in the areas of the brain
drain and our young people going south, and where the technology
is headed and where it is coming from. I have questions on the
aspects of training our young people to participate in such a
project, the distribution of the manpower and technology
throughout the country. When talking to people at the space
agency a lot of the focus and the development and participation
is in Quebec and some other parts of eastern and central Canada.
1045
Having resided in the west for many years, I once again ask out
of the billion and so dollars that are being spent on this matter
what is in it for the west and for the young people who reside in
Vancouver, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina and all those other
places. How do they fit into the plans for this sort of thing?
If we are spending billions, basically, over the next 20 years,
do we not have an obligation as a central government to have
young people participate in this project from across the land and
not just focus in on one part of the country? It seems to me
that time and time again we stand in the House and ask why the
west is being ignored while other parts of the country are indeed
benefiting from major programs funded by the central government.
I find it ironic that I stand in the House today on a bill with
which we basically agree. I also want to talk about what went on
in the House yesterday with time allocation. We were expected to
talk about the Nisga'a agreement which involves as much money or
maybe even more money than the space station itself. We have a
diametrically opposite point of view from that of the government
and have made clear that there are significant flaws in that
legislation. We have said time and time again that
constitutionality was involved in it. There was taxation without
representation and all those sorts of things. Why was time
allocation used on the official opposition after four hours and
12 minutes?
Then the government brings in a bill for a little over a billion
dollars that we essentially all agree on. We are all happy
again. The government is expecting us to roll through the bill
really fast because it agrees with it and thinks we agree with
it.
I raise the question on whether or not my colleagues and I
should be sitting in the House allowing these bills to go
through. On a large bill like the Nisga'a bill the government
does everything to interfere in the process of proper debate. It
brought in time allocation on the Nisga'a agreement. We did not
even have the opportunity for the committee to travel to British
Columbia because it did not want to travel there. The bill was
delayed by a day. We forced its deferral because we wanted to
force the government to travel to British Columbia.
Once again I am having a difficult time, as are my colleagues,
understanding why Bill C-4 on the space agency can come to the
House and be zipped through when the government called time
allocation rather than debate something like the Nisga'a
legislation. The government is happy when we stand in the House
to debate the space agency, with which I agree. It is willing to
sit around all day and listen to how much I agree with this
legislation, but when I stand to disagree with the Nisga'a bill
it calls time allocation because it does not want to hear it.
I therefore have a bit of news for the government. I am sick
and tired of time allocation and closure on bills. I formally
tell the government today that if there is one more time
allocation or even a mention of closure—
Mr. Nick Discepola: Are you going to resign?
Mr. Randy White: No, I am not going to resign. I am glad
the member said that because it makes me a bit more angry. If I
hear even a whisper of it again on the Nisga'a bill, the House
will come to a screeching halt. If the government thinks I am
kidding, it should just try me.
1050
It is the height of arrogance to table this space agency bill
after the Nisga'a bill and expect us to stand here and pretend we
will all be happy. We will listen to how nice the bill is and
what a sweetheart deal we have when in fact we have been slapped
in the face and told the government does not want to hear about
our opposition to Nisga'a. I think it has another thought
coming.
I could hold on to this bill, which I just might yet, and debate
it for a couple of days. We will talk about Nisga'a while I am
doing it and a bit about a few other things. Yes, I may be
called me on relevance once in a while. Yes, I may call quorum
more than once and play all those silly games. As of yesterday
and the Nisga'a debate in the House, 23 of my colleagues were
sitting here who did not have the opportunity to speak to the
Nisga'a bill, many of whom are from British Columbia. That is
unacceptable.
Today we stand in the House to talk about the space agency bill,
something we all agree with, and we have two Liberals in the
House talking to each other over there and not even listening. As
long as we occupy the time of the House of Commons the government
is okay with that, as long as we agree, but when we do not agree
as with the Nisga'a legislation it is unforgivable. We have to
rush it through the House, do we not?
Given that there is only a couple of them over there and they
are not listening, we should wake them up a little. I could call
quorum but I do not think I will because there are committees in
place. We will have to discuss this bill for a while and see
where it goes. At the same time we will make reference and
comparison throughout to the disgusting process which took place
on the Nisga'a legislation.
We have taxation without representation in the Nisga'a
legislation. We have constitutional concerns and all kinds of
issues yet to discuss on that bill, but we cannot get our hands
on it because it was rushed through the House on time allocation.
Yet I see on the space agency bill that a little over $1 billion
will be spent. That is fine. We will just sit here, talk about
that, smile and all be happy. That is just plain unacceptable to
me. As House leader I will be talking to my colleagues tomorrow
in our caucus. I will make the points that we are sick and tired
of time allocation closure on bills, that we will not put up with
it any longer, and that we might just talk about all these bills
a little longer.
I have one comment about the space agency bill which the
government has not really considered. I well understand that
another head office like that of Air Canada and all the other
head offices will end up in Quebec. When will the government see
fit to put one in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edmonton or Calgary one of
these day? We do have a little technology out there, believe it
or not.
If we look at some of the good companies in Vancouver, I am sure
they could match the technology. Why is it that we get a $1.6
billion space agency program, which is an excellent program, and
it happens to sit in Quebec? Why is that? Time after time that
happens.
1055
If we look at the value of the space agency to the country, I do
not think there is any question about the technology and the
possibility that our young people will get jobs and that sort of
thing. However, once in a while the government should give us
the opportunity to have just a wee bit in the west.
I will get back to the comparison. If the space agency project
is to be a good project, it is not just international and our
participation in space and technology. It is more than that to
me. It is young people who should be training now for 10 years
from now, those who will be working on this project.
Are the universities fitting in? Has the government seen fit to
bother to try to help with programs at post-secondary
institutions for students to get jobs in this regard, or will we
be importing jobs applicants from other countries? Should we
expand the operation? Should we put satellite companies in other
parts of the country? Should we ask our technicians, our young
people, for participation and for ideas on the agency? How do we
promote the space agency even more than it is being promoted
today?
I do not think the government has thought a lot about these
things. It just looks at it and says that it has another project
in Quebec and it will make it work. I think there is a future
for our young people to be involved and it should be looked at.
If the space agency bill is to pass the House, with which we all
agree, I repeat once again that it is time the government
understood that it cannot keep bringing bills like this one into
the House expecting our agreement when bills with which we
adamantly disagree are rammed through the House on time
allocation. I have no intention whatsoever any longer of living
with the government's agenda, its timeframe. If we disagree with
or even if we agree with legislation it is highly likely that we
will talk about it for a while, as in the case of this bill.
When we get into issues like that of the space agency, I hope
the House understands that all those involved should be prepared
for questions and for longer debates. If members on the other
side do not have the courtesy to do that with an important bill
which involves billions of dollars and affects the Nisga'a
constitution, I think we will have to insist that they do it on
all bills.
I will sum up. We may yet move an amendment through one of our
members to extend the debate, putting emphasis on the Nisga'a
agreement which my colleagues have not yet had the opportunity to
fully discuss. We may have discussions about relevance in the
House. I am prepared for that and I am prepared for a long
debate in that regard, but it is time we gave notice to the House
that we will discuss what the official opposition wants to
discuss. I do not give two rats about the government's agenda.
We will agree with Bill C-4.
We will discuss further Bill C-4. I will bet that between now
and Christmas we will be discussing the Nisga'a agreement for
many more hours rather than the four hours and twelve minutes we
were given up to yesterday.
1100
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
really enjoyed the hon. member's speech and his notations about
the freedom to speak on something that we can all read from the
government press releases and not to concern ourselves with the
real issues that matter in the country.
I will read a few notes from the office of the leader of the
official opposition of British Columbia regarding the democratic
process that the member alluded to. He says “I am writing to
note my extreme dismay over your government's motion to invoke
closure on the Nisga'a treaty debate today.” What is important
is what he says next. He says “This motion is an unacceptable
slight to British Columbia and to all Canadians who deserve a
full and open debate on this landmark treaty”. This is in
contrast with the free and open debate on Bill C-4 which everyone
is in agreement with.
He goes on to say “On a matter of this critical importance to
our province, our country and our constitution, every member of
parliament deserves an opportunity to speak”.
I would like the member to comment on what the B.C. premier had
to say as well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just before the hon.
member for Langley—Abbotsford takes the floor to respond to the
question as presented by the member for Prince Albert, if we are
going to stretch the rules of the House as far as relevance is
concerned, it is going to take ingenuity on the part of the
members doing so.
The Chair is not going to control the debate. In absence of
protests opposite, it is not the Chair's intention to try and
stifle debate. However, if the opposition is going to use the
rules of the House, then it must be done in the spirit of the
rules of the House. It is going to demand ingenuity so that
members who wish to bring other issues to the table do so in a
way that will not command the Chair to intervene.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, ingenuity we have and
ingenuity we will use.
It is interesting that my colleague comments on the letter the
premier has received in British Columbia. The leader of the
official opposition in British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, has
somehow expressed the frustration we feel in the House. We come
here and talk about Bill C-4 and a space station. It is fine to
talk about the bill in the House. We basically all agree with
it.
The Liberals would sit here for four days and talk about this
and occupy what is not even much of an agenda. The moment there
is something contentious that comes to the House, after four and
a half hours on something like the Nisga'a agreement, they call
time allocation. Go figure. What is wrong with these people?
Mr. John Cannis: Don't look at me.
Mr. Randy White: Do not look at him, he says. Well you
put up your hand when you voted. Talk about stupid, some of
these people.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Please address each
other, particularly when the occasion is a little heated, through
the Chair. We will refer to each other as hon. members or as
persons representing a particular constituency and we do so
through the Chair.
1105
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I did not call any one
particular person stupid here. The difficulty the opposition
parties should have, the NDP included and the other fellows, we
should all have the same problem in the House.
If a bill comes in that we basically agree on, like Bill C-4, it
is okay. The Liberals will have us discussing the thing for
three or four days. They would be happy with only two or three
people in the House of Commons reading the newspaper.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In reference to
other members presence or absence in the House, that will also
require ingenuity.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, instead of me arguing with
you, I did not say there were two or three people in the House of
Commons. I said that they would be happy with only two or three
people in the House of Commons.
It is okay to come in here and talk about Bill C-4, the space
station, for three or four days. However, what opposition
parties should be concerned about is that the moment we disagree
with one of their bills, the Liberals call time allocation. They
call closure after four hours of debate. While we are the only
party fighting Nisga'a in the House, the next time it may be one
other party or two other parties that disagree and they will do
it again. That is plainly unacceptable. We will take this any
longer. Myself, as House leader, and our whip, my colleague from
Fraser Valley, have made up our mind that is enough.
Hon. Jim Peterson: That's two.
Mr. Randy White: Yes, that is two, but those are the two
the hon. member should worry about. The Liberals may want to
travel. Maybe we will not like that.
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I know the leader of the Reform Party was pleased and very
enthusiastic with respect to the space bill. We appreciate his
support and the support of the Reform House leader. I know what
the hon. member is driving at and everybody appreciates it, but
if at the same time he could just zero in a little bit on the
space bill and bring some relevance into it that would really add
to it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask all hon.
members to be relevant and to keep in mind that we are discussing
Bill C-4.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, if this is not relevant
then we are in the wrong place. This is more than relevant. The
hon. member does not seem to understand that I have said time and
time again in this particular speech that we agree with Bill C-4.
What we do not agree with is just exactly what is going on with
the so-called democracy in this place. It is okay if I stand
here and agree with Bill C-4. It is okay if I agree with the
space station. It is okay as long as we agree with the Liberal
Party. If any member on this side disagrees with the Liberal
Party, we get time allocation and closure. That is what is wrong
and that is what is relevant with this bill.
It is about time bills like this, that we agree on, that we talk
a long time on and everything else that comes into the House. If
the member thinks that is not relevant, he should just try us. It
is more than relevant.
The government has a really bad habit as a majority government.
We can count, as I already have, the number of bills it has
called closure on after a number of hours. It is coming up, in
almost half the time, to surpassing Mr. Mulroney in the number of
times he called closure or time allocation. However, that is
okay with the Liberals.
1110
Here is a sweet space station everybody agrees with, so the guys
can talk here for a week if they want. However, when we disagree
or if my colleague's party, the NDP, disagree with a bill, just
watch how long it takes the Liberals to call time allocation or
closure. It is okay if a member wants to stand up for the space
station because everyone agrees with it.
Mr. John Solomon: No, we oppose it now. If there is no
money for farmers, there is no money for space.
Mr. Randy White: That is not a bad position. If there is
no money for farmers then there is no money for space. How long
have we been asking for money in the House for farmers? We have
been saying that the Nisga'a agreement is costing an enormous
amount of money. The Liberals do not want to talk about that
because they called time allocation on that. This is only $1.6
billion or $1.3 billion on a space station. The Liberals lose
count after the billions.
The Liberals have my message. It is very clear. We will be
talking about these bills as long as we darn well feel like it.
We will be talking about travel from now on. We are not under
any circumstances going to entertain these time
allocation-closure bills henceforth.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to begin by saying that I too am wondering about the
relevance of the remarks made by the member for
Langley—Abbotsford. I find him incapable of ingenuity.
The Speaker suggested that he would have to be ingenious to be
relevant. His remarks had to do with the Nisga'a agreement, the
implementing legislation being debated today. I should say “his
many remarks” because he spoke almost exclusively about this
native treaty and not about the Civil International Space
Station Agreement Implementation Act.
Yet, ingenuity was possible.
For instance, it could have been suggested that the Nisga'a
treaty should have been debated in the House before it was
signed, or before it was ratified by the Government of Canada or
the Government of British Columbia.
There is a parallel to be drawn here between domestic treaties,
those having to do with aboriginal matters, those described by
the Supreme Court of Canada as sui generis, and international
treaties, because the process for each is, in many regards,
similar.
Treaties are debated, discussed, negotiated by governments.
However, to apply in domestic law, they also require
implementing legislation, and sometimes legislation from both a
provincial legislative assembly and the federal parliament.
I imagine that this is not something a person can do unless he
is really ingenious: when he does not want to really address a
bill such as this one, when he wants to waste the precious time
of the House on a debate that ought to be kept for the
appropriate time.
I want to speak of this implementing legislation, indicating
what lessons can be learned from it and the path it followed in
order to get before this House, after the negotiations that led
to the Civil International Space Station Agreement.
The signature and implementation of treaties is an important
issue. It is one that involves us all, because treaties are
playing an increasingly important role in international life.
Their numbers are multiplying. Hundreds of treaties are entered
into yearly, and ratified by Canada and other countries.
1115
This often requires parliaments to pass legislation to implement
these treaties and to give them effect in Canadian internal law.
For the benefit of this House and those who are listening to us,
I would like to say a few words about the process, particularly
since I just recently introduced Bill C-214. This bill is aimed
at getting parliament more involved in the process of concluding
treaties, at democratizing in a way the process whereby treaties
are accepted by the state and subsequently lead to the passage
of legislation in order to implement the international
obligations negotiated by the government.
I will therefore give hon. members a short course in
international law. I am pleased that my colleague from
Vancouver Quadra, who is also a professor of international law,
is with us and will no doubt be able to add to my modest
contribution. He will, no doubt, wish to share with us his
thoughts on these proposals for increasing parliament's
involvement in the treaty process.
I would also like to remind hon. members that an international
treaty is something that has first been negotiated.
As a general rule, negotiations are conducted by governments
represented by officials—in this case, officials from the
Department of Foreign Affairs—or by diplomats, the ambassadors.
When very important treaties are involved, ministers of the
government are also involved, and the Minister of Foreign
Affairs in particular, since, under the Department of Foreign
Affairs Act, it is he who is generally responsible for
concluding international treaties.
Treaties are negotiated with other countries usually.
Negotiations may take place with international organizations.
Often, these organizations provide the forum for such
negotiations.
There is the negotiation, for example, of treaties in the
context of the United Nations, which often acts as a forum for
conferences, where debates are held on the treaties and lead to
their passage.
It is not enough, however, to negotiate a treaty, because
treaties, depending on the constitutional law of the country,
sometimes require action by parliament to permit their
acceptance by the country, so that the country can agree to be
bound by the treaty.
This is where practices differ significantly from one country to
the next.
For some countries, like Canada and most countries with a
British style parliamentary system, treaties are concluded, and
the countries agree to be bound by the provisions in them, such
as in the one creating the international space station, without
parliament's involvement.
Here in Canada, a government can conclude a treaty and sign it
after it has been adopted. It can even ratify it without
parliament's prior approval or agreement that the country will
be bound under the international treaty.
There are countries, however, that involve their parliament and
can neither sign nor ratify—in most cases it is ratificationt—
without the prior approval of parliament and the holding of a
debate to give parliamentarians an opportunity to consider the
text of the treaty and its provisions before the government
commits internationally.
1120
In France, for example, parliament must adopt an act approving
any treaty before the French authorities can ratify it.
The practices are different, but they tend increasingly to
involve parliament in the process leading to the conclusion of
treaties and give it a say in the process, since the content of
an increasing number of laws passed by parliaments depends on
the treaties that were first negotiated by the government.
I believe that in parliamentary systems such as ours but also
that of other countries, there is a real lack of democracy in
that parliamentarians are asked, as we are today in the case of
Bill C-4, to adopt laws whose content is largely determined by
the content of treaties negotiated by the governments, even
though their parliaments were not involved in the discussions on
that content.
This is why I have introduced Bill C-214 which, I hope, will be
the subject not only of a debate but also of a vote. This bill
proposes that the House of Commons be involved in the conclusion
of treaties by first approving a treaty and thus authorizing the
government to ratify that treaty once the House has been
informed of its content.
Some fear, however, that such a procedure might prevent the
government from negotiating and accepting obligations pursuant
to debates held between states. The example of the United
States is often referred to; two-thirds of the U.S. Senate has to
support any treaty the government—in this case, the
President—wishes to ratify on behalf of the United States.
The formula I am proposing is one where approval by the House
would not necessarily be binding on the government, which would,
ultimately decide whether or not to ratify a treaty. This is
not a procedure or formula that would paralyze a government, at
least not in a system like ours where the government very often,
almost always in fact, has a majority in the House and can get a
resolution passed in favour of approval because of that
majority.
My discussions, and some debates with the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, have led me to conclude that the minister has
considerable misgivings about such a procedure. He should not
have any. This is a procedure aimed at making the process of
ratifying treaties more democratic and involving MPs in the
procedure for signing a type of document that is becoming more
important in our societies and, I feel, will continue to do so.
For example, there are the debates and negotiations soon to
begin at the World Trade Organization, leading to a number of
treaties around the turn of the new millennium. These treaties
arising out of the WTO millennium round will—or at least should—be
debated in this House before the government makes commitments
that will be binding on this House when the time comes to enact
legislation implementing them.
1125
We might also mention treaties pertaining to cultural diversity
we want to negotiate with UNESCO and many other treaties that
concern trade and cultural issues, individual rights and
freedoms and information technology issues, since treaties
concern all matters of interest to governments and to
parliaments as well.
I believe also that transparency would require—and this is the
focus of other provisions in Bill C-214, which I tabled in this
House—the government to agree to table treaties in the House so
parliamentarians might be aware of their content.
It would thus agree to members of this House knowing our
international obligations and to the enshrinement of a practice
that was carried on for a number of years in this House. It was
abandoned for a number of years but, only a few months ago, it
was revived after I lobbied increasingly in this forum and in
other forums to have treaties tabled to properly inform this
House of Canada's international commitments.
In addition, I wanted—and would like to convince my colleagues in
the House of this—the government to do a better job than it is
currently doing of making the content of treaties known, not
only by tabling them in the House, but by publishing them in
various forms, electronically for example, on an electronic site
such as that of the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is one
of the rare sites of the departments of foreign affairs of
developed countries where the country's treaties may be
accessed, with a few rare exceptions.
We must also make sure they are published in the Canada Gazette,
as are the laws, and that they are published in the Canada
treaty series, as they currently are but at more reasonable
intervals, since sometimes it takes months if not years for a
treaty to appear in the series.
These are changes in practice that, in my view, deserve to be
adopted by this parliament. They would, in certain respects,
modify the royal prerogative underlying the government's
authority in this area.
This House, however, is empowered to abrogate part of this
prerogative and adopt a much more transparent and more
democratic procedure involving all elected representatives—not
just those of the government party that sit in Cabinet—in
important decisions having to do with treaties and the
government's response to them.
As I make this proposal, I am aware, and wish to inform the
House, that, in other Commonwealth countries, and I am thinking
of Australia and New Zealand, and even in the United Kingdom,
the mother of all parliaments and some say of this parliament,
recent practices for concluding treaties have been modified to
introduce greater transparency. Treaties are tabled in the
Houses, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, and
distributed much more widely, with much greater parliamentary
participation than we are seeing here, in the House of Commons.
There is no excuse for the resistance to these changes,
certainly not the lack of willingness and transparency of a
government that should realize, on the eve of the year 2000 and
a new millennium, that changes are in order.
These practices must be adapted to the new importance of
treaties in the international as well as domestic order.
1130
Bill C-4, the Civil Space Station Agreement Implementation Act,
was introduced in this House without our ever having been able
to examine its contents, without any examination before the
treaty was signed.
According to my information, it was signed on January 29, 1998,
and adopted on that same date. Signing already commits
signatory states to a certain extent because article 18 of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties stipulates that a state
is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object
and purpose of a treaty before it consents to be bound by it and
ratifies it.
Thus, by signing the treaty on January 29, 1998, Canada assumed
a number of commitments, without this parliament having been
consulted. It is therefore necessary for a signatory state to
agree to involve its parliament. Parliament must be involved in
examining the treaty itself, not just its implementation,
because implementation legislation depends on the treaty
contents. This bill ought to have been introduced only after
the House of Commons had examined the treaty.
In closing, I wish to state that I feel it is important, and
hope to have the opposition parties' support in this, even the
government party as well, to ensure that Bill C-4 will be the
last such bill, and that in future all treaties requiring
implementing legislation will have initially been approved by
the House of Commons.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Beauharnois—Salaberry has advocated major
constitutional reform.
Constitutional changes require patience, obviously. They take a
lot of time and require a lot of work.
Will he agree for the time being, according to the umbrella
agreement between the Government of Quebec and the federal
government—signed I believe by Paul Martin senior—to there being
rules that can fill the gap he now finds in the constitutional
system? That means that the federal government appoints a
representative from one or all the provinces to a constitutional
delegation when negotiating a treaty concerning provincial
jurisdictions.
Second, it is clear that most of the treaties today are not
self-executing.
Federal legislation is required to establish them in Canadian
municipal law.
Third, there is a distinction between Australia and Canada in
jurisdiction over foreign affairs. Australian law, as
interpreted by the supreme court, requires the precedence of any
law incorporating an international treaty. The converse is true
in Canada, according to a decision by the privy council in the
matter of the 1937 conventions on labour law.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Vancouver Quadra for his three questions.
First, on concluding treaties and provincial participation in
the conclusion of treaties, I did not raise that in my remarks
this morning, because I wanted to limit them to the role of
parliament in the conclusion of federal treaties.
1135
Since the treaty we are being called upon to implement comes
primarily if not exclusively under federal jurisdiction, only
the federal parliament may intervene for purposes of legislative
implementation.
But, if you want an answer to your question, there would be ways
of involving the provinces in the conclusion of treaties, even
in a federation like Canada.
What is more, Quebec, with its Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, believes
not only that it must be involved in the conclusion of treaties
and approve treaties concluded by Canada in areas over which the
Constitution gives it jurisdiction, but it believes and affirms,
as all successive governments of Quebec have done, that, under
the present Constitution, it even has authority to act
autonomously in concluding treaties in areas that come under its
jurisdiction.
It is because of the continual foot-dragging of the federal
government—which has often sought to introduce umbrella
agreements to limit Quebec's autonomy—that many Quebecers want
sovereignty. There is no excuse for this foot-dragging, even
within a federal framework, and it will only stop when Quebec
becomes a sovereign state with the authority to conclude its own
treaties free of intervention by the federal government.
With respect to the second question, when treaties are not
self-executing, they have to be implemented by legislation. Here
we have an example of a treaty that is not self-executing as far
as all of its clauses are concerned, since the Civil
International Space Station agreement requires the Parliament of
Canada, and the House of Commons in particular, to pass
amendments to the Criminal Code in order to implement section 22
of the treaty, which the implementation bill does in clause 11.
The treaty not being one hundred percent self-executing, it was
therefore important for this House to adopt implementing
legislation.
What I wanted to emphasize in my speech, however, was that this
legislation implements an international treaty which did not
have the prior approval by this House that it ought to have had.
It is necessary for the House of Commons to approve a treaty in
order for it to have greater legitimacy. Then parliament can
move to pass implementing legislation.
Finally in response to the third question from my colleague, the
hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, concerning Australia, I
realize that there is a great difference. I would not like to
see us with an arrangement similar to Australia's, one which is
in my opinion contrary to the federal principle. It is
precisely because at one point we had a Privy Council judiciary
committee that respected provincial jurisdictions that today we
still have shared legislative jurisdiction over implementation.
That is not enough to convince us to stay within Canada,
however.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the speech of the member. As I have done
before, I would like to give special thanks to the people who do
the interpretation. I am one of those unfortunate people who
speaks only English. My knowledge of French is vastly limited. I
am totally dependent on their good work in those booths. I heard
the speech secondhand, but I thank them for their excellent work
in providing us with an instant interpretation.
I would like to make a comment about the speech and I also have
a quick question. He made one comment that was resonant. I hate
saying it because I am one who loves the country, who believes in
democracy, and who believes that a democratically elected
parliament is the way to go. It is superior, but quite clearly
parliament is but an annoyance to the government and to the Prime
Minister.
The member mentioned the fact that the particular agreement was
signed a year and a half ago, and here we are bringing in
legislation to implement what has already been done.
1140
An hon. member: Like the Nisga'a treaty.
Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, like the Nisga'a treaty. Parliament
has been made irrelevant by the same Prime Minister who keeps
going around at election time saying that he will make parliament
more meaningful and give MPs a greater role. It is a sham. The
red book is a sham.
How often have we passed bills to implement budgets? I am on
the finance committee and just before prorogation we passed a
bill to implement some of the Income Tax Act that had already
been in place and was being enforced. In some cases guys were
going to jail because they did not comply, and the bill was
before the House to approve that legislation.
As much as I sometimes hesitate to do this, I agree
wholeheartedly with the member from the Bloc on this point. This
place is irrelevant. What are we doing here?
I have a question for the hon. member. I am committed and
dedicated to keeping the country together. No matter what the
topic, they always talk about wanting to be their own country and
breaking free. In this case clause four of the bill says the act
is binding on Her Majesty in the right of Canada or a province. I
am amazed they are supporting the bill because they are really
saying that the act is binding on Quebec. It must be a violation
of their desire to break free from the country, which I wish
would not happen.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to thank the interpreters. I also want to thank the
translators. I often call on the translators of the House to
translate my remarks from French to English or from English to
French.
I want to pay particular tribute to Elizabeth Cowan, a
translator with the House, who does an exceptional job.
To respond to my colleague's question, I will say that the scope
of section 4, which appears in a number of implementing acts is
not very clear, especially since it is an implementing act that
concerns federal jurisdictions.
This is something I would very much like to clarify and I will
no doubt do so as professor of international law when I have
more time to exercise this profession, which I have left
temporarily to become a member of this House.
I would add, in closing, since I know my time is limited, that
federalism could work very well with expanded powers for the
provinces to conclude treaties. This could be the case for
Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia. The formulae that apply in
Belgium might even be used as an example.
Under Belgian federalism, communities and regions are empowered
to conclude treaties. But this government is ignoring
parliament and, I agree with the hon. member, it is ignoring the
provinces as well by setting up and exercising a monopoly on
foreign policy and on the conclusion of treaties.
This is one reason why my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and
many Quebecers want sovereignty, which will give them
jurisdiction to approve and conclude treaties and to involve
their parliament—the National Assembly—in their implementation.
Having the National Assembly approve treaties before they are
implemented—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but the
member's time is up.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to speak to the international space agency
bill today.
I say to the member of the Bloc who just spoke that during the
course of my comments I will be addressing a couple of private
members' bills the member has brought forward on the ratification
of international treaties. I know it is of interest to him, as
it is to me.
I look forward to supporting his bill, if it ever comes to the
House for a vote.
1145
It is another one of those strange coincidences on how a
populist party will agree on some of the broad issues about the
necessity of consulting parliament on issues of national and
international concern. The member of the Bloc and I may have
disagreements about many things, but the priority of making the
House relevant has to do with allowing us to deal with meaty
issues, big important issues not after they are a fait accompli
but during the ratification process.
I encourage the member to continue with his private member's
initiative. I look forward to one day debating and hopefully
approving that private member's bill.
The bill we are talking about today deals with the civil
international space station, the funding required and the
co-operative efforts of the Government of Japan, the Government
of the Russian federation, the Government of the United States,
the European Space Agency and ourselves to put together the space
station in the years to come.
This leads me to talk about the station and about five truths
that we can get from this bill. There are five principles that I
think are true in the bill and are true in many of the bills we
discuss.
First is the truth of fiscal matters. This bill involves the
expenditure of well over a billion dollars. It is a long range
commitment of Canada to the international space agency. It is
not a one time budgetary expenditure. If we are to be a serious
player in the international space agency, we have to commit to it
in the long term.
When talking about numbers this large, over a billion dollars
over the course of the next few years, it is important that we
also say that government spending is about priorities. It is
about picking and choosing the things we can and should be
involved in as a country and as parliament. By doing that we
also say there are some things we are not going to spend money
on. In other words, we cannot be all things to all people. We
have to pick the issues that we think governments can address.
Once we make those choices, some things are approved and some
things are rejected. It is up to us to pick and choose between
them.
Personally, I think this is going to be money well spent. I
hope that 10 years from now we will look back and, as what the
Canadarm did for us in the aerospace industry, our participation
in the space station will have brought awareness to Canadian
talents and expertise in engineering and so on. I hope it will
be the next big boost to the Canadian aeronautical industry. This
money will be seen as money well spent. I hope that years from
now people will thank this parliament for having approved this
expenditure and for having made this international commitment.
It is true that a billion dollars is a lot of money. It reminds
me that many people in British Columbia are saying that we also
made choices last night when we committed to the Nisga'a
agreement. We said there was a billion dollars. We made a
priority choice that the money spent not just by this parliament
but by the B.C. legislature was a priority and it would be well
spent. This parliament and the government have said that we will
look back years from now and be grateful that we spent it. How
can that be true?
In the case of the Nisga'a agreement, how can we say that we are
going to perpetuate a system of treaties and separateness for one
group of people over another group and treat them differently on
things like property rights, the rights of women and the rights
of people to vote for the government that taxes them? How can we
say that a billion dollars spent to perpetuate the current
reserve system in Canada is money well spent?
1150
Most Canadians will say that we should move forward on the space
station. It binds all the provinces. It is a good project for
the federal government. It deals with international relations.
We are going to get some other side benefits from it. It affects
all of us. All of us are in favour of it, so let us move it
forward. I think we are going to find that that is basically
going to be the case.
For many people however, and in British Columbia at least where
they understand the Nisga'a agreement, that is not the case. Once
they know about the Nisga'a agreement, the majority of British
Columbians say that they do not approve of the current
expenditures on Nisga'a. More important, they do not agree with
the principle behind it.
The principle is that a system that has been proven to be a
failure over the past 130 years has been enshrined in our
constitution at the next level in the Nisga'a agreement. Some
money has been thrown at it in the hope that a giant collectivity
called the Nisga'a government will somehow be all things to all
people in that environment and it will somehow make life better
for them for all time.
That is not a good expenditure of money. More important, it is
not a sound principle to treat one group of people separately, to
give them a different set of laws, a different set of privileges,
a different set of rights, one from another and think it is a
good thing for Canada. It is almost the same amount of dollars
we are talking about for the space agency but it takes us down a
path I think most Canadians will not support.
It is interesting how we can all rally around the flag on the
space station idea. We see the benefits for all Canadians,
Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a, aboriginal and non-aboriginal,
immigrants and non-immigrants. Everyone will benefit from it.
But the same amount of dollars being spent on the Nisga'a
agreement is driving a wedge between people rather than bringing
people together.
That is the first truth. The truth about fiscal matters is that
each decision we make means not only that the taxpayer is footing
the bill but that there is something else we cannot afford to do
because we spent that billion dollars. A billion here and a
billion there and pretty soon we are talking real money.
The second truth is the truth about democracy that I get from
the debate we are having today. It is interesting. The reason
we are talking about the international space agency bill today is
that last night the government rammed through the second reading
stage of Nisga'a. After four hours of debate it brought in time
allocation which means that it is all over but the crying and the
soft music by the end of the day. That is what happened last
night. We had four hours of debate. The B.C. legislature had
four weeks of debate, the longest debate in the history of B.C.,
on the Nisga'a agreement. But here we did not have a long
debate. We did not even have one week of debate. We did not
even approach a record of any kind except for a record number of
times for the application of time allocation.
We can learn a lesson about democracy. The truth is that we are
only on this bill today because yesterday we saw what the B.C.
Liberal leader called a reprehensible demonstration of
undemocratic government. It was a reprehensible example from
over there. The leader of the B.C. Liberal Party was appalled at
what he saw going on here in the House.
We are on this bill today, rather than talking about having a
big principled debate about the future role for aboriginal people
within Canada, because democracy fell on its sword yesterday.
That is an absolute truth. People who review what went on
yesterday in the House will know that to be true. For a record
number of times the government has said: “If there is dissent,
opposition or a problem, we will bring in closure and shut down
the debate”. The Liberals have done it more times now than
Brian Mulroney did in his heyday.
The Liberals brought it in on Bill C-78, the public servants
pension fund. They scooped the excess out of that fund. We
opposed the bill. We debated it for one hour and they brought in
closure and shut down the debate.
1155
Today's debate is on a kind of motherhood and apple pie issue.
We all want the space station. We all think it is a good idea
which should move forward. But it is bittersweet. Instead of
relishing the debate and being able to focus only on the space
station, we are left with a bad taste in our mouths. Yesterday
was a travesty of justice and democracy and that is why we are on
this bill today.
That is the truth about democracy in this place. It does not
happen like Canadians think it happens. The government pushes
through, rams through and shoves through anything it wants that
is the least bit contentious. That is where we are at today.
The Bloc member who has a private member's bill on the approval
of international treaties will be pleased that at least this bill
is before the House for ratification. This is rare in
international agreements. It does not happen very often. Whether
it is behind closed doors negotiations on the multilateral
agreement on investment, the next phase of the WTO, the Kyoto
agreement or other UN forums, time and again, it is just brought
back to us here by fiat.
A minister will say “While I was away last weekend sunning
myself wherever, I signed an agreement and it binds Canada for
the rest of our lives”. We will read about the details in the
paper but we are not allowed to debate them, discuss them, amend
them, propose alternatives, inform Canadians, travel the country
or do any of the democratic things that Canadians assume are
happening.
It is like the Nisga'a agreement again. We were delivered a
document that said it is the enabling legislation. It is just a
few short pages, but there are also two thick books and we are
not allowed to change, amend or alter in any way a dot, jot or a
tittle in the entire Nisga'a agreement. It came here as a done
deal.
People think we come here to debate the issues. They wonder
whether the environmental part of that agreement is too strong or
not strong enough. What about the conflicting jurisdictions
between the province, the feds and the Nisga'a governments? Could
there be some better language? No, it is brought forward as
perfection. The government says that a few people negotiated it
behind closed doors and the 301 members of parliament are just
window dressing.
The government brings it here because it technically has to, but
the truth is that the Liberals do not respect this place at all.
They disrespect the opinions of members of parliament. They
disrespect the entire contingent of people in the official
opposition who have concerns about it and who would like to see a
different process that we would hope would clarify some of the 50
unsettled sidebar agreements that have to go into the Nisga'a
agreement. We would like to see those clarified before we stick
up our hands and vote yes.
The Liberals ignored all of that. Any concerns we have are
written off as sour grapes, bad attitude or whatever they want to
chalk it up to, instead of saying that this place should be
supreme and should have some pre-eminence in the political life
of the country. Instead, the Liberals defer to the backroom
negotiations. They defer to the behind the scenes stuff. They
defer to the courts. They defer to the tribunals. They defer to
anything, except to the seat of democracy which is this place. It
is discouraging.
If a young person who wanted to influence the future of the
country were to ask me if he or she should follow in my footsteps
in Fraser Valley, I would say, “Well, I suppose you could, but
if I were you I would get a seat on the supreme court. That is
where it is happening”. I might even tell that young person to
get on as a delegate at the United Nations or at one of the NGOs
because they negotiate and settle things that we as
parliamentarians are not even allowed to debate. We are not even
allowed to know what they are discussing. It just comes back to
us, pressed down and rolled over.
We are expected to shrug our shoulders and say “Look what they
negotiated for us today”.
1200
At least in the space agency agreement we can see what was
negotiated. We may not have had a hand in the negotiations, but
at least we can see what we are committed to in terms of money
and what the structure of the management team will be. We can
talk about a lot of that stuff, and to me it looks pretty good.
At least we get to vote on it.
If young people asked me today if this was the place where big
changes will be made and big decisions will be made, I would have
to say, under the current government, sadly, no. They will have
to wait for a change in government, because the attitude on that
side of the House is “It is our way or the highway”. The
government's highway involves time allocation, closure, lack of
consultation and bypassing parliamentarians in favour of special
interest groups which government members say know more than the
people who were elected to this place.
That is the truth about democracy. That is why we are debating
this bill today. All of those other things I mentioned are
absolutely true. People can look at what happened yesterday.
Yesterday democracy took the fall for the expediency of this
government.
Another thing I would like to talk about briefly is the truth
about intellectual property rights, because a lot of what will be
developed on this space station will become valuable. There will
be an exchange of information and there will be scientific data
developed, which is key to the success of the project. The
reason all of these countries are getting together is to develop
intellectual property which will be beneficial to those living on
Earth. It could be anything from the development of future
medicines to things which are happening on Earth which can be
observed from space. All of that will become incredibly
valuable.
What about intellectual property rights? More important, what
about property rights in general? What about the property rights
that the government has never recognized? I think most Canadians
watching would say “Yes, but I own my house. That is my
property. It is mine”. I am sorry to break the news to those
people, but this government does not recognize property rights.
During the Charlottetown accord debate one of the big problems
in my area, and I cannot speak for the whole country, was that we
wanted to include the right to own property and to develop
intellectual property rights because the ability to have property
rights is the cornerstone to the development of assets, wealth
and prosperity for any people. The fact that the government does
not seem to be concerned about intellectual property rights and
about property rights in general is a very alarming leftover from
its socialist roots. It just believes that property is
communally owned. We do not have to worry about property rights
because we are all together. What we have to do is hug one
another. If we hug one another and love one another things will
be fine.
Where are the property rights, for example, for aboriginal women
on Nisga'a reserves? When there is a divorce, the property that
people enjoyed during the years they were married has to be
separated. We have a long set of rules governing most of Canada
which set out how the property will be divided, what the paternal
and maternal rights will be, and rules governing the visitation
of children.
If a person does not own anything personally, if it is all owned
by the Nisga'a government, guess what? The aboriginal women will
get short shrift down the road because they do not own the houses
they live in. They are sitting on communal property which is
owned by the Nisga'a. The whole territory is owned communally.
Rather than having individual property rights and being able to
enhance the value of the property, to make sales, to use that
land to develop wealth and opportunities, the Nisga'a agreement
will unfortunately not allow that.
1205
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions)): Madam Speaker,
while I disagree with much of what the whip for the Reform Party
said today, which is to be understood in a parliamentary
democracy where we have different parties representing different
points of view, I commend him warmly for his eloquent and strong
voice on the issue of the necessity for members of parliament to
make choices.
He said very clearly that if we use money in one particular way,
be it paying down the debt, cutting taxes or creating new
programs, we will not have it for other priorities. He said that
we cannot be all things to all people. We must make choices. We
must have our priorities.
I believe this type of constructive approach to the debate that
will follow the budget, as to what we do with our surplus, should
be commended to all members of parliament and to all Canadians as
together we constructively put forth our priorities for the
future. I thank him for that very useful contribution to the
debate.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
his kind words. If I was eloquent it was mostly by accident, but
I thank him for his kind words.
People who run a household know about setting priorities. In
Canada, the fact that the government takes more in taxes than
people spend on food, clothing and shelter combined, means that a
lot of their choices are taken away from them.
We want our government to do some things for us. We find it a
good way to pool our resources to look after those who are truly
in need. However, the debate is about choices. When an average
citizen, such as a millwright, makes around $4000 or $5000 a
month, works overtime and does the job, and then finds out that
fully half of his paycheque has gone to CPP, EI and all the
global tax deductions, he says “I made $4000, but $2000 went to
the government. Now I have $2000. My mortgage is $1000. Now I
am down to $1000 to feed and clothe my family, to provide for
their education and to provide for my retirement”.
I agree with the hon. member that government spending is about
choosing priorities, but we should not have to choose a medicine
that is so harsh and severe that it kills the patient. We should
have a better choice. One of those better choices, which I hope
we will hear when the finance minister speaks today, is a
specific commitment to tax relief that is as specific as the many
commitments that have been made to new spending.
The commitments to new spending seem to be ironclad. They seem
to be saying “We will spend money on the following”.
Government departments came up with a wish list of $47 billion,
which seems to be solid. It seems to be a sure thing.
I hope the minister says this afternoon that there is another
sure thing, that taxes will be cut by 25% over the next three
years, that EI premiums will be lowered to where the auditor
general says they should be, not a tentative little nibble from
$2.55 to $2.40, but a big chunk of tax relief down to $2.05 where
the premiums need to be. I hope the government will not just
nibble a bit and hope that Canadians will benefit from one bit of
tax blessing or another which it chooses to mete out. I hope the
minister will say that there will be broad based tax relief.
The government should plagiarise a proposal of the Reform Party
and say “We are going to give you 25% tax relief over three
years. Here is how it will be done. It is a firm commitment, as
firm as our spending commitments. Canadians can take it to the
bank, spend it on their mortgages, look after their kids and plan
for the future. It will be done. The commitment is there
because that is the choice the government has made”.
I hope that is what we are going to hear this afternoon, but
there is not a collective holding of breath out in the
hinterlands waiting for the finance minister to be that specific.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
Bill C-4, which we are debating this morning, involves 12
European nations. In addition, it involves Japan, the United
States, Russia and, of course, Canada.
1210
This civil international space station will cost the people of
Canada over $1 billion, at the very least. What bothers me is
the government's lack of respect for the House of Commons and
for democratically elected members.
It was around 1984 that talk of creating this civil space
station first began. The first negotiations took place between
the United States and Spain and, over the years, many other
countries joined in.
What hurts a parliamentarian, however, is that Canada signed
this agreement on January 29, 1998, almost 22 months before the
government House leader deigned to introduce the bill for
ratification.
The chief whip of the Reform Party raised this major time lag,
which is probably the reason for the poor attendance today,
particularly by government members who, for some reason, perhaps
to snub their own government, are taking very little part in a
debate that could, in fact, be very constructive.
I would like to hear what the Reform Party whip has to say about
this lack of respect for Canada's elected representatives.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Madam Speaker, what it shows Canadians
and what it shows this place is that the Liberal government
treats parliament as an afterthought rather than as a key player
in the development of important policies.
We have seen many examples. We have asked the Speaker to rule
when a minister makes an announcement in the House about what is
going to happen down the road as far as an expenditure of money,
a millennium fund for students and various other things. The
government never comes to the House of Commons to ask for the
money to be spent. A minister just says “There are a couple of
billion dollars involved in this and I held a press conference to
make the announcement because I thought I would look good”.
Are expenditures of money not supposed to be passed in this
place? Are we not supposed to kick them around and debate them?
Time and again that has not been the case. However, Canadians
assume that is the case.
It is a travesty, whether it is announcements like the
millennium fund or different things that the government has
declared to be true, whether they have actually been passed or
not.
Then we have a case like the space agency where, well after the
fact, a couple of years down the road, the government is finally
getting around to approving it. The government often comes to us
and says that it has known about something for two years, but it
has to be completed by the end of the day because it is time
sensitive. In other words, when it is convenient for the
government it is an emergency and it has to be done right now.
The truth is that the government uses parliament as a rubber
stamp. Whether it is this bill or important things like the
position we took at the Kyoto summit and the approval of the
Nisga'a agreement in principle, the government comes to the House
and says “This is a done deal”. It is finished. It is
unwilling to accept a single amendment of any kind, small or
large, about money, about principles, about details, about the
purpose of the thing, the goal of the bill, none of it. It will
not accept a single amendment. It is going to bring in the
Nisga'a agreement and it will be agreed to. If it is not, the
government will push it through at the end of the day.
That tells me that with a bill such as the space agency bill,
international agreements like Kyoto and the Nisga'a agreement,
the government cares little for this place and instead cares only
for what it and the people in the back rooms have decided will be
done for all Canadians.
1215
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-4. It
provides a unique opportunity for Canada to get involved or
continue its involvement in space. I am told that the space
station is the largest science and technology project in the
history of humanity. We should well be proud of our involvement
in that project.
From a personal point of view, the fact that Canada is
continuing its involvement in space is somewhat gratifying in the
sense that my uncle is considered one of Canada's space pioneers.
He conducted one of the first experiments in outer space that a
Canadian scientist conducted. He was one of the designers of the
first satellite, Alouette I, and subsequent satellites which
Canada sent up.
From a family point of view we are quite proud of my uncle, Dr.
Andrew R. Molozzi, and his accomplishments are rather
interesting. My uncle was my mother's brother. My grandmother
was born in Poland. She was lucky to get two or three years of
schooling and that was all. At the age of 15 she came to Canada,
got married and raised a pack of kids, including my uncle who was
the youngest. He was fortunate that in his family my
grandparents encouraged him to continue at school and achieve the
kind of excellence in science that he eventually did achieve.
This is a model for a lot of people to look at. In many
immigrant families in the country education has perhaps not been
a priority to this point. The kids leave school, not because of
lack of ability but because for some reason their parents are not
encouraging them to continue and fulfil their potential.
In talking about Bill C-4 I would like to address it from the
point of view of a Liberal. I want to make a speech on this
legislation which I think the Liberals should be making, given
the fact that they pulled debate of the Nisga'a treaty from the
agenda of the House yesterday. As pointed out earlier by my
colleague, this was a travesty. It was pulled after only four
hours of debate. I would have liked to have spoken to that bill
yesterday, but I was unable to because time allocation was used.
Then we got this bill with which all of us agree. I do not
think there is a parliamentarian in the House who is not
encouraged by Canada's involvement in outer space and very
supportive of it, because we see it as a wonderful opportunity
for our children. There is probably very little interest in this
debate out there in TV land, let alone in the House. It is one
of those motherhood and apple pie debates.
I will address this issue as a Liberal should in light of their
commitment to the Nisga'a treaty and will discuss the issue of
native involvement in the Canadian space station. That may not
be as much of a stretch as one might think. It is certainly not
much of a stretch in light of the recent Marshall decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada.
Let me just review that decision for a moment to show the House
why the point I will make about guaranteed aboriginal involvement
in the space project is reasonable from the supreme court's point
of view, and certainly from the point of view of the Liberals,
the NDP and the Conservatives.
1220
The Marshall decision was an interpretation of a 1760 treaty
signed between the British crown, the Mi'kmaq people and the
Malecite people of the maritime provinces of Canada. In essence
it was a peace treaty. The British had been doing battle with
the French and the French had been expelled from the area. The
Mi'kmaq had supported the French and the British thought it would
be best to ensure that they would stay on side with them and
would come to rely on them for some of the trade goods they had
received through their dealings with the French, and so they
signed a treaty.
Part of that treaty was the establishment of some truck houses.
These truck houses were special trading posts that were to be
constructed and manned to deal with Mi'kmaq people. A list of
goods that were to be traded was created. It included the goods
that the British would provide those truck houses. It also
showed the price that they would pay for the goods. Among the
trade items the Mi'kmaq had to offer the only things that were
dealt with were furs, that they would trade furs for truck house
items. Fish were not mentioned as a trade item.
As well, the Mi'kmaq people were required to place hostages at
certain places to ensure that they lived up to the terms of the
treaty. Lunenburg was one place where there were supposed to be
two hostages to guarantee this. Fortunately that treaty was not
long lived. It operated probably for a couple of years.
Certainly within 20 years things returned to normal. That meant
the Mi'kmaq people were to be treated as everyone else in the
country. They were to enjoy the same trade rights as everyone
else.
That was in effect until the supreme court decided to look at
the issue of the 1760 treaty. What brought the court into action
was that Donald Marshall had gone fishing eels and said that he
had an aboriginal right. His first defence was based on a 1752
treaty. When it was clearly demonstrated that had no relevance,
he switched horses and decided to base his comments on the 1760
treaty.
What the court said then was that the treaty somehow gave this
blanket right to fish. That right was one that was to be enjoyed
as a preferential right. It was a right to be satisfied in
advance of those of everyone else. Currently we might say that
we are negotiating whether non-aboriginal fishermen will have any
right.
The reason I raise this issue is that the court interpreted the
1760 treaty with a view to protecting the honour of the crown.
Also it suggested that the treaty was not stagnant, that it did
not just affect times long ago but that it had to be viewed in
light of today.
If we are to view that treaty in light of today, why are we
restricting the benefits of the treaty to goods and items that
might have been traded 200 and some odd years ago? Why is it
that we have not taken the terms of that treaty, if it is being
interpreted in today's terms and viewed in that regard? If it is
supposed to protect the honour and integrity of the crown, why
are we not then interpreting it in terms of today's economy?
In other words, if we can give a priority right to fish, or in
other treaties such as the Nisga'a guarantee access of 25% to
Nass River fish, if we can guarantee that in that treaty, why are
we not guaranteeing a place for aboriginal people in the space
station?
1225
Does it not follow? The logic is there. The court very clearly
said that it could not interpret the terms of the treaty as
things were back in 1760. Somehow it had to give it a modern
twist. It had to interpret it in terms of today and had to
consider the honour of the crown.
Today's economy does not really revolve around fish. It
certainly does in the maritime provinces in many of the
communities affected by it. I do not mean to downplay their
interest, but what I intend to do and the point I really want to
make is that if we want to talk about a treaty which reflected
society in 1760, if we want to talk about a treaty that we are
signing today, if we want to talk about a space station today, or
if we want to talk about interpreting that treaty in today's
terms, maybe we should be looking at the global economy that is
operating today, the whole of the economy. That means in my view
an aboriginal component to the space station. Like, why not?
That question deserves an answer. Why is it that when
parliamentarians and the misfits at the Supreme Court of Canada
interpret who is entitled to a job and who is not, the only
people they go after is the people in the resource sector? Why
is it that they only tell fishermen to stand aside and allow
somebody else to have their job? Why is that?
Why not say that if there is to be a place for aboriginal people
in the country it should be across the broad spectrum of jobs we
all enjoy and have access to today? Why are we saying that
aboriginal people can only participate in the fishery and that
they have a priority right to it?
Certainly the minister of northern affairs says that they have a
priority right to forests and to mineral wealth. Why not the
technology of today as well? Why not commerce today? Why are
they not guaranteed seats on the board of directors of the Royal
Bank of Canada, for example? Why not seats on Canadian Airlines
and Air Canada? Why are we not guaranteeing them a place in
today's world economy?
Let us put it in the context of the way I started my speech when
I talked about my uncle and the fact that my grandmother came to
Canada with very little education of probably no more than two or
three years. She had a great desire to see my mother, my aunts
and my uncles be successful in a new society, in the new country
she had come to. She encouraged my uncle to seek an education,
to continue his education and to develop to his full potential.
When we look at the aboriginal community we should be placing in
front of it the same kinds of challenges. They can be anything
they want to be. Whether it be an astronaut, a banker, a
television performer or whatever, the opportunity is there.
Somehow it should not be inherent in their genes that the only
jobs suitable to them would be jobs in the resource extraction
centre.
If there is one flaw in the government's argument today on the
bill before us, I would say the flaw would be that it has
completely ignored the rights of aboriginal people. The
government cut that discussion off last night so that we could
not present a positive alternative or a critical but positive
analysis of the Nisga'a treaty. It is allowing this debate to
continue today without any real reference to the welfare of the
Nisga'a people or any other native in the country.
1230
One other issue of Bill C-4, the space station bill, that I will
talk about is the cost. I am told that this will cost Canadian
taxpayers something in the order of $1 billion. That to me is a
lot of money and I think it is to most people.
In the area I grew up in as a kid those making $10,000 were
doing pretty well. I did not know too many millionaires. I
still do not know too many, Mr. Speaker, other than yourself of
course, but that just shows you the circle I travel in, the
ordinary folk and not the wealthy.
When I look at a billion dollars I consider that a lot of money.
I find it hard to visualize a billion dollars let alone a million
dollars, but a billion dollars is right out of my league. I also
think it is out of the government's league. I would like to know
just how hard and fast the numbers are here. It is not that I
object to spending money on this particular project. It is a good
and worthwhile project that will provide opportunities for all
Canadians who desire to get involved in the space agency.
When I look at the government's track record for spending money,
I am a little bit concerned. I would like to draw members'
attention back to the Nisga'a treaty. When the treaty was first
made public there was a huge fanfare. The federal Liberals had
joined with probably the most disreputable government in the
history of Canada, the NDP government in British Columbia, a
government that has stolen money from cripples, kids and single
mothers to advance its causes. Overnight, it quickly found an
agreement on the Nisga'a treaty and said that it would only cost
the Canadian taxpayers something like $250 million. It also said
that the fast ferries were going to be $200 million and they are
well over $400 million. I could go on with the track record of
the provincial NDP members and their inability to estimate costs,
but I guess the same probably applies to their brothers across
the way, the federal Liberals. They also have very little value
for dollars.
When the cost was made public, there were a number of people who
pointed out various matters that had not been costed and very
quickly both the federal Liberal government and its brothers in
Victoria, the provincial NDP government, agreed that perhaps the
cost of the treaty would be more in the neighbourhood of $485
million. That is the value that has now been put on the treaty.
There were a number of us in British Columbia who looked at that
and thought the figure was not quite right either. Early on, the
B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition conducted an independent study
of the treaty. We thought it was time to do that again. A
little over a year ago, I contracted with an economist to take a
look at the Nisga'a treaty and give us a costing of it. I told
him that when he got a range of values I wanted him to take the
lower value, not the mid-value. I told him to always lowball
the numbers. I told him I wanted an estimate of what he thought
the treaty was going to cost British Columbia.
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I have great respect for my colleague across the way and his
knowledge on various pieces of legislation. However, I also
understand that there should be some relevance to the specific
legislation that is on the floor of the House today. His remarks
should be addressing that legislation.
Many times they talk about wanting to debate, so let us debate
the legislation that is on the floor of the House today. We have
given him sufficient time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for St.
Catharines is quite right. I am also interested in hearing how
the member for Delta—South Richmond will bring his comments back
into the debate at hand, which is Bill C-4.
1235
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will bring it
into hand.
The point I am trying to make through example is that the dollar
value the government puts on this treaty is questionable. If I
do not reference it to something else then I am simply expressing
an opinion. I am trying to solidify and give some substance to
the agreement by describing another area where the government
made an estimation of the value or the cost but did not live up
to it. I believe that is perfectly valid point, and I am sure
you agree, Mr. Speaker.
The point I made when I asked for a cost evaluation of the
Nisga'a treaty was that the government lowballs the cost or this
economist lowballs the cost because I did want not him to come
out with an estimate that somebody could criticize and say that
he estimated this while it was really down here. A lowball
estimate of the cost of the Nisga'a treaty is $1.5 billion not
$485 million. That leads me to wonder what the final cost is
going to be on Bill C-4.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Once again I will
admonish all members that if they are going to stretch the
credibility of their argument on Bill C-4 by referring to other
issues, which is certainly their privilege, it would be best to
use some imagination and to be sure to continue to come to a
touchstone and not to challenge the Chair by forcing the Chair to
make a ruling. Those are the rules.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate your fairness and willingness to explain
the rules to us and to enforce the rules fairly.
I am particularly interested in the member's comments about the
space station bill. It is my understanding that the space
station will have some beneficial aspects for agriculture, for
example, in being able to survey large tracts of agricultural
land. Will that surveillance also apply to other areas of the
space station's abilities? I am thinking, for example, about how
government allows the uneven enforcement of laws. Would the space
station be able to pick up things like that?
Since being elected, I have heard a number of stories in my
constituency relating to wildlife resources. I am thinking of a
rider looking after his cattle who comes across 16 slain deer.
Out of those deer, four hind quarters are removed. I wonder if a
space station could see things like that.
I am aware that this year in my part of the country, central
British Columbia, for the first time there are limited entry
moose hunting permits because the moose population is so
depleted. I have been told that the reason the moose population
is so depleted is that there are actually reefers, refrigerated
trucks that are parked, and people are loading these trucks with
moose carcasses and hauling them out of the country.
One aboriginal guide came to me and showed me the map of his
territory, his guide licence, his hunting licence and the list of
customers he had. He said “There are so many moose being hauled
out of the country that there is nothing left for my customers to
admire and perhaps even to shoot and take home”.
I am aware that although the fish have been scarce this year on
the Fraser River, in past years there have been truckloads of
salmon hauled out and taken to Alberta while some have been taken
down into the United States. I have actually contacted the
authorities about these things and have been told that there was
nothing they could do about it. They said that they were under
orders from the government to not enforce those laws.
1240
I am concerned about the uneven enforcement of the laws. I am
not criticizing aboriginal people. They are just doing what they
are able to do. It is the government that is allowing this to
happen. I wonder if the space station technology could see this
and convince the authorities to enforce the laws evenly and
fairly?
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to
acknowledge the Speaker for his very liberal viewpoints on many
issues and also for his very conservative implementation of the
rules of this place. He does not allow much leeway and I
recognize that. That is why I try to stick as closely as I can
to the rules as the Speaker sees them.
The issues that were raised by my colleague are interesting. He
talked about the scientific benefits of the space station for
Canada and our ability to monitor the Earth and study our
environment, including monitoring agricultural crop and the
Arctic ice pack, aiding in navigation for shipping and those
sorts of things.
The member raises a good point. Certainly, the space station
may very well be an aid to agriculture and to farmers, that is if
there are any farmers left after the government is done with
them. That is the real question. The technology will benefit
farmers, but whether there will be any farmers left to benefit
from it, God only knows and the Liberal government only knows
because I certainly do not.
The space station can play a role in monitoring. Science and
satellite technology can play a role in monitoring ships at sea
off our coasts and so on. That is certainly a possibility.
An hon. member: Illegal immigrants.
Mr. John Cummins: Yes, illegal immigrants as well. There
is no doubt about that.
The potential for the scientific community and the benefit to
mankind are limitless through the technology and opportunity
being created by this particular space station. I look forward
to enjoying the benefits and watching it as it progresses over
the next decades.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we do
believe in equality of all people in Canada so that they will be
able to participate in programs like the space program in the
various educational institutions. It seems to me that all
government legislation in this place should make people equal,
not set them aside with special status. As an example, that is
what the Nisga'a agreement does not do.
On another issue from the last question, in areas like Kashmir,
Iraq, Iran or wherever, it seems to me that it would be very
important, from an intelligence and peace standpoint, to use a
facility like the space station for those observations. Does he
see a lot of implications of this development for that purpose as
well?
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, the first comment the
member made is an interesting one. It has to do with the whole
notion of equality of all Canadians. The government appears to
think it is important in this bill because it does not try to
separate Canadians. The implication is that there is equal
opportunity for everyone. Why it does not apply that to bills
that reference the extraction and harvesting of natural resources
is beyond me.
Why it has only been the fishing industry on both coasts which
have been required to bear the burden of treaties entered into
long ago is beyond me. It is beyond reason.
1245
As I said in my remarks, if the government truly believes, as
the supreme court seems to, that the supreme court was
interpreting this treaty in its modern context, then it should
have expanded that to include aboriginal access to the space
station and to other government facilities, business and so on.
Do not just identify one group, one industry and tell it to pay
the bill for the rest of us. If that fairness as the government
sees it, that inequality as I see it, applies to the fishing
industry, then that equality should be right across the board and
we should be guaranteeing that kind of access.
There is unlimited potential for the technology, the monitoring
capabilities that will result from the space station, and which
we currently have from satellites. As time goes by scientists
will develop even more effective cameras and other systems that
we can only dream about now. It is a wonderful opportunity for
this country to be involved in the station.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak about Bill C-4, which is an act to implement
the agreement among the Government of Canada, the governments of
member states of the European Space Agency, the Government of
Japan, the Government of the Russian federation and the
Government of the United States of America concerning
co-operation on the civil international space station.
The first thing that strikes me about this bill is that it
concerns an agreement between many nations. The order paper says
that on the bill before us today there will be speeches of 20
minutes which are subject to a period for questions and comments
of 10 minutes for the first five hours of debate. I am wondering
if we will actually get five hours of debate. Most bills in this
House do not, as everyone is probably aware. Usually closure is
brought to bear long before we ever get to that period.
I think back to the last bill that was discussed in this House,
the Nisga'a land claim, that was supposed to be the final deal
with the Nisga'a. That is a very erroneous title. It certainly
will not be the final deal. I do see some similarities between
what we are discussing today and the whole idea of the Nisga'a.
The similarity is that there was a government to government
discussion with the Nisga'a. There is a government to government
discussion with the international space agency. In the case of
the international space agency, I believe it is quite
appropriate. In the other instance, I think it was totally
inappropriate.
The Nisga'a land settlement claim that is supposed to be the
final claim was never discussed at the grassroots level. Thank
heaven for the pressure applied by the Reform Party because the
committee will now travel to some parts of British Columbia
during the week of November 14 to have hearings and perhaps get a
little local and grassroots input on the bill.
I see some similarities between these two pieces of legislation.
Both of them, as I have already touched on, were part of
multiparty negotiations. I am not too sure about the space
agency negotiations, but I am pretty sure that most of the
Nisga'a negotiations took place behind closed doors. Perhaps
some of the negotiations for the space station took place behind
closed doors as well.
I would also draw a similarity in the projected cost of these
agreements. It is suggested that $1.5 billion or thereabouts,
over $1 billion at least, will be needed to support the
international space station.
We are also going to have to come up with another $1 billion to
support the Nisga'a treaty. In the people's republic of British
Columbia it was suggested that it is not going to cost the
taxpayers of British Columbia much money, that federal taxpayer
money would be used to seal the deal.
1250
We all know there is only one taxpayer. It is impossible to
line people up and say, “You people pay strictly provincial
taxes and you people over here pay strictly federal taxes”. You
know this, Mr. Speaker, because you pay a lot of taxes. It is one
of the hazards of people in your income category. There is no
differentiation between whether you pay provincial or federal
taxes. You pay taxes. There is only one taxpayer and that
taxpayer is hit with all different levels of taxation.
The international space station, as some of my colleagues have
pointed out, has great potential. One thing we look forward to
is getting some information on climate change; whether
civilization is having a tremendous impact on the climate, or
whether the climate is having an impact on civilization. I for
one would be very interested in observations made by that
international body as to which is the case. A great controversy
is raging as to which is the case.
Some people say that we have depleted our ozone layer through
our activities here on Earth to the point where it is no longer
safe to go out in the sunshine. I wonder if we have come to the
point where we can measure the thickness or the intensity of the
ozone layer, and now having the method in which to measure those
layers, if we are not just observing a natural phenomenon and
leaping to the conclusion that civilization is to blame for what
is happening.
I am under the impression that this is a done deal, that the
Government of Canada is now saying, “Oh, by the way, we need
$1.5 billion”. That is entirely consistent with the way the
Liberals do things. It was the same with the Nisga'a deal. The
deal was cut. It was passed through the provincial house in
British Columbia and it was done so with closure.
There must be something about that bill which carries the desire
to invoke closure on it because it certainly has had that effect
on the House. After four hours of debate, we have something that
is going to create another level of government in the country and
it is going to be entrenched in the constitution.
Changing the constitution in this country is a very onerous
task, as it should be. It takes a great amount of consultation
and agreement. There is the 7-50 rule, seven provinces with
better than 50% of the population voting in favour of changes to
the constitution. That was never done.
The Nisga'a deal has made changes to the constitution. That
treaty has been entrenched in the constitution of Canada without
ever having asked the citizens of Canada whether they wanted to
have those changes made.
I know the position that we as a party are taking on this
certainly is not the mainstream sentiment.
The position this party took on the Charlottetown accord was not
the accepted position. The establishment across Canada felt that
the Charlottetown accord was the best invention since penicillin.
The Reform Party and some other groups took the position that it
was not. It was fraught with flaws. When the Charlottetown
accord went to a referendum, we were vindicated in that 70% of
Canadians who voted in that referendum voted against it. It was
a resounding defeat.
1255
The architects said that they would not be worried about that at
all. They said they had other ways of amending the constitution
and that they would set about doing it through the back door.
Apparently the back door is wide open. Now we have a treaty that
is entrenched in the constitution of Canada. The laws of the
people that this treaty covers now supersede those of the
province and of the dominion, and if Canadians do not like it,
too bad. The Liberals know best. It is no longer father knows
best; it is the Liberals know best.
We hear time and time again from the members of the government
that it is just a matter that they have to educate Canadians,
that it is being done in Canadians' best interests. We will see
about that. I am quite confident that history will bear us out
that we have taken the proper position.
My information on the civil international space station
agreement is that it more or less has been a done deal since
January 29, 1998. We are closing in on a year since the deal was
signed. Of course the government comes to us now and says, “Oh,
by the way, we forgot one minor detail. We need $1 billion or
maybe $1.5 billion to finance this project”. It is not that I
begrudge the financing of the international space station, but it
is the way it was done, and $1 billion or $1.5 billion is a pile
of money.
I am invited to talk to school children from time to time. They
ask me questions about the difference between the deficit and the
debt. I try my best to put $1 billion into perspective. We bandy
that word around like it was nothing, a billion here, a billion
there. Mr. Speaker, pretty soon it runs into real money. It
could even deplete your bank account in time.
I try to explain it to the students. I think everybody can put
$100 in perspective. Even primary school children can put $100
in perspective. Ten $10 bills make $100. One hundred $100 bills
make $1,000. They are all with me so far, even the primary
students. Then if we have a thousand $1,000 bills, we have $1
million. If we have one thousand million, we have $1 billion. Of
course, as I do this I just keep adding zeros to the $10 bill.
That puts $1 billion in perspective.
If that does not register with them, I try this story. If we had
$1 million and it was on the table and we decided to spend that
at $1,000 a day, in about three years or a little less, it would
be gone.
Let us assume that it does not attract any interest rate. It is
just laying there on the table in thousand dollar bills. If I
spent one a day, in about three years it would all be gone. If
there were $1 billion dollars on the table, I would have to live
about 3,000 years to spend it at $1,000 a day. I think that puts
$1 billion in perspective. It is a lot of money.
1300
At the present time we have a debt of about $580 billion. We
are paying out between $40 billion and $50 billion a year in
interest. That money has to come out of the pockets of families
across the nation. We have a duty to spend that money wisely and
frugally. Just because government has the ability to reach into
people's pockets and extract their hard earned wages does not
give it that right. There is a huge difference between the
ability and the right. The government has given itself the
ability to reach into the pockets of Canadians and take out any
given amount.
When we look at the history of the country we realize that taxes
have consistently risen. They have never decreased and I think
it is about time they did. We were told in 1991 that the GST
would replace the manufacturers sales tax, a 12% tax that applied
to some items. The items the manufacturers sales tax applied to
were to be less expensive because the tax that would be applied
to them would be a very reasonable 7% tax rather than the rather
onerous 12% manufacturers sales tax. That has not happened. As
a result about $15 billion a year comes into the federal coffers
through the GST, and still the country was running $42 billion
deficits as late as 1993.
On the subject at hand, we want to ensure that intellectual
property rights are protected. If a company or an individual
working on some aspect of the space station were to come up with
some leading edge technology, some kind of ground breaking work
discovery, how would that intellectual property be protected? Are
we talking about a communal effort, the same aspect as the
Hutterite colony where nobody owns anything and everything is
owned collectively? Is that the way this process works, or will
individual intellectual rights be protected? I am not at all
sure of that.
While we are talking about collective rights versus individual
rights, I am again reminded of the bill we were discussing, the
Nisga'a so-called final agreement. Collective rights in the
Nisga'a agreement supersede individual rights. I do not think
that is the Canadian way of doing things. Individual rights in
the country are of paramount importance and should always take
precedence over collective rights.
One year my wife and I took a holiday to enjoy the beaches of
Cuba. One thing which was extremely apparent there was that
individuals had no rights. They might have a form of security
but they had no rights.
A policeman can stand on the street corner. When people are
driving by in their dilapidated old cars, he simply blows his
whistle and points to whomever he wants to stop, and they bloody
well stop right away. They know that if they do not they could
have their old car all shot to pieces, and themselves besides.
1305
That is an ultimate example of where collective rights supersede
individual rights. I talked to the people in Cuba and discovered
there were two kinds of people: those involved in the regime and
great supporters of it, and those who were governed by the regime
and did not support it at all.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I know we have been advised this morning that the Indian
affairs committee refused to allow anybody but witnesses friendly
to the Liberal government at the Nisga'a hearings in B.C. I know
we have heard that and I know it is difficult for my colleague—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In fairness to the
hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, explain to the
Chair how this could possibly be a point of order relevant to the
debate that is taking place right now.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I was about to do
that. I was explaining that because Liberal members of the
Indian affairs committee have refused to let hostile—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As the hon. member
knows, what goes on it committee goes on in committee. Committees
are their own masters. That does not have a direct relevance to
the House. It is not a point of order.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I see quite a few
parallels in the bill in the way it came to us as a fait
accompli. Our caucus is very anxious to speak to the bill.
It would not surprise me in the slightest to see that it too
becomes the subject of closure yet again. If we look at the
government's agenda we wonder what is the urgency. What does it
have on the agenda that is so urgent that it has to shut down
debate after four hours? Those who look at the agenda just
scratch their heads because there is nothing there but thin soup.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise with
some trepidation on Bill C-4. It is not particularly
controversial; in fact it is anything but. The reason I am
concerned is that the Liberal government is making this place
completely irrelevant.
I call them the green foreheads over there. We look at the
chairs over there and we see that they are green. I am speaking
to many green foreheads over there, the green party over there
which maybe we should call the brown party because there is as
much brown over there too.
Of course Bill C-4 is important. It shows the priorities of the
government both in spending money and in using the time of the
House for debate. I guess it is good because it is an indicator.
It is like a red light on the dash. I wish every Canadian would
wake up right now, look at the red light on the dash and realize
that the red light or the red book is giving them big problems.
When we ask for an opportunity to debate an issue of terrible
importance to the people of British Columbia, of immense
importance to all Canadians across the country at the present
time and of increasing importance for generations to come, when
we ask that we in the House and throughout the country have ample
time to debate such an issue, the Liberals invoke closure and say
no. They will not talk about that. They want to talk about Bill
C-4, an agreement on an international space agency.
1310
That tells us something. I do not want to be disrespectful. I
think the technological advancements we are participating in as
Canadians are wonderful, but this shows that the government is
totally spaced out.
It is right out of it when it comes to evaluating what is
important to Canadians. It is right out of it when it comes to
trying to figure out how to spend money. It is right out of it
when it sets the agenda for what is debated in the House and what
is debated among Canadians.
Canadians from coast to coast would like to engage in a debate
on the future of the country. Right now we have a government
with its dictatorial powers and its majority that it uses so
blatantly. Where does the government stand on the issues that
are important to Canadians? It is pulling the strings of its
members and getting them to vote the way they are told on all
sorts of issues.
It is Bill C-4 today. It is a very small bill. The Liberal
government has chosen to debate this bill today instead of the
Nisga'a one. It is an agreement between Canada and a number of
other countries. It is an agreement to co-operate on building an
international space station and operating it. A number of
elements are involved. A number of elements require co-operation
among different countries. It is probably a job that is too
large for one country to bear. The two elements of greatest
importance to us are our contribution of personnel and our
contribution of dollars.
Bill C-4 is an act to implement the agreement among the
Government of Canada, governments of member states of the
European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of
the Russian Federation and the Government of the United States of
America concerning co-operation on the civil international space
station and to make related amendments to other acts.
If we look at the more detailed list a number of countries in
the European Union are involved. When I saw the bill I was
absolutely amazed. The government hammered out an agreement
behind closed doors and signed it on January 29, 1998. This is
almost the end of 1999. We are approaching two years since
Canada signed the agreement. To show its total disdain for
parliament, having signed the agreement almost two years ago, it
now has the gall to say that it would like parliament to ratify
the agreement. It would like parliament to give its consent to
an agreement that it has already signed.
A couple of things come to my mind when I hear that. One is how
Canadians through their parliament and perhaps directly in debate
were not involved previously. Why were they not informed that
the agreement was being considered? It is a tremendous
expenditure of money.
It is a strange coincidence that the cost of this program, $1.4
billion, is pretty well the cost of the immediate implementation
of the Nisga'a agreement, although that agreement has the
potential with its spin-offs across the country to cost the
country in excess of $200 billion or more than the annual budget
of the Government of Canada right now.
The government is willing to cut off debate on the Nisga'a
agreement and deal with Bill C-4, which shows that it does not
want to deal in any real or substantial way with anything of any
relevance to Canadians. Government members want to sweep the big
problems under the rug and try to get them jammed through before
anyone wakes up and realizes what they are doing. I guess they
learned from the Charlottetown accord that they could not trust
Canadians to be totally ignorant.
They want to keep them ignorant by ramming through those things
really fast so that no one has the time to become informed and
react. They want to do it quickly and let the consequences of
the future be as they may.
1315
I have a firm belief that in a true democracy, which we do not
have in Canada, once we have debated an issue and have come to an
agreement it would have been because of the fact that we were
promoting a sensible idea. When people consent to it, of course,
they would support it and our country would remain strong and
unified. That is not so with this government. It will not
debate an issue which has the potential of costing $200 billion,
but it will talk about this, which will cost about $1.5 billion.
I taught mathematics for a number of years. I have with me a
trusty calculator which I always have with me as my auxiliary
brain. I will give a perspective on what $1.5 billion means.
We have approximately 15 million taxpayers in the country. That
$1.5 billion means that every taxpayer will be contributing $100
to this project. That is an immense amount of money.
I should not have admitted that I had to use my calculator for
that division, but I was not thinking that these numbers were the
same. I am now a little red faced and embarrassed. However, it
is a lot of money. Taxpayers are being pushed.
Meanwhile, do we have $1 billion to support Canadian farmers?
No. Instead what we get from the government is the hauling out
of a bunch of statistics which show that the government has no
interest at all in western Canadian farmers. It has let them go
down the tube.
One of the advantages of the space station is that we should be
able to send more people up there. When we look at our planet
from space, I think it would give us a perspective on what is
important down here. We as Canadians, and the Liberal people as
parliamentarians, should value Canadian society and Canadian
farmers. That might come to our minds if we looked at it from a
different perspective.
With this agreement the government has made some unilateral
decisions and is now coming to parliament for approval.
In a lot of bills there is a great deal more power being
attributed to the minister. That is also true of this bill.
This is amazing. Clause 7 gives a lot of power to the minister.
It reads:
The Minister may send a notice to any person that the Minister
believes, on reasonable grounds, has information or documents
relevant to the administration or enforcement of this Act,
requesting the person to provide, within any reasonable period
that the Minister specifies, that information or those documents
to the Minister or any person that the Minister designates.
That is pretty scary stuff, which is actually standard in a lot
of the bills the government brings in. Basically the minister
has the power to do anything he wants. If he believe it is the
right thing to do, the bill will give the minister the ability to
do it. If the person objects to providing or fails to provide the
information, then the minister can take the person to court.
Has anyone had a fight with a schoolyard bully? I have not
because I was always so cuddly. I did not pick fights a lot. I
was the brunt of a lot of teasing and every once in a while
people would attack me, but I would not call those fights.
However, when we take an individual and put the weight of the
government behind a lawsuit, I do not think that individual has a
chance of winning. All of the resources of the government would
go behind the lawsuit and the funds of the poor individual, who
is usually limited to whatever he can borrow against his house,
if the government permits that, would be eaten up very quickly.
1320
We have an agreement. I like the concept of agreement. It says
in the schedule of this bill that this is an agreement among the
government and all of these different countries. It adds the
Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic,
the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic, the
Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of
Spain, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Swiss Confederation, and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Add to
that the list of all of the parties I read before.
This is a multilateral agreement. Is it not interesting that
the government is willing to go through the work of arranging an
agreement that these different parties can agree to? When it
comes to an element as important as Nisga'a, does it make sure
the parties come together? No. It totally fails to do that.
It has not recognized that when it comes to an agreement like the
Nisga'a agreement there are two parties to it. Sure it has the
Nisga'a people, but it also has all of the non-native people who
are a party to that agreement. The only difference is that this
Liberal government does not even want to discuss it with the
other members of the agreement. It wants to unilaterally impose
it on them and hopefully keep them in the dark and ignorant about
the terms and issues in the agreement.
Today we are debating the space station when we should be
debating the importance and the relevance of probably the most
important piece of legislation to hit this country in the last 30
years. Instead the Liberal government is saying “That is the
end of that debate. We cannot let members talk for more than
fours on that, but go ahead and talk all day on the international
space agreement”.
Here we have an example of an agreement which was reached among
all the parties, but the government is imposing on Canadians an
agreement with the Nisga'a in which one party to the agreement is
not allowed to be involved. The terms and conditions are being
dictated to them. They are not allowed to have any input. If
anything, the government would like for them to have no
understanding of it. That is atrocious. As far as I am
concerned that is a serious aberration of what we call democracy.
With this kind of contempt for the House of Commons and the
people of Canada, I do not believe the Liberal government has the
moral authority to stand in governance over us. It has failed
us. It continues to fail us because of the fact that it does not
want to engage in democratic debate, democratic give and take, on
an agreement which will so vitally affect both parties.
While we are in principle in favour of Bill C-4, because it
ratifies an agreement, we think it should have been done in
advance of the agreement's being signed. It is arrogant of the
government to go ahead and sign the agreement and say that it can
get it through parliament. All sorts of things could prevent
this from happening. For example, the government may simply not
be re-elected. It could well be that the next government would
have something else on its agenda besides this agreement and that
it would not necessarily pass. I am not predicting this because
I do not think that is my role. I am not able to see the future
that way, but I think it is going to happen. For the sake of
Canadians, the sooner it happens the better.
We need to make sure that Canadians are represented and that the
wishes and will of Canadians are represented in this parliament.
Without that we are not going to be successful as a democratic
society.
1325
I have one more item to talk about which relates to Bill C-4.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are very pleased at how relevant I am
remaining. By the way, I should add in passing that it has
become a practice in this House that wide ranging debate be
permitted. As the Speaker ruled a couple of days ago, when we
have wide ranging consensus and practice over a period of time,
then that sort of becomes the operating method of the House, and
I appreciate that freedom.
At page 16 of the bill we have article 12. It has to do with
transportation. It says that every country which is a party to
this agreement shall have right of access to the space station.
That is sort of cool. It means that I can go, maybe with some of
my friends, up to the space station if I happen to be selected
and trained. It indicates once again some of the countries.
Then it states that there is an obligation on the part of the
participating countries to provide launch and return
transportation services for the space station and, in addition,
other space transportation systems.
I could not help but remember something that happened in my
riding a couple of years ago. Because of a very weak showing by
the Liberal Party in Alberta, it decided to make some changes.
Without a great deal of thought from a military point of view, it
decided to move the air base from Namao to never-never land and
to bring in the army to that base instead. The result is that
the longest and strongest runways in North America, which were at
the Namao air base, have been changed into streets leading up to
warehouses for the army. There was not even the foresight to
keep the buildings far enough away so that in an emergency that
airstrip could still be used. It has often been said that this
was one of the collateral runways that was available to
spacecraft returning.
We have an obligation to provide and to do our share in
providing transportation to and from the space station, which in
an emergency would necessitate the use of those long runways, but
we have disabled them. Again it shows a total lack of foresight
on the part of this government. I am absolutely disgusted that
those decisions are so often clouded with political ramifications
instead of being made on a rational basis.
I look forward to questions from the green foreheads.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not qualify for the category my hon. colleague mentioned, but
seeing none of the green foreheads standing I thought I would
ask a question of my colleague from Elk Island.
Being the critic for industry, I want to say that the Reform
Party is very supportive of Bill C-4 and the Canadian Space
Agency. I know that my colleague had many good comments about
the work that space station will do to help in the future.
My colleague is a keen follower of new technologies and the
ability of the space station to monitor Earth. The good that it
will do for crop monitoring for farmers and the monitoring of the
ice pack to aid in the navigation of shipping in our Arctic are
all things that I think my colleague from Elk Island would agree
are important factors.
Some of the things that we take for granted in Canadian society,
such as individual property rights, are not available under the
constitution and yet we have fee simple use of our land. We have
fee simple title to our land, whether it be a lot, a house or a
farm.
Intellectual property rights and patent rights are being
protected for Canadian companies and the Canadian government when
doing research on the international space station. The fact that
there are going to be eight different countries involved makes it
important to protect intellectual property and patent rights.
Yet we see in the Nisga'a agreement things that we take for
granted in our Canadian law through intellectual property rights.
1330
In the Nisga'a agreement property rights are not protected for
Canadian Nisga'a women in terms of a marriage breakup. They are
not protected in terms of fee simple land for the Nisga'a.
Individuals will not be able to own a piece of property. They
are going down that road of communal property which is a failed
policy. Even the east bloc countries in eastern Europe finally
had to admit that it does not work.
I would like my colleague's comments. What does he think of the
comparison between the need for intellectual property rights on
the space station and doing it here at home?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this
question. We do not expect any questions from the green
foreheads because they have difficulty standing.
I want to answer the question with respect to property rights.
One of the best kept secrets in the world is that I have a little
company called Epp Software. What I used to do, and still do
except it has become rather rusty now, is write computer
programs. I used to have a small business and I sold some custom
programs.
I was the owner of that intellectual property. When I purchased
a blank disk it had a value of $1 or $1.50. After I added my
program to it, I was able to sell it for $25 or $30. I added some
value to it and it was my right to do that. I was hoping that I
would have a copyright that would prevent other people from
copying my disks and giving them to other people without penalty.
That is what copyright acts are all about. They are to preserve
the property of the person who actually made the invention.
It has become a tough situation. The Liberal government has
completely failed on this issue. We now have the tax on blank
cassettes. In other words, it assumes that people are going to
break copyright laws, so they pay a penalty whether or not they
break the law. It is the same as giving people speeding tickets
in advance.
I am appalled that there are agreements in Bill C-4 that will
protect the intellectual rights of the participants in that
program, but the Nisga'a people do not even have the simplest of
rights. That the government has failed to address that is even a
greater travesty.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am somewhat amazed at what is going on in the House at the
present time.
I see only Reform Party members speaking. One of them, a member
of the Standing Committee on Industry, has just said that they
were in agreement with the bill.
I can understand that this gives my hon. colleague another
chance to speak about his former company and the cassettes it
sold, but it seems to me that the House's time is valuable. The
Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with this bill. Having visited
the space agency in Saint-Hubert, there is much I could say and,
being a member of the industry committee, I am somewhat aware of
the various facets of this subject.
Unless there is an objective of negotiation, if there is
agreement, why stretch out the discussion, especially if
everyone is already in agreement? I would like my colleague to
explain this to me, then perhaps I will understand.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I know that the member believes
in democracy. I suppose he believes in parliament because he is
here as a member of parliament. I know he believes in MP
pensions because I understand he is taking it.
Parliament is here to debate the issues of the day. As he and
others have observed, our right to debate in depth the full
implications of the Nisga'a agreement was cut off by the Liberal
government yesterday. Therefore, we are going to use the time
today to debate not only this bill, but the bills that we think
we should be able to debate in this place. That is my reason and
it stands on its own.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Of course, on the
right to do so, it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure
that the debate is on the question that is on the floor.
Relevance has to be maintained.
1335
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, certainly it
is my privilege to speak to Bill C-4 on the space station and
what it means to Canadians.
I want to start off by talking about the provincial co-operation
that needs to go on whenever we put any kind of legislation
forward. Certainly Bill C-4 would be an example of that. I would
like to know from government members just how much consultation
went on in talking to the premiers about the implications for
Canadians of a space station.
Because we have not heard answers from the Liberals, all I can
do is try to project how much consultation they might have done.
What I would have to do is look at the most recent bill we
discussed in this House. Yesterday we talked about Nisga'a. Let
us examine that and compare it to Bill C-4 and how much
provincial consultation went on.
Also the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba came to try to
consult on the agricultural issue. What kind of consultation
happened and what were the results?
Let us examine that first in the context of Bill C-4. Let us ask
government members, did they consult with the provinces? That is
the question. Let us look at the examples of their consultation
process.
Let us start off by looking at the Nisga'a agreement. In the
Nisga'a agreement which involves the people of British Columbia,
the consultation was extremely limited. Closure was used on that
bill in the parliament in British Columbia. Yesterday's press
release by the leader of the opposition in British Columbia puts
it into perspective:
The motion this morning by the federal government to invoke
closure on the Nisga'a treaty debate is a reprehensible abuse of
the democratic process, said Liberal Leader Gordon Campbell.
“This is an egregious abuse of the democratic process, and
shows flagrant contempt for all British Columbians,” said
Campbell. “It's an unacceptable slap in the face to our
province, and to all Canadians who deserve a full and open debate
on the landmark treaty”.
“On a matter of this critical importance to our country, to our
province and to our constitution, every member of parliament
deserves the right to speak. Every Canadian should demand the
right of their MP to speak. To put this in context, we would not
for a moment dream of shutting off debate on a change to the
constitution affecting Quebec, but that's exactly what the
government's doing to B.C.”
The federal government's closure motion, introduced at
11.30 a.m. EST, will shut down all debate on the treaty this afternoon
at 6.30 p.m. EST. At the time the motion was introduced, there
had been less than 10 hours of debate on the treaty, of which
only four hours [and 12 minutes] had been allocated to the
official opposition. In that time, the official opposition was
able to field just 16 speakers out of a caucus of 58 members.
There are 24 Reform opposition MPs in B.C. alone.
This is the example of the co-operation the B.C. politicians
feel this federal government gives them. I wonder what the B.C.
government would say about the consultation on the space station
and its involvement for the 21st century.
Let us move on to Alberta. There is a longstanding tradition
that most Alberta politicians feel toward the federal government
and its lack of consulting them on most issues.
There are so many examples we would not have time to deal with
all of them.
1340
I wonder what the Alberta politicians would say about the
consultation on Bill C-4, the space station and the implications
for the people of Alberta.
Let us go to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Representatives from
Saskatchewan and Manitoba came here last week to consult with the
federal government. They wanted to talk about the most important
issue they had before them which is the agricultural issue. The
farmers are hurting. They are losing their farms. Young farmers
are leaving simply because there is no future for them in
agriculture. That is our food supply. I wonder how much
consultation the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba would say
the federal government has had with them.
We could talk about the space station and the implications to
agriculture which one member spoke about earlier. It could be a
boon to the agricultural community regarding production. I
wonder if they have been consulted, if they know what is involved
and if they want taxpayers' money to go toward that.
I wonder as well if Ontario and Quebec have been consulted. Mr.
Bouchard makes many, many speeches on the topic of consultation
with the federal government and the lack of it. It does not
matter which party it is in Quebec, we hear the same thing. Mr.
Harris in Ontario does not feel he has been consulted on the many
issues that affect the great province of Ontario.
If we ask Atlantic Canadians if they have been consulted about
the space station, they would say, “No, agreements come out and
we get no support at all from the federal government. We have
all kinds of fishing agreements. We have the supreme court
setting the laws for us and that has opened a time bomb for
Canadians”.
A race based policy has been set up in this country. This race
based policy is going to cause a great many problems in the
future for my children and grandchildren. They are going to have
problems because we have set aside special rights for different
people. I would hope that the consultation necessary between
provinces would go on and would involve everything from space
stations to Nisga'a to any other agreements the federal
government might enter into.
One of the first items to identify in this severe problem is the
co-operation between the provinces and the federal government.
It just is not there. It should be there whether it is on the
space station or Nisga'a. It should be there. It must be there.
We should be here to fight for that right.
Let us talk about the effects on Canadians of legislation that
happens here. Let us talk about the space station and what it
will do for Canadians.
Obviously, there will be a pride among Canadians when they hear
that Canada is playing a role in developing a space station. We
are playing a scientific role. We are co-operating with the
United States, Japan and countries of the European Union. There
will be pride that we are part of this project.
There will be influence created by our involvement in the space
station. We will have influence in terms of our marketing and
sales and what we do around the world. Our trade will be helped
because of the space station.
Let us talk about co-operation and what we will learn by
co-operating with these other countries. The prestige and
position of Canada in the world will be improved by the space
station.
Let us look at the effects on Canadians. Let us compare the
space station and all of the good things we have gone through to
Nisga'a and the message that sends to the world. Let us compare
the two. We have pride and co-operation, prestige and influence
in the world because of a space station, but the Nisga'a
agreement sends the message that we are persecuting a group of
people, that we have a race based policy.
1345
I hope all Canadians believe in the equality of all people, but
we have a government that is putting forward a race based policy
in the House. The government is afraid to debate the policy
because it knows it is onerous to the people of the country. It
allows four hours and twelve minutes to debate an issue like that
and expects us all to be happy and say “Isn't democracy a
wonderful thing”. We are sick and tired of that kind of
presentation to the world. The world is looking at us.
The UN has condemned us for our treatment of our native people.
The UN has said that it is time we talked about the grassroots
people of the country. We do not need to be spending time in
here talking about a sophisticated space station. We need to be
talking about the grassroots people who really count.
What is happening to those people? They are living in poverty.
They have problems with crime and alcoholism. What has caused
that? The race based policy of governments in the country over
the years have caused the problems. They have created a
situation where they think they can solve the problems by
throwing money at them and by signing these agreements which no
one is happy with.
Many of the people on the reserves are contacting some of our
members. The member for Wild Rose and a number of other members
have done extensive work with the natives. The member for Prince
Albert has also done extensive work with them. They have done a
lot of talking to the grassroots people. That is the message we
are sending to the world as well.
On the one side, we have the great Bill C-4, the space station
bill, that gives us pride in our country. On the other side, we
have another piece of legislation that makes us absolutely sick
to our stomach and we cannot let the people of Canada know about
it because the government is afraid to let it be debated in the
House.
The Liberals have no courage at all. They do not stand by their
convictions. They should be embarrassed to go out in public. I
think that is why so many of them moved to Ottawa and live here.
They are afraid to go back to their own constituencies. They
should be afraid because of the image they are sending to the
people of Canada. One day it will come to haunt the hundreds of
people sitting across the way who are listening so attentively.
It shows how much interest there is in this kind of issue.
Let me talk further about the constitutional changes and the
loss of rights. We are here to talk about the space station. We
have said what that does for us and the pride it gives to us.
However, what we should be talking about is the loss of rights
and the loss of democracy in the country? That should be part of
what is happening here as well.
What rights have we lost? I feel I have lost rights by the use
of closure in the House. When closure is used we do not have the
right to debate the issues and let Canadians knows about them. It
used to be that closure could be used once in a session and the
government would worry about whether it would be defeated. It now
uses closure on every single bill. I expect it will use closure
on the space bill. Why would it not on something as great as
that? That will send a great message to the world as well: We
had to use closure on the space station that every party agreed
with. It is a great idea. We are proud of it and we want to be
involved but the government has to use closure on it because that
is how its democracy works and that is how democracy exists in
Canada.
We have lost our rights. We lose our rights every day in the
House. Whether it is on closure, Bill C-68, the committee
approach to things, satellite TV or whatever it is, the
government operates like a dictatorship. It is time the
government changed its attitude and started to think about the
people who really count.
The government throws out fancy bills like Bill C-4 and says
that everyone will agree with it because they are a bunch of
patsies who are just going to go along with it. It knows we will
put up one more speaker and it will then ram the bill through
because it is a good bill.
This is an opportunity for us as opposition members to at least
let the government and the Canadian people know how the
government is operating.
1350
This is not about Bill C-4 and the space station. We are for
that. We think it is great and we are proud of it. This is about
democracy and the total abuse of democracy in this place. That
is why all of us need to stand on our feet and be counted with
regard to the issue.
The Nisga'a people would want us to stand and talk as well, even
if they are opposed to what we are saying. In a democracy, one
has the opportunity to speak and that is what it is all about. We
go around the world peddling democracy. We say that we are the
example of a democratic state. How can we say that when closure
is used at the drop of a hat? It does not matter what bill it
is, closure is used on it.
Here we are setting up a group of people who are going to run a
socialist state, where the chief and council will have the rights
to land and the rights to everything. The individual person will
have no property rights. We cannot have a race based policy like
that. We cannot have a top-down government like that. My God,
if that worked then the east bloc countries would be leading the
world. They would be the only super powers around.
I have been in all the east bloc countries. They are
collapsing. They are being destroyed because of their type of
government. This government is doing exactly the same thing to
Canada, to this great country, a country that should be on top of
the world. It is destroying it by destroying democracy and
destroying the sorts of things that all of us grew up to believe
Canada was all about.
It is time to examine that and to stand up and be counted. It is
shameful that the other parties are not standing up to hold the
government accountable. I am proud to be part of a group that is
standing up, that is getting that message out and is saying what
it is really all about.
As we travel internationally and involve the international
community, and as foreign affairs critic I have been able to do
that in lots of places, I want to be proud of the country that I
come from. I want to be proud of the country that has a
democratic process where every member of parliament has an
opportunity to stand up and speak. I do not want to be part of a
country that uses closure at the drop of a hat and allows four
hours and twelve minutes of debate on something that will affect
the rest of our lives, the lives of our children and our
grandchildren. It is a shameful example of what we have seen in
the House in the past day or so and, for that matter, over the
last six years.
We are proud of the space station but we are not proud of the
other things the government has done. We cannot stand in pride
and also have shame in our eyes because of what the government
has done. In the last 24 hours, it has just committed probably
one of the most shameful things that we have seen since we have
been in the House and something that will affect us for so many
generations.
I am embarrassed for the government members of the House. They
should hang their heads in shame, as 10 or 20 of them are doing
over there right now. In fact their heads are so low I cannot
even see them because they are under their seats with
embarrassment, which is exactly where they should be.
The space station, yes; the Nisga'a agreement, no. Let the
government take notice of just how many more speeches we have to
give and how many more comments we will have about the lack of
democracy that has been displayed in the House.
The Speaker: I understand we have had quite a morning. We
will now have questions and comments. I will take one question
and then a response and whatever time is left over we will go to
questions and comments after the question period.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I particularly appreciate what the member said in regard
to his concerns for the working poor who have to pay taxes, the
poor people of the country, over top of the space station.
This was signed on January 29, 1998 by Canada and a number of
other countries with no consultation in the House.
It was not brought before the people. Now we can look at the
consultation that is supposed to be going on in British Columbia
with regard to the Nisga'a agreement.
1355
With regard to consultation by the Liberal government, which it
likes to say that it has out there, is the hon. member aware that
there will be four meetings in British Columbia, none in the
Okanagan and only witnesses that the government approves with its
okay stamp to appear with regard to the agreement?
The Speaker: Order, please. I understand that we are going to
try to tie this into the space agency, are we not? I will let
the hon. member take it from there.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately you were not
here for most of my speech, but I did talk about the connection
between the negotiations with the provinces and the federal
government with regard to agreements. I used, as an example, the
space station, which was an agreement that I hoped the federal
government had consulted with the provincial governments. I had
to use examples of where the federal government had not consulted
with the provinces, like the Nisga'a agreement and many of the
other agreements that have come forward like the student loan
program.
It is a tradition for the federal government to not consult with
the provinces about these issues. It is just how it does
business. It just rams legislation through, which is the
unfortunate, but I am very aware of that.
What I am most concerned about is that not only is that an abuse
of democracy, but when the government starts to say “We'll take
this witness, but not that witness. We'll pick them”, that goes
absolutely to the ultimate end in lack of democracy, which was
the point I was trying to make.
The Speaker: I do not want to cut this off because I
thought that was quite interesting.
Mr. Randy White: It is very interesting.
The Speaker: Yes. Any time the opposition House leader
stands I know it is going to be interesting. However, it is
almost two o'clock and I want to save as much time as I can for
the hon. member. The hon. member will have about seven and a
half minutes left for questions and comments after question
period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
LAKE CHAMPLAIN
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
recently a participant in a public consultation at Swanton, in
Vermont, and Venise, in Quebec, on an issue that is vital to my
riding of Brome-Missisquoi: the quality of water in Lake
Champlain.
In the past three years, I have been in increasing contact with
the political authorities on the American side to save Lake
Champlain.
An important step could be taken with the planned construction
of the Swanton-Alburg bridge, but we are far from having settled
the main problem, which is an earthwork that has been in place
for 60 years now and is blocking the flow of water between
Canada and the United States. It needs to be removed if our
lake is to be saved.
Our neighbours to the south appear to have a lot of reasons for
not doing so. They have even brought up the presence of
soft-shelled turtles.
I will continue to make use of all possible forums to ensure
that this natural treasure, our Lake Champlain, remains an
important asset for future generations.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
November, immigration enforcement officer Dale Lewis took a man's
four year old son from him at gun point. This followed a one
hour of investigation into allegations made by one source; the
man's estranged wife.
Adnan Khan had legal custody of his son but Dale Lewis refused
to even look at the evidence. The child has not been seen since
and the father has no idea where his child is.
At a subsequent hearing, Lewis admitted under oath that if he
had done his job properly he would never have taken the child in
the first place. To avoid further embarrassment, Lewis disobeyed
a summons to appear at a hearing on October 21. Furious, the
adjudicator then ordered summonses for all the top managers
involved in this case who have since indicated that they will not
appear.
The department is clearly determined to see that justice is not
done in this case.
1400
I challenge the minister to attend tomorrow's hearings so that
she can see how unfairly Mr. Khan is being treated by her
department.
* * *
WOMEN VETERANS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, prior
to World War II there were no women serving in Canada's armed
forces. The Canadian women who enlisted then in the army, navy
and air force became a significant part of Canada's military
history. They proudly served both at home and overseas. Women
were numbered among the casualties.
Canada's women veterans of World War II have been recognized
locally with memorials such as the tri-service statue in Winnipeg
and bronze statues in Brantford, but there are few others.
National recognition of World War II women veterans is long
overdue. It is high time our government recognized the women who
served through a tri-service statue in Ottawa. I urge the
government to see to it that women veterans of World War II are
properly recognized and honoured while some are still with us.
Would not this be a fitting Year 2000 project?
* * *
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in a few days we will celebrate the final Remembrance
Day of this century. Throughout veterans week we will reflect
with pride on the sacrifices made by our citizens over the past
100 years. The Canada we have inherited was paid for with the
blood and sacrifice of its young Canadians.
[Translation]
The world wars had an impact on the lives of thousands of
Canadians. Those who returned home were changed forever by these
wars.
[English]
Those who returned home battle weary, often scarred in body and
spirit, had a country to build. They picked up the lost years of
their lives and got on with the job. They worked in the fields
and the factories. They set up new businesses. They raised
their families. They helped build a nation that has known only
peace and prosperity throughout the last half of the century.
Today we thank those who served the nation for a job so nobly
done.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
equality begins with the truth. The truth is that the decision
handed down in the Marshall case and supported by the Liberal
government will cost non-Indian fishermen their jobs and their
way of life.
The government's response tells the untold truth. A race based
fishery will deprive fishermen across Canada of equal access to a
resource they have shared with Indians for generations. The
government talks of native rights but says nothing about the
rights of non-Indian fishermen who must feed their families and
make a living.
The Liberals hope that by throwing money at the problem it will
go away. While the government and its fisheries minister
continue to dilly-dally over what to do, Indian leaders are
already exploiting the Marshall decision and expanding their
Indian only policy into mining, forestry and crab fishing off the
coast of Newfoundland.
The truth is that the Liberal government and the supreme court
are responsible for pitting Indians against non-Indians and
status against non-status Indians. As a consequence the equality
rights of all Canadians have been crushed.
* * *
[Translation]
AUTHOR ABLA FARHOUD
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday, Montrealer Abla Farhoud was awarded the France-Quebec
literary award.
I know I speak for all my colleagues when I offer my most
sincere congratulations to this author, known primarily for her
theatre work.
She has written a dozen plays, including Les filles du 5.10.15
created at the Festival de Limoges in the early 1990s before
being put on in Paris and at the Théâtre international de langue
française.
An initial selection for this award was made by a jury of
authors, academics and literary critics from France and Quebec.
Twenty-eight regional associations took part in the vote.
We congratulate Abla Farhoud and wish her all the best in the
pursuit of her work.
* * *
[English]
SPORTS
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in my place today to say to all my colleagues
that Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, indeed Corner Brook and Deer
Lake, western Newfoundland, is becoming one of the premier
capitals for sporting and high performance athletics not just in
Canada but internationally as well. I want to pay tribute and
salute all the people who have provided this platform, this
foundation.
It goes without saying that while we are building the
infrastructure and building the reputation as one of the premier
sporting capitals, not only nationally but internationally, part
of the reason we are doing so is that we have high performance
young athletes like Eric Daggett.
Eric Daggett is performing very well not only nationally but
internationally on the mountain biking scene. He has proven
himself to be a very capable young athlete. I want to pay
tribute to him and his great successes. He has competed in
Kamloops, B.C. He has represented Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte
very well. Hats off to Eric; keep up the good work.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
KARINE VANASSE
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a young actress
in my riding, Karine Vanasse, has just received the Bayard d'Or
as the best actress in the Festival international du film
francophone in Namur, Belgium, for her performance in Léa Pool's
film Emporte-moi.
Karine is now working on another feature film, L'instant fatal
by Céline Baril, and playing in the new TV series Les deux
frères, while continuing to act in the program Les
Débrouillards.
This young woman, who is also the official spokesperson for the
magazine Filles d'aujourd'hui, is now seeing doors open for her
in the United States and new upcoming projects.
Karine Vanasse's career is now taking off in keeping with her
talent, and we cannot but wish her every success.
* * *
[English]
EGYPTAIR FLIGHT 990
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last night more Canadian families were
pained with the news that their loved ones were lost on the fatal
flight of EgyptAir 990.
Our deepest sympathies go out to the 22 families across Canada
who are coping with this tragic event. On behalf of all members
I would like to express my sincere condolences to the families
and to let them know that our prayers are with them at this time
of sorrow.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to bring to
the attention of the House a briefing note from the B.C. ministry
of agriculture. This document states that Nisga'a used as a
template for future land claims will cause significant
disruptions to individual ranchers, orchardists and farmers in
the Okanagan.
Over 1,000 farms in the Okanagan have crown tenures on land that
will become the subject of Indian land claims. Not only does
this threaten the commercial interests of those ranchers,
orchardists and farmers, but it threatens the whole B.C.
agricultural land reserve.
The NDP briefing note states that the majority of the crown
agricultural land reserve would likely be consumed by land claims
for a total of approximately 2.5 million hectares. Using Nisga'a
as a template will not create economic certainty in B.C. The
Liberals, NDP and Tories know this but insist that their extreme
measures are best for all British Columbians.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN COUTU
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
pay tribute to the actor Jean Coutu, who passed away last night
at the age of 74.
Born in Montreal, Jean Coutu began his career in 1943. In
September, 1952, he played a role in one of the first French
broadcasts in Canada, a presentation of Oedipe Roi by Jean
Cocteau.
Jean Coutu is quite rightly viewed as one of the pioneers of
French language television. He played the title role in the
television series based on Germaine Guèvremont's novel, Le
Survenant, or The Outlander, one of our literary masterpieces.
As a member of the Compagnons de Saint-Laurent, the company
directed by Father Paul-Émile Legault, he also helped to launch
French language theatre in Montreal.
Later, in the 1950s, he played the role of Ti-Mé in the popular
series Les Plouffe, by Roger Lemelin.
The artistic and cultural community pays him a resounding
tribute, in honour of his talent as an actor, his untiring
energy, and his role as a builder of French language culture in
Canada.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL MUSEUM OF CIVILIZATION
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
night I was honoured to join labour leaders and trade union
activists from across the country to cut the ribbon on a new
exhibit at the National Museum of Civilization.
The exhibit is a full size accurate reproduction of room 10 of
the old Winnipeg Labour Temple at the time of the 1919 Winnipeg
general strike. This was the actual room where strike leaders
like J. S. Woodsworth and R. B. Russell encouraged working people
of Winnipeg to rise up and demand their rights, even at great
personal risk.
Before the strike was over many were injured. Some were killed
and the labour leaders were thrown in jail for sedition, but
prison bars cannot contain ideas. Because of their spirit and
courage they achieved things like the right to organize, the
right to free collective bargaining, the right to a living wage
and the eight hour day.
I encourage all members and all Canadians to visit this
wonderful exhibit and to learn for themselves the contribution
the labour movement has made to our quality of life.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN COUTU
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
afternoon, we heard the sad news of Jean Coutu's death.
An entire generation of Quebecers who grew up during the early
days of television and who watched the popular Radio-Canada
series, Le Survenant, which ran from 1954 to 1960, will forever
remember this talented and generous actor who left his mark on
an era and on Quebec's cultural world.
1410
Anyone remembering that time, when the new medium of television
began to change the lifestyle of Quebecers, cannot forget the
great popularity of Le Survenant and the role played with
intelligence and sensitivity by Jean Coutu, who, for three more
decades, pursued a career that took him from the theatre to the
cinema and made him a familiar face on television for several
generations of viewers.
The Bloc Quebecois offers its condolences to Jean Coutu's family
and friends. His deep voice will resonate in our ears for a
long while to come.
* * *
[English]
NORTEL
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Nortel Networks is solidifying Canada's reputation as a global
leader in high technology.
Today the company announced a $587 million global injection in
its booming optical networking business, creating a total of
5,000 jobs and tripling overall production capacity by next year.
This strategic investment will expand and accelerate the
development and deployment of the company's market leading
optical Internet networks.
Montreal and Ottawa will come together, to borrow some words
from a Nortel advertisement, as the greatest beneficiaries of
this major capital infusion. New high tech facilities will be
constructed in both cities, with approximately 2,300 new jobs
shared between the two.
In total Nortel expects to invest $210 million in Ottawa and an
additional $120 million in Montreal. This is a huge vote of
confidence in Canada's high technology future and the future of
the Ottawa area as Silicon Valley North.
This is a clear sign that globally renowned companies on the
cutting edge of the new information technologies recognize that
Canada—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
* * *
DIABETES
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
November 14 the world will recognize the birthday of a Canadian
hero, Sir Frederick Banting. Dr. Banting's co-discovery of
insulin in 1921 has saved countless lives. It is in his honour
that November 14 is marked as World Diabetes Day, in the heart of
Diabetes Awareness Month.
A million and a half Canadians have been diagnosed with
diabetes, but horribly it is feared that some 750,000 more suffer
from the condition but are themselves unaware.
I am honoured to serve as the campaign chairperson for the
annual fundraising campaign of the Canadian Diabetes Association
Saint John Branch. The CDA has played a key role in maintaining
and expanding diabetes research and has this year alone provided
over $5.3 million to various projects nationwide.
I encourage all Canadians to think of those who suffer from this
condition on November 14 and to give generously to this valiant
cause.
* * *
FOOD LABELLING
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government's decision in favour of voluntary labelling of foods
derived from biotechnology is a good initial step in the right
direction. That option is already available to food companies.
So far, however, most companies are not labelling their
genetically modified foods.
Last week 200 Health Canada scientists declared that they do not
have the capacity to assess the safety of genetically modified
products. At present labelling is mandatory only when Health
Canada has identified a health concern.
I therefore urge the responsible minister to make labelling of
all genetically altered foods mandatory because Canadians want to
know what is and what is not genetically modified.
* * *
LEONARD PELTIER
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday former Liberal member of parliament and president of
Canada's leading international human rights organization, Warren
Allmand, joined with the Leonard Peltier Defence Committee in
condemning the government and a recent report released by the
justice minister justifying the extradition of Leonard Peltier.
Mr. Allmand conducted an internal review of the extradition
under the previous justice minister and found the extradition was
seriously flawed. He has compared Mr. Peltier's case to those of
wrongfully convicted Canadians.
We urge the government to listen to the many human rights
organizations, unions and concerned citizens from around the
world and support their call for an independent inquiry into the
extradition of Leonard Peltier.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I received a copy of the following letter only yesterday
from the Liberal leader in B.C. It reads:
I am writing to note my extreme dismay over your government's
motion to invoke closure on the Nisga'a treaty debate today.
This motion is an unacceptable slight to British Columbia, and
to all Canadians who deserve a full and open debate on this
landmark treaty. On a matter of this critical importance to our
province, to our country and our constitution, every member of
parliament deserves an opportunity to speak.
It was wrong for the NDP government of British Columbia to close
debate on this treaty, and to deny British Columbians' elected
representatives the chance to even ask questions on 11 of its 22
chapters. I would submit that it is equally wrong for your
government to engage in this same indefensible conduct, conduct
that will only serve to further erode public trust and confidence
in the treaty process.
Sincerely,
Gordon Campbell, MLA
Leader of the Official Opposition
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has a spending problem. Someone has to help
him work through it before taxpayers have to turn all of their
income over to the government.
He is planning a $47 billion shopping spree based on a projected
surplus that could, might, may reach $90 billion. Someone should
remind him though that, unlike his shopping list, the surplus is
projected and expected, not confirmed, meaning that tax relief is
doomed again.
Why are the Prime Minister's shopping sprees always set in
concrete while his tax relief is merely set in quicksand?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we predicted at the time of the last election that there
would be a surplus for the first time in 50 years. We said that
the surplus would be divided 50:50, 50% for the debt and tax
reduction and 50% for social and economic programs. That is
exactly what we are doing at this time.
I am very pleased to know that the Reform Party is beginning to
realize that we have provided Canadian people with very good
government, because we have a big surplus now compared to the $42
billion—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister is absolutely right. We do recognize that he
has provided us with big government and that he is keeping his
promise. Yesterday the finance minister denied the $47 billion
in new spending and the Prime Minister just took credit for it.
If everybody was as fabulously wealthy as the Prime Minister
perhaps they would not care so much about tax relief. But for
middle income families that are losing up to half of their income
to government, it does matter a lot and it matters that the
government is planning a nearly $50 billion spending spree.
A surplus is a surplus, and the answer to a surplus is to
collect less, not spend more. Why will the Prime Minister not
abandon his $47 billion spending—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these are the people who yesterday asked for more money
to spend on agriculture. We are doing that. We are spending
$900 million more on agriculture this year than last year. The
Reform Party has asked us to put in more.
What we have said is that the rational thing to do is to divide
it 50:50. Even Premier Harris used the red book at the meeting
of the first ministers in Quebec City in August and said it was
the right policy for Canada.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Premier Harris has demonstrated how to grow an economy by letting
people keep more of what they earn through real tax relief. He
has done that by being responsible in terms of spending.
Premier Harris has not blown $47 billion of Ontario taxpayers'
money out the window like the Prime Minister plans to do. Why
does he not listen to the growing demands among working Canadian
families for tax relief, instead of planning a back to the
seventies spending binge? Why does he not stop his
retro-seventies fiscal policy and give people tax relief for the
21st century?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have already started to reduce taxes. Most of these
people voted for the Tories in the past. The Tories gave us a 3%
surtax, which we took away.
Yesterday I gave the example of a family of four, with two
people working, making $60,000. They will have a 10% reduction
in their income tax and a 20% reduction—
The Speaker: My colleagues, we want to hear the question
and the answer. The hon. Prime Minister has the floor.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have reduced
taxes and we will keep reducing taxes because we offer the
Canadian people a good government which has, for the first time
in 50 years, put us in the position of having three surpluses in
a row.
* * *
1420
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has said that a
$2.40 EI premium is his comfort zone, but the chief actuary of
Canada said that his comfort zone is a $2.05 premium, the same
comfort zone as the Reform Party and millions of Canadian workers
and businesses.
Why do the Prime Minister and his finance minister not just
enter into the comfort zone of working Canadians and lower the EI
premiums to $2.05? Why do they not do that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is coming from a party that said we should reduce
the premiums only to companies, not to individuals.
When we started it was $3.07. We have reduced it every year by
15 cents. That is why it is now lower. It will be reduced again
this year, but we will do it in a way that will make sure that
the money will be available when it is needed.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, $21 billion, that is how much this
government has overcharged Canadian workers and Canadian
businesses. There has been a $21 billion overcharge on EI
premiums.
The chief actuary said that the government can lower those
premiums to $2.05. Why does the Prime Minister not listen to the
chief government actuary and lower EI premiums to $2.05 for
Canadian workers? Why does he not just do that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, really I enjoy these moments, because I never thought,
after six years in government, that I would be confronted with
the difficult problem of what to do with the surplus that we have
as a government.
I think of my predecessors for 50 years who were never
confronted with this awful problem.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUSES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance is all-round champion when it comes to
missing the mark with predictions.
In 1995, the gap between his forecast figures and reality was $4
billion; in 1996, $15.4 billion; in 1997, $20.5; in 1998, $7
billion.
What credibility can we give to a Minister of Finance who has a
107% average error in his predictions over four years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
prudence is the greatest of all virtues.
When we were in the opposition, I recall the Conservative
finance ministers constantly telling us, with the support of the
Reform Party members of the day, that the deficit was going to
be something like $25 billion, and it ended up at $35 billion.
I prefer a prudent Minister of Finance; it is far better for the
economic health of the country.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
prudence may be the greatest of all virtues, but camouflage is
not necessarily a good thing in politics.
This is a jerry-built strategy. All of the Minister of Finance's
scenarios since 1995 have had but one objective: giving him a
better image. The Prime Minister knows a bit about that.
Is the essential quality of a Minister of Finance not rigour and
transparency in handling the public purse?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is precisely why the Minister of Finance was prudent, so as
not to get people's hopes up, something the Bloc Quebecois is so
good at.
We prefer to be prudent, keeping within the confines of reality,
rather than painting castles in the sky. At present, of course,
the economy is going a lot better than planned, because there is
a good government. Two million more Canadians are working,
paying taxes, spending money, and as a result the treasury is in
very good shape.
We need to keep on being prudent if we want to continue to be
able to address the real problems of the nation effectively and
efficiently.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that his government had
increased the social transfers to the provinces by $11.5 billion
over five years and had lowered income tax for all Canadian
taxpayers.
1425
How, with any decency, can the minister speak of increased
transfer payments to the provinces, when these transfers
amounted to nearly $19 billion in 1993 and have decreased this
year to $15 billion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is neglecting to mention that the transfers
involve not only cash but also tax points, which give the
governments enormous amounts.
When we calculate transfer payments, we calculate tax points and
cash transfers. These are the real payments to the provincial
governments, because the tax points are adjusted according to
the individual provincial government's ability to tax.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is more erroneous information.
How can the minister talk with any decency of tax reductions,
when, since 1994, tax revenues from individuals have grown
faster than the economy, and a middle class family today pays
$700 more in income tax than in 1993? Where are the Minister of
Finance's tax reductions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is clear that someone who was unemployed and is now working
pays more tax than before.
Two million more Canadians are working today than when we formed
the government. This is why we collect more income tax, and
when the figure reaches three million, we will be collecting
even more. I would rather have that than have to pay employment
insurance to people not working.
* * *
[English]
POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday a devastating report by the National Council of Welfare
noted that the political landscape is littered with rhetoric
about children, broken promises and token efforts that provide
very little real help to families.
It has now been 10 years since parliament voted to end child
poverty by the year 2000, but in fact half a million more kids
live in poverty.
Will the Prime Minister commit to use the budget surplus on real
measures to reduce poverty, such as the national child care
program?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have increased transfer payments to families by
billions of dollars since we formed the government.
We had a program on day care that was proposed. It was part of
our program in 1993, but it was rejected by the provincial
governments which did not want to put more money into it, so we
decided to give the money to the families rather than lose it.
That is why the child tax credit has given a lot more money to
families.
Some of the provinces are using that occasion to reduce their
own transfers and to apply it elsewhere in the same field. That
is their judgment. They have the right to do that, but—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
provinces are not rejecting any child care programs. In fact,
recently B.C. wrote to the federal government asking for
leadership for a national strategy. Time is running out and more
and more Canadians are facing grinding poverty, one of the root
causes of which is the lack of affordable housing.
My question is for the homelessness minister. When will the
government stop talking about its concern about homelessness and
housing and start building a national housing strategy and
building housing for Canadians who need it? When will that
happen?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we understand that across Canada it is a serious
problem. Members on this side of the House are as concerned as
the hon. member. However, it must be realized that we are
putting $1.9 billion into social housing. We have put $50
million more into RRAP funding and many, many projects are
growing through the RRAP program. We are seeing them being built
across the country. We are doing something at this time.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in a privileged and confidential Onex memo about project peacock,
dated August 16, 1999, Onex laid out the rules. It said that
prior to launch Onex would want confirmation of political
support, including the removal of the 10% ownership limit from
the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
We now know that the Minister of Transport has proposed to
change that 10% rule, just as instructed by Onex. Why did the
minister tell Onex of his plans to change the 10% rule a full 60
days before he told the rest of the country?
1430
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I asked the standing committee to see whether or not
in its wisdom parliament should consider raising the limit. That
is what we are asking parliamentarians and it is a matter we look
forward to hearing from them about.
With respect to the general issue, we have answered this
question many times before. No assurances were sought by Onex
from the government and none were given.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the quote is “prior to launch” it wants those
confirmations.
In yet another peacock memo dated July 29, there is a statement
that says, “Onex has already been assured that the Government of
Canada will grant a special executive order under section 47 of
the Canada Transportation Act to suspend merger review under the
Competition Act”.
Again, as instructed, this time the Minister of Industry granted
a section 47 suspension. Why did the Minister of Industry
provide this information to Onex 14 days ahead of everybody else?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have covered these particular memos for the last
week. The hon. member asked questions in the House before. I
have given answers. The Deputy Prime Minister has given answers.
This afternoon I suggest that the hon. member question the
president of Onex when he comes to the committee. These are
Onex's memos, not the government's.
* * *
ELECTIONS CANADA
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals are using children for their own political purposes.
Elections Canada is asking children as young as six years old to
vote for their favourite right. Parents and school boards
concerned about the politicizing of children have rejected this
intrusion. Now government documents ask where the government can
get the most mileage out of this. Liberal senators are
encouraging MPs to be in their ridings on the day of the vote,
presumably for self-promotion.
Why is the government using our children and Elections Canada
for its own crass, political purposes?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that kind of accusation is
completely false and nonsensical.
Elections Canada is a non-partisan organization. Together with
the United Nations, it is holding simulated elections with
children in Canada as part of a public education program. Maybe
members of the Reform Party do not want future young Canadians to
know what they are up to today. Perhaps it is a result of its
shame.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
know that the results of this exercise are going to be presented
to the Prime Minister's office and the government.
As one parent has put it, this rights vote is not about teaching
democracy. It is about using students—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, as one parent puts it,
this is not a rights vote. It is not about teaching democracy.
It is about using students as pawns in a political process.
Government departments are spending half a million dollars on
this intrusive exercise which politicizes kids and the Liberal
caucus plans to use it for self-promotion.
Why is the federal government invading our schools, politicizing
our children and using kids for shameless self-promotion?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, children and the United Nations
are not exactly partisan organizations. Elections Canada is not
a partisan organization either.
They are being asked in a simulated election to talk about what
is important to them: culture, family, liberty of opinion, their
name, non-discrimination. That is what they are being asked to
vote on. The Reform Party seems to be against all of these
principles.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for several weeks now, in connection with the Onex-Air
Canada takeover bid, we have been trying to find out from the
Minister of Transport whether he can give those living in
regional areas any assurances with respect to the competitiveness
of airline services.
Apart from paving the way for Onex, can the minister tell us
whether he intends to ensure quality, affordable services to
regional areas or whether, in this same connection, he simply
intends to go on lobbying for Onex?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are certain that both proposals will guarantee good
services for small communities throughout the country.
1435
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we can see from the minister's answers that he is unable to
present a clear policy on the airline industry.
For the benefit of parliamentarians now considering this in
committee, can the minister tell us whether he had a comparative
study done of both proposals with respect to regional services,
and whether he intends to tell us about it?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once we have a conditional agreement from Air Canada or
Onex, we will examine the proposals.
We have clearly set out our five criteria. One important
criterion is the guarantee of services to small communities.
This is when we will determine public interest in this issue.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs says he finds it tiresome when
people criticize Canada's defence capabilities. We find it
tiresome that Canada was forced out of a NATO operation with
Poland because of faulty equipment. We find it tiresome that
Canada's NATO commitment is second to last. We find it tiresome
that our military equipment is rusting out and personnel are
being put at risk by using it.
Why does the defence minister allow the foreign affairs minister
to belittle our troops with his tiresome opinions?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the actual fact is that when it comes to
the NATO countries, Canada ranks sixth in terms of expenditure on
defence. It also happens that when it comes to the Balkans, to
Kosovo and to Bosnia, we have been the 10th largest contributor
in terms of troops. Indeed Lord Robertson, the secretary general
of NATO, said that when called upon, Canada has always been
there.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's military has a proud tradition of serving overseas but
they have not been given the proper tools to do the job.
The foreign affairs minister finds it tiresome to talk about the
equipment they so desperately need. He finds it tiresome to
worry about whether or not our troops have the protection they
need when they are putting their lives on the line.
Why does the defence minister defend the foreign affairs
minister's insults and not defend our troops?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was said well in the throne speech.
The comment in the throne speech is one which the foreign affairs
minister, all members of the cabinet and all members of the
government subscribe to and that is that we are going to ensure
that the Canadian forces have the capabilities to do their jobs.
Lord Robertson, the secretary general of NATO, also said that
Canada actually uses its defence budget better than most. We
will continue to do that to make sure our troops have the
training and the equipment they need to do the job.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Finance is going to
report on the budget situation. Today, however, also marks
another far less glorious event: on November 2, 1999 the federal
government has already collected enough employment insurance
benefits to finance EI until March 31, 2000.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development realize that,
from this date of November 2, 1999 on, all employment insurance
contributions will be diverted by the Minister of Finance to
cover expenses other than employment insurance? Is that not
scandalous?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, where finances and taxation
matters are concerned, it must be noted that the Government of
Quebec, in its latest budget, raised its expenditures by 4%. At
the same time, it cut expenditures for education and health.
A budget is a matter of government priorities, and we can see
where the PQ's priorities lie.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a time when the Minister of Finance is
making such a show with our surplus billions, how can the
Minister of Human Resources Development still be refusing to
defend the people paying into employment insurance who, between
now and April 2000, will see all their contributions going to
pay other government expenses?
1440
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is interesting because if I recall
rightly, yesterday the same member was asking the Minister of
Finance for tax cuts. Today he is talking about the need for
benefits. Is it possible that he supports our approach of 50%
for tax cuts and debt reduction and 50% for investments?
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
November immigration official Dale Lewis ripped Adnan Khan's four
year old child from him at gunpoint even though Adnan had legal
custody of the child. Lewis did this after only one hour of
investigation based on information from only one source, the
estranged wife. He has since admitted under oath that he should
not have done it and that he had not done a proper investigation.
Why is the minister allowing her department to continue with
hearings months after her own official has said there is no case?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member and all members of this
House know, I cannot comment on individual cases because of the
individuals' right to privacy in the legislation which gives them
that protection. If the member would like to give me the details
of this case I would be happy to look into it.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows about this case. I am not talking about what is
going on in the hearing. I am talking about the minister's
department ignoring the IRB's request in this case. Her own
official, Dale Lewis, broke the law. He deliberately ignored a
summons to appear before the IRB and others have now indicated
that they will not appear either. The minister's own department
does not respect the process.
Will the minister instruct all individuals who have been ordered
to appear to be at the IRB hearing tomorrow, or will she continue
to allow her department to operate outside the law?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat once again that I cannot
discuss individual cases in this House or publicly.
I will tell the member that the Immigration and Refugee Board is
an independent quasi-judicial body. I respect its independence
and I will not interfere inappropriately in cases. I will
undertake to the member to look into his allegations if he will
give me that information.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government has put no money into the construction of social
housing for the past six years, no new money, despite what the
Minister of Labour would have us believe.
We know that there is a desperate need. Several thousands of
families can wait ten years or more for proper housing.
My question is for the Minister of Labour, who is also
responsible for the homeless. When does she intend to answer
these thousands of men, women and children, who are living in
desperate conditions because the federal government cut social
housing construction?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada
contributes annually nearly $2 billion to social housing. We
have invested $300 million in the RRAP program, and I would
remind the hon. member that Quebec in fact receives over 30% of
the funds in this program.
We are continuing to work with the provinces to find solutions.
I am working with my colleague, the Minister of Labour, who is
working on and co-ordinating the whole issue of the homeless. We
will continue as we did last year by investing $50 million more
in the programs, and we will continue to tend to these programs.
* * *
[English]
INDIA
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for
International Co-operation.
Millions of people have been affected by the latest super
cyclone to hit India's coast in Orissa, causing the worst
flooding in 100 years of history. The unofficial death toll is
set at more than 3,000 and many more are without food and
shelter.
Can the minister tell us what Canada is doing to help the
victims of this terrible storm?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my deepest
sympathy to the families and the people of India for their tragic
loss.
As a result of the Red Cross appeal that was issued recently, I
am announcing today a $150,000 relief fund. As well, we are
monitoring the situation hourly and daily to see what is needed
in addition to that and we will be responding.
* * *
1445
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the possession of child pornography is still legal
in British Columbia. Judges across Canada are now delaying
trials on the possession of child pornography until after the
supreme court makes a decision. The minister at one time said
that she would not let this case get to the Supreme Court of
Canada.
How many years do our children have to wait to get protection?
Will the minister do the right thing now and invoke the
notwithstanding clause?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this
case will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in January. We
will be there to intervene on behalf of the Attorney General of
British Columbia in support of our child pornography law in
relation to possession. We believe that law is constitutional
and we will be in the Supreme Court of Canada in January to make
that argument.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we know also that children are being left
unprotected. We also like this law as the minister does, but the
courts do not so far. Sixty-three members of her own caucus have
asked the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Her
own parliamentary secretary has asked the Prime Minister in a
letter to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Three hundred
thousand Canadians have signed a petition.
When is the government going to not wait for the supreme court?
Let it know right now that parliament rules the country and we do
not stand for child pornography.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no one in the country stands
for child pornography. One of the things the hon. members on the
other side of the House forget to tell people is that all our
sexual assault laws as they relate to children remain in full
force and effect. All our laws in relation to the production,
publication, distribution, sale and importation of child
pornography remain in full force and effect. Maybe these people
should stop misleading the Canadian public.
The Speaker: I would urge all hon. members to stay away
from the word “misleading”, please.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the throne
speech noted the particular vulnerability of the environment in
the north and that the proposed diamond mine in Northwest
Territories would drain a lake at the headwaters of the
Coppermine River. The Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact
Review Board, along with aboriginal groups and environmental
organizations, have asked that this be put to a thorough
environmental assessment panel.
Will the minister act in the long term interests of the
community and the environment and submit this to a panel for
assessment?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the
minister has received comments from concerned individuals and has
received the comprehensive study report. He is going to make a
decision shortly and we will all be informed of that.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is an unusually warm day here in Ottawa as our climate
continues to change. It may be the gas emissions coming from the
Reform Party.
Two years ago in Kyoto, Canada agreed to greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets. This week, Canada is behind closed doors in
Bonn promoting instead unlimited emissions trading, particularly
exchanging Candu nuclear technology for credits with developing
countries.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is the Canadian
government—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has engaged the active assistance of provinces,
environmental organizations and the private sector all across the
country in developing a Kyoto implementation plan. That work is
going forward with a great deal of vigour. We are working on
areas like energy conservation, energy efficiency, diversity
among our energy sources, CO2 sequestrations, carbon sinks, new
science and technology and international mechanisms like trading,
the clean development mechanism and joint implementation
projects.
Canada will be a responsible environmental citizen.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, contrary to answers given earlier by the minister,
internal documents confirm that assurances were sought to seal
the Onex deal.
In an August 11 memo entitled “Project Peacock”, Onex states
that it will proceed only if the government supports its
initiatives and if the new airline will not be burdened with
cumbersome regulatory requirements.
1450
Given the process is obviously in full throttle and even Buzz
Hargrove is now on side, it is clear that those assurances were
given. Will the minister now tell the House when those
assurances were given?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, and I will repeat it slowly, no
assurances were sought and none were given.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this is starting to sound like airbus with evidence.
It smacks of political interference. Internal documents show
that Onex “would require clear indications of support from the
government prior to proceeding with the transaction”. Well, it
is proceeding.
I ask the minister again, with the 10% rule suspended and the
suspension of the Competition Act checked off Gerry's wish list,
when did Onex receive the assurances from political friends that
the government would support no burdensome regulations? When did
those assurances comes in?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has his facts all wrong. As we have
said, we are prepared to consider raising the 10% limit if
parliamentarians believe it is in the best interests of a viable,
stable industry.
Last week I went to committee and outlined the way ahead. I
said that any merger that comes forward as a result of this
process will be subject to the Competition Bureau. I hope the
hon. member will deal with those facts truthfully.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The minister of finance from Ontario has recently complained
that in spite of a large influx of immigrants to the area there
has been no help from the federal government. Could the minister
of immigration please help clarify the situation for them?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to the finance minister and
even to the member for St. Paul's for giving me the opportunity
to clarify this.
In the last budget, the funding formula for transfers under the
CHST was changed from the Mulroney formula to one of per capita
which includes all new immigrants, all refugees and all refugee
claimants.
As a result of the new funding formula, Ontario will receive
$4.4 billion for health care over the next five years and an
additional $962 million in unconditional, no strings attached
funding that could be used for immigration, housing and other
important purposes.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
dangerous high risk inmates are being escorted out of many of our
prisons by unarmed guards, guards who are armed with nothing but
their bare hands. In fact, some are being escorted by civilians,
such as Robert Paul Thompson who was escorted by a nun.
Will the solicitor general stop these idiotic practices for the
safety of our guards and Canadians as a whole?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Correctional Services Canada evaluates
each situation when an offender is transferred from one
institution to another. Sometimes they are transferred by one
guard, sometimes by two and sometimes by armed guards. It is a
decision that is made by Correctional Services Canada with public
safety as the number one issue.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Health claims that genetically modified foods are absolutely
safe. But his department is content to endorse private sector
studies, without conducting its own research, and does not have
studies on the long term effects of GMOs on health.
How can the minister guarantee the independence and accuracy of
his department's expertise when, under the cost recovery policy,
the bulk of the funding for its services come from the private
sector?
1455
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
naturally very proud of food safety standards in Canada.
As I have already assured the hon. member, all genetically
modified foods are submitted in advance to Health Canada so that
we can examine all the elements and assess all the information
provided about them.
I repeat that, here in Canada, food is safe.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Later this month there will be a very important resolution voted
on at the United Nations General Assembly sponsored by the New
Agenda Coalition. The resolution calls on nuclear weapons states
to move rapidly toward a total elimination of nuclear weapons as
particularly important in light of the failure of the CTBT in the
U.S. Senate and political instability in Pakistan.
I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether Canada will show
leadership at the UN and vote yes on this important resolution
which is sponsored by the New Agenda Coalition?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, the resolution is
still under negotiation. This morning a new variation was
received. There are a number of amendments being presented on
this particular issue. It is very hard to answer a hypothetical
question when we do not know what the final form of the
resolution will be. As soon as it is known, I will make sure the
hon. member gets a copy.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the
documents on the Onex strategy, we realize that Onex was to meet
a number of people, including Mel Cappe, the Clerk of the Privy
Council of the Government of Canada. The strategy was to
convince Mr. Cappe to make the right choice of Deputy Minister
of Transport.
Can the Minister of Transport tell this House whether the people
from Onex actually met Mr. Cappe, the Clerk of the Privy
Council? And, if so, when?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr.
Cappe did not meet with the representatives of Onex. There was
no such meeting.
* * *
[English]
FEDNOR
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Rural
Development and Federal Economic Development Initiative for
Northern Ontario.
The secretary understands how important this economic initiative
is for northern Ontario. What steps is the secretary taking to
finalize a new expanded mandate for FedNor?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last June the Minister of
Industry announced a $20 million increase to FedNor, doubling the
budget, allowing us to create an environment within which
individual businesses can be successful in creating wealth and
creating jobs and giving us an opportunity to build strong
communities in the north.
Since that time, we have undertaken extensive consultation as
members of parliament and as a cabinet with individuals. I am
pleased to to say that next next Monday, November 8, in Sudbury
we will be announcing new programming that reflects this
increasing budget.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CANADA
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general just told us about the assessments that are
done prior to convicts being granted temporary release.
Let me tell him about a person who was escorted by an unarmed
guard. He has had 41 incidents since 1985. He murdered two
inmates in 1994 and 1996. His most recent assault was on May
25th. He has had two incidents since then. He has the potential
for violence during his ETA.
How is this assessment protecting Canadian citizens?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who the individual is that
my hon. colleague is talking about.
I can tell the member that Correctional Services Canada
evaluates each case and decides how an individual will be
transferred from one institution to another. Sometimes they use
one guard, sometimes two. Sometimes they use armed guards. The
decision is made by Correctional Services Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
CORPORAL DANIEL AUBUT
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to a
recent report on TVA, the army considers Corporal Daniel Aubut a
deserter, when in fact he was fleeing Meaford base in Ontario in
an effort to escape his colleagues, who were harassing him
because he was the only francophone on the base.
Does the minister intend to reveal the circumstances surrounding
this matter, which would tend to indicate once more that
discrimination against francophones remains, unfortunately, a
fact of life in the army?
1500
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look into the matter
and further advise.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of Dr. Janez Podobnik, Speaker of the
National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, and his
delegation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Abdus Samad Azad,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of
Bangladesh.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to raise a question of privilege with respect to comments
that I heard uttered by another hon. member during question
period.
When the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast was posing
his question to the Minister of Justice he said that the
possession of child pornography was still legal in British
Columbia. At that time I heard the member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre say “When are you going to turn in
your stuff, John?”, referring obviously to child pornography.
It appears that member was imputing that the member for West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast was in possession of child pornography.
He was imputing criminal activity. He was imputing ill motive,
and by this act of slander was inhibiting the capacity of the
member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast to perform his duties
in this place.
I would therefore ask that the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre withdraw those remarks.
The Speaker: What we have is an hon. member accusing
another hon. member of saying something in the House. The hon.
member is here with us right now. If he would like to join in
this point I will hear him.
1505
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, if that remark were attributed to me, and I believe I
did say something very quietly to that effect, I withdraw it and
apologize to the hon. member if he took it wrongly.
The Speaker: I consider the matter closed.
We will now have tributes to a former member of parliament, Mr.
Roderick Webb who was a member of the Progressive Conservative
Party. Because he was a member of the Progressive Conservative
Party, we will hear from the hon. member for Markham for the
opening statement.
* * *
THE LATE RODERICK WEBB
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, Roderick Webb,
a name synonymous with leadership and patriotism, a man who put
his hometown of Norwood on the map, passed away on October 1,
1999. Mr. Webb, the former Conservative MP for the
Hastings—Frontenac riding, was a man said to bring water to
Norwood homes in 1949.
Married on June 12, 1941, Mr. Webb poured out his life as an
example in love, marriage and family, along with his wife Roxie
and son Fred. He devoted his life to the people of Norwood who
frequented his small town business, Rod Webb Electric, for 15
years. He gave to his friends in a most typical small town
Canadian way through the making of stained glass lamps and
through the repairs of their household appliances.
Mr. Webb poured out himself to his town and his country in the
same way. He served 13 years on Norwood council, 11 as a
councillor and the last 2 as a reeve. He was president of the
East Peterborough Agriculture Society, the Travellers Association
and numerous other community organizations that typified his
desire to give back.
Rod did not know how to give anything less than his best effort.
Too often in politics superlatives are used loosely and
generously, but make no mistake. Rod Webb was legitimately “an
inspiration” through his kind disposition and strong leadership.
In many ways he typified what it meant to be a constituency MP.
The courage and patriotism he displayed by serving in the Royal
Canadian Air Force in the second world war remained with him.
These attributes were witnessed time and time again by my former
colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party.
During his time in the House of Commons he was fortunate enough
to serve in both government and opposition. Mr. Webb was first
elected to the House of Commons on October 5, 1959, where he
served under Prime Minister Diefenbaker. He was re-elected in
1962. He then successfully held his seat in the subsequent
Pearson victories in 1963 and 1965.
As we remember and salute Mr. Webb, we say thank you. Thank you
for your commitment. Thank you for your patriotism. Thank you
for pouring out your life to your hometown and the rest of
Canada.
Also, as a man who held true to the ideals of Sir John A.
Macdonald, those of us in my party thank you for contributing to
the history and tradition of the Progressive Conservative Party.
We are stronger because of you.
As we honour you today, Roderick Webb, the collective prayer of
the House where you once served is a simple one. May the Lord's
peace be with your family.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, today it is an honour for me
to pay tribute to a former parliamentarian, the hon. member for
Hastings—Frontenac, Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb, who at 89 years
passed away on October 1.
I did not have the privilege of knowing Mr. Webb personally, but
I know the high regard held for him by members of his community
of Norwood and throughout the riding. It is through the
affectionate stories of many of his friends, colleagues and
family that I have come to appreciate his life, one that was more
complete than many.
Rod Webb was an athlete, a war veteran, a small businessman, an
electrician, a community builder, a politician and a family man.
In his youth Mr. Webb was a Trent Valley hockey league star
defenceman. During World War II he served as a master mechanic
with the 407 Demon Squadron in the RCAF and continued his
relationship with the military long after. Out of great respect
for his commitment and advocacy, Royal Canadian Legion Branch 300
gave him a rare life membership.
1510
He started a small business in appliance repair and other
electrical work. Plying his services, Webb's good will and
generosity became well known by residents for miles around.
Webb was known as a natural leader whose love of his community
and church was evidenced by his actions. He took every
opportunity to promote his community. He was an encyclopedia of
his town's history and knew people for miles around.
Webb's involvement in community organizations included the
Masonic Lodge, the Trent Valley Shriners and the Travellers
Association. He had a hand in numerous initiatives at St.
Andrew's Presbyterian Church. A past-president of the Norwood
Agriculture Society, he was also an enthusiastic key member on
the Norwood Fair Board. He left his mark on infrastructure
projects ranging from bringing water to town in 1949, to the GA
Brethen Coliseum.
A man who loved to talk with people, Rod Webb's energy, sense of
humour and generous nature attracted many friends. It also
helped lay the groundwork for his career in politics. Rod Webb
cherished political life. He served as councillor and as reeve
of the village of Norwood for 13 years. In 1959 he ran
successfully as a Progressive Conservative for a seat in Canada's
parliament. Webb enjoyed three consecutive re-elections,
faithfully serving his constituents as the member for
Hastings—Frontenac until his retirement in 1968.
My heartfelt best wishes go out to his wife Roxie Webb, his son
Fred, and his grandchildren. Rod will be missed.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the mark of a quality Canadian is the amount of service
and time an individual puts in toward others, service above self
one might say.
We are here to pay tribute to a former parliamentarian and a man
of service, Mr. Rod Webb, and I am honoured to speak on behalf of
my Reform colleagues.
Throughout his life Mr. Webb set an example to everyone of what
a community oriented, caring individual should be. His life was
one of a quality small businessman, giving service to others.
From his career in the RCAF during World War II from 1940 to 1945
to his long standing career on the Norwood council and as a
parliamentarian in this place from 1959 to 1968, he was always a
helpful individual who got involved in causes he believed in.
On behalf of the Reform Party caucus I would like to extend our
condolences to Mr. Webb's family. I am sure he will be sorely
missed but his loving memory will live on and on in the House of
Commons.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
like to offer my condolences and those of my colleagues in the
Bloc Quebecois to the family and friends of Roderick Webb, who
died last month at the age of 89. Our thoughts go especially to
his wife Roxie and his son Fred.
Mr. Webb was elected on four occasions and sat as the member for
the Ontario riding of Hastings—Frontenac and a member of the
caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party between 1959 and 1968.
Before his election, Roderick Webb headed his own company, Rod
Webb Electric, for 15 years in Norwood. Throughout his life,
Mr. Webb was involved in his community of Norwood and
contributed to its economic and social development. Among other
things, he sat on the Norwood town council for 13 years. His
friends have described him as a natural leader, whose political
and community involvement inspired others.
With the approach of Remembrance Day, I would mention that, in
the second world war, Mr. Webb served his country in the
Canadian air force, as a master mechanic, from 1940 to 1945. I
commend his memory to his comrades in arms, who served with him
to defend the democratic values we all hold dear.
They, like Roderick Webb, keep our democracy alive.
Mr. Webb was never one to seek honour and glory, preferring to be
involved in a thousand different ways within his community,
working for change and improving society.
He left the business world to devote himself to public life,
serving his constituents of Hastings Frontenac to the best of
his abilities. To my knowledge, he was never a minister, nor
did he aspire to high places in government. Like most MPs of
the past, the present and the future, his work was often done on
the sidelines, out of the public eye.
1515
He sat for long hours on parliamentary committees, hearing the
input from members of the public as well as experts in order to
draft policies that would be profitable to all. He took part
in parliamentary debates, some more interesting than others, but
all equally necessary to ensure a diversity of opinions.
What he did most was to travel the length and breadth of his
riding, meeting its people. He spoke to them on the phone,
answered their mail, advocated for them before government in
order to solve their problems and help in their projects.
A society is not reflected only in its VIPs, in its stars.
It is also built daily by the actions of dedicated people of
conviction like Roderick Webb, and that is why we are paying him
tribute here today.
His accomplishments are known to us. May he rest in peace.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, on
behalf of the New Democratic caucus I too am very pleased to
stand and offer our condolences on the passing of Roderick Webb
who was elected 40 years ago this fall in a byelection in
Hastings—Frontenac to represent that constituency. Mr. Webb was
re-elected in 1962, 1963 and 1965 and retired in 1968 undefeated,
which is a feat in and of itself.
What a political decade Roderick Webb lived through. When
historians write about the century that is just ending and about
the political scene in Canada, they will probably single out the
1960s as one of the most, if not the most, turbulent decades. Mr.
Diefenbaker's huge majority after 1958 was reduced to a minority
in 1962. Mr. Pearson was unable to secure a majority in 1963 and
again in 1965. It was an extremely fascinating time. Roderick
Webb was here and was very much a part of that decade.
Other people have spoken very eloquently in the House about Mr.
Webb and his background. I would simply like to conclude by
noting what a friend of Mr. Webb said upon his passing: “He
enjoyed politics and life, was a community leader and just a nice
person”. Would not all of us like to be remembered that way?
On behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus our sincere
condolences to Mrs. Webb, Mr. Webb's son Fred and grandchildren.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CIVIL INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, an
act to implement the agreement among the Government of Canada,
governments of member states of the European Space Agency, the
Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation,
and the Government of the United States of America concerning
co-operation on the civil international space station and to make
related amendments to other acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): When the House broke
for question period the hon. member for Red Deer was answering
questions.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
my colleague from Red Deer has considerable experience as a
result of being on the foreign affairs standing committee for the
last six years and as the foreign affairs critic for the Reform
Party. He knows something about the way Canada handles
international treaties and the signing of international treaties
and agreements.
The space station agreement made with the United States, Japan,
the European Union and Russia is one such agreement Canada signed
two years ago. It is now before the House to be ratified. We
have had considerable difficulty with the process of not having
any input and essentially rubber stamping that issue.
I wonder how he would compare what is happening with the Nisga'a
agreement, the signing of a treaty again and expecting the House
to rubber stamp it with no amendments, and the approach the
government is using on the international scheme of things which
does not seem to adequately consult members of parliament.
1520
Mr. Bob Mills: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question
of the member for Peace River. He is very right. Numerous
letters from Canadians constantly remind us that we had input
into the treaty that was signed at a UN conference somewhere in
the world. We could talk about Kyoto. We could talk about
Cairo. We could talk about many international agreements that
have been signed, including the MAI.
These agreements are done in secret. Canadians are never
consulted about them until after the fact when they are asked to
ratify them. We have some that do not really represent the
Canadian interest. Yet they are signed, sealed and delivered on
behalf of Canadians. I guess the big concern is about how much
negotiation went on for the space station. We do not know
anything about that. It was all done behind closed doors.
Then there was something, as the member mentioned, that put
doubt in our minds, the Nisga'a agreement. That is just the tip
of the iceberg of how the government treats its citizens when it
thinks it can ram through with four hours and 12 minutes of
debate something that will affect not only the people here but
our children and our grandchildren and will result in a
disruption in the country like we have never seen before.
Why would we take a race based policy, one that is not based on
equality of people, entrench it in the constitution and create a
future for us that will be just what we are seeing in Atlantic
Canada now, what we have seen in B.C. and the comments we are
hearing in our constituencies? Why would we create something
like that without clearly opening it up to the public? What is
the government afraid of that it has to use closure and shut
things down?
It is despicable. B.C. had four months of debate and then used
closure. Here we had four hours. How can that be called
democracy? How can the Liberals say it is even a semblance of
democracy? Perception is everything.
They expect us to stand and rubber stamp an agreement. Whether
we rubber stamp the space agency agreement or the Nisga'a
agreement they will use closure. They use closure like they
change their socks. It is just the way they run this place. It
is a dictatorship and the perception out there is that there is a
level of arrogance. They will not even open the House and let us
debate, let people hear what are the issues, and let us look at
them all.
This is just like the last parliament with the Tories running
things: close shop, shut the door, use closure, do not listen to
people, do not consult anyone and control the witnesses who come
forward. That is exactly how the government is operating.
Now we hear that as the committees travel they will not be able
to call the witnesses they want. It will be a select group, a
closed door. They will just hear from witnesses that are
friendly to government policy. What kind of democracy is that? I
hope Canadians will demand the government to change the way it
treats its citizens.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
did not want to let the hon. member get away with suggesting that
the Nisga'a treaty would be ratified by the House with only four
hours of debate. We dealt with time allocation on second reading
debate.
Would the member concede that we have completed second reading
debate at this point and the matter is referred to committee?
There are over 50 or 60 witnesses currently being considered for
the committee hearings. That will involve undoubtedly many hours
of consideration by members of parliament. It will come back to
the House for report stage. I am sure there will be
consideration of some amendments and there will be a third
reading debate. It is very clear that we are not dealing with
closure at this point.
1525
If the member is suggesting that we will only debate the issue
for four hours, I hope he will acknowledge to us that is
incorrect and that we have many hours of debate still to go on
the issue.
Mr. Bob Mills: Madam Speaker, certainly it will come back
to the House. The committee will be a controlled process with
controlled witnesses. I would like the assurance of that member
that closure will not be used at every stage from here on in,
that we will not have closure, closure, closure; four hours, four
hours, and that is it.
That is not the way to treat democracy. That is not the way to
treat the people of Canada. They should be upset with the way
the government is operating. It is a total abuse of democracy.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, we are
debating Bill C-4. It is fascinating to watch how we can move
from Bill C-4 to another topic. I will do the same and I will
explain to the Canadian public why I am doing it.
Bill C-4 is formalizing our commitment to the space station,
something that every Canadian should be proud of. Every Canadian
would expect the bill to be unanimously approved. Of course I
approve of the bill.
The U.S., Japan, Europe, Russia and Canada are the countries
involved in the space station. These are countries with vastly
different political systems, vastly different cultures and
different monetary systems. What did they end up doing? Did
they end up dwelling on those differences, unable to co-operate,
and fighting among one another? No. The scientists joined
forces. The engineers got together and divided up the tasks. The
astronauts trained for complementary roles. The politicians set
aside their own agendas and they co-operated.
The result was the Canadarm, something which most Canadians have
seen and are proud of; Julie Payette; and high tech wizardry in
Canada. Good solid employment trickled down to our universities.
Professors are proud of our involvement in the space station.
Students had a goal to strive for. There was co-operation, give
and take, sharing, interchange, dependence upon one another and
looking after common goals. That is what the space station has
done.
What are we in the House like when it comes to co-operation? Let
me talk about a brand new historic agreement, a treaty for a
native group in the Nass Valley in British Columbia, a treaty
that is complex, thick and difficult to understand. What an
occasion. All the world was to co-operate. We had to get the
information out and explain to everybody in the country what it
was all about.
What has happened? The co-operation has been so dreadful on
this issue that I as a member of parliament from southern Alberta
with the largest native reserve in Canada, the Blood reserve, was
denied the ability to speak on the treaty in the House by a
government so intent on stopping co-operation that after four
hours and 12 minutes time allocation was brought in.
To those Canadians watching that means debate was stifled,
choked, smothered, shut down. I have to take my time on Bill C-4
to tell my constituents and Canadians—
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think it would be appropriate if debate were returned
to the bill and the topic at hand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty to ask
the hon. member to try to keep his debate pertinent to the bill
being debated.
Mr. Grant Hill: I will get as close as I can, Madam
Speaker. I was talking about the co-operation on the space
station and I am talking about the lack of co-operation here. I
will talk about that for the rest of my time.
There were obstruction and broken promises. We were promised
full debate on the issue. I listened to the Prime Minister
promise that.
Is this important? Oh, it is so important. Full and thorough
debate.
1530
What happened in B.C. after 11 of the 22 clauses were discussed
and debated? There was closure. Why would the NDP government in
B.C. shut down debate on this issue? Here is the reason. When the
bill came before the B.C. public, support was pretty strong.
Sixty per cent said they supported it. As they learned more and
more about the bill, what has happened?
Householders were sent to 534,000 homes in B.C., most of them in
ridings held by Liberal MPs. In one riding 81.5% said not to
vote for the bill. In another, 94% said not to vote for the
bill. Then the Liberals tried to stop travel. They tried to
stop committees from going to B.C. to let the public know. At
that point a huge fight broke out in the House. It was a
childish fight in my view with Reform members doing childish
things because they were driven to do those childish things by a
government bent on preventing that travel.
I am embarrassed by some of the things that go on here. I have
to explain to high school students at home why we would do a
childish thing like debating over and over again, preventing the
finance committee from travelling so that we could get the
aboriginal committee to travel. I wish I could explain that
other than to say that that crew does not want the true
information about Nisga'a to come out.
The Liberals said no to debate. They said no to travel. They
said no to public input.
I would like to discuss this issue from a narrow perspective,
from the intergovernmental affairs perspective. That is my
portfolio in the House. Just from the narrow intergovernmental
affairs perspective, what does the Nisga'a treaty do? What does
this big document that had four hours and twelve minutes of
debate do?
It sets up a new order of government that was unheard of when
our constitution was put in place. It is a third order of
government. It is so specific in the agreement that it gives the
Nisga'a supremacy over federal and provincial laws in 14 new
areas.
It is very interesting that in health, the Nisga'a will have
supremacy on the issue of the delivery of health services. That
is a totally provincial responsibility in our constitution. That
responsibility is being given to the Nisga'a. It is being given
by the use of a phrase that is very legal. I am going to quote
it. I believe these debates will go down in history as
important. I am going to quote the phrase that gives the Nisga'a
that supremacy: “In the event of an inconsistency or conflict
between a Nisga'a law under this paragraph”—relating to 14
different areas, health in particular—“and a federal or
provincial law, the Nisga'a law prevails to the extent of the
inconsistency or conflict”.
That sets up a new form of sovereignty. That sets up a new form
of partnership. That sets up in my view a sovereignty
association. This treaty can be used as an excellent debating
position by those who would want to split up our country for a
sovereignty association. On sovereignty this treaty is a mistake.
Another area in which the treaty makes a mistake is on race. On
the issue of race, the non-Nisga'a, those living on the reserve
that are not natives, will be disenfranchised or unable to vote.
Their right to vote in elections or to hold office will be taken
from them.
I have listened to my colleagues say that that is no big deal,
that they can still be consulted. They can be consulted all
right, on things like the health board.
But when the Nisga'a government taxes them, and the provision is
in the agreement to allow it to tax those non-Nisga'a citizens,
they will be taxed without the right to vote for those who are
taxing them. That is against every rule of democracy that I
understand. This is a new order, a non-constitutional order, a
third order. On the issue of race, this treaty is a mistake.
1535
The third and most basic area in which this treaty is a mistake
is on the issue of the charter of rights and freedoms. This is a
truly debatable point. It says right in the treaty that the
charter will apply, clearly, plainly and specifically. But the
charter itself says that it should not be interpreted so “as to
abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal treaty or other rights”
of native peoples; abrogate or derogate, take away from, any of
those native rights.
Here we have a treaty which says that the charter applies and we
have in the charter a section that says that it does not apply.
That is debatable and I am not sure where that would come down in
a court of law being no lawyer myself. This treaty is a mistake
as it relates to the charter.
Politicians are great at coming to conclusions and arguing those
conclusions until they are blue in the face. We can hear that in
the House. We have complete disagreement on this issue of the
charter.
I will quote someone who I think is fairly balanced in
perspective. This is a journalist I personally have faith in. I
find this individual able to come to conclusions that are
defensible. He says that the treaty would accord the Nisga'a
status and rights far surpassing those of other native bands, nor
is that the end of it. He also said that the premier of B.C. may
no longer boast that the treaty would serve as a template for
settling the province's sixty-odd outstanding land claims, but it
is hard to believe that native negotiators in any future treaty
would settle for less. If this treaty, as he says and as I agree
with him, sets out a brand new order of government unheard of
before with far greater rights for our native brothers, it will
be used as a template and to break these agreements that were put
in place years and years ago.
All that was a diatribe on the co-operation we have had in the
House. What would improve the process in the future for natives?
Surely they do not deserve the treaty system we have given them.
Surely they do not deserve the reservations we have given them.
Surely they do not deserve the health problems, the drug and
alcohol problems and the employment problems that I saw in my
practice as a medical doctor. I treated people from the reserves
in my own riding who came to the hospital.
What could we have done better? We could have looked at the
position of how we could gain equality under the law for every
single Canadian. Some of the things in this treaty move in baby
steps toward that.
On the issue of taxation we will end up with natives who will
pay income tax but they do not have the economic levers they need
to become individually self-sufficient. They do not have the
ability to own their own property in fee simple. They do not
have the ability to use that to guarantee them a mortgage. They
do not have the ability to do the things other Canadians can do.
If this treaty becomes a template for the future of our native
brothers, it will be a grave error. It is an error on those big
principles I have mentioned.
I have been talking about the problems with this treaty. I will
slip back to Bill C-4 and what I think could have happened with
this treaty. There is co-operation among the countries on the
space station. They have put aside their differences and have
really looked for common solutions.
That could have and should have happened on this agreement.
1540
It has been an embarrassment to have to use this time on Bill
C-4 to talk about the Nisga'a treaty. I say to every
Canadian that I would have stood in my place and I would have
talked even if it was for half as much time on the Nisga'a treaty
if I had been allowed to. I was blocked from the ability to do
that.
I apologize to those who wanted to hear about Bill C-4. I
know I did not talk about it in a way that was appropriate to the
space station, but the Nisga'a treaty will go down in history as
a mistake. I want
to say that so plainly and so clearly to every single Canadian
who is listening.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I was very enlightened by the remarks of the member
for Macleod on the bill with respect to the Canadian
space station. He drew a very effective analogy between that
bill and the Nisga'a bill which we dispatched from this place
yesterday.
Does the member think
that if the Liberal Party of Canada were in opposition its
members would
have supported the invocation of time limitation on a bill of
that importance? Does he think the Liberals would have supported
the Mulroney government for instance in its frequent invocation
of closure and time allocation? Could the member comment on
whether he believes that the government is doing what it said it
would do when in opposition with respect to allowing full and
free debate and allowing opposition parties to express dissenting
opinions on matters of important legislation such as that before
us today?
Mr. Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, that is an issue I
would enjoy greatly commenting on.
I did have an opportunity to review Hansard on that very
subject. I found quotations from my Liberal colleagues when they
sat in these very benches. The quotations were vicious and
ferocious on the issue of time allocation and
closure. They called it the most egregious and worst thing that
could happen. In fact, from a medical man's perspective, I
thought that high blood pressure might have
caused mortal harm to some of them they were so upset.
An interesting and fascinating process seems to
happen when a party crosses the floor from opposition to the
government benches. It is a fascinating process. Some would
call it the brain drain. I would not be so unkind as to say that
none of my colleagues opposite have lost their marbles.
There are times when opposition parties obstruct the
process. I recognize that is why time allocation is used.
On a
bill that important, the attempt to obstruct travel, which failed
and the attempt to obstruct debate, which will fail, that bill
will be known to the Canadian public by the time we are through
with it, I guarantee that. It is too important to allow a
government bound and determined to shut down debate to be
successful. I thank my colleague for that opportunity.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce discussion on the bill
before the House, that is to say the intergovernmental agreement
which is listed on the order paper.
It is a tribute to endeavours made during the cold war and which
to some extent if adopted at the time might have put us another
quarter century in advance of where we are now. It is often
forgotten that when President Nixon and Secretary Brezhnev met in
Moscow in 1972, they did initial an agreement on co-operation in
space research, space exploration and space science.
It was originally devoted to the development of co-operation in
international telecommunications satellites and their utilization
in broadcasting. The initial proposal was for co-operation
between the western organization, which is essentially managed by
an American consortium. INTELSAT was the western organization
and Intersputnik was the Russian organization.
1545
With President Nixon's departure and changes in the Soviet
Union, to some extent those plans for co-operation and formation
of a single international space agency were put on ice. What
remained, however, was a tradition of co-operation. We saw that
reach fruition as the cold war ebbed and détente expanded in
co-operative U.S. and Soviet, or in the broader sense, western
and Soviet explorations or participation in common space
missions.
The spinoff from all this is of course that Canada was one of
the pioneers in space research in scientific principles and in
administration. I was director of a space law institute in
Montreal and one could see the beginnings of what may now be the
newest developments in Canadian scientific industrial
partnerships to take us into the 21st century.
I could note that it is an important source of research, job
creation and the development of export markets for industries in
British Columbia and in other parts of Canada. I take pride in
noting that in British Columbia we are at the leading edge of
applied space engineering. Everybody knows about the space arm,
which was developed and used in space rescue operations. But in
other areas of pure science and its application in the finest
forms of communication, British Columbia industry has made a
major contribution.
The significance of this bill is that it heralds and
institutionalizes co-operation across what used to be the old
political ideological boundaries in co-operation with the
countries that are most advanced in space research, space science
and space engineering. We have them in the preamble to this bill
and we notice the United States, Japan, Russia and Canada as key
parts of that.
Our work in this area has involved allocations of 150 contracts
to Canadian firms and universities since 1987 for automation and
robotics technology development projects. There has been
approximately $2 million invested in Canadian firms for this
particular year, 1999-2000.
I would note that a B.C. firm developed the first automated
robotic refuelling station in partnership with Shell.
Newfoundland has done interesting work here on a sensitive skin
developed for space robotic manipulators and it is being applied
in the technology on prosthetics and bumpers of cars to control
the deployment of air bags. We can see the spinoff from the most
refined and esoteric form of engineering to common, everyday
application in our society.
A Sainte-Foy, Quebec company has developed space robotic
expertise to produce a digital imaging system for medical
radiology. It provides real time x-ray images and eliminates the
need for photographic film.
Further, Canada's participation in this venture entitles us to
what is called a “one rack” or one laboratory shelf per year
for science and technological experiments and this in a station
that has an estimated 10 year lifespan. It will let us expand
the work we are already doing in the microgravity field and it is
an area for which the potential application includes direct
connections to the medical relief of osteoporosis.
Protein crystallisation in space provides tangible solutions for
problems here on Earth. The spinoff is in the direct application
to contemporary local medicine, the spinoff in terms of
companies. EMS Technologies of Ottawa recently won a $9.5
million contract from Mitsubishi of Japan to supply the
electronics to Japan's contribution to the international space
station. It expects $24 million in additional orders.
1550
This is the promise to invest in science, technology and pure
research. It is not ivory tower work. In the end there is a
concrete application in industry leading-edge technology and the
spinoff is direct. There was the investment we made six years
ago in TRIUMF funding at the University of British Columbia, pure
research with the spinoff we noted there. In industry there has
been the creation of advanced technological jobs for skilled
Canadians. It is all there.
In voting on this bill we signal our co-operation and we signal
that it is something in which we have as much to gain as we
contribute. We can be very proud of Canada's role in
contributing to the science and technology of the 21st century.
Some references have been made, in part by my good friend, the
hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who raised what is a
favourite constitutional project of his for reform in, as he sees
it, the foreign affairs power. I think that deserves discussion
at another time and in another place. I would simply note,
however, that in this particular area and in this particular
treaty I believe there has been exhaustive consultation with all
the Canadian scientific community from Quebec, Ontario and all
the other provinces. As to the umbrella agreement, which I am
not sure was used in this case, the input from scientists in all
Canadian universities and research centres was there. This is a
non-self-executing treaty. By its nature it requires federal
legislation and the opportunity there is to present contributions
on the specific subject of the treaty.
Today, however, I have not heard any criticism of the
substantive content of the treaty or what it proposes, which is I
think a tribute to the prior extensive consultation with the
scientific community. Be not afraid, I would say to members of
the Bloc.
The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry conceded this in his
response to my question this morning. The Australian analogy
simply does not apply. Under the Australian treaty power, as
interpreted, the mere fact of making a treaty gives the federal
government power to implement that treaty notwithstanding
provincial or state power. To the contrary, in Canada, as a
result of the privy council's decision in the Labour Conventions
case of 1937, which the member opposite rightly saluted, we
cannot by making a federal treaty impinge on provincial
law-making power under the constitution. We need to co-operate
and speak to the provincial governments.
I see no conflict here. I heard none suggested by my friend the
hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. If it were to arise,
then the courts would properly recognize, if it was challenged,
the area of provincial power. However, it would necessitate what
is going on anyway because the imperative of co-operation is
there in the common interest, close continuing consultation
between federal and provincial governments in implementing this
treaty and in making sure that everybody in Canada shares from
its benefits.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, I know I am stretching the
envelope a bit on this question, however, the hon. member does
mention how all Canadians are very proud of the aerospace
industry and what we do in terms of working with other countries.
The Canadarm is a great example of that. As he knows, we sold
the Canadarm through the Spar agency.
What assurance can the hon. member or his government give that
we as a country will cease to sell our industries which are
making great advancements in the world of technology?
1555
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for that extremely interesting question. I do not believe that
research has any frontiers. The hon. member is, I believe, a
former British Columbian. I would invite him to return and if I
am in town I will take him out to the TRIUMF facility. On my
first visit there six years ago I saw Russians, Israelis,
Austrians, Indians and Pakistanis all working together. They
share the knowledge.
Knowledge cannot be given frontiers. In my view, what is wrong
with selling products that we produce or selling knowledge? We
benefit from it. We get into new research. The funding we
obtain from the sale enables us to take the research further.
We are ahead of most countries in space research. It is one of
the astonishing achievements, the acquired achievement of
Canadian science in recent years. It is not trumpeted abroad,
but in British Columbia, where perhaps there has been too
excessive reliance in the past on primary resource industries, it
is a way into the new century. We are ahead and we have nothing
to fear from other people buying our research riches. We will
continue to do further work and go beyond.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, first I
would like to give the hon. member opposite a little lesson on
electronic feedback. He should not put his earphone close to his
microphone because it blasts a hole into our ears. That is
lesson number one.
The question I want to ask is very simple. Bill C-4 obviously
draws attention to the fact that negotiations have proceeded
successfully with a whole bunch of different countries. He, of
course, is an expert in international law, in agreements, in
constitutional things and in all of those various things that a
professor of his stature is an expert on. Does he believe that
the Nisga'a deal in British Columbia has been very one-sided in
its negotiations and has totally avoided the other half of the
equation; that is, all the people who will be affected by this
agreement, namely the non-natives, who have been ignored? Does
he feel that in comparison with what happened in the negotiations
on Bill C-4 that was an adequate procedure?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I am satisfied with the
process of consultation. I was not one of those who voyaged to
the signing ceremony in the Nisga'a territory 15 or 16 months ago
because I wanted to study the treaty in depth. I wanted to get
the actual text, the 400 pages, and I did not get it until two
days before the signing ceremony. I also wanted to consult.
I have spent those 15 or 16 months talking to people and
consulting with people. I think there has been an astonishing
amount of input into this, including potential adversary
positions.
The interesting thing about Nisga'a that may not be true in
subsequent treaties was the absence of countervailing interests
in concrete cases proven to those investigating the matter. I
get an enormous amount of mail on just about everything. On this
particular issue, strangely enough, we have very little concrete
opposition. In later treaties that I can see coming, I see the
strong possibility of conflicts in a substantive sense between
different types of rights and I may have to give a different
response then.
Frankly, as the consultations developed, I felt that the treaty
could have been ratified, that is to say legislated by this
parliament, even 12 months ago. The government has included
though, as a result of representations made by British Columbian
members and senators, the special provision in the federal
enacting legislation which replicates what is in the treaty
itself. However, what people do not notice in 400 pages is that
it is subject to the constitution and to the charter, which will
allow a judicial review and, if necessary, legal challenge if
further points of conflict should arise that were not for any
reason foreseen in the actual treaty negotiation itself.
1600
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the member has spoken quite eloquently about the
economic and side benefits that are going to Ontario, Quebec and
British Columbia.
I happen to represent a riding in the province of Manitoba. I
am sure the member can prepare an answer for me as to what the
economic benefits are that will accrue to Manitoba, if any, in a
direct sense as opposed to an indirect sense in that we are all
Canadians and we know that we will receive an indirect benefit.
We have six members from the Liberal government in Manitoba. I
have not heard them asking what benefit Manitoba will get from
this. Possibly the member for Vancouver Quadra could tell the
House and Canadians just where Manitobans fit in to the space
agency program.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Speaker, that is an excellent
question. It directs attention to the regional character of the
federal system and the fact that some regions are strong in
certain areas and not in others. There is a certain balance.
On the TRIUMF project I was trying to negotiate a $167.5 million
grant at a period when the inherited budget deficit we had was
$42.8 billion. One canvassed all the provinces and although
Manitoba was not a governing member of the TRIUMF complex, there
were four universities in British Columbia and Alberta, there was
a spin-off to Manitoba because the University of Manitoba had
expertise in the area and was able to offer co-operation and
direct benefits flowed.
On the space issue my understanding at the present time is that
the concentration of work is in British Columbia and Quebec but
we noted Newfoundland which has its work.
All Canadians benefit by keeping advanced skills scientists
here. We find their work, for example, in osteoporosis which will
be a spin-off activity, has a strong Manitoba component because
the University of Manitoba is very strong in medical research.
If we do find that Manitoba is not one of the leading players
here, it will be in other areas. Since I got Manitoba support
for TRIUMF, I will pledge Manitoba my support in equivalent
scientific projects there.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, as we approach the end of the millennium and the
beginning of the next, there is one novel aspect of this
legislation I would like the hon. member to comment on,
especially since he is very well known in Canada as an expert in
many aspects of the law, constitutional law among them. It is
the fact that possibly for the first time we are making the
provision for applying the criminal code and other statutes out
of this world.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I simply add as a
matter of personal pride that I did a good deal of work on the
substance of space research, not simply the law, and particularly
on international telecommunications satellites. I was involved
in the negotiations which were ultimately unsuccessful between
Intersputnik and Intelsat.
On this particular issue, law follows the flag, and a spaceship
has a nationality, in this case multinationality. There is no
problem in principle in applying national law to it in the same
way that one applies national law to an aircraft crossing the
Atlantic. The ship's flag, the country of nationality of the
aircraft applies its criminal law, and also those who have
passengers of their own nationality can attach it too. Plurality
of jurisdiction is not a problem. It is not novel.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4 on the international space
station.
1605
Like my colleagues, I too will certainly make reference to the
bill that was closed down very deliberately by the Liberal
government. Debate was stifled on the Nisga'a agreement. I do
not know what the reason was, apart from the fact that the
Liberal government did not want a sound debate on that bill. The
Liberals did not want Canadians to hear the true contents of that
bill and its ramifications throughout the province of B.C. in
particular, and for all Canadians.
The Nisga'a agreement bill impacts not only the province of
British Columbia, but right across the country. Its potential in
land claim settlements is quite phenomenal.
Back to the space station. I had the privilege of walking
through the model of the space station outside of Houston, Texas.
It was housed in a very large building as one can imagine. It
is several hundred feet long and several hundred feet wide. I had
the opportunity for a hands-on examination of the station. It
was very, very impressive.
When we think about the beginnings of the space program in the
United States of America, the roots were very much associated
with Canada. I recall the scrapping of the Avro Arrow project in
Canada. Some phenomenal engineering and technological
achievements ended up south of the border. Unfortunately right
now we do not possess the same qualities of research and support
on a government level as we did back then. When we look at the
history of NASA, the space race and the space industry, it very
much has its roots here in Canada.
There are still many Canadian hands-on personnel down there. It
just so happened that when I was down there, a number of Canadian
scientists and engineers were working on different processes in
reference to the robotic arm, the technology which was developed
here in Canada. I saw how that arm is going to work on the space
station. It is quite amazing. That arm can move like a giant
spider from one end of the space station and attach itself to the
other end. It can perform significant maintenance and
construction feats.
A member of my family works on the medical team in NASA, Dr.
Douglas Hamilton. He is known as Hammy down there. Dr. Hamilton
has two degrees in engineering and a medical degree.
Unfortunately he is part of the brain drain out of Canada. He
was educated and received his degrees in Calgary. After he
earned his medical degree he was looking around for a job and lo
and behold, NASA snapped him up.
There is another one of Hammy's credentials which should be
mentioned. He was in line to be an astronaut and was picked as
one of the Canadian astronauts for the future. He was one of the
five that was slated to go. Unfortunately it never happened. The
race slowed down and a number of Canadians did not have the
opportunity but he knows many of this country's present
astronauts.
1610
I was looking at a diagram of the space station. As I was
walking through the station I had a good opportunity to look
inside each capsule that will be made by various countries.
There is no question about the importance of this space station
and Canada's involvement in it.
There will be Canadians not so much in the station when it is up
there but there certainly will be a lot of them on the ground.
Canada's role in the station is going to be vital and ultra
important. It will provide spin-off jobs in Canada as Canada
contributes more and more toward that endeavour.
I walked through all of the modules. There is a co-operative
effort on the part of these countries. Some of them were at odds
with one another. Russia was at odds with the United States and
the free world. Japan at one time was at odds with Europe and
certainly North America. The United Kingdom and Europe are
contributing to this effort with a substantial amount of
co-operation.
I was impressed that it is a Russian escape module, if there are
problems in the station itself, that will allow those inside the
capsules to exit safely hopefully back to Earth should some major
problem occur. Co-operation was the key to this whole affair.
Ties are being built through efforts like the space station.
Bonds are being built among the scientific community and among
those in the diplomatic areas of governments. Some barriers are
falling down which is so vital to world peace.
I look to our own country and I see other things happening which
reflect the opposite. I am coming back now to another
comparison, when we talk about co-operation and what can actually
be accomplished when matters come before the House that are
divisive to our country and its people.
I speak of the Nisga'a agreement. Many people in the country
would like to know the truth of the matter when it comes to that
agreement. They are not being allowed to do that. They are being
denied a debate here in parliament on that very issue.
The government chose to invoke time allocation after four hours
and 12 minutes of debate. In so doing—
Mr. John Bryden: I rise on a point of order, Madam
Speaker. The member had an excellent speech that was right on
topic and all on this side were listening raptly. But I must
protest if he does steer the speech away to a subject that is not
relevant to the matter at hand. Would he please return to the
excellent speech that he was conducting previously.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sure that the
hon. member is just about to come back to the subject being
discussed today.
Mr. Art Hanger: Madam Speaker, as to the hon. member's
point, I am and will be speaking on the whole issue of
co-operation. It is important to recognize what co-operation can
do when there is a common cause and a common purpose. A space
station can be developed in four or five different countries and
be assembled in space after being transported up there.
Co-operation is the key point.
It is no different for the people of this country. They need to
know where we stand on issues that are important to them. They
need to know that the parliamentary process will allow that
adequate debate, will allow input from the opposition, will allow
their opinions to be heard, not shut down.
1615
What would happen if that happened in the space program or at
the international space station? I would not want to go into
space and put myself in that mechanical device. I would not know
if I was going to live or die because there was no co-operation
on the part of the engineers, the politicians and the medical
teams involved.
I will flip back over to the Nisga'a agreement where it is very
clear that co-operation is at the centre of the whole affair. At
no time did we state that aboriginal people should not have
self-government of some form. We are not denying
self-government. Co-operation is the key: all levels of
government working together, just like in the space station; and
all levels of those planning divisions working together to
accomplish one goal.
In the particular case of the Nisga'a agreement, we have a form
of government that is apart from all other governments. Who is
accountable to whom? What government is going to act
independently? We are talking about co-operation in a space
station. We are talking about co-operation by different levels
of government. The Nisga'a government is one such level.
I cannot understand why the government is actually afraid to
debate the Nisga'a agreement to its nth degree? It should be
proud of being able to do that. I would suggest that is the
democratic process. I do not know why the government is so
nervous about discussing the particulars of the treaty?
What I find rather unsettling is this tendency to label its
opponents, or those with an opposing point of view to this
treaty, in the cowardly manner in which it does. It all showed
up when closure was invoked, which, in my humble opinion, was
undemocratic, cowardly and a desperate act to attempt to smother
a good and sound free speech debate in the House.
When it comes to the government, its action is no different than
the B.C. government that rammed through the Nisga'a treaty in the
provincial legislature against huge opposition.
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
This is an historic piece of legislation before us. It is
legislation that has never been seen in the House before. It is
legislation of the millennium. Would the member please address
the legislation at hand and leave politics behind.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must agree with the
member that the current speaker should stay on the bill being
discussed before the House.
Mr. Art Hanger: Historic legislation is important. The
Canadian space station is an historic occurrence. There is no
question that the development, the co-operation and the resulting
influence from the research that will be done up there will be
historic. It is going to be a preparation for greater things to
come in space, including a trip to Mars. Speaking with those in
the area of research focused on that particular station, I know
that is a very close agenda. Maybe with some exceptions,
probably most of us here will be alive to see that happen.
1620
However, there is another historic piece of legislation that was
never debated in the House and that was the Nisga'a agreement.
The government shut it down before we could get to the
nitty-gritty, the nub of the matter. There are tens of thousands
if not hundreds of thousands of people who are unhappy with that
agreement.
We have an agreement here that everyone agrees with but we are
still debating it. We can laud all the possibilities that the
space station will bring to the country, if not to the world, but
let us talk about the country because we are the ones who are
contributing to it.
We are also contributing to the Nisga'a agreement as to what may
come of it in the end. As members of the opposition party, we
have a responsibility to deal with that very complicated issue
and complicated bill. I do not know if most people realize this,
but there are two books that deal only with the Nisga'a
agreement. It is very significant in scope.
I do not remember who the speaker was, but he or she identified
the Nisga'a treaty as the balkanization of Canada.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
The hon. member speaking right now keeps debating off a very
good bill, Bill C-4, which I believe reaches a lot of consensus
among all political parties here. It is a worldwide agreement
and something that is very important.
I am surprised he is not talking about taxation, or sports or
anything of that nature. I wish that you, Madam Speaker, would
instruct the hon. member to stick to the subject at hand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sure the hon.
member realizes that it is the duty of the Chair to try to keep
the debate on the subject at hand. I would again remind the hon.
member of that.
Mr. Art Hanger: Madam Speaker, certainly I intend to do
that as I do come back to the issue during my debate. I think it
is important to compare and compare I will do. I know, Madam
Speaker, that you will not disagree with that particular point so
I will try to keep my comparisons very relevant.
I understand that the treaty struck for the space station among
these different countries was certainly an historic treaty.
However, I do not recall just how much debate there was in the
House over that particular issue or how much consultation there
was here. The only thing I recall over this particular treaty,
and it is a treaty, is that the space station agreement was
brought here for rubber-stamping. It is all over, finished and
done. All the government wants is the House's approval. That is
no different than the Nisga'a agreement.
The Nisga'a agreement was done by the government in the same
way. It was compiled with little consultation with those who
really mattered. That is an important issue when we talk about
an agreement that has such an impact on the lives of people in
British Columbia and, for that matter, across the country. It is
the taxpayer who is footing the bill. It is no different than on
the space station issue where the taxpayer will also be footing
the bill, although with the space station there is certainly
going to be a different spinoff in the country than there will be
with the Nisga'a agreement. It will be the balkanization of
Canada.
1625
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I really do regret that the member for Calgary Northeast
spoiled what could have been an excellent speech, which began as
an excellent speech, on a historic piece of legislation by toeing
his party line and obeying his whip to divert the debate to a
discussion of time allocation on the Nisga'a treaty. The member
for Calgary Northeast is well known for his interest in the law
and legal matters.
We have before us a piece of legislation that truly is very
historic in ways that go far beyond just the recitation of
technology or the recitation of advancements in science. We have
legislation before us that is an advancement in human
organization, the advancement in democracy and the advancement in
law. We have legislation that for the first time ever applies
the laws of Canada not just outside of Canada but out of this
world. For the first time ever, the law applies not just on the
space capsule and among the spacemen, but the law applies to any
vehicle that separates from the space station.
The reason this is so significant is because it takes the human
spirit that is represented in our political institutions, and
more than that in our legal institutions, and for the first time
ever it has taken the law out of this world. That may sound
trivial to some members but it is an enormous step. Symbolically,
it means that the human spirit has passed the boundaries of
geography, has passed the boundaries of city states, of the
political states of the world and has actually entered into
interplanetary space.
In 1,000 years or 500 years from now, humanity will look back at
this moment and this piece of legislation, where it moves the law
and mankind outside of the world, as a turning point in the
history of all humankind.
Mr. Art Hanger: Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with the
member for Wentworth—Burlington with respect to what the
technology and the space station program will create. I agree
wholeheartedly. I certainly laud the program. It is marvellous.
I would like to see greater opportunities in Canada to develop
our young people in the whole area of space technology which we
lack in many respects. We have made some strides over the last
few years but with no credit necessary to the government.
However, that was not the point I was making with my comparison
of this treaty to the treaty that was just drafted on the Nisga'a
agreement. I was also not following the party line.
We are concerned about what happens in the House, like any
opposition member should be. We have a responsibility to ensure
that debate does take place and that there is no other hidden
agenda on any bill that may come forward. If the member for
Wentworth—Burlington would dig into the short path, he would
clearly see that there have been hidden agendas in other bills
that have come before the House.
It is not the space station bill that I have any quarrel with in
that regard. I think it is a marvellous opportunity for our
country. However, when the government of the day decides that it
is acting as God and decides to shut down debate on a bill that
will have a greater impact on people in our country in a negative
way than the space station will have in a positive way, then I
have a problem with that. I and I know my colleagues will take
every opportunity to voice that particular opinion.
1630
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the member for Wentworth—Burlington accused our member of toeing
the party's line in speaking to Bill C-9 at this point in time
after his government and he toed the party line by voting to shut
down debate in the House. That is shameful and ought not to be
done by a person who believes in democracy, as I am sure he did
before he was elected to the Liberal Party.
Our whip said that we would begin to discuss Bill C-4 when we
had finished discussing Bill C-9, and that has not happened yet.
My colleague was entirely correct in his answer to the member on
the other side. I would like to add my amen to what he said.
Mr. Art Hanger: Madam Speaker, I would certainly like to
thank my colleague for his support. The time is opportune for
the Liberal government and certain members, I might add, to make
mention of issues that are democratic. It is convenient and
should be brought to the attention of the world because somebody
all of a sudden is taking a right or a privilege away, and not to
say that it should not be.
However, that applies on this side too because there are rights
and privileges being taken away from others as a result of the
Nisga'a agreement. We as the opposition have every
responsibility to bring that to the attention of others in the
country.
Mr. John Bryden: Madam
Speaker, I continue to be throwing pearls on barren ground. What
we are taking about here is a historic moment, a historic debate,
a historic piece of legislation. We are applying the law off
this planet for the first time ever. It is going to go to the
moon, to Mars, to planets all across the solar system as mankind
advances.
Can the member not see for one moment the historical
significance of what is before the House? It is not a matter of
partisan politics. Surely the member can appreciate the moment.
Mr. Art Hanger: Madam Speaker, I have no quarrel with the
whole issue of what may happen and is happening with the space
program and the space station. I do not think a person on this
side of the House has any quarrel with the member in that regard.
He cannot seem to get it through his thick skull that the space
station is not in question here but rather the Nisga'a agreement.
That is why I am using that as a comparison. On one side we have
a treaty that we find co-operation and benefit from. On the
other side they shut down individual rights, which has a negative
impact on society. The member across the way cannot get that
through his head.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I will ask a simple question. Does Bill C-4, the space
agency bill, deal with the constitution of Canada? If not, could
he tell us other bills that in fact deal with the constitution of
Canada where the Liberal government is trying to railroad and
wreck democracy in the country?
Mr. Art Hanger: Madam Speaker, that is a very good
question from my colleague. No, the agreement or treaty that was
struck in reference to the space station is not a constitutional
matter.
My colleague across the way may say there is a Canadian law
involved here. Maybe there is something in that reflection, but
specifically on that treaty, no.
When it comes to the Nisga'a agreement we cannot impact more
seriously on the constitution than what this agreement has done.
It is worthy of much debate in the House.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Natural Disasters; the hon.
member for Palliser, Agriculture.
1635
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I had no plan of speaking to this particular bill as I
came to the House this afternoon, but I have witnessed the way
members opposite have taken what should have been a debate in
celebration of one of the most significant pieces of legislation
to come before the House in this century instead of celebrating
that legislation by an informed debate. What they have done is
that they have diverted the discussion to cheap and partisan
political opportunism. They have changed a debate that should
have been about the advancement of mankind. They have turned it
into a debate about time allocation, about a piece of legislation
that they disagree with that was debated on another occasion.
They have missed an incredible opportunity. Is it true
therefore that the people on the opposite side have no sense of
the historic context in which we live as human beings, much less
as Canadians? Do they have no romantic souls to appreciate that,
when we discuss legislation that is actually taking the most
fundamental rules of organized society off the planet, that is
the most mind enlarging concept I can imagine? It is the type of
thing one would expect to read. In fact it is the type of thing
that I did read in the fiction of my youth when pulp magazines
and science fiction were very new on the newsstands and we could
buy them for—
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member has repeatedly reminded the Chair that we are
discussing the space station bill, yet his remarks are entirely
directed to his opinion of interventions by other members. I
would suggest that the member live by his own advice and actually
address the bill in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sure the hon.
member will be speaking to the bill very shortly.
Mr. John Bryden: I do not want to sully this debate any
further by cheap reflection on the type of debate I have heard
here already from the opposite party. No, Madam Speaker. I will
confine my remarks entirely to the legislation at hand, because I
think it is turning point legislation. I think it is probably
some of the most significant, maybe not the most important, that
we have seen before the House certainly since I have been a
member.
I would suggest it really is a piece of legislation of the
century because it talks about taking the law off this planet. It
talks about that one giant step, not just for moving mankind
physically into space but moving the best of humankind into outer
space.
I liken it to ancient Greece where one of the things we remember
about the time of Plato is the fact that the Greeks, in their
city states, not only discovered and developed democracy as we
have come to know it. The most important thing about the Greeks
and why they have a special place in history is that the Greeks
discovered the law. They were known for mathematics and for
advancements in science, but the most important contribution of
the Greeks was a respect for law.
Before we could have democracy we had to have and understand the
need for law. From the Greeks came the European society that we
knew in the 19th century and the medieval years, which developed
into the modern states as we know it. We still hearken back to
our debt to the ancient Greeks for introducing mankind to the
concepts of law for all people which has to go before democracy.
I would suggest that we could talk as long as we want about the
space arm, the advancements in technology and the various
technological spin-offs.
1640
I do not think we can ever match in significance the fact that
for the first time in this legislation we are actually talking
about applying the laws of the land in a space vehicle that is
moving around the planet, and indeed about all the subcomponents
of that vehicle. If they want to send from the space station a
moon lander, the laws of Canada, the criminal code and all other
relevant laws will apply to the human beings on those vehicles.
This is the beginning, as I see it, for the application of the
laws and democracy as we know them to all of mankind's
explorations in space.
I note another incredibly significant thing. When we talk about
applying the law in this space station, this island of humanity
in the voyage, we are talking about the law applying to human
beings from different countries. It is not just Canadians. It
is all of those people from Russia, Japan or whatever other
country that might find themselves together on that space
station.
I regret that I cannot name the film, but I can remember my very
first moon movie. I am sure older members of the House might
remember one of the very early films where they were landing on
the moon. There was conflict among the space crew because they
ran out of water, or something like that, and of course there was
tension. I think we have to appreciate that wherever mankind
does go in the millennium ahead of us conflict will follow. The
one thing that identifies us as human beings and not animals in
our conflicts is that we resolve our conflicts by the law.
I suggest that this is probably one of the most significant
aspects of the bill. We are, shall we say, not only sending
hardware into space. We are not only sending human beings into
space. We are sending our very spirit into space, and that
spirit is not just our respect for democracy but that spirit is
mankind's respect for the law.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
respond to one thing the member said several times, that Bill C-4
is the most important bill parliament will have passed—what did
he say—this year, this century or this millennium. I do not
know what he was saying but he gave it great importance.
Does the member really believe it is more important than
rejigging the relationship that we have as Canadians one to
another? Even though this space station is of great consequence,
and undoubtedly it is a wonderful technological masterpiece, is
it more important than legislation that is pitting Canadians
against Canadians, that is dividing up rights based on personal
characteristics and racial origin rather than treating everyone
equally as Canadians?
Does he really believe that Bill C-4 is so much more important
than Bill C-9 which we would have loved to have been able to
debate today?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, we really are throwing
pearls on barren ground around here. If the member had listened
carefully, I did not say it was the most important legislation. I
said it was the most significant legislation.
There is no doubt that there are other bills and have been other
bills including the constitution which are more important that
have appeared before the House, but it is the significance.
This bill and what it contains expands the bounds of the
imagination. It expands humanity and the spirit of humanity in a
way in which no other bill before the House could ever have done
because it goes beyond this country. It touches all of humankind
and it takes us off this very planet.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to suggest to my colleague opposite that when
he is no longer in politics he can certainly become the poet
laureate of Canada.
I would be surprised if too many human spirits in Canada have
taken flight because of the space station going up, but if the
member would like to enrich his personal life by believing that I
guess he can.
1645
I am more concerned about the human spirit in Canada,
particularly the spirit of aboriginal women who are not able to
have the protection in cases of spousal abuse and marriage
breakdown that other women have. This is certainly very
debilitating to the human spirit, in particular the spirit of
women.
Most Canadian women, when these circumstances arise, can request
an order to have the matrimonial home for themselves and their
children, as well as a division of matrimonial property.
However, aboriginal women have brought forward time and time
again their concern that they do not have this kind of equality.
Perhaps my poetic colleague would like to comment for the
benefit of aboriginal women and suggest how their spirit can be
enriched by the kind of inequality his government is forcing upon
them through the Nisga'a treaty.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have commented often and
elaborately on that issue before committee. I would be happy to
comment when the Nisga'a bill comes back to the House on the
issues the member raises.
The member illustrates that when it comes to talking about the
human spirit and trying to get this other party involved we are
really dealing with a four-wheel drive vehicle going gangbusters
with the brakes on.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am certainly as proud as anyone about the
international space station and I am very enthusiastic about the
use of space and how it can affect our daily lives. One of the
greatest uses of space to date has been the global positioning
system. RADARSAT has been of great benefit to us with respect to
to ice conditions and agriculture.
My question to the member for Wentworth—Burlington concerns the
fact that the boundaries for the Nisga'a people in the Nisga'a
area have to be determined on a scientific basis. I want to know
if this member can explain how space can help set those
boundaries. I would like him to also explain how these
boundaries can be set so as to avoid any conflict with
neighbouring aboriginal people who are claiming the same land.
Is there some kind of magical outer space area that will settle
these problems here on Earth, for example through the use of the
GPS? I think he understands the question.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in a sense it is a very
good question because global positioning, which is what he means
by GPS, and also the various remote sensing capabilities, not
only of the space station but also of other rocketry we have in
space, enable the finest imaginable calculation of boundaries. We
can calculate boundaries from outer space down to the very last
metre, if not millimetre.
The member is absolutely right. When it comes to settling
disputes among us, when it comes to having those fences that
separate us as neighbours, in the end it is not hardware or space
stations that matter, but the law. That is why I see it as so
significant that we have before us legislation that takes the
law, one of the best products of the human spirit, one step
further, one step forward for mankind, one step into space.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member explained the GPS
system in terms of global positioning and what it has done for
our navigators and seafarers worldwide. However, I would remind
him that it is still controlled by the Americans. What assurance
can he or his government give that the new treaty on the space
station will not be absolutely controlled by one nation, for
example the United States?
1650
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, at last we have a question
that we should be dealing with. That is precisely the core of
this legislation. What it defines is the parameters of the laws
that apply to all members who are on the space platform at any
given time. The legislation we have before us is echoed in other
countries, or by the other partners shall we say.
In the end there is one thing that goes beyond the law and that
is the trust we share among us. What we are seeing in this
historic piece of legislation is a moment in time at the end of
this century when countries with competing interests will have to
work together in order to save and preserve the very lives in the
ultimate hostile environment. They are going to have to have
faith in one another. I admit that is probably a step of the
human spirit that actually transcends respect for the law.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty to
inform the House that from this moment forward debate will be 10
minutes with no questions or comments.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
are you suggesting that I have been time limited on the debate on
Bill C-4? That is quite ironic. It gives me an interesting
angle to address.
I want to begin by saying how touched I was to hear my hon. and
eloquent colleague from Wentworth—Burlington speak in such
glowing terms about his romantic soul and the expanding human
spirit. He really does seem to want to go where no man has gone
before. I was expecting that at any moment during his speech he
would be beamed up out of the Chamber. Perhaps I could suggest
to that colleague that we could volunteer him to be one of the
first Canadian trial astronauts in the new space station. I
suspect his constituents would rather have him in space than here
representing them.
I am pleased to rise to debate this important bill, an act to
implement the agreement among the Government of Canada,
Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the
Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation,
and the Government of the United States of America concerning
co-operation on the civil international space station and to make
related amendments to other acts.
The bill's statutory summary states:
This enactment relates to the implementation of Canada's
obligations under the agreement concerning co-operation on the
Civil International Space Station. The parties to the agreement
undertake to establish a framework for mutual international
co-operation in the long term in relation to the detailed design,
development, operation and utilization of a permanently inhabited
civil international space station for peaceful purposes. The
agreement provides for mechanisms and arrangements to ensure the
fulfilment of these objectives.
This is indeed an important bill before us. It is so important
that I am distressed to learn that because of the rules of this
place and the government's distaste for expansive debate on
important statutes I will be limited to 10 minutes. In my
remarks—
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member knows that after five hours of debate any piece
of legislation is dropped down to 10 minutes without questions
and comments. There is no limit on this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That was not a point
of order.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, that being the case, I
wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the House that my
colleague, who had prepared for a 20 minute speech, be allowed
the 20 minutes for his speech, to reflect exactly what that
member said.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
1655
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, there we have it. They
always blame it on the rules, but when it comes to an option to
expand debate and to listen to the diverse voices of a
pluralistic society, government members say no, no, no every
time.
That member, in his specious point of order, suggested that this
was simply an automatic limitation of debate. He realizes that
this parliament governs itself through the standing orders and if
we had a majority of members of this place truly dedicated to
fulsome democratic debate on items like Bill C-4, the one before
us today, then we could amend those standing orders to allow
members to express fully their remarks in 20 minutes, plus
questions and comments on any matter. We could extend the
sitting hours of this place. We would not have to invoke time
allocation and closure.
It is remarkable that this should come up because just yesterday
at this time I was sitting here in my seat on behalf of my
constituents, having spent much of the day preparing remarks to
address another bill that had come before us, Bill C-9, a bill
with respect to the Nisga'a treaty. I was enthusiastically
waiting, having read dozens of articles and background documents,
to enter my comments on behalf of my 130,000 some constituents on
that piece of legislation. However, I was denied the opportunity
because as I sat in this place my right to stand and speak on
that treaty was stolen from me by that member and his colleagues
in the government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Your right to
participate in that debate was not stolen by that member.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I would not deign to
suggest that member is a thief. He voted with his colleagues to
take from me the right to speak on that bill by limiting debate
through time allocation. I do think that is pertinent because we
are talking about an important treaty which I would like,
obviously, to address.
The treaty for Canada's participation in the international civil
space station ultimately is the legal culmination of a 15 year
process which began in 1984.
The member for Wentworth—Burlington spoke of his enthusiasm for
the human spirit. There was a great leader, probably the
greatest leader of the free world in the post-war period, who in
1984 proposed this vision of an international space station. His
name was President Ronald Reagan. He was the man who proposed
the international space station as a way for humankind to work
together across national boundaries, to co-operate by bringing
together the strengths of technology to further the endeavours of
human science and the expansion of man's reach into space.
I want to say how proud I am to have an opportunity to stand and
speak to an initiative that was begun by that great leader and
defender of freedom in this century. I would furthermore say
that members of the Liberal Party mocked that great leader back
in the mid-1980s when Ronald Reagan was proposing that the world
reach farther into space to expand our frontiers of science,
research and travel. They called it star wars when Ronald Reagan
suggested that perhaps the western nations of the world should
co-operate to find means of strategic defence through space,
using technology like that being developed in the space station,
to defend the western countries, the free countries of the world
from the enormous strategic threat posed by the intercontinental
ballistic missiles of the evil empire.
They mocked him, but now they stand and applaud that man's
vision. I want to put that on the record, that whatever benefit
comes to mankind from this kind of bold scientific venture, which
we in the official opposition support, ultimately came from the
vision of a man who was mocked and vilified by members opposite.
This treaty will give Canada certain opportunities. We are only
funding about 2.5% of the cost of this space station.
We will of course have the prominent use of the Canadarm which
will be employing an entirely new generation of robotics
technologies, one of the very few areas of high technology where
Canada has an edge. I hope this funding will have a spin-off in
terms of private sector investment and development in the high
technology field.
1700
I believe that if we in Canada really wanted to take full
advantage of the private sector opportunities afforded by the
development of this technology in the space station, we would
create a fiscal and economic environment where those scientists
and the people who want to invest in that kind of science would
stay in this country. Instead what do we have? A job killing
tax burden which is driving away the people who would invest, the
entrepreneurs who would finance the kind of real private sector
development of technology represented by the Canadarm.
Sure, we are prepared to provide seed funding for this sort of
technology through government, but when it comes to allowing the
private sector to take over, we end up sending those people south
of the border through high taxes. It is exactly what the Prime
Minister said yesterday. The millionaire Prime Minister was
speaking to his group of impoverished Liberal friends who paid
$350 a plate at last night's dinner. He said that productive
Canadians can just leave the country if they do not like staying
here.
In any event I am pleased to see that the Canadarm will be used.
Canada will be able to take advantage of the monitoring of the
earth, the monitoring of crop conditions, the monitoring of the
environment. We will be able to measure climate and the Arctic
ice pack which will assist navigation for the transportation
industry. We will be engaged in various sorts of experiments
relating to longevity, et cetera.
Again, I want to emphasize that it is important that parliament
ratifies treaties after debate. Yesterday we had before us a
treaty which we did not have a chance to debate fully. The
official opposition, the only party opposing that treaty, had
only four hours to debate it in principle on second reading. Now
it has been shunted off to committee and the government hopes
that the public will not notice.
This is important because public debate on treaties such as
those in Bills C-4 and C-9 is a very important part of
parliamentary accountability. That is why I was quite surprised
to see the remarks of a man I know and respect, Gordon Campbell,
the leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party, speaking on
another treaty that was before this place. He called the closure
of debate yesterday “a reprehensible abuse of democracy that is
an egregious abuse of democratic process and shows flagrant
contempt for all British Columbians”. He said that the
limitation of debate on that treaty was “an unacceptable slap in
the face of all Canadians”.
While we support Bill C-4 and this treaty, we want real debate
on all treaties. We did not have it yesterday and we will demand
that in the future we have that kind of debate.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it has been a rather interesting debate today. One theme that
keeps repeating itself and which is clearly emerging is the
undemocratic nature in which the Liberal government is bent on
ruling in this parliament.
As has been pointed out, the debate on a bill which essentially
has unanimous agreement among parliamentarians is allowed to go
on without any opposition by the Liberals in having that debate
continue. However, yesterday, in a very undemocratic, dictatorial
fashion, the Liberal government shut down debate on a treaty that
is being thrust upon the citizens of Canada in a very
undemocratic and unjust way.
The constitutional ramifications of the Nisga'a treaty are
extensive. However, despite the lasting repercussions that the
agreement will have, both the B.C. and federal governments have
refused to allow a referendum on the terms of the Nisga'a final
agreement.
1705
Why would that be? If it is a good agreement, why would we not
engage in a full open public consultation followed by a
referendum? Why not let the people decide the issue? It follows
that the answer is for the same reason the Liberals shut down
debate yesterday.
The Prime Minister is running this country like a dictator. The
three main lawmaking institutions of our country are the House of
Commons, the Senate and the supreme court. The Senate is
unelected and unaccountable. The supreme court justices are
appointed by the Prime Minister and are there to exercise his
will. The parliamentarians on the Liberal side of the House are
under his direct control.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for Saskatoon—Humboldt will forgive me, I wanted to reiterate
the ground rules that I laid out for this debate when I was in
the Chair. They are these. Considerable latitude has been
allowed in this debate on Bill C-4 which has to do with the the
international space station. There has been quite a bit of
linkage between that and Bill C-9 but the linkage must be there.
That is the challenge for those who would wish to use the rules
of the House to bring other issues to the table.
I would ask that the Chair not be challenged to find the link.
Make sure that the link exists so that relevance is maintained.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to the
link. I first wanted to establish the method in which the Prime
Minister governs the country and that is as a dictator.
The link is that with the bill before us, because there is no
opposition, the Prime Minister is quite content to let opposition
members of parliament speak in favour of the bill and in essence
commend the government. If we are speaking in favour of the bill
we are not being critical of an initiative of the government. I
was just pointing out that only exists in the instance where we
are supportive of a bill.
However, in the case of the Nisga'a agreement there is
widespread discontent and unhappiness not only with the agreement
but with the manner in which the agreement is being thrust upon
the citizens of British Columbia in particular but indeed upon
all the citizens of our country. That is something that needs to
be discussed. It is not acceptable. People need to be made
aware of how this place is being governed. They need to be made
aware that solutions exist.
The Reform Party proposes referendums for such major legislation
as the Nisga'a agreement. On legislation which is before the
House today, we are proposing free votes in the House of Commons
in which members are not under the hard iron fist of a dictator
but rather are free to vote according to the wishes of their
constituents. If a member can demonstrate that his or her
constituents are in favour or opposed to any particular bill,
such as the space station before us, the member should be free to
exercise that right and actually represent the people who elected
him or her. Free votes is an answer to improving the democracy
of this institution.
I mentioned the Senate. We all know how badly we need Senate
reform.
Finally, before I leave this point, there is member recall. The
Reform Party has been very strong in advocating the right of
constituents to recall their member of parliament if he or she
does not represent their wishes.
The lack of an elected effective Senate, the lack of
accountability of politicians to the people who elect them and
the lack of free votes are all part and parcel of the
undemocratic nature by which this government is ruling
parliament. It explains why with Bill C-4 because there is no
opposition, none of these are real issues.
It is not an issue. But in the case of the Nisga'a agreement
which was before the House yesterday, all of these democratic
principles and concepts were quashed.
1710
With regard to the Nisga'a final agreement, I would like to
point out that the form of apartheid which has failed in the past
has been used as a template for the Nisga'a and therefore future
treaty negotiations. To prove that point I would like to quote
from the Oxford Dictionary which defines apartheid as a
policy or system of segregation or discrimination on the grounds
of race.
The Nisga'a final agreement permanently entrenches the same
essential elements as the reserve system in a modern treaty. It
creates permanent inequality, disenfranchising non-Nisga'a people
and providing for a system of taxation without representation.
Non-Nisga'a people who reside in the affected area will be able
to vote for federal and provincial representatives, but they will
not be able to vote for or run as council members. Band councils
will hold most of the power in the Nisga'a territory and will be
responsible for local tax issues. Non-Nisga'a people will have
no say in how those tax policies affect them.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
have a lot of respect for my colleague but he has been referring
to the Nisga'a bill and I thought we were debating Bill C-4. I
would suggest that perhaps the member is a bit out of whack in
terms of his presentation. He may want to go back to the bill we
are discussing at this point in time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The admonition of
the member for Ottawa Centre is accurate and correct.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that a scant two sitting
days ago the Speaker of the House made a ruling that the long
term practice of the House becomes the rules and we have—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): And when that
Speaker is in the Chair that is the ruling. This Speaker is in
the Chair and this Speaker will tell members exactly what is
going to happen.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to discuss
the Nisga'a treaty today because Bill C-4 which deals with the
space station is also based on a treaty.
It is essential that we discuss in parliament how these treaties
are coming into existence and the irrelevance that parliament has
with respect to these treaties. It is insulting for these
treaties to be signed and sealed as a done deal and then brought
before parliament to receive a rubber stamp. This warrants
looking at the details of the treaties, in particular the Nisga'a
treaty.
The Nisga'a final agreement is going to build barriers and widen
the gulf between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in British
Columbia. It strongly contradicts one of the key founding
principles of the Reform Party which is that we believe in true
equality of Canadian citizens with equal rights and
responsibilities for all. That statement is a direct word for
word extract from the blue book of the Reform Party.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-4. I want everybody
to understand that we support the broad thrust of the bill.
However, we have some concerns and I have some particular
concerns with regard to the bill.
1715
One is the priorizing of spending. We are looking at
approximately $1 billion. Another concern is that we do not know
what the actual cost will be to the Canadian taxpayer.
For that kind of money I think we should have at least had some
consultation with regard to the spending of it with perhaps some
of the poorer people, the working poor of Canada. Instead the
government said that it would be done, what it would spend, and
that it would be coming out of the pockets of taxpayers, for we
all know the government does not have money of its own.
One of my concerns with respect to Bill C-4 is the lack of
consultation. Speaking of consultation kind of brings up another
sore point with me. The other day debate was closed on Bill C-9,
an area in which we are looking at reshaping Canada to a large
extent.
Where was the consultation on that? It was about the same as it
was for Bill C-4. Actually we are getting more on Bill C-4, at
least on debate. On Bill C-9, the Nisga'a agreement, we had only
four hours and 12 minutes before closure was brought in on
debate. At least on Bill C-4 we seem to be able to talk all day
because we all seem to be in agreement on it. The dictatorial
might and hand of the government has allowed us to carry on this
debate.
Let us look at what it did on Bill C-9 in reference to Bill C-4
and consultation. The government signed the agreement in Bill
C-4 on January 29, 1998. Yet at no time did it come before
parliament until now. I have to wonder how much consultation was
done there with regard to Bill C-4.
Certainly on Bill C-9, the Nisga'a claims, we have had far less.
We are saying now that we actually forced the government from
this side to grant committee hearings in the great province of
British Columbia, the province that will be directly impacted by
the Nisga'a agreement.
Although we got agreement from the government on consultation
through committee hearings, it put a bit of a codicil at the
bottom with regard to who would speak there and what their
concerns would be. If they are not rubber stamped by the
government they cannot come forward as witnesses with regard to
Bill C-9 and the concerns in British Columbia over the Nisga'a
agreement.
The government is saying to the Canadian public that it will
send out a committee for some hearings. It will pick and choose
which cities it will go to for the hearings and exactly who will
be heard from. If this is consultation, I have real concerns
about where we are going.
I raise this matter because one person who should have been
looked at very closely with regard to the committee hearings and
what is happening in the province of British Columbia, everybody
in the House must agree, would have to be an ex-premier of that
province, one who sat in government for years and was the premier
of British Columbia. His name is Bill Vander Zalm. Yet the
committee has absolutely stamped not a good witness upon Mr.
Vander Zalm and he will not be able to go before committee. I
think a great atrocity has been done there.
It is the same for Bill C-4. When we look at Bill C-4 and what
property rights are protected in it, we have no answer. In the
same way we do not have an answer in the Nisga'a agreement with
regard to property rights. One of the big concerns in the
Nisga'a agreement was for private property rights given to the
individual Nisga'a people, particularly with regard to any
spousal disagreement or break up of marriage. In most cases it
is usually the woman who takes the hardest blow. In the Nisga'a
agreement there is no protection there. I have to wonder why
there were no property rights put into that agreement. It
creates grave concern.
It is the same in Bill C-4. We looked at intellectual property
rights. We do not see where they are protected in Bill C-4
either.
1720
It started out that we would have five hours of open debate in
the House, 20 minute speeches. Then all of a sudden we were cut
down to 10 minute speeches with no questions and comments. The
Nisga'a agreement was cut to even less than that, which is
something that will have far greater impact upon the country than
a space station.
I listened to some government members who said that these were
the rules. When we were elected to the House of Commons we were
originally sent here to help make and shape the rules so that
they would apply equally to everyone. Unfortunately members on
the other side of the House still do not have this through their
heads yet. They have rules for some that differ greatly from
rules for others.
For example, most people in Canada fall under property rights
and that aspect of marriage. There are some rights for both
spouses in case of marriage break up. In the Nisga'a agreement
that is not the case. There is no protection. There is one
right for one part of society and another right for another part
of society. I do not understand why the government which says
that it has a caring, sharing nature has not looked very closely
at this matter, allowed the debate to continue, and at least had
a broad discussion with the people of British Columbia.
Not only the people of British Columbia should have concerns
about the Nisga'a agreement. It should be all Canadians. It
will be all of them. It will be everyone. It will be the people
of Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. They
will pick up the tab for this. It will not just be the people of
British Columbia.
The government likes to say that it will pick up the tab. The
government has no money. It only has the money that it can rip
off working people. That is the only money it has. The
government knows that and I think the working people of Canada
are starting to realize that is the case. All they have to do is
look at their paycheques to see how much in taxes are being
ripped off by this caring, sharing government in Ottawa. There
is absolutely no doubt about that.
Let us have a look at the Nisga'a agreement. Let us just see
how caring and sharing the government is. How concerned is it
really? This agreement is being put in place basically in the
northwest part of British Columbia, but where is the government
to hold some of the hearings? It will hold some of them in
Victoria and Vancouver, British Columbia. I have news for
Liberal members. That is a long way from Nisga'a country. It is
a long way from a lot of the concern.
We asked if the government would not hold some hearings in
another part of British Columbia, in the Okanagan Valley where we
will feel an impact from the agreement. The answer was no. The
government absolutely refused to do that. I would like to see
the committee at least spend more than four days in the great
province of British Columbia. I do not know if the government
thinks that it is only the size of Prince Edward Island or if it
the size of a smaller area. I do not think it fully understands
that the size of British Columbia, as the third largest province
in Canada, is extensive.
For something that will forever impact the people of Canada for
generations, the government will only allow three or four days. I
have concerns about that. It goes to show us in the west that we
have the right attitude. Once they get to Ottawa representatives
from other parts of the country have absolutely no idea where
British Columbia is. They have no idea of what are the problems
in British Columbia. They have no idea about what the impact
will be upon the people of British Columbia.
As a matter of fact I will pre-warn my staff that perhaps we
should get a bunch of maps and draw British Columbia on them in a
different colour so that government members will at least know
where it is. I have news for them. It is just over on the other
side of the Rocky Mountains. They should know it well. They
have ripped the people off there for their money for years and
years. They should at least get to know the province and get to
know that it is a large area.
For those who say that they can accomplish what they are trying
to accomplish in three or four days I think they should give, and
we like to talk about space stations, the empty space between
their ears a shake.
1725
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the interesting debate we have been participating also provoked
interest in me.
Mr. Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to make a few comments if that is possible.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have already
recognized the hon. member for Surrey Central. I will be very
happy to recognize the member afterward.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I am very interested
in participating in this very interesting debate that has been
going on here on Bill C-4, a bill committing Canada to implement
its obligations for an international space station.
All of us in the House are very proud of the contribution of the
Canadian Space Agency. We are very proud of the research and of
the Canadian robotic arm. All of us are very proud of the
contribution of Julie Payette and other scientists. It is a very
interesting bill from one angle. All of us in the official
opposition support the broad thrust of the bill. However we do
have some reservations and concerns.
We want to ensure that intellectual property rights are
protected. If a company is working in space or on the space
station, we are concerned about how that intellectual property
will be protected. Those issues are not properly addressed in
the bill.
All companies that are doing research and development need a
long time to do their research. According to the World Trade
Organization agreement that was signed by member countries,
Canada being one of them, there is a limit of 25 years. I think
that is a major concern.
There are some other issues such as whether the scientists and
researchers will be getting a fair reward for the innovations
they will be making. I am interested in publishing some of my
research as well as some of the discoveries and inventions which
I have made. I know how important intellectual properties are.
Another concern is whether all the benefits from the space
station will be dispersed equally in Canada. We know that $430
million per year will be spent for the Canadian Space Agency that
is based in St. Hubert, Quebec. I do not know what contributions
or benefits that space agency will create for people in British
Columbia or Nova Scotia, whether we will be seeing any benefits
or jobs created in other parts of the country, or whether those
will be focused only on the main station.
Another area we are concerned about is transparency. When the
bill was brought to the House there was absolutely no
consultation with parliament and absolutely no input from
parliament before the treaty was signed. When the treaty was
signed it was brought here to be ratified. We are here to debate
and ratify it without making any amendments. That is another
major concern.
The other day we all debated the Nisga'a bill in the House. We
were not allowed to participate in making any amendments or
making any contributions from parliament. That is the kind of
transparency we see from the government in the House.
One important point about the space contribution bill we are
debating today is regarding the mission of the international
space station. It is to enable long term exploration of space
and to provide benefits to people on Earth. What we are doing is
for the benefit of the people living on Earth. That means that
the international space station is all about life on Earth.
Let us talk about life on Earth. Life on Earth is so important
that all of us are talking about it. The other day when we
debated the Nisga'a bill in the House we saw how the government
invoked closure and did not let us raise a voice on it. That is
the life we are talking about. That is the lack of understanding
we are talking about.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with what we want to debate.
We are saying that all Canadians are equal and that all Canadians
should be treated equally. Is there anything wrong with that?
Absolutely not.
1730
We want to say that there should be a new start for aboriginal
people in Canada. We want aboriginal people to be full and equal
participants in Canadian society. There is nothing wrong in that.
We want aboriginal women to be full and equal partners both on
reserve and off reserve. There is nothing wrong in that. We
want aboriginal families to be protected by the same law that
governs non-aboriginal families. Is there anything wrong in that?
There is nothing wrong in that. That is the life in Canada we
are talking about.
We want aboriginal people to have the same rights and
protections that every Canadian enjoys. We want to eliminate the
discriminatory barriers that have widened the gulf between
aboriginal and non-aboriginal people for a long long time. We
want to ensure that the native governments are fully accountable
to grassroots natives. We want to ensure that a bright future is
there for all Canadians regardless of the colour of their skin or
their origin. Is there anything wrong in that? That is the life
in Canada we are talking about. That is the life on this planet
we are talking about.
The government members invoked closure on the bill. They did
not let us raise our voice. If I look at the record of how
debate was shut down in parliament by the Tory government, it
took eight years for it to reach the level of 50 closures on
debate. It took only five years for the Liberal government to
reach the level of 50 closures on debate, up until March 1999.
I do not understand how the government can shut down debate on
an important issue. The Nisga'a treaty is the most important
treaty the government has signed in this century and it invoked
closure on it. It did not let us debate it.
I will quote some important statements made by members on the
other side concerning closure when they were the official
opposition. When in opposition the current government House
leader spoke differently about time allocation. He said: “I am
shocked. Perhaps I should not be shocked. This government has
used closure on dozens of occasions. This is just terrible. This
time we are talking about a major piece of legislation”. He was
talking about a particular debate in the House on November 16,
1992. This is recorded in Hansard on page 13,451. He said:
“Shame on those Tories across the way”.
That is what the present government House leader said when he
was in the official opposition. If I repeat his comments back to
him, what would he say now? Is he not ashamed of himself when he
invokes time allocation on the debate of these important issues?
Let us talk about another prominent member who is now the
foreign affairs minister. He said this in reference to closure
in a Toronto Star article on April 1, 1993: “It displays
the utter disdain with which the government treats the Canadian
people”.
When the present Deputy Speaker was in opposition he said: “The
government is using time allocation once again on this bill. Just
to remind the House and the Canadian public of the draconian
approach this government takes to dealing with legislation in the
House, closure has been used 15 times in parliament since—”
Mr. John Cannis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. With the greatest of respect for the Chair, I came in
here with great interest to hear about the most revolutionary
technically advanced project human beings have ever seen. I
understand the member tries to draw certain parallels but for the
last 10 minutes he has been drawing upon closure as opposed to
telling us about this project or some of the concerns he might
have.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must remind the
hon. member, and I believe the Speaker who was here earlier today
used the word ingenuity, to link whatever the member wants to say
to the bill now before the House.
1735
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I am debating the bill
before the House, Bill C-4. It is an important bill because we
are signing a treaty dealing with the international space
station. We want to make sure that we put forward our
commitments and meet them.
We had absolutely no input on the treaty. The people of Canada,
through their elected representatives, were shut down by the
government. That is why I have to talk about it. The Liberals
shut down the debate on the Nisga'a treaty which was another
important bill. We are dealing with the most important issues of
the century and we are not allowed to talk about them. When the
treaty was to be debated in the British Columbia legislature, the
government did not let the members talk. The NDP rammed the
treaty through. That is why we are debating this.
The hon. member who sits on the other side of the House, when
his party was in opposition, knew about closure. Why is his
party doing it again?
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I do
not want to take the 10 minutes. I will only take two or three
minutes.
As a member of parliament who studied and practised in the field
of engineering, it is absolutely fantastic that Canada is
participating in such a venture. It speaks volumes for the kind
of leadership the Department of Industry and its minister have
provided in the House, across Canada and on the international
scene.
This is a historic moment for all Canadians to see the
co-operation between two previous arch enemies, the United States
and Russia, as well as Japan and other countries, in order to
advance the best interests of mankind and womankind. We should
be celebrating. We should be talking about all of the positive
things that will come out of such a terrific co-operative
approach.
After hearing my colleagues from the opposition speak one after
the other, they are in support of the bill because none of them
spoke against the bill per se. That is very positive.
My colleague has some concerns about consultation. My
understanding is this bill, like every other bill, will go to a
committee. At that time anybody can make positive or negative
suggestions about the bill. In the same kind of spirit, when the
government introduces a bill it receives those recommendations
and comments at the committee level, where the proper
consultation and discussion will take place.
Frankly, to trash a bill that is an implementation of an
agreement between different partners who are going to outer space
for the benefit of this planet is highly unfair. It is not
serving the purpose of the House.
It is my hope that we will let this bill pass as quickly as
possible so we can show our partners how serious we are about
ensuring that the best interests of not only our planet, but of
outer space are protected.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
An hon. member: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
1740
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me
to have the opportunity to speak at second reading on Bill C-5,
an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.
The bill before the House builds on success and will ensure the
continued high performance of one of the government's most
successful initiatives. Bill C-5, an act to make the Canadian
Tourism Commission a crown corporation, is a natural and a
necessary evolution of the tourism commission.
In 1995 when the commission was first established, the
government had very high hopes for it. Those hopes have not only
been met, they have been exceeded. On every measure the
commission has performed exceptionally well. It is a superb
example of the benefits that can result when there is a genuine
partnership between government and the private sector.
The commission has developed and sustained effective
co-operation among federal, provincial, territorial and business
partners. It shows how well national and regional policy
objectives can be harmonized with business goals to the benefit
of all participants.
Bill C-5 confirms the government's willingness and desire to
work in partnership with different sectors of Canadian society
and the economy as well. Our government sees the creation of a
harmonious co-operative relationship among these partners as an
excellent way for us to work together as a nation to address
social, cultural and economic issues.
Every member of the House can attest to the fact that every
region of our country benefits from tourism. Let me say it has a
pan-Canadian flavour and has immediate impact on most of the
economies in terms of financial gain from coast to coast to
coast, to the northern part of our country and among Canada's
first nations people as well.
As well as producing direct local and regional economic
benefits, tourism is important to the national economy as a
whole. In 1998 it generated more than $19 billion to Canada's
GDP. It contributes significantly to employment in parts of the
country where other jobs are often scarce. It has come to
generate both employment and spin-off economic benefits for first
nations people.
Since the industry consists mainly of small and medium size
businesses, the legislation will further the government's
commitment to encourage the small business sector,
entrepreneurial development and of course, job creation. Tourism
by and large is an environmentally friendly industry and operates
in a manner that is consistent with the government's commitment
to a clean and safe environment. An industry that provides so
much on so many fronts deserves the attention and support of this
parliament.
Today we are at another juncture in the evolution of the course
that was set by the Prime Minister and the cabinet in 1995 when
the tourism commission was first established. Its current status
as a special operating agency of the Department of Industry
imposes legal and administrative restrictions which now prevent
it from achieving its maximum potential and effectiveness.
Establishing the commission as a special operating agency was a
necessary first step.
As the country's tourism industry has matured, so has the
commission. The time has come for parliament to create a
corporation with the authority and the tools at its disposal to
be fully responsive to the needs of this diverse growing and
dynamic sector of our economy.
Over the past few years it has become apparent that the
commission should function as a fully integrated business entity
with the capacity to make its own decisions, set its own business
priorities and move more quickly to implement them. Making the
commission a crown corporation will give it the legal, financial,
managerial, administrative and policy-making flexibility it needs
to work with its partners more adequately and more efficiently.
Until the creation of the Canadian Tourism Commission, Canadian
efforts to market Canada as a tourist destination were fragmented
among many players: the federal government, provincial and
territorial governments, and the tourism industry itself.
1745
Federal activities were divided among the tourism branch of the
Department of Industry, the three regional agencies of Western
Economic Diversification, Canada Economic Development for the
Regions of Quebec and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency,
and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
At the request of the Prime Minister in 1994, the Hon. Judd
Buchanan studied the industry and its administrative structure.
Mr. Buchanan recommended the creation of the commission on which
tourism industry leaders as well as senior officials from the
federal, provincial and territorial governments would be
represented.
Established by order in council, the CTC board was given broad
authority to plan, direct, manage and implement programs to
generate and promote tourism.
The commission's first business plan recognized the absolute
necessity of bringing together the very wide range of the
organizations, groups and individuals involved in tourism. The
key to success, which has been achieved, was to facilitate
partnering and co-ordination among the various stakeholders.
The co-ordination of the various interests was brought about by
ensuring that all stakeholders were represented on the board. The
CTC then set up a structure of partnering committees. These
committees are led by the private sector and are responsible for
individual program areas.
There are committees for the Canadian market, the U.S. leisure
and travel market, business travel, European, Asia-Pacific and
Latin American markets. There is also a committee on products
and on research.
The commission's marketing programs include the development and
maintenance of data on markets of opportunity, advertising,
public relations, promotional projects, media relations, travel
trade development and co-operative buy-in initiatives.
In addition, the CTC has a number of industry competitiveness
programs. These include industry assessment on the structure and
performance of the tourism industry and its subsectors.
As well, the CTC offers program development services such as
how-to manuals, seminars, consultations and advice, study and
interpretation of developments in the domestic and international
markets. Analysis of this information is provided to members of
the industry who also receive information on industry activity,
revenues, capacity and tourism consumption on specific products
and services.
Canadians across the country and members in the House may be
asking themselves the question as to why the CTC should be turned
into a crown corporation.
I point out to the member, and rightly so because he asked the
question, that the commission's work is so closely tied into the
private sector that it is necessary for it to be able to operate
in a more businesslike way, I emphasize, and that it have the
administrative flexibility to function more effectively as a
partner.
Its unique public-private collaboration has delivered valuable
tourism marketing and information sharing initiatives that have
helped rejuvenate the tourism sector and indeed Canada's appeal
as a tourism destination.
To respond more adequately to the needs of its private sector
partners, the commission now needs the independence of an
organization that can operate at arm's length from the
government.
Its new structure as a crown corporation will improve the
Canadian Tourism Commission's ability to work with the provinces
and the tourism ministry and allow it to attract professional
staff from the industry.
While an arm's length relationship would be created, members of
the House should understand that oversight and the ultimate
accountability will rest with the government, as it does with any
crown corporation.
Under the bill, the Minister of Industry would have the power of
direction and would retain policy responsibility for tourism.
Also, the minister would be able to exercise an appropriate
degree of influence over the corporation through the annual
appropriations process.
In this context, the bill attempts to balance two factors. On
the one hand, the agency needs to be, and seen to be, at arm's
length from the government. On the other hand, the government's
right to insist on meaningful reporting and accountability for
the current expenditure of more than $65 million in federal
appropriation.
Members should be aware that the proposed legislation ensures,
and I emphasize ensures, that the mandate of the new corporation
continues to be explicitly focused on research and marketing. The
bill also makes it very clear that the corporation would have no
power to engage in any tourism development activities.
1750
The prohibition on getting involved in tourism development
activities ensures that the corporation does not overstep the
jurisdiction of its provincial and territorial government
partners.
This prohibition also keeps in the public sector, where it
properly belongs, the use of government authority for such things
as investment incentives and the managing of infrastructure
projects.
The commission's overall operations will continue to be funded
through a mix of federal appropriations and spending by other
partners. The commission will explore revenue generating
opportunities and will receive increased funds year after year
from its partners.
As I mentioned earlier, the government currently provides $65
million in appropriations. Contributions from its partners in
dollars and services were valued at $85 million in 1998-99. This
is another illustration of the success of the commission because
the government's original goal over the medium term was to have
the commission partners contribute $50 million per year to
sustain a joint marketing budget of approximately $100 million.
I want the House to know that the bill is a result of extensive
consultation with all the participants, and that includes the
staff and unions. With the changeover to crown corporation
status, the employees would come under the Canada Labour Code and
the corporation would administer its own pension plan.
All of the appropriate measures will be taken to to ensure the
transfer the cumulative public service pension contributions by
employees who will not be affected negatively in their transfer
to the crown corporation.
I also want to assure hon. members that the corporation will be
subject to the usual federal statutes such as the Official
Languages Act, the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
I should point out that although we are proposing the creation
of a new crown corporation, we are not creating a new and large
bureaucracy. In fact, the current staff complement of
approximately 140 would not change.
Let me take this opportunity to point out the professional and
highly dedicated staff that have contributed so significantly to
the success of the work of the commission over the last five
years.
Since the commission was established, Canada has steadily moved
up in the global rankings as a tourism destination, and now ranks
eight. The benefits of this increased number of visitors have
affected every region of our country, each of which has
experienced significant revenue growth over the last five years.
In Canada, tourism is definitely considered big business
nowadays. It injected more than $47 billion into the economy last
year. That is up 7% from 1997.
The industry is also a great job generator. From 1994 to 1998,
direct employment in this industry has grown faster than the
national average. Some 44,000 direct jobs have been created and
the employment of more than 500,000 persons is linked to this
specific sector. Forecasts for job growth in this sector are very
impressive. Between 120,000 and 130,000 new jobs are expected as
a result of tourism between now and the year 2005.
The Canadian Tourism Commission is a success story in every
respect. Its current evolution to a crown corporation will
strengthen it. If the international tourism industry continues
to grow at current rates, Canada's goal to grow with it is very
realistic.
Tourism is an industry on the move, both in Canada and around
the world. More people than ever before are travelling both
domestically and abroad, from affluent baby boomers in North
America and Europe to the growing middle classes in developing
regions like southeast Asia and Latin America, are spending more
money on leisure activities.
In fact, tourism is one of the world's fastest growing
industries, accounting for $444 billion U.S. internationally in
annual revenues. This figure is expected to grow at an annual
rate of 7% over the next five years.
If Canada achieves just a 1% increase in the share of
international arrivals, it would mean: 6 million more visitors
to Canada; $5 billion more in revenues; and 158,000 new jobs.
1755
Our experience with the commission provides proof that by
striking the right public and private balance, government and
industry can work together to improve the performance of a sector
of our economy. The legislation will allow the commission to
really take the reins and move forward with its leadership in
Canada's tourism sector.
As members can see, we have a winner on our hands. The bill
before us is designed to capitalize on this success and ensure an
even greater degree of success of the Canadian Tourism Commission
over the long term.
I therefore urge all members of the House to give their
enthusiastic support to the legislation and help make Canada a
destination of first choice for all travellers. Let us make
Canada not only the place to be but the place to visit.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am happy today to debate Bill C-5, a bill that was first
introduced in the last session. It is entitled an act to
establish the Canadian Tourism Commission. If the bill passes it
will take the existing Canadian Tourism Commission, which is part
of Industry Canada at the moment, and give it crown corporation
status.
The question that arises immediately, and I think the
parliamentary secretary raised it as well, is whether a crown
corporation is necessary for the Canadian Tourism Commission. I
will attempt to make the case in my speech that it is not
necessary and is more probably a case of empire building than
real need.
The first question we have to ask is where is this real need
coming from. Who is expressing it? The Canadian Tourism
Commission was created in 1995 to promote Canadian tourism. It
establishes partnerships with the private sector, the provinces
and the federal tourism partners. It uses the money it receives
from the various sectors to do research and to market Canada as a
travel destination.
The CTC receives an appropriation of approximately $65 million
annually. Of that amount, $12 million goes to salaries and
overhead and approximately $52 million goes to provide promotion
and product development. The industry matches the amount, so
that a total of $140 million is spent annually. The CTC has 62
employees in Ottawa.
The CTC has a 26 member decision making board of directors which
functions as a special operating agency in delivering the tourism
mandate of the federal government. The board of directors is
comprised mainly of private sector companies with direct interest
in establishing Canada as a preferred tourism destination. My
understanding is that the two big proponents of this are the
airline industry and the Hotel Association of Canada.
When I received a briefing on the bill from the CTC, I was told
the commission wants to become a crown corporation because it
feels constrained and cannot operate effectively within the
government. It says that it cannot move quickly enough. The
parliamentary secretary referred to the fact that because it is
operating in a private sector environment maybe it needs to
become a crown corporation. I would suggest, if that is the
case, that maybe it should just be in the private sector.
My experience with crown corporations since coming here in 1993
is that they can get away with a lot, but I did not realize, and
still do not realize, that they can actually move more quickly. I
do not think that is the case. I think they are more
bureaucratic.
The Reform Party has a problem with crown corporations in
general. We believe that the ownership and control of
corporations should be placed in the sector that can perform the
task most cost effectively, with the greatest accountability to
the owners and the least likelihood of incurring public debt. We
believe there is overwhelming evidence that this would be the
private sector in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, we
believe that many of them should be either privatized or go back
to the departments which spawned them originally. This
particular one wants to spawn out of the Department of Industry
and become a crown corporation.
We have seen the privatization of a number of crown corporations
in the past, including CN Rail, Air Canada, Petro-Canada and many
others. Quite frankly, I do not think that the public has
noticed that there is any huge problem with those privatizations.
CN Rail used to lose about $2 billion or $3 billion a year on
average and was a drain on the public treasury. A crown
corporation that contributed to the national debt of some $575
billion that we still have is now doing very well in the private
sector.
We hear about the merging of two airlines, and they are also
making money. PetroCan, no longer constrained by being an agency
of government, is also doing a lot of work and doing well at the
oil field in Hibernia.
1800
There is no good reason to have crown corporations. They should
be converted to private sector institutions or left with the
department they are currently in so we would have better
accountability to parliament.
We will be opposing this bill. We feel there is no good reason
to give the Canadian Tourism Commission crown corporation status.
Recently the Department of Industry issued a paper which
supports the rapid divestiture of crown assets. This makes me
wonder why the department is sponsoring this bill in the first
place. It seems to be in direct contradiction to the way the
Department of Industry is going.
I refer listeners to a paper entitled “Canada in the 21st
Century—Institutions and Growth—Framework Policy as a Tool of
Competitive Advantage for Canada” by Ronald Daniels of the
University of Toronto. The author argues that a key component of
competitive policy and institutional environment is the
minimization of state ownership in a productive sector of the
economy. Is that not a direct contradiction to what the
government wants to do with this tourism agency by turning it
into a crown corporation?
In comparison to other OECD countries, Canada has had
historically high levels of state ownership. I know this goes
back a few years, but I think it is still very relevant. In 1986
the Economic Council of Canada reported that government-owned and
controlled companies accounted for 26% of the net fixed assets of
all Canadian corporations in 1983. Yet, these firms accounted
for less than 5% of the total employment of the country. That
does not say very much for the employment creation capabilities
of government-owned companies.
Crown corporations are often unaccountable. My experience since
1993, being the critic for our party for international trade and
having to deal with the Export Development Corporation, for
example, has not been good. I would suggest they have been
basically bad experiences. I feel that accountability is simply
not there.
Whenever we try to get information about how taxpayers' money is
being spent we get the runaround. It is a vicious circle. If we
ask the minister, he says that the entity is at arm's length from
him. He is not responsible. If we try to go to the crown
corporation, it will plead that the confidentiality of its
private or commercial stakeholders will be compromised if
specific monetary information is released. Getting information
from crown corporations ends up being an exercise in futility. I
suggest this would be no different. There is no reason to
believe it would be different.
As a division within Industry Canada, the CTC is accountable
directly to the minister and the minister is accountable to
parliament. That is the way it should be. Either that or the
commission should be privatized. It should not become a crown
corporation.
I also suspect that the cost of running the CTC as a crown
corporation is going to be higher than it is now. The briefing I
received suggested that moving the operation to Toronto is a
possibility. I can just picture it. Instead of taking up a
floor in the C.D. Howe Building at Industry Canada, which is
across the street, the commission will need some prominent
downtown real estate in Toronto at top dollar.
Salaries will have to go up. To buy a house in Toronto costs
twice as much as anywhere else, and then there is the matter of
moving and relocating costs for 62 people. It is empire building
and it certainly will not be cheap. I am sure the emotional cost
to all families involved will also be a problem.
I suggest that empire building is what tends to happen within
crown corporations. In my view and in the view of our party we
should be getting rid of the few crown corporations that are left
rather than adding more.
Tourism is a very important industry. Canada is a spectacular
tourist destination and the Reform Party believes that we should
promote Canada as a travel destination. Tourism is a big
industry for Canada.
A trip through Jasper or Banff national parks in my home
province of Alberta in the summertime, or anytime for that
matter, is an experience in itself.
1805
They are very busy areas. It is hard to get hotel rooms.
People from all over the country want to come to visit the
majesty that is ours.
In fact Canada is the 12th largest tourist destination. Last
year tourism generated jobs at twice the pace of most Canadian
businesses. It also generated $44 billion in revenue for the
Canadian economy.
A press release issued by the CTC states that international
travel numbers for the first three months of 1999 indicate that
this year may well be another record-breaking year for the
Canadian tourism industry. Compared with the same period in
1998, international tourists have made 11% more trips to Canada
of more than one night's stay.
I suggest that the low Canadian dollar is probably responsible
for a big part of that, but we need all the help we can get to
balance the service sector because a lot of Canadians also travel
outside Canada, especially in the winter months when the
snowbirds head to Florida and Arizona. However, I am happy to
report that there are a lot of tourists coming to Canada, for
whatever reason.
It is clear that Canada needs tourism and that we should market
our wonderful country abroad, but it is not clear that we need a
crown corporation to carry out that activity. Therefore, my
colleagues and I in the Reform Party will be voting against this
bill. We will be voting for Canada as a tourist destination. We
see no compelling need for a crown corporation.
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wish to confirm that tomorrow will be the fifth appointed day
for the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the
Throne.
* * *
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, an
act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, it is now my turn to speak to Bill C-5. I do not think
I will have time to finish before members are called in for the
vote, but I would like to say that the Bloc Quebecois, for
different reasons from those of the Reform Party—and I think the
Reform Party will probably vote against this bill unless things
change during consideration in committee—will vote against this
bill. I will try to explain our reasons for opposing it.
Before explaining our position, I would like to draw a
comparison with other bills now before the House—the first one
that comes to mind is the one on the airline industry.
Often the government decides to indicate a direction without
even legislating. In other cases, as we saw this morning, the
House is not consulted until many years later, sometimes after
an international treaty had been signed.
So that people are very clear, in this case, the Canadian
Tourism Commission—because there is one—was established in 1995,
and the purpose of this bill is to consolidate, as it were,
something that already exists, something that was established by
ministerial order a few years back.
It is an odd way of going about things to ask us to pass
legislation after a number of things have already been done with
respect to tourism. The question that comes to mind is this:
why on earth use a bill now to create this crown corporation in
order to make official what already exists?
If we look at the bill and examine the difference between the
mandate the government wants to give the future Canadian Tourism
Commission and the mandate of the former Canadian Tourism
Commission, it becomes clear that this is a visibility
operation. It is an opportunity for the government to promote
Canadian unity by talking about Canadian unity and the integrity
of Canada.
1810
The mission of the previous commission was clear. It was short,
but it was clear. The mission statement read “Canada's tourism
industry will deliver world-class cultural and leisure
experiences year-round, while preserving and sharing Canada's
clean, safe and natural environments. The industry will be
guided by the values of respect, integrity and empathy”.
There was also mention of promoting the growth and profitability
of the Canadian tourist industry. That makes sense, since we
are talking about promoting tourism.
What is the mission of the new commission? The bill says it
all. It reads:
Whereas the Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and
cultural identify and integrity of Canada;
Terrific. There is a huge difference. There is no more talk of
promoting tourism or organizing activities. There is nothing of
the sort. There is no talk of profitability either.
A little further along, it reads:
Whereas it is desirable to strengthen Canada's commitment to
Canadian tourism by establishing a Tourism Commission that would
work with the governments of the provinces and the territories
and the Canadian tourism industry to promote the interests of
that industry and to market Canada as a desirable tourist
destination—
We will recall the first paragraph, which provides:
Whereas the Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and
cultural identity and integrity of Canada;
The government is going to use tourism for political ends, to
make political propaganda. That is the intent of this bill. It
is consistent with a certain view. We can see the reactions of
the Liberal members opposite. They are beginning to get it.
My Reform colleague spoke a bit about this government's
approach. It creates government agencies to control the
information it intends to give us elected representatives. We
have a mandate here in the House to question the Minister of
Industry, who will be responsible for this commission.
We can guess in advance what the answer will be. The minister
will say “This commission must report to me. Unfortunately,
before we can answer your question, you must wait for the end of
the fiscal year, in a few months, after the commission has
tabled its annual report. I encourage you to contact the
commission directly. Perhaps it will supply you with some
answers”.
We are familiar with this kind of commission. As soon as
economic activity is involved, the answer is “Given the
commercial aspect, it may be our duty not to disclose all the
findings of marketing and feasibility studies and so on”.
Quite naturally, this commission will hide behind the secrecy
relating to commercial practices. We are familiar with that.
It has been going on as long as we have had this government, and
the Department of Industry specializes in it.
There are grounds for concern. We are not always in agreement
with the Reformers, even if we share the same side of the House.
We are in agreement with them on this, however. We are
concerned about this, and rightly so.
The are other examples. The millennium scholarship foundation
is not over with yet. When the government cannot do what it
wants directly, when it wants to interfere in provincial
jurisdictions, then it sets up an agency, a foundation, to try
and give scholarships directly to students. For what purpose?
To hand out nice cheques with a maple leaf on them, to mark the
millennium. We must never forget that maple leaf. People need
to know that the money came from the federal government. That
is one of the goals: visibility, seeking a high profile.
The government also created the society for health research and
innovation.
Same thing again. Health is a provincial jurisdiction. Because
it cannot interfere too directly, the federal government does so
through a foundation.
1815
The universities, which normally come under provincial
jurisdiction, are invited to apply for subsidies. Once again,
the government is doing indirectly what it cannot do directly.
More and more, it is interfering in provincial jurisdictions.
Why? Because the government is looking for visibility.
The Minister of Finance has confirmed that he has even more
money than he thought he would. Money is flowing in from
everywhere and has to be distributed. If only this money could
be returned to the provinces through transfer payments. This is
how it could be done.
No; the government continues to cut, or maintain cuts—it is all
in the wording and is developing new programs. This bill is
more of the same.
While the government is trying to replace the old commission
with a new one, with a stronger mandate for purposes of
visibility and political propaganda, what is it doing? It is
taking back money earmarked—I am not inventing this, it is to be
found in the budget—for a subsidiary tourism agreement with the
Government of Quebec. The amount involved is $700,000. This
year, not a red cent is earmarked for that agreement; everything
has been cut. Why? Beacause the Minister of Industry, through
the minister responsible for economic development for the Quebec
regions, told the House that the federal government had its own
strategy.
Now we can understand better why it does not want to reach an
agreement with the Government of Quebec on tourism.
It wants to keep the money and spend it itself. Why? To
improve its visibility. The same old story.
And are we sure that the money the new Canadian Tourism
Commission might distribute will be consistent with the
strategic plans approved by regional stakeholders in Quebec, for
example by regional development councils, by local development
councils, by regional tourism associations? No.
The member for Jonquière was talking about this very issue; it
is the same in her riding. The member for Louis-Hébert has run
into the same problem. The dreadful to-do over the aquarium at
the Charlesbourg zoo is common knowledge. We are told that they
cannot get involved in that. Yet this is a priority clearly
expressed by the people in that region.
So the question is “Is the aquarium in Quebec City really
international?”. Well, I have seen international projects, and
I will give an example of one.
I have nothing against the people in Gatineau, who have a fine
hot air balloon festival, but an argument for the federal
government's giving more in the area of tourism is an
opportunity to fly the federal balloon. And it is not far, just
in Gatineau. They cross the Ottawa river and reach Ottawa. So
it goes beyond Quebec's jurisdictions and therefore money can go
to it because the Canadian maple leaf can be seen floating in
the air, and suddenly the thing becomes an international event.
You think I am joking? This is very serious. In the activity
report of the former Canadian tourism commission, in an effort
to get more federal government money, there was a place where
they reported having stylized the fine federal maple leaf and
that it had been flown as many times as possible and that, with
a little more money, it could be flown even more.
Visibility is what this is about. The government is seeking
visibility. But there are other aspects of this bill that
concern us. It talks of 26 directors. That is quite a lot of
people.
When we look at the representation decided upon for the
provinces, out of the seven board members, there is only one
representing Quebec. For the private sector, the same
distribution: seven people, just one for Quebec.
1820
Finally, in the sector not associated with the government or
designated by the minister, still only one person. Out of 26,
three will be officially designated by Quebec stakeholders or by
the Government of Quebec.
This is pretty far away from the concept of two founding
peoples. Granted, in 1867, Quebec accounted for about 50% of
the Canadian population, and now only about 24%.
Normally, we ought to expect to have about a 25% representation
still. And twenty-six divided by four is at least six, if we drop
the decimals. But we are down to three, and even these three
are not a certainty, because at least one of the three is to be
appointed directly by the minister. It is highly unlikely that
person would be a friend of the Quebec sovereignist regime.
We cannot be opposed to the idea of a Canadian Tourism
Commission. What is tourism? I have looked in various
dictionaries, and it boils down to an activity with an economic,
a commercial, tinge. In the Constitution—which I look at far
more often than the little catechism book my mother left to me—it
is stated that all commercial activity is a provincial
jurisdiction.
I can understand that sometimes a commercial activity can be
interprovincial.
I can understand outside promotion. But there are organizations
that already do that very well. There is a commission that
spends a great deal of money on that.
Once again—and I will conclude on this because time is passing
and I know people want to vote, because Tuesday is voting day—the
fundamental goal of this government in this bill is, yet again,
to seek out visibility.
On the subject of identity, what government is in a better
position to promote Quebec's cultural tourist events, such as
the festivals in Montreal, the Festival de Jazz, the Festival de
l'humour, the Festival d'été de Québec—
An hon. member: The Festival mondial de la culture.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: The Festival mondial de la culture and so
forth.
Which government is in a better position to support these
activities?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: My colleagues are giving me a number of
examples, clearly the festivals are expanding. In Quebec, we
want to promote our cultural identity through tourism.
Education and culture are important for Quebec. Why not let
Quebec try its luck in this regard? Instead, as I said earlier,
the federal government cuts funds to the Government of Quebec in
subsidiary agreements, and creates a new agency.
The minister looks very relaxed. He is reading documents,
perhaps his paper. He will wash his hands of it when a member
from Quebec puts questions to him, saying “You know, it is the
commission we created”.
We will watch this closely, obviously, on the Standing Committee
on Industry, which I sit on.
We have many questions: How will it operate? Who will really
make appointments? Will there be consultation with the
provinces, and what form will it take, because this is a very
important sector, representing $44 billion in economic activity?
Ms. Hélène Alarie: We are not talking peanuts.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: We are not talking peanuts, as the member for
Louis-Hébert has pointed out. She is right.
The Progressive Conservative member for Chicoutimi surely agrees
with me that tourism is very important for Quebec, including in
his region.
It is so important that we want to run it our way. But it is
not too clear whether Quebec will really have a say, because its
participation will be reduced to a minimum.
Obviously, we are going to try to negotiate improvements.
1825
That is all I had to say today. I will hold a longer speech for
when we return after committee study, unless there is a miracle
and the government occasionally dares to accept amendments moved
by the opposition parties, whether the Bloc Quebecois, the
Progressive Conservative Party or the Reform Party, to improve
this bill. But this government has a lot of trouble with
this members need only remember the case of shipbuilding, when it
did not let even one comma be changed. The minister said he
could not do it.
It is very difficult to get the government to change its mind,
even with 160,000 postcards asking it to do something to help
the shipbuilding sector. This government is convinced that it
must always be right about everything, on every occasion and in
every setting, and especially in this parliament. Nevertheless,
we will continue to remain optimistic and try to get the
government to change its mind, at least on the issue of tourism,
for the good of this important economic sector.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, as tourism spokesperson for the the New Democratic
Party I am very pleased to rise in the House this evening to
speak to Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism
Commission. I note that we may have only four or five minutes
before I can resume my debate tomorrow.
I will start off by talking to members present and to the folks
watching at home about how important tourism is to our country
and how necessary it is for Canadians to understand that this is
an industry which employees literally tens of thousands of
individuals and families.
The Canadian Tourism Commission was actually founded in 1992
after an extensive consultation with the tourism industry.
However, because it was desirable at the time to get it up and
running quickly, both government and industry agreed that the
Canadian Tourism Commission should be created as a special
operational agency rather than a crown corporation. A special
operational agency is bureaucratise for all the responsibility
but none of the authority.
The Canadian Tourism Commission, the CTC, was responsible for
running the programs, but the deputy minister of tourism was
responsible for the administration. Basically marketing
operations had to sit around for months and go through the
federal bureaucratic sign-off process of 13 signatures, or
thereabouts, by which time circumstances had almost always
changed.
We could just see the potential for problems because government
contract issuance processes are painfully slow for a fast moving
industry like tourism, like waiting a year to improve an
advertising contract for an Asian-Pacific campaign and meanwhile
the Asian economies go into the tank. Then we have to look for
new sources of visitors, but it takes another year to approve the
marketing plan for that.
It is a very bureaucratic system. I not suggesting it was a
failure, but it was a very slow process. When someone is in
business as I have been in business, decisions have to be made on
a moment's notice after looking at all the inputs that are very
necessary.
I notice that it is almost 6.30 p.m. and almost time to call the
vote. With your permission I will resume the debate at a later
time.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member will
have approximately 18 minutes when we resume debate.
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—AIR CANADA
The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion
and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6.30 p.m.,
pursuant to order made on Thursday, October 28, 1999, the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division
on the amendment relating to the business of supply.
Call in the members.
1900
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Marchand
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 66
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Mark
| Marleau
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 167
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Copps
|
Marceau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: Order, please.
May I gently remind members that our practices in the House of
Commons are such that when the Speaker has begun to read whatever
the motion is that day, if members are not past the curtains and
in their seats, they should not be voting. Similarly, if a
member has voted, it is always best to remain in his or her seat
until the vote is taken because it causes a little of confusion.
I would appreciate it if we could do that.
I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1910
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Harvey
| Jennings
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Marchand
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Morrison
| Patry
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 72
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 165
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Copps
|
Marceau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATURAL DISASTERS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam
Speaker, on September 21 of this year a terrible earthquake
struck the island of Taiwan. That earthquake left more than
10,000 people either killed or injured and over 100,000 people
homeless.
Immediately following the earthquake many countries sent rescue
teams to assist in the process of search and rescue. Those
countries included Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Japan, Singapore,
Israel and many others. Sadly, Canada was not one of those
countries that responded with a search and rescue team.
We actually have an outstanding search and rescue team in
Canada. It is based in Vancouver, the Vancouver Urban Search and
Rescue Team. The Government of Canada did not see fit to send
that team to Taiwan to assist in the rescue process.
In addition, the Government of China interfered in an outrageous
way with the provision of humanitarian aid to the people of
Taiwan at this very difficult time. It interfered in a number of
ways.
It rejected the request of the Russian rescue team to enter
Chinese airspace, which resulted in a lengthy delay of some eight
to twelve hours. It insisted that all relief had to be
channelled through the International Red Cross of China. Finally,
in a very insulting way, the Government of China thanked the
world community on behalf of Taiwan for the very generous
response that many countries had made. This was an unacceptable
insult to the people of Taiwan and indeed to the Government of
Taiwan.
1915
Not only the Taiwanese Canadian community but many others were
outraged at the failure of our government to respond. The
Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society, for example, sent a very
strongly worded letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs stating
on behalf of the society its great disappointment and anger at
the failure of the Canadian government to put the value of human
lives and dignity above relations with the Government of China,
particularly trade relations.
I want to note as well that when I raised this question in the
House of Commons on October 18 the Minister for International
Co-operation stated that aid to Taiwan was not affected at all by
China. That statement is totally false. In fact, as I have
demonstrated already, China did blatantly interfere.
I am calling today on the Government of Canada to acknowledge
that our search and rescue team should have been sent at that
time to ensure this mistake is never repeated, to call on the
Chinese government to stop its interference in circumstances such
as this, and to review more generally our policy with respect to
Taiwan's participation internationally.
Taiwan has applied to join the World Health Organization and yet
I have received a letter from our Minister of Foreign Affairs
stating that only if China agrees, only if Beijing agrees, would
Canada be prepared to support Taiwan's involvement in the World
Health Organization.
My colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre and my colleagues
generally from the New Democratic caucus have called on the
Government of Canada to facilitate Taiwan's participation in the
World Health Organization. We support full participation, but at
the very least Taiwan should be permitted to participate as
observers initially in that organization.
I urge the government to show leadership to recognize Taiwan
within the World Health Organization, to ensure that the search
and rescue team of Canada is dispatched in the future and finally
to show far more leadership in recognizing—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International
Co-operation.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Canada has a
long tradition of responding to humanitarian emergencies
resulting from natural disasters throughout the world.
[English]
This is done, depending on the nature of the disaster, through a
variety of channels. These include financial assistance,
emergency food aid, relief supplies and the deployment of
disaster response teams from the Department of National Defence.
For example, CIDA today approved $150,000 for shelter materials,
emergency medical supplies and basic supplies for the victims of
the cyclone in Orissa, India.
Now that the capacity for search and rescue is being developed
within Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency is
interested in exploring the notion that Canada further develop
its international search and rescue capability as another way we
can respond to humanitarian disasters.
On October 1, CIDA officials discussed the feasibility of future
international deployments of the Vancouver search and rescue team
with members of the team, the city of Vancouver and the
Government of British Columbia.
[Translation]
The city of Vancouver indicated its intention to put together a
proposal. The Government of British Columbia undertook to
prepare a memorandum of understanding. We hope to receive these
documents shortly.
In addition, as part of these efforts, the Government of British
Columbia indicated that it would prepare, in co-operation with
CIDA, Emergency Preparedness Canada, and the United Nations, a
plan for the purpose of holding a simulation exercise to assess
the Vancouver team.
1920
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
taking part in the debate this evening because of the conflicting
signals that are being dispatched across the way by government
officials, ministers, and the Prime Minister surrounding the
agricultural income disaster assistance plan.
One movie I enjoyed was called Cool Hand Luke. There is a
great line in that movie when the warden says to Paul Newman:
“What we have here is a failure to communicate”. Truer words
were never spoken when it comes to this program. I would like to
give a few examples to support that.
When the minister of agriculture was in the province of
Saskatchewan at Prince Albert last July, he refused to meet in
any meaningful way with the farmers of Saskatchewan who had very
grave concerns about the AIDA program. When the Prime Minister
was asked by my leader to go out and inspect the flooded regions
of Saskatchewan and Manitoba last July, he declined that
invitation. So far as I know he has never gone there or flown
over it to inspect it.
When the premiers and the farm lobby from Saskatchewan and
Manitoba came last week to meet with officials in Ottawa, they
were what can only be politely described as sandbagged by
government officials. All of a sudden there were new numbers.
They would not release the numbers.
Those numbers have been released as of today. For the record,
it says that Saskatchewan remains significantly below the
previous five year average and is expected to remain
significantly below the previous five year average in the year
2000. Nevertheless that was reason enough to say that they could
not give them any more money at this point because the numbers
did not jibe.
Today I had an opportunity to meet with alfalfa dehydrators from
Alberta and Saskatchewan. These folks are diversifying. They
are doing value added, primarily in the two western prairie
provinces. They are doing exactly what the government wanted
producers to do, to diversify, to do value added and to have more
folks working in that part of the world, rural development.
International prices on alfalfa have dropped far below their
cost of production. The Europeans are subsidizing to such an
extent that our folks cannot compete. Once again there is no
additional money for an industry that is not yet mature but has
been growing and has had a strong track record. We simply cannot
compete with European subsidies. It is another example of a
failure.
The AIDA deadline was extended yesterday for farmers in four
provinces, including Manitoba and Saskatchewan, who had
significantly expanded their operations. My office had a call
this morning from a farm family who did not even know there was a
program under AIDA for significant expansion. We were running
around frantically yesterday because the deadline was November 1,
only to find out after they got the forms in the mail that it has
now been extended to December 31. They were running around
literally like chickens with their heads cut off.
There are half a dozen examples of glaring failures to
communicate effectively with the western Canadian agriculture
sector. My point is that unless this is rectified immediately it
will result in a very large problem in western Canada.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like
to confine my discussion tonight to the question that was asked
on October 19. I know a lot of things have happened since then
to which the member for Palliser has alluded.
We are also concerned. I know he is very concerned about
farmers in his home province of Saskatchewan. That concern is
shared by the government. The government understands that we
need a national approach. We are looking to all shareholders to
work together to decide on the best course of action.
The Government of Canada and the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food want to work in partnership with all provincial
governments to address the income situation facing farmers in
Canada.
The minister of agriculture continues to work with concerned
farmer organizations and is listening to their advice on program
design issues for existing programs as well as for the long term
direction of safety nets.
1925
The government has programs in place that have helped and
continue to help farmers across Canada and particularly those on
the prairies. The NISA and AIDA programs put money in the hands
of farmers who are in need. For example, in Saskatchewan 55,900
producers have about $1.1 billion in their NISA accounts. To
date, over 12,300 producers in Saskatchewan have withdrawn $113
million from NISA this year. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
estimates that AIDA will provide approximately $170 million in
Saskatchewan for the first year of the program. Across Canada we
have been providing this kind of support.
Members can see that when the NISA withdrawals are combined with
the AIDA payments, the government is helping farmers through
these difficult times.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.26 p.m.)