CONTENTS
Friday, September 29, 1995
Bill C-98. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and
of the amendment 15029
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 15033
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 15038
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 15040
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 15041
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15041
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15041
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15042
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15042
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15042
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 15042
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15043
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 15043
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15043
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 15043
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 15043
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 15045
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 15046
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 15047
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 15047
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 15047
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 15048
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 15051
Motion for concurrence in first report 15052
(Motion agreed to.) 15052
Bill C-98. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and
amendment 15053
Division on amendment deferred 15062
15029
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, September 29, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; and on the
amendment.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join with those in support of
Canada's oceans act this morning.
Last November the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans released a
document setting out the potential elements of an oceans
management vision for Canada. The government sought the advice
of all Canadians and the message was loud and clear: the federal
government has a leadership role to play in oceans policy.
Federally, ocean related responsibility has been fragmented and
there is a need for focus in order to meet the needs of all Canadians.
Several key oceans programs are being brought together under
one department to promote synergy in operational policy
development, to eliminate duplication and overlap and to provide a
more efficient and effective service to Canadians.
In recognition of these principles, the Canadian Coast Guard was
merged with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans last April.
This merger has already improved the government's ability to
manage and protect Canada's oceans and marine resources and has
strengthened its commitment to marine safety.
This merger decision was not taken lightly. The decision to
seriously consider a merger was made in mid-October of 1994. A
study of the proposal was conducted by a joint program review
initiative by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the
Canadian Coast Guard, with input from the Department of the
Environment, the machinery of government, the Privy Council
Office, the Treasury Board Secretariat and Natural Resources
Canada.
(1005)
The purpose of the study was to propose measures to strengthen
the policy and program framework and policy delivery capacity for
the administration of Canada's oceans.
The goal was, first, to ensure the environmental protection and
sustainable development of Canada's oceans resource; second, to
provide essential marine safety services; third, to foster efficient
and competitive commercial and other marine activities in Canada.
The feasibility study was completed in November 1994 and it
confirmed that a merger of the two organizations could result in a
number of benefits at the policy and program level.
One of those benefits was improved policy development and
direction of the environment and response to the United Nation's
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Another was increased
effectiveness with respect to fisheries management, enforcement,
marine safety, environmental response and one focal point for
industry.
With the merger, DFO has assumed responsibility for coast
guard marine operations, including search and rescue, marine
communications, vessel traffic services, aids to navigation,
icebreaking and pollution response.
The Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans have many things in common. They have similar
backgrounds and traditions. They have similar operations and
marine policies and they both share similar views on improving
ocean management.
While becoming the principal marine of the new Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, the coast guard brings to the organization a
reputation for distinguished service from coast to coast.
Collaboration is not new to the government. The coast guard and
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans pull together as a strong
team in responding to the Grand Banks fishing dispute on turbot.
The coast guard played a valuable role in helping solve this dispute
and one for which all Canadians are most grateful. Together the
coast guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
demonstrated their commitment to preserve and protect our
fisheries
15030
resources when others wanted to continue their destructive
practices.
This merger can serve only to enhance Canada's efforts in
conserving and protecting fishermen, fish and our marine
environment. Together they now have a combined fleet size of 148
vessels, including 42 offshore vessels that will improve coverage in
the area of search and rescue, as well as the ability to move more
aggressively toward a tougher conservation regime through
increased enforcement activities.
This will allow the maintenance of the frontline enforcement
presence while strengthening surveillance, fishing enforcement
and environmental protection activities. The coast guard has a well
earned reputation reflected in its motto: Safety First-Service
Always.
Both DFO and the coast guard are strong organizations with a
common history of working in the marine environment and with
shared goals and interests in ocean safety and environmental
protection. Together they are building a stronger and more effective
department.
With the merger, Canada has the opportunity to become a world
leader in oceans and marine resource management.
To make our oceans vision a reality, we need to manage
Canada's oceans and major waterways so that they are clean, safe,
productive and accessible to ensure sustainable use of our fisheries
resources and to facilitate marine trade and commerce. We need to
build on our understanding of the oceans so that we can be more
responsive to the changes and priorities.
(1010)
With this merger we will be better able to deliver marine safety
services effectively and efficiently while maintaining high national
standards. Issues such as boating safety and licensing, marine
navigation infrastructure, safety systems and emerging
technologies, levels of service as well as user fees and other cost
recovery mechanisms must be addressed.
As I pointed out, Canada's ability to manage and protect its
oceans has improved with this merger. Amalgamation of the two
fleets has increased offshore enforcement capabilities on both the
east and west coasts. I am convinced this merger forms a very
strong partnership that will streamline oceans management in
Canada. I am delighted to speak in support of Bill C-98.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out that Bill C-98
before the House today on second reading is a typical example of
the kind of bill I like to discuss.
Indeed, it will give me another chance to show Quebecers it
would be both useless and dangerous to leave Quebec's
development under federal control.
Consider the endless jurisdictional squabbles that would be
generated by the passage of this bill. My colleagues from
Laurentides and the Gaspé have already discussed this but I feel I
must say more on the subject, at a time when Quebecers are about
to make an important decision on their collective destiny.
The bill starts by identifying, in Canadian domestic law,
Canada's jurisdiction over its ocean areas. To do so, however, the
text merely incorporates provisions of the Canadian Laws Offshore
Application Act and the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.
Since the legislation I just mentioned has not been amended in any
way, this part of Bill C-98 is redundant. Especially since Canada's
sovereignty over its ocean areas is recognized by the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of which Canada is a
signatory.
Part II of this enactment is supposed to provide for the
development and implementation of a national oceans management
strategy based on the sustainable development and integrated
management of oceans and coastal activities and resources. This is,
in fact, one of the most ambitious attempts by the federal
government to invade jurisdictions over which it has no authority
and which it would be folly to cede to the federal government.
According to officials from the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, Part II of the bill could have been dropped, since it does
not give the Department of Fisheries any new powers to manage a
national oceans strategy. According to the preamble, the purpose of
the bill is merely to encourage the minister to collaborate with his
colleagues on identifying a strategy. Obviously, the minister cannot
assume the authority to manage a strategy that has yet to be
defined.
In the light of the foregoing, I wondered why the government
bothered to table a bill that apparently is no more than a series of
good intentions.
A closer look at the bill gave me the answer. First of all, the bill
identifies two classes of intervenors in the process of implementing
a national oceans strategy: the federal government and interested
persons and bodies. In other words, provincial governments are
considered on a par with any lobby group. This is one way of
telling Canadian voters that ``if you voted for the right side, we will
consider what your provincial government wants''.
(1015)
In the case of lobbyists, particularly major ones, this government
tells them ``If you contribute to our slush fund-the slush fund of
the right party-our government will lend a much more attentive
ear to your concerns''. For examples of this we need only think of
the role of the Liberal government in the case of Power DirecTv or
the purchase of MCA by Seagram, the sale of Pearson airport, and
most recently the privatization of Petro-Canada. We have learned
just this week that the sale of federal shares in the latter will be
15031
handled by Gordon Capital of Toronto, the Prime Minister's former
employer. It will be remembered very clearly that, when it came
time to vote on a private member's bill on public funding of
political parties, the government opposed it in order to be good and
sure to go on playing the little game of ``he who pays the piper
picks the tune''.
The parallel to be drawn between businesses contributing to the
right party fund and voters supporting the right party is obvious,
particularly since there is no obligation for the minister to follow
any recommendations by the governments of Quebec and the other
provinces.
Similarly, sections 31, 32 and 33 of Bill C-98 empower the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans to develop and implement a
national management strategy for estuarial, coastal and marine
ecosystems. Such a strategy will require a number of elements to
be created. First, activity management plans; second,
administrative or consultative bodies; third, a number of programs;
fourth, environmental standards; fifth, scientific data gathering and
analysis on the ecosystems concerned.
These are already functions of either Environment Canada or the
provinces. We have seen that the minister is seeking through this
act to encroach on the provinces' influence over the environment.
Thus, the only useful purpose that we can see in this bill is to
invade areas of provincial jurisdiction.
It is also worthy of note that the bill before us, as I have already
pointed out, will enable the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to
encroach upon areas over which the Minister of the Environment
has jurisdiction. Like my colleagues, I wondered why cabinet
failed to see that and I concluded it was doubtless because, when
the Minister of the Environment tries to invade Quebec's area of
jurisdiction, she can be seen coming so far off in the distance that
the job had to be given to someone else.
The fact that the minister is not obliged to come to an agreement
with the provinces, which have a keen interest in the management
of the marine environment, is both incomprehensible and
unacceptable.
I would also like to point out that the environment is not one of
the areas of jurisdiction the constitution attributes explicitly to one
level of government in particular. It is what they call an ancillary
jurisdiction and is subordinate to those jurisdictions the
constitution explicitly mentions.
In theory, the Department of the Environment is responsible for
the administration of this ancillary jurisdiction in co-operation with
each of the departments concerned.
Until the mid 1980s, the Government of Quebec, which has
jurisdiction over local and territorial matters, played a leading role
in environmental matters, occupying the largest part of the field of
jurisdiction. The federal government limited its involvement to
areas relating to its jurisdiction, as the constitution provides.
After 1985, the federal government began to meddle in
environmental matters. It did so primarily by virtue of its spending
power and the new powers the courts had accorded it. That was the
beginning of many instances of duplication and overlap. They
continue to exist and have grown more numerous since the election
of the present Liberal government, which is trying to centralize
decision-making in Ottawa. The Government of Quebec considers
Bill C-98 another step toward centralization.
In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada, which Mr. Lévesque
likened to the tower of Pisa, always leaning the same way, took
management of the marine environment and surrounding territory
away from the provinces and gave it to the federal government in a
decision of four justices to three.
With Bill C-98, the federal government is trying to get the most
out of this decision. Quebec fears that this centralizing tendency
means the federal government will sooner or later claim
management of the waters and the use of the tributaries to the
coastal estuary and ultimately all fresh water rivers on the pretext
that the contaminants in these waters are a source of degradation of
the marine environment.
(1020)
There is currently a great deal of overlap and duplication in
federal and provincial environmental regulations. As a result,
private businesses very often have to spend time, money and
energy on many things such as collecting information on the many
government programs, providing the two levels of government
with the required data, participating in the various advisory
committees and subcommittees in charge of regulating the
industry, preparing for the inspections carried out alternately by the
federal government and the province, and complying with the
requirements of both governments.
In this regard, the toxic waste regulations are a convincing
example. At this time, eight federal regulations overlap similar
regulations that already exist in Quebec. Let us take, for example,
the storage of PCB material regulations and the pulp and paper
effluent regulations. Quebec sovereignty would effectively end this
duplication.
Although it must recognize that it can no longer afford to take
environmental action, since cuts of 32 per cent over three years
were announced in its last budget, the federal government
continues to usurp the role of the provinces in setting national
standards and priorities. The new Environmental Assessment Act
that came into effect in January 1995, which encroaches directly on
provincial jurisdiction, and the eco-government policy in which the
federal government favours relations with citizens and the private
15032
sector rather than with the provinces are striking examples of this
kind of attitude.
On the face of it, the federal government has noble objectives
and respects these areas of jurisdiction but, in practice, it bypasses
the provinces, forcing its agenda on them and effectively taking
over provincial responsibilities.
Bill C-98 adds fuel to the fire as the federal government, despite
its financial situation, allows itself to create new structures to
protect a particular ecosystem.
Bill C-98 sends an ambiguous message. It seems to reflect a
concern for marine ecosystems while at the same time taking away
from the Department of the Environment part of its responsibilities
and treating provincial environment ministries on the same basis as
the industry or municipalities. Will Fisheries and Oceans withdraw
just like Environment Canada? It is obvious that Environment
Canada is becoming a policy generating department instead of
taking real actions-the Irving Whale is a case in point-mainly
for budget reasons.
This leads to a number of problems. Here are the main ones.
First, environmental concerns must clearly be identified by the
grassroots. Policy coming from Ottawa is less likely to be suited to
local circumstances, let alone be endorsed by the community. In
fact, it has become increasingly clear that efficiency in terms of the
environment is dependent upon a sense of ownership at the local
level. For real progress to be made the people must be concerned
about their rivers and marshes, their environment.
Second, one of the federalists' arguments for centralizing
environmental management is that pollution knows no boundaries,
travelling from one province or state to another. Acid rain and river
pollution are good examples of that.
The federal government is apparently the only one who is able to
legislate with efficiency and make international agreements, and to
take a holistic approach in order to provide global solutions to
global problems. Also, it is unthinkable that the minister not be
required to work together with EC officials, as my hon. colleagues
from Laurentides and Gaspé said earlier. Unsatisfied with creating
jurisdiction conflicts with the provinces, the federal government
has now set out to create jurisdiction conflicts between its own
departments, all this in a context of fiscal restraint.
Once again, we have before us a bill which, like many others
before, is designed to centralize it all in Ottawa.
[English]
I have much respect for my friends from the Reform Party
because they say what they think and they think what they say.
They are the only ones actually to speak about decentralization.
They are pretending to offer decentralization for the good of all the
provinces, including Quebec. I think that would be a good thing
and I think they are really serious about it.
(1025)
However, in that offer somewhere is a catch 22 because my
friends in the Reform Party will never form any government in
Canada as long as Quebec is a province. Quebec holds the balance
of power in the country as far as the vote is concerned and Quebec
will never vote Reform. It is not because we hate Reformers; we
love them very much. It is because our philosophies are too far
apart. We just have to look at our positions on gun control, gay
rights, bilingualism and on all of the bills which have been
presented to the House. Most of the time we and the Reform Party
have voted differently.
My friends all know the country will soon hit the wall. They all
know we are going bankrupt, as it was said in the Wall Street
Journal not so long ago.
An hon. member: The second richest country in the world.
Mr. Pomerleau: We need a change and a fast one. My friends in
the Reform Party should realize they should support the
sovereignty of Quebec. I hope sincerely that somewhere down the
road my Reform Party friends will finally see the light on their way
to Damascus and find within themselves the courage to follow the
logical path of their reasoning and bring it down to the right
conclusion.
Most Canadians have actually come to three assumptions about
Quebec: first, we are a bunch of troublemakers, never happy with
what we get; second, we receive much more money from Canada
than what we give to Canada; third, the economic disaster in
Canada is partly due to the political instability in Quebec. If those
three assumptions are right, then the sovereignty of Quebec should
normally be seen by all Canadians as a good way to solve the
problem once and for all and make money out of it, providing of
course that we assume our fair share of the Canadian debt.
That is exactly what we intend to do through the negotiations
which will start after the yes vote, although by all international
rules and regulations Quebec has no legal obligation to take any
part of the debt. Four studies were produced for the
Bélanger-Campeau commission. Two were done in Canada, one in
England and one in France. Those studies all came to that
conclusion.
In 1994 David Crane in the Toronto Star stated: ``Canada's
foreign creditors would not want to transfer part of Canada's debt
to Quebec. This is money they loaned to Canada, not Quebec''.
That helps Quebec in a way. It means that Canada would have to
reach an accommodation with Quebec since Canada cannot force
15033
Quebec to take its share of the debt. The article continued:
``Technically Quebec could walk away from its share of the debt''.
In the Gazette on December 13 William Johnson said:``Ottawa
would suddenly lose one-quarter of all its taxpayers, but would be
responsible for the entire national debt, some $600 billion, nearly
half of which is held by foreigners. Ottawa signed for the loans so
only Ottawa is responsible before the creditors. Legally, Quebec
would have no obligation to pay anything''.
In spite of all this, we are offering to all Canadians that we will
assume our fair share through negotiations. It is a shame the Prime
Minister of Canada is refusing to negotiate. It jeopardizes Canada
and Quebec at the same time.
Canadians should have the right to run their country the way they
want without having to please Quebec at each moment. The
referendum which will be held quite soon in Quebec will have an
answer: yes or no. If it is a yes vote, and I think it will be-
[Translation]
Because every Quebecer remembers full well what Mr. Bourassa
himself said, that status quo would be the worse solution for
Quebec, and what we are being offered is exactly that, the status
quo.
[English]
If it is a no vote what will happen? If it is a no vote we are back to
square one. Fifteen years of constitutional debate to the next
referendum. Nobody wants that.
(1030)
I quote perhaps the greatest political analyst ever produced,
Mr. Yogi Berra: ``It ain't over till it's over''. It will never be over
with Quebec until we win because the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc
Quebecois do not exist to support an idea. They exist because there
is an idea to be supported.
[Translation]
Bill C-98, and I will conclude on this, demonstrates Ottawa's
will to centralize, which permeates every bill. I would like to point
out to my hon. colleagues that, in almost every committee we sit
on, the Bloc Quebecois has had to produce minority reports each
time Quebec's jurisdictions were at risk of being encroached on.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before moving to questions and
comments, let me say that I find it very regrettable for my
constituents, many of whom are fishermen who work hard, to hear
the opposition, and in particular a member representing an urban
riding, say with such arrogance that the federal government is
responsible for the problems in the fisheries sector.
What I find even more regrettable is that the member probably
never set foot on a fishing boat, does not know that sector, and did
not bother to meet fishermen and see for himself that these people
are honest, hardworking people.
I find that regrettable and I think it is an insult to the intelligence
of fishermen and plant workers from the Gaspe Peninsula and the
Magdalen Islands to say that the only way to solve the problems
related to fisheries, including dwindling stocks, is to become
sovereign. The opposition is exceedingly arrogant when it makes
such comments.
The fisheries sector must, to a large extent, rely on close
co-operation with the provinces: New Brunswick, Prince Edward
Island, Nova Scotia and, of course, Quebec. But I can tell you that
the federal government is also involved. It is there to look after the
real interests of fishermen by protecting the integrity of Canada's
200-mile zone. What the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc are actually
proposing is to close these 200 miles, this natural access, to Quebec
fishermen, if that province becomes an independent country.
I find it regrettable to hear opposition members tell us that we
will reduce the fishing rights of Quebec fishermen by 60 per cent in
the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic Ocean. The opposition
did not even consider the ocean perch industry, for example, which
will resume its activity some day, but our fishermen must fish that
stock along the Nova Scotia and Atlantic shores. Unfortunately, the
opposition does not take that into account.
It is only concerned with sovereignty, with independence at any
cost, and that is what I find regrettable. The opposition could not
care less about the plight of my constituents. I invite opposition
members, and particularly their leader, to come to the Magdalen
Islands and to tell us that they are prepared to protect the real
interests of Quebecers-
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, before replying to the hon.
member, I want to tell him that I was born in Val-d'Espoir, in the
Gaspe Peninsula, about two minutes away from his riding. I spent
all of-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, he used the word ``traitor''.
An hon. member: He must apologize.
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I heard the word
clearly. You may not have heard it, but everyone on this side heard
the member use the word ``traitor''.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment. However, I
invite the member to go back to the Gaspe Peninsula and withdraw
his own comments.
The Deputy Speaker: It seems that the hon. member has
withdrawn his comment.
15034
Mr. Pomerleau: I am glad the hon. member opposite, who
seems to think he is the only person from the Gaspé in this House,
withdrew what he said.
(1035)
I was indeed born in the Gaspé, in Val-d'Espoir, and my family
still lives there. I know all about the problems of the fishermen
down there. I also spent my holidays in the Gaspé, on Chaleur Bay
in the hon. member's riding, and I have seen for myself what the
problems are.
The hon. member mentioned the economic future of this country,
Mr. Speaker. We want the sovereignty of Quebec for economic
reasons. I remember when in 1980, at the time of the first
referendum, Mr. Bourassa told us, and this will conclude my
speech: ``If you say yes to the sovereignty of Quebec in 1980, you
can expect a lot of debt, taxes and unemployment''. So people
decided they should vote no. They did, and we remained a
Canadian province. The federal debt rose from $80 billion to $600
billion; the unemployment rate practically doubled; the number of
welfare recipients doubled; our young people no longer have a
future, and we are still in Canada.
I think the hon. member should do his homework, visit his riding
again and check with the people there, because in the Gaspé we are
going to win.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there appears to be
a warm wind blowing from this side of the House.
I was interested in hearing the remarks of the member from the
Bloc. He made some statements with which I do not agree and I
have some questions for him.
He suggested the Reform Party was honest in its approach. I
agree with him that we are being direct and honest in our approach.
He also suggested it is unfortunate that we are in a catch 22
situation. While the people in Quebec can identify with the
aspirations of the Reform Party because we represent the
aspirations of people in other regions of Canada, the Bloc feels that
we will never have the opportunity to form a government because
philosophically we are miles apart.
When the gun control legislation passed through the House we
were approached by organizations in Quebec representing 1.2
million law-abiding gun owners in Quebec who could not get
representation in the House or at the committee meetings.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask hon. members, especially
those who were here during the previous Parliament-the people of
Canada must think we are pretty silly. I would ask members to
show some courtesy to their colleagues who have the floor, and the
hon. member for Skeena has the floor at this time.
The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, on a point of order.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I realize his microphone was
not turned on, but since a few minutes ago, the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine has been uttering threats at
me. I would like him to withdraw what he said, as well as his
invitations to step outside the House. After all, this is not a
kindergarten. I would like him to withdraw what he said.
Mr. Gagnon: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I never threatened a
single member in this House, and I would invite the member to
withdraw, because today I have heard nothing but personal insults
from the opposition.
I only invited the junior member of the opposition, who is my
age, to talk about this in a civilized way outside the House, and I
invite him to do so now.
Mr. Speaker, I never uttered threats at anyone in this House.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, this may be a matter of interpretation,
but the gestures he made earlier along with his invitation to step
outside, anywhere, anytime, were self-explanatory. In other words,
the hon. member wanted to settle a matter in a way that is
unacceptable in this House.
The Deputy Speaker: In the circumstances, I will again
recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of
Canada.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, this is not a school yard. This is the
House of Commons. And as I said, if the hon. member has anything
to tell me personally, I would invite him to do so outside, that is all,
to settle this matter once and for all.
However, to say that we are threatening members of the
opposition-I think it is unfortunate the level of debate should sink
so low.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I also
witnessed this incident, and I can confirm to the House that the
hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine actually
invited my colleague to step outside and fight.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have had enough of these denials of what
happened and these attempts to convince others that this was not
the case. It was. He invited my colleague to step outside of the
House and fight.
(1040)
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, I did not hear the words
we are discussing now. I will review the blues, the minutes of the
proceedings, and if I see anything, I will get back to it later in the
House, if necessary. For the time being, we must take the hon.
member at his word. The member for Skeena has the floor.
15035
[English]
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, to finish my remarks before
we get into school yard tactics here, the hon. member from the Bloc
was suggesting the Reform Party would never form the
government. I beg to differ with him. I feel genuinely sorry for
those members because they earnestly believe they will achieve
their goal. However we all know they will not.
When the people of Quebec vote no in the referendum on
October 30, they will then be looking for alternatives and the
Reform Party is the only political party on the national landscape
right now that offers serious alternatives.
Members of the governing party have a vested interest in
keeping the debate ongoing for the rest of their lives because there
is a political gain in it for them.
The Reform Party has a completely different vision of that, a
completely different point of view. If the Reform Party gets the
opportunity to form the government, which we believe we will in
the next federal election, there will be an opportunity to discuss a
new federal arrangement with all the provinces, not just with
Quebec.
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the trouble in
the minds of my friends in the Reform Party, but it is a reality, it is
a fact, that within the country there are three major voices. The first
one goes to Ontario, the second one to Quebec due to the
demographic compilation, and the third one goes to westerners. In
my own opinion it is a shame. Even the Liberal government is
always calling the Reform Party the third party because that is the
way it is.
I sincerely think westerners should have a real say in Parliament.
They should be entitled to run for power, which is not the case
actually.
My friend suggests that if the no wins, the Reform will probably
form the next government. However, if the no wins, for a short
period of time the Prime Minister of Canada will be seen as the
saviour, Captain Canada, and he will be elected again. We will be
here too. To have the potential to take power the Reform Party must
assume that it should support the sovereignty of Quebec.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to the
complaints of the hon. member of the Bloc, the official opposition.
There are two points I should like to clear up before I deliver my
speech. It is sad for me to see in the House that both the Bloc and
the third party are seeking an alliance and to see the Reform Party
trying to ask for friendship from the separatists. I could not take
that.
An hon. member: That is not true. Tell the truth.
Mr. Chan: You were not here to hear the praise that was offered
by that party.
As an immigrant I came to this country at the age of 17. My
family went to Hong Kong and I came from Hong Kong to Canada.
I came to Canada as it is. To hear the separatists day in and day out
in the House trying to destroy the country that I came for is very
sad.
There is also another point. The hon. member from the Bloc was
talking about the provincial rights the bill infringed upon. This is
not true. There is no change with respect to provincial rights.
Where a province has rights today it will continue to have rights
after the bill is law.
(1045)
What all provinces and territories along our coast will gain is the
federal government's commitment to work together with them to
ensure an integrated approach to providing greater protection of
our marine environment, improve the management of our ocean
resources, and ultimately better economic opportunities for our
coastal communities. The Bloc's accusations are not true.
I am pleased to join my colleagues and members of the House in
the second reading of the oceans act. I rise today in support of this
legislation, which will establish major new rights over the oceans
that surround our country. Canadians pushed hard in the councils of
the world for the opportunity to establish these rights. The new
zones grant Canada powers that go well beyond the powers our
country asserted in the past.
As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said, Canadians are not
naive. We know that the oceans act will not forever end maritime
disagreement with other countries. There are undoubtedly bound to
be some problems in the future with our circumpolar and Pacific
and Atlantic friends and neighbours.
What the act will do is put in place a clear definition of
jurisdiction that is fully supported by global agreement. The world
recognizes Canada's jurisdiction over Canadian waters and now we
must continue to work hard. With ownership comes both
opportunity and responsibility. With jurisdiction comes
stewardship. With respect for the efforts of the past comes respect
for the needs of the future.
For all of the excellent co-operation that went into establishing
oceans jurisdiction, the truth is that Canada's policies for actual
management of oceans were fragmented. The same spirit of
partnership, co-ordination, co-operation, and innovation that
enabled Canada to gain authority over ocean resources must now
be used to manage those resources.
We have before us the task of making sure that the pieces all fit
together: conservation and commercialization, deep ocean research
and cold ocean rescues, emergency responses and sustainability,
navigational safety and national security, national goals and re-
15036
gional initiatives, resource restoration and job creation, inspection
and protection.
There are pieces of the puzzle that seem to grow larger and larger
in size and importance: climate change, ecotourism, aquaculture,
Arctic pollution, interrelationship of species, expanding human
population, new technologies.
The oceans themselves are constantly fluctuating. They are
independent, living ecosystems. Yet they are interconnected and
linked with one another and with the entire global environment.
Just as in the tropical rain forests, there are yet unknown medicines
to be found in the oceans and yet unknown dangers to be faced.
The oceans act defines a new vision for Canada's oceans. It
allows for the development of a new management regime to protect
its oceans. This is a regime based on co-operation, collaboration,
and partnership. It allows the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to
enter into collaborative agreements and partnerships with all
stakeholders to implement this ocean management regime.
The oceans act does not attempt to create a fully developed
ocean management strategy. It recognizes that we must work
collectively. The bill before members of the House of Commons
creates the jurisdictional foundation and some of the policy
framework so that all Canadians can build the strategy together.
We must have a better understanding and knowledge of the
oceans. Science must be multi-disciplinary. Partnership across
organizations and disciplines and sectors of society is essential.
Precisely because our ocean jurisdiction is so huge, our ocean
sciences must be on the leading edge. Better information is
essential for better decision making. Better science is essential for
economic viability and ecological sustainability. Canada's
credibility in future ocean negotiations and future ocean trade will
depend on the quality of our science.
(1050)
The oceans act is tailored to increase, co-ordinate, and disperse
scientific, environmental, and management information relating to
our oceans and their resources. Marine resource management will
be an important policy element in the building of a successful
oceans strategy. Traditionally governments have carried out their
responsibilities in consultation with stakeholders but not in
partnership with them. The distinction is critical.
The old way must change and it is changing. The Atlantic
Fisheries Resource Conservation Council now brings together
industry, academia, and government to make recommendations on
fishery conservation and the federal government now follows
through on those recommendations. The time has come to expand
such partnerships beyond fishery conservation, and the oceans act
makes it possible to expand partnerships even further to encompass
marine plants, underwater exploration and seabed mining, and a
vast range of development activities that could impact in a marine
environment.
A key element of an effective oceans strategy must be the
consideration of environmental consequences in management
decisions. It will take time, effort, and compromise to accomplish
this, but Canada needs a functional ecosystems approach to oceans
policy. Such an approach must converge across lines of jurisdiction
and economic sectors. The issues of environmental concern must
be addressed through a range of tools, including coastal zone
management, pollution prevention, and marine environmental
quality indicators and guidelines.
Another key element of a successful oceans strategy is the
facilitation of marine trade commerce and development. It goes
without saying that icebreaking, fish inspection, marine navigation
services and ocean mapping have priorities in ocean trade and
commerce. So do new ocean laboratory partnerships, technology
development, regulatory harmonization, and resource assessment.
This synergy of collective interests and integrated capabilities is
recognized in the act and is exemplified in the new Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
The increase in Canada's oceans jurisdiction marries well with
the merger of the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. The new organization will comprise the
principal civilian marine operational component of the
Government of Canada. We will be able to realize efficiencies,
streamline operations, integrate the operation of the coast guard
and fisheries fleets, and promote multi-tasking. All of this will help
us to work more effectively to provide high national standards and
effective services.
For years we have supported commercial enterprises in the
Arctic. We have ensured and will continue to ensure the safe
movement of millions of dollars of cargo through ice filled waters
and have provided sophisticated analysis in the operation of the
St. Lawrence.
Commercial enterprises must have easy access to government
data and we have to ensure that new ideas and technologies are
transferred form government researchers to the private sector.
The expertise that Canadians have developed in forging oceans
policy can be and should be the backbone of extraordinary new
global market opportunities. That leads directly to a key element of
an oceans management strategy, international relations. From the
days when others denied John Cabots's discovery of the new world
to the days when others denied Canada's right to protect the turbot,
international relations have been centre stage in Canada's maritime
saga. Canadians have shown that fisheries conservation will never
be sacrificed on the altar of economic trade or political relations.
We have shown that conservation is not a bargaining chip in a
larger game. Our responsibility now is to make this legislation the
turning point in our approach to all international ocean issues.
15037
(1055)
Canadians need to establish a strong and credible international
strategy to carry our messages on marine pollution from ships, on
the control of ocean dumping and coast zone management with our
neighbours. Circumpolar oceans management, spill response
assistance, international shipping, offshore energy, precise
territorial boundary delineation, and emerging high seas issues will
all require thoughtful leadership by Canadians globally and
thoughtful examples by Canadians domestically.
Support from all Canadians for Canada's international actions is
of enormous importance. I look forward to the active involvement
of Canadians in forging Canada's position on emerging global
ocean issues.
As the minister stated on Tuesday, the oceans act signals
renewed federal leadership for oceans management. It signals the
federal government's commitment to a comprehensive and
co-operative approach to oceans policy. It signals that shared
information, shared planning, and shared oceans stewardship are
the wave of the future. It signals that Canada and Canadians are
prepared to act in making the most of our ocean assets,
opportunities, and obligations.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have to respond to the initial comments of the parliamentary
secretary as he described his reaction to this whole Bloc-Liberal
fight that is going on this morning.
Somehow he is trying to tie in some association between the
Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party. When he is making that kind
of an analogy, how does the minister reconcile the fact that when it
comes to acquiescing to the Bloc and it comes to electing
vice-chairs, when it comes to making sure that the water is never
ruffled, it is always the Liberals making a deal with the Bloc?
The idea that the Reform Party somehow has any similar vision
to the Bloc is crazy. We have repeatedly said the Bloc Quebecois
will be defeated, hopefully at the end of the month, that it will
hopefully lose its reason for being here, which would be another
sweet treat. It surely has the wrong vision about how to fix Canada.
I agree with the minister when he says Canada is a great place. It
does need some changes though, and the way to change it is not to
leave but to work within the system to make a better decentralized
Canadian federation that can be better for all Canadians.
The goal of the Reform Party-
The Speaker: My colleague, I noticed you were getting wound
up. I thought I would give you a chance to catch your breath and
come back at it right after question period, when the minister will
also have a chance to get wound up.
It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House will
now proceed to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
15037
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to congratulate Mr. John Willoughby, who has been
working diligently for several years on a project called the Ellen
Foundation.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, a farm emigration policy on
juveniles was established between England and Canada. This
agreement brought 100,000 English children to Canada to work as
farm labourers. These children came to be known as ``home
children''.
Mr. Willoughby has just launched his book entitled Ellen -The
Story of a Home Child who was sent to P.E.I. Ellen, as it turns out,
was the inspiration for Anne of Green Gables by Lucy Maude
Montgomery.
The Ellen Foundation is dedicated to assist home children and
their descendants to establish and locate their roots in the United
Kingdom, to preserve the history and heritage of the home
children, and to provide the information here and abroad on their
story and their strong contribution to the building of Canada.
I congratulate John and wish him much success.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to Robert Fairholm, an economist from a prestigious
American firm, the financial markets will force Canada to quickly
negotiate division of the debt and to maintain the existing
economic ties between the two partners. He says that they will be
seeking each other out to sign such an agreement.
Since Canada's is the worse external debt in the G-7, foreign
investors will obviously want to protect their investments by
forcing Canada to negotiate with Quebec. The financial markets
will be there to cool down the emotions of those involved.
It is hard to believe that the Minister of Finance for Canada is
incapable of grasping this and keeps saying that Canada could not
negotiate a new partnership with Quebec even if it wanted to.
If the Minister of Finance forgets his duty as the manager of the
Canadian debt, and if he forgets where the interests of Canadians
and Quebecers lie, the financial markets and one of the worst debts
in the western world will be there to remind him of that duty.
15038
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday one of our Canadian peacekeepers, Major Bruce
Henwood, was injured when the jeep he was riding in hit a mine in
Croatia. As a result Major Henwood had both legs amputated
below the knee.
It is this unfortunate and horrid type of incident which
underscores the dangerous and perilous duties performed by our
peacekeepers working abroad. Major Henwood is one of many
Canadian peacekeepers serving abroad who come face to face with
this kind of reality every day.
On behalf of my colleagues from both sides of the House I
extend to Major Henwood, as well as his family, friends and
comrades in the field, our heartfelt regret over this tragic incident
and our sincerest best wishes for his recovery.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I draw to the
attention of the House a concrete example of our government's
commitment to day care.
In my riding of Brant we have day care centres attached to two of
our local high schools. They provide care to the children of single
adolescent parents who are continuing their education and to the
children of mature students who are also parents.
Our thinking here is that if we provide appropriate day care to
the children, their parents will continue with their education, which
is so important to their future in terms of getting a job and in some
cases to breaking the welfare trap.
Unfortunately because of significant provincial government cuts
these facilities faced closure on October 1. Thanks to the quick
action of my colleague, the Minister for Human Resources
Development, we found funding through the human resources
investment fund to keep the facilities open.
I congratulate him on recognizing the direct and important link
between day care, jobs and education, and thank him for allowing
us to continue this unique and effective day care strategy.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
within the past two weeks I have had the honour of attending the
official unveiling of two important plaques commemorating
Canadians who served overseas during the first and second world
wars.
On Thursday, September 21 a plaque was unveiled at the
National War Memorial, a gift from the British people as a symbol
of their abiding gratitude for Canada's support during both World
War I and World War II.
On Tuesday, September 26 Lech Walesa, President of the
Republic of Poland, approved the posthumous award of the Polish
Home Army Cross to 26 Canadian airmen for their support in the
liberation of Poland.
That ceremony took place at the Canadian Airmen Memorial in
Ottawa at Confederation Park. Both actions and plaques serve as a
permanent reminder of Canadian bravery and sacrifice in the
protection of freedom, democracy and peace.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am standing here to support the member for Churchill in his
initiative to organize a sacred assembly. The assembly would bring
together aboriginal and non-aboriginal spiritual leaders to begin a
process of healing and reconciliation.
Spirituality, as the member says, has been the missing element in
the political process to reclaim native land and the right to
self-government. Spirituality has sustained native people for
generations. The importance of spirituality was demonstrated
during the recent standoff at Gustafsen Lake where a peaceful
settlement resulted through the interventions of a native spiritual
leader.
(1105)
The member for Churchill has urged all his colleagues in the
House to support his initiatives. I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois is very pleased with something said yesterday by the
provincial member for Vaudreuil and the leader of the No side,
Daniel Johnson. Commenting on the Cree referendum, he again
indicated his total agreement with the basic principles of
international law and therefore with the position of the
sovereignists concerning territorial integrity. He clearly affirmed
that Quebec is indivisible.
It is to be hoped that the eminent good sense in his words will
reach the ears of his federal counterpart, the hon. member for
Vaudreuil, who suggests that the people of West Island and those in
West Quebec could hold their own referendum, like the Cree, with
a view to breaking up Quebec. Let us be a little more serious here.
The Republic of Baie d'Urfé does not seem to us to possess all of
15039
the characteristics required of a state, particularly in international
law. Would the Liberal members for Vaudreuil on the two different
levels please take the time to get their act together?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the publication
Agriweek sums up the opinions of
thousands of prairie producers affected by the Crow buyout. I
quote:
The buyout exercise-is turning out to be distressingly like other
government clerical undertakings: disorganized, confused, rigid, user
unfriendly. Whoever designed this could not have had even a passing
acquaintance with the workings of prairie agriculture and no one with
experience in such things could have been consulted.
Except for the agriminister's admonition a fair arrangement should be made,
there has been no guidance of any sort as to what would be fair and the payments
office has scrupulously avoided giving any advice. Neither owners nor tenants
could know what others were doing.
The landlord-tenant split of the payment will go down in history as among the
most bizarre rules of any government farm program ever invented, as well as a
source of owner-renter friction for years to come.
Prairie farmers know Liberal agricultural policies and programs
usually end up a wreck.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the Information Highway Advisory Council for its
excellent report published Wednesday by the industry minister.
The council's vision for the Infobahn of the future is distinctly
Canadian. It will be a powerful engine to promote Canadian culture
and identity, make government more accessible and accountable,
create new wealth and new jobs for the benefit of all Canadians,
and make Canada's health and educational sectors models for the
rest of the world.
I am also pleased to see that the council's recommendation for
dealing with illegal content such as hate propaganda mirror the
intent of the motion I introduced in the House last January, which
was adopted without dissent.
No doubt when these recommendations are fully adopted by the
government we will have a guarantee that the information highway
will be a highway of harmony, not of hate. No doubt we will have
an effective tool to forge a renewed partnership among all levels of
government as we face the social, political and economic
challenges of the 21st century. I ask all colleges in the House-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dauphin-Swan River.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is creating a climate of opportunity for
rural Canadians and the people of Dauphin-Swan River are
seizing these opportunities to diversify their economies and create
jobs at home.
In particular I commend the people of Russell who are forging
ahead with an ethanol plant that includes a gluten extracting
component and a feedlot operation. Within the same community
another group is working to develop a ski hill. The belief the
community has in itself and in its future is clear.
I am pleased to be working with both these groups to help them
achieve their goals.
I commend the people of Russell and area for the leadership role
they are playing in diversifying their local economy and their
enduring commitment to their community. It is this community
spirit, this commitment to the future, that will ensure Canada
remains one of the best countries in the world in which to live.
* * *
(1110)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in his
inaugural speech delivered to Quebec's National Assembly on
November 29, 1994, the PQ premier said: ``Today, I would like to
conclude a pact of joint responsibility and solidarity with every
Quebecer. Our government will collect from everyone what is
owed to the public purse-but in return, we ask each Quebecer to
help us put an end to the mad race toward illegality''.
This righteous pronouncement by the PQ leader was not
reflected in the comments made yesterday by his finance minister,
who suggested that an independent Quebec might not pay his share
of the national debt.
The time has come for the PQ leader to set the record straight
and to tell us clearly and unconditionally whether he intends to
assume his share of the debt if Quebec separates.
* * *
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it seems
that the group of business people supporting the No side has finally
15040
seen the light. Indeed, at a one-day conference of the Association
du centre mondial de commerce, the chairman of the Canam Manac
group, Mr. Marcel Dutil, made the following statement: ``If it is
yes, we will turn the page and carry on. We are all Quebecers, we
are all nationalists, we all have different opinions, and the day after
the referendum we will remain in Quebec''.
Mr. Dutil's speech is in sharp contrast with the downright
inexcusable and despicable comments made with regard to
Quebecers by Messrs. Beaudoin and Garcia.
This common sense approach by the Quebec business leaders
supporting the No side does not seem to be shared by Mr. Dufour,
chairman of the Conseil du patronat du Quebec. While commenting
Hydro-Quebec's withdrawal from his organization, he Dufour
made veiled threats to Mr. Martineau when he said: ``From now on,
he will have to look for friends''. End of quote. This type of
insinuation must stop, and Mr. Dufour could learn a thing or two
from Mr. Dutil about respect for Quebecers and for democracy.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before the quiet revolution, there were people in Quebec saying:
``Keep quiet, stay there, and speak English''. We do not hear that
line in Quebec any more, but thanks to Alliance Quebec, it can now
be heard in Alberta. Yesterday, in Calgary, Alliance Quebec warned
the Reform Party to keep quiet during the referendum campaign.
The people of Alberta are aware that Alliance Quebec is an
organization without public support, a front funded by the federal
government to fuel misunderstandings between francophones and
anglophones in Quebec and elsewhere, for partisan purposes.
The message from the Reform Party that Alliance Quebec does
not want people to hear is that a No vote is a vote against separation
while saying No to the status quo means no more subsidies for
groups like Alliance Quebec.
If Alliance Quebec really wants the No side to win the
referendum, they should keep quiet and remain in Alberta, where
they could speak English all day long, like in the days before the
quiet revolution.
* * *
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the PQ Minister of Finance has just sent a troubling
message to the people of Quebec regarding the debt load an
independent Quebec would have to carry.
Instead of coming across as and acting like a serious and
responsible administrator, the PQ government's finance minister
has decided to add to the uncertainty surrounding statements made
by the Bloc leader by asking: ``When Mr. Martin says that
negotiations will be impossible, does it mean that he will shoulder
full responsibility for the debt?''
Are we to understand from what the minister said that a PQ
government might decide to stop paying its debts, while at the
same time expecting its taxpayers to continue paying all their
taxes? Is that the new concept of tax fairness that would be applied
in an independent Quebec?
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in his budget speech, the PQ Minister of Finance announced that he
was declaring war on ``tax offenders''. He said: ``Before thinking
about increasing the taxpayers' burden, we must make sure that
everyone pays the government what they owe''.
This is the same minister who, on February 8, made the
following comment about the division of Canada's debt should
Quebec become independent: ``This is not our debt. It is Canada's
debt''. Yesterday, speaking before a student audience, he suggested
that a separate Quebec may not assume its share of the debt.
How much confidence can the people of Quebec put in a finance
minister who publicly tells taxpayers: ``Do as I say, not as I do''.
On October 30, the people will say No to this kind of double talk.
* * *
(1115)
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
marks the fifth anniversary of the World Summit for Children.
Under the leadership of Canada, 70 nations pledged that by the year
2000 they would eliminate illiteracy, reduce malnutrition by half
and provide universal access to clean water around the world.
This year UNICEF reports that as a result of the summit four
million children in the third world will not only survive but will
become full productive members of society. However more needs
to be done since 13 million children are still likely to die each year
for lack of basic health care and safe water.
I rise today to salute the excellent work of Results Canada which
continues to promote the summit ideals. As a government we must
continue to step up our efforts to ensure that the basic needs of all
children worldwide are met by the year 2000.
15041
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in March 1994 I rose in the House to call on the
government to delay the sale of the Grumman Goose while a
dedicated group of Canadians in Prince George raised money to
keep it in Canada.
This RCMP plane was built in 1944 and can land on water, snow
or ground and has logged over 24,000 flying hours. It has seen
service on both coasts, in Ottawa and the high Arctic. It has been
used for drug busts, surveillance, rescues and air shows in addition
to ferrying people and equipment.
I am pleased to report the federal and B.C. governments listened
to the Save the Goose committee. Through the committee's efforts
this piece of Canadian heritage has been saved for the enjoyment of
future generations.
Today at 3 p.m. a retired RCMP pilot will formally hand over the
log books of the Grumman Goose to the National Aviation
Museum. I invite all members and the public to attend the
ceremony.
_____________________________________________
15041
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Quebecers will decide their political future on October 30.
In order to make an enlightened choice, they are entitled to know
the whys and wherefores of the two options before them:
sovereignty-partnership, on the one hand, and the status quo, on the
other.
I am therefore asking the Prime Minister if he and his ally,
Daniel Johnson, will agree to take part in a real four-way televised
debate with Jacques Parizeau and myself. Does he recognize that it
is all the more vital he take part in such a debate because he alone is
in a position to tell Quebecers what exactly awaits them if they vote
no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very surprised, having known Mr. Parizeau for so
many years, that he is suddenly losing his self-confidence and is
afraid to face the leader of the No side, Mr. Johnson.
As for me, when the Leader of the Opposition suggested last
spring that Parliament be adjourned in the fall, I decided to come to
Parliament to have the privilege of meeting the Leader of the
Opposition every day, at every question period. We have been here
for hours, and I do not refuse to answer. The leader of the No side is
Mr. Johnson, I believe; he made an agreement with Mr. Parizeau.
Mr. Johnson will keep his word; he will face Mr. Parizeau. What is
new is Mr. Parizeau's fear of facing Mr. Johnson.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we never asked that the House be adjourned. We were
immediately delighted to learn that we could talk with the Prime
Minister every day and converse about the future of our respective
options and we will be here every day until the end.
We wanted to add to what we already have, because we only
have a few seconds, which go by too quickly for my liking. I think
that Canadians know full well that a question period, however
practical it may be, does not provide the depth that a debate, a real
intellectual confrontation on the things opposing us can give.
I think we would learn a lot more, because, had we not had the
opportunity to see the Prime Minister for a number of weeks, we
would not have known, for example, that he is refusing to
recognize a democratic yes vote and we would not have known that
he is preparing to slash the old age pensions of those approaching
65 years of age. We are learning things. The more we talk to him,
the more we learn.
So we ask him, one last time, to agree to come, as the Prime
Minister of Canada, and face those who do not think the way he
does on television, live, for an hour and a half.
(1120)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am answering all the questions here throughout the
entire referendum debate. There is a leader of the Yes side, his
name is Mr. Parizeau; there is a leader of the No side, his name is
Mr. Johnson. The two of them reached an agreement on a debate.
Mr. Johnson wants to have a debate with Mr. Parizeau. I have a
debate with the Leader of the Opposition, here, every day. They try
to frighten people every day, but if people want to live in Quebec
and want to keep the security they currently enjoy in Quebec, the
best solution, which involves no fear at all, is to vote no and stay in
Canada.
The old age pensions will go on being paid out and Quebecers
will be treated exactly like all other Canadians in unemployment
insurance and old age pension matters. We have nothing to hide,
but the Leader of the Opposition, instead of telling Quebecers why
he wants to separate, used a new term
today-sovereignty-partnership-to try once again to hide the
truth. They will invent another one soon, more change, more
illusion. Let them say the truth: ``We want to separate from
Canada''. Quebecers want to stay in Canada and they will say so.
This is what they will say in the vote on October 30.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we live in a democracy, and democracy needs enlightened
opinion. One of the most crucial moments in any electoral or
referendum campaign is when the protagonists with the highest
15042
profile meet face to face before the public and debate the merits of
their options for an hour and a half or two hours.
Could it be, as Canada and Quebec face their destiny and as the
people of Quebec make a fundamental decision, that the Prime
Minister of Canada, the defender of Canadian unity, is afraid of his
option to the point of refusing to take part in a televised debate of
an hour and a half?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 32 years, this is the first time I have been accused of
being afraid. Really! I have had debates with the Leader of the
Opposition, I have a debate with him every day. Had I been afraid, I
would simply have asked you, Mr. Speaker, not to recall us in
September. I was the one who insisted we be here, to give the
Leader of the Opposition the opportunity, on television, every day,
to tell Quebecers why he wants to separate Quebec from Canada.
And again today, he used another little term. What was it again?
An hon. member: Sovereignty-partnership.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Ah yes,
sovereignty-partnership. Another word, another change, another
pirouette. Why not have the courage to say that you are separatists
and we shall see clear results on October 30.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
we learned that we had to thank the Prime Minister for our right to
sit in this House and, today, that we should thank him for
summoning Parliament.
Mr. Bouchard: He thinks he showed courage by summoning
Parliament. But that is his job.
Mr. Gauthier: Since the Prime Minister used all kinds of tricks
to avoid answering the question directly, I will go back to the same
issue.
I will go back to the same issue and ask him, quite sincerely and
honestly, on behalf of the people of Quebec, on behalf of those who
want to know what he has to offer the people of Quebec when he is
asking them to vote No, would the Prime Minister be willing to
take part in a debate with his boss, the leader of the No forces, and
the leader of the Yes side, the Premier of Quebec, as the Leader of
the Opposition offered him? Will he agree to explain his own
proposal to the people of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise every day in this House. I am not the one who passed
the referendum bill.
(1125)
The Quebec government's referendum bill names Mr. Parizeau
as the leader of the Yes side. He is the one who challenged the
leader of the No side, Mr. Johnson, to a debate. This challenge was
accepted by Mr. Johnson, the legitimate leader of the Yes side, who
is doing a terrific job. He agreed to a debate with Mr. Parizeau.
Mr. Parizeau is now trying to get out of it. I myself face the Leader
of the Opposition every day, and I am very seldom here on Fridays.
But I am here today. I am still the Prime Minister of Canada with
all the problems of a prime minister, but I take whatever time is
needed to be in the House of Commons every day. Mr. Johnson is
eager to meet with the leader of the Yes side, Mr. Parizeau, but
clearly Mr. Parizeau is not eager to meet with Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister not agree that Mr. Parizeau, the Premier of Quebec,
wants to speak with the real boss, the one who can provide answers
on cuts in social programs, on the proposal that he is now hiding
but that we know he has in mind? Does the Prime Minister not
agree that he should participate in this debate because he will be the
one shaping tomorrow's country if Quebecers dare to vote No?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do so every day in this House, and I am not trying to
avoid my responsibilities in any way. We are answering the
questions. The Minister of Finance gave an important speech this
week. Other ministers are criss-crossing Quebec to answer
questions. I myself will be in Quebec on several occasions until the
referendum. However, under the referendum bill, the leader of the
No side is not me but Mr. Johnson, who, as I said earlier, is doing a
terrific job. I think it is obvious that, for the first time in his life,
Mr. Parizeau has lost his self-confidence. This surprises me,
however, because it is unlike him. He should nonetheless have the
courage to face Mr. Johnson. In the meantime, the Leader of the
Opposition may find the courage to tell Quebecers that he is a
separatist. I myself am here and I-
Mr. Bouchard: You are afraid of Parizeau.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): It is obvious that Mr. Parizeau
needs Mr. Bouchard, because he has lost his confidence. Mr.
Johnson is quite capable of defending himself.
I face the Leader of the Opposition every day in this House, and
he has not yet given us a single good reason why Quebec should
separate from Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
last election campaign the government ran on a policy of creating
jobs and growth. This year there have been absolutely no new jobs
and today's GDP figures confirm there has been no economic
growth this year.
15043
Since the Minister of Finance has failed to deliver on his
promised financial and economic statement what is it exactly that
he intends to do?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as is so often the
case, the basis for the question is without foundation.
Within the first year of our taking office this country created
over 430,000 jobs. Since November of last year there have been
over 230,000 new jobs created in the private sector.
Yes it is true there have been job losses in the public sector at the
federal, provincial and municipal levels. I find it surprising the
Reform Party would not point out that this is because governments
are cutting their spending. There is a lot less job loss in the public
sector than there would have been if the slash and burn policies of
the Reform Party had been brought in.
We came into office intending to reverse the terrible destructive
policies of the previous government, a government this member
worked for. We have done it and the Canadian economy is now well
poised for long term sustainable growth.
(1130 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I left
the Conservative Party in 1986 because of economic policies such
as this minister's. It is surprising that it has taken him ten years to
figure it out.
Yesterday investment dealer Wood Gundy released a scathing
indictment of the government's policies on jobs and growth.
According to the report, we have ``experienced the weakest
recovery in domestic spending in the post-war period because of
high taxes and tax increases''.
Would the Minister of Finance agree the country needs fiscal
policies that allow for tax relief in the next budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when reading these
studies the hon. member should read them all.
It is very clear that as a major exporting country we are affected
by the declines in the economies of Japan and the United States.
That is obviously going to affect us.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, I have to say they
sound like a cow herd in heat.
Mr. Stinson: Only you would know.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, that is
parliamentary.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the minister should not display to us his lack of knowledge of
the beef industry.
It is domestic spending that has not recovered since 1991
because federal and provincial government tax increases have
pulled more than $12 billion out of the pockets of consumers, an
additional $155 for every Canadian every single year.
Will the government admit that it has increased taxes because it
has only rolling deficit targets instead of a firm date for deficit
elimination?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to refer back to the
study, the tax increases that led to that $12 billion the member
referred to occurred under the previous government, of which he
was a very ardent worker until he decided to skip town.
This government, in its first budget and in its second budget, did
not increase personal taxes one iota. The tax increases, of which
there were 39, occurred under the previous government.
I am quite proud to say I do have a beef herd, so when I hear the
Reform Party I sure as heck know what a cow herd in heat sounds
like.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, in response to one of my questions, the Minister of
Human Resources Development stated that he would agree to
support a youth project in his riding if I would vote no in the
October 30 referendum. He said and I quote ``I am very pleased to
say that I would certainly like to give him the assurance of
supporting that project if he can give me the assurance of
supporting the no vote on October 30''.
Does the Prime Minister not find it indecent that his minister of
human resources development is formally tying funding to
organizations in my area to my political opinion?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his question. I think what we should be
focusing on from his question is what the government is doing for
the young people of the country.
15044
I had the pleasure during the summer months to introduce the
summer job action plan, which created over 44,500 new jobs for
young people.
The hon. member should be a bit more consistent with what he is
saying. On the one hand, when we introduced the program he said
that we were intervening into provincial jurisdiction. On the other
hand, in a letter written to the minister he asked us to support a
project that deals with Youth Service Canada, a project that he said
was intervening in provincial jurisdiction. It is clear that we have a
confused bunch on the other side.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would say that
the parliamentary secretary is the one who is confused because I
put my question to the Prime Minister but he did not reply.
(1135)
By refusing to denounce the Minister of Human Resources
Development who linked funding with my political opinions, does
the Prime Minister not realize that once again he is demonstrating
his lack of respect for democracy?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member cannot have it both ways. On the one hand he is
saying that Youth Service Canada is intervening in provincial
jurisdiction. On the other hand, for young people in his riding he
wants this program. He should make up his mind.
I have an idea for him. Support federalism, support a united
Canada, and those kids can prosper just like every other young
Canadian.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt
asked the Prime Minister to explain glaring inconsistencies in the
government's pronouncements about Canada's mandate in the
former Yugoslavia. The Prime Minister's response was flippant
and I would like to ask for clarification.
In March the Prime Minister expressly declared that following a
debate in the House the government was renewing our mandate for
another six months. That time expires this weekend, but officials of
both the Department of National Defence and the Department of
Foreign Affairs claim that the mandate does not expire for another
month or even two months.
I seek clarification from the Prime Minister. When does
Canada's formal commitment to the mission in the former
Yugoslavia expire? Has the government undertaken to extend the
mandate that was debated in the House?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member refers to a debate in the House, and I
remember the position of the Reform Party. It was actively
encouraging the government not to keep our troops in
ex-Yugoslavia for the reason that progress was not being made.
I think the hon. member, with his experience, would very much
appreciate that in Croatia our troops were withdrawn when the job
was done, with no further ado.
Right now I think the House is entirely aware of the progress that
has been made in Bosnia and how close we are to the peace process.
To suggest that progress has not been made I think was wrong in
the spring and it is wrong now.
Specifically, the United Nations mandate will expire on
November 30. The Canadian rotation for the troops is due in
mid-November. In view of the progress that has been made, the
government will decide by the end of October on the future of
Canadian participation.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the issue here is not progress in the former Yugoslavia. The issue
here is the mandate of our troops and the discussion in the House.
Last September and again last March the government pretended
that Parliament and the people of Canada had a voice in
determining our peacekeeping commitments. We remember that in
March the debate was held only two days before our mandate
expired. Now we find that the government is acting unilaterally,
without any consultation.
Canada's peacekeepers have always been faithful in their duty
and they are right now. Along with other Canadians, they deserve a
clear indication of the mandate and deserve a better answer from
the government than the Prime Minister gave yesterday or what I
heard just now.
When does our mandate expire, and why has the government not
consulted Parliament about its extension?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind the hon. member his colleague, then the defence
critic, as a member of the standing committee, agreed to a report
that in essence said that with respect to the committal of
peacekeeping troops in mandates such as the one under discussion,
under normal circumstances the House would have a debate. He
agreed, somewhat reluctantly, that there were occasions when a
debate could not take place. This may be one of them.
15045
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. In August we learned that the
government had decided to increase the rate with which it was
issuing citizenship certificates in Quebec so as to allow the greatest
possible number of new citizens to exercise their right to vote in the
coming referendum, close to 10 000 people.
(1140)
The Prime Minister says he would never use new Canadians for
political purposes. Would he indicate to us whether this is standard
practice when an election or referendum is in the offing?
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question
asked by the hon. member relates to the voting process in the
province of Quebec. The province of Quebec obviously handles
these matters on their own. The Canada-Quebec accord is such that
it is an example of federalism at its most flexible and at its best. If
the hon. member does not understand that, she does not understand
the accord.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I fear that
the hon. member has not understood my question, because
speeding up this process does not depend on Quebec but on the
federal government.
How can the Prime Minister explain, for instance, that the
processing of citizenship applications is being accelerated in
Quebec at this time, but that was not the case when elections were
held recently in New Brunswick and Ontario?
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member looks at the citizenship process through jaundiced eyes.
The citizenship process in Canada goes on the same for those who
wish to become citizens, whether they are from Quebec, New
Brunswick, or British Columbia. We have one system. It works
well and it will continue to work well.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, next year Canadians will be asked in the
Statistics Canada census to identify themselves by race. Citizens
will be required by law to answer this question. The question is
there so that the government can calculate its racial targets for its
employment equity program.
Will the Minister of Industry confirm that the government
intends to prosecute Canadians who refuse to participate in the
exercise of racial identification?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member will know that the purpose of conducting a
periodic census is to determine the composition of Canadian
society. This is useful for a wide range of purposes.
On the issue of race, in the past people have made calculations
based on language rather than a specific question on racial origin.
This time we think the provision of fuller information will give us a
much better understanding of the make-up of Canadian society.
That should be beneficial for a wide range of purposes.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians answering this question will have
the option of stating whether they are Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
South Asian, West Asian, or Southeast Asian. However, those who
want to identify themselves as Canadians will have to select the
category ``other''. In our own country we will have to be
considered ``other''.
Can the minister explain why the government is so adverse to
having respondents identify themselves as Canadians?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately the Reform Party has repeatedly both in the House
and elsewhere failed to recognize that the face of Canada is one of
many colours and many languages. In looking at Canada it sees it
only through its own eyes and is not able to understand how varied
and diverse a mosaic we have created here. This is one of the
strengths of Canada. It is unfortunate it has taken this approach to
what is a very simple gathering of information for very useful
purposes.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Recently, the president of the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation recognized the existence of two separate networks
within the corporation, the English network and the French
network. Predictably, Mr. Beatty refused to admit there were
inequities in the financing of the two networks.
Does the minister agree that these inequities exist and does he
intend to make up for this flagrant injustice to the French network
by exempting it from the cuts announced last February?
15046
(1145)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
is examining and is, in fact, engaged in a thorough analysis of its
budgetary requirements. On behalf of the government we have
initiated a process to examine the mandate of the CBC. We will
also consider the finances of the CBC in the next budget, and that is
our position at this time.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage knows perfectly well that the
inequities in financing between the English and French networks
are obvious proof that francophones are discriminated against
within the CBC, especially since the French network is far more
successful than the English network in reaching its target audience
and does so at a lesser cost. Would the minister at least have the
courage to admit this?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I most certainly agree that the CBC's French network
plays a magnificent role in developing the ``francophonie'' in
Canada and throughout the world. I certainly agree with that, and I
will do everything in my power to ensure it continues to do so.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Over the past few years the New Brunswick Bay of Fundy
aquaculture industry has grown to be a $100 million industry in the
Carleton-Charlotte constituency. An infestation of sea lice is
threatening the industry.
What is the minister doing to fast track the approval of new
drugs to control the sea lice problem in this region and save this
important industry in Carleton-Charlotte?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Health Canada has received an application for registration of a pest
control product called salmosan.
This application is being given priority attention. Every effort is
being made to assess the product as quickly as possible. Health
Canada remains in contact with officials in the New Brunswick
government.
Over and above that, the pest management regulatory agency
recognizes the aquaculture industry's needs and has already
responded to requests by giving emergency registrations for two
other products which have not proved as successful as we would
have liked them to be, namely hydrogen peroxide and pyrethrum.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
because the Somalia commission is of pressing national concern, I
address the Prime Minister regarding Mark Boland.
The commission admits that its refusal to grant standing to
Private Boland violates strict logic. Further, doing so undermines
the commission's terms of reference which stress that attitudes,
discipline and decisions at all rank levels of the chain of command
are to be investigated.
Boland's rejection sends a signal throughout the
non-commissioned member community that this inquiry is by
officers, for officers and discourages them from coming forward.
Will the Prime Minister uphold the perception of justice by
ensuring that Mark Boland is given standing?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I believe he is
aware that the commission has taken this decision not to grant
standing before the inquiry for Private Mark Boland. He is also
aware that the authority to grant standing rests with the
commission of inquiry which is constituted under the rules of
Canada and their ruling on this is publicly available for all to know.
He is also aware that because the commission is an independent,
properly constituted inquiry, it would be totally inappropriate for
me to comment on it and for the minister to interfere.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the reason I went to the Prime Minister was that the inquiry, as I
understand it, comes under the Privy Council which answers to the
Prime Minister. My question was to him.
(1150 )
The Reform Party compelled a reluctant government to
undertake this inquiry. I am now gravely concerned that the
commission is being unduly influenced.
Numerous generals and senior officials with only a tangential
relationship to the main point of the inquiry are given standing or
called to testify immediately. A lieutenant-general has been quietly
appointed to head DND's liaison office to the inquiry while another
is doing research for the inquiry. Yet soldiers like Mark Boland are
being squeezed out.
Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the Department of
National Defence is in no way attempting to suppress this inquiry
behind the scenes?
15047
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we want to have a completely independent inquiry. We
have appointed a board that is very competent and it will make
sure that it has all the facts.
The Department of National Defence is obligated under the
instruction of the government to give all the facts to the
commission that are needed to get to the bottom of the problem.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The
Canada Council has decided to go ahead with the implementation
of its new development plan, despite the opposition expressed by
the Quebec cultural community. As a result, there are no longer two
linguistic sectors and francophones are left with no contact.
Does the minister recognize that, since Quebec's distinct culture
will no longer be a factor, this decision means that requests for
financial support made by francophone organizations will be like
drops in the ocean?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canada Council has undertaken an in-depth
review of its structures and business plan, the main objective of
which is to increase the council's efficiency and effectiveness, not
to hit one group or another with punitive action. I think it can be
said that the Canada Council has been and will continue to be a
driving force for the development of the French culture in Canada.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister at least recognize that once again
francophones are the ones bearing the brunt of federal cuts? Is this
not another way for the federal government to minimize and
trivialize our identity as Quebecers?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will not use the argument that this is an organization
operating completely at arm's length from the minister. What I
want to say, however, is that there are no signs indicating that the
Canada Council is discriminating against francophones. Far from
it, the Canada Council is one of the strongest supporters of
francophones across Canada and in Quebec in particular.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government
has no more cash for medicare, yet the demands go up. The
inevitable result is thousands of people in waiting lines while the
minister has one simple response: line up or shut up.
Will the minister change that response for Canadians in waiting
lines?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Canada is this year transferring to the provinces
just under $16 billion for health alone.
In return for those dollars, we ask they adhere to five principles:
universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and
public administration.
The Government of Canada will not compromise those
principles. We remain the guardians of medicare in this country.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, medicare is
splintering under this minister.
(1155 )
There is a Reform solution, a solution called medicare plus,
medicare that Canadians love, plus choice. Will the minister
consider innovation? Will the minister review medicare plus? Will
the minister stop saying to Canadians to just line up and shut up?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we know the Reform agenda. It is a U.S. style, two tier system of
health care. Canadian taxpayers do not and should not be expected
to support a system which would use their tax dollars to subsidize
queue jumping by those who can afford to pay more, that is the
rich. Quite simply, it is wrong.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. At the
International Conference of Appeal Judges which took place in
Ottawa this week there was a serious discussion to establish a
permanent international criminal court. Such a court would try
individual cases of war crimes, international terrorism and crimes
against humanity that are not now handled adequately by domestic
courts or ad hoc tribunals.
Would the minister say whether the government supports such a
proposal for an international criminal court?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government does support that
proposal enthusiastically. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the
Minister of National Defence and the Department of Justice have
been active participants in an ad hoc committee of the United
Nations which has been working since last year on this proposal.
That committee will report this fall to the United Nations Security
Council.
15048
I can tell the hon. member because I know of his particular
interest in this subject that the international community is making
real progress toward a permanent international criminal court to
deal with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
If I may add one word, at the moment there is temporarily such a
tribunal headquartered in The Hague. Its purpose is to deal with
those crimes against humanity allegedly arising from the conflict
in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
I can report to the House about something of which we should all
be very proud. Two days ago I met with the chief prosecutor, Mr.
Justice Richard Goldstone of the South African Constitutional
Court, who reported that Canada is contributing enormously in
legal talent, especially in the Rwandan cases. We should be very
proud of the contribution we are making in that international effort.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after being
forced by the CRTC to abandon its monopoly, Bell Canada is
closing several test centres, business offices and telephone offices,
while increasingly centralizing its operations. The company is also
setting up several specialized subsidiaries to which it subcontracts
work, thus changing working conditions for certain categories of
employees.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Does the minister
recognize that Bell Canada's relocated workers would lose neither
their union nor their vested rights if they were governed by only
one labour code, that is the Quebec labour code?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Bell Canada employees come under the Canada labour
code and we are doing our utmost to ensure that their rights are
protected in compliance with that code.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1987 the Government of Canada signed an international
agreement with the U.S. to protect the herd and the habitat of the
Porcupine caribou which migrate between Yukon and Alaska.
Now the U.S. Congress is blatantly ignoring the agreement and
passing legislation to open the sensitive calving grounds in Alaska
to oil and gas exploration.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. The
government initiated gunboat diplomacy against the Spanish to
protect the turbot. What specific actions is she prepared to take to
hold the United States to its commitment to protect this vital
northern resource?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are hoping in a very few
weeks to be able to sign an agreement with the U.S. Secretary of
the Interior, Mr. Bruce Babbitt, to set aside the particular calving
grounds in question so there will be no exploration.
* * *
(1200 )
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian awards of excellence will kick off Quality Month on
Monday, October 2. The awards celebrate outstanding
achievements in the private sector.
During the last few years the federal public service has gone
through tough and sometimes demoralizing challenges. Will the
President of the Treasury Board tell us what the government is
doing to improve morale and promote excellence in the Public
Service of Canada?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to say that for the first time the quality awards
that will be given out next week will not only recognize people who
have done innovative and excellent things in the private sector but
will also recognize those in the public sector.
The federal public service has a fine and well deserved
reputation of providing quality services to the people of Canada.
We need to applaud that kind of effort on the part of our employees.
We need to share the success stories. We need to recognize the
innovations that have been carried out by federal public servants.
In this quality month as the government focuses more and more
on client focused quality services for the people of Canada, I
believe we are in a situation where we can make a better work
environment for our employees and provide better service to
Canadians. That is what Quality Month will help us focus on.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to
the presence in the gallery of Her Excellency Anita Gradin,
member of the European Commission for Immigration, Justice and
Home Affairs.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
>
15049
15049
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to the
third report of the Standing committee on Transport entitled
A
National Marine Strategy.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a strong
commitment and a strong attachment to the environment. I was
pleased only a few moments ago to entertain a question from the
Reform Party on calving grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd. It
is certainly an indication that environmental issues are not
exclusive to party lines and every Canadian believes that our
environment is a part of our heritage and a part of who we are.
Since becoming environment minister I have met some
incredible people from across the country, people who spend most
of their waking hours working on environmental issues such as
climate change, biodiversity and reducing toxins.
[Translation]
Yesterday evening, I was in Montreal to attend the Second
International Hydrogen Summit, where I met people who really
take seriously the technological opportunities which will be the
major challenges of the 21st century.
[English]
I have also seen communities like my own that have fought back
against environmental degradation to achieve great things. There
are communities that have restored waterways, reduced waste,
protected wildlife habitat, created jobs and at the same time have
sparked innovative, fledgling incubator industries, communities
like my own hometown of Hamilton.
In Hamilton people from all walks of life came together to
transform our community from a city that was polluted and full of
economic, environmental problems to a community that is cleaner
and full of environmental and economic promise. The efforts of
Hamiltonians have even been recognized by the United Nations.
Hamilton was named Canada's only model sustainable city.
Hamilton was a city which only a few short years ago at the wake
of tremendous transition in the steel industry had an unemployment
rate of around 16 per cent. Today Hamilton has the lowest
unemployment rate in the country and the fastest growing
industries are the environmental industries.
(1205)
[Translation]
Based on what I have seen in my home town and elsewhere, I
know that the real power to make changes does not rest with
politicians but, rather, with Canadians and their communities.
It goes without saying that governments and businesses have an
important role to play to better protect the environment. However,
without a degree of awareness and understanding, and without
some initiatives by the various regions of the country, we will
never reach our goal of ensuring sustainable development.
This is why I am pleased to announce a new program called
Action 21. We are keeping the red book promise where we said we
would give Canadians the necessary tools to protect the
environment in their daily lives.
Action 21 will help regional groups carry out their
environmental projects. We will match any community financing
initiative by giving an amount equal to the community's
participation for all admissible projects pertaining to the
improvement, the depollution or the protection of the environment.
Action 21 will have to emphasize the measurable advantages of
any initiative and favour activities dealing with air pollution,
climate changes, biodiversity, toxic substances, and the
preservation of ecosystems.
Action 21 includes a public awareness program which will
encourage Canadians to make the environmentally friendly
choices. We must all learn to care about the environment in our
daily lives because we are all responsible for creating a healthy
environment in our community.
Action 21 will help only non-governmental and nonprofit
organizations. We want to support service clubs, senior citizens
associations, youth groups and environment protection groups.
[English]
We want to support car pooling and transit initiatives because we
think it is critical to reduce vehicle emissions and the effects of
climate change. We want to support initiatives which reduce the
use of pesticides in fertilizers in non-farm settings because it is
important to improve the health of Canadians.
My hope is that we can particularly give a boost to young
Canadians in their efforts to improve the environment in their own
communities. They will have to do the work. We will match them
15050
dollar for dollar, but they will have to raise half of the money. I
know they will do that because it is obvious that young Canadians
understand that the environment is the key to our future.
We have a lot to do. A recent study by Dr. Sverre Vedal of the
University of British Columbia estimates that in that province
alone 82 Canadians die prematurely every year as a result of air
pollution in the form of inhalable particles. The Government of
Canada has the responsibility to take whatever action is necessary
to prevent those premature deaths.
Through action 21 we are empowering Canadians to join us in
that battle. We are giving Canadians the means to make their own
decisions, to build on community based environmental protection
and to make sure that Canadians are not only part of the problem,
but that every single Canadian is part of the solution.
Action 21 will have an annual budget of $10 million. I will
repeat it for the benefit of the taxpayers of Canada: Every dollar we
give to any project must be matched by a dollar raised in the
community.
Canadians want to find a role in being a part of the solution to the
environmental challenges of the 20th century. With action 21 we
will be able to achieve that into the 21st century. I know there is not
a member of Parliament in the House, whatever his or her political
stripe, who does not understand that the future of our children
depends not only on the role of government, not only on the
important role of business to clean up its own act, but also on the
chance for Canadians to change the way we live and to build
sustainable development as a cornerstone in all of the actions in
every day of our lives.
Action 21 is a small step to get Canadians involved in choosing
the right solutions for a better environment into the 21st century.
Action 21 will provide them with a small vehicle to get government
help to achieve that.
(1210)
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as you know, Quebecers care a great deal about the
environment. It is part of their culture and of what they are.
Some of them have dedicated their life to protecting the
environment, raising their fellow citizens' awareness, as well as
studying nature and its interaction with man. Some even called on
the courts to prevent the federal government from going ahead with
projects which were potentially harmful for human health and the
marine ecosystem.
Local initiatives to clean up riverbanks, reforest urban spaces or
even organize carpools are often taken on by individuals convinced
they can and must preserve a safe environment for their children.
They deserve our grateful thanks.
Clearly, I share the minister's vision regarding the
appropriateness of helping initiatives aimed at reducing man's
impact on nature.
However, there is a major flaw in the minister's argument. The
program she announced today is obviously the kind of measure
which upsets programs and priorities established by provincial
governments, creates new expectations, and constitutes dubious
management practice.
Action 21 is a perfect example of what Quebecers, sovereignists
as well as federalists, have been fighting against for decades. The
environment minister seems to have trouble understanding that.
And yet, it is rather clear: Quebec no longer wants to see the federal
government clumsily step in and negate its efforts. Many provinces
share the same feeling.
The only purpose of Action 21 is for the federal government to
use its spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The Quebecers have heard this song before. Its intent is laudable,
and just about everybody recognizes how important it is. The
federal government is setting itself up as a saviour generously
handing out mana.
What the minister does not realize is that Quebecers know that
government funding will be reduced, even stopped, within a few
months or a few years. Budget constraints will then be blamed, as
is already the case now.
Groups who have initiated projects will then turn to Quebec for
the kind of assistance they really need, at which time the province
will be faced with the following choice: either completing ongoing
projects or putting an end to them. In one case, the federal
government will have shifted to the province responsibility for part
of its expenditures and, in the other, responsibility for quashing the
projects.
This is something Quebecers have experienced over and over in
many areas. Take for example the contaminated sites rehabilitation
program and the greater Montreal greening program.
By being very careful not to mention in her speech the amounts
earmarked for and actual duration of Agenda 21, the minister
confirmed the misgivings we had.
Action taken under Agenda 21 is based on a fifteen year old
philosophy aimed at giving the federal government the sole
initiative on environmental issues. Relying on the authority of the
Supreme Court and on its own spending power, the federal
government is gradually taking over this area of responsibility,
establishing new national standards which, in many cases, add to
existing provincial standards.
In closing, I wish to thank the hon. minister for just proving to us
that her government never intended to change the federal system in
any way and that all it has to offer Quebecers is the good old
Trudeau-style centralization. As long as it is able to get away with
it, the federal government will use its spending power in areas of
provincial responsibility, disregard priorities set by Quebec minis-
15051
ters and attempt to gain legitimacy by going over the heads of the
provinces. The only way to stop this is to opt for sovereignty for
Quebec, even for the fishermen of the Gaspe Peninsula.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on action 21.
Across our beautiful country from our lush forests in British
Columbia, the beautiful Rocky Mountains, the great beautiful
forests in northern Ontario and Quebec, to the rugged coastline in
the maritimes, we indeed have been given an Eden. Unfortunately
that Eden is being decimated and desecrated. Unsustainable
resource utilization and widespread pollution are occurring in so
many areas and it is imperative that we address these problems.
(1215 )
We applaud the intent and intention of action 21. It will help
Canadians to deal with environmental considerations in their lives,
to deal with sustainable development, recycling, and to increase
environmental awareness.
However we have some concerns. Where is the $10 million that
is put forth annually coming from? Is it being used for more
bureaucrats? Will the money actually go where it was intended to
go? We also have some concerns in that the November 1994
environmental partners fund, a program which is virtually identical
to action 21, was shut down. Here we are creating another system
to do exactly what the environmental partners fund was supposed
to do.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister provide us with some
information? Why are we creating a new program to fulfil one that
we just closed down?
We also have concerns about the assessment process,
accountability, monitoring and follow up. I am sure the Deputy
Prime Minister would agree that it is critically important to ensure
that the moneys actually go to where they are intended to go, which
I am sure is her intent.
I hope the program does not become like the Tory green plan, a
$2.5 billion boondoggle that went nowhere. The hon. minister
knows that. I am sure she will look into ensuring that the same
mistakes are not made.
I ask the minister to look at her own back yard in Hamilton.
Hamiltonians have worked very hard to address significant
environmental concerns on their doorstep, but yet the two largest
dumpers of benzene, Dofasco and Stelco, are in Hamilton. I ask the
hon. minister to provide us with information so that we know what
is being done in those areas.
I also ask that we ensure the program has an identifiable
framework, that we have adequate monitoring and follow up, and
that the groups receiving it are accountable. We agree with the
matching concept in action 21. It is something the Reform Party
has continually put forth in other areas. It is a good idea because it
shows ownership for those who are receiving the moneys.
We should also focus on school programs. The minister
mentioned that she was very interested in youth. If we focused on
youth and school programs we might be able to supplement the
moneys in the program from existing programs. It might be a cost
effective way of expenditure.
As an aside, we speak about the environment and yet 40,000
people die in the country of smoking related illnesses every year.
Tragically the government's smoking platform that it has put forth
since inception has caused the greatest increase in tobacco
consumption we have seen in the last 20 years.
The hon. member mentioned that 82 people tragically die of
diseases related to the inhalation of toxic substances. That is a very
big tragedy. However let us put it into context with respect to the
40,000 people who die of smoking related illnesses and an
indeterminate number who die of second hand smoke. Also
one-ninth of all women get breast cancer which might have a
genetic toxic component. Let us also look at some of these larger
issues.
Our intent is the same as the government's in trying to increase
awareness in environmental degradation, sustainable development
and environmental awareness. We hope the program will do what it
was intended to do, that is increase awareness among Canadians.
Let us make sure the moneys go to where they are supposed to go
and not to developing more bureaucracy.
* * *
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House
the eighth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association
where I represented Canada at the committee meetings of the North
Atlantic Assembly held in Ottawa and Washington, D.C., June 11
to June 16, 1995.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
15052
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct.
With leave of the House, I intend to propose that it be concurred
in later today.
* * *
(1220)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move that the first report of the Special Joint Committee on a Code
of Conduct, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred
in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has
been circulating all across Canada. The petition has been signed by
a number of Canadians from B.C. and Alberta.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to society.
They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families who make the choice to provide care in the home to
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
table a petition signed by a constituent who is looking for some
money to table a report on the environment, economic and social
problems.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by the constituents of
Lambton-Middlesex and duly certified by the clerk of petitions,
pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners call on Parliament to ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes to the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to
rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf
of members of the agricultural community in my riding of Kent.
They humbly pray and call on Parliament to maintain funding
for agricultural employment services so that they may maintain
their assistance to the many underprivileged who rely on these
personal services to find employment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 164 and 218.
[Text]
Question No. 164-Mr. Frazer:
Concerning the retirement of John de Chastelain from his position as Chief of
Defence Staff in January 1993, his appointment as Ambassador to the United
States and his subsequent re-enrollment in the Canadian Forces for services as
the Chief of Defence Staff in January 1994, (a) what was the pay range for
General de Chastelain at the time of his retirement in January 1993, (b) what
were the retirement benefits received by General de Chastelain when he retired
from the Canadian Forces in January 1993, (c) what termination benefits did Mr.
de Chastelain receive upon leaving his position as Ambassador to the United
States, (d) under what terms of service (Regular or Reserve) is General de
Chastelain currently serving as the CDS and, if Reserve, is it Class B or Class C
service, (e) what severance/termination provisions were made, if any, for
General de Chastelain when he began is current tour as CDS, (f) what was the
pay range of General de Chastelain at the time of his return to the Chief of
Defence Staff position in January 1994 and what is his current salary range, and
(g) is General de Chastelain currently receiving annuity payments under the
CFSA and, if not, when were these payments stopped and when will they be
resumed?
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): (a) $128,100-$155,800; (b) Upon retiring from the
Canadian forces in January 1993, General de Chastelain received:
i) severance pay in accordance with the Queen's regulations and
orders 204.40 and the Canadian forces administration orders
204.10, and ii) a Canadian forces superannuation pension; (c) none;
(d) General de Chastelain is currently serving in the regular force;
(e) Salary and termination benefits were set by order in council; (f)
$140,100-$170,500; (g) The Chief of Defence Staff, CDS, has not
received an annuity since his re-enrollment on January 1, 1994. His
annuity payments will resume when he is released from the regular
force.
15053
Question no. 218-Mr. Simmons:
With respect to the tobacco demand reduction strategy, (a) how much money
did the federal government spend overall, under the strategy, in 1994-1995, (b)
how was the budget allocated among the various components of the Strategy,
namely education and promotion, national advertising campaign, research,
monitoring of consumption, etc., (c) what was the amount initially budgeted for
fiscal years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997, (d) what impact will the reductions
announced on March 2, 1995, have on each component of the Strategy, and (e)
has Health Canada made an attempt to assess the impact of these cuts on the
incidence of tobacco use in Canada?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): (a) The
1994-95 budget for the tobacco demand reduction strategy was $36
million. The 1994-95 total expenditure was $30.2 million.
![](/web/20061117190226im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen2341101_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117190226im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen2341101_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117190226im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen2341101_r2.gif)
(d) The tobacco demand reduction strategy remains the largest,
most comprehensive tobacco control initiative ever undertaken in
Canada. While the scope and pace of some activities will be
reduced, none of the components of the TDRS has been eliminated
as a result of the cuts. The essential balance and integrity of the
overall strategy have been maintained.
(e) No attempt has been made by Health Canada to assess the
impact of these cuts on the incidence of tobacco use in Canada. As
previously stated, although the scope and pace of some activities
have been reduced, none of the components of the TDRS has been
eliminated. For instance, many community action initiatives
funded under the community action initiatives program, part of the
TDRS, will build a base of programming, expertise and
co-operation in the voluntary sector that will make an on-going
contribution to achieving the goal of tobacco use reduction in
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
15053
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-98,
an act respecting the oceans of Canada, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific
was to reply to the question of the hon. member for Fraser Valley
East. I believe the member for Fraser Valley East had completed
his question or comment.
The member is indicating that he had not. I ask him to do so
briefly.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the minister.
(1225)
In what way does he see the government moving to decentralize
the Canadian federation to provide services at a cheaper rate with
less taxation, and at a cheaper expense to Canadians, to promote
businesses and promote a better delivery of services in the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans?
Mr. Chan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I will respond to his concern that I was pointing to the
alliance between the separatists and the Reform Party. When the
separatists propose to separate the country, the onus is on the
separatists to demonstrate why they want to separate. What we
have to offer is Canada which has been regarded by the UN as the
number one country to live in and so on.
During debate today a Bloc member tried to praise the Reform
Party because of its tactics and so on, and there was applause from
the member's benches. That is what triggered my comment. I hope
I have answered that part of the question.
On the decentralization process, during the process of refining
government actions the government has been negotiating with
provincial governments on all sectors, trying to reduce
redundancies and trying to make things more efficient.
15054
The same is true with the oceans act. We are proposing a
partnership to bring people together, the provincial side, the
private sector and the federal government, to find ways to simplify
and to promote harmony in our policies.
I would be glad to support the bill and I hope we will get the
support of the Reform Party too.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that, because
of the ministerial statement and answers, Government Orders will
be extended by 16 minutes today.
[English]
There have been five hours of debate on Bill C-98 and we are
now into 10-minute speeches without questions or comments.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be given an opportunity to address the
House on second reading of the oceans act.
As we consider the legislation before us, we must also take into
account the vastness of Canada's ocean area on all three coasts. We
must also recognize the increasing stresses on our oceans
environment, especially in our coastal areas.
These stresses have resulted in resource depletion, habitat
degradation and marine pollution. If we do not act decisively and
now, the problems will only worsen. We are becoming increasingly
aware that oceans are subject to impacts and influences of both
natural and human origins.
We now recognize that we must manage oceans to achieve
economic opportunities while sustaining the environment,
including the living resources of our oceans. That is true of the
Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific coast and the Arctic. Whether it be
improving the safety of Atlantic shipping, restoring fish habitat in a
Pacific estuary or protecting the fragile Arctic environment from
marine pollution, all these require leadership by the Government of
Canada.
The time has come for leadership in integrated management of
Canada's oceans, a leadership that will be provided by the
government through the oceans act. We know that this cannot be
done by the federal government alone. Jurisdiction is divided
among federal, provincial, local and aboriginal authorities. That
will not change. We embrace this reality and will address it through
co-operation and partnership.
What will change, however, is regulatory duplication, conflict
and inadequacy that result in inefficiencies, failure to protect the
environment and impediments to development. Private sector,
public interest groups, non-governmental organizations, academics
and federal advisory bodies have all called repeatedly for a
comprehensive approach to oceans management, an approach that
will foster innovative internationally competitive ocean industries
and preserve and sustain our oceans.
(1230)
First Nations have special concerns. Comprehensive land claims
can involve important implications for protecting and developing
both renewable and non-renewable ocean resources.
These challenges are obvious in the Arctic. Use of the Arctic
ocean and sea ice must take account of the fragility of the Arctic
ecosystems and ensure that traditional patterns of hunting and
fishing can be sustained.
The recognition of the need for an oceans act is not new. The
previous federal government said it would do all of this. In 1987
the government of the day announced an oceans policy and that
policy was not acted on by it. It said it would submit to Parliament
a Canada oceans act but it did not bring forward a proposal.
The legislation for this long awaited act is now before us and
because this government is acting. Not only is it acting on a
promise from the red book but acting out of the recognition of the
need for a more cohesive approach to oceans management.
The National Advisory Board on Science and Technology's
report on Canada's oceans policy released last year condemned the
federal government for neglect of its oceans responsibilities. It
recommended an oceans management strategy and an oceans act to
provide a firm legal basis for this strategy. These recommendations
were supported by provinces, municipalities, businesses, unions,
academics and others.
The government realizes we must turn away from partial, ad hoc,
short term measures based on expediency. We must manage our
oceans on an ecosystems basis, not on the basis of single sector
resource considerations separate from, say, the regulation of
shipping or separate from environmental protection. Integrated
resource management requires decision making that is open,
transparent and based on sound science. It must apply
multi-disciplinary approaches and it must integrate economic,
environmental and social considerations and the involvement of all
affected stakeholders.
Stewardship of ocean and coastal resources is a responsibility
that we must all share: federal, provincial, territorial, municipal
and aboriginal governments in partnership with business, unions,
non-governmental organizations and academics.
As all members are aware, the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans took an important step toward integration of oceans
15055
management when it merged with the Canadian Coast Guard last
April. This merger provided the department with the tools to more
effectively provide cohesive oceans management. The merger
brought together the key elements of oceans management:
shipping, fisheries, ocean sciences and environmental protection.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the coast guard fleets
became one and in the turbot dispute last winter the red vessels of
the coast guard fleet and the grey vessels of the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans performed admirably as a team in the service
of their country.
While Canada has taken many steps in the past year to protect
and conserve all of our oceans resources, environmental
organizations like the World Wildlife Fund, the Canadian Arctic
Resources Committee and the Canadian Nature Federation have
long called for the creation of marine protected areas under the
oceans act. The government has listened to their concerns.
The oceans act will provide for the creation of marine protected
areas to protect biodiversity and endangered species. There will be
two types of areas. One will be developed in consultation with the
stakeholders, the other will be designated by the Ministry of
Fisheries and Oceans on an urgent temporary basis in response to
the resource crisis.
The ocean act signals a renewal of Canada's leadership in oceans
management, a renewal that is long overdue. From the mid-1960s
until the early 1980s Canada led the world. In the intervening years
our initiative faltered. The federal government in the late 1980s and
the early 1990s no longer led Canada in the forefront of global
oceans policy. Now this government is reclaiming Canada's role as
a world leader.
(1235)
While Canada has a major domestic interest in its oceans, it has
the responsibility to manage them as a shared global resource and
we must lead by example. The government is well aware that if
Canada is to once again be a world leader in the oceans it will
require that the oceans act establish a clear federal lead for the
implementation of the oceans management strategy. That is the
goal of the government and the legislation. It is to ensure there is a
place under the federal leadership of the Ministry of Fisheries and
Oceans in close co-operation with other federal and provincial
ministers and stakeholders, mechanisms to manage all of Canada's
ocean resources. The goal is for our oceans to be clean, safe,
productive and accessible.
The oceans act is a key part of the government's commitment to
a new oceans management strategy. Developing and implementing
that strategy will take the work of many people across Canada. It
will be an ongoing process. The government is committed and
ready to act on then development of an oceans management
strategy. The oceans act signifies a commitment to all Canadians, a
commitment to the world.
I ask that other members in the House join with me in voting in
favour of this very important legislation.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the previous member for Dauphin-Swan River has stated, our
oceans represent a shared global resource. Canadians watching this
debate today may not be aware that 80 per cent of the world's
population lives in coastal areas attached to oceans. Not only are
oceans an important and integral part of Canada's key to survival,
they certainly are for the world. The bill before us today calls for
Parliament to formalize Canadian jurisdiction over vast new areas
of ocean waters and resources off our coasts.
This August in New York the United Nations Conference on
Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks reached agreement
by consensus on a new UN convention on high seas fisheries. When
this new UN convention is properly implemented it will provide
permanent protection for straddling stocks on the Grand Banks of
Newfoundland. This is an enormous step forward. It is fully
consistent with the oceans act. It completes the protection of some
of Canada's most important ocean resources, the once great cod
and flounder stocks on the Grand Banks.
While the oceans act is an important element in protecting these
resources inside 200 miles, the new UN convention is key to
providing permanent protection for them outside 200 miles.
There is massive fishing power deployed on the high seas. The
nations of the world have often been unable to control it. The result
has been destructive overfishing, depleted resources, human
misery and conflict among states.
Before this new UN convention it was unclear whether the
escalation of fishing power could devastate resources before the
international community had crafted the legal tools needed to
prevent that from happening. However, Canada had taken the lead
by approving Bill C-29 to protect threatened straddling stocks until
effective international means to do so are implemented.
To fill the gaps in international law and control high seas
fisheries before it was too late required that coastal states as well as
distance water fishing states do their part. All countries at the UN
conference had to view matters in the global context.
There have been serious failures in conservation of straddling
stocks in all of the oceans of the world. There will continue to be
such failures as long as the international legal framework is
incomplete. The foundation in the law of the sea convention is
sound but by itself it is not adequate. That was recognized at the
UN Conference on Environment and Development by the UN
General Assembly when the UN conference on straddling stocks
was convened. It is significant that the UN conference on
15056
straddling stocks arose out of the UNCED conference on the
environment.
Over the past 20 years international environmental law has
developed and found wider and wider application.
(1240 )
Environmental law and the law of the sea are becoming more
integrated. Environmental concepts such as sustainable
development, the precautionary approach and the ecosystems
approach must be applied to achieve effective fisheries
conservation. The new UN convention will greatly advance that
integration.
The new UN convention contains the five principle elements
needed for an effective international system for conservation. First,
the international framework of rules must be legally binding. The
new UN convention will be legally binding. Second, there must be
proper conservation and management measures. The new UN
convention provides for this, notably in the precautionary
approach.
Third, there must be compatibility of conservation and
management measures both inside and outside 200 miles. The new
UN convention provides for this. Fourth, there must be binding and
compulsory dispute settlement. Again the new UN convention
provides for this. Finally, there must be some means to deal with
the situation where the flag state is unable or unwilling to control
its vessel fishing on the high seas. The new UN convention does
this as well.
Let me explain why high seas enforcement is necessary for an
effective conservation system. There are serious and chronic
control problems in high sea fisheries. The FAO in its March 1995
report on the state of world fisheries highlighted problems of
control and pointed toward pollution.
Renewed international attention is focusing on unauthorized
fishing and the role of monitoring, control and surveillance.
Fisheries conservation and management are being undermined by
such fishing and, together with the lack of effective monitoring,
control and surveillance systems is threatening the sustainability of
fisheries.
The international community also acknowledges that the
accurate collection and reporting of fisheries by-catch and discards
data are important aspects of monitoring, control and surveillance,
issues that will attract increasing attention.
The most realistic and effective means of collecting, verifying
and reporting these data are through the use of increased at-sea
monitoring of fishing activities.
The FAO report has it right. At-sea monitoring of fishing
activities is needed for an effective conservation system. It is a
necessary element of the new UN convention.
The new UN convention will make the high seas fisheries
provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea work as
they should but have not until now. Together, the UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea and the new UN convention will constitute an
effective international legal framework for sustainable
development in high seas fisheries.
Under such a regime we can rebuild straddling stocks and
harvest them on a sustainable basis. This is a great advance over the
situation Canada has faced in the past: foreign overfishing,
depleted resources, economic decline and conflict with distant
water fishing states.
For responsible distant water fishing states like Japan, creating
an effective international conservation regime is strongly in their
interest. With us they should ratify and implement the new UN
convention as soon as possible. Implementation of the new UN
convention will be an important advance for humankind. It will be
a giant step toward sustainability. In Canada it will be of great
benefit to the tens of thousands of fishers and fish plant workers in
Atlantic Canada whose livelihood and future depend on the
straddling stocks of cod, flounder and turbot.
With the oceans act and the new UN convention in time those
resources will be bountiful once more. I am happy to support the
bill and I urge all members to join me in allowing the legislation to
move forward quickly. The oceans act charts a wise course for the
future of ocean policy.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
considerable pleasure that I rise to offer my support to the oceans
act.
The legislation deals effectively with jurisdictional issues which
have been under study for a long time. It also deals effectively with
ocean management issues in a manner which will serve Canadians
for many years to come.
(1245 )
For a long time Canada has worked to focus the world's attention
on ocean issues. For a long time Canada has worked to establish
formal jurisdiction over the ocean waters and ocean resources that
border our country.
In the 1950s Canada played a leading role at the first UN
conference on oceans. In the 1960s Canada played a leading role in
calling for a UN convention on the law of the sea. In the same
decade Canadians asserted their jurisdiction over the northwest
passage by adopting the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act
and declaring new fishing zones off both coasts. In the 1970s we
took unilateral steps to declare a 200-mile fishing zone and a
12-mile territorial sea.
Canadians are all well aware of the recent successful efforts of
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to protect the fishstocks
within our 200-mile limit from overfishing outside and to lead the
world in reaching agreement on the conservation of straddling
fishstocks.
15057
The oceans act when passed will formalize Canada's jurisdiction
over all our oceans. The bill before Parliament is backed by
international agreement. The bill declares that Canada not only
has jurisdiction over our internal waters, territorial sea, fishing
zones and continental shelf, but we also have jurisdiction over a
new 12 nautical mile contiguous zone and 200 nautical mile
exclusive economic zone.
In the contiguous zone Canada will have formal jurisdiction to
apply our fiscal, immigration, sanitary and customs laws. In the
exclusive economic zone Canada will have formal jurisdiction for
exploring and exploiting all economic resources, not only fish and
for conserving and managing those resources.
In this zone covering nearly five million square kilometres of
ocean, Canadians will also have jurisdiction over marine research
and protection and preservation of the marine environment. If that
was all this legislation accomplished it would be an important
achievement. We have fought long and hard to establish Canadian
ocean rights.
The bill does not stop there. It goes on to streamline and
strengthen federal responsibilities for responsible ocean
stewardship. It goes even further by establishing the legislative
base for a new comprehensive and co-operative oceans
management strategy.
The bill sets in motion a new approach to oceans policy, an
approach based on the federal government working in partnership
with all those who have a stake in the future of our oceans, from the
provinces and territories, to the local communities, to fishermen
and businesses and environmentalists. Our oceans are a wonderful
shared Canadian blessing. They require a shared sense of
responsibility and a shared plan for both development and
environmental protection.
The bill sets out the objective of achieving sustainable
development of our oceans and their resources through an
integrated management strategy. The bill aims to achieve
integrated planning of ocean activities, harmonized regulations and
improved environmental protection based on a comprehensive
ecosystems approach.
To reach those ends the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be
authorized to enter into partnership agreements with other
Canadian jurisdictions and organizations and to co-ordinate a
cohesive Canadian approach to sustainable ocean development.
The oceans act includes provisions for the establishment of
marine protected areas, the development of ocean environmental
quality guidelines and the application of Canada's current
environmental legislation to the new exclusive economic zone.
When Parliament resumed this month, the Deputy Prime
Minister introduced legislation to establish a commissioner of the
environment and sustainable development responsible for auditing
the environmental performance of all federal government
departments. In doing so the Deputy Prime Minister called on all
ministers to become ministers for sustainable development and all
departments to develop action plans for environmental
stewardship.
The oceans act takes the same message forward. It empowers the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to push ahead with an oceans
strategy based on the primary principle that the economic
opportunities offered by our oceans are completely and absolutely
linked to the environmental well-being of those oceans.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has indicated that he will
act quickly, act seriously and act effectively, as he always does. He
will not however act alone. He is seeking the advice and the input
of all Canadians in developing an oceans management strategy that
merges national objectives with regional decision making and sets
national goals based upon local wisdom, local needs and local
desires.
(1250 )
Once the oceans act is passed, the minister will be in a position
to work with all Canadians in meeting the major challenges ahead
as we seek to make Canada the global leader in oceans policy for
the 21st century.
Through the establishment of the Atlantic Fisheries Resource
Conservation Council, the minister has already proven the new
willingness of the federal government to take the advice of
industry, academic and government experts on fisheries issues. We
all know that several heads are better than one and the new
partnership approach to fisheries conservation proves it.
The even greater opportunity now is to expand that sense of
partnership into the multi-faceted spheres of ocean policy, from
resource management to marine safety, from trade development to
environmental management, from better knowledge of ocean
sciences to stronger international action on global ocean issues.
I sincerely hope that all members of Parliament will come
together to allow this legislation to move forward rapidly and
become law in the near future. The bill provides parliamentarians
the opportunity to come together to act in the interests of all
Canadians and in the interests of our oceans environment.
The bill gives Canada important new ocean jurisdictions. The
bill provides for solid and sensible federal leadership on ocean
issues. The bill creates the legislative framework for the
development of a modern and much needed oceans management
strategy. Through those measures, the bill creates the conditions in
which all Canadians can share in developing a future for our oceans
of which we all can be proud.
15058
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hillsborough for his speech
on Bill C-98, the oceans act.
It was interesting that just a few weeks ago I had the privilege of
visiting Atlantic Canada, his part of the great country we live in. I
had the opportunity to visit and dialogue with many inshore
fishermen. I discovered somewhat to my surprise that while our
current minister of fisheries seems to enjoy a lot of popularity
among Canadians who have the impression that the minister is
standing up for the Canadian fishing industry, the inshore
fishermen I was speaking with in Atlantic Canada were appalled by
the actions of the DFO and of course the minister of fisheries who
is responsible for the DFO.
These hard working, entrepreneurial people who make their
living from the sea feel there is a conspiracy to put them out of
business in the way the quotas are structured. They are given
quotas to catch fish when the fish are not catchable and there is no
quota for the species that is available. They have a quota for a
species that is not even in the waters they are allowed to fish. When
the other species come in the quotas are reversed. It is so bad that
they cannot even pay for the fuel to take the boat out into the water
to go after these fish.
These fishermen are also very concerned about the
implementation of access fees which I understand would be made
possible if Bill C-98 is passed. That will be the trigger which
allows the DFO to impose access fees on the fishermen. It will
make barely profitable enterprises unprofitable.
I ask the member for Hillsborough if he would stand up and vote
for his constituents rather than voting the party line in supporting
this bill. Perhaps he needs an opportunity-
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
we are into 10-minute speeches with no time for questions or
comments. I presumed the member was entering into the debate.
The Deputy Speaker: That is the assumption the Chair made as
well. We will assume the questions are rhetorical ones, that the
member is making an intervention and any questions he asks are
rhetorical.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy if the member
could respond to me perhaps even in his own time when we are not
in the Chamber. These concerns were expressed to me by the
people who make their living from fishing in Atlantic Canada.
The fisherman said the minister is not standing up for his
industry, that he is throwing roadblocks in their way and none of
the Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada are standing up and
speaking for them. They are very concerned and appalled. They
have 31 Liberal MPs in Atlantic Canada and one Progressive
Conservative MP and quite frankly they do not see much difference
between the two parties. They were asking if no one in Ottawa was
going to speak up on their behalf about these access fees. They see
these fees as a tax imposed on them to put them out of business.
(1255)
I implore the member for Hillsborough and his colleagues, the
other 30 Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada, and the Progressive
Conservative member for Saint John to vote against Bill C-98
unless there is a commitment from the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans to not impose these access fees, this horrible tax on the
fishing industry. These entrepreneurial fishermen keep the rural
and coastal communities of Atlantic Canada alive.
If those members refuse to listen to their constituents, if they
insist on voting with their party, voting with the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, voting with the Minister of the Environment
on this issue, I emphasize they will not be voting for their
constituents. In the future why should these hard working people
vote for members of Parliament who come to the House and refuse
to vote for them? These are rhetorical questions but I would
appreciate answers from the Atlantic members of Parliament in the
House.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suppose all of us as supporters of a united Canada should rejoice
that the Reform Party has finally discovered Atlantic Canada.
Nonetheless, it is a bit of overweening pride to assume that a very
short visit to Atlantic Canada can possibly generate an awareness
of the issues of the people of that region similar to the awareness
the member for Hillsborough has after his many, many years of
service to the people of his riding in Prince Edward Island and of
Atlantic Canada.
I certainly hope members of the Reform Party will manage a
return visit to Prince Edward Island. They might learn some
humility and attain some understanding that it takes more than a
flying visit with a political purpose to appreciate the views of
Atlantic Canadians.
It is my pleasure to speak on the oceans act. Canada is a front
runner in the area of oceans technology. This legislation will help
ensure that Canadian companies involved in this field continue to
grow.
The current work in this area is benefiting not only all Canadians
but also the world. Canadian oceans related industries continue to
bring new and exciting products and opportunities to Canadians
and particularly those who live and work in our coastal regions.
One of the identifying factors of Canada is that we are a
maritime nation. With our shores bordered by three oceans, our
coastline is the longest in the world. We also have the world's
largest archipelago and part of the world's longest inland waterway
opening up to the sea.
15059
It is important that we continue to build our understanding of
our oceans, waterways and aquatic resources. Marine navigation
is essential to the safe movement of goods on which our trade is
so dependent. Commercial ships carry more than 350 million
tonnes of cargo to and from Canadian ports each year. More
shipping passes through the St. Lawrence seaway than through the
Panama and Suez canals combined.
[Translation]
This bill deals with the concerns of the National Advisory Board
on Science and Technology and other stakeholders, by allowing the
development of an oceans management strategy which includes the
planning and management of marine activities while also involving
all the partners, including provincial governments.
In addition to promoting investment, the bill will increase the
efficiency of environmental protection measures by establishing
marine protected areas, by using a more global approach for the
management of oceans, and by introducing the management of
coastal zones.
(1300 )
[English]
I want to return for a moment to the importance of this bill to the
growing marine industry which is so important to Canada's
economy. We are already recognized internationally as having one
of the world's most advanced hydrographic organizations. The
Department of Fisheries and Oceans is leading the way in the
development of new tools and techniques in partnership with
industry.
This will continue as the development serves two purposes. The
first is to improve the efficiency with which the department does its
work which is in line with government program review initiatives.
The second purpose, through the transfer of technology to the
private sector, is to help to foster the growth of Canadian industries
specializing in this field.
I will mention some of those industries. One of the most exciting
new contributions, and this is within fisheries and oceans, is the
development of the electronic chart display information system
which allows mariners to navigate from a video screen array
combining a digital chart with a radar display of shipping,
navigational aids, coastline and other features. Canadian ocean
industries continue to lead the way in areas of oceans technology
and in many other areas.
In the area of remote sensing Canadian industry has developed
the compact airborne spectrometer imaging sensor for cost
effective aircraft based monitoring of capelin spawning, coastal
habitat and algal blooms. This technology was developed under
contract to Canadian industry based on technology from the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans fluorescence line imager
projects.
Three Canadian companies have been exploiting the technology.
Itres Ltd. in Calgary is producing, selling and servicing it
worldwide. Borstad and Associates Ltd. have developed algorithms
for interpreting CASI data into quantitative coastal zone
information products and provide a monitoring and information
service. AGI Ariel Geomatics of British Columbia collects,
processes and interprets airborne imagery for environmental uses.
All of these companies are developing collaborative
arrangements with international partners to penetrate the coastal
zone market niche in global environmental information services.
The Gable Group is another successful Canadian firm
developing products for markets in oceanographic and freshwater
monitoring and conservation and industrial applications such as
moisture and heat measurement systems for irrigation, forestry and
ground water pollution.
There are concerns for instance that salmon stocks are threatened
by overfishing or poorly managed restocking and by the adverse
effects of environmental pollution. For salmon the better
management of the fish resources requires the availability of data
on the origin of the fish, their migration patterns, the nutrients and
pollutants they encounter during their life. An innovative new
method to supply precise, reliable data for salmon migration
studies has been developed by Elemental Research Inc. This
company's product can measure the inorganic elemental content of
fish tissue, bones and scales to the highest possible levels of
sensitivity.
The need to make Canada's coastal waters safer and more
accessible has been recognized by Mr. Bruce Seligman who has
developed the tracked amphibious vehicle, ARKTOS. The Beta
prototype has been used by Transport Canada, the Canadian Coast
Guard, and more recently the Atlantic Geoscience Centre in Nova
Scotia. Watercraft Offshore has successfully achieved over $6
million worth of contracts over the past few years with China.
The list can go on. The future of these new industries is indeed
bright. With the oceans act and the oceans management strategy it
will be even brighter.
Countries ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea will have to map their 200 mile offshore exclusive
economic zone. With Canada's demonstrated leadership in this
field many of these nations will turn to Canadian companies to
assist in meeting those requirements.
As the world's population grows and society becomes more
industrialized, demands on the aquatic environment increase the
stakes are more costly and guesswork becomes more dangerous.
The oceans act furthers Canada's commitment to Canadian
ocean industries and ensures the technology continues to flow
between governments and industries as partnerships are further
developed.
15060
(1305 )
I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation for the benefit of all Canadians.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak on this very important
bill in Parliament today. I am very privileged to have the
opportunity to do so.
I will very quickly cover the purposes of the bill as I see it. I will
make a few comments with respect to the concern this party has for
the people of the region that is most closely identified on the east
coast with the ocean itself.
To begin, the bill is an excellent piece of work. It does what
experts on the sea have been talking about. It should have been
done a long time ago. Even before I get into the main objectives of
the bill, it has to be looked at against the backdrop of the kind of
country Canada is.
There is no question Canada is a maritime nation. We have three
seas as our main borders. We have the longest navigable coastline
in the world. We have the longest non-navigable coastline in the
world.
If one adds up the water space not including the Great Lakes
which themselves comprise a large percentage of the fresh water in
the world, it is a pretty large piece of territory if one extends out to
the 200-mile economic zone and follows the coast all along and
includes the Arctic waters.
The responsibility for the management of that piece of property,
sea property and the resources beneath, is tremendous. It involves
close co-ordination to ensure we are getting the most effective
management we can.
Canada has had many departments involved with the
management of the seas. We have the Canadian forces, with the
navy; the solicitor general with the marine aspects of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police; the old DFO as it was before this bill
was conceived. Environment Canada has been doing surveys off
the coast. The coast guard has been responsible for navigation and
safety and keeping the sea routes open. Other departments have had
peripheral concerns and interests.
The main purpose of this bill is to establish a framework to
support the new oceans management regime for Canada and to
consolidate the federal responsibility for Canada's oceans. The key
word here is consolidation.
The other aspect of this bill that is very important is that it
recognizes in domestic law Canada's jurisdiction over its maritime
zones. That has been a very long time in coming.
Without wanting to sound partisan about this, the actions that
were taken by the government with respect to the extension of
jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile limit out to the nose and tail of the
bank, which was not ours by accident of geography, is now in effect
ours. Bill C-29 was passed in the House last year very quickly with
the unanimous support of all parties, passed quickly by the Senate
and subsequently recognized in the United Nations as being right,
valid and proper.
One other thing the bill does is develop a new approach to
managing the oceans and their resources. In that regard I want to
pick one example. On the east coast of Newfoundland, Memorial
University has what is considered by all those in the field of
oceanography and marine sciences not just in Canada, not just in
North America but throughout the world as being truly a centre of
excellence.
It has scientific laboratories. It has the venue, the Logy Bay
Research Station, the sea tunnel to test various sea foils, excellence
again not just in Canada but throughout the world. It is one of the
few resources of that nature that exists. It contains the pilotage
training simulator which I had the opportunity, with some of the
members of the defence committee, to witness. Certainly the
reality factor was so high that one would find it difficult not
believing one was not at sea.
These are a few examples of the elements of the Centres of
Excellence that exist at Memorial University in St. John's,
Newfoundland. I am very proud to have been associated with that
over the years with some of my other colleagues and would
hopefully continue to do so.
(1310 )
I want to address another aspect of this which is under the
purview of ocean management and is certainly very much
involved. This has to do with a statement made earlier by the
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, I think half in jest but I
know with an element of seriousness. Because of that I felt
constrained to respond to the concerns he raised in all seriousness.
I remind the House that in 1992 the cod fishery, after a bad year
in 1991 because of ice that persisted all year, essentially had to be
declared a failure. The previous government implemented a
program called the northern cod assistance and recovery program
to last for two years from 1992 with the hope that the northern cod
stock would return. Regrettably, as we all know in the House, this
has not happened.
This is a matter of fact. It is generally not known that the
previous government-I make this point to make another
point-had made no allowance for a replacement for that program
in the
15061
event the northern cod had not recovered and said so. The minister
of the day in St. John's indicated to the Evening Telegram that the
government could not really be expected to continue to provide the
kind of compensation that was involved should the NCARP
program not succeed.
When we became government we found that the budget and the
books did not account for any money in the program to look after
the failure of that program should the northern code not return. It
was through the compassion of this government and the work of
many of us in Atlantic Canada, spearheaded by the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and many of his colleagues in cabinet that
only new money was found in the first budget: $1.9 billion for the
Atlantic strategy program, TAGS, as it is referred to. That program
is not a perfect program but there are 39,000 people who depend on
TAGS in the hopes the cod fishery will return.
Mr. Hermanson: The program is a failure.
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the hon. member repeat
himself. I am glad he did because members of his party have stood
up in the House and suggested this program is no good and it
should be scrapped.
Ms. Catterall: The Reform Party?
Mr. Mifflin: The Reform Party. Reform Party members have
actually stood in this House and said that program should be
scrapped. The only thing I have to say to the hon. member or other
hon. members from that side of the House is if they believe this
should be the case and they want to revisit Atlantic Canada I
suggest they be really up front with Atlantic Canadians and make
the point they are making here, that they do not agree with the
TAGS program and that it should be scrapped.
I have another concern as an Atlantic Canadian which is related
to oceans policy because it is related to the well-being of Atlantic
Canadians: the Reform Party's attitude toward the regional
program that we rely on so heavily, the ACOA program. Again,
members of the other party-I am not sure about the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster-have been very vociferous in saying
that we should scrap the ACOA program while naming some of the
people that have benefited. What audacity.
I can give two examples of successes in my riding. For one
example I have to quote the name and for the second example my
constituent would prefer that I do not use his name but he will
recognize the business of which I speak.
The White Hills in Clarenville is a world class skiing resort.
Through the negotiation of $2.9 million, mostly ACOA money, it
has been able to do with the resort what would not have been
possible thereby bringing many people, not just from
Newfoundland but from eastern Canada, St. Pierre et Miquelon to
come visit that area and to spread their money in the distribution
centre of Clarenville, thereby benefiting from it.
Second, I have a young man in my riding who without
government help established a lumber business not many years
ago. Through recent assistance by ACOA of not much money, he
was able to develop the new piece of equipment which allowed him
to export three times what he was exporting without this ACOA
grant.
I do not need any lectures from the Reform Party about what we
should be doing for Atlantic Canadians. One of the things that we
are doing for Atlantic Canadians includes those factors which are
contained in Bill C-98, oceans management.
(1315 )
Instead of decrying members on this side and decrying the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his colleagues for trying to
use of these programs beneficially through consolidation and more
effective measures, they should be getting on their feet to
congratulate them.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise to speak to the bill and to the issues raised by the
hon. member who just spoke. He was talking about the supposed
benefits of the ACOA program, more government subsidies and so
on.
I should like to tell the hon. member what I discovered in my
recent trip to the Atlantic provinces and what some of the
fishermen are saying. I do not claim it was an exhaustive trip, but I
did find interesting some of the things they mentioned about the
efforts that should be made by the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans to decentralize and to provide a better service to fishermen.
When I was in Antigonish they told me that a few short years ago
they had two employees of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
who took the time to deliver tags for their lobster traps right to their
boats. Now there are 37 employees working out of some office and
the fishermen have to go to Halifax to get their tags. This is not a
streamlining of services. This is not a slimmed down bureaucracy.
If the minister were keen on providing a better service at a better
price and more cost efficiently, there would be widespread support.
The reason there is so much cynicism about the bill as one step
of many similar steps is that the bureaucracy continues to increase
and service continues to go down. Fishermen on the west coast and
on the east coast are having difficulty finding a DFO person on the
enforcement side in the field. Yet there are many people who seem
to be stuck in an office and not providing services.
User fees will be allowed under the bill. The fishermen are
saying that they do not mind paying user fees for the government
services they use. However the government, not just in this
department but in other departments too, continues to expand the
requirements placed on the backs of fishermen, farmers and
business people. The government continues to expand and charge
the people. In other words it becomes a user pay bureaucracy.
15062
The businesses have no say in what services are provided. The
government continues to throw more people and more money at
a problem and then doubles the fees. It is not a user fee for a finite
service. It is just: ``Let us tax these poor guys, call it a user fee
or a licence fee, jack them up and see if they go out of business''.
If the government were sincere about helping out Atlantic
Canadians and British Columbia fishermen with the Fisheries Act
there are a couple of things it could do. It could provide services in
the field.
I have an article from the Vancouver Sun about the DFO. It states
that John Fraser's report on the Fraser River sockeye indicated that
the DFO nearly destroyed the salmon fishery in British Columbia
last year through mismanagement and a shocking lack of
enforcement.
If the government wants to re-establish some credibility with
west coast fishermen at all levels, whether sports, aboriginal or
commercial fishermen, it would have some enforcement people in
the field to make sure the rules are enforced. It has no credibility on
the west coast.
On the east coast it is a similar problem. Through successive
years of federal government mismanagement it has managed to
pretty well destroy certain parts of that valuable fishery. The people
on the east coast do not run around saying: ``Thank you, Mr. Tobin,
for the turbot'', even though we are all glad that the pillaging of
that resource is not going on any longer.
(1320 )
What they are really saying is thanks to the federal government
for destroying what used to be one of the backbones of the
Canadian economy and still is, through no help from the federal
government, an important part of a maritimer's life.
If the government wanted to help it could get off the backs and
out of the pockets of fishermen and let them get on with life. It is
not only fishermen when we talk about ACOA grants. I heard a
member from the maritimes make a statement the other day:
``Thank goodness for regional development grants. They are the
way to prosperity. We will get more regional grants''.
If that were the case the maritime provinces would be the most
prosperous provinces in the world. The trouble is the government
has not yet caught on to the basic economic fact of what is best to
promote business, to promote diversity and to promote fellows like
the hon. member was mentioning who want to export around the
world. We should say to that person: ``Listen, I will offer you low
tax rates because I am not wasting your money. I will offer you less
government regulations so that you can have a chance to put a
business together easily. I will make sure that the Department of
the Environment does not take three years to do a study when you
want to start a mine and that there will be rapid approval
processes''.
Why not co-ordinate with the provincial governments so it is not
overlapped and driven from Ottawa instead of being driven from
the provinces where it should be? Then perhaps those people would
have a chance to diversify, to get out in the world and do what they
want to do? They used to be able to do it before the federal
government stepped in and started kicking butt. If it would allow
people in the maritime provinces to exert their free enterprise
spirit, to go back to the roots that made them strong and the most
vibrant part of Canada at that time, we would see a prosperous
maritimes.
If we continue with expanding ACOA, giving more grants and
having a bureaucracy in the DFO that will not even deliver the tags
but will sit back and ask for more user fees, it is hopeless. The
government seems to have lost its sense of direction.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the
recorded division on the amendment stands deferred until Monday,
October 2, at the time normally provided for daily adjournment.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to call it
1:46 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being deemed to be 1.46 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
>
15063
15063
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider
revitalizing investment in exploration in Canada and in Quebec by providing
for fiscal incentives, including flow-through shares.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on June 5, I had the pleasure of speaking to
Motion M-292 tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for
Timiskaming-French River, which dealt with mining incentives
to help the industry replenish its ore reserves quickly enough.
Without consulting each other, my colleague and I tabled in this
House similar motions on mining. This shows that there are many
stakeholders urging the government and the Minister of Finance to
analyze all possible scenarios and to adopt a policy to revitalize
mining exploration.
(1325 )
[English]
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and
apologize for interrupting my colleague who is speaking on his
private member's motion. However, I wanted to clarify that the
deferral of the vote is to 6 p.m. on Monday.
The Deputy Speaker: It is so noted.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Speaker, that is the message I wish to convey
today through this motion, which says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider
revitalizing investment in exploration in Canada and in Quebec by providing
for fiscal incentives, including flow-through shares.
We have noted for a long time how little mining exploration is
done in both Quebec and Canada. Therefore, we must act quickly to
revitalize mining exploration throughout this country in order to
replenish ore reserves in this industry. This situation is mainly due
to the fact that junior mining companies, which underpin mining
exploration, cannot raise enough public funds to carry out their
exploration work, while major companies, which have the money
needed for exploration, spend an increasingly important part of
their exploration budget in developing countries.
The advantage is that those countries already have listed minable
sites, while Canada offers few new deposits ready for mining. I
remind the House that the committee on natural resources held
hearings on this matter last fall and made nine recommendations
that were supported by all the parties represented on this
committee.
Unfortunately, the government decided to disregard all the work
done by the committee and all the evidence we heard there. That is
how this government operates. It has given the fifth report of the
committee entitled ``Lifting Canadian Mining Off the Rocks'' the
following response: ``Keeping Canadian Mining on the Rocks''.
I doubt that, by rejecting almost all of the recommendations in
this report, the ministers, both of finance and of natural resources,
were really aware of the true effect of their decisions on mining
exploration in Canada and in Quebec.
All the stakeholders in mining exploration are disappointed that
this government did not agree with any of their recommendations,
that were based on their expertise and knowledge of mining. I
would like to remind the government that more than a quarter of
Canadian trade is based on the natural resource sector and that it is
time that the government saw the mining industry as an important
means of ensuring economic development in our society by
achieving the national priorities, which are, according to the
Liberal government, employment and growth.
Mines that will be closing in a few years as a result of the
depletion of their reserves will not be replaced if new sites are not
discovered. This will cause major layoffs and will have a very
negative impact on the Canadian economy, especially in mining
regions, where metal processing, transportation and other
infrastructures will be hard hit.
An immediate response is needed if we are to reverse this trend
by the year 2000, since it takes five to seven years on average
between the discovery of a mine and start up of production. Failing
this, the industry will gradually disappear. Renewal of the reserves
is urgently needed; the mining industry is facing one of the hardest
challenges it has had to deal with in many years.
As a result of the shift of mining investment to other countries,
Canada's known mineral reserves have decreased. In 1992, 28
mines closed and only 8 opened. There are many reasons for this,
but the trend must be reversed or the industry will be totally gone
within twenty years.
Base metal reserves have been decreasing since 1980 and are
unlikely to be replaced at an adequate rate in the near future. The
industry has done its part. On numerous occasions it has voiced its
concerns to the Government of Canada, which rather than
facilitating the process of adapting to the new international
competition, particularly from third world countries, has in fact
added to the problems by allowing the investment climate in the
mining sector to deteriorate compared to the competition.
15064
(1330)
The industry is working hard to ensure its survival. The
economic and political context has not kept pace in order to
encourage the industry to remain in Canada. Declining mining
investments in our country are linked to a number of growing
concerns.
To name but a few of those concerns: heavy financial burdens,
compared to the countries of the south of course, particularly taxes
and charges unrelated to profits; uncertainty and delays in
environmental assessment and approval procedures; regulatory
overlap between levels of government and between departments,
creating needless difficulties; reduced access; uncertainty about
tenure of mineral titles; and lastly, increased financial requirements
to guarantee restoration.
For there to be any recovery in the mining industry, an incentive
plan must be promoted for mining exploration in Canada, similar
but better controlled than the one in place in the 1980s.
Even if base metal reserves are in decline, there is still immense
geological potential in Canada, Quebec in particular. The recent
opening of the Louvicourt Mine in my riding confirms the potential
of the mining industry in Quebec and Abitibi and the expertise of
those who discovered, developed and financed the mine and those
who now operate it.
It also confirms that governments were right to create the
flow-through share system, which helped to finance the initial
exploration work leading to the discovery of the mine in 1989.
This particular mine, with $300 million invested to bring it to the
production stage, will provide more than 350 direct jobs for the
next fifteen years at least. It is the result of a joint effort during the
eighties by the federal and Quebec governments to encourage
mineral exploration on sites of former mines that were no longer in
production and thus deemed unlikely to have sufficient potential as
a source of major new discoveries.
New technologies and adequate funding were instrumental in
discovering this copper, zinc, gold and silver mine, whose mineral
extraction capacity is assessed at 4,000 tonnes per day, while recent
finds near the site may extend the lifespan of this mine to 25 years.
Its potential classifies Louvicourt as a world class mine.
Three more major projects will start up in my region in the next
two years, thanks to the same flow-through shares from the
eighties, and I am referring to the Grevet, Raglan and Troilus
projects. Raglan in northern Quebec is becoming the largest
potential site for copper ore in Canada.
The role of mineral exploration is to find other Louvicourts or
Raglans. The average lifespan of a mine is about 11 years, and
since it takes between five and ten years from the discovery of a
mine to the production stage, we must start today to find the mines
of the year 2000.
Many world class mines remain to be discovered in Quebec.
This is clear from the examples I just mentioned. Only a small
portion of Quebec's territory has been developed, and we could
discover mines of this calibre, in practically any mining region in
Quebec and Canada.
We have the human and technological resources to make further
discoveries. For some years, however, the amount of exploration
has been insufficient to renew mineral reserves because of
competition from those same Third World countries and
insufficient levels of public funding. The discovery of new mines is
synonymous with economic development.
Louvicourt and Raglan are a clear indication that the federal
government should increase tax incentives, already provided by the
Quebec government, for preliminary mineral exploration in order
to replace base metal reserves which are running out in this
country.
The lack of mineral exploration in Canada is particularly
disturbing, considering the general uncertainty as to Canada's
commitment to encouraging mineral exploration and mining
operations within its territory.
The uncertainty rises from the fact that regulations for access to
sites are becoming increasingly restrictive, while environmental
regulations or criteria are subject to duplication or diverging
interpretations. In addition, obtaining an operating permit has
become an increasingly lengthy process.
(1335)
Exploration companies can no longer be sure that their
exploration rights automatically include mining rights. The
impression is that they have the right to engage in exploration, but
until they have spent millions of dollars to identify an
economically viable ore body, they do not know whether they will
be able to extract ore and under what conditions.
In this context, there are three ways in which we could deal with
the problem: re-establish public financing of mining exploration;
improve the efficiency of exploration and make Canada more
attractive to investors in the mining sector by improving fiscal,
environmental and access regulations.
The flow-through share system has shown over the years that, at
least in Quebec, it has made a significant contribution to the
discovery of a number of mines. If we consider the 26 base metal or
precious metal mines that were in production in Quebec in 1994,
flow-through shares were either entirely or partly responsible for
financing the discovery of 14 of these mines. Still in the case of
base or precious metals, this applies to the discovery of nine out of
ten mining projects now in the development or pre-production
stage.
15065
Considering these discoveries, the flow-through share system
has shown it is worthwhile for governments, since it generates
major economic spinoffs.
Already in September 1982, a report on the Canadian mineral
industry identified five areas of urgency requiring immediate
government intervention; there was urgency then, they said. They
were: preventing further erosion of Canada's economic
competitiveness in certain key areas of mineral production,
including those of copper and nickel; halting and reversing the
depletion of mineral reserves; finding new ideas and developing
technologies, policies and programs to encourage greater
efficiency in mining exploration; reversing the apparent trend of
mining investors, including Canadian multinationals, to drop
Canada in favour of countries in Latin America, Asia or the Pacific
and other areas of development in the world where resources are
plentiful; and, finally, generally creating a political and regulatory
context better suited to maintain industry viability and stimulate
investment in mining exploration.
After 13 years of work by various committees on natural
resources and others and with similar conclusions for problems
which do not seem to have been resolved and after two federal
governments, we are at practically the same point, hence the
urgency and the need to act.
If Canada remains at the forefront in the metals market, it is due
to the low cost of its mining operations attibutable in large measure
to the high level of industry productivity.
The Canadian mineral industry therefore managed to increase its
productivity significantly through the rationalization necessitated
by the recession in the 1980s.
All of the sectors of the mining industry have significantly
increased their productivity by adopting new technologies and
mining methods, developed, for the most part, in Canada.
We must therefore support the industry's effort so as to avoid a
decline in mine reserves and prepare new deposits for mining to
replace those that will eventually be used up.
For many years, the Association des prospecteurs du Québec has
been calling in vain for three measures that would promote mining
exploration: extension of the expenditure period to 12 months in
the year following the year in which the equity was raised and
harmonization by Ottawa; a federal measure whereby only the
capital gain over and above the net purchase cost would be taxable,
something the PDAC is also calling for-Quebec already has a
similar measure-; and greater deductibility of exploration
expenses federally-the rate is currently 100 per cent federally and
175 per cent in Quebec.
Carrying part of work funded in one year over to the next would
not mean any additional expense to the public purse.
To administer this measure, the Association des prospecteurs du
Québec proposes a trust mechanism under a mandate conferred by
the governments on private sector organizations, which would
ensure technical and financial expenditures were justified. The
users would pay the costs of the trust.
(1340)
I have just given a long list of measures which would assist the
mining industry and which would meet the demands of various
groups. Not all are easy to implement in these times of severe
government cutbacks.
However, a large number of them would not cost the public
anything and could be very profitable in the medium run. The
government must learn to distinguish between measures which
involve expenditures and measures which yield dividends for the
public purse.
It is essential to restore a climate conducive to mining
investment in Canada and in Quebec. According to Natural
Resources Canada, data dating back to June 1994 indicate that
Canada's investment in exploration barely reaches 17 per cent of
world spending in that field, while it was 23 per cent in 1991. We
have good grounds to believe that within five years, if nothing is
done to create a favourable climate for mining investment in
Canada, this figure could drop to 10 per cent.
Such data clearly suggest that Canada must do something fast to
reverse this trend. The various levels of government will have to
work together to improve fiscal and environmental regulations, as
well as regulations governing access to land for the mining
exploration industry.
The mining industry can still contribute to the economic
development of a country, as many South American countries
which rely on the expertise and the financing of Canada to develop
their economies have discovered. They know how to attract mining
and exploration companies.
The present outflow of exploration funds and the selling of our
expertise to foreign countries will lead, in Canada in the years to
come, to a reduction of employment in the mining industry and in
associated industries like transportation, and therefore to a
reduction of the share of the mining sector in the Canadian GNP.
I hope that the measures I just proposed, as well as those
proposed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Natural Resources will be considered and implemented as soon as
possible. In Canada and Quebec, we have the mining potential, the
technical know-how and the money to allow our mining industry to
increase its economic contribution, but the government has to be
willing to do its part.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address
the House concerning this motion that the government should
15066
consider revitalizing investment in mining exploration in Canada
by providing fiscal incentives.
[English]
Let me begin by thanking the hon. member for Abitibi for
bringing this matter before the House. The Government of Canada
acknowledges that it is important for all Canadians to recognize
that mining will continue to be a key sector of the Canadian
economy for generations to come.
[Translation]
On behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources, I am pleased to
have this opportunity to be able to tell the House about the
measures that the government is presently taking to maintain or
increase the economic and social benefits Canadians derive from
the mineral and mining exploration sectors.
[English]
Mining directly contributes $20 billion to the national economy
every year and creates more than 300,000 jobs for some 115
communities throughout Canada. It has significant benefits in
almost every other sector of our economy. How many Canadians
know, for example, that toothpaste has five minerals in it or that
sunscreen contains zinc? How many Canadians think of the mining
industry when they add salt to their food or when they switch on
their computers or start their cars?
Simply put, without mining and minerals many of the things we
take for granted today would not exist. The World Bank recently
released a new report ranking all countries on the basis of total
wealth. That report ranked Canada as the second wealthiest nation
in the world when taking into account our vast natural resources.
Mineral exploration is fundamental to a healthy mining sector.
We are witnessing a significant improvement in the fortunes of the
Canadian mining industry, thanks in part to recent increases in
spending on mineral exploration. Total exploration expenditures
for 1994 were $630 million. This total represents an increase of
$150 million, or 32 per cent compared to exploration expenditures
in 1993. Moreover, the favourable trend is continuing, and
spending could approach $675 million in the current year.
(1345)
The amount of flow through share financing to support mineral
exploration in Canada has been on the rise since 1991, when it
totalled $40 million. This indicates the increasingly positive
prospects for the mining industry in Canada. Flow through shares
financing totalled $80 million in 1994 and is projected to be
between $80 million and $90 million this year.
There are other facts that demonstrate a turnaround for the
industry. This year it is expected that 14 new mines will be opened
and that 11 mines will be reopened, representing a net gain of some
700 new jobs. This year could be one of the best years for mining
since 1981 in terms of mine openings. Preliminary data indicates
the outlook for 1996 may be even brighter. In addition, figures
concerning Canada's base metal reserves have been increasing
recently. The Voisey Bay nickel discovery in Labrador has been
cited as one of the world's richest. There has been tremendous
interest and investment in diamond exploration activities. These
are just a few of the highlights of healthy recent activity by the
industry that is stimulating a number of benefits and jobs in
particular.
Let me now turn to the role of the federal government in the
mining and minerals sector. The Government of Canada made
some very difficult choices in the budget, which were made for the
benefit of the country in the long term and did not include any new
tax incentives for any sector of the Canadian economy, including
mining.
Although we cannot afford any new incentive programs, Canada
is still one of the most generous countries in the world when it
comes to encouraging mining exploration activities. At the federal
level all exploration and preproduction development expenses are
fully deductible. In recognition of the special needs and risks of
resource development, the flow through share financing instrument
allows those deductions to be transferred to individual investors.
Provincial governments, as the resource owners, also have an
important role to play in encouraging mineral exploration. Over the
past few years a number of them have taken steps to promote
exploration activities by introducing new tax incentives. Since the
provinces have primary responsibility for determining the pace of
activity within their jurisdictions, these steps are highly
appropriate, in my view.
We believe the mining industry has a strong future in Canada,
but we are also aware the industry faces challenges. During the last
federal election the Liberal Party was the only political party to
release a detailed plan outlining its commitment to the mining
industry. That commitment still stands.
Working closely with the provinces, we will continue to support
and encourage the mining sector in Quebec and in every other
province and territory across Canada. One of the best ways to do
this is to reduce the long term structural impediment to mineral
investment. Many of these impediments were identified by the
Whitehorse mining initiative, an unprecedented multi-stakeholder
initiative that led to a common vision for Canada's mining industry
through shared principles and goals. The federal government was a
full participant in this 18-month exercise.
To help develop an action plan to address the Whitehorse Mining
Initiative issues that fell within federal jurisdiction, the Minister of
Natural Resources has established an advisory committee
composed of representatives from the mining industry, labour,
aborigi-
15067
nal and environmental groups. One of the committee's first tasks
will be to provide commentary and advice on the sustainable
development and minerals metals issues paper that was released for
discussion in September in Vancouver.
The Government of Canada has already taken several steps to
address the most fundamental industry concerns. For example, in
the 1994 budget we introduced a deduction for mine reclamation
trust fund contributions. In ``Building a More Innovative
Economy'', our government-wide plan for economic growth and
job creation, we identified six major sectors of the economy that
will benefit from substantive long term improvements to the
federal regulatory regime. One of the six sectors is the Canadian
mining industry.
Mining sector areas under active consideration include changes
to the administration of the Fisheries Act, land use and related
decision making, the definition of waste, regulatory regimes north
of 60, regulatory impact analysis, and toxic management. As well,
important improvements on the issues of overlap and duplication
may be achieved through the harmonization initiative of the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
(1350)
We believe that the less costly and more efficient regulatory
regime that we are trying to achieve will lead to an improved
investment climate that is respectful of sustainable development
principles. I emphasize our commitment to environmental
protection will not be compromised.
The Government of Canada is already making an effective
contribution to improve the conditions that are required to ensure
that exploration activity will continue to rise in this country. The
harmonization of environmental assessment regimes between
federal and provincial orders of government and regulatory reform
measures through the ``Building a More Innovative Economy''
initiatives are real and meaningful efforts to reduce overlap and
duplication. The goal is to provide stable and predictable
conditions that will attract more investment for mineral exploration
and for economic activity throughout Canada. The result is that this
activity will stimulate new opportunities in Canada and help to put
more Canadians back to work.
The Government of Canada is confident that the prospects for
mining in Canada will continue to improve and that mining will
realize the full potential of Canada's rich geology in a manner that
is consistent with the principles of sustainable development. As a
result Canadians will be able to enjoy the many benefits that come
from a strong mining industry for many generations to come.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to follow the parliamentary secretary. Obviously there is
no time for a major intercession.
I find it interesting that one of the other initiatives of the federal
government in response to how to keep mining off the rocks was
that the standing committee made about 20 recommendations last
year that an all-party committee agreed would help to spur on the
mining industry within Canada, and the government chose to
ignore every single one. They were good words, but I do not think
there is a lot of proof in the pudding.
We are here to address the motion of the hon. member for
Abitibi:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider
revitalizing investment in exploration in Canada and in Quebec by providing
for fiscal incentives, including flow through shares.
In my capacity as the party critic for natural resources, it is a
privilege to speak to this issue.
Flow through shares are one way to subsidize industry. They cost
the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a few years ago, with
only a very few positive results.
We in the Reform Party have called for a reduction in
government subsidies to business. We feel that if it is in the
market's interest to explore for more oil, gas, diamonds, coal, or
whatever it is, the market will marshal the funds necessary to go
ahead and do the exploration.
What is the role of the federal government in this regard? Does it
have a role? I believe it does. It remains for the federal government
to provide a regulatory regime for industry that clears the way for
industry to go ahead with sustainable development.
I will clarify what I mean by sustainable development.
Development means we want to develop our natural resources. It
does not mean preservation; it means sustainable development.
Development is a key word. Canadians depend on natural resources
for a huge proportion of our jobs, our income, and our standard of
living. Sustainable means we want to continue to develop them for
decades to come, and in order to do that we have to deal very
carefully with our environment. This requires a balance between
the two.
A Price Waterhouse study released yesterday dealing with
British Columbia's forest practices code illustrates how this
balance is faring in Canada. Enforcing the new code will cost the
economy 46,000 jobs in British Columbia. This shows that Canada
is losing its balance when it comes to sustainability versus
development.
In our concern for sustainability, I believe we are bordering on
hysteria and catering to preservationists instead of people
concerned with sustainable development. We are stifling
development
15068
in our country. This is not the intention of the concept of
sustainable development.
I met yesterday with representatives of the mining association
and listened to the problems they are encountering in their industry.
I will give the House one example. They told me that mining
companies are warned before any exploration takes place that
federal environmental regulators will take a minimum of three
years to approve their application for a mine. Instead of getting one
permit for one mine, a company must go to every federal and
provincial department, official, and bureaucrat in North America to
get separate permits to develop what should be a straightforward
process. This all takes a minimum of three years. In other countries
the same process takes half that time.
(1355)
Is it any wonder that the mining companies I am familiar with,
especially in the British Columbia area, have put so many of their
resources into Chile and other countries where they have friendlier
and more receptive governments?
The old way of doing business was to assist companies by
subsidizing them. Subsidies insulated companies from the market.
In the case of flow through shares, in some cases they caused
exploration to take place where that was costly, unnecessary, and
unproductive. This is what the Department of Finance said in its
report on the subject in October 1994.
The new way of doing business is to encourage development in
an environmentally sustainable way. That requires balance between
our concern for the environment on the one hand and our desire and
necessity to explore and develop our resources for the benefit of all
Canadians.
If sectors of the industry are suffering in Canada, it is not the
fault of the federal government for not subsidizing it. The fault lies
in a regulatory regime, at least partially, that needs streamlining
and co-ordination between different federal and provincial
jurisdictions.
The second thing we need, and I do not want to elaborate on this
too much, is a tax regime in Canada that is competitive with other
nations. We also need, and this is very important, to resolve our
disagreements over land use and tenure. We need to resolve that
with our aboriginal people so we can move forward and establish
stable environmental standards, land use standards, and a tax
regime that is predictable so that mining companies feel
comfortable and confident of investing in our Canadian future.
How many times have we heard industry say that if you just get
off my back as far as taxes go, get out of my hair as far as
regulations and unnecessary duplication go, I will create jobs and
opportunities in this country that will make your head spin. We
hear that time and again. They do not need or want a subsidy.
I am surprised and I might almost say astonished that this
particular motion would come from the member for Abitibi. Let me
paraphrase what he says. He says he wants the federal government
to pour money into subsidies for industry in Canada and in Quebec.
I am surprised, because the member for Abitibi is a member of the
Bloc Quebecois, which as we all know is a political party with only
one purpose, and that is to destroy Canada as we know it by taking
Quebec out of Confederation. It is even more astonishing since
natural resources, by our own Constitution, is and should be in the
purview of the provincial government. Not only that, but in the
middle of his own campaign to destroy the federal government, the
member stands up in the House and asks that the federal
government subsidize more industry in Quebec.
I hope the member understands that people from my riding are
frustrated by this kind of behaviour. This is a good illustration of
Quebec's separatist movement, which lives in a world of illusion, a
fairy tale where one wants to enjoy the best of both worlds.
The separatists have always been of two minds on the subject of
independence. It reminds me of someone who wants to have his
own place, his own car, his own life, but he wants his parents to pay
for it.
With a motion like the member has put forward, I wonder if the
member is really a sovereignist at heart at all. If he really believed
in independence he would be asking the federal government to get
out of Quebec, not subsidize the industry there. Perhaps the
member secretly depends on the family and he does not really want
out of it; he just wants his own apartment.
I believe that most Quebecers take a more mature view of life
and of our country. They recognize that the Canadian house is big
enough for the entire Canadian family to live together in happiness
and prosperity.
The Reform Party agrees with the member for Abitibi in calling
for change. Change is necessary; we all recognize that. However,
we are calling for a new Canada, not a separate nation of Quebec.
We are calling for a new Canada, a Canada built on equality but a
Canada with a smaller federal government role, not a larger one,
where all regions can be satisfied with a less oppressive federal
fiscal framework.
I reiterate to the House and my constituents that I am anxious
that Quebec remain an equal partner within Canada.
Last spring I went down to Montreal. I caught one of the last
games played in the old Montreal Forum. As we were wandering
around in the old part of Montreal before the game and we were
talking to people, they were very friendly. A couple of times people
came up to me on the corner-I guess I obviously was looking for
something at the time-and offered to help us out and give us
directions and so on. I was very impressed. I thought that was a
typically Canadian thing to do. If you see somebody in trouble you
15069
want to help out. In my travels and in talking to many people I have
found that Canadians are basically the same everywhere.
(1400)
The more I talk to francophones the more I realize they have the
same goals and aspirations as people elsewhere in Canada. They
want good jobs with good incomes, safe streets, a fair taxation
system. They want less government bureaucracy in their lives.
They want much the same things as people everywhere else. We
share common values and interests. The language we speak is
really of secondary importance to those major things.
Language is a code. We can speak English or French. We can use
Morse code or a computer language. We can do what we like in that
area. It is just a method of communication. What is important is
what we are communicating, the content of our communication, the
core values we have regardless of the language we use.
I believe that as Canadians we want to continue to communicate
with one another. Quebecers have given their time and energy to
building homes, industries, towns and cities that are among the best
on the entire planet. During the world wars and in our peacekeeping
duties they have spilled their own blood to carry Canadian values
around the world. They see that Canada is the best place in the
world in which to live. I am confident they are going to vote no on
October 30.
In closing, we do not support any motions that call for more
subsidies. That is the old market distorting way of doing business.
We would welcome a motion from the Bloc calling for a better
balance between sustainability and development in Canada. That is
supportable everywhere. Most of all, regardless of where we are in
Canada, we invite Quebecers, including Bloc members, to join
hands with Canadians, whether we are English Canadians,
Japanese, Italian or of whatever descent to build a new and united
Canada together.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform member had a lot to say about the Bloc, but I just want
to make a quick comment. He said that Quebecers are polite and
that is true. We are extremely nice and polite and we know that.
However, I do not agree with the member when he says that
language is a secondary issue. Language is a reflection of one's
culture on the North American continent, and it is certainly not a
secondary issue for Quebecers.
I cannot help but wonder: If language is a secondary issue for the
member, that means he attaches little importance to us;
consequently, why does he want us to remain part of Canada? The
only true reason I can find is of an economic nature. This is why
we are important to western and atlantic provinces, and why they
want us to remain part of Canada. I just figured out why they do not
want us to become sovereign.
There is no doubt in my mind that natural resources are, for a
future country like Quebec but also Canada, a very important
economic tool.
A country that has no natural resources or that does not pay
proper attention to their development will, sooner or later,
experience serious problems in the context of global competition.
Of course, its economy will be seriously affected, but one must
remember that a country's natural resources are an asset for the
whole community, not only for some individuals or large
corporations.
Natural resources in both Quebec and in Canada belong to their
respective communities. If they are developed for the well-being of
the people, they are central to development.
Not only do they create jobs, but they also greatly contribute to
economic growth.
(1405)
When our raw materials are transformed here into finished
products, they create a very important collective wealth. One must
never forget that a job created in the natural resource sector has a
multiplying effect on the whole economy, as long as we are not
only raw material suppliers, as we have been too often in forestry.
We ship wood from the Matapedia area to Montreal and Toronto,
then finished wood products are shipped back to us.
In the mining sector, the discovery of minable deposits, or
exploration, is at the very beginning of this potential chain. But for
that chain to be started, we should, as my colleague for Abitibi
suggested, consider revitalizing investment in exploration in
Canada, notably by providing for fiscal incentives, including
flow-through shares. Quebec is a good example.
To generate every possible benefit, natural resources
development planning must be consistent and, surely, ongoing. It
would be wrong to think that we can leave this to the private sector
alone, as some trends of thought would have it. It is necessary for
governments, through their tax system, and flow-through shares
among other incentives, to foster investment in exploration. In
Canada, over the past few decades, we have seen a clear decline in
the exploration and the processing of our natural resources,
particularly in mining. We are now making a fresh start. All the
better.
Several issues are at the root of the problems facing Quebec and
all of Canada in this major sector of our economy. First and not the
least is the constant fluctuation of the global markets, which is
indeed a very sensitive issue. Sudden fluctuations of the world
economy have greatly affected the development of our natural
resources. When the prices of natural resources go up and down
15070
like in a roller coaster, massive investment in that industry does not
seem very attractive.
The other problem has to do, of course, with the general
economic slowdown. When the demand is decreasing, exploration
and transformation also slow down. Another important element is
the inefficiency of exploration incentives. The current tax system is
not in sync with the real objectives. We must change it, for example
by providing flow-through shares.
Most of the stakeholders in the mining industry we have met
during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources agree that the current measures are not very efficient.
Also, they do not meet their goal, which is to promote exploration
and discovery of new deposits.
Some stakeholders think that the current measures only reward
the big corporations, who can unfortunately deduct part of their
operating costs from their income tax. The inefficiency of current
tax measures is only increased by all the red tape due to the federal
government infringing upon an exclusively provincial area of
jurisdiction, as enshrined in the constitution.
Because of the lack of program co-ordination in this field as in
many others, developers as well as producers waste a lot of time
and energy. Having to go constantly from one level of government
to the other to get authorizations, to ensure compliance with
existing policies or to adjust to the different tax standards of each
government, to try to understand and, especially, to make people
understand is far from productive for businesses. This waste of
time is reflected in substantial losses.
In the Bloc Quebecois, we wish that once and for all the federal
government would fully recognize the jurisdiction of Quebec and
the other provinces over natural resources. We want Ottawa to give
the provinces control over natural resources and to truly encourage
investment in exploration through tax incentives such as the
flow-through shares, for example, in co-operation with the
provinces.
(1410)
I do not understand the federal government's attitude. Why is it
trying so hard to take over resource management from Quebec and
the other provinces? Why is it always sticking its nose in areas
where it has no business? Why is it not working with the provinces
instead of competing with them, and, moreover, using our money,
our tax dollars to do so?
Why is it not adjusting the federal tax system in co-operation
with the provinces to make it more responsive to the real needs of
the industry? This is what we want to know. Is it because, as certain
federalist big guns have said, those of us from Quebec and the
provinces are incapable of doing the work or simply of delivering?
On the contrary, we, Quebecers, are perfectly capable of
managing our own natural resources. Our social and political
institutions have a long democratic tradition. Our people are well
educated, and we can count on a multitude of workers capable of
doing all the jobs in natural resource exploration and processing.
We have very abundant natural resources. Over the years,
Quebec has acquired the ability to act as it sees fit in organizing
development, and its tax system strongly supports its industry.
With the help of adjusted fiscal programs and so-called
flow-through shares, Quebec has been able to further diversify its
economy in areas such as culture, research and processing.
Quebec has changed over the last thirty years, and we can no
longer tolerate that our natural resources be practically given away,
as was unfortunately the case in the past.
Through our tax system, we have encouraged Quebecers to
invest in their own province. The experience of the development of
Northern Quebec has left indelible marks. Hopefully, we will never
again see foreign industries shuut down towns and villages, and
abandon entire regions. As Quebecers, our success in the area of
natural resources certainly no longer depends on foreign investors
or on federalism.
On the contrary, our success is the result of our imagination, our
initiative, our actions, our creativity, our decisions, our efforts and
the desire of Quebecers to play an active role in their own
economy.
The tax measures introduced by successive Quebec governments
have played a very important role, and all of Canada readily
recognizes it.
Moreover, these tax measures and our own successes have
helped to reduce our dependency toward foreign investors. While
in the rest of Canada, the federal government begged foreign
investors to develop natural resources, we, in Quebec, took control
of our destiny. At present, the French-speaking Quebecers control
more than half of the industrial and commercial corporations in
Quebec. This is remarkable. This is almost twice as much as 30
years ago. In Canada, we see the opposite happening.
During these 30 years, a growing number of Canadian owned
companies have fallen into foreign investors hands. Any country
that lets foreigners extract its natural resources is no longer a
master in its own house.
Finally, I know very well that all these requests I just made will
not amount to much. Even if it would have us believe otherwise the
present government is very centralizing.
15071
We of the Bloc Quebecois want our neighbour, Canada, to
remain very strong, especially in the mining area, since it will be
one of our economic partners after October 30.
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, since no other member
wants to speak and since the motion has not been declared a votable
item, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired.
[English]
The House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. I hope
everyone has a good weekend.
(The House adjourned at 2.14 p.m.)