CONTENTS
Friday, March 11, 1994
Bill C-5. Consideration in committee of the whole. 2161
Motion for concurrence 2165
Motion for third reading 2165
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 2167
Bill C-6. Motion for second reading. 2167
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 2169
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2172
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2172
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2172
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2172
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2173
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 2174
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 2174
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2175
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2175
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 2175
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2175
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 2175
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2175
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2176
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2177
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2177
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2177
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2177
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2179
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2179
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2181
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2183
Bill C-6. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 2183
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee.) 2188
2161
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 11, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 100, I do now leave
the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.
(House in committee on Bill C-5, an act to amend the customs
tariff, Mr. Kilger in the chair.)
(1005 )
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1:
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Chairman, I
assume that at this stage we can put questions to the minister
before the bill's single clause is passed. Clause-by-clause
consideration should not take very long!
On second reading of Bill C-5 a few days ago, we expressed
some reservations about this bill which mainly concerned two
questions. Under the new GATT agreements, we will eventually
have to reassess the preferential tariff for developing countries.
The minister had said he intends to do this with the co-operation
of the business community. The question we asked at the time,
and which we are still asking, is: Does the minister intend to
consult parliamentarians in any way, either in the House or at the
very least in committee, either the Committee on Finance or the
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): The general system provides for
consultations with the business community on any issue at any
time.
No changes are made in the general preferential tariffs unless
there is consultation with the business community. Any time we
receive anything from a group of businessmen or an association
that questions the level of the general preferential tariff it can be
referred to finance officials and considered at that time.
It is more important that the business community which is
affected by that be consulted than individual members of
Parliament. Of course any member of Parliament can bring their
concerns to the attention of the minister or the Department of
Finance.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we would like to see
parliamentarians consulted about any changes in the GPT,
simply because of the political overtones and possibly the
political consequences that these changes might have.
The reason I mention this-in fact, the hon. member for
Louis-Hébert and I both brought this up in our speeches is that
today, some countries that benefit under the GPT can no longer
be called developing countries, and I am thinking specifically of
Singapore and South Korea. If we reassess the relevance of
granting these countries GPT status, I think this might
eventually have a political impact on our relations with those
countries.
We also expressed the hope that respect for human rights
would be a consideration in the case of certain countries
benefitting under the GPT. One example is the People's
Republic of China which, at 33 per cent, I think, is the main
beneficiary of this general preferential tariff. My question is
therefore whether we should eventually reconsider granting the
GPT status to countries that openly violate human rights.
I think parliamentarians should be able to consider any
reassessment of the GPT status of the countries involved.
[English]
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, those were very important
questions. There was first the graduation of countries from the
GPT. Some countries have been graduated and I am sure the hon.
member means South Korea and Singapore. They have been
graduated by the Americans for example and are no longer in
that group of countries. Others such as Europe and Japan have
not done that to these countries.
(1010)
The question of whether these countries should be removed
from this group which gets the advantage of the GPT is
something we can look at at any time. If a member wishes to
raise it for a particular country or if any standing committee of
the
2162
House decides it wants to examine any of these results that can
be done at any time. It is not a closed situation at all.
The question of whether Canada should graduate the countries
the hon. member mentioned is one which could be considered at
any time. It is not difficult to make a change but we have to
realize it has not been generally accepted to do that.
The other question was on the use of the GPT as a lever to
human rights questions. That has been done on occasion. Where
there is a general consensus usually through the United Nations
or something similar that has happened. It is possible to do that.
With respect to China, I remind the hon. member that China is
a major developing market and its record on human rights may
have some questions. China is a major developing market for
Canada. Canada has had a great interest in the opening up of
China right from the very earliest times. We were one of the first
western countries to recognize China and we have had very good
relations.
It is extremely important that we retain our influence in China
through the acceptance of the GPT to have the largest benefit
from this. But there are a lot of other benefits on the other side as
well in that Canadian companies have been opening up business
there. The GPT helps Canadian companies in their general
relations with China.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Chairman, I know
that through the General Preferential Tariff, Canada maintains
special trade relations with some 180 countries. I would like the
Minister to remind me whether all those countries are in a single
category or whether there are different categories of tariffs for
different countries? Based on his answer, I will have another
question.
[English]
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, there are two categories actually.
The least developed countries are zero rated. These are the
poorest countries in the world. Then there are those in the less
developed category which are subject to the general GPT. There
are two categories.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: Mr. Chairman, this is, in a way, a supplementary
question based on the answer. On what criteria is a country
selected for one category rather than the other? I am also asking
this in the light of the comments by my colleague for Verchères,
because in the least developed countries category, there are
countries which are probably not among the least developed. So,
what are the selection criteria? And would it not be better, in the
future, to have a more gradual scale instead of just two
categories?
[English]
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, it would be possible to have any
number of categories. We have used the United Nations
classification which is generally accepted throughout the world.
There is always some question as to whether we move from one
category to another but clearly the United Nations categories are
pretty well accepted throughout the world. That is why we use
those categories.
(1015)
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask the minister whether there are any
guidelines for or any monitoring done of the products brought in
by these preferential tariffs to ensure that our consumers benefit
from them and to ensure that they do not get lost in the retailing
or the reselling after they have been imported by the importers.
Could he comment on that, please?
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we could ever
exactly tell where the imports go. They are generally part of the
accepted items found in stores. We could turn over a plastic item
in a hardware store and find it was made in China. If so, it
probably came in under the GPT. We have to look at the source.
There is no way we could trace it. It is not of particular
interest to trace it. It is a benefit to the Canadian consumer to
have access to a particular good at that particular price, and a
benefit to the country exporting it.
Mr. Hoeppner: I have a supplementary question, Mr.
Chairman.
The Reform Party is quite favourable to freer trade, but we
have to look at our manufacturers so that there is fair
competition. I feel some kind of monitoring should be going on
so that our consumers do not have to pay the price and a few
importers get rich by making sacrifices on these tariffs. We have
to be fair in this trade if we are to have this type of trade.
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, every time a question is raised by
a manufacturer we look at it. We rely on Canadian
manufacturers of competing products to tell us that there is a
problem.
As a matter of fact we search out people concerning tariff
reduction. Whenever there is a particular tariff question we refer
to manufacturers. A lot of them are intermediate goods, a lot of
them come in at the behest of Canadian manufacturers to make
their products more acceptable at a better price for production in
Canada and for export abroad. There are substantial benefits to
Canadian producers and manufacturers of these goods, not just
at the retail level.
2163
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago, the minister
was saying that the classification used by the federal
government is based on the United Nations classification. The
question I am asking myself is whether we should consider
South Korea or Singapore as less developed countries or as
developing countries. Of course, the answer is crystal clear and
self-explanatory: Singapore and South Korea are no longer
developing countries, but newly industrialized countries.
I would have two short questions for the minister concerning
what he told us earlier. Does the government intend to reassess
the general preferential tariffs allowed to newly industrialized
countries such as Singapore or South Korea? The minister was
pointing to us, rightly so, that the United States, for example,
had removed the general preferential tariffs allowed to those
countries, but that Japan and the European countries had not yet
done so.
Does the Canadian government intend to follow the United
States or the wait and see policy of Japan and Europe? I would
like him to inform us on that matter.
I also have a sub-question relating to the first one. The
minister is somewhat leaving up to parliamentarians and
committees the initiative of asking the government to consult
them. I ask the minister and the government, through him: Does
the government intend to directly submit the matter to
parliamentarians, through the Committee on Finance or the
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade?
(1020)
[English]
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, I will answer the last question
first. Any parliamentary committee can ask to have the question
raised and can ask the minister to do so. At any point either the
Standing Committee on Finance or any other standing
committee can ask to have it referred.
The first question the hon. member asked was about
reassessing the granting of the GPT to South Korea and
Singapore. That is not under active consideration at the moment.
Should there be some change, for example if Europe and Japan
moved, I think we would bring it under active consideration.
It is not under active consideration right now to change the
GPT rules for South Korea or Singapore.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, please allow me to ask my
second question again. The minister has been implying since the
beginning of our committee's proceedings that members of
Parliament and committees can ask to be consulted on issues
like that one.
Since the beginning of the present session, the government
has been saying it wants to consult members in this House or in
the various committees. As they said during the pre-budget
conferences, they even claim they want to consult the
population. Is it the intention of the government to consult
members of Parliament on graduation from the GPT by certain
countries, which profit from the General Preferential Tariff, as it
is their intention to consult business people?
[English]
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, the level of consultation is the
basis of the hon. member's question. The level of consultation is
quite high on these matters at any time. We have received a
number of requests from businesses to consider certain
products, certain countries and things like that.
A number of parliamentarian have written to the department
over the years to ask whether it would consider particular tariff
items. It is quite possible. Another method would be to have the
standing committee merely ask that it be considered. If the
standing committee asks that question it would be considered.
The avenues of consultation are rather high on this particular
item. The GPT has been in effect for 20 years, so we have had 20
years of experience with consultation and it has worked rather
well over that period.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question
of the hon. minister. I see in my notes that on an annual basis we
lose about $156 million in preferential tariff reductions. With
expanded trade as a global community, has the minister done
any projections on how much of an increase it will be? We are
trading more and more with these countries. Is there any way he
can project what kind of an impact it would have on our
economy?
The more preferential products we bring in, the more we have
to consume. They also reduce the revenue side for the
government. I would appreciate it if the minister would give me
a bit of a guideline on that point.
(1025 )
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting question.
If we lower the tariffs on certain goods we can make a nice
estimate as to how much money we will lose. However, if we had
the tariffs in place we would not make money because the goods
would not come in. We say we have lost $158 million, but it is
$158 million we would not have had anyway because the goods
would not come in with the ordinary tariffs.
It is a very difficult estimate to make. That is part of the key.
This is a good deal for both the Canadian people and for
developing countries. Developing countries have said that they
2164
want trade, not aid. That was a good way of putting it. We can
put forth any number as lost revenue, but it is not lost revenue. It
is revenue we would not get in any case.
Making a projection into future years means, if we have
higher revenue losses, that it is revenue we would not have
received anyway. If we had put on the tariffs we would not get it.
However it is a real benefit to Canadians and a real benefit to
developing countries.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. minister.
When I look at the trade figures we have with other countries,
not just underdeveloped countries, my concern is that the
Canadian government seems to have been a very poor trader. We
have deficits with the majority of countries. The United States is
practically the only country with which we have a trade surplus.
The government should be vigilant. We should make trade
deals with these countries that benefit us to some extent. We
cannot be at the short end of the stick all of the time. With the
$500 billion deficit we already have, we have to improve our
trading practices to increase revenue.
I would ask the minister and the government to be very
vigilant in improving our trading practices because we have to
become better businessmen.
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, I take that admonishment with
great sincerity. We are going to be very vigilant about our
trading practices. I have written on the subject of our balance of
payments deficit for 10 or 20 years and have said that we should
be pursuing strong trading relationships, relationships that
reduce our balance of payments deficit which is running around
$25 billion a year right now. That is a high priority of this
country.
I also remind the hon. member that it is two-way trade. We
must remember there is only benefit to trade if it goes in both
directions.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: Mr. Chairman, I feel that up to a point this question
of the GPT should be related to Canada's external policy. No
doubt our policy is silent on that issue, but it seems we are facing
a contradiction: When Canada takes part in bilateral aid
programs with other countries, that is one country to another, we
know that as it did in the past and is still doing today in some
cases, Canada links such aid to the respect of human rights. With
regards to the GPT, since it is also a process for helping
developing countries and seing that we are still in the same
country, Canada, as far as I know, why is it that Canada's
external policy does not force partner countries to respect
human rights?
[English]
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, the member is asking how
effective trade sanctions are in approving human rights in
developing countries. The only way that trade sanctions can be
effective is when they are done generally by a massive number
of countries. That will have some impact.
(1030 )
Canada is far too small a market for almost any country to
have an impact on its own. We are really only harming ourselves
if we try do that sort of thing.
Trade sanctions, where it is possible to use them, and it has
been done only very seldom, are only effective if at all effective
when done in conjunction with, for example, the whole United
Nations, the whole Commonwealth or something like that.
It is not really possible to have any impact on these countries
with our very small market here in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: Mr. Chairman, I do understand the minister's
answer. However, I would like to point out that there have been
precedents when Canada took the initiative of organizing a
coalition. Such was the case in South Africa, with apartheid and
human rights violations. We then saw how Canada played a role
in setting up a dialogue among nations and forcing many
countries to take a stand, which did have an impact.
Saying that we cannot do anything because these countries are
too small and we hardly trade with them is not the way to go, I
think. It seems to me that Canada should play an international
role there too, by bringing other nations to boycott countries
which violate human rights. I think that it could be just as
efficient as it was against South Africa.
[English]
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, in any instance where there is a
serious breach of human rights where Canada could take the
lead, certainly the GPT would be part of the initiatives. It is not
just those initiatives. One would want to do a whole lot of things
and that is the question.
The GPT itself is not significant in the total sphere of items
that one would use in foreign policy. That is clearly a foreign
policy question. Canada would have to be taking a lead through
the foreign policy sector through our Minister of Foreign Affairs
and through a whole host of organizations like the
Commonwealth, the Organization of American States or the
United Nations to bring pressures on the country.
The GPT would be part of that and could very easily be part of
a major change like that. Therefore I would think the hon.
member is quite correct. It could be part of it but it would be a
minor part of a major foreign policy initiative if that were
needed in any particular case.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: Mr. Chairman, I can see a dilemma there. I
understand that it might happen that the volume of trade with
these countries be relatively small. The minister seems to
2165
indicate that since it only represents a minor part of
international trade, one does not feel the need to intervene.
But on the other hand, it could be the opposite, as we saw in
Mexico, this past winter. There were serious violations of
natives'rights in Chiapas, and the Mexican army itself moved to
crush their rebellion. If I am not mistaken, Canada and Mexico
are trading partners, and the volume of their trade is bound to
increase. And yet, Canada did not take any drastic stand, no
more that it had in the other cases. Its action was limited to a few
questions asked of the ambassador, which brings me to conclude
that when it is not important, we do not intervene. But when
trade is important, we do not intervene either.
[English]
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would remind the hon. member
that Mexico is now a NAFTA country and does not come under
the GPT. It is under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Again let me stress that the GPT is only a minor part of our trade
relationships. It is a minor part of our total foreign relationship
with any country. Our foreign relationships with the developing
countries are important through our CIDA grants, through our
foreign missions and various groups. It is much more important
to have close foreign relationships pursued there rather than
through a GPT.
(1035)
Only after all those other things have been done would the
GPT be included with a major change. It could very easily be
included. The legislation allows the changes to be made very
quickly. It would not be effective to make a GPT change alone
and say that is all we are going to do. We would want to do a lot
of other things with it and there would be a lot of other
questions.
I would suggest to the hon. member that the GPT at this level
is low on our list of things in our total foreign relationships with
any of the developing countries.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, a while ago the minister hinted
that the Canadian business community had asked to be consulted
on the question of the General Preferential Tariff. We are
pleased to hear this and we can understand its position. The
minister indicated that he was willing to go along with the
request and that he would consult with the Canadian business
community.
My question is the same: Does the government plan to consult
with members of Parliament or will the minister, as he has been
hinting since the beginning of these proceedings, let individual
members of Parliament or the committee take the initiative of
asking the government to consult with them? With respect to the
General Preferential Tariff, does the government intend to
pursue the same policies that it has been pursuing since the start
of this session? In other words, does it plan to consult, or at least
make some show of consulting with, members of Parliament on
this issue?
The minister also implied that, all things being equal, the
General Preferential Tariff was only a very minor aspect of our
foreign policy. This may be true as far as we are concerned, but it
is certainly not the case for developing countries seeking at all
costs markets for their products.
I would invite the minister to reflect upon this point, and I
would also ask him to be sensitive to the fact that-and this has
been clear from the beginning of this debate-the General
Preferential Tariff can have a major influence on our
international relations. That is why we are asking the
government today to consult members of Parliament on this
issue.
[English]
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am at a loss to see what further
consultation we could have. If any standing committee would
like to consider this, it could do so. It is perfectly natural for a
standing committee to call it. It could call this question up and
consider the GPT.
As far as consulting with the business community, yes indeed
we have consulted widely and continue to consult on every issue
that comes up with the business community that is affected. Any
member of Parliament who hears from a businessman is quite
free to bring that to our attention. I hope they will. They have
done so in the past.
As a minister I cannot refer it to a committee. The committee
has to ask the question and any committee may do so.
(Clause agreed to.)
(1040 )
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be
read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peters (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the bill
be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5, an act to extend the general
preferential tariff for another 10 years, received broad support
during second reading.
This reflects, I think, a consensus within this House that
Canada as a member of the international community of nations
must continue to take an active role in advancing international
economic development efforts.
2166
I thank all hon. members for their informed commentary on
this bill. As mentioned by an hon. member during second
reading, although only one line in length, Bill C-5 has
considerable impact through what it actually does.
To summarize, this bill will extend the tariff scheme that
provides over 180 developing countries and territories with
preferential access to the Canadian market. This is of direct
benefit to the people of the developing world whose livelihoods
are partly dependent on the performance of the often limited
export sectors of their economy. Bill C-5, together with the
related consultations on the structure and scope of the GPT
program that this government will be undertaking over the
coming months, reaffirms our commitment to encourage
economic growth in the developing world.
Again I thank all hon. members for their support of this
legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I would like to confirm, as we did at second reading, the
support of the Bloc Quebecois and Official Opposition for this
bill that we consider extremely important, as it provides
indirectly for development assistance and is therefore, in our
opinion, a bill with a most commendable and honourable
purpose.
At committee stage, the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette
expressed a number of concerns about the protection of
Canadian industries, producers and businesses with regard to
the application of the general preferential tariff. I think that my
colleague's concerns and questions were well answered by the
minister who pointed out to the hon. member for
Lisgar-Marquette the benefits that can accrue to Canadian
business from the general preferential tariff.
We must also bear in mind that we all stand to benefit
collectively-the international community as well as
Canada-from the development of developing countries and
that there are only winners, no losers, with something like the
general preferential tariff.
We did express a number of concerns at second reading and
again in committee.
(1045)
We understand that the government is about to undertake
consultations with the Canadian private sector, and we could not
agree more. We encourage the government to consult Canadian
businesses on the issue of the general preferential tariff. Our
collective well-being is at stake, as well as that of Canadian
producers and industries.
However, we consider that any change to the tariff itself or to
the list of countries benefitting from this tariff would have
political implications and must therefore be debated in
Parliament.
We raised two glaring examples of cases where we, the
Official Opposition, believe that parliamentarians should be
consulted. We pointed out the case of newly industrialized
countries and gave the example of Singapore and South Korea,
which now benefit from the general preferential tariff. What we
should be asking is whether Canada should continue to extend
its general preferential tariff to those countries.
The minister made the pertinent comment that the United
States has stopped extending its general preferential tariff to
such countries, while Japan and Europe have not done so yet. He
went on to say that the government is not really looking at this
issue for the time being but that it would reconsider if Japan and
Europe decided to move in that direction. This is quite
surprising from a government claiming to be in favour of
implementing a more independent policy.
We also looked at the case of the People's Republic of China,
which is the main beneficiary of Canada's general preferential
tariff, to the tune of about 40 per cent. As we know full well,
China is guilty of human rights violations and we asked the
following question: Should countries such as that one with very
little respect for human rights continue to benefit from Canada's
general preferential tariff?
The minister was a little evasive in answering these questions
and we asked him to consult parliamentarians. We do not want
him to wait for us to express our interest in the general
preferential tariff through a parliamentary committee or through
individual initiatives. We would have expected the government
to take the initiative, as it has done since this session started, to
consult parliamentarians on this issue with a great impact on our
foreign policy.
Having said that, I reiterate our full support for this bill whose
goals, as we said earlier, are quite honourable and
commendable.
I thank the government for bringing this issue to the attention
of the House at the very beginning of the session. I also thank the
minister for answering the questions we asked him in committee
of the whole. I thank all hon. members who took part in the
debate; it was very interesting. As far as the committee of the
whole is concerned, I must point out the work done by the
interpreters, who had a difficult job to do during this rather
fast-paced exchange.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate and
thank the support staff on both sides of the House, who assisted
us in our research. As the minister underlined, the research was
well documented and, in this regard, I must say how much we in
the Official Opposition appreciate the work done by our
researcher, Hugo Séguin.
I reiterate our support for this bill and urge once again the
minister to reconsider his decision not to consult
parliamentarians as a matter of course and to decide instead to
consult us and
2167
bring to our attention any change to the tariff or to the list of
beneficiary countries.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
it has been a good experience for me to be involved with this
bill, a new experience for a farmer who just knows how to turn
tractor wheels instead of turning politicians.
(1050 )
It has been really gratifying to see this bill go through the
House in a smooth order. We have had some very good debate.
We have looked at some issues. I have expressed, as my
colleagues have, that there are some concerns. We believe fully
that the hon. minister will take these concerns to heart and be
vigilant about them.
I have followed the career of the hon. minister somewhat in
his previous business experience and I always appreciated his
comments. I know that he always stressed that we had to have
black at the bottom instead of red. If he watches this bill as
intently as he did at that time for his profession and makes sure
that the majority of times the Canadian government will be in
the black with these trading relationships it will be a benefit for
the country.
I have faith in this hon. minister that he will do that because he
is a Canadian, as we Reformers are. We have very strongly made
the comments in this House that we are for free trade but that we
also believe in fair trade. That is one of the stipulations that the
hon. minister has to accept. We will be critical when it is not fair
trade but we will support him very strongly in freer trade with
these underdeveloped countries.
I really enjoyed the debate in this House. Where I have made a
few mistakes I hope hon. members will forgive me and bear with
me so that in the future we can operate this House and continue
to make decisions that are positive for this nation as a whole
because that is what we are here for.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before going on I would
like to take the occasion, following the remarks from the hon.
member for Verchères in reference to the committee of the
whole, which is a very important and interesting part of our
legislative process, to thank the minister and all members for
their co-operation.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Natural
Resources) moved that Bill C-6, an act to amend the Canada Oil
and Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act
and the National Energy Board Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, hon. members, I
am pleased to speak before this House today during the debate
on the second reading of Bill C-6, to amend the Canada Oil and
Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and
the National Energy Board Act.
The purpose of this bill is to give the National Energy Board
the authority to regulate oil and gas activity in those frontier
areas where there are no federal-provincial management
agreements.
(1055)
[English]
Specifically the National Energy Board will assume the
technical regulatory functions associated with oil and gas
drilling and production operations. This involves ensuring that
the work is carried out in a way that maximizes resource
conservation by ensuring good oilfield practices, protects
worker safety and protects our fragile northern and coastal
environments.
There are many good reasons behind the transfer of authority
to the National Energy Board under this proposed legislation.
Since its creation in 1981 the Canadian Oil and Gas Lands
Administration, or COGLA, administered and regulated
activities on frontier lands on behalf of ministers.
Canada's frontier lands, which encompass land north of 60
and the offshore, fall under federal jurisdictions. The Minister
of National Resources shares the responsibility for
administering these lands with the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development.
While COGLA served the government well, its role has
changed and contracted over the years. Following the
conclusion of the agreements with Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland regulation of the east coast offshore was
delegated to joint offshore boards. Further, it was anticipated
that the federal role would continue to diminish with the signing
of agreements which would transfer onshore oil and gas
responsibilities to the territorial governments.
As a result COGLA was disbanded in 1991. COGLA's
technical regulatory responsibilities and many of its staff were
assigned to the National Energy Board in Calgary at that time.
However, three years later decision making authority still rests
with ministers in Ottawa who must approve even minor
regulatory decisions. This is a time consuming, complicated
and
2168
ineffective process. It is time to act decisively to give the NEB
the authority to make decisions to do its job.
Through this bill the Government of Canada proposes to
consolidate frontier oil and gas regulation. This will streamline
and simplify the approval process and operational
responsibilities as well. These changes represent a small but
important step.
We believe that it is crucial that in an increasingly
competitive world we must provide Canadians and foreign
investors with a clear regulatory framework in which to operate.
The federal government must demonstrate a commitment to
establish a regulatory environment that minimizes the burden on
those who will ultimately create the opportunities and jobs to
which this government is firmly committed.
[Translation]
These changes are reflective of another important
Government of Canada priority-to ensure that government
services are delivered in a cost effective manner. We recognize
that reducing the deficit and restraining government
expenditure is a priority for all Canadians.
[English]
In times of fiscal austerity such as these governments must
make every effort to look for ways to give the taxpayers of this
country the best value for their money. One way to do so is to
ensure that the size and the structure of our institutions reflect
the level of work required of them.
This bill represents another step in the ongoing process of
effectively downsizing and reorganizing government
responsibilities.
In addition to savings for taxpayers, this bill should result in
cost savings for energy. Through streamlining operations we
will save industry time and we recognize that for industry time
is money. Just as important, however, we are maintaining the
quality and integrity of the regulatory process of Canada's oil
and gas sectors.
I see that it is eleven o'clock. With the Chair's permission I
will stop here and perhaps the House can proceed with members'
statements and question period.
The Speaker: I do thank the hon. member for being so
understanding.
It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members,
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
2168
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
in commemoration of International Women's Week I would like
to say a few words about the considerable contribution of
Canadian women in the field of agriculture.
The shift in the role of rural women has been growing ever
since grain and land prices collapsed in the early 1980s.
Between 1981 and 1986, while the total number of farm
operators in Canada fell by 8 per cent, the number of female
farm operators increased by 18 per cent.
Farm women are suddenly in startling numbers becoming
co-managers with their husbands or becoming sole operators.
They are proving to be very sharp in the business and marketing
end of the industry, a crucial element of modern day agriculture.
I have co-managed our family farm with my husband and
family for 25 years.
I would like to take this opportunity to salute the growing
contributions of Canadian farm women who, in partnership or
alone, have successfully adapted to the increasing complexities
of the agriculture industry.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, since the election of the Liberal government, we have
kept hearing in this House and in committees that Quebecers and
Canadians must tighten their belts, that governments can no
longer provide families and seniors with the social security to
which they are entitled.
In spite of all that, how can one explain that, since the start of
the year, a worthy representative of Her Majesty used the
Challenger jet twice for vacation trips to the South? How can
one decently defend a bill of $160,000 or maybe even $700,000,
as the newspapers report, to allow him and his wife to go and
take a rest?
The answer is clear: it is an indefensible, immoral decision.
2169
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, each day my
office is inundated with paper, everything from copies of
Hansard to various government publications. A large portion of
this steady paper flow ends up as waste.
In 1992 the Hill produced 472 tonnes of paper waste. When I
asked if there was a more efficient way of providing MPs with
information, I learned that Parliamentary Publications is
already working toward this goal.
It is developing a CD ROM computer system which will
eventually allow MPs and their staff to access publications such
as Hansard through their computers. This new system will not
only be environmentally friendly but will also cut down on the
government's printing budget. According to the House of
Commons estimates for 1994-95, the new system will save the
government between $200,000 and $300,000.
Other areas of government are also moving in this modern,
cost efficient direction; Revenue Canada, for example. I would
urge not only the departments but the ministers of government to
take leadership and implement this important stage for others.
* * *
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to commend the Government of Alberta for its
generous gesture to renegotiate its loan arrangements with the
Government of Newfoundland in recognition of the tough times
Newfoundland is experiencing as a result of the collapse of the
cod fishery there.
This gesture demonstrates a generosity of spirit which has
manifested the Canadian tradition of sharing, co-operating and
assisting one another to make this country a better place.
That spirit has allowed us to make Canada one of the most
desirable places in the world to live. This spirit of collective will
and national goals is shared by Canadians in all provinces,
including Quebecers, but regrettably it is not reflected in a
major policy plank of the Official Opposition which pursues a
policy of separation.
We should all be grateful that we have the privilege of
considering that policy in a peaceful and democratic way in
Ottawa, in Quebec City and in all provinces.
However, I want to suggest today that in many ways this
commendable gesture by the province of Alberta is the
antithesis of the separatist plank of the Official Opposition.
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton): Mr. Speaker,
education is the cornerstone of economic development in
modern societies.
To succeed in competitive world markets we must continue to
invest in people. Canada spends some $55 billion per year on
education and training. The level of our investment is world
class but the relevance and equality of Canadian education are
being questioned.
On February 28 the Minister of Human Resources
Development met with provincial ministers. The federal
government supported the national agenda announced last fall
by the Council of Ministers of Education in its Victoria joint
declaration.
This government is working closely with the council to
address issues facing Canadian education. We look forward to
the council's national consultation on education scheduled for
May 26 to May 29 in Montreal in which over 300 participants
will represent all partners in education.
* * *
(1105 )
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to address the question of electoral redistribution in
Saskatchewan.
I understand redistribution is done as required by statute after
each decennial census. In Saskatchewan we neither gain nor lose
seats. In this time of fiscal restraint I find it difficult to
understand why we need to spend millions of dollars to change
ridings that are well represented by current members of
Parliament.
Redistribution will not mean more effective representation in
Saskatchewan.
Therefore I call upon the government to introduce legislation
to forgo redistribution in Saskatchewan on this decennial
census. This would save the Canadian taxpayers money and
preserve the representation that they now enjoy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, we
learned this morning that the Minister of Transport intends to
make major cuts in the subsidies to VIA Rail for the
transportation of passengers. In light of the economic hardship
experienced by this crown corporation, the government has
decided to abandon public transportation instead of taking the
necessary
2170
measures to help VIA Rail, at a time when the corporation has
already begun to reduce its operating costs.
Whether it is passenger or freight transportation, the Liberal
government is promoting the slow death of railway transport,
particularly in eastern Quebec. The government seems quite
remote from the concern of Canadians who want a public
transportation system which is fair and respectful of the
environment. In this difficult economic context, when
employment is scarce, the Liberal government is losing interest
in VIA Rail, a crown corporation which generates more than
23,000 permanent jobs.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, in the
United Kingdom, Scott Paper Limited has cancelled its pulp
contract with MacMillan Bloedel. This contract was worth $5.4
million and represents a substantial loss of Canadian export
business.
This cancellation is the result of threats; threats made by
Greenpeace, threats based on misinformation about B.C. forest
practices.
Now is the time for Canada to address the lies being spread in
Europe and the U.K. We in this House must ensure that foreign
companies are not blackmailed by misinformation campaigns
and if we are to live up to the promise of jobs and sustainable
development action must be taken to protect Canada's number
one industry.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
want to mention that a volleyball team from a high school in
Hamilton has been selected to represent Canada at an
international tournament, to be held next May, in Paris. Most of
these young athletes are English speaking and come from
various ethnic backgrounds. They attend the École
Saint-Jean-de-Brébeuf, named after one the greatest heroes
and martyrs of New France in the seventeenth century.
These young Ontarians will therefore be perfect ambassadors,
since they embody the two cultures of Canada. Their team's
name is ``Les Braves''. I invite the House to congratulate them
by using a word which is the same in both languages, and that is
``Bravo''.
[English]
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, it is sad that as peace comes closer between Israel and
the Palestinian people so does the prospect of terrorist action
designed to hurt and outrage, to fuel distrust, fear and hatred.
When tragic and terrible violence occurs it is essential that we
continue to support those engaged in the search for peace. I
found encouraging the powerful statements by Prime Minister
Rabin in the aftermath of the Hebron massacre and as well the
forceful condemnation by the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee of the murderous attack on
Jewish youth in New York.
It is important that members of all faiths and communities
examine more carefully their own habits of thought and
expression so that these cannot fuel the acts of extremists, so
that they can never believe that they are merely zealots acting as
true agents of God and their people.
It is such mistaken beliefs that lead to the most hateful acts.
* * *
(1110 )
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, recently
the National Transportation Agency of Canada announced new
regulations requiring that rail, marine and air carriers train their
employees and contractors to provide suitable transportation
services to persons with disabilities.
In addition, as of January 1 of this year air carriers operating
domestic services with aircraft of 30 passenger seats or more are
required to provide certain services if requested in advance.
I mention these improvements as the former associate critic
for the disabled in the last Parliament. Physically handicapped
people often have trouble finding employment and coping with
situations which most of us take for granted. It is encouraging to
see some of the shortcomings in our society pertaining to the
handicapped being addressed.
It has been a long, difficult struggle for those affected by
physical disabilities and those speaking for them. I congratulate
those responsible for these new regulations.
2171
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois, which participated actively in the debate in this
House on the future of our peacekeeping operations and of our
commitment in the former Yugoslavia, is pleased today to offer
its sincerest congratulations to all of Canada's UN troops who
are doing an outstanding job over there.
The government decided yesterday to extend the presence of
our troops there for six more months. They can thus pursue their
important task of helping humanitarian aid get through.
We are thinking especially of those who have just completed a
quite remarkable mission in Srebrenica, most of whom are
Quebecers. Like all the rest, they have contributed to our solid
reputation as peacekeepers in UN missions.
Our UN troops are doing their difficult job overseas with
courage and dignity and we are proud of them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian
citizen I was extremely proud of the effort and showing of our
athletes in Lillehammer during the Winter Olympics.
Young Canadians from coast to coast demonstrated to the
world the talent and sportsmanlike conduct developed in a
country that prides itself on being one of the best places in the
world to live.
Whether in victory or defeat each of our athletes set an
example of excellence for the next generation of athletes to
follow that can only be achieved through years of hard work and
dedication to become the best they can be.
I commend our gold, silver and bronze medalists. I commend
all our athletes with whom we share a strong sense of
achievement and patriotism.
I commend Mr. Glen Rupertus of Camrose, Alberta. This
small town boy from western Canada accomplished what so
many young people only dream of. He made his aspirations
come true, he made it to the Olympics.
The memory of his journey, the friendships he found and the
honour bestowed on him by all Canadians who witnessed his
performance in the biathlon will last a lifetime.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West): Mr. Speaker, I
stand in the House today to describe a cost saving procedure in
which most colleagues can share.
We all travel repeatedly from our ridings to Ottawa. Using a
personal example, a regular economy flight from Mississauga to
Ottawa is $443.47 return. That same flight when booked from
Ottawa to Mississauga with our normal weekend stay over,
which includes a Saturday, is $244.26, a difference of $199.21.
The savings per year are well over $10,000 per MP on one of
the least expensive routes. For 295 MPs there would be a
minimum savings of $3 million per year, a possible savings of
$6 million per year.
Many of us book our travel through one agency here in Ottawa
with that agency receiving a commission. With the enormous
amount of travel booked by the House with MPs spending most
weekends in their ridings I am severely disappointed that both
airlines have not instructed our travel agent on this considerable
saving.
I am also amazed that our travel agent has not instructed our
staffs on the savings to Canadian taxpayers.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, Canada's 1993
initiative at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in
Geneva led to the adoption of a declaration on the elimination of
violence against women.
Canada has done it again in 1994, as the United Nations
General Assembly approved the Canadian initiated resolution to
appoint a special rapporteur on violence against women.
(1115 )
The rapporteur will report annually to the Commission on
Human Rights with recommendations on how to eliminate
violence against women, both at the domestic and international
levels.
The appointment of this special rapporteur is indicative of
Canada's strong commitment to the promotion of the rights of
women, both here at home and at the international level.
_____________________________________________
2171
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, a genuine
movement is taking shape in Quebec, led by prominent citizens
2172
including academics, bishops, union leaders and business
people, to take up the fight against poverty, which is affecting an
increasingly larger segment of society.
Instead of proposing measures to eliminate poverty, the latest
federal budget merely aggravates the problem by shifting many
people who would normally have access to unemployment
insurance on the welfare rolls.
Will the Prime Minister admit that Canada is getting poorer
and poorer and that an increasingly large proportion of the
population is suffering as a result? And could he explain what
he, as the Prime Minister of Canada, intends to do to give new
hope to four million people who are living below the poverty
line?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the government realizes it is very important to create jobs in
order to restore the dignity of Canadians.
Clearly, the current system has not managed to eliminate
poverty. We want to eliminate it by trying new policies, a new
approach that will create jobs and restore the dignity of
Canadians. A committee of the House of Commons is examining
these issues at the moment. The Minister of Human Resources
Development is working on a plan to take all our social
programs and focus them on job creation. As soon as people
have jobs, their dignity is restored and they can get out of the
poverty cycle.
That is the approach the government has decided to take, and
we will keep on trying until we succeed. I hope we can count on
the co-operation of the opposition parties for this new approach,
because unemployment insurance and welfare are not the
answer. The answer is dignity through work.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister realize that according to a very thorough study
by the Conseil scolaire de l'île de Montréal, Quebec has the
largest number of low income families of any province in
Canada, in other words, 31.8 per cent of all poor families in this
country, and that cutting and restructuring social programs to
save money is not going to restore people's dignity and provide
jobs? What does the Prime Minister of Canada intend to do to
change a situation that has become very bad for families in
Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
just answered the question. We have embarked on a fundamental
reform of our approach to employment and social security, and
that is the mandate I gave the Minister of Human Resources
Development. The committee that is considering these issues is
to report to the House very shortly.
We hope to table legislation before Parliament by next fall
and next spring. I would urge opposition members to take part in
this process. The sooner we finish, the sooner we will have
reforms that will change things, because we are not satisfied
with the status quo.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister's answer will not satisfy families that are below the
poverty line in this country. The Prime Minister is probably
aware that in Canada, one child out of five is living below the
poverty line.
Would he agree that considering ways to cut social programs
in Canada does not constitute a comprehensive strategy to fight
poverty? Would he agree that his responsibility should be to put
in place a comprehensive plan with specific strategies to give
new hope to people who are poor?
(1120)
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
invite the member of the opposition to participate in the work
the Minister of Human Resources Development is doing at this
time. There is a committee meeting on that right now. He has
met with his provincial colleagues.
Everybody agrees that the status quo proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois is not what is needed. We need a new approach where
there will be dignity through work, not through welfare and
unemployment insurance payments.
We want all parties of this House to make sure that the
resources of the Canadian taxpayers are used for creating jobs
and giving dignity back to the workers, not having them sit home
waiting for welfare and unemployment insurance benefits.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
After the Minister of Human Resources Development made
his controversial statement calling for Canadians to choose
between old age pensions and youth training programs, the
Prime Minister intervened to allay the fears raised by this
statement. The Prime Minister said that the government had no
intention of touching old age pensions.
Now that the Prime Minister has contradicted him, can the
Minister of Human Resources Development confirm that the
white paper he will table in June will not propose any changes to
the old age security program?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member's
question is inaccurate. I never said there had to be a choice
between seniors and young people. It is not what I said, it is what
the hon. members opposite said.
2173
I said that we had to find ways to create jobs for all Canadians
and that we will have to review benefit programs and develop a
system for investing these funds, which could be used for
development and job creation. It is an issue to be examined by
all Canadians. It is not a question of pitting seniors against
young people but of co-operating for the benefit of all of
Canada.
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker, is
the minister willing to apologize to seniors he upset with his
controversial statement, forcing the Prime Minister to
contradict him?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the only people who caused a
problem and concern among seniors were the members opposite
who raised false fears. They were responsible for that. They
were aided by some of their journalist friends who did not look
at what the question was doing. If there is to be an apology it
should be from those who are out to create false fears and false
suspicions.
This government is trying to take an honest look at some of
the tough realities facing this country, particularly the problems
down the road for our social security system which the Liberals
built.
We are responsible for putting in place over the years an
effective social security system for older persons. We want to
make sure that is maintained and preserved. To do that we must
find ways of financing it. We must find a way of ensuring that
the large change in the seniors population which will almost
double in the next two decades can be accommodated.
Those are honest, realistic questions. It is not helped by
members opposite trying to raise false fears which they have
been doing and creating a crisis only in their own minds.
* * *
(1125 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Several days ago the minister of Indian affairs announced that
the government was formally proceeding to establish a new
order of aboriginal self-government starting in Manitoba. The
government has yet to provide this House with a clear definition
of this new order of government.
Recognizing the minister's long experience in the field of
intergovernmental relations, how is the federal government
defining aboriginal self-government in the case of Manitoba's
aboriginals? What will be the relationship of that new order of
government to the Government of Canada?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, these extremely important questions require complex
answers. It would be better if the questions could be deferred
until the minister of Indian affairs can be here to answer them.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, if
the government committed itself to establishing a new order of
government in Manitoba surely this question must have been
discussed at cabinet. Surely no cabinet minister would have
committed to this concept without having a clear definition in
law and legislation of what this concept is.
We got nowhere asking this question of the minister of Indian
affairs. I thought perhaps we would with the intergovernmental
affairs minister. Perhaps I can direct this question to whoever on
the other side understands what the meaning of aboriginal
self-government is with respect to Manitoba. Could we be given
that definition?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, the concept of self-government in Indian affairs is one
which was used in the red book. It is not a concept that is fully
defined. The concept will have to be defined as it is put into
place over time. There is no doubt that federal-provincial
co-operation will be necessary. As this slowly develops we will
give all the details to hon. members.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure all ministers will agree that in a democratic country no
new order of government should be established without the
consent of the governed.
Will the federal government be conducting a formal
referendum among the aboriginal people of Manitoba to secure
their approval of this new order of government?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite important that the concept be discussed
among the aboriginal people and discussed by the various
stakeholders in the country, including federal and provincial
governments and the aboriginal people.
We cannot of course define the content of the concept until it
has been negotiated with the various parties. This is what we
will do over the next few years, I hope with the co-operation of
the opposition parties.
2174
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker,
while the people of Saint-Jean mobilize every day to express
their concern about the closing of the Royal Military College in
Saint-Jean, the only French language institution of its kind in
the country, the minister stubbornly persists in his decision to
close it.
Can the minister of defence confirm to us that his government
has reached an agreement with the Government of Quebec and
that the announcement of this agreement has been deliberately
delayed until the closing speech of the Quebec Liberal Party
convention on Sunday afternoon?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know where the hon. members across the way get their wild
ideas from. They are making up the most outrageous assertions
and the answer is absolutely no.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, does
the minister realize that for some savings which he himself is
unable to demonstrate, the Liberal Government of Canada is
killing the only French language military training institution in
America and sending a very negative message about the place of
francophones in the armed forces and their future there? Does he
realize that?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this
question has been repeatedly asked in another forum over the
last few weeks. Responses have been given by the Prime
Minister and me.
(1130 )
I said on a couple of occasions this week that with respect to
the financial details surrounding the closure of Collège
Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, we will discuss it at the
committee, which is the appropriate place, on Tuesday morning
when all the estimates are there.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Solicitor General and involves the notion
that all citizens must be equal before the law.
As the minister is aware, Mr. Alan Eagleson, a Canadian
closely identified with professional hockey in Canada, is under
indictment in the United States for 32 counts of racketeering,
fraud, embezzlement, kickbacks and obstruction of justice.
Many of these alleged activities took place in Canada.
It is reported that information concerning Mr. Eagleson's
activities has been supplied to Canadian law enforcement and
professional organizations.
Will the minister tell this House if the Government of Canada
is currently conducting an investigation into the activities of Mr.
Eagleson in Canada?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the RCMP has been assisting the FBI in its investigations.
Furthermore, investigations are going on into similar
allegations in Canada. Under the circumstances, I am sure the
hon. member will agree it would not be appropriate for me to
comment further.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
this information was made available to Canadian law officials
almost four years ago. The same information brought to the
attention of American officials two years ago resulted in an
immediate investigation in the laying of charges.
As Mr. Eagleson's activities were conducted on both sides of
the border and Mr. Eagleson had a role in Hockey Canada, an
organization created by this Parliament, can the Solicitor
General explain why the Canadian government has been so slow
in acting in this case?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
have only had this particular job for the past approximately four
months but it seems to me that in light of the complexities of this
matter, it is not unreasonable to assume that investigations take
some time.
I repeat, under the circumstances I hope the hon. member will
agree in terms of fairness to all concerned that it would not be
appropriate for me to comment further.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Finance.
The federal budget does not appear capable of putting our
public finances in order, considering that it foresees a
record-high deficit of nearly $40 billion, does not address the
numerous instances of squandering brought to light by the
Auditor General and rests on unrealistic revenue assumptions.
2175
In the meantime, the pitiful state of our public finances
requires an additional risk premium to be paid on interest rates,
a premium which could cost the federal government as much as
$5 billion a year.
Does the minister not realize that his lack of credibility with
the international markets in the fight to curb the deficit is the
direct cause of this $5 billion surcharge in interest costs to the
Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat
ironic that the hon. member would ask me a question about
deficit reduction when his leader, deputy leader and colleagues
keep telling us not to cut back and deal with the deficit.
With respect to the deficit, we are clearly on the way to
reducing it to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product within
three years. And once this target is achieved, Canada will be in
this good a position for the first time in 15 years. This should be
applauded, and you are right to do so, Prime Minister.
I am not done, Mr. Speaker.
Having said this, as for our revenue projections, the vast
majority of economists agree that for once, Canada has a
realistic budget in terms of revenue, inflation and interest rates.
(1135)
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, the minister is
having a very hard time answering my question. Let me ask him
another.
Does the minister recognize that the additional cost of the risk
premium on interest rates equals the cuts and sacrifices imposed
on the unemployed and the poor?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, if by comparison with
other countries, there is a premium on our interest rates, it must
be pointed out that rates are the lowest they have been in the last
decade, and this has been the case ever since we took office.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
On Monday, in response to a question from a member of the
Bloc Quebecois, the Prime Minister said he is ready to help
Quebec maintain Collège Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean as an
institution of higher learning following closure of the military
college.
Is the Prime Minister willing to make the same commitment
in this House today to the people of British Columbia with
respect to the future of Royal Roads Military College?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is yes.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his candid answer.
My supplementary question concerns the MICMIC report
which was a cost benefit analysis that was done on the military
colleges and completed in May 1993. It was commissioned by
the federal government.
It has as its primary recommendation that all military colleges
be kept open. The previous government kept this report hidden
and this government has kept this report hidden. Can the Prime
Minister tell us why the report has continued to be kept hidden?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
think we have tonnes of reports on that.
In the United States there are two million soldiers in the
armed forces and there are three colleges. In Canada we have
65,000 people in the armed forces. We cannot keep three
colleges. For a party that is always complaining that we are
spending too much, that we took the political flack to do the
right thing, rather than giving us a problem with that the member
should get up and applaud our good judgment to reduce
expenditures.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, on February 4 last, I asked the Minister of Industry to
tell us what his specific plans were with respect to the
information highway. At the time, the minister answered rather
vaguely that he was planning to set up an advisory council. I was
concerned by this because we already had the Ostry report which
provided details about the information highway to the
government.
Can the minister now inform the House of the mandate,
composition and work schedule of this council?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, the
Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development, Mr.
Gerrard, gave a speech in Toronto several weeks ago in which he
clarified our interests in the information highway project. I
believe that I will be in a position next week to provide the hon.
member with the information he is requesting.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Then I
guess I jumped the gun with my question, Mr. Speaker. How
does the minister intend to involve the provinces, particularly
Quebec, the cradle of la Francophonie, in the charting of the
2176
information highway? I would appreciate an answer to this
question today.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, we
have Quebec's interests very much at heart. In fact, last week I
met with Mr. Chagnon from Vidéotron, a company that has
already unveiled a project to provide service to consumers in the
Chicoutimi region. The interests of all provinces are important
to this information highway project.
[English]
This is one of the means of bringing the new economy into
reality in Canada in the very near future.
* * *
(1140 )
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, my
question is addressed to the Minister of Finance.
The constituents in my riding of
Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe are particularly
concerned about Canada's unemployment picture. Both before
and after the budget they told me that their principal concern is
seeing their family members, friends and neighbours find jobs
in this tough economy.
I understand that there may be some improvement in this area.
Can the minister comment on this important issue of job
creation and how we are progressing since this government
came to power?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the
member on his question. I must say that I am delighted to
respond.
I am very, very much encouraged by February's strong jump
in employment, particularly so since it has occurred in all
regions of the country. Nationally, there is a net gain of 66,000
jobs; 11,000 jobs in the member's home province.
What is also very important to understand, Mr. Speaker-and
I know that you are hanging on every word-is that there are
particularly strong gains in manufacturing in the retailing
sector. Some may have noticed that was something that was very
worrisome in the month of January.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans who as previously demonstrated speaks officially for the
government on the Kemano completion project.
In a letter to Chief Marvin Charlie of the Cheslatta band dated
February 22, 1994, the minister clearly stated that only native
groups would be considered eligible to receive federal
intervener funding required to participate effectively in the
Kemano completion project.
Is it the decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and
indeed the decision of this government, that native concerns
carry far more legitimacy than non-native concerns in regard to
Kemano and therefore natives should be the only groups entitled
to federal intervener funding?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): No,
Mr. Speaker, it is not the view of the Government of Canada that
one group or another in society has a greater right to be heard in
the course of hearings of the British Columbia Utilities
Commission.
What I have stated in my correspondence, as referred to by the
member in asking his question, is that the Government of
Canada has provided some assistance for aboriginal groups to
participate on an intervener basis. Clearly and I think the
member would agree, certainly I hope his party would agree,
there is at least the proposition to be put that aboriginal
communities and aboriginal peoples have been first impacted by
the consequences of the project in question. Therefore it is
necessary to ensure that aboriginal people have the means to
participate in the hearing process should they so decide.
To my knowledge, no such formal decision has been reached
one way or another to this point in time with respect to their
intervener status.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): I
appreciate the minister's comments.
I would like to ask this of the minister: If no group is more
important than any other in the eyes of the government, will the
minister then commit to this House and to the thousands of
people living in British Columbia who are concerned about this
project a process through which all interested parties may
proceed in order to receive federal intervener funding?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): I
have to say that I find it incredible that the Reform Party stands
in the House almost daily under the guise of question period and
demands of this government far deeper cuts, cuts in the range of
billions of dollars. Nothing is sacred, not senior citizen
pensions, not medicare, not welfare, but in the next breath the
same party can stand and demand that all groups and all
individuals, all the thousands of applications for intervener
status, ought to be met with a yes from the government.
2177
(1145)
There is not a bottomless pit of money. We are going to act
responsibly. We are going to see that those who have the greatest
need are served in providing intervener funding. The member
should get his priorities straight.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that the Liberal
government is about to once again cut VIA Rail's budget. The
Minister of Transport went so far as to say that the dream of a
major intercontinental carrier is a thing of the past, when he
announced yesterday that VIA Rail services would again be
reduced.
How can the Minister of Transport explain this latest
about-face by the Liberals, considering that they opposed every
cut made to VIA Rail's budget by the previous Conservative
government?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
first I want to clarify a point: I am sure that the hon. member was
not implying that I had personally reacted in that fashion to
previous cuts affecting VIA Rail, because it would not be true.
As for the future of that crown corporation, cuts will continue
to be made, as has been the case for the last few years. This year,
Canadian taxpayers are contributing more than $300 million to
VIA Rail's operations, a situation which simply cannot go on.
We will do our best, and in fact we have asked VIA Rail to look
at every possible option, including reducing its operations. Staff
cutbacks have already been made and, as I said here yesterday in
my speech, there is no doubt in my mind that other cuts will be
made.
The national situation in the transport sector is clear. We have
to integrate every system and transportation mode to create an
efficient and integrated system and, more important, one which
we can afford.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree that successive cuts to VIA
Rail's budget mean a slow death for this crown corporation, as
well as the loss of more than 23,000 permanent jobs in Canada
and in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
there is no question that no one takes any pleasure, especially as
an Atlantic Canadian, in seeing further reductions in the
services of VIA Rail. No longer is there any service of any kind
in the railroad sector in Newfoundland. There is no railroad
activity in Prince Edward Island. Other parts of the country are
deeply affected by the need to rationalize transportation
services.
As we go through this process of developing an integrated,
affordable national transportation system, undoubtedly there
will be some major problems for employees and for users. We
are trying to do the very best we can with the limited resources at
hand, particularly taking into account the already tremendous
burden on the Canadian taxpayer.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
the board of referees of the Unemployment Insurance
Commission in my riding has now ceased to function due to a
shortage of members. For over two months my office has
attempted contact with the office of the Minister of Human
Resources Development regarding this matter but there has been
no response.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resource
Development. Will the he state when these important positions
will be filled and what process will be used to ensure that the
appointments will be based on merit and not on patronage?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member
if he has been unable to get a response; I will certainly look into
it. We will look very quickly into the situation in his riding.
As appointments come due we are filling the chairmen
positions of different UI boards of referees across the country.
We are proceeding as quickly as we can. It is a complicated
process, as the member knows, because each person who is
recommended must have certain checks done in terms of
background, appropriateness for the job, and so on. It does take a
little time to register each appointment.
(1150)
I will certainly look into the situation in the member's riding.
If he gives me the information on it we will have action for him
very quickly.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question on this matter for the Minister
of Human Resources Development.
The assistant campaign manager of the unsuccessful Liberal
candidate in my riding is stating that he is being appointed to the
board of referees in that riding. Is this individual telling the
truth?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, first, I am not sure who the
assistant campaign manager was in that particular riding.
Second, I do not
2178
know whether in fact that person has been recommended for that
very important position by his or her peers in the riding.
As I said earlier, if the member wants to give me information I
would be more than happy to look into it. I can give the member
the assurance that regardless of one's political background or
affiliation our interest is in getting the best person for the job.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West): Mr. Speaker, recently
we have heard through the media and in the House some reports
that the government is promoting a contract which allows for the
harvesting and sale of seals.
Would the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans please tell the
House whether or not the contract includes the sale of seals for
the purposes of providing seal penises? Would the minister also
tell the House why Canada is supporting a deal that allows for
the export of seals to China?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for St. John's West for her
question.
A contract has been entered into between Terra Nova
Fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador and a Shanghai firm in
China. It is a contract that provides for the use of some 50,000
mature, adult harp seals out of a quota of 186,000 from a healthy
and growing herd of three million.
The contract utilizes the full seal. It involves the shipment of
machinery into Newfoundland and Labrador for
semi-processing of the product into pelts, blubber oil,
byproducts and oils for finished processing of pharmaceuticals
in China.
The project is not dependent upon any one part of the animal.
It is not even directed at any one part of the animal. Rather it is a
normal processing operation, I remind the House, that flows
from a 500-year old tradition. I believe it is good news for
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, Canada and
four other aluminum producing countries have committed
themselves, last week, to helping Russian aluminum plants to
modernize, in exchange for a reduction in Russian aluminum
production. Canada, for one, will help in the privatizing,
modernizing and industrial development of Russian aluminum
plants.
Did the Minister for International Trade analyse the
medium-term impact of the modernization of Russian
aluminum plants on our own aluminum industry? If so, could he
table the results of those analyses?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, the agreements that have been reached with regard
to the orderly marketing of aluminium involve in part assistance
to the Soviet industry to modernize and to improve its
productive capacities. The basic point is that all this is directed
to assuring that the disruption in aluminium markets we have
seen in the past months and in the past year does not continue.
I would be pleased to provide the member with additional
information if he so desires.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, this probably
means that the minister did not really study the impact of last
week's agreement on our aluminum industry.
Since he has also allocated several million dollars for the
construction of a huge aluminum smelter in South Africa, could
the minister acknowledge that the recent action of his
government will jeopardize the jobs of thousands of Quebec
aluminum workers, when these new and improved Russian
aluminum plants are in operation?
(1155)
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, no, not at all. With reference to EDC financing of
the engineering studies by a Montreal firm of the aluminium
smelter in South Africa, I answered that question on an earlier
occasion. I would be pleased to provide the member with further
information if he so wishes.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development.
The Semiahmoo First Nations band in British Columbia is in
the process of unjustly evicting two long term non-native
residents from the reserve. Instead of attempting to mediate or
resolve the issue, the department initiated eviction proceedings
and is demanding that these residents pay double the rent for 60
days as they attempt to sell their homes. Unfortunately the
evicted residents have been told their homes cannot be sold
without a signed lease in place.
2179
On February 23 the minister told the House that he and his
party stand on the side of those who are discriminated against. Is
the minister prepared to live up to his commitment of standing
up for those who are being discriminated against and protecting
the interests of those being evicted?
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
I would like to inform the hon. member that I will make this
information known to the minister and a response will be
forthcoming.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As the
government moves toward dismantling the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the
implementation of aboriginal self-government, could the
government guarantee that the rights of all Canadians regardless
of race, gender or status will be protected?
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr.
Speaker, absolutely. I remind the hon. member that on the issue
of self-government we did not have the privilege of being asked
whether a government would be set up before a government was
set up in our land.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday, the
Federal Court of Appeal ordered the federal government to pay
bilingualism bonuses of $800 a year to qualified officers of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is estimated that the
government now owes up to $4,000 to more than 3,000 officers
as well as retired officers of the RCMP.
Does the Solicitor General intend to abide by the unanimous
decision of the Federal Court of Appeal and pay the bilingualism
bonus to qualified officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
that decision raises some very complex issues. It is presently
under review, and I will have more information about that in the
near future.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport.
Mr. Robert Nixon's review of the proposed privatization of
Pearson International Airport recommended that Transport
Canada proceed with construction at terminals one and two and
then establish a non-profit operating authority.
This position is supported by the five regional chairpersons
who say that delays will kill several economic development
opportunities in the Toronto area.
Why is the minister delaying action when much needed jobs
and infrastructure are at stake?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
that is a very serious question. Obviously the reason for some
delay is that we want to do what is best for Canada's flagship
airport.
The Pearson International Airport is Canada's most important
airport. All Canadians would know that we have just gone
through a very difficult process in trying to reverse a situation
that we as a government did not feel was in the best interest of
Canadians and the Canadian taxpayer.
(1200 )
I assure my friend we are taking into account all of the
concerns being raised by many people not only in the Toronto
area but across the country with respect to the future of Pearson
airport.
I encourage my friend and others with an interest in this
matter to convey their views to the very strong and influential
government members making up the metropolitan Toronto
caucus who are currently looking at this matter.
* * *
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
Recently on the television program ``Market Place'' the issue
of automobile safety was analysed. It was noted that federal
standards for car bumpers are minimal and that no standards
exist for vans.
Recent insurance impact tests show that at eight kilometres
per hour, damage resulted in thousands and thousands of dollars.
Today's cars sustain more collision damage than those 60 years
ago.
What measures is the minister prepared to initiate to improve
automobile safety and safety for Canadians?
2180
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
it is a very interesting question. I must admit I was astonished to
learn of this particularly with respect to minivans, a very
popular form of transportation for families. I was very
concerned when I learned of that report. I have asked my
department to look into it.
Without equivocation I must say it is absolutely intolerable
that manufacturers of these vehicles have not taken safety
requirements into account which I think would have been
essential in anybody's planning. Care should be taken that
vehicles constructed and marketed with the primary purpose of
providing transportation to parents and young children should
meet the most stringent safety standards.
We are going to make it our business to very forcefully
encourage manufacturers in this country to respect the need to
provide the highest possible standards for vehicles that are
transporting families.
* * *
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker,
during the heat of the moment I made a comment about the
minister of fisheries and I wish to withdraw that.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for what I think
is a very generous act on his part. I too have been guilty of
similar types of comments in the heat of the moment on
occasion.
The Speaker: Sometimes I think we should move the chair a
little bit closer so I can hear.
_____________________________________________
2180
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to section 48 of the Official Languages Act and
Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official
languages, the fifth annual report of the President of the
Treasury Board concerning official languages in federal
institutions covering the fiscal year 1992-93.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed
referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.
[English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official
languages, the 1992 annual reports of the Co-operatives Energy
Corporation and the Lower Churchill Development Corporation
Ltd.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 35(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to six
petitions.
* * *
(1205 )
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with section 48 of the Official Languages Act, I am
pleased as President of the Treasury Board to table, in both
official languages, the annual report on Official Languages in
Federal Institutions.
[English]
This report covers fiscal year 1992-93. It reports on the
progress of the official languages program in federal
institutions. I am particularly proud to table this report because
institutional bilingualism has come a long way since 1969 when
the first Official Languages Act was adopted.
This year, more precisely on September 7, we will celebrate
the 25th anniversary of the coming into effect of the first
Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
The 1969 legislation made English and French the official
languages of Canada for all purposes of Parliament and the
Government of Canada so that they would have equality of
status in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of
Canada.
2181
[English]
A new Official Languages Act replaced the 1969 legislation
on September 15, 1988. It reflects the significant changes that
have taken place in the status and use of the two official
languages since that first legislation.
The 1988 act further specifies the constitutionally entrenched
rights and linguistic principles initially set out in the
Constitution Act, 1867 and then in the 1982 Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
In line with the 1982 charter the 1988 act provides the
framework and the provisions required to translate
constitutional language guarantees and principles into day to
day realities.
The annual report on official languages describes the
activities carried out and progress achieved by federal
institutions in 1992-93 in implementing the act.
[Translation]
It reflects their significant accomplishments in meeting the
three main objectives and commitments of the program.
[English]
These are as follows. Within certain limits Canadians can deal
with federal institutions in the official language of their choice.
In designated bilingual regions employees of these institutions
can work in the official language of their choice. English
speaking and French speaking Canadians have equal
opportunities to obtain employment and advancement in federal
institutions.
[Translation]
The government clearly expressed its conviction and
commitment to official languages in the recent speech from the
throne.
[English]
Our cultural heritage and our official languages are at the very
core of our Canadian identity and are sources of social and
economic enrichment.
In making sure that federal institutions live up to their
obligations under the Official Languages Act the government
will continue to transform this conviction and commitment into
reality in its day to day operations and in its contracts with
Canadians right across the country.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, the annual report Official Languages in Federal
Institutions shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is still a
long way to go to reach true fairness for the French speaking
citizens of this country.
The act could have been a development tool for francophone
and Acadian communities in Canada by ensuring access to the
public service in French. Unfortunately, the way the government
views and implements its mission, it is making only Quebec
bilingual. Is it the government's aim to destroy the stronghold of
the French speaking community in North America?
Let us look more closely at some figures.
(1210)
In Quebec, where the English speaking population is 10 per
cent, the federal public service has 52.7 per cent bilingual
positions, that is 15,945 out of a total of 30,234 positions. If the
same principle were applied to Canada as a whole, the number of
bilingual positions should be 30,666 instead of 7,465.
Therefore, there is a glaring and shameful deficit of 23,000
French or bilingual positions for francophones.
For my colleagues' benefit, let us take a look at the data
province by province. Reform Party members who think that
bilingualism costs too much should be happy to see that so little
is done in that regard. The Northwest Territories should have
122 positions instead of 39; Yukon, 38 instead of 7; British
Columbia, 1,600 instead of 394; Alberta, 1,564 instead of 395;
Saskatchewan, 672 instead of 175; Manitoba, 2,238 instead of
565; Ontario, excluding the National Capital, 9,136 instead of
2,762; Nova Scotia, 2,755 instead of 750; Newfoundland, 132
instead of 63; and New Brunswick, 12,339 instead of 2,680.
In conclusion, in this year of the 25th anniversary of the
Official Languages Act, the government has chosen to move the
clock back 40 years by transferring the operations of the Collège
militaire royal de Saint-Jean to Kingston, where Premier Bob
Rae used too narrow an interpretation in determining that the
number of French-speaking people in that community did not
warrant it being declared a bilingual district.
The Treasury Board and this government therefore do not give
us much to rejoice over, and this anniversary, on September 7
next, should rather be considered as a day of mourning, with the
Canadian flag at half-mast.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. President of the Treasury Board for this
opportunity to respond to his interesting report.
Let me first underline that our party is not against
bilingualism. We are not. In fact, we encourage it on a personal
basis. What we are against is the waste of resources brought
about by the application of the Official Languages Act and its
divisiveness to Canada as a country.
Although no doubt well intentioned, the continued blind
application of the act, to use the words of the President of the
Treasury Board, ``in making sure that federal institutions live up
2182
to their obligations under the act'' is the very thing that is
causing resentment across the land.
The minister proudly states that English speaking and French
speaking Canadians have equal opportunities to obtain
employment and advancement in federal institutions. However,
within the last two weeks we heard the Minister of National
Defence say with pride that officers of the Canadian forces
aspiring to the rank of lieutenant colonel or above will have to be
bilingual. This same restriction is being applied at the
non-commissioned officer level.
In a country where more than 60 per cent of francophones
speak no English and over 80 per cent of anglophones speak no
French, a person should be able to pursue a career solely in
either official language with the expectation that if he or she
does everything correctly, there is a reasonable chance for
success in that career. Application of the Official Languages Act
takes away this hope from the majority in both language groups.
It fosters resentment and division in Canada.
We would be among the first to applaud the opportunity for
francophones to pursue a career in the French language.
(1215 )
We are appalled by the fact that the number of jobs available
to unilingual francophones has dropped 26 per cent since 1974
thanks to the government's ridiculous pursuit of the bilingual
post designation.
We are equally upset that unilingual anglophones are
suffering the same form of discrimination.
[Translation]
Let me repeat again that we are not opposed to bilingualism.
We agree that both languages are necessary in government
institutions, such as this Parliament, and the courts of justice.
On the other hand, we are opposed to the antagonism and the
waste of resources caused by the Official Languages Act over
the past 25 years.
[English]
I want to conclude by saying I am deeply distressed also by
the inaction of the chief parliamentary body overseeing the
Official Languages Act. I am a member of the Standing Joint
Committee on Official Languages which has yet to meet this
session. My research indicates this committee has met only nine
times in the past two years and has not issued a single
recommendation to this House. It saddens me to think that such
a vital part of the fabric of Canadian society appears to be sorely
neglected by us, Canada's elected representatives.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee
on Finance.
In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, March 8,
1994 the committee has considered Bill C-14, an act to provide
borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1994,
and has agreed to report it without amendment.
A copy of the minutes and proceedings and evidence relating
to this bill, issue number 18 which includes this report, is hereby
tabled, all of which is respectfully submitted.
I would like to again thank the hard working members of our
committee from all parties.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a
petition signed by a number of Canadians asking this House to
preserve article 241 in the Criminal Code which forbids
euthanasia and assisted suicide.
This petition was circulated by Mrs. Theresa Ducharme of
Winnipeg and her organization called People in Equal
Participation.
I want to outline for the House how difficult it was for Mrs.
Ducharme to secure names for her petition. She is a victim of
polio, she is on an artificial respirator, she is epileptic, diabetic
and confined to a wheelchair. She knows how precious life is and
told me that is why she wanted to circulate this petition.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition dealing
with killer cards. One section of the petition states: ``We abhor
crimes of violence against persons and we believe that killer
trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to
admire or emulate but rather contribute to violence''.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to present a petition from my
constituents in Austin, Manitoba.
The signatories of this petition are concerned about the
reduction of postal personnel in their community and about the
normal services which rural ridings are entitled to.
2183
They would like the government to take notice of this when it
deals with that issue.
(1220 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
summer residents of my constituency of Simcoe Centre, I would
like to present this petition which calls on Parliament to take a
fresh look at Canada's current policy on official languages and
to hold a national referendum on the question.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in
the House to present this petition of 501 names, duly certified by
the clerk of petitions, on behalf of the undersigned residents of
Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe and the surrounding
area, in particular Collingwood and area.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to
amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation,
distribution, sale and manufacture of killers cards in law and to
advise the producers of killer cards that their product, if
destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition here whereby the petitioners ask the
government to deal with pensioners' pensions in an extremely
sensitive and fair way. They want to ensure that today's pension
plans respond to their actual needs.
[Translation]
They realize that for several years now they have not received
the amount necessary to have the quality of life they are entitled
to.
[English]
They also want to make sure that whatever future plans are
changed, if they are to be changed, they take into consideration
the unique situation of our citizens.
Finally, they wish us all to recognize that the country that we
have today and many of the benefits that we enjoy are as a result
of their contributions to this society.
[Translation]
We must not forget them.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my privilege to rise in the
House to present a petition, duly certified by the clerk of
petitions, on behalf of many concerned constituents of
Nanaimo-Cowichan and the surrounding area.
The petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to enact
legislation providing for a referendum binding on Parliament to
accept or reject two official languages. Given Canada's current
financial restraints the petitioners feel the existing official
languages law is very expensive and is actually more divisive
than cohesive.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the
ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by
11 minutes.
_____________________________________________
2183
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-6,
an act to amend the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the
Canada Petroleum Resources Act and the National Energy
Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, before our
interruption for question period we were discussing Bill C-6
which deals with the transfer to the National Energy Board of the
administration and regulation of activities on frontier lands
which were previously administered by the Canadian Oil and
Gas Lands Administration or COGLA.
Industry needs to have certain and clear sets of rules by which
to operate. It needs to be confident that regulation will be carried
out in a professional and highly competent manner. We believe
these qualities are now exemplified in the National Energy
Board.
For more than 30 years the National Energy Board has been an
effective regulatory agency. The board's experience in
reviewing proposals for complex energy projects has provided it
with extensive expertise in environmental, socio economic and
technical areas. With the addition of highly qualified and
dedicated
2184
staff from the former COGLA, the board is well placed to take
on the authority to regulate frontier oil and gas.
(1225)
We should also emphasize that this reorganization does not
mean that the government places less importance on our frontier
responsibilities.
In recent years companies have shifted their attention to other
regions and adopted a go slow attitude in the Canadian frontiers.
This was done primarily as a result of the poor economics of
developing these high cost resources in an environment of lower
oil prices.
In these circumstances it is all too easy to neglect our frontiers
or to conclude that they are too costly to ever attract serious and
continuing exploration activity. That, however, is not our
intention.
Canada's frontiers north of 60 and off shore hold more than
two-thirds of Canada's remaining conventional oil and natural
gas resources. Whatever the short-term outlook these areas will
be a significant and growing part of our energy future.
Consequently, effective regulation of Frontier Oil and Gas
exploration is a priority and because it is important the federal
government will retain a meaningful role in the frontiers.
The crown is, after all, the resource owner and has an
obligation to ensure that this resource is managed in the best
manner possible for the benefit of the Canadian people.
The amendment proposed to Bill C-6 do not transfer the full
range of ministerial responsibility to the National Energy
Board. In keeping with good regulatory practice the government
will retain the responsibility to establish the overall policy
framework for frontier petroleum development. The crown also
maintains the power to grant the legal permission or exclusive
rights to companies which in some cases involve some
discretion.
It would not be appropriate to transfer these powers to a
regulatory body.
Specifically the federal government will retain authority to
publicly tender rights to explore, issue exploration production
and development licences, approve benefit plans, and set and
collect royalties.
We are serious about our responsibilities to the Canadian
public with respect to frontier oil and gas development. Key
COGLA staff have been retained in both the Departments of
Natural Resources and Indian Affairs and Northern
Development to help us look after these responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, at this juncture we would like to bring to your
attention some other elements of the bill before you. Although
unrelated to the regulation of petroleum activities on frontier
lands two areas of legislative amendment relate to the existing
operation of the National Energy Board and were identified as
requiring urgent attention.
Bill C-6 grants certain NEB staff inspection and enforcement
powers related to pipelines. By providing mechanisms for
speedier decision-making these amendments will help ensure
the safety of the public and the protection of property and the
environment.
[Translation]
Bill C-6 also provides the NEB with the flexibility to ease the
regulatory burden for small pipeline companies.
In conclusion, the restructuring proposed in Bill C-6 makes
sense from all possible vantage points. In particular, at a time in
which Canadians are looking carefully for the ways and means
to restore common sense to our public institutions, it is an
important and timely proposal.
[English]
Just as importantly the quality and integrity of the regulatory
process will be maintained. After all the frontiers are part of
Canada's energy future.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. colleague for his very consistent and almost
complete statement of the purpose of Bill C-6.
The bill before us today should have received the assent of
this House a long time ago. With the authority to regulate
provided by this bill, transfers already made to the National
Energy Board by the Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
development are formalized.
(1230)
Bill C-6 also formalizes the expanded powers of the NEB on
pipelines under its jurisdiction, namely international and
interprovincial pipelines.
The bill also provides for minor amendments to related
legislation. On the surface, it does not seem to contain any
original idea of this Liberal government. As these powers apply
to frontier oil and gas activity, several provinces where there are
no federal/provincial shared management agreements will be
affected by this transfer of authority and increased level of
responsibility.
For example, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, which
are Crown lands and public lands, will be directly affected by
Bill C-6. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia
and Ontario will be affected in so far as the regulating of
pipelines is concerned. Since Newfoundland and Nova Scotia
will be administering their offshore resources jointly with the
federal government, they will not be affected by the transfer of
authority provided for in this bill.
In addition, the coming into force of the Northern Accord and
the signing of a joint administration agreement with the
Northwest Territories will, in the medium term, result in the loss
of NEB authority over these lands. The NEB would maintain its
2185
authority to regulate oil and gas activities only in the case of
offshore resources in the Pacific and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Quebec, meanwhile, has been only marginally affected by the
changes to the National Energy Board's mandate since 1991.
However, should resources be discovered offshore in the waters
of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, then the question of resource
ownership would inevitably arise, just as it arose when
resources were discovered offshore from Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland.
Clearly, Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois would set some
conditions in terms of the legal and constitutional options of
having Quebec's and the provinces' ownership of any potential
resources recognized.
In a number of cases involving gas and oil distribution in
Canada, Quebec has repeatedly voiced its opposition to various
federal policies, notably in recent cases where legislation,
regulations and constitutional interpretation appeared to
blatantly infringe on Quebec's jurisdiction and economic
interests.
I will briefly share with you two of those issues, so as to
clearly express some Quebec positions which, I believe, federal
authorities did not take into consideration thus far. We are not
talking here about pouring out a long litany of unfounded
complaints. The Bloc Quebecois was elected in Ottawa both to
promote Quebec sovereignty and, in the meantime, to defend
Quebecers' interests within the present federal system.
I am well aware that my colleagues from Western Canada are
very sensitive to issues concerning natural resources ownership.
I must tell them that I share the same sensitivity. I would just
like to say that no one will challenge the representatives of
western Canada or of Quebec for putting forward what they
perceive as their constituents' interests.
(1235)
First, the federal government is partly responsible for the
decline of the refining industry in Quebec. Until the early 1980s,
Quebec exported refined petroleum products. During that
decade, Quebec lost more than half of its refining capacity and
as a result was forced to import part of its consumption.
The economic costs of this change in the petroleum industry
were enormous, especially for Montreal, which had been a
centre for refining petroleum products in North America since
the 1940s. Quebec lost its leadership to the benefit of Ontario.
The Borden commission of 1961 is responsible for this decline
since it decided to give western oil producers a captive market in
Canada. It was also decided that the pipelines taking oil from the
West to the East would stop in Ontario-this was called the
Borden line. With the coming of the Borden line and the
requirement for Quebec refiners to buy western oil which was
carried by pipeline only as far as Ontario, Quebec definitely lost
its geographical advantage as a refiner for central Canada, to the
benefit of Ontario.
The federal government has never repaired the damage done
by its energy policy. Quebec lost thousands of jobs. Head
offices, businesses and research and development that could
have put Quebec at the forefront of the industry were lost.
I would also like to raise another very current issue and that is
the ruling made last week by the Supreme Court of Canada
regarding exploitation of electricity. That decision led us to
believe that other conflicts might occur in the future. The court
empowers the National Energy Board to subject the granting of
hydro-electricity export licenses to an environmental
assessment. This decision is a setback for Quebec which always
wanted to assert its jurisdiction regarding environmental
matters.
Already in 1990 the National Energy Board had imposed two
conditions before granting Hydro Quebec an electricity export
license for the States of New York and Vermont. These two
conditions provided that these exports should not contravene
federal environmental standards and that the energy-producing
facilities would have to be subject to the federal environmental
assessment and review process.
Quebec's Energy Minister, Lise Bacon, who was far from
being a nasty separatist, declared at that time that this federal
intrusion into provincial jurisdiction was completely
intolerable. In 1992, another Quebec Liberal minister, Pierre
Paradis, who was then Minister of the Environment and who is
not a nasty separatist, said in a letter addressed to his federal
counterpart that the bill he was about to introduce contained
elements which were a perfect example of totalitarianism and
domination by the federal government and that it continued to
embitter relations between Quebec and Ottawa.
(1240)
Quebec has already successfully appealed that decision in the
Federal Court of Appeal. Following this victory for our
province, in turn, the James Bay Cree appealed the NEB's
decision to grant a hydro facility operating licence in their
region.
The recent Supreme Court decision will have an impact on the
development of Quebec's hydroelectric resources and will make
the costs of any new project higher.
Moreover, the Supreme Court decision imposes a public
review to limit the development of hydroelectricity, power lines
and production facilities. Before a provincial development
project can be undertaken, it would be very surprising if the
NEB did not require the equivalent for gas or oil exports,
thereby limiting the environmental impact to pipelines, and
overlooking anything having to do with the greenhouse effect,
air pollution, depletion of resources and other environmental
considerations.
I conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois is not
necessarily opposed to this bill. However, since the NEB will
only have jurisdiction over small parts of the Canadian territory,
once all the joint management agreements are signed, the
parliamentary
2186
committee will have to review this legislation with a long-term
perspective in mind.
We must not only straighten out an existing situation;
eventually we will have to have a modern approach regarding all
issues related to the management of offshore natural resources.
We have to take reality into account and propose alternative
structural changes which will give each province responsibility
for its own future interests.
Needless to say, if necessary, we will make sure each province
gets jurisdiction over offshore resources. You can count on us to
do that.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
address Bill C-6, an act to amend the Canada Oil and Gas
Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and the
National Energy Board Act.
In the interest of reducing the duplication of comments and
overlap of debaters I will speak on behalf of the Reform Party
which in principle supports Bill C-6 in the spirit has been put
forward by the Department of Natural Resources and the
National Energy Board.
As the member of Parliament for Calgary Centre, I need only
look out the window of my constituency office to see the
importance of the oil and gas industry to the people, the city and
the province of Alberta.
When the government, especially a Liberal government,
begins to change legislation that regulates this industry, people
and companies alike get nervous and express their concerns,
especially when it involves giving power to a federal board
where it may overlap in the future with an area of provincial
jurisdiction.
Having consulted with the Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers and the National Energy Board our party is
confident that Bill C-6 deals primarily with the centralization
and the consolidation of technical and regulatory functions to
the National Energy Board from the ministerial level of the
department of natural resources and in some cases the judicial
system.
According to the National Energy Board, this process of
streamlining will save the government $5 million. This is a
positive step but remains just the tip of the iceberg when one
considers the overall amount of government waste that has
existed over the years.
When I spoke in this House on Bill C-2, I encouraged the
Department of National Revenue to initiate line by line, item by
item reviews of the department to find out exactly where money
is being spent.
Today, while discussing Bill C-6, I want to ask the
Department of Natural Resources to do the same. These results
should be made public in their entirety in the form of an annual
report which could then be distributed to all parties for review.
(1245)
My party wants the federal government and all its
departments to be fiscally responsible and exercise restraint
wherever possible. We believe strongly in the streamlining of
government operations like those in Bill C-6 and encourage the
federal government to do more of the same.
Less government bureaucracy in the oil and gas industry
means quicker decisions so that more time can be spent by
businesses exploring for new resources and/or building new
pipelines.
Freeing up the marketplace from government intervention
creates opportunities, incentives and real jobs, long term
meaningful jobs. It generates real revenue and sends a message
to investors and to all Canadians that this country wants a future
based on prosperity and not on high unemployment and high
debt.
The Liberal government must continue to cut red tape and
encourage the spending of equity capital from the private sector
and not debt capital by the government as is the current
situation.
For too long governments have relied on the spending of debt
capital versus equity capital in the funding of megaprojects that
have wasted billions of taxpayers dollars, Hibernia and the
Lloydminster upgrader, for example.
My party supports a free market system, one in which supply
and demand regulate the industry, not political agendas.
Government should facilitate and not hinder the production and
efficient delivery of exports.
We support the fact that Bill C-6 will also provide the
National Energy Board with the authority to ease the regulatory
burden for small pipeline companies that do not have the
resources for drawn out hearings and application processes. It
enables them to participate in the process without being hung up
in months and months of delays and waiting for hearings.
Small businesses like these play a large role in job creation
and need to be free to compete in the marketplace.
These significant changes cannot, however, come at the
expense of the environment. Bill C-6 takes some positive steps
concerning industry safety and environmental conservation. For
example, by increasing the power for National Energy Board
inspectors to make immediate decisions in the field on safety
and environmental violations, potential disasters can be
avoided.
Decisions in the past had to be made by the full board which
caused delays and proved to be an inefficient way to ensure
companies meet high safety standards.
2187
The NEB plays a large role in the oil and gas industry and is
held in high regard. We commend and encourage it to continue
its high standards of work.
The consolidation achieved through this act eliminates the
need for courts and politicians to be involved in the daily
operations of frontier activity. The new power given to the NEB
should subsequently encourage continuity, consistency and
expediency within the department.
Having said that, there are still certain members of the oil and
gas community that have expressed concern with the fact that
Bill C-6 will eliminate the oil and gas committee which was an
independent appeal board.
With no impartial appeal process the National Energy Board
could in effect become judge, jury and sole executioner for
companies that may disagree with the decision that it hands
down. Therefore, the precedent setting decisions that are made
will subsequently be extremely important for politicians to
monitor, ensuring there are no destructive precedents set.
I would like to conclude by reminding the House that previous
Liberal governments played a significant role in crippling the
oil and gas industry in Alberta with their national energy policy.
We do not wish to see this happen again.
We encourage this new Liberal government to be different and
continue to improve the regulatory environment in Canada,
discourage red tape and the size of bureaucracy and promote
free and open competition in the private sector and leave the
industry alone. With respect to discriminatory grants or
subsidies, it does not need them, nor does it want them, with new
environmental taxes like a carbon tax and wasteful job creation
programs.
That is my submission on Bill C-6.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-6 before the House today is in fact a piece of
legislation the previous government did not have time to pass
and which died several times on the Order Paper.
(1250)
Essentially, this bill only gives legal basis to the role
currently played by the National Energy Board ever since its
merger with the Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration in
1991.
As my colleague from Matapédia-Matane said earlier, the
Bloc Quebecois approves the principle of the bill and will vote
for it at the second reading stage. However, to put things into
perspective, I would like to mention that the terms of reference
of the NEB was, as recently as last week, challenged before the
Supreme Court of Canada.
My colleague from Matapédia-Matane also reviewed the
new constitutional realities concerning the need to conduct
environmental impact assessments on any hydro projects
undertaken for foreign markets. We are anxiously waiting for
the decision the National Energy Board will should make,
following the ruling of the Supreme Court, as to the need to
extend such assessments to gas and oil exportation projects.
Of course, if Quebec becomes sovereign, we should be free of
this control over our interests. In the meantime, we think it is
crucial to promote and defend the interests of Quebec within the
current federal system. Defending Quebec's interests does not
prevent us in any way from also defending and promoting the
interests of Canadians and the rest of Canada, provided, of
course, that theirs are fully compatible with ours and are in no
way against Quebec's interests.
Yesterday, my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata
brilliantly demonstrated this when she defended the cultural
interests of English Canada against excessive control by
American publishing multinationals. The Leader of the Official
Opposition himself does not fail opportunity to stand up for
common interests of Canada and Quebec in his speeches which
attract considerable attention, including his stand on the
presence of Canadian UN troops in Bosnia.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, who took the advice of the Bloc
Quebecois and yesterday extended for another six months the
mandate of our UN troops in Bosnia.
But to come back to the issue of oil and gas development,
there is a subject which involves the financial interests of all
Canadians and Quebecers. I am talking about the Hibernia
megaproject, of which our friends in the Reform Party have just
spoken.
Left to market forces alone-and I think members of the
Reform Party will fully agree on this-the Hibernia project
would never have come about. It exists only because two
governments, this one and the one before, persisted in investing
billions of dollars in this venture whose outcome nobody can
predict. Such quandering of public funds should give the shivers
to anyone in this House who takes taxpayers' interests to heart.
In fact, what worries me most about the Hibernia adventure is
the extremely high financial risk. Just think that Chevron, Mobil
and Murphy, the oil companies that are partners in that venture,
have so little confidence in it that they demand that the federal
government, and ultimately the Canadian taxpayers, bear a huge
share of the financial risk.
Notwithstanding the heated debate on the relative cost of each
barrel extracted from the Hibernia and Avalon oilfields
compared to the international price, one has to admit that it takes
an act of faith to believe that the project will ultimately be
2188
profitable. As a professor at Memorial University said so
eloquently: ``We are down to gut feelings and faith about it''.
The profitability of that project, if it is ever profitable, can
only be marginal at best. Moreover, the rate of return depends on
unpredictable fluctuations in three distinct and very important
factors. The first is the quantity of oil that can really be
extracted from this field. The second is the final cost of building
and operating the gigantic drilling rig. The third, which is both
the most unpredictable and the determining factor, is the price of
oil in 1997, the year when production is supposed to begin, and
during the productive life of the field, which is 15 years.
(1255)
I could refrain from mentioning the risks of environmental
disasters that are never desirable but always possible, but I have
to raise the issue of the safety of the platform itself, which will
be towed 300 kilometres off the coast of St. John's, right in the
middle of what is referred to today as Iceberg Alley, in the area
where the Titanic sank in 1912. The risks of disaster are so great
that it seems impossible for the promoters of the project to
insure the platform for its full value in case a disaster should
occur. So it is obviously something important.
It seems to me that Canadian taxpayers should not have to
trust the federal government blindly, as it is asking them to do.
They should be informed of all the costs and the great risks
associated with this project. After all, it is the money of
Canadian and Quebec taxpayers that the government is throwing
at this project to prevent it from sinking.
The money invested by the federal government on behalf of
taxpayers currently exceeds $3 billion in direct grants, loan
guarantees, interest payments and direct equity participation in
this project. And I would remind all Canadians who are listening
to this debate that $1 billion equals $1,000 million. So, $3
billion means that the federal government is asking Canadians
to trust it with a $3,000 million investment in a single project,
over and above the hundreds of millions it has already invested
in activities related to the exploration and development of
resources off Canada's east coast.
In one of his recent annual reports, the Auditor General of
Canada expressed legitimate concern about Hibernia. He said
that it was a high risk venture due to fluctuating prices as well as
technological and environmental issues. The Auditor General's
analysis is still valid today, and even more so during a period of
fiscal restrictions, when we are making deep cuts in
unemployment insurance. Billions of dollars, thousands of
millions, have been invested in high risk ventures based on faith
but, when cutbacks are needed, we do not hesitate to cut benefits
to the unemployed. This government seems to think that
unemployed people are the problem.
If I brought up the issue of Hibernia today, it is probably
because I am wary. The Bloc Quebecois is not in power and has
no ambition in that direction; that is quite obvious. We cannot
stop this massive investment of public funds in a high risk
venture based on faith. However, as the Official Opposition, we
will fight to ensure that, should this project go forward, it will
generate as much economic activity as possible in Canada and
Quebec. It is the least we can do.
We will hound this Liberal government to ensure that
subcontracts promised to Canadian and Quebec businesses by
the previous government and the Hibernia consortium will be
honoured and, if possible, maximized.
As for other megaprojects whose profitability is more than
doubtful, the Bloc Quebecois will defend the interests of
Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.
In short, the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-6 at second
reading. We will look into the legitimate complaints that will
eventually be brought to our attention before or during the
committee stage of this bill.
[English]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall I call it 2.30?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 2.30 p.m. the
House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant
to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1 p.m.)