36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 27
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 24, 1999
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| DIABETES
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| TOBACCO
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| CANADIAN RHYTHMIC GYMNASTICS TEAM
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| AIDS AWARENESS
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1405
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| MISSISSAUGA CENTRE
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Mr. John Godfrey |
| ACCUEIL BONNEAU CHOIR
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| TVONTARIO'S FRENCH LANGUAGE NETWORK
|
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
1410
| NISGA'A AGREEMENT
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| THE LATE JEANNINE SÉGUIN
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1415
| HOCKEY
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1435
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1445
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1450
| CANADA SOCIAL TRANSFER
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| GUN REGISTRATION
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1455
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1500
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| The Speaker |
1505
| Mr. Randy White |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Question Period
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1510
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1515
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Human Resources Development
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| 1998-99 ANNUAL REPORT ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Joe Comuzzi |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion for concurrence
|
1520
| Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Chemical Pesticides
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| Agricultural Income Disaster Assistance Program
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Shoreline Erosion
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| St. John's Harbour
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1525
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| National Defence
|
| Mr. David Price |
| The Speaker |
| Child Poverty
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1530
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Bill C-8. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 7, 12, 13, 26 to 29, 37, 40 to 48, 53,
55, 56, 59, and 60
|
1535
1540
1545
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1550
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1555
1600
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1605
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1610
1615
| Mr. David Chatters |
1620
1625
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1630
1635
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1640
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1645
1650
1655
| Mr. John Duncan |
1700
1705
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1710
1715
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1720
1725
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
| Bill C-236. Second reading
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1730
1735
1740
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1745
1750
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1755
1800
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1805
| Mr. John Duncan |
1810
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1815
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1820
1825
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 27
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 24, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Laval
West.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
DIABETES
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November is diabetes month in Canada and last Thursday was
diabetes day on Parliament Hill. On this day representatives of
the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation met with members of parliament
to inform them of the facts surrounding diabetes.
It was alarming to learn of the seriousness of the disease and I
feel it is imperative that we educate ourselves and the public on
the impact this debilitating disease has on our society.
Diabetes is a chronic, genetically determined disease that
affects every organ system in the body. The disease affects over
two million Canadians. It is diagnosed in an estimated 60,000
Canadians every year and it is the fastest growing preventable
disease in Canada.
Recognizing the critical impact of diabetes the government
recently announced a five year $115 million Canadian diabetes
strategy to help prevent and control the disease.
Representatives of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation have asked
that members of parliament join them in support of finding a cure
by committing to stay informed and informing others of the
devastating health, social and economic impacts of diabetes.
I pledge my support to help in this major public health issue
and encourage others to do the same.
* * *
TOBACCO
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
half of the respondents to my Surrey Central survey said they
were not satisfied with the federal government's efforts to
prevent Canadian children and youth from smoking.
While speaking to many students at schools I have seen 12 and 13
year olds smoking.
Our youth have been targeted by tobacco companies and still this
government is not doing enough to prevent smoking.
Canadians do not trust the Liberal government to deal with
previously secret information from tobacco companies about
efforts to sell tobacco and get Canadians hooked. The health
minister is using smoke and mirrors by hiring the tobacco
insider. Canadians are not fooled for a minute.
Canadian tobacco prices are below those of the United States and
that causes cigarette smuggling. But Canadians know that this
government refuses to combat cigarette smuggling.
The Liberals are not serious about preventing 45,000 deaths a
year caused by smoking.
The Liberals talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk.
* * *
CANADIAN RHYTHMIC GYMNASTICS TEAM
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, imagine five young athletes spending many
hours in training sessions and competitions, working to represent
our country at the Olympics, only to have their dreams dashed by
what one commentator described as dirty politics.
I am referring to the five young women from the Winnipeg based
Canadian Rhythmic Gymnastics Team.
The team was recently denied a well earned Olympic berth by the
International Gymnastics Federation. The position was awarded to
Brazil, despite the fact that the Canadian team finished fourth
at the Four Continents Competition in June. Brazil finished
sixth. Canada won the bronze at this summer's Pan Am Games in
Winnipeg and placed 13th at last month's World Championships,
while Brazil finished a distant 20th.
The Canadian Rhythmic Gymnastics Association has launched an
appeal of this unfair decision. I urge the federal government to
throw its full weight behind that appeal.
* * *
AIDS AWARENESS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the week of November 22 to 29 is National AIDS Awareness Week in
Canada. By the end of 1997 Health Canada had reported a total of
15,528 AIDS cases since the beginning of the epidemic.
Approximately 70% of those cases have ended in death. Whether by
direct or indirect contact, many Canadians have either been
affected by the disease or are close to someone who has. It is a
reality that far too many people have to deal with.
I think it is important, especially during this week, to
emphasize the risks and dangers of this horrible disease. Only
through public education and awareness can we even attempt to
solve this problem.
In recent years the level of reported cases has dropped, but
there is still much work to do and ground to cover.
1405
Research is being done to find a cure and better preventive
measures, but it continues to be a deadly disease. We must and
we will defeat this terrible disease.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
Minister of Education made a priceless comment yesterday: that
the millennium scholarship system was a two-tier system. Really
now. The students themselves are criticizing the Government of
Quebec for the way it has been handling this matter in recent
months. They are demanding a solution that will be in their
best interest.
The PQ government, finding itself backed into a corner, is
trying to pass the buck back to the Canadian government, but the
students' response is to tell it to stop digging in its heels
needlessly. The Quebec Minister of Education must take this
matter seriously, and quit trying to score political points at
the expense of the students of Quebec.
As well, the Government of Quebec must make its true intentions
clear on the use to which it will be putting the money we will
be paying to Quebecers in the years to come.
* * *
[English]
MISSISSAUGA CENTRE
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what a difference a few years and a
promotion make. Not too long ago the hon. member for Mississauga
Centre was portraying herself as a great defender of free speech.
No one in this place was about to muzzle her. No, siree, Bob.
Now she aims her broadsides at her own colleagues, members of
the so-called Italian caucus, MPs she believes are guilty of
treason against the government for daring to do their job,
Liberal backbenchers who from time to time slip into committees
actually intent on asking ministers a tough question.
Shame on the hon. member for Mississauga Centre for denigrating
fellow MPs by attacking those who speak for their constituents
and shame on this government for once again making it clear that
loyalty to cabinet ministers is far more important than MPs
accurately representing their own constituents.
* * *
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today we recognize the 10th anniversary of the all-party
resolution to work toward the elimination of child poverty by the
year 2000. Today is no day for celebration.
As Campaign 2000 noted in a report made public today—and I
recognize the presence of some of the members of Campaign 2000 in
the gallery this afternoon—as a country we have collectively
failed to reduce child poverty rates over the last decade.
Indeed the number of poor children in Canada has increased.
But nor should today be a day of mourning or condemnation. As
the recent Speech from the Throne indicated, children have become
the top priority of this government. Let today rather be a day
of reflection and rededication; reflection on our failure
certainly, but also a recommitment to our national mission of
improving the lives of all of our children.
* * *
[Translation]
ACCUEIL BONNEAU CHOIR
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this tenth
anniversary of the motion voted on in this House concerning the
elimination of poverty among the children of Quebec and of
Canada, we thank the Accueil Bonneau choir for speaking, or
rather singing, on behalf of all children who have been hurt by
poverty.
The Accueil Bonneau choir is the vibrant expression of twenty or
so people who have known hunger and marginality and have
regained their dignity and self-respect.
Since its modest beginnings in 1996, singing in the Montreal
metro, the choir has given more than 750 concerts. It have just
released their fourth record, has helped set up five choirs of
homeless persons, and has been invited to sing for the United
Nations.
Thank you, Pierre, Nicolas, Carlos, Ben, Jean-Louis, Claude,
Michel, Rénald, Enrico, André, Jocelyn, Léo, André, Alberto,
Léon, Roby, Michel and Pierre, on behalf of the children of
Quebec and of Canada.
* * *
TVONTARIO'S FRENCH LANGUAGE NETWORK
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 19, Impératif français gave its conditional support for
the arrival in Quebec of TVOntario's French language network,
TFO, so long as Quebec subscribers did not have to pay extra.
A fine mess in order to actually say no to the arrival of TFO in
Quebec. I would have preferred to see more courage and
determination by Impératif français. It is committing the same
mistake as the Bloc Quebecois and treating francophones outside
Quebec with total disdain.
1410
Once again, Impératif français has fallen into the trap of
declining the invitation to stand up and defend the cause of
francophones in Canada. It prefers to erect a barrier between
francophones.
I would like to reassure francophones outside Quebec of the
solid support of the Liberal Government of Canada for their
cause.
* * *
[English]
NISGA'A AGREEMENT
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
province-wide referendum in British Columbia on the Nisga'a
agreement should have been supported by all opposition members in
parliament. It was the federal Progressive Conservative
government which brought in the federal Referendum Act, 1992 and
sought the views of Canadians on the precedent setting
Charlottetown accord. For its part, the New Democratic Party
professes to have a special commitment to democracy since it was
its predecessor, the CCF, that supported such measures as
referenda, citizens' initiatives and recall. And of course the
Bloc Quebecois is constantly lecturing the House about the
democratic rights of the people of Quebec to decide their own
future on constitutional issues.
Yet yesterday when the Reform Party presented a motion to hold a
referendum in British Columbia on the precedent setting Nisga'a
treaty, where were the opposition parties? Make no mistake,
their hypocrisy will not be forgotten. Shame on them all.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE JEANNINE SÉGUIN
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay
tribute to a grande dame of the francophone community in Canada.
Jeannine Séguin died yesterday in Cornwall at the age of 71.
Francophone Ontario and the entire francophone community in
Canada have lost one of their leading lights.
Vigorously and devotedly, Jeannine Séguin defended the rights of
francophones and promoted the French language.
During her stint at the head of the École secondaire
Saint-Laurent in Cornwall, not only did the school change its
name to La Citadelle, but, in 1973, it became exclusively
French.
Jeannine headed a number of organizations, such as the
Association des enseignants franco-ontariens, the ACFO and the
Fédération des francophones hors Québec.
In the Cornwall area, she was one of the founders of Pro-Action,
which meets the basic needs of the francophone community by
providing a link between it and government.
In 1962, she was awarded the papal medal Bene Merenti and, in
1985, she received the Order of Canada.
On behalf of my colleagues and all French Canadians, I offer my
deepest sympathy to her family and friends.
* * *
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
10 years ago today I stood in the House to support Ed Broadbent's
motion to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Today we
stand not in celebration, but in mourning that one in five
children lives in poverty. That is more than in 1989.
New Democrats challenge the policies that have led us to this
shameful situation: the policy of free trade, which has led to
lower wages and more working poor; the policy of getting out of
social housing and creating a housing crisis for the poor; the
betrayal of promises for a national child care program; the
cutbacks in unemployment benefits and the pushing of families on
to welfare. All of these and more were deliberate policies that
could have been decided otherwise. Shame on the Liberals. They
have made stepping on the necks of the poor the cornerstone of
their political legacy.
Like the unbridgeable chasm between Lazarus and the rich man in
the Biblical story, there is an unbridgeable gap between the
Liberals and the poor that no amount of tinkering with the child
benefit will make up.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
remind the Prime Minister that the surpluses which are making
him so happy were generated by plunging tens of thousands of
families into poverty.
The 1.4 million Canadian children living in poverty want the
Prime Minister to know that a poor child is a child who does not
have equal opportunity, because he does not have the necessary
resources to fulfil his potential.
A poor child is a child who lives in a family where his health
or his parents' health is deficient because of a lack of
financial, physical and psychological resources.
A poor child is a child who lives in a family that must spend a
large part of its meagre income on rent.
A poor child is a child
who lives in a family where unemployment is the norm, for lack
of stable jobs.
Mister Prime Minister, when you drive parents to poverty, when
you drive the provinces that must meet their needs to poverty,
it is the children you are targeting, and that is a shame.
* * *
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
remind the government about some disturbing figures.
Close to one and a half million children are living in poverty.
Child poverty now stands at close to 20%. This means that one
child in five is living in difficult conditions in Canada, and
the situation is getting worse.
There is also an increasing number of young people living on the
streets, without a home, without a family and without money. A
new generation of homeless people is now taking root on our
sidewalks.
The parliamentary resolution passed 10 years ago is not going to
be respected. Thus, our government will have failed and will
have shown a blatant lack of leadership in this worsening
crisis.
1415
Yesterday evening, a number of Canadians gathered around
parliament's centennial flame and held a silent vigil to protest
against the shameful situation of child poverty. This protest is
a reminder to us all that we must work harder to ensure that
each child and each young person is entitled to a bright future.
* * *
[English]
HOCKEY
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
not since the Canada-Russia hockey series in 1972 has there been
so much excitement and anticipation surrounding a single hockey
game. The match-up I am referring to pits the government benches
against the opposition to establish the bragging rights to
parliamentary hockey supremacy in Canada once and for all.
This hockey battle of the century gets under way tomorrow
evening at 8 p.m. at the Corel Centre in Kanata. Believe it or
not, admission is free and parking is free.
Regardless of the score, the Children's Hospital of Eastern
Ontario will be the big winner of the evening. We will be
passing around the hat to raise funds for this important
community facility.
It is bad hockey for a good cause, so let us score a hat trick
for the children's hospital.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when support for sovereignty in Quebec was strong before
the last referendum, the Prime Minister grovelled before
Quebecers promising distinct society and anything else that would
change their minds.
Now that Quebecers show signs of weariness with constitutional
matters, with referendums on sovereignty, the Prime Minister
restimulates interest in this issue with his own referendum
proposal. His potential allies in Quebec say that this approach
is completely misguided. Why can the Prime Minister not see that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister heard that two weeks ago the minister
of intergovernmental affairs, Mr. Joseph Facal, said they will
not respect the judgment of the supreme court. The Prime Minister
of Canada heard last week that the premier of Quebec said that
there will be a referendum during this mandate.
The Prime Minister of Canada has the responsibility and, I hope,
all members of the House also, to make sure that there will be a
clear question and a clear majority when there will be a
referendum, as it was stated by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has never got it right on the proper
mix between plan A and plan B on this issue.
Reform has advocated being tough and presenting plan B
when the sovereignists were growing in strength. But Reform has
also always advocated presenting a third way, one that would be
particularly attractive to Quebecers when they became weary with
sovereignty and the referendum.
The Prime Minister should be offering reform of the federation,
not tinkering with referendum rules.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we had a proposition in the House of Commons that met a
very longstanding request by Quebec and other provinces. We
legislated a veto right for the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and
B.C. That was very important and the Reform Party voted against
that at that moment.
Right after the referendum, we had a resolution in the House
recognizing Quebec as a distinct society and the Reform Party
voted against that.
Another thing we said was that we would transfer manpower
training and we have done that.
We have done our piece of work, but the premier wants—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will tell the House why the Prime Minister is on this
misguided course. It is because he is being driven on this issue
by his ego, not by the interests of Canadians.
The Prime Minister's personal reputation has always been lowest
in the province that knows him best, in Quebec. He has been
dismissed by the sovereignists as Trudeau's lackey; and he has
been dismissed by the federalists as the guy that almost lost the
referendum in 1995. Now the Prime Minister is trying to salvage
that reputation by this misguided initiative.
Is not the real problem here that the Prime Minister is putting
his own legacy ahead of the national unity issue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes, I want this party to be recognized as the one which
is not afraid to make sure that there will be a clear question
and a clear result and that Canada will stay together.
1420
[Translation]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this government is
offering Quebecers nothing but the status quo or separation.
Instead of provoking a sovereignist debate, this government
should offer Quebecers a third approach: renewal of the Canadian
federation.
Does the Prime Minister not see that he is becoming one of
Quebec's winning conditions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister is Canada's winning condition. That is what
counts.
We are not refusing to look things squarely in the face when we
ask the separatist government of Quebec to comply with the
supreme court decision. I believe the Prime Minister of Canada
is only doing his duty.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it looks
like the Prime Minister will continue down the road to become one
of the winning conditions for Quebec.
[Translation]
Quebecers want tax relief. They want control over their
language and their culture.
Why is the Prime Minister continuing to divide Quebecers, rather
than offer them renewed federalism? Why?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is what we are doing every day, renewing federalism.
That is what we are doing. Even the Bloc Quebecois opposed the
resolution declaring Quebec a distinct society. The Bloc
Quebecois voted against a veto for Quebec in this House. Who is
defending Quebecers' interests in Canada? The federal Liberal
Party.
* * *
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, Jean Charest, has again said
that it is up to the National Assembly of Quebec, and no one
else, to determine the rules for Quebec's referendum process and
that the 50% plus one rule must apply.
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to go ahead
with his antidemocratic plans, despite the opposition of the
leader of Quebec's federalist forces, his traditional allies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
his resolution, the leader of the provincial Liberal Party says
“in accordance with the supreme court ruling”. I am in complete
agreement with him.
The Quebec National Assembly can pass whatever resolution it
wants, but I repeat today that, if the question on secession is
not clear and if there is not a clear majority, there will be no
negotiation.
In its ruling, the supreme court mentions clarity 25 times, and
politicians, particularly federal politicians, have a
responsibility to ensure that clarity exists and that Quebecers
know exactly what to expect.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
clarity is left up to the Prime Minister, Quebec and Canada are
in trouble. They are in trouble with a Prime Minister like
that.
The Prime Minister, who says he wants to go down in history as
the person who saved Canada, may well be remembered as the Prime
Minister who ignored democracy in Canada and in Quebec.
Are we to understand that the only way the Prime Minister can
save Canada is by changing the weight of votes, so that a
federalist vote counts for more than a sovereignist vote, by
changing the percentage required for a win, by changing the
rules of the game because he is afraid of losing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
two-thirds majority is required in Quebec's National Assembly to
appoint an auditor general, an ombudsman, or a chief electoral
officer.
Moreover, article 63.01 of the CSN bylaws says that the
confederal office must approve any request to revoke a
federation's jurisdiction if it has the support of two thirds of
the unions.
I have nothing to learn from a CSN trade unionist, when his own
bylaws call for a two-thirds majority.
1425
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Prime Minister stated his intention of
unilaterally dictating the rules for the next Quebec referendum.
Once again, the federal government is trying to control the
right of the Quebec people to decide freely on its own future.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
Can the minister, who is the one behind this, tell us where
exactly in the supreme court judgment he finds any indication
that the 50% plus 1 rule has been set aside?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the supreme court took the trouble to qualify the word
majority with the word clear some one dozen times. When the
words majorité claire are used in French, it is because a weak
majority is insufficient.
But when the Bloc—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: But when the Bloc Quebecois tells us that
the sacrosanct rule of democracy is 50% plus 1, and then makes
exceptions to this for municipal referendums, are they not
perhaps beginning to understand that democracy is a bit more
complex and expresses itself in different ways. For very
important issues, ones that have the potential of being
virtually irreversible, it is a tradition in democracy to
require more in terms of a majority?
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
it comes to important issues, the supreme court said that the
majority should be a clear one, but at no time in any part of
its judgment did it state that the majority was not 50% plus 1.
How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say in this
House that this rule is not the acceptable one in a democracy?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is obliging me to repeat myself.
When the effort is made to add the word clear to the word
majority, that is because more than 50% plus 1 is required.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I spoke of the
referendum in Australia. But why go so far away? There is also
the Nisga'a referendum, which we have been discussing here for a
few weeks now. I believe that the Bloc Quebecois supports that
referendum. For the agreement to pass, the Nisga'a required a
majority of 50% plus 1 of all eligible voters for the agreement,
and 70% for the constitutional change. They have no fear of
calling for majorities even on something on which there was a
certain consensus in society.
* * *
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today at
noon in communities across the country bells were rung. Poor
kids do not make much noise or complain about their poverty.
Mostly they try to hide it. The bells were rung in a desperate
plea, in a desperate attempt to wake up the government to the
reality of child poverty. Why is the Prime Minister not
listening?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have started to work to ensure that the children of
Canada have a good start in life. We had even started at a time
when we were cutting other programs and we put more money into
that. We have put $1.7 billion into the program and there will be
more money. I have given a long list of other programs that were
initiated to help the children of Canada, even during a period
when we were cutting from every other department.
1430
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, only a
Liberal could boast while 1.4 million children remain in poverty.
Since the Prime Minister came to office he has had 2,220 days to
eliminate child poverty, 2,220 days to keep the commitments to
Canada's children, 2,220 days to ease the pain, yet still 1.4
million children remain in poverty.
What will it take to get the Prime Minister to declare “child
poverty is my business, sir?”
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly what we said in the Speech from the
Throne a few weeks ago. We placed child poverty among the high
priorities in the Speech from the Throne.
I repeat. We plan to lengthen employment insurance benefits for
parents to 12 months. We are working with the provinces to
develop a national action plan for children. We are putting
money into the hands of families with children through tax
relief. We also have the Canadian prenatal nutrition program,
the community action program for children, the aboriginal head
start program, the EI family income supplement, and first nation
and Inuit child care.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Quebecers and Canadians in general cannot figure out what is
going on right now. The Prime Minister is completely out of
touch with reality.
At a time when real priorities such as poverty, unemployment,
economic growth and tax reduction should be on the agenda, the
Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
keep harking back to the issue of Quebec's future and
sovereignty.
What is going on in the Prime Minister's head for him to be so
out of touch with the priorities of Canadians and Quebecers?
What is going on?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member follows what is going on, he will know that, two
weeks ago, Minister Facal said, without any provocation on our
part—in fact he phoned the journalist himself to make a
statement—that Quebec had no intention of complying with the
supreme court decision. While this may not be a significant
statement for the hon. member, the government certainly has an
obligation to take note of it.
Just last week, the premier of Quebec said that his province
would indeed hold a referendum. These people must know that, if
they hold a referendum, the question will be clear, the result
will have to be clear and the supreme court decision will have
to be complied with.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, Joseph
Facal is now telling the Prime Minister what to include in his
agenda. This is unbelievable.
I thought the Prime Minister was big enough to decide what his
own agenda should include. We know what to make of minister
Facal's statement.
But what about the Prime Minister's statement? Is it a
declaration of war? The question really is: Will the Prime
Minister introduce, before the Christmas recess or soon after, a
bill on referendum rules? Will the Prime Minister table such
legislation, yes or no? Can he provide a clear and straight
answer to this question?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I repeated what I had said in this House before,
during and after the referendum: the question will be clear and
the result will have to be clear. If you do not want—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: The Conservatives are very
embarrassed, because they have no position on this issue.
When a vote was taken in the House on distinct society, the two
Conservative members who were in the House did not support it.
And when we voted on a veto for Quebec, again the members
representing the Progressive Conservative Party were opposed.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will tell you one thing that is clear across Canada. Everyone
thinks they are paying too high taxes and the government should
pay attention to that.
Doreen from Manitoba worked overtime and made $53. Income tax
and the EI premium took $31 of those 53 bucks. That is 60% that
she had to give to the government.
1435
I would like to ask a little question of the tax hungry finance
minister. Why in the world does he think he is entitled to 60%
of Doreen's paycheque?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member talks about people who are paying too
much taxes and who leave the country.
Let me give her an example. The Robarts Research Institute is
one of Canada's leading research institutes which receives money
and increased money from the federal government. Let us tell
the House what it has found: Dr. Arthur Brown returned to
London, Ontario, from the Salk Institute in California; Dr. Bosco
Chan returned to London from the Harvard Medical School in
Boston, Massachusetts; Dr. Maria Drangova from Stanford returned
to London as a result of the money this government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
well, there we have it, an unbiased source when they get that
from the federal government I cannot believe that he would
holler about that.
Doreen herself says “thanks very little”. It is pretty hard
to be grateful when she takes home 20 bucks out of $50. Doreen
and millions of other Canadians are trying to work a little
overtime, trying to make a extra dollar or two. Then comes Mr.
Scrooge and, as slick as a whistle, just snatches 60% of that
right out of their hands.
Who would want to even work one hour of overtime this Christmas
when this covetous, curmudgeon finance minister wants it all?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what would have happened to Doreen if the government had
followed what members of the Reform Party wanted? Doreen would
have had to pay higher employment insurance premiums because they
were not going to cut them for anybody except employers. Doreen
would have had to pay higher personal taxes because their cuts
would not have come in until the year 2000.
There is one premium that Doreen would not have had to pay if
members of the Reform Party had had their way, and that is the
Canada pension plan premiums because they were going destroy the
Canada pension plan.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious
that the Prime Minister intends to change the rules of the game
in Quebec's next referendum.
On the evening of the 1995 referendum, the Prime Minister of
Canada said, and I quote: “In a democracy the people are always
right. Tonight there is only one winner: the people”. On that
evening, he recognized that 50.5% was a democratic result.
My question is for the Prime Minister.
How does he square what he said on the evening of the last
referendum with his plan to unilaterally modify the rules of
democracy, which are recognized and accepted worldwide?
Is it only democratic for the Prime Minister if he wins?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is not my wish to change the rules of the referendum. The
Government of Quebec can ask whatever question it wishes. But
we have an obligation to negotiate and we want the question to
be clear.
A clear question would be: “Do you want Quebec to become a
country?” That is clear. And I think I would agree with the
person who suggested it. This was the question suggested by
Bloc Quebecois adviser Jacques Parizeau in the September 3,
1998, issue of Le Devoir. I have no problem with a clear
question like that.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister's thinking is becoming clearer and clearer. In fact,
his suggestion is a very good one.
Can the Prime Minister not understand that his real role is to
do precisely what he just did: make suggestions, and leave the
questions up to the National Assembly of Quebec and Quebecers?
1440
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
they come up with a question as clear as that, instead of
talking about sovereignty-partnership or sovereignty-association,
if they say that they want to become a separate country, that
they want secession—the word used by the supreme court—I have no
problem with it.
But do not give us complicated questions. Be honest. Ask a
question on the separation of Quebec.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. members to address their
questions to the Chair.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Annalora Horch from my riding of Medicine Hat has just sent me
her last two paystubs.
She is a schoolteacher who just received an $83 a month raise,
but by the time the tax minister was done with her she had $2
left. In other words the finance minister took $81 of that $83
raise. Would the finance minister care to explain to Annalora
Horch exactly why he is ripping off $81 of her $83 raise?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Reformers abandoned Doreen pretty quickly. The fact is
that they are also abandoning Anna because Anna would not have
got anything out of the Reform Party.
Her taxes would have gone up because she would not have received
tax cuts from the Reform Party. Her EI premiums would have gone
up because she would not have received satisfaction from the
Reform Party. She also would have lost her Canada pension plan.
That is what this is all about. We will defend our tax policies
against those of Reformers any time. They have had—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
those are rantings of a madman.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. It is time to slow it down a
bit. I would like the hon. member for Medicine Hat to go
directly to his question now.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Of course I meant a taxman, Mr.
Speaker.
The finance minister has taken $81 of that $83 raise. If taxes
are really going down like he says, why is Annalora being ripped
off by the minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian people are entitled to an enlightened
debate on the issue of taxes.
What they have heard from the Reform Party is a tax plan that
would call for a $52 billion surplus in three years. That is $40
billion more than private sector economists said the country
would have.
What that means is that the Reform Party is saying there will be
$40 billion in cuts to our social programs. What will Anna do
without a decent education system and without a decent health
care system? What will Anna do when the social fabric of the
country is gutted by the Reform Party? That is basic issue
confronting Canadians.
* * *
1445
[Translation]
CHILD POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, the
public is turning its attention to us, members of parliament,
because it was 10 years ago that the parliamentarians of the
time passed a resolution to eliminate child poverty. The
Liberals have been in office for six years now and they have had
ample opportunity to fulfil this mandate from the House.
My question is for the Prime Minister.
Will you recognize, Mr. Prime Minister, that your government
failed miserably regarding the task delegated to it by the
parliamentarians of the time, that is to eliminate child
poverty?
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, again I would ask you to address
the Chair.
The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an important day for the House, a
day for us to contemplate our most important resource, our
children. We welcome the work of Campaign 2000 and the report
card it has given us in this particular area.
I want to say to the House that in the Speech from the Throne,
we laid out a comprehensive vision on how we can continue to work
together for the betterment of our children. I do hope that all
parties will work with us in that area.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
In order to meet the expectations of all community groups and of
the public, which is concerned about increased poverty, will the
Prime Minister pledge to table in the House of Commons a
specific, concrete and detailed plan with numbers, and not just
idle promises, to help the millions of children and parents
living in a state of poverty a society such as ours cannot
accept?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said, in the Speech from the
Throne, we have identified a comprehensive approach to making
sure that Canada's children in the 21st century have a good
future ahead of them.
As the Prime Minister has said, even in very difficult financial
times we were able to engage with the provinces in the largest
cost sharing program since medicare, that is the national child
benefit. We are committed to doing more.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on a day when we are here protecting children, I
have a question for the Minister of Justice.
The minister has leaked that she will introduce criminal code
amendments concerning cruelty to animals. She is compelled to do
this because she received a petition with 6,500 signatures.
Can the minister tell Canadians why 300,000 signatures on a
child pornography petition are not as compelling as 6,500 on a
poodle-phile petition?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full
well that the issue of child pornography as it relates to the
possession of child pornography is now before the Supreme Court
of Canada.
The Attorney General of British Columbia will be defending the
constitutionality of that law in January 2000. We will be there
to argue just as strenuously that the law is constitutional and
therefore available to protect children and others in the
country.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the question here is about priorities.
The minister knows that this legislation before the courts can
be handled by the notwithstanding clause. It was put in the
constitution by members of parliament for just this reason, to
protect children. That is what we are here for, to protect
children.
Where is the minister's priority? Is she more interested in
protecting poodle-philes than pedophiles?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here again we have the
unfortunate misrepresentations made by the Reform Party.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I prefer that the word
“misrepresentation” not be used. Please withdraw.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the term
“misrepresentation”.
However, let me remind the House and all Canadians that this is
the party that suggests pedophilia is lawful in the country. This
is the party that refuses to acknowledge that the criminal code
prohibits pedophilia. It always has and it always will.
1450
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Randy White: You are disgusting, absolutely
disgusting.
The Speaker: Order, please. We are a little excited
today. These types of comments do not help in our question
period or in our debates. I would ask hon. members not to use
terms like “you are disgusting”. I want the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford to please withdraw that forthwith.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member please
withdraw the words?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of
Justice should withdraw her words. Then perhaps I will.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will deal with this
matter at the end of question period. The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA SOCIAL TRANSFER
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the most harmful act committed by the federal
government, and the one that has created the most poverty since
1993, is the cuts to the Canada Social Transfer, which will
total $33 billion by March 2003.
Does the federal government not realize that this money, in our
day-to-day reality, has been taken directly from the hospitals,
from the schools and from welfare, three areas where the
provinces have been deprived of any leeway to fight poverty?
When is the Prime Minister going to remedy this situation and
assume his responsibilities?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
first thing we did after eliminating the deficit was to restore
$11.5 billion over five years for health.
At the same time, during our first mandate, we initiated the
infrastructure program in conjunction with the provinces, and
this was a help to them. We put in excess of $2 billion into the
National Child Benefit.
The question that must be asked is this: Are the provinces now
going to put back what has been cut from their municipalities?
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister for International Trade.
Since yesterday, we have been hearing all sorts of stories and
figures about Canada and the actions of the WTO to clarify the
decision by Brazil.
Could the minister tell us about the latest developments in the
Canada-Brazil matter?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, my colleague for industry and I
announced that Canada would comply with the WTO's decision. We
released the specific details of our decision.
Canada is now trying to find out how Brazil will implement the
decision. We therefore asked the WTO to advise us. Canada
remains open to negotiation.
I would like to remind the House that we are not taking
reprisals against Brazil at the moment.
* * *
[English]
GUN REGISTRATION
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the justice minister commissioned an auditing firm to
review the entire gun registry system.
Through access to information, I find out that this secret report
concludes that, after taking more than three years and $300
million to design, this system is inflexible, inefficient and
inoperable and tinkering will not fix it.
1455
How much more money are we going to throw at a system that her
own study says is just plain not working?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has read
the report, he should know that is not what the independent
consultant concluded. The consultant concluded that there had
been some start up problems with the firearms registry system,
and then concluded that these problems were not unusual for a
program of this size, complexity or visibility.
We have implemented three-quarters of the proposed efficiency
recommendations of the independent consultant. Let me remind
hon. members that because of the firearms registration system, we
have—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister continues to defend something that is
indefensible. If the gun registry is working so well, why did
the Minister of Justice receive a letter two weeks ago from the
solicitor general of Ontario calling on her to scrap the gun
registry system?
When will the minister follow this advice, cut her losses, save
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and scrap the registry?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really not well-placed to
comment on what is in the mind of the solicitor general of
Ontario.
However, let me share with the House some of the accomplishments
of our firearms registry system to date. We have blocked over
3,000 potentially dangerous gun sales. We have refused 548
applicants for public safety reasons. We have revoked 451
licences for reasons of public safety. This system is saving
Canadian lives.
* * *
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister says that she welcomes the report card on child poverty,
but will the government acknowledge that it is a devastating
indictment against federal government inaction? No, I correct
myself. It is an indictment against federal government action
that has actually made things worse over the last decade.
The Prime Minister knows that a universal program of affordable
child care is critical to fight poverty. Before we reach the
year 2000 will he at least make a commitment to honour his
promises for a national child care program?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne we have
committed the government to working toward the benefit of our
children.
I would remind the hon. member of what her leader said about the
Speech from the Throne with regard to the initiative toward
children. She said “What we heard from the Prime Minister is
potentially very good news, and I mean that sincerely”. I take
it that the hon. member and her party will work with us on this
agenda.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
clearly the government's response is pathetic. The government
wants us to believe that empty promises will reduce poverty. The
government wants us to believe that the provinces are to blame
for broken Liberal promises.
We teach our children to honour commitment. I ask the Prime
Minister, no vagueness and no blaming everyone else, will he
honour his promise for child care, yes or no?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of our children is not about
blame. It is about working together to ensure they have a bright
future into the 21st century.
The hon. member's leader applauded the Prime Minister and the
government for the undertakings in the Speech from the Throne. I
do look forward to working in partnership with them so we can
ensure our children have a bright future.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
beginning to look a lot like Christmas. The lights are up, the
trees are decorated and the Minister of National Defence has
visions of sugar plums dancing in his head. It is becoming very
clear that the minister is relying on Santa Claus to visit and
hopefully bring the minister that shining new maritime helicopter
replacement program we have all been asking for.
1500
Will the minister confirm that the Sea King replacement program
will be in place before this House rises for Christmas, or will
the minister continue to play Scrooge to our Canadian air force
again this year?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be pleased to know
that the replacement of the Sea King helicopter is our number one
priority. We are in fact in the midst of a procurement strategy
development so that we can replace them.
Meanwhile, we will make sure that those Sea Kings, as long as
they have to fly, will be safe for our people to fly. We have a
very high maintenance and inspection standard in this country
with our Canadian military. As soon as we can, we will get those
new helicopters.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is certainly appropriate that the minister talked about safety
inspections, because yesterday we talked about the worn out Sea
Kings, the rusty Auroras and today we find out that both of the
Hercules planes failed when they went to East Timor. Hon.
members should listen to the problems: faulty brakes, damaged
windows, cracked tailpipes.
I sold used cars for 18 years and this plane would not pass a
highway inspection. If a plane cannot pass a highway safety
inspection, how can we expect it to fly in the air?
When will the minister stop making a laughing stock of the
Canadian air force and put money into the airplanes?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should stop
making a laughing stock of the Canadian air force because our
personnel performed very well in East Timor. Our personnel
delivered over 2 million pounds of goods. They delivered over
2,000 people into East Timor to help the people of East Timor.
They actually engaged in some 35% to 40% of all of the transport
missions in that area of operation. That is a big achievement.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Percy Mockler, Solicitor
General, Minister of Human Resources Development and Housing of
the province of New Brunswick.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: To say the very least, this was a very
animated question period. We had a minister using a word which
was withdrawn, and we had another member who, in exuberance, made
a comment. I understand how these things happen, but this
particular member, the member for Langley—Abbotsford, is an
officer of this House, and that puts it in another perspective.
1505
I address myself directly to the words that were used. It was a
direct statement: “You are disgusting”. I would ask the hon.
member if he would please withdraw those words and then we can
get on with the business of the House.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to appeal to the Chair on this issue, in that—
Some hon. members: Shame. Withdraw.
The Speaker: Before we get into any kind of
an exchange, this is simply a matter between yourself and the
Chair and we are simply dealing with this matter now. If there
are other things to be said after, of course I will be prepared
to listen to whatever any member has to say. However, at this
point, my colleague, as an officer of the House, I would appeal
to you to withdraw those words and then we can proceed with the
business of the House. Will the hon. member please withdraw the
words?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I would like to appeal to
the Chair, as I was about to say—
The Speaker: No. It is a direct question.
I ask my hon. friend, an officer of the House, simply to withdraw
the words and we can get on with other business.
The hon. House leader of the Reform Party.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the clerk for
a transcript, which he is about to give me and I would like to
ask the Speaker for a few minutes—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I will hear you.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I have it on tape. I will
have it in writing in a moment as to what the Minister of Justice
said in the House and if it is as I believe, then I would—
The Speaker: What the minister or anyone else said in the
House, for this particular matter, is irrelevant. I will be
happy to hear what the hon. member has to say as soon as I settle
this point. This is simply an appeal to the hon. member to
withdraw those words and then I will hear whatever the hon.
member has to say.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw and I
expect a question of privilege on the matter.
The Speaker: I consider this particular matter to be
closed.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
QUESTION PERIOD
The Speaker: I take it that the hon. member is requesting
a question of privilege arising from question period. I will
hear the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
many times during question period ministers seriously
misrepresent the positions of parties in the House, not just the
Reform Party but other parties, in their responses. I think you
will find today that what the Minister of Justice said concerning
pedophilia was directed at the Reform Party. It was intended to
be negative in connotation. It was intended to embarrass
nationally the party that has fought time and time and time again
against such things as sexual exploitation, pedophilia and so on.
I want to get the transcript from today's question period. I
want to table it in the House and if, Mr. Speaker, you find that
is so, I want a national public apology from a person who has
acted totally irresponsibly in the House.
The Speaker: If there was something that
was said in the House of Commons which is in Hansard, we
will have a look at it. It is at that time that we will bring up
whether there is a question of privilege or a point of order.
1510
From what I have heard here today, we have had strong debate on
both sides. However, if the hon. member has a point to bring up
at another time when we have the information in front of us, I
will be happy to hear him. For the time being, I prefer to let
this point sit exactly where it is until we get some kind of
written evidence in front of us.
Does the hon. member have another point of order?
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I ask for the Speaker's guidance.
When the position of a party is misrepresented in the House to
the point where any honest evaluation of the situation is that
the misrepresentation amounts to a lie—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: I am just talking in theory. If we ask
that something be done because of that, what we are left
with—and this is the dilemma—is that to allege that someone has
lied is a contempt of the House, but to actually lie is not.
Look at the dilemma it puts us in. When we say “But that is a
lie”, you, Mr. Speaker, say that is unparliamentary. Yet, the
lie occurred over there.
The Speaker: When it comes to debate, on one
side or the other, we are going to have various sides put out.
This is a matter of debate. I am not here, surely, to judge on
the quality of a question or an answer or a debate.
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
The Speaker: I do not expect to be interrupted. Please give
me a chance to explain.
I think what we have is a matter of debate. Words were said. I
would like to hear or read what the words are before I go any
further with this matter.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I sat and listened very carefully to the back
and forth which took place during question period. I heard the
Minister of Justice point across the way at members of the Reform
Party and say “This is the party that supports pedophilia in
this country”. That is what I heard. That is on the record. I
would suggest that those words are not a matter of debate. That
is slander and liable. If those words were repeated outside—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has made an
allegation that another member has said “This is the party of
pedophilia”. Is that correct?
I have just received the transcript.
We will wait for the official transcript of these words, but I
want to deal with another matter.
The member for Skeena alleges that the minister said “this
party”, referring to the Reform Party, is the “party of
pedophilia”. Those are the words he said I believe. The
minister—
1515
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I believe the words I
reported back to the Chair were that the minister looked at the
Reform Party, pointed her finger and said “This is the party
that supports pedophilia in this country”.
The Speaker: We could deal with this when we get the
blues, but the minister is here in the House. If the minister
said these words, then I would ask her to withdraw those words if
she said them. She is here now.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify this to the
best of my ability. In fact, quite truthfully what I meant to
say—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I address the minister. Were these
words used?
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know because
during the heat of debate, I cannot say. I look forward to
seeing the blues. However, let me say that that which I intended
to say—
An hon. member: What did you say?
The Speaker: Order, please. We are going to wait for the
blues. We will wait for the blues and I will get the official
transcript and see what was there. We will return to this if it
is necessary.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table in print and
in Braille in both official languages the government's response
to the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities entitled
“Reflecting Interdependence: Disability, Parliament, Government
and the Community”.
* * *
[Translation]
1998-99 ANNUAL REPORT ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both
official languages, the annual report on official languages for
1998-99.
* * *
[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 No. 36(8) I have the honour to table
in both official languages the government's responses to three
petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour pursuant to Standing Order 34 to
present in both official languages the report of the
Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group at its fall
conference held in Washington on September 12 and 14.
Mr. Speaker, I know you would like me to carry on, but I will
just table the report as it is.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 10th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with disabilities.
If the House gives its consent, I move:
That the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be
concurred in.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1520
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations among House leaders with respect to the
televising of a committee of the House. I move:
That the House, pursuant to Standing Order 119(1), authorize the
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
to televise its meetings on Wednesday, November 24 in the
afternoon and Thursday, November 25 in the morning, during its
study on Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final
agreement in accordance with the guidelines pertaining to
televising committee proceedings.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have consent to put the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition signed by residents of Grand Bend, Forest and Parkhill.
The petition states that the use of the additive MMT in Canadian
gasoline presents an environmental problem affecting every man,
woman and child in Canada. The petitioners call upon parliament
to set by the end of this calendar year national clean fuel
standards for gasoline with zero MMT and low sulphur content.
[Translation]
CHEMICAL PESTICIDES
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present a petition by a number of residents of my
riding, on the West Island of Montreal, which reads as follows
“We, the undersigned Canadian residents, call on parliament to
declare an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical
pesticides”.
[English]
They ask for an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of
chemical pesticides until such time as their use has been
scientifically proven to be safe and the long term consequences
of their application are known.
AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to present a huge petition of some 231 pages with
names of people from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They obviously
have some considerable difficulty with the AIDA program. In their
petition they wish the House to recognize the failure of AIDA and
to replace it with an acreage payment. I present the petition to
the House and ask the minister of agriculture to do so.
[Translation]
SHORELINE EROSION
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to table a
petition signed by 621 riparian owners along the St. Lawrence
River in the riding of Verchères—Les-Patriotes.
Citing the end of the shoreline protection program, the
petitioners point out that the phenomenon of shoreline erosion
along the St. Lawrence River is assuming increasingly worrisome
proportions and that it is affecting not just the environment,
their safety and their well-being, but also the integrity of
their property.
The petitioners therefore call on the House of Commons to take
action to have the federal government assume its
responsibilities with respect to shoreline protection along the
St. Lawrence River as soon as possible, and to have it implement
satisfactory measures to halt the phenomenon of shoreline
erosion without delay.
I am also pleased to submit directly to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans resolutions passed to this effect by the
municipalities of Boucherville, Varennes, Verchères and
Contrecoeur, as well as the RCM of LaJemmerais.
[English]
ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition to present on behalf of a number of citizens from
the St. John's area.
The petition calls upon the House to encourage the federal
government to financially support the clean-up of St. John's
harbour. It would involve a financial commitment from the
federal government for a sewage treatment system required for
that clean-up. Given the fact that the federal government has
made similar expenditures in the past, it is indeed a reasonable
request. Over $100 million would be required to deal with this
environmental problem. The petitioners are very anxious to have
the project started.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am
pleased to present a petition today from Burnaby constituents who
have been frustrated following the summer surge of boats
containing Chinese migrants. The petitioners call upon
parliament to enact immediate changes to Canada's immigration
laws to allow for the deportation of obvious and blatant abusers
of the system.
The petitioners advocate that legislation be enacted requiring
refugee claimants to demonstrate that they are fleeing genuine
political persecution or face immediate deportation without
delay.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition pursuant to
Standing Order 36. It urges parliament to fulfil its promise of
the 1989 House of Commons commitment to end child poverty by the
year 2000.
1525
It is a very timely, very poignant petition from dozens of
residents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. There was
obviously a great deal of interest and debate on this subject
matter before the House. I respectfully table the petition on
the petitioners' behalf.
* * *
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 Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
NATIONAL DEFENCE
The Speaker: I am in receipt of four
applications for an emergency debate. The four of them are about
the maritime helicopter replacement program. They are marked as
to the time I received them.
The first one I received was from the member for
Compton—Stanstead. I will hear him and then I will make my
ruling on it. I have a copy of his letter here which I have
already read. Therefore, I would ask him to be quite succinct in
his presentation.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
think it is rather straight forward just from hearing what the
minister had to say today. As usual, he was skating around the
issue.
The point is that through the Access to Information Act we
received the actual briefing notes of the minister. In those
notes it is stated quite clearly that there is an eight year time
slot from the time of ordering the helicopters and the time that
they will be delivered. At the present time, the Sea King
helicopters with their life expansion program only go to the year
2005. Therefore we have a three year window with no maritime
helicopters. That is what we are getting at.
It is a huge safety matter with our armed forces and the
Canadian people. That is the main reason we would like to have
it debated in the House, but there is a lot more to it.
The Speaker: Basically from what the
four members have said and what you basically have here, it seems
to me at this point at least that they do not meet the proper
criteria for an emergency debate.
CHILD POVERTY
The Speaker: I am in receipt of a notice of motion under
Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Vancouver East. I
received her letter earlier today. I have read it so I would ask
her to be quite succinct in putting forth her point.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
will try to be very brief. I rise on a very solemn and serious
matter. As you know I wrote you a letter to seek leave to have
an emergency debate under Standing Order 52(2).
Today is the 10th anniversary of the unanimous resolution that
was passed in the House of Commons to seek to eliminate child
poverty by the year 2000. Maybe the Speaker himself was present
in the House that day. It was an honourable resolution that was
made 10 years ago. Regrettably, today we are in a situation where
not only have we not made any progress in this regard, a goal
that was put together by all members of the House, but the
situation has become much worse, to the extent that there are now
1.4 million children living in poverty.
We must not forget that those children are not alone. They are
attached to families. Tens of thousands of families are living in
poverty in this country.
For the 1.4 million children living in poverty this is
definitely an emergency. For the 90% of single mothers of young
children, it is an emergency. For the 300,000 children who make
use of food banks, it is definitely an emergency.
Over the past two days, citizens right across the country have
been holding vigils and meetings to address the emergency. Today,
as the leader of the NDP pointed out, bells were ringing across
the country at noon to draw to the attention of all members of
the House the fact that the resolution has not met its goal.
I believe that members of parliament need an opportunity to
report on the scale of the problem in our own communities, to
question the government on why this emergency now exists and to
set out some recommendations about what actions need to be taken
to help poor kids in the country.
1530
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge that you grant the emergency
debate because this did come from parliament and from all of us
working together. Here we are 10 years later in a very sorry
state of affairs. I think this is something that really
necessitates an emergency debate. I would ask you to consider
that.
The Speaker: When I received the letter today I
thought about it quite well. It is basically what you have said
in the House.
However, according to our criteria, at least at this time, it
does not meet the criteria for an emergency debate today. This
does not mean that it could not be considered at some other time.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-8, an act
respecting marine conservation areas, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are 60
motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report
stage of Bill C-8.
[Translation]
Motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
[English]
Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 7, 12, 13, 26 to 29, 37, 40 to
48, 53, 55, 56, 59 and 60.
[Translation]
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 4 to 6, 8 to 11, 14, 15, 21 to 25, 30
to 36, 38, 39, 51, 52, 54, 57, and 58.
[English]
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 16 to 20, 49 and 50.
[Translation]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[English]
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 7, 12, 13, 26 to 29,
37, 40 to 48, 53, 55, 56, 59 and 60 to the House.
[Translation]
Since there are many motions, is there unanimous consent to
consider all of them as read?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ) moved:
1535
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8 is entitled, as hon. members will
remember, “an act respecting marine conservation areas”. It was
introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and its purpose
is to provide a legal framework for the creation of 28 marine
conservation areas representative of each of the Canadian
ecosystems.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine
conservation area, but is not governed by this legislation since
it has its own legislation.
The Bloc Quebecois supports measures to protect the environment.
More particularly, the Bloc Quebecois reminds the government of
its support for the government when it proposed passing
legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is
launching initiatives aimed at protecting the environment,
particularly the marine floor.
The Quebec government is also open to working in co-operation
with the federal government, as evidenced by the third phase of
the St. Lawrence action plan.
However, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill for two
reasons: first, instead of relying on dialogue, as in the case
of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government
wants to create marine conservation areas, regardless of the
fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over the protection of its
territory and of the environment.
The second reason is the fact that Heritage Canada is proposing
to establish a new structure, the marine conservation areas,
which will duplicate Fisheries and Oceans Canada's marine
protected areas and Environment Canada's marine protection
zones.
As you know, committee hearings were held on this bill, and many
witnesses were heard. After hearing these witnesses and looking
at the amendments put forward by the government and the other
opposition parties, the Bloc Quebecois wants to tell the House
that its position has not changed with regard to this bill. We
are still opposed
Indeed, there is duplication of responsibilities between
Fisheries and Oceans and Heritage Canada. Also, it is unclear
whether marine conservation areas could be established based on
the same principle that guided the creation of the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
We support the spirit of the bill, which is to preserve sample
marine areas for future generations, and we believe this should
be the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I remind members that, in his testimony, the director general of
Parks Canada, Mr. Tom Lee, in response to a question asked by a
government member last February, stated that, in Canada, oceans
are the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans.
To date, every coastal community group that has come before the
committee spoke out against this bill. These people, whether
they were fishermen or natives, all said in their own way that
this bill duplicates the work of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Recently, the advisory committee responsible for conducting the
feasibility study on the establishment of a marine conservation
area in Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay, in Newfoundland, ended
its work because, and I quote from the news release issued by
Heritage Canada in March, “a large number of residents,
particularly fishermen, are concerned about the impact of the
establishment of a marine conservation area on their way of
life”.
1540
Perhaps what would be necessary in order to achieve the
objectives of creating marine conservation areas would be to
broaden the concept of marine protected areas as currently
defined by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
It seems to us today, as it did when all this began, that this
avenue would be far preferable to bringing in new legislation, a
new structure, new regulations, which to all intents and
purposes have been rejected by all population groups affected
who came to speak at the committee hearings.
I know that a Reform Party colleague is proposing an amendment
to restore to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the
responsibility for these marine conservation areas. Alas, his
amendment to make the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
responsible for marine conservation areas would not be enough,
on its own, to avoid the duplication between marine protected
areas and marine conservation areas.
What would have to be amended to include the concept underlying
marine conservation areas would be the Oceans Act. The Reform
member's amendment does not integrate the two responsibilities.
It keeps them distinct from one another, and merely gives them
both to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Members must
understand that we do not find this sufficient.
Finally, there is no provision, in either the bill or the
amendments moved by the government, to guarantee the territorial
integrity of Quebec will be respected, once the bill has been
passed.
As we know, the federal and Quebec governments do not
see eye to eye on the ownership of certain sea floors,
particularly in the estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence Gulf.
It is therefore quite obvious that this bill will end up in a
collision of jurisdictions between the interests of the federal
government and the clearly legitimate ones of the government of
Quebec.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-8,
because it does not give explicit recognition to the territorial
integrity of Quebec and because it constitutes duplication of
what is already being done with the marine protected areas by
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Bloc Quebecois in opposing Bill C-8 is clearly giving
expression to what the people of Quebec indicated as their best
interests and to what the many witnesses appearing before the
heritage committee indicated as their best interests.
I would like to add a personal note. All too often, as it has
done in the past and still does now, the federal government,
with the best intentions in the world, decides it has exclusive
knowledge and authority to put forward bills that have merit,
but that do not meet the expectations and needs of the people
concerned. Worse, the government tends often to duplicate
efforts, structures and responsibilities.
We are once again facing a similar situation.
It is unfortunate that the government, once again with good
intentions, has failed to realize that the opposition to this
bill is not on the merit of things but rather on the way they
are treated. It is often said that approach is all.
The federal government could, in the light of what went on in
committee, reorganize the bill to reorient it toward the proper
authority, especially, to combine two concepts, by extending the
prerogatives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. At the
same time, the government should make specific provision in this
bill for the respect of Quebec's territorial integrity and its
authority in a certain number of jurisdictions including that of
the floor of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
I hope that the government will understand my remarks and take
them into account.
1545
[English]
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill
C-8, which is really the old Bill C-48, the Marine Conservation
Act.
We in the Reform Party oppose the amendments put forth by the
Bloc Quebecois in terms of deleting numerous parts of the bill.
In fact this bill has the right idea. There is no doubt about
it, but the government takes the wrong approach. Reform should
support this bill only if its amendments would be approved. I
would certainly think at this time that this bill, if unamended,
is better to be defeated.
In an age when everyone in the world is becoming more aware of
the environment, it makes sense to have good legislation in place
to preserve and to take care of our environment. I said good
legislation. To create good legislation requires a lot of work
on the part of legislators. It means gathering good data. It
means consulting all the stakeholders. It means having many
meetings throughout the country. It means keeping people
informed. Above all, it means being honest and upfront with
everyone.
Good legislation does not isolate parts of the country. Good
legislation creates good debate and usually brings people
together to resolve conflicts. Good legislation does not leave
groups out on the edge hanging on for dear life.
Unfortunately Bill C-8 is not a good example of good
legislation. It leaves too many stakeholders hanging. Bill C-8
leaves too many stakeholders at risk and Bill C-8 does not have
any balance. It is too favourable to environmentalists.
In fact, on the whole issue of consultation, the government
brags about the way it consults people. Unfortunately, sending
out a letter at the initial stage of the discussion documents is
not the whole process. It may be a good beginning, but there is
no follow through on the government's consultation process.
The one principal question that was not answered was whether
this legislation was really necessary, considering that Canada
already has at least 36 federal acts and 20 provincial and
territorial acts, together with numerous international
conventions and accords that relate to the protection and use of
the marine environment and marine resources.
As recent as the Oceans Act of 1996, under the provisions of
part 2, section 35(2) the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is
mandated to:
This allows the minister to make regulations, first, designating
marine protected areas and, second, prescribing measures that may
include but not be limited to the zoning of marine protected
areas, the prohibition of classes of activities within marine
protected areas and any other matters consistent with the purpose
of the designation.
Further to that a clear process is laid out for the minister to
develop and implement a national strategy for the management of
estuarine coastal and marine ecosystems in water that belongs to
Canada.
I go back to the time when this bill was called the Marine Parks
Protection Act. Actually that is more accurate because this
piece of legislation is about protection. It is beyond
conservation. In other words the legislation is that basically
once an area is designated that is it; hands off forever.
No one can deal with it. It becomes a protected area for the
rest of the time we are on the face of the earth. Of course
there is always a chance the government can make regulations and
change them as well.
1550
The Reform Party supports good legislation in environmental
protection. It believes in sustainable development. It believes
in balanced legislation.
The bill affects five other ministries and yet not once did we
hear from any of the other ministries when it was at committee
stage. The bill directly impacts the ministries of the
environment, natural resources, Indian and northern affairs,
oceans and fisheries, and transport.
It is unfortunate that we do not have a lot of time to say much
about the bill. I guess I will have to wait until third reading
stage. There are many concerns that the Canadian people need to
hear about.
As I indicated, there are at least 36 pieces of federal acts
that already look after conservation areas. This point is taken
from the discussion paper of August 1998 called Our Marine
Protection Areas: A Strategy for Canada's Pacific Coast. In
it there is an appendix which lists all federal and provincial
statutory powers for protecting marine areas.
If the government realizes there are so many acts and
regulations already in place, why would we need another one? I
believe we do not really need another one because of the ones
already in place.
The bill impacts the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and
Environment Canada. The mandate of Environment Canada is to
protect coastal marine habitats regarding marine migratory bird
sanctuaries that are heavily used by birds for breeding, feeding,
migration and overwintering.
The bill goes beyond just protecting what is on the water and
underneath the water but also what is above the water. It is
unfortunate that we do not have time to discuss the impact that
has on the aviation traffic in the country. Imagine having a no
fly zone in designated protection areas along the west coast
where mountains come right up to the water's edge. I think that
would be a little dangerous for aircraft travel.
May I close by saying that this is not properly a parks bill. As
I indicated originally it was a parks bill under the marine parks
protection act but people perceive parks in a very different
fashion than they do protected conservation areas. The bill is
really an environmental bill. The official opposition believes
in sustainable development and the management of the environment
to both preserve biodiversity and conserve the environment of
Canadians present and future.
With this bill the heritage minister expands her domain and
encroaches on what is more properly the responsibility of the
Minister of Environment, her old portfolio. The minister wants
to sidestep the proper role of parliament with the insertion of
the Henry VIII clauses that allow cabinet to amend the act more
or less at will.
The act requires provincial governments to obey it, and
enforcement officers may arrest without warrant and enter private
property without permission. To conclude, the bill gives
superintendents of parks way too much power and too much
authority to make decisions for which they are not really
accountable.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8,
former Bill C-48, introduced by the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, has now reached the report stage.
Before going any further, I think it would be appropriate to
explain briefly to the public what Bill C-8 is all about.
1555
Bill C-8, an act respecting marine conservation areas, seeks to
define the legal framework for the establishment of 28 marine
conservation areas, so as to protect and preserve natural marine
areas that are representative of the oceans and of the Great
Lakes, to promote public knowledge, appreciation and enjoyment
of this marine heritage, and to pass it on to future
generations.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine
conservation area. It was officially established on June 12 and
it has its own legislation.
The Bloc Quebecois totally supports the spirit of conservation
of this bill. Both Quebec and Canada have marine areas that need
to be protected.
Having said that, in November 1998 I spoke to this same bill,
then known as Bill C-48. In light of all the criticism, both by
the opposition parties and at the heritage committee hearings,
where almost every coastal group spoke out against Bill C-48, we
could have expected some major changes in Bill C-8.
Despite all the criticism, no changes were made to Bill C-48.
Again, the government opposite has decided to act alone.
Let us take a closer look at this bill, in order to uncover the
trickery, centralizing tendencies and total confusion that it
will help this government unleash.
First, there are the usual problems of jurisdiction. One would
think this government had never heard of the constitution.
Bill C-8 will give the federal government authority to establish
marine conservation areas with no regard for the jurisdictions
of Quebec and the provinces.
But one of the prerequisites to the federal government's setting
up a marine conservation area is that it own the proposed site.
Clause 5(2) of Bill C-8 reads as follows:
It is hard to be clearer.
Paradoxically, it is expressly written in the Constitution,
1867, that the management and sale of public lands come under
the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Section 92,
subsections (5), (13) and (16) of the British North America Act,
1867, provides, and I quote:
In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in
relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next
herein-after enumerated; that is to say,—
5. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the
Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon;
13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province;
16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in
the Province.
In addition, section 92A of the BNA Act provides, and I quote:
(1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws
in relation to
(a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the
province;
(b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable
natural resources and forestry resources in the province,
including laws in relation to the rate of primary production
therefrom.
As we can see, the Constitution clearly recognizes that the
management and sale of crown land are matters of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction. It falls under exclusive provincial
jurisdiction. That is all there is to it.
So, how do you explain this clear and voluntary violation of the
Constitution by the federal government?
It is even harder to understand given that the Government of
Quebec and the federal government have already signed a
co-operation agreement in this respect. Under the agreement
entitled “St. Lawrence action plan, phase III”, which they both
signed, both levels of government agreed to co-operate in order
to protect ecosystems in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and
in the St. Lawrence River.
1600
Why is the federal government all of a sudden trying to
unilaterally create marine conservation areas in Quebec? Why is
the federal government refusing to use the same model of
co-operation as the one designed by both levels of government for
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park? This is another example of
co-operation between the federal government and Quebec to create
a marine park.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was created in 1997,
pursuant to mirror legislation allowing both the federal and the
provincial governments to carry out their duties, without any
transfer of land.
So, why not use these two examples, which work very well? The
federal government is taking wicked pleasure from meddling in
the jurisdictions of the provinces. This is intolerable and
unacceptable.
What the Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to do is
destructive. What she wants is to appropriate Quebec territory
by circumventing Quebec's jurisdictions over the environment.
She wants carte blanche to create marine conservation areas on
marine floors, knowing full well that she is blatantly
contravening the Canadian constitution.
In addition to contravening the constitution, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage and the entire government are busy creating a
real bureaucratic nightmare in which overlap among the various
federal departments will create a real mess of red tape.
Let us take a long look at this real mess.
The federal government wants to create marine conservation areas
through Canadian Heritage. However, the marine protection zones
are managed by Fisheries and Oceans, and the marine and wildlife
reserves are managed by Environment Canada. I think this
government definitely needs a quick update on organizational
structures.
Let me quote the remarks of Patrick McGuinness, the
vice-president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, which he made
when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage, and I quote:
If there's a need for legislation to establish marine
conservation areas, it is our view that such legislation should
be incorporated into the recently passed Oceans Act under the
responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and
administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
It is
simply inefficient, cumbersome public administration to bring
forward this MCA initiative in its own act under the
responsibility of a separate minister and a separate department.
Mr. McGuinness even proposed the bill be simply withdrawn.
Naturally, however, in the view of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage and the government, Mr. McGuinness knows absolutely
nothing about marine areas. In fact, as far as the Liberals are
concerned, Mr. McGuinness is a real dolt.
We know that most witnesses who appeared before the committee
were opposed to Bill C-8. Why then does the Minister of
Canadian Heritage not simply withdraw it?
For all of these reasons, it is my responsibility as a
parliamentarian to vote against this bill. Bill C-8 is a real
violation of provincial jurisdictions.
As well as violating provincial authority, the majority of the
Quebec and Canadian public has also spoken out against this
bill. As a democrat, and the member of parliament for the
Quebec riding of Laurentides, I cannot support this bill.
Moreover, Bill C-8 will create a real bureaucratic nightmare of
duplications and overlaps between three departments, namely
Canadian Heritage, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Environment
Canada.
I reject this bill outright, and I want the minister to go back
and do her homework over again, because this bill is totally
unacceptable.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today to the report stage of Bill C-8, an act
respecting marine conservation areas.
The group one motions for the Bloc Quebecois are to delete in
full the reference clauses in Bill C-8. We agree with the Bloc
that the bill cannot be supported in its current form, but for
differing reasons.
The New Democratic Party spokesman for parks, the member for
Churchill River, Saskatchewan, is in his constituency today and
asked that I present the following remarks.
The NDP supports in principle the marine conservation area
concept. There is a definite need to preserve representative
marine areas similar to the terrestrial national parks program.
1605
Unfortunately, it became obvious throughout the committee
hearings on Bill C-8 that the proposed bill requires further
work. We regret that the NDP cannot support Bill C-8 in its
present form. We believe that we cannot support weak legislation
just for the sake of enacting legislation.
The following points were raised in committee and through New
Democratic Party meetings and correspondence with stakeholders.
Questions were raised repeatedly in relation to the proposed
interdepartmental structure of the national marine conservation
areas and the roles of Environment Canada, Heritage Canada and
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. These concerns include a
lack of clarity between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
marine protected areas, MPAs, and the proposed marine
conservation areas.
Concerns on the siting and size parameters necessary to protect
and conserve marine biological diversity in national marine
conservation areas remain unanswered.
There is also a deficiency in prohibitions. The NDP continues
to support prohibitions to ensure the long time preservation of
marine areas, efforts that were denied through the committee
process. These deficiencies include no prohibitions on bottom
trawling or dragging or fin fish aquaculture in national marine
conservation areas. By refusing to prohibit such destructive
activities, the national marine conservation areas cannot be
sufficiently protected. We beg the question, what is being
conserved?
I will address the issue of the maintenance of ecological
integrity. The Liberals refused to include this NDP amendment as
a primary consideration for management plans, although the NDP
was successful with the same amendment in Bill C-29, the Parks
Canada Agency. This refusal in Bill C-8 demonstrates an
inconsistency between Heritage and Parks Canada legislation.
The NDP is also concerned about the departure from the Bill C-7
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park model. Bill C-8 will
establish near exclusivity for federal powers in proposed
national marine conservation areas, a concern raised by our
opposition colleagues and thus an imposition on provincial and
community participation in national marine conservation areas.
Bill C-7 was based on better co-operation between all government
levels, especially in matters related to subsurface seabed
rights, and therefore enjoyed all-party support.
On the issue of off-site impacts, the government continues to
ignore ecosystem impacts from areas adjacent to the national
marine conservation areas, such as pollution sources from land or
waters.
This repeated NDP concern for marine areas has been proven
correct on numerous occasions, the most recent being the series
of fish killed in Prince Edward Island this summer from
agricultural runoff.
The NDP has also been proven correct about off-site impacts with
the recent discovery that a key source for the continuing
contamination of the St. Lawrence beluga population is found
adjacent to the Saguenay Park, a beluga food source. We have
seen the spectacle there of eels feeding on contaminated sediment
in identified toxic hot spots, which the Liberal government
continues to delay cleaning up.
My Churchill River colleague will be pleased to explain further
our position on Bill C-8 and its deficiencies at greater length
during third reading.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted to be able to speak to Bill C-8, an act respecting
marine conservation areas, as we proceed through the report stage
of this piece of legislation.
Before I begin my comments on the first group of amendments, let
me say that my hon. colleague, the member for West Nova and our
Progressive Conservative heritage critic, unfortunately is not
able to be here today. He is travelling with the fisheries
committee and is obviously dealing with things that are close and
dear to his heart. He will be able to speak at future times to
this legislation and give his own personal views with respect to
Bill C-8.
1610
As my colleagues in the House are well aware, the Progressive
Conservative Party has always been concerned with protecting our
fragile ecosystem for our future generations. One needs only to
look back at our first Canadian prime minister, the Right Hon.
Sir John A. Macdonald, to understand the deep-rooted affection
and appreciation we had and we continue to have for our
environment.
Sir John A. Macdonald created Canada's first national park when
in 1885 his Conservative government designated 26 square miles
around the hot mineral springs near what is now known as the town
of Banff, declaring it a national treasurer.
By creating Canada's first national park, Sir John A. Macdonald
began a legacy that successive governments have continued to
build upon.
As I mentioned, the Progressive Conservative Party has long been
concerned with preserving our ecosystem. In 1986, the PC
government approved the National Marine Park policy. In 1987,
the country's first national marine conservation area, known as
Fathom Five in Georgian Bay, was established.
In 1988, the government signed a federal-provincial agreement
with the province of British Columbia to create a national marine
conservation area in the Queen Charlotte Islands.
On April 6, 1990, the Progressive Conservative government signed
an historic and unique agreement between Canada and Quebec to
create a marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay Estuary
and the St. Lawrence River.
In December 1996, we gave our support to Bill C-78, an act to
establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park that culminated
with the proclamation of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park on
June 8 of that year.
Let me note that this marine park was created without the need
for any marine conservation legislation like the one that is
being debated today.
Our party has continued to support measures that would
effectively protect our unique and wonderful ecosystem. We stood
firm with this government as we passed legislation that sought
the establishment of the Tuktut Nogait National Park. We also
showed our support for the establishment of the new Canada Parks
Agency.
It is precisely because of our historical commitment toward
protecting and preserving our environment that we find it so
difficult to oppose Bill C-8. Yet, we must oppose this bill
because we believe that it is fundamentally flawed.
The legislation has the potential for creating far greater
problems than it purports to eliminate. I am convinced that Bill
C-8, as amended, is simply going to add another confusing level
of bureaucracy to an already nightmarish regulatory process for
our fishers and others who make use of marine waters to earn
their livelihoods.
Our party supported sending Bill C-48 to committee for review.
We did this not only because we are committed to the creation of
more national parks, but also because we wanted to give Canadians
another opportunity to voice their opposition to this piece of
legislation.
Time and time again we heard about the lack of consultation that
took place prior to the drafting of the bill. Members of the
Canadian heritage committee, along with many witnesses who made
presentations to the committee, helped identify a number of
glaring weaknesses within the legislation.
Trying to solve its flawed piece of legislation, the government
introduced over 40 amendments to the bill prior to being
reprinted for report stage.
Despite these many changes, the Minister of Canadian Heritage
has seen fit to introduce even further amendments that we will be
discussing later. It is no wonder that my colleague for
Portneuf, representing the Bloc Quebecois, has introduced
amendments that would see the deletion of every aspect of the
bill.
Despite our many philosophical differences we have with the
Bloc, we nevertheless do agree that Bill C-8 is a flawed piece of
legislation that deserves to be defeated in the House.
Rather than introduce amendments that would completely alter the
nature of the bill, as our friends from the Reform Party have
done, the Bloc has decided to simply introduce amendments that
would totally eradicate the legislation.
During our committee hearings, the member for Rimouski—Mitis
asked for an explanation as to why we needed this particular
piece of legislation. After all, the federal government and its
provincial counterparts created the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine
Park without the need of legislation. It is obvious by its
amendments that a satisfactory answer was not forthcoming.
While doing research on another piece of legislation, I came
across British Columbia's ministry of environment, lands and
parks website.
I was pleasantly surprised to hear that they already claimed to
have more than 80 marine parks protecting wildlife and their
scenic coastline.
1615
I seem to recollect that a marine park was created in Nova
Scotia. If I am not mistaken, Canada's military sank the
decommissioned HMCS Saguenay off Lunenburg County,
providing sanctuary for a large variety of very interesting sea
life. This area has subsequently become a major tourist
attraction for undersea adventurers. This further proves that
creating marine parks is possible without this piece of
legislation.
I do not think many people can be found who are fundamentally
opposed to the idea of creating marine parks. However, these
parks must be identified following extensive consultation with
local stakeholders.
One of our major concerns with the bill is centred on the lack
of consultation which took place within our local communities.
Yes, the minister can declare that they sent out 3,000
information packages to various organizations. However, they
have come to the conclusion that the lack of response they
received from the stakeholders was a sign of acceptance. They
have based this belief on a false premise.
Many fishers to whom we have talked had no idea that such a bill
had been introduced, much less any knowledge of its contents. Is
that what is meant by the government's extensive consultations?
It is not good enough. The legislation could seriously impact
the livelihoods of fishers. Therefore we feel they deserve
greater input into any new marine policy.
There is already anxiety within fishing communities. Fishers
are being asked to show blind faith in the government. The
government wants them to believe that it will look after their
interests when history clearly shows that this has not been the
case. Obviously what is happening in the fisheries industry right
now proves and points to the mismanagement of the government and
certainly a lack of confidence on the part of not only the
stakeholders, the fishers, but also the communities which depend
upon the fisheries as their livelihood.
Fishers have no idea how their fishery will be impacted by the
supreme court decision in the Donald Marshall, Jr., case. The
government is now asking them to believe that the legislation
will not seriously impact their livelihoods. I think the
government is asking a little too much.
The government already has some tools available to it to protect
the fragile ecosystem. Under the Oceans Act the minister can
designate areas for closure if he feels the resource is being
threatened. Evidence of this occurred in Nova Scotia when the
minister unilaterally made the decision to close the Sable Gully
just east of Sable Island.
We are concerned that Bill C-8 will add another confusing level
of bureaucracy to the regulatory process. Fishers have to
contend with DFO regulations, environmental laws, coast guard
approvals, Transport Canada guidelines, and now Canada Heritage.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that Bill C-8 is an infringement
upon provincial responsibilities. Although we do not agree with
this position, we do agree that substantial provincial government
input is necessary for helping to identify future marine
conservation areas.
We have a lot more to say about Bill C-8. However at this time
we will hold most of those comments until we debate the Group No.
2 amendments.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a bit of a challenge to debate the Group No. 1 amendments simply
because they appear to be a measure by the Bloc Quebecois to
delete every clause of the bill.
In view of that I will address the bill more generally, simply
because I have not had the opportunity to do so. I will address
some of the specific amendments in other upcoming groups. In
view of what the Group No. 1 amendments represent and that the
government does not appear to be engaging in the debate at all
today, I will address some of my general concerns about the bill.
Canada has both a national and international obligation to
ensure the viability of our east, west and Arctic coasts. All
members of the House would probably agree that it is crucially
important for us to protect our marine areas. Many clauses in the
bill merit consideration and support. We would certainly
consider supporting many of them if we could agree on amending
some of the other ones.
1620
I agree with the Minister of Canadian Heritage that we must
protect our 29 marine regions. There are many ways in which
these areas could be neglected or, in a worst case scenario, even
destroyed. Conservation efforts are necessary to ensure the
future existence and prosperity of our marine areas and with this
in mind I support the concept behind the bill.
I also believe strongly in the principle of polluter pay. It
has great merit and it makes sense to anybody that those who
pollute should pay to fix the damage they cause. Unfortunately
sometimes that damage is unfixable and it is difficult to impose
just compensation on those who would cause that kind of
destruction.
Unfortunately I have many serious concerns that make it
impossible for me or my party to support the bill in its current
form. The bill appears to fulfil preservationist environmental
objectives instead of the usual objectives of national parks,
historic or heritage sites. For this reason the bill belongs
squarely in the portfolio of the Minister of the Environment.
Lacking that, the portfolio of the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans would better fit the bill than that of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage.
The efforts of the Minister of Canadian Heritage to expand her
domain make my uncomfortable. Not only would the bill allow the
heritage minister's domain over decisions regarding marine
conservation areas. She could do so with increased discretionary
powers.
Bill C-8 proposes that the establishment of marine conservation
areas would be ruled by three Henry VIII clauses. The minister
could designate new areas under the act without having to steer
an amending act through parliament. The usual legislative
process would be sidestepped completely.
Canadians are all too aware how the government likes to sidestep
proper legislative process. However, in matters as important as
marine conservation, I would hope that the government would forgo
its usual policies of sleight of hand legislation and instead
adopt due process.
To the government due process means that the legislation goes
immediately to a government ruled committee. If that committee
has any objections, which is highly unlikely due to the Liberal
majority, the entire House of Commons must confirm the
objections. Should the committee not raise any objections within
21 days the amendment is passed by order in council.
I do not see a great deal of general MP involvement in the
process. If a Liberal dominated committee does not come up with
any objections, the amendment goes forward as is. Where is the
debate? Where is the careful consideration? Where is the public
consultation? The Liberals are truly masters of illusion, that
is the illusion of the democratic process.
It is only fair and right that Canadians affected by these
changes be given the opportunity to take part in the process. At
the very least, Canadians should be involved so that the changes
to their communities and businesses can have minimal negative
effects.
Aboriginal communities across the country have expressed their
opposition to the bill as have many resource based industries.
The overwhelming negative public response we have seen has been
completely ignored by the government.
The intent of Bill C-8 is to protect marine environments. No
one would disagree that such an effort is very important. However
it is unreasonable and impracticable to forge ahead without
taking into consideration the effects such efforts will have on
communities that rely on the oceans for food and economic
sustainability.
We have all heard what drastic effects the cod fishing
moratorium had on countless communities in Newfoundland. Many
communities were literally wiped out because people simply had no
way of maintaining their lives without the cod fishery.
Generations have grown up with cod fishing as their primary
source of food and income. However that heritage was banned and
communities all over Newfoundland suffered terribly.
Now the heritage minister is looking to destroy Newfoundland's
remaining fishing heritage by banning all fishing activities in
protected areas. No fishing would be allowed unless a special
discretionary minister's permit has been given to the individual.
I can only imagine how difficult it will be for the ordinary
citizen to get one of those permits. Certainly we have
experience with the abuses of ministerial permits in other areas
and other sectors in which the government is involved.
1625
After the cod moratorium many fishermen managed to transfer
their skills to other fisheries and are trying to eke out a
living. However the bill will quickly put an end to those
efforts.
The committee heard from the Canadian Aquaculture Industry
Alliance on one proposed marine conservation area. I understand
that since the time of the hearing, because the bill has dragged
on for so long, that the creation of the particular proposed
marine conservation area has been dropped. However at that time
it certainly was not.
The area extends from Cape Bonavista to North Head in Notre Dame
Bay. It contains approximately 25,000 to 30,000 square miles of
coastline. Within the area there is a large inshore fishery with
approximately 2,000 fishing licence holders, 35 aquaculture
licence holders, and many fine cod farming sites. The total value
of fishing and aquaculture industries in the area is almost $600
million.
Obviously this area is crucially important to those who rely on
fishing and agriculture opportunities. Yet this zoning has a
potential which still remains today to permanently shut down much
of the fishery in Newfoundland, displacing thousands of
Newfoundlanders who desperately need the industry.
When the cod moratorium was brought into place many
Newfoundlanders saw hope in the growing interest in exploration
and production possibilities in the Grand Banks. Since then many
people have had their hopes realized because projects like
Hibernia, Terra Nova and Sable Island have brought jobs, training
and foreign investment to Newfoundlanders and all Canadians.
If Bill C-8 goes ahead, a rich potential for future development
within the Grand Banks will never be realized. To declare the
Grand Banks a marine conservation area ignores the fact that
drilling projects such as Hibernia and Terra Nova have very
strict environmental protectionist guidelines to make sure the
surrounding marine ecosystems are not damaged. It is a perfect
example of what we call sustainable development in Canada. It is
a far more desirable goal than the protectionism we are talking
about.
In my opinion it has not been the development of our natural
resources offshore that has endangered the marine habitat in
Canada's oceans. It has simply been poor management and
overfishing, not resource development.
If the Grand Banks are closed to industry the government will
make sure, although the marine area continues to flourish, that
the economy and well-being of Newfoundlanders will suffer
terrible damages.
Another consideration must be what effect Bill C-8 will have on
Canada's mining industry. There are indications that vast
amounts of mineral deposits might be found under the floor of the
Pacific Ocean off the coast of Canada. According to committee
testimony these deposits could be worth several billions of
dollars.
Should the Canadian government investigate these sources there
will be vast revenues from the deposits. Exploration will ensure
that Canada stays on the cutting edge of mining and marine
technology. Yet Bill C-8 will put an end to all future mining
exploration in our oceans.
If the bill goes forward, Canada will lag behind the rest of the
world in mining production and related technologies. The mining
industry in Canada will suffer serious damages and thousands of
skilled, trained workers will be displaced. The closure of the
Devco mine has already shown us how devastating the failure of an
industry can be.
I will close on this part of my presentation and readdress some
of my further concerns when we get to some of the other upcoming
groups. I will continue this debate as we go along.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, federal
interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction is starting to
be routine in this country, under the present government.
With the blessing—as required by social union—of nine out of ten
provinces, Ottawa now has legislated sticking its nose into
places where it has no business being: our classrooms, our
hospital rooms, our universities and so on.
Up until now, there was one area in which the power-hungry
government had not interfered: the bottom of our waterways. No
doubt that was an oversight. Now it has been remedied.
1630
The bill before us corrects this surprising oversight.
In its principle and purposes, Bill C-8 meets laudable
objectives, that is the conservation of animal and plant life in
marine areas. We would have liked to be able to support it but,
unfortunately, it seems that this government is incapable of
coming up with bills that do not include clauses that I liken to
worms in a nice apple, which encroach on provincial
jurisdictions. It makes it impossible for any member who wants
to uphold the Constitution to vote in favour.
The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-8 because it does not
explicitly recognize the territorial integrity of Quebec, and
also because it will duplicate the marine protected areas of the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
At the Canadian heritage committee hearings, almost all coastal
groups who appeared before the committee spoke out against this
bill, arguing that the Canadian heritage initiative would
duplicate what is already being done by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, create confusion, and so on.
Here is what my colleague for Longueuil said:
There is nothing in the bill or in the government's amendments
that guarantees that, once the bill is passed, the territorial
integrity of Quebec will be respected.
In fact, we know that the federal and the Quebec governments do
not agree about the ownership of some portions of the ocean
floor, especially in the estuary of the St. Lawrence River and the
Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Now, the bill provides that the government can establish marine
conservation areas—and I quote the bill as amended—if the
government is satisfied “that Her Majesty in right of Canada has
clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in the
lands to be included in the marine conservation area”.
There already was a good example the government knew about. They
only had to rely on it to get our support. I am talking, of
course, about the bill passed in 1997 to establish the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
That legislation respects the jurisdiction of both levels of
government. In co-operating to create that park, the federal
government did not demand ownership over the lands that Quebec
considers its own under the British North America Act of 1867.
But things are different for the areas subject to Bill C-8.
Ottawa wants to assume ownership over these lands, regardless of
the Quebec legislation on crown lands.
And there is more. As a result of infringing upon areas of
provincial jurisdiction, of walking all over the provinces,
Ottawa is caught stepping on its own toes. We now have three
federal departments who are suddenly and simultaneously
interested in protecting the ocean floor. Heritage Canada wants
marine conservation areas. The Department of Fisheries and
Oceans want to set up marine conservation areas.
And, not wanting to feel left out, Environment Canada now wants
to create marine wildlife preserves. Under Bill C-8, each
department will have jurisdiction over its own areas or zones.
This promises to create a lot of grey areas, legal blur and
jurisdictional conflicts.
Here is what project co-ordinator John Melindy told the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage:
Now, through the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans is empowered to declare marine protected areas to
conserve species under threat. In view of this fact, we are
mystified as to why Canadian Heritage is attempting to run a
parallel conservation initiative under a separate piece of
legislation....Our position statement is that overall we feel Bill C-8
should be withdrawn. We cannot see any particular reason for
making this bill into law. It is felt that this bill would
undermine the authority of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
and transfer powers for marine conservation and habitat
protection to Parks Canada, which has no management or
scientific expertise in the marine field.
1635
Mismanagement, confusion with regard to respective roles, waste
of resources, contempt for the Constitution which guarantees
provincial jurisdictions, Bill C-8 is a perfect example of all
those things.
The only good thing about this bill, as in the case of so many
other bills before it, is that it will hopefully help Quebecers
understand that this system is corrupt and that sovereignty
alone will enable them to get out of that mess.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is important that we rise today to speak to Bill C-8, the marine
conservation act. In view of the fact that this body of
amendments really calls for the clause by clause elimination of
the bill, we can only speak rather generically to the bill
itself.
Perhaps we should call this bill the marine environmental act
or, maybe even better, the heritage minister's power grab act.
That may seem a little strong, but I want to explain this over
the next few minutes to see if there are not some members who
might agree with me.
As I look at the bill I shake my head in amazement. The purpose
of the bill is to establish marine conservation areas and
reserves under the authority of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, the minister chiefly responsible for national parks. On
the surface that objective sounds like motherhood and apple pie.
In fact there are some parts of the bill that I would agree with
and support.
The official opposition, for instance, is in favour of a
polluter pay principle. It makes sense to me that, just like a
user pay situation, those who pollute should also pay the price.
The official opposition is also supportive of the concepts of
participating in the world community of agreements and
maintaining the biodiversity. Throughout this we need to be good
stewards of what we have been given.
Unfortunately, that is just about as much support as I can give
for the original drafting of this bill. I will expand upon my
level of support for the amendments shortly.
I have far more concerns over the remaining portions of the
bill. To begin with, I question whether this is a parks bill or
an environmental protectionist bill. I believe that parks are to
be available for the public good. The way I read the bill, the
minister will have sweeping powers to virtually eliminate public,
private and commercial activity in vast areas of Canada's marine
lands. I do not know if this would be acceptable to many
Canadians.
Through clauses 5, 6 and 7 the minister would be able to
designate new areas under the act without bringing the act
forward again to parliament. This investiture of power to one
official in one office is not in keeping with my personal view of
an accountable, democratic government. The circumvention of
parliament may exist in other acts; however, that does not make
it right.
I am very concerned that the heritage minister may simply
exclude any exploration or development from any and all sites
that she deems to be held within the marine conservation areas.
I find this demagogue-like approach to power within the bill very
scary but typical of the Liberal government.
This approach to power is one that cannot be taken lightly. As
an example, I would like to bring a matter before the House that
is a direct case in point of the heritage minister and Parks
Canada superseding all reasonable approaches to power and the
issue of common law. Within my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan lies
a portion of the Pacific Rim National Park. Pacific Rim is home
to the West Coast Trail, and a more beautiful and rugged part of
Canada we will hardly find. Yet, it is here that a family's
nightmare began.
One of my constituents, Mr. John Van Egmond, has met with me on
several occasions. The Van Egmonds had a dream of living in a
wilderness setting and being able to help people through a
practical, hands on approach.
Less than two years ago the Van Egmonds thought that they had
found the perfect solution to their dream. Two parcels of fee
simple land became available for sale. One land parcel was
adjacent to and the other within the boundaries of Pacific Rim
National Park.
They subsequently purchased both parcels of land.
1640
They confirmed with the local regional district that they would
be permitted to build a bed and breakfast on this property.
Unfortunately, after Parks Canada later became involved, they
learned that a bed and breakfast would not be permitted.
Ever resourceful, the Van Egmonds began to put together a
wilderness adventure school that could teach people about the
outdoors, specifically in the West Coast Trail environment.
Furthermore, their school would be used as a rescue base and
emergency shelter for the many hikers that annually use the
trail. Over the past several years, due to the popularity of the
trail, a reservation system has been used.
Although isolated, thousands of people from around the world use
that trail every year. Nevertheless, many people are not fully
prepared for the hardships of the trail and are injured along the
way.
To accomplish their revised goals, the Van Egmonds had the
written assurance of Parks Canada that the rights of private
property owners would be respected. However, that is when the
problems really began with Parks Canada.
Over the course of the next few months Parks Canada officials
cut off access to their land. Remember, this is private land
that had been privately purchased. Parks Canada would not permit
them to cross crown land that was designated as a park reserve.
The Van Egmonds believe that Parks Canada officials contacted
all the local helicopter companies and told them not to contract
with the Van Egmonds to drop building materials or supplies on to
their property. It disallowed a septic permit for the Van
Egmonds on their own property, even though the local regional
district had given its approval. This is where it gets
interesting. This was in light of the fact that 8,000 hikers
annually use the trail and use the pristine shoreline and
surrounding area as their own private septic field.
In order to try to comply with Parks Canada officials, Mr. Van
Egmond had been using a wheelbarrow to move his supplies from a
river to his property along the beach. Parks Canada then issued
a letter that the Van Egmonds would not be allowed ingress or
egress across park land at all, which meant that they would be
trespassing every time they stepped off their own property. This
is in free Canada.
Furthermore, Parks Canada officials had told the local Ditidaht
Band that the Van Egmonds were illegally fishing salmon stocks
out of the local Nitinat Narrows and accepting fees to show
hikers a series of revered petroglyphs adjacent to their
property. This was brought to a head when several members of the
band verbally and physically confronted the Van Egmonds.
When cooler heads prevailed and voices of reason compared
different sides of the story, the Ditidaht Band realized that
Parks Canada officials had not told them the truth about the Van
Egmonds. The Van Egmonds had not been fishing illegally and were
not taking people to view the sacred petroglyphs. At this point
the Van Egmonds and the Ditidaht Band began to work together.
Out of respect for the Ditidaht Band, the Van Egmonds have left
their property and have been attempting to resolve the issue with
the heritage minister.
The situation is so serious that the Ditidaht Band has since
written the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
and the Minister of Canadian Heritage stating that they will not
continue in their land claim negotiations until Heritage Canada
resolves the issue with the Van Egmonds. Sadly, neither minister
has taken the time to date to respond to the Van Egmonds.
These allegations in a free democracy are difficult to believe.
Yet, I have talked and met with people independent from the Van
Egmonds who have confirmed these reports. The Van Egmonds want
nothing more than to resolve this issue, and yet once again the
government is not listening, as it does not listen to many
people, particularly in B.C. Is it any wonder that I cannot
support this bill and the centralization of power that it would
give to the minister?
I take this opportunity to speak out loudly on this issue. This
bill is inappropriate. It has far-reaching power that I believe
supersedes parliament itself. This is not acceptable. We cannot
have any more cases like the Van Egmonds. It cannot be
supported. Without the approval of many amendments, I will
certainly not be able to support the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
thought the government opposite would have done some thinking
between the tabling of its first bill, Bill C-48, and its second
one, Bill C-8.
I thought the government would have done some thinking, listened
carefully and reread the statements and speeches made in this
House, and taken the bill back to the drawing board to make it
more acceptable.
1645
Not so. I was not planning to take part in the debate this
afternoon, but this is too much. I must speak up. I notice that
the government tabled exactly the same bill as before, a bill
that was rejected by many and rather seriously challenged by the
opposition. The hon. members must realize that we can no more
accept it now than we did before.
I looked at this legislation from a lawyer's point of view,
since I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for justice, and since all
issues in a bill that relate to justice are of interest to me.
I looked to see if the government opposite, which is supposed to
act responsibly, does at least respect jurisdictions and the
Constitution for which it fights so hard, as we saw during oral
question period. We live in the best country in the world, as
the Prime Minister would say. But does that country at least
respect its constitution?
We must look at clause 5 of the bill to realize that the Liberal
government does not respect the Constitution for which it is
fighting. Worse yet, it even creates overlap within its own
departments, and I will conclude on that.
In the part of the bill that deals with the Constitution and the
enlarging of marine areas, clause 5 states, and I quote:
This schedule deals with titles and marine conservation areas.
under this section or subsection 6(2) may be made only if
(a) the Governor in Council is satisfied that Her Majesty in
right of Canada has clear title to or an unencumbered right of
ownership in the lands to be included in the marine conservation
area—
It must therefore be established whether the submerged lands
they wish to include in the conservation area belong to the
federal government. According to this section, which I would
put in the context of Quebec, when I think of the St. Lawrence
River, the immediate answer is that they do not, that the
federal government is not the owner of the bed of the
St. Lawrence River.
We know this is what the bill says. There are three sites
in the St. Lawrence River and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence that the
federal government wants to turn into marine conservation areas.
It is ignoring subsection 5(2) and wants to go further still.
Why do I say that the riverbed does not belong to the federal
government? Quite simply because I am referring to the
Constitution Act, 1867. As a member of the Bloc Quebecois, I
must look at the British North America Act, 1867, the
Constitution, because it is the overriding law right now,
because the Canadian Constitution is the number one law that
everyone must respect, including the federal government.
Section 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that the
management and sale of public lands come exclusively under
provincial jurisdiction.
I know it is complicated, but what is quite clear is that the
floor of the St. Lawrence River belongs to the province of
Quebec, to Quebecers, and not to Ottawa.
How will they implement their nice little legislation if not
through a show of force? We know how easy it is for the
government across the way to flex its muscles in these areas,
and we will probably witness another show of force when the time
comes to implement this legislation. Legally however, based on
the existing legislation, we can only conclude that the federal
government does not have jurisdiction over the floor of the
St. Lawrence River.
1650
I know it is complicated, as I said earlier. The government
opposite finds it complicated, so you can imagine how ordinary
citizens feel about it. They find it extremely complicated.
I said so in a previous speech, and I want to say it again
because some of my constituents from Berthier—Montcalm just
cannot believe it and they ask me “Michel, is it really so
complicated?”
When you look at the St. Lawrence River and at the fish in these
waters, you do so from the perspective of Quebec fishers. They
realize that the banks of the river indubitably fall under
provincial jurisdiction. They belong to Quebec. Now, if they
want to fish, they need to register their boats with the federal
government.
The St. Lawrence river bed falls under provincial jurisdiction,
but the water itself, the seaway, falls under federal
jurisdiction.
It is very complicated for the average person. Add to that
federal protected areas and wildlife reserves located in areas
under provincial jurisdiction.
Maybe the government opposite should at least start respecting
legislation that concerns it directly. It should at least accept
these jurisdictions and accept exclusively provincial
jurisdictions.
I have not yet talked about fish. A fish, as such, is under
provincial jurisdiction, but there are federal quotas.
Recreational fishing requires a provincial licence, but
commercial fishing also requires a federal licence.
It is quite complicated.
Yet it could be a lot simpler if the government opposite were
more co-operative, if it were not always intent on doing only as
it pleases. It seems the only person here who has a monopoly on
the truth is the Prime Minister. Everybody else is crazy and is
wrong.
Again, we have examples in the area of wildlife protection. In
Quebec, we have a good example in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence
marine park. It is a good example to follow simply because both
levels of government co-operated to make something that works and
that is in harmony with the Constitution of Canada.
Both levels
of government agreed to create a marine wildlife reserve with a
co-ordinating committee made up of various people selected by
both the provincial and federal ministers responsible. Each
contributed half of the required funding.
It is working out well, because there was consultation.
As for the bill before us, all stakeholders came to tell us in
committee that the federal government had not consulted those
involved sufficiently. They did not consult the Government of
Quebec sufficiently, for one thing, and its property is
involved.
We are beginning to get used to this. I have spoken about the
bottom of the St. Lawrence. Everyone here in this House agrees
environment is a shared jurisdiction. Clearly, under the
Canadian constitution, the environment concerns both federal and
provincial levels. If something is covered by environmental
legislation, both levels of government have to be consulted.
I have also referred to the federal government's desire to
overlap and bypass Quebec's jurisdictions.
At the federal level, that there is departmental overlap.
This bill overlaps Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment
Canada jurisdictions. People from both of these departments
came before the committee and told us “This makes no sense.
There is too much overlap. People will not understand at all.
It is too complicated. The government needs to go back to the
drawing board”.
Today I realize that the bill under consideration is exactly the
same. Let the Liberals go back to the drawing board before they
propose something. At least the people responsible for
application of this legislation within their own departments
will have nothing to say against it.
Before closing, I would like to make some very important quotes.
1655
Do I have leave of the House to quote three or four very
important witnesses, who had things to say that the government
would do well to listen to, or to listen to again? Once is not
enough for this government.
I would just like about another five minutes on top of my ten.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm has asked for his time to be extended five
minutes. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is not the first time I have spoken to this bill,
although the last time it had a different number attached to it.
The official opposition believes in sustainable development and
management of the environment to both preserve biodiversity and
conserve the environment for the enjoyment of Canadians at
present and in the future.
The heritage minister by this bill simply expands her domain and
encroaches on what is more properly the responsibility of the
Minister of the Environment, her old portfolio. The minister in
this bill sidesteps the proper role of parliament with the
insertion of Henry VIII clauses, as we have already heard
described today. The bill requires provincial governments to obey
it. The bill impinges on provincial jurisdiction in many ways.
Enforcement officers may arrest without warrant and enter private
property without permission. That is a summation of some of my
concerns.
This is a politicized environmental bill and not a useful one to
assist the environment. That is the problem with the bill. It
will burden us with another layer of government bureaucracy. This
will prevent honest fishermen, hardworking oil and gas
exploration companies, local anglers and recreational boaters
from being able to make a living or enjoy themselves.
The bill will not prevent natural disasters. It will not
prevent poachers. It will not prevent the environment from being
ruined. Bill C-8 will do none of this.
I attended committee. Reform brought some witnesses to
committee. The chief of the Campbell River band was at
committee. The North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force was there.
West coast fishermen were there. Rather than accept at face
value concerns by west coast stakeholders, what did we hear? A
lecture from the chairman of the committee. Quite frankly, I was
amazed at the treatment meted out to people who had travelled so
far.
If this bill proceeds, we will have three federal departments
that can protect marine areas: Environment Canada, the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and this bill will put
Heritage Canada into that picture as well. This is very sloppy
indeed and is not the way to proceed. Any time more than one
party manages something, we get diffused management, diffused
objectives and things tend to fall apart.
I am going to talk about the west coast because I know it best.
About half of the British Columbia coastline is in my riding.
Obviously it is a busy place. There is aquaculture going on,
fishing activity, commercial and recreational, undersea
harvesting of different kinds, some of it actively being pursued
and others are proposed. There are transportation activities of
every kind, tug and barge, marine commercial transportation,
ferries, cruise ships, we have the works. We also have a history
of oil and gas exploration. I am going to spend some time
talking about that.
1700
The oil and gas reserves on the west coast exceed many times,
for example, the oil reserves in Hibernia and other areas in
Canada, which are currently being exploited quite successfully.
At the end of 1998, the Hibernia operation had already provided
107,000 man years of work, a very significant number and one that
British Columbians are taking note of.
We should not be pre-empted from an opportunity to fully develop
our industry by legislation that blindly creates parks without
taking all of these things into account. It is very clear, from
the way this bill has been developed, that those things have not
been taken into account.
British Columbia is unique. We fought as a province to
establish provincial jurisdiction over the Gulf of Georgia, which
is salt water and seabed and marine resources that are owned by
the province. This legislation would be tantamount to the
Nanoose Bay expropriation if it were done without the agreement
of the province. That is what the legislation attempts to do.
I have major concerns with the politicization of the protection
of marine areas. This bill doe not accomplish anything for the
environment. It is only here as a public relations exercise by a
department and a minister of the government.
When the legislative package came out, I sent it out to 22
groups that I knew had an interest in this type of legislation
and that should have been consulted by government. These groups
found they could not comment in any meaningful way on this
legislation because they did not know where the marine
conservation areas were being proposed. The legislation is not
at that stage. By the time it gets to that stage, there will be
no parliamentary purview other than some ability to comment on
what they can do by order in council without further reference to
parliament. That is wrong. We are opposed to it. We know that
west coast interests will be overruled because we have already
seen the attitude display in this process.
The recreational sector, which will be heavily impacted by
anything that comes out of this, has no effective lobby. It is
composed primarily of individual anglers. Once enabling
legislation is drafted to create these areas and then they are
not created, the bureaucracy is uncomfortable because the
minister has a mandate.
What we have is a self-perpetuating machine churning out
regulations in new areas that have no business existing in the
first place. We end up with marine conservation areas with a
very weak rationale which flies in the face of common sense and
local sentiment. There has to be a better way.
We recommended that the municipal level of governance be put
into this legislation in a meaningful way so that it can have a
decision making role in whether these specific areas will come
into being or not. There have been no changes or movement
whatsoever in that regard.
A major concern we have with the bill is its potential to affect
offshore oil and gas exploration and industry. We have had a
moratorium since 1989 on the west coast. This is supported by a
federal moratorium which will be in place until B.C. decides to
allow this exploration.
In September 1999, in the B.C. northern development
commissioner's report, he said:
The report clearly shows that northerners support the development
of a process that would reconsider the current oil and gas
moratorium.
1705
It appears that British Columbians are very interested in
developing these resources. If the federal government proceeds
with Bill C-8, British Columbians may be hampered in developing
this industry due to the additional restrictions that may be
imposed by Bill C-8.
I will conclude by saying that this is a bad piece of
legislation and we should kill it.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to speak to
Bill C-8. This bill concerns the creation of a network of
national marine conservation areas, the marine equivalent of
national parks.
This network would be representative of 29 marine regions in
Canada, covering the waters of the Great Lakes, inland waters
including swamps, the territorial sea and the 200 mile exclusive
economic zone.
With this bill, the government will set the boundaries of the
marine conservation areas in all the regions in Canada, in
consultation, we hope, with the people of the area.
Bill C-8 gives the governor in council, on the recommendation of
the Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Heritage, the
right to limit or prohibit activities in commercial zones in
order to protect marine resources.
It also gives the governor in council, on the recommendation of
the Ministers of Transport and Canadian Heritage, the right to
limit or prohibit transportation in marine conservation areas.
It is important to note that 1998 was set aside as the year of
the oceans by the UN. The most important activities held to
draw attention to this event include the world's fair in Lisbon,
Portugal, and the adoption of the ocean charter by UNESCO in
September 1997 in St. John's, Newfoundland.
The government claims it is important to preserve the natural
marine ecosystems and their balance to maintain biologic
diversity. It says there is a need to establish a
representative network of marine conservation areas, whose scope
and features will ensure the maintenance of healthy marine
ecosystems.
The Bloc Quebecois supports environmental protection measures.
It gave its support when the government introduced legislation
to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
In addition, I must say that, in my riding of
Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, water is precious. The Argenteuil
Parti Quebecois and the PQ subcommittee on the environment for
the Laurentian region submitted briefs to the BAPE.
People wanted to show their support for the protection of the
environment, particularly ecosystems in the groundwater, marine
conservation areas, forests and other areas.
In 1986, the federal government launched the marine conservation
area program. In 1988, the National Parks Act was amended to
take into account the establishment of temporary protected
marine areas. Since then, the following areas were created:
Fathom Five National Marine Park in the Georgian Bay, the Gwaii
Haanas marine conservation reserve in British Columbia, and the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
The park is over 1,100 square kilometres and has a unique
tourist component, the importance of which we are just beginning
to grasp.
1710
This marine park was 14 years in the making. Its management is
shared by the provincial and federal governments.
The project began in 1985. It took quite a long time to create
the park because of the public consultations, environmental
studies and negotiations that were required. That precedent
should have served as a model for the federal government in
establishing other marine conservation areas.
It should be pointed out that co-operative mechanisms already
exist to protect ecosystems in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park, and in the St. Lawrence River, under the agreement entitled
“St. Lawrence action plan, phase III”, which was signed by all
federal and provincial departments concerned and which provides
for an investment of $250 million over five years in various
activities relating to the St. Lawrence River.
Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill before
us today for two reasons. First, it is not clear whether
Quebec's territorial integrity will be respected. Second, we are
opposed to this bill because Heritage Canada is proposing the
establishment of a new structure, that is the marine
conservation areas, which will simply duplicate fisheries and
oceans' marine protected areas and Environment Canada's marine
wildlife reserves.
Quebec's jurisdiction is recognized under the British North
America Act of 1867.
There is overlap within the federal government. With the
bill, the government wants to establish marine conservation
areas under the responsibility of Heritage Canada, marine
protection areas under the responsibility of Fisheries and
Oceans and marine wildlife areas under the responsibility of
Environment Canada.
The same site could have more than one designation. It could be
designated as a marine conservation area by Heritage Canada and
as a marine protection area by fisheries and oceans.
In both cases, it is obvious that the local population would
have a major role to play in the establishment of marine
protection areas. The Bloc is concerned about problems related
to the bureaucracy.
The same area, according to fisheries and oceans, could fall
under different categories and be subject to different
regulations.
We know that when more than one department is involved in a
project, even if all the departments involved belong to the same
government, there are difficulties and additional costs to the
taxpayers.
The government would have been better to make sure that
ecosystems are managed by one department only. The departments
involved should sign a framework agreement to delegate all of
their responsibilities over ecosystems to the same department
while respecting constitutional jurisdictions.
I also want to mention the fact that the preliminary
consultations were a failure. Furthermore, during hearings by
the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, almost all groups
from coastal areas heard condemned the bill on the grounds that
the system proposed by Heritage Canada would duplicate part of
the work done by Fisheries and Oceans and create confusion.
On February 11, 1999, Patrick McGuinness, vice-president of the
Fisheries Council of Canada, told the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage that it was simply inefficient, cumbersome
public administration. In his view, bringing forward this
marine conservation area initiative in its own act under the
responsibility of a separate minister and a separate department
was unacceptable. His conclusion was that the bill should be
withdrawn.
Jean-Claude Grégoire, a member of the board of directors of the
Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec, which represents
almost 80% of all professional fishermen in Quebec, also told
the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that there were
numerous problems.
In his testimony, he mentioned that such an area was difficult
to access from a scientific point of view, meaning that people
were working more with probabilities and presumptions than with
real scientific knowledge of what existed.
1715
The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill because, instead of
focussing on collaboration, as in the case of the Sagenuay-St.
Lawrence marine park, the federal government wants to introduce
marine conservation areas with no regard for Quebec's
jurisdiction over its territory and environment.
The Bloc Quebecois concludes that the consultation conducted by
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Quebec with respect to
the introduction of marine conservation areas was also a
failure.
Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Government of
Quebec is also engaged in initiatives to protect the environment
and submerged lands and water in particular. Bill C-8 does not
respect the integrity of Quebec's territory.
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures to protect the
environment, but opposed to Bill C-8 for all the reasons I have
mentioned.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is very interesting to speak to Bill C-8, the marine
conservation act, particularly in light of the motions put
forward by the Bloc, which would delete all clauses of the bill.
It is interesting because of what I perceive to be contained
within the bill. Quite frankly, we will be supporting the Bloc's
amendment to stall or stop this bill.
When we look at most government legislation that comes forward,
we see an enlargement of ministers' jurisdiction. The
enlargement of ministers' jurisdiction can be done in a
tremendous number of ways. We see it even within my own
constituency, within the four mountain parks, two of which are in
my constituency and two of which are in the Wild Rose
constituency. We see an action that is presently taking place
where the minister has chosen, through the Canada Gazette,
effective November 6, to take over 90% of the hectares under park
jurisdiction and basically remove them from the parks, which are
for the enjoyment of the citizens of Canada and visitors.
This goes to the whole issue of Bill C-8, the marine
conservation act. If we take a look at the sensible reasons for
the government wanting to bring this bill forward and put them up
against the actions it is presently taking with respect to the
parks under Parks Canada jurisdiction, we get an idea of where
this bill could take us.
I was interested in many of the comments made by members of the
Bloc Quebecois. I reject outright their assertion that this
takes jurisdiction away from their province. However, I reflect
upon the comments of the previous speaker who talked about the
fact that basically this is not a bill that is reflective of the
needs or the requirements of the park, it is a preservationist
bill.
There is always a dynamic tension in Parks Canada, in particular
with anything having to do with the environment, between people
being able to enjoy certain activities within the confines of the
park and the preservation issue because we are attempting to
preserve the park for future generations. Indeed, this is a
dynamic balance that is ongoing.
However, we see what happens when special interest groups catch
the ear of the current minister. She ends up reacting to special
interest groups that, in my judgment, are detrimental to where
Parks Canada is going and certainly detrimental to the enjoyment
of the parks.
1720
I can recall one interesting squabble I had with the minister
when I was heritage critic over the issue of the airstrip in
Banff National Park. The airstrip was being used by a local
flying club, but it was there almost exclusively and primarily
for the use of people in an emergency situation. We had an
ongoing verbal battle over this issue.
I was trying to drive home the fact that the airstrip was
located within those very high mountains at the confluence of
three valleys where there can be a lot of turbulence and a lot of
changes in the weather. A small aircraft can fly from one
valley, say from the direction of Calgary, over the airstrip and
proceed up toward the Continental Divide. It can run into a wall
of weather, turn around in the valley and attempt to come back,
only to find that both the valley out toward Lake Minnewanka and
the valley out toward Calgary are all blocked in. What does the
pilot do?
I recall that the minister seemed to be not prepared to take the
issue of safety for small planes seriously and was very concerned
about the fact that perhaps I was attempting to keep the airstrip
open so that the local flying club could have the pad, which of
course I was not.
It is interesting that after she had gazetted that the airstrip
was going to be closed, a parks crew flew in the area and exactly
what I just said happened. Those people flew over the strip.
They were on some kind of a survey for elk or something. They
ran into a wall of weather toward the B.C. border. They turned
around, only to find that they could not go anywhere. They had
to use the strip for an emergency landing. Guess what? The
strip remains open as a result of that near miss.
It is that kind of interference that is of deep concern to me
when I look at Bill C-8, the marine conservation act, and realize
that there is the very real potential, on the basis of the
history of the current minister, that decisions could be made
from Hamilton or from Ottawa that would not really take into
account the needs of the affected area.
I mentioned the business of gazetting. As of November 6 of this
year, it is my understanding that under an order in council, in
the Canada Gazette, the minister has said that over 90% of
the land within the four mountain parks will be set aside as a
preserve. Anybody wishing to go into that area will require a
permit to do so. Anybody with an ounce of common sense
recognizes that Banff in particular, probably of all the parks in
the world, is under the greatest environmental stress as a result
of its popularity. We can clearly understand the difficulty that
is created when there are horses travelling on back trails, as
well as motor bikes tearing up the trails. The hooves of horses
tear up the trails as well.
All of those issues are part of the mix. The minister simply
exerts the power she has under the current parks legislation,
which will be reflected and enhanced in Bill C-8. For her to
simply go ahead and take such action is mind boggling. The
continued enjoyment and intelligent use of that parkland by human
beings that will be stopped as a result of that decision.
There have been consultations in the current situation and I am
sure there will be consultations in future situations if this
bill comes into effect.
I have accused Parks Canada of not understanding what the word
consultation means. The word consultation, in my judgment,
particularly by this minister, is to say that it is a fait
accompli, it is an information session and not actual
consultation per se.
1725
The intent of Bill C-8 is good and laudable. I understand that.
Nonetheless, on the basis of the history that I and my
constituents have experienced with the current Parks Canada
legislation, particularly with respect to the four mountain
parks, this bill is not workable and is dangerous from the
perspective of the continued intelligent use and enjoyment of our
parks by the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It is 5.25 p.m. I know the member for Louis-Hébert would be ready
to begin her speech on this issue, but you would interrupt her
after four minutes. As we all know, she is entitled ten minutes.
It is your privilege and that of the House to call it 5.30 p.m.
Therefore, I am asking you if it would not be preferable to
proceed in this fashion.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
suggesting that the House see the clock as being 5.30 p.m. and
proceed with Private Members' Business.
Is there agreement to proceed in such a way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-236, an act to amend the National Parks Act (Stoltmann National
Park), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I express my gratitude for the
opportunity to speak to Bill C-236, which would amend the
National Parks Act to create the Stoltmann National Park. It
would require the Minister of Canadian Heritage to commence
negotiations with the Government of British Columbia to ensure
the establishment of a new national park in British Columbia
comprising the Stoltmann wilderness area.
The purpose of the bill is to designate a 500,000 hectare area,
which includes the Elaho Valley, as the Stoltmann National Park.
The name comes from a famous conservationist, Randy Stoltmann,
who first proposed in April 1994 that the area be preserved,
shortly before his untimely death.
The area is located a three hour drive north of Vancouver, not
far from the world's famous four season resort village of
Whistler. It is a wilderness area located on the mainland of
British Columbia in the coastal mountain range. This is an
important observation.
The question will arise as to why the area should be protected
as a national park. These are the reasons.
First, the Stoltmann wilderness area has a unique ecosystem
found nowhere else in Canada. I visited the area twice. The
Stoltmann wilderness area includes ancient rain forest trees.
Its pristine valleys of old growth forest have stands of Douglas
firs which date back some 1,000 and even 1,300 years. The diverse
habitat of the valley provides a home for black bears, grizzly
bears, a moose population and other very interesting species.
1730
The area offers habitat to a grizzly bear population identified
by the British Columbia wildlife branch as being threatened. It
is anticipated to become a grizzly bear recovery management area
under that very province's grizzly bear conservation strategy. It
is designed to help reverse the loss of grizzly bears in British
Columbia.
Recently Clendenning Provincial Park was created by the
province. I congratulate the government for having done so. But
this is not a sufficient reason to justify logging in the
remaining grizzly bear habitat of the Elaho Valley.
Members may be aware that the province of British Columbia has
recognized the ecological value of the area by establishing three
provincial parks. The current parks cover less than 10% of the
entire Stoltmann wilderness area. Grizzly bears have very large
pristine habitat requirements and according to expert
conservation biologists, these parks are not sufficient to
sustain them.
Other animals have been sighted by experts, biologists and the
like in the area, such as wolves, racoons, moose, deer, as well
as numerous birds and small mammal species. The proposed
national park would protect one of Canada's rarest types of old
growth forest as well as the habitat of many wildlife species,
including grizzly bear populations that are at risk.
The second reason is that the protection of the ecosystem in the
Stoltmann area is gradually becoming a matter of national
concern. Hundreds of letters and cards have come in asking for
the protection of this unique ecosystem. They have been sent to
the Prime Minister, the Minister for Canadian Heritage who is
responsible for national parks, the Minister of the Environment,
the British Columbia premier, myself and many others.
Moreover, there are numerous reports in the media on the pitiful
state of our national parks system in general. The panel headed
by Mr. Jacques Gérin, who is a respected international
consultant, is about to produce a report. The federal government
10 years ago pledged to complete the national parks system by the
year 2000 and reiterated its commitment in the Speech from the
Throne. It must be noted that to date, only four out of the 15
promised parks have been created.
Two years ago Parks Canada reported that only one park is not
threatened by human activity. The other 38 are threatened by
logging, mining, hydroelectric development and tourism
development. This is an issue of great significance across the
country.
One may ask why the Stoltmann area is not currently represented
within the national parks system. The current national parks
system uses a framework of 39 natural regions for planning for
national parks. The Stoltmann wilderness area is being clear cut
and roads are being pushed into pristine areas, despite the fact
that the forest service in the U.S. has imposed moratoria on road
building on public lands in grizzly bear recovery areas.
1735
In the Stoltmann area per se, we find beautiful ancient growths
of trees which are currently logged by International Forest
Products, Interfor, a Vancouver based company with logging rights
in the area. This exploitation of one of the last old growth
forests in Canada will only generate short term benefits as the
resource will soon be exhausted. Establishing this park makes
sense because it would prevent the loss of a beautiful ecosystem.
In addition, as I will expand on in a moment, it would also
offer a golden economic opportunity for the long term.
The long term benefits of establishing such a national park are
very interesting and deserve to be explored. Currently some
estimate that logging in this area supports anywhere between 30
and 70 local logging jobs. By contrast, a study conducted a few
years ago revealed that Banff National Park generates $614
million per year for the local economy. In Whistler the tourism
industry has recognized the potential long term benefits of a
national park in the area and it has commissioned a study to
evaluate the economic benefits of the proposed Stoltmann national
park.
At present, with little infrastructure and no legal protection,
this area already is visited frequently. Therefore the
establishment of the Stoltmann national park would generate
tourism. It would generate economic activity. It would generate
employment in the area where by contrast, logging jobs would be
in decline and would eventually be phased out when the resource
had been exhausted.
I submit that a diversified economic base is critical to the
future of communities in the region surrounding the Elaho Valley.
A national park would secure long term benefits for the regional
economy. As well it would preserve this area for the benefit of
present and future generations of visitors.
Citizens, it must be said, are quite active in urging us to take
action to protect the Stoltmann wilderness area in the valley. As
I have explained, letters have been written in support of a
national park. Most of these letters are private accounts
describing the beauty encountered by people visiting the area and
even letters of outrage at the fate of this region. The public
as well as many groups have currently no public venue for these
concerns to be addressed. As a result, there is a growing degree
of frustration and tension in the area.
In 1996 the province of British Columbia held a planning process
in the lower mainland area of B.C. Unfortunately, important
voices were not heard in the consultation process. Concerned
citizens, environmental and native groups have expressed
discontent with the lack of public access to the hearings that
took place.
Moreover there was a serious gap in the consultation. The
planning process, for instance, did not include environmental
impact assessments of the proposed land use, its impact on
wilderness and on grizzly bear habitat. It did not include
economic studies of various land use options. In fact, in order
to find the solution, the premier of British Columbia is
directing people to write to the federal Minister of the
Environment on this issue, believe it or not.
The discussion on the future of this valley must inevitably and
most urgently also include the question of native rights. In the
Stoltmann wilderness area there are four native groups whose
territory includes parts of Stoltmann. The largest portion
belongs to the Squamish native group who are currently in treaty
negotiations.
Squamish natives have expressed their concern that current
logging is destroying their land. They have been closely working
with conservation groups in order to prevent this from happening.
1740
It must be said that a national park would include recognition
of native land rights. The process would begin with negotiations
with native groups on the best approach to protect this land for
the benefit of everyone.
An option could be a co-managed national park reserve such as
the one that was set up and established quite successfully in
South Moresby in the Queen Charlotte Islands.
As I have explained, the merits for this proposal are numerous,
but most important is the sense of urgency associated with it. At
the current rate of exploitation by the logging company it will
soon be too late. This unique wilderness area will not be worth
protecting any longer as private interests will run away with the
profits and will leave behind clear cuts and impoverished land.
The federal government has an opportunity to provide through the
process of establishing a national park the much needed open
democratic process that people have been asking for by
negotiating with all parties involved: concerned citizens,
environmental and conservationist groups, the logging company,
native groups, the tourism industry, all of them. The federal
government has the opportunity to co-manage with the first
nations all that this publicly owned piece of wilderness has to
offer. The protection of this unique wilderness area is for the
long term benefit of everyone.
To conclude, this area is located in the Pacific coast mountains
region of British Columbia. It is an area that is not yet
represented in the network established by the Parks Canada
system. This is why the Stoltmann national park commands
attention by those of us who are keen in ensuring that we have an
adequate national parks system as a heritage for future
generations of Canadians.
I know there are dissenting views on this matter. I look
forward to hearing the views of my colleagues and to take good
note of what they have to say. I am partially familiar with what
the dissenting views are about. Very simply, the Stoltmann
national park stands for whether we are guided in our decision
making process by the short term or the long term. I hope that
the long term will prevail.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to provide a B.C.
perspective to this misguided initiative by the member for
Davenport. I will also speak on behalf of individuals and
organizations from my constituency of West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast, people who live in the area where the member of parliament
from Toronto wants to put a national park.
I find it interesting that the member for Davenport is trying to
foist this upon the citizens of my riding. I surely cannot see a
British Columbia member of parliament telling the residents of
Davenport or anywhere else in Ontario how to manage their land
base. I am also intrigued by this initiative, given that the
former secretary of state for parks and the current minister of
heritage have rejected the idea of a national park for Stoltmann.
It seems a member who knows so much about British Columbia is out
of step with the cabinet ministers within his own party.
Allow me to read into the record for the member for Davenport
who is from Toronto what the secretary of state for parks said in
a letter to the mayor of Squamish, British Columbia dated March
19, 1999 concerning Stoltmann. It states:
Parks Canada is responsible for the establishment and operation
of national parks and uses a framework of 39 natural regions for
planning the national parks system. At present, 24 are
represented by at least one national park or national park
reserve. In addition, lands have been reserved for a future
national park in four other regions.
The Randy Stoltmann wilderness area is situated in the Pacific
coast mountains regions (natural region 1). Gwaii Haanas and
Pacific national park reserves currently represent this region in
Canada's system of national parks. Given that this region is
well represented in the existing network, Parks Canada is
focusing its resources on creating new national parks in those
natural resource regions that are not yet represented.
1745
Allow me to edify the member from Toronto further on where his
government stands. The following is a quote from a letter I
received from the Minister of Canadian Heritage dated August 25,
1999:
The federal government is not proposing a national park for
Stoltmann. Parks Canada is responsible for the establishment and
operation of national parks and uses a framework of 39 natural
regions for planning the national parks system. The Randy
Stoltmann wilderness area is situated in the Pacific coast
mountains region (natural region 1) Gwaii Haanas and Pacific Rim
national park reserves currently represent this region in
Canada's system of national parks. Given that this region is
well represented in the existing network, Parks Canada is
focusing its resources on creating new national parks in those
regions that are not yet represented.
I ask the member for Davenport if he sees any similarities in
the two letters I just quoted from. Does he grasp the logic and
rationale for these decisions not to create a park in Stoltmann?
I would also like to add another reason I feel there is no need
for another national park in British Columbia. The Government of
British Columbia has agreed to a protected area strategy for the
lower mainland which resulted in 13% of the land being set aside
for park, and a number of those parks are within the immediate
vicinity of Stoltmann.
In May 1996 over 136,000 hectares of additional land was
protected as parks on the lower mainland alone. That was on top
of the 444,000 that had already been set aside for parkland. In
fact, 14% of the area from the Fraser Valley to the coast is in
protected areas. In the Squamish area parks comprise 22% of the
land base. I challenge most other Canadians in major
metropolitan areas to meet that quota of 22% of the land base for
parks.
Business paid a price at that time and lost thousands of
hectares of timber through that process. The British Columbia
government assured everyone that the process of additional
parkland was complete.
I might add, since the member who is initiating further parkland
is not from British Columbia, that this 136,000 hectare allotment
of parkland included the 30,357 hectare Clendenning Park and the
19,996 hectare Upper Lillooet Park.
Forest businesses in the area have categorically stated that any
thought of a 500,000 hectare park like Stoltmann would mean the
end of their business and consequently people on the unemployment
line. Perhaps that is what the member for Davenport wants.
Those British Columbians who developed the land use plan for the
Squamish area agree that the plan is balanced and sets aside
ample land for parks and protected areas. Why does the member
for Davenport wish to upset this balance and insinuate himself
into the picture? He is not from British Columbia and I know he
did not visit this park until after he introduced the bill.
Before he or anyone from Ontario says that British Columbians
are not sensitive to parks and protected lands, I will let him
know that downtown Vancouver is home to the only wilderness
forest in the world. Its 1,000 hectares was opened in 1888 by
Lord Stanley and has an 11 kilometre seawall circling it. It has
an aquarium, ponds, lagoons, towering trees, and all kinds of
flora and fauna. It is called Stanley Park. Does Toronto have a
park that is equivalent? I think the member should spend some
time looking at his own area.
I wonder how the member for Davenport would feel if
preservationist splinter groups assisted by the Western Canada
Wilderness Committee were spreading mistruths about the
operations of companies and businesses in his riding. These
groups have initiated illegal blockades and have vandalized
equipment owned by the companies attempting to carry out
legitimate logging in the Elaho Valley. These groups have
misinformed the public and international customers about forestry
and logging in British Columbia and about the Squamish area land
use plan. That is the real serious issue, the misinformation to
people around the world which is hurting jobs in my community.
Does the member for Davenport condone this behaviour? These
same preservationists have not consulted with first nations. The
Lil'wat band whose traditional lands fall partially in the Elaho
Valley vigorously oppose the creation of a park and object to the
protester actions on their traditional lands.
1750
How does the member for Davenport feel about that? I am sure he
would agree with me. He does not like these types of
confrontations. Why does the member for Davenport encourage
further mistruths from these protesters about Interfor wanting to
cut 1,300 year old trees when he and the protesters know that
this is just not the case.
Let me say a few things about Interfor, the unfortunate company
involved in this eco hostage taking. Interfor leads the industry
in the use of environmentally sensitive harvesting methods.
Interfor owns and operates the largest helicopter logging
operation in British Columbia. Helicopter logging is the leading
edge of environmentally friendly operations. Interfor gave up
some 30,000 hectares of tree forest licence 38 for creation of
Clendenning Park in the upper Elaho.
Interfor practises variable retention, which means that its
harvesting practices are designed to leave various amounts of
standing trees. It is known as a firm that is constantly
evaluating its sustainable forestry. Its practices recognize
that a variety of systems are appropriate for different forest
conditions. In short, Interfor is a good corporate citizen and
is being maligned by ecoterrorism tactics.
These tactics put their workers in jeopardy. There is no place
for destroying the private property of anyone as these
ecoterrorists have done to Interfor. There are over 400 forest
sector employees, good hard working union members and their
families living in the Squamish area. These people need these
jobs. The mayor of the district of Squamish, the council and the
community support Interfor, as does the village of Pemberton.
They want to see these jobs protected and land use planning
involving the entire community. Those who would incite to
destroy a comprehensive and balanced approach that has been
ratified are not welcome.
I cannot support a bill that has little balance and knowledge of
the area. It initiates instability in the Squamish area and as
such incites unrest and disharmony. The member for Davenport
should stay out of the affairs of British Columbians. I reject
his initiative, and so do my constituents, outright.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to enter into the debate on
this private member's bill which is designed to amend the
National Parks Act by designating the Stoltmann wilderness area
as one of the Canada's national parks.
I must admit my surprise when I discovered that the bill was
introduced by the hon. colleague from Davenport, Ontario. By no
means would I question his sincerity or his commitment to
protecting Canada's distinctive and vitally important ecosystems,
as the member has demonstrated that many times in committee and
in the House.
To the contrary, I think the member should be congratulated for
taking an interest in wanting to preserve an important part of
our habitat for future generations of Canadians to enjoy. What
was so surprising was the fact the proposed piece of legislation
was introduced by a member of the Ontario Liberal caucus rather
than by one of the government's own Liberal members representing
ridings within the province of British Columbia.
Perhaps there is a very simple explanation why a member for
Davenport, Ontario, would introduce a piece of legislation that
could have such a significant economic impact on the people of
the province of British Columbia. Perhaps Liberal cabinet
ministers from British Columbia refused to consider the bill for
fear of attracting the opposition the bill would certainly
generate. Maybe we could hear later from Liberal cabinet members
to get their perspective on the particular piece of legislation.
It is more likely that his Liberal colleagues from British
Columbia simply do not support this private member's bill. Well
they should not because it is a very bad piece of legislation
that could seriously impact upon the social and economic
well-being of the people of the Elaho Valley and surrounding
areas.
We recognize the importance of trying to find a balance between
protecting the environment and encouraging economic development.
The province of British Columbia has certainly attempted to do
both with its land management programs. Bill C-236 could have a
significant negative impact on British Columbia's forest
industry, an industry that in 1998 recorded factory shipments of
$15.6 billion.
1755
This industry is an extremely important contributor to the
British Columbian economy. Therefore any decisions to designate
a significant portion of that province's wilderness as parkland
must be delayed until all stakeholders have an opportunity to
debate the issue.
No one has to educate British Columbians about the importance of
protecting its natural environment. British Columbia already
boasts the second largest park system in Canada, second only to
Canada Parks.
To date the province of British Columbia has surpassed 10
million hectares of protected land. This includes 679 provincial
parks, recreation areas and ecological reserves. This equals
10.6% of the province.
The province of British Columbia appears well on its way to
surpassing its minimum goal of protecting 12% of its ecosystem by
the year 2000. This would be a considerable achievement,
particularly since it would surpass the 12% recommendation of the
United Nations Commission on the Environment, or more
specifically the Brundtland commission.
The people of British Columbia recognize the importance of
maintaining existing parks while working in partnership toward
the creation of future protected areas. British Columbians
recognize the tremendous social and economic benefits derived
from their provincial parks, their recreation areas, as well as
their ecological reserves.
In 1998 their registered camping visits almost reached three
million. These campers generated huge economic benefits for
local residents. Total visits to British Columbia's areas
surpassed the 26 million mark, resulting in an economic boon for
the B.C. tourism industry.
Millions of tourists from all over the world are attracted to
British Columbia because of its natural beauty. These tourists
can take advantage of over 3,000 kilometres of hiking trails.
They have access to over 234 parks which are equipped with
facilities to address the specific needs of disabled visitors.
Visitors can witness for themselves a province that boasts the
largest intact coastal temperate rain forest in the world, which
is protected in the Kitlope Heritage Conservancy.
I could go on and on talking about the beauty of our western
most province. However I believe that one must visit it oneself
to truly appreciate the beauty nature has to offer. I am not at
any time trying to suggest that British Columbia should somehow
refrain from designating future areas as protected parks. Nothing
could be further from the truth. The Progressive Conservative
Party has always promoted the protection of representative areas
of Canada's fragile ecosystem.
Going as far back as Canada's first prime minister, our party
has continuously demonstrated its concern for protecting our
natural habitat for future generations to enjoy. Sir John A.
Macdonald created Canada's national park in 1885 when he stepped
in to protect 26 kilometres around the hot mineral spring near
what is now the town of Banff, declaring it a national treasure.
In 1988 the previous Progressive Conservative Party amended the
National Parks Act and saw the passage of the Heritage Railway
Stations Protection Act. That same government also introduced a
national marine parks policy in 1986.
The Progressive Conservative Party continues to encourage the
establishment of new national parks as witnessed by our recent
support for the creation of the Tuktut Nogait National Park in
the Northwest Territories.
In some respects the member for Davenport deserves a lot of
credit for attempting to create a new national park in British
Columbia. He has recognized that his Liberal government has
failed miserably to fulfil its promises of protecting a system of
ecologically representative areas by the year 2000. The
Government of Canada has set a goal of protecting 12% of its
territory by the year 2000 but to date has achieved just slightly
more than 6%. The Liberal government has once again failed to
live up to its commitment to the Canadian people.
Obviously the member for Davenport is trying to distinguish
himself, or perhaps distance himself, from the rest of his
Liberal colleagues who have continuously demonstrated to the
Canadian people by their decision not to cancel the GST or change
the free trade agreement that they could care less whether they
break their promises to the Canadian public.
Unfortunately, in his haste to try and salvage his government's
dismal record, the member for Davenport has introduced a bill
that fails to take into consideration the need for important
consultation and valuable input from its stakeholders.
Back in 1996 representatives from industry, first nations,
community groups, outdoor tourism associations, recreational
groups and conservation groups met with provincial government
officials to outline a plan for future protected areas.
1800
As a result of these consultations, the government introduced a
comprehensive protected area strategy. This is a significant
achievement that came about through a comprehensive, consultative
process.
Bill C-236 would have us ignore the achievements of all these
stakeholders by specifically excluding them from any future
consultation process surrounding the establishment of the
Stoltmann wilderness area.
The bill calls upon the federal minister to enter into
negotiations with the Government of British Columbia to determine
precise legal boundaries for the proposed park. There is no
mention in the bill of any opportunity for stakeholders to have
any input whatsoever in determining boundaries for this park.
This is totally unacceptable.
I am not convinced that the introduction of Bill C-236 came as a
result of any major consultation with stakeholders. Both British
Columbia ministers of forestry and environment have already
expressed opposition to the bill, as have representatives from
industry and first nations. The bill lacked a strong basis of
support even before it made its way to the floor of the House of
Commons.
The Progressive Conservative Party understands that creating new
national park protected areas is very difficult and
time-consuming. However, it is important to have a full
consultation process in place so that we can identify appropriate
conservation areas that will have the support of the large
majority of Canadians.
Only by working together and consulting together can we develop
a new national park in which all Canadians can be proud.
Bill C-236 is seriously flawed in this respect. Therefore, for
this reason and those stated previously, we cannot support the
proposed piece of legislation.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to support Bill C-236, which concerns the establishment of the
Stoltmann National Park in British Columbia, because I think
this proposed national reserve meets three key objectives which
are dear to Canadians.
[English]
The first objective, I am pleased to hear, if this park is
created, would contribute to the protection of biodiversity.
This is a commitment Canada made at the biodiversity convention
and has provided leadership on globally.
This park would protect a rare habitat, an old growth coastal
Douglas fir forest. The Douglas fir is extremely well-known in
Canada but there is less than a few percent of this old growth
forest type that has been left unlogged on Canada's west coast.
The park includes trees of remarkable age and size, including
Douglas fir trees, which are over 1,300 years old, Canada's
oldest known Douglas firs. As primary forests become
increasingly rare planet-wide, increasing attention is placed on
how countries are managing the remaining old growth stands.
Canada would face criticism, not only from our citizens but from
people around the world, if we were to continue cutting down
thousand year old trees in this new millennium.
As mentioned previously, the park would not only protect trees
but would also protect the essential old growth habitat of a
threatened population of west coast grizzly bears. I will not
mention all of the animals that were mentioned before.
A second objective of importance to Canadians is ensuring that
our economy is strong and full of a wide range of opportunities
for our citizens as we enter a new millennium.
At a time when rural areas are losing their populations to the
cities, those who remain in the rural areas are concerned about
diversifying their local economies. This project would provide
the greatest stability for the future, in particular for
ecotourism. Rural Canadians are concerned about the
concentration of wealth and economic opportunities in urban
areas. National parks can be part of the answer since they bring
people from urban areas to rural towns and regions.
As the member for Davenport noted, economic studies of the
benefits of Banff National Park point to a good possibility of
significant employment and economic opportunities to Squamish and
other communities in the region of the projected park.
These regions have suffered employment decreases in traditional
resource sectors over the last few years.
1805
A Stoltmann national park, therefore, would greatly strengthen
opportunities for small business, ecotourism and tourism
development in the Squamish-Whistler-Vancouver corridor,
especially in conjunction with Whistler's 2010 Olympic bid.
The third objective important to Canadians today that Stoltmann
national park achieves is the opportunity for first nations to
co-operatively manage a part of their traditional territories in
a manner that benefits the environment, the regional economy and
their own communities. Squamish first nations leaders have
indicated publicly that they do not want to see areas like the
Elaho Valley in the Stoltmann wilderness logged.
[Translation]
I should mention that in my riding of Laval, we also understand
the importance of the environment as well as what it can bring
us both from a personal perspective, for example from the
perspective of health, and from an economic perspective.
Laval will provide a 40 kilometre portion of the green way, a
bikeway network that goes around the whole of Quebec. Laval will
take part in this project by harmonizing its own network with
the green way network.
This will help Laval keep its place among the cities that have
played a pioneering role in the ecotourism industry, one of the
industries with the best record on sustainable development.
[English]
This is a very important bill. Even though it may have been
presented by someone out of the province, it has been presented
by a member of parliament who thinks about ecotourism and
economic development. After all, British Columbia is a province
of Canada and I see no wrong in having another member of the
Canadian parliament present this private member's bill.
The bill is timely and would create the kind of national park
reserve that we could all be proud of. Canadians have indicated
that they want to see greater protection of their national
heritage. We have a responsibility to ensure that protection is
afforded before it is too late.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-236, an act to amend the
National Parks Act. It specifically deals with the Elaho Valley
near Squamish.
In the case of this private member's bill from the member for
Davenport, the Liberal government is on the record as not being
in favour of it. I also happen to know that the NDP member from
New Westminster is not with the member on this bill, even though
he can usually be relied upon to promote preserving forests in
British Columbia, the taking of land from the working forest and
putting it into the preservation of the forest. The province is
certainly not in favour of the bill. There is a very long
history to what has gone on in this valley.
I have been in this valley and in this area. I had an
invitation from the union to travel to the area. I have also
travelled to the area with some European parliamentarians, and
with the member for Davenport as recently as September of this
year.
To put it all in some context, I have worked adjacent to Pacific
Rim Park and to what was then the germination of a national park
in South Moresby. Both are in the same region, one of the 39
regions identified by Parks Canada as regions requiring national
parks. There are already two parks in the region that are also
represented by the Elaho Valley. There are other regions that
have no national parks. Rightfully, the priority of the
department of the government is not in this region.
B.C. has turned itself inside out in terms of land use planning,
particularly on forestry issues.
British Columbia has been targeted by people around the world as
an area of great beauty, of great forest resources and of special
forests. Consequently, the United Nations targets were adopted
quite some time ago; 12% preservation. We currently exceed that
number already on the coast of British Columbia, the very area
covered in the bill.
1810
We have an enviable track record. One of the things that must
be considered, and the member for Davenport said it, is that this
area is three hours drive from Vancouver. There are individuals
in preservation oriented groups who have decided that they want
to create their own domain at public expense in an area they can
easily access close to Vancouver. Because 95% of the B.C. forest
land is publicly owned and because provincial governments tend to
respond to the public, coastal B.C. has now reached this 12%
target through a public consultation process. That is the way it
should be done.
There is a very strong message that can be delivered. As
Canadian representatives in Europe, when we talked to European
parliamentarians this spring, we talked about the fact that we
have been so responsible with our forest practices in British
Columbia, in Canada in the Canadian context that we tend to be
targeted because we do have this substantial old growth reserve
virtually across Canada. Many countries have totally diminished
that old growth reserve. We are never going to get there because
of our very responsible practices.
What the bill tends to do is promote continued agitation. The
reality is that there are protesters in this area. I have
visited the protest site. From the very site where the protest
was being carried out, I could see the 30,000 hectare Glendenning
Park that has just been established to satisfy land use concerns
in that area. I found this most disconcerting because any users
that wanted to have that old growth experience only had to go
there instead of where they were.
I talked to members of the union who were working in that area.
They are very frustrated. They have had months of head games and
attempts to incite a response by these very professional
agitators. It is not a very nice way to spend a day trying to
earn a living.
In summary, the 30,000 hectare Glendenning Park does a more than
adequate job. There is no great public pressure on it at this
point as there is on hundreds of thousands of hectares of other
preserved areas on the B.C. coast. We need to balance the
environment and the jobs. This is what the provincial land use
planning exercise was all about. We have gone through that in
the 1990s.
I can only wonder why the member for Davenport is trying to
upset this balance that we have now achieved on the coast of
British Columbia.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I also
want to speak briefly to Bill C-236, which was put forward by my
hon. colleague from Davenport.
I believe everyone knows that our national park network, as it
now stands, is appreciated by all Canadians.
However, it is not quite completed, and this is what I want to
discuss.
1815
Before 1970, we did not really have a network. It was a network
in name only because at the time locations were selected
somewhat haphazardly. We then embarked upon a very elaborate
process to develop a master plan to set up a national park
network. It was determined that Canada had 39 unique and natural
ecosystems that deserved to be included in the Canadian national
park network.
So far, we have been able to include in our network 25 of these
39 distinct and unique ecosystems in order to preserve them for
future generations.
There are 14 other regions where we have yet to create a
national park that would include quite a substantial sample of
the ecosystems and natural areas we want to protect.
The question then is the following: Does the hon. member's bill
cover one of the 14 geographical regions that need to be
preserved and protected? Unfortunately, the answer is no,
because there are already two national parks near the location
where the hon. member wants to establish another park.
From what I gathered from the comments made earlier by the hon.
member for Davenport, he essentially hopes that we are guided by
the long term.
[English]
“That we are guided by the long term” were our colleague's
closing words when he introduced his bill. I would like to
believe, as we established in 1970 a plan that would protect 39
of the ecological zones in Canada which were distinct and had to
be protected—and we have achieved 25, with 14 remaining—that we
have been guided by the long term.
Again, I say to the member that the area that he is proposing be
included in the national parks network already benefits from two
national parks in that very area.
If we are to be guided by the long term, as he suggests, and I
agree, as does the government, then perhaps our efforts should be
concentrated in finding and establishing national parks to
represent the 14 ecological zones or regions that are not yet
protected within our network of national parks.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the British Columbia
government has moved to protect some of the land mass that our
colleague would like to see protected within a national park. I
am advised that three of the areas which are mentioned in the
proposed bill are under some protection from the Government of
British Columbia.
All this is to say that, indeed, we are being guided by an
established plan, which everybody buys into, to protect for the
benefit of future generations 39 ecological zones, 39 zones of
natural geography and climate, that are representative of the
majestic geography of Canada. We should finish achieving that
objective in the 14 geographic regions that are not yet in that
network. Therefore, it is not within the priorities of the
government to proceed with the establishment of the park
suggested by our colleague in his private member's bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are 10 minutes
left in the time provided for Private Members' Business. Seeing
no members rising, the member sponsoring the bill, the hon.
member for Davenport, will have five minutes for his response,
and at the termination of that five minutes the debate will
cease.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
me first thank the member for Ottawa—Vanier, the member for
Vancouver Island North, the member for Laval West and the members
for Brandon—Souris and West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for their
interventions and for their comments.
1820
I will deal first with the claim that the area is already
represented by other parks. I am particularly addressing the
member for Ottawa—Vanier who, with all due respect, is not on
the right track.
The current national parks system, as he mentioned, uses a
framework of 39 regions for the purpose of planning national
parks. The Stoltmann wilderness area is located in the Pacific
coast mountains region, the natural region No. 1. Two parks
called Gwaii Haanas and Pacific Rim National Park Reserve
currently represent this region in the system.
The two parks are beautiful. They certainly deserve protection
and they have received it. Both parks are located, however, on
islands off the mainland coast. They are not located in the
coast mountains. This is the very ecosystem that these two parks
are supposed to represent.
Therefore, I submit respectfully to the parliamentary secretary,
that there is a very legitimate reason for proposing this park:
this particular region on the mainland is not represented.
Second, we have the rather spurious and unfounded argument by
the member for Brandon—Souris who tossed out his conclusion that
this is a bad piece of legislation because consultations are not
included in the legislation. The legislation is intended to
provide a broad framework, a concept for the establishment of a
park. The regulations then set out the process of consultations
which are natural and most essential in the formation of any
national park.
At this stage, when logging is taking place and the roof of the
house is on fire, we are certainly not going to put consultations
first on paper and then into legislation. We first need some
form of legislation that will allow the consultations to take
place.
I will move swiftly to the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast, who has, I must say, a rather insular view of an MP's
role. He thinks everybody should sit in their own little cubicle
in downtown Toronto or uptown Montreal, or safely in the harbour
of St. John's, and the rest of Canada does not count; it does not
matter what happens there; we are elected like municipal
councillors; and we should not take a view of the nation or the
country as a whole. Well, that is his privilege.
I invite him to visit Davenport and give us advice on how to
establish a Stanley Park, for which we envy Vancouverites all the
time when we manage to visit Vancouver. In my case, I am an
adopted British Columbian considering the number of times I have
crossed the country to visit it. I have been in this particular
area twice.
It seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate from downtown
Toronto to look at what happens on either coast or in the Arctic,
and for members from British Columbia to tell us in Toronto how
to improve our industrial set up, how to reduce pollution, how to
improve on our public transit, anything.
I invite the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast to visit
Toronto. I would be glad to take him out to a spaghetti dinner
and introduce him to a lot of very interesting people who know
how make wine at home.
As to the position of the department, let me add that 15 years
ago the department was also indifferent to the creation of South
Moresby. It was extremely difficult to convince the department
to take to heart the creation of a park in South Moresby.
However, because of people like Speaker Fraser, other people who
were then in government and some of us in the opposition, that
park eventually became a reality many years later. These
processes are very slow and complex.
The political rewards cannot be seen by the same generation but
perhaps can be harvested by the next one.
1825
The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast rejects this
initiative. He rejects native concerns. He rejects the tourism
potential. He rejects the habitat protection. He rejects even
the remarks of the mayor of Squamish. I am told that during the
election debate Mayor Lonsdale said she would look positively at
the proposal if an economic study recommended it and if more jobs
including replacements for displaced forest workers were created
than lost. This is a very responsible statement by the mayor. I
must congratulate her.
Also the concerns of Chief Williams must be put on record. Chief
Williams opposes logging by Interfor in the Elaho Valley.
The member for Vancouver Island North made a reference to the
adequacy of what has been done so far. The Elaho Valley is the
heart of this particular area. It is the most valuable habitat
of the entire valley. Without the Elaho heart we would lose the
real significance and the real potential from the habitat
potential point of view, from the ecosystem point of view, that
the entire valley has. It would amputate the valley. Half of it
would become clear cut and the other half along the slopes of the
mountains would remain, thus depriving the habitat adequate
protection.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sure other
members join me in allowing the senior member of the House of
Commons what time is necessary to wrap up as we did not want to
rush it.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order
paper.
It being 6.28 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.)