CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 11, 1996
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 3627
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 3631
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3633
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3633
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3635
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3635
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 3636
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3637
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3637
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3637
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3638
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3638
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3638
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3640
Bill C-45. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3640
Bill C-301. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3640
Motion for concurrence in 21st report. 3640
Bill C-13. Consideration of Senate amendment 3642
Motion for second reading of amendment andconcurrence 3642
(Motion agreed to, amendment read the second timeand passed.) 3642
Bill C-26. Consideration resumed of report stage 3642
Motions Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53,56 and 73 3642
Division on Motion No. 36 deferred 3649
Division on Motion No. 44 deferred 3649
Division on Motion No. 45 deferred 3649
Division on Motion No. 50 deferred 3649
Division on Motion No. 53 deferred 3649
Division on Motion No. 73 deferred 3650
Motions Nos. 69, 71 and 92 3650
Division on Motion No. 54 deferred 3656
Division on Motion No. 55 deferred 3656
Division on Motion No. 69 deferred 3656
Division on Motion No. 71 deferred 3656
Division on Motion No. 65 deferred 3662
Motions Nos. 67 and 68 3662
Bill C-32. Consideration resumed of motion 3663
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 190; Nays, 36 3664
(Motion agreed to, and bill referred to a committee.) 3664
Bill C-17. Consideration resumed of motion 3664
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 186; Nays, 40 3665
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a
committee.) 3666
Bill C-212. Motion for second reading 3666
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 3669
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 3673
Bill C-26. Consideration resumed of report stage 3674
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3676
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3687
Appendix-Address of His Excellency Ernesto Zedillo,President of
the United Mexican States 3697
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3698
3627
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 11, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for the second year in a row an Aurora crew from CFB
Greenwood in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants has won the
Fincastle Trophy.
At a recent competition in New Zealand our Canadian contingent
beat out crews from Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand in a
competition testing the surveillance skills of maritime patrol
crews.
As well, the Aurora crew won the Fellowship Trophy, awarded
for teamwork and professionalism, and the Maintenance Trophy
for professionalism and dedication to duty.
I am extremely proud of the accomplishments of these Canadian
Armed Forces members. They are excellent ambassadors for our
country. I believe their achievements are representative of the
teamwork, professionalism and dedication to excellence Canadian
forces are known for both at home and abroad.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to draw attention to the visit to Canada of the President of
Mexico, Mr. Ernesto Zedillo. I am delighted that Canada and
Mexico enjoy such excellent relations. There has been a
remarkable increase in economic exchanges under NAFTA,
notably those with Quebec.
The two governments need to take advantage of this meeting to
reiterate their rejection of the American Helms-Burton bill, which
creates a dangerous precedent. What is more, Mexico and Canada
must continue to join battle against drug trafficking and to develop
effective economic, social and environmental policies to improve
the standard of living of our populations.
The Bloc Quebecois acknowledges Mexico's efforts to get out of
its economic crisis, and we hope the Mexican people will be able to
reap the benefit of those efforts as soon as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker:
Farmer David Sawatsky had just won his case,
The court said: ``Hey, wheat board, get out of his face'',
The feds used French law because they say we are bound,
But Sawatsky stood strong and held his ground.
But only forty-five minutes is the time that it took,
For the minister and his cronies to rewrite the book,
Now back to court the grain farmer must go,
And fight for his rights to sell the seeds he had sown.
Again he will try to beat these Goliaths of gaff,
Give farmers freedom-get out of their path,
This is the nineties and the Liberals should know,
That producers want change, so the monopoly must go.
When will these old Grits give farmers a say,
Just look to Alberta-they voted for yea.
``I promise a plebiscite'', came from the aggie minister's chops,
Another broken Liberal promise-maybe he should join Sheila Copps.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
president of Mexico's address to Parliament has given the Liberals
one more chance to sing the praise of the NAFTA, the free trade
agreement they were elected to oppose.
Canadians who were suspicious about the NAFTA during the last
election still ask who really benefits from the NAFTA. Ordinary
Canadians? No, wages have not been falling fast enough for
investors so Canadian manufacturing jobs continue to move to low
wage Mexico. Just ask the workers cast off at Kenworth in
Montreal.
Have ordinary Mexicans benefited? No, their standard of living
was decimated after the peso crisis and, as reported today by the
Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America,
human rights abuses continue to plague the political system, and
not just in Chiapas.
New Democrats speak for those who want to build a North
American prosperity that is widely enjoyed by all the citizens of
our countries, not only by the financial markets. At the very least
the Canadian government needs to press the Zedillo government to
respect human rights. The NAFTA needs an enforceable code of
3628
labour rights and enforceable environmental standards that would
hold up a basic standard of responsible corporate citizenship.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when former Liberal leader Steve Neary died in his sleep
last Friday, Newfoundland lost a renowned native son, the poor and
the downtrodden lost their most passionate champion, and I lost a
close friend.
Steve Neary gave a lifetime to public service. As a labour leader
and then as a politician he quickly earned a deserved reputation as a
populist and a communicator.
When I first went into politics Steve was one of my mentors. His
straight talk, his uncanny ability to get right to the heart of an issue
with lightning speed and his disdain for people who take
themselves too seriously made me an early convert to his brand of
politics.
Steve's unblinking courage, his stubborn persistence, his
unwavering loyalty and his non-stop love of life will be his legacy
to us.
Steve, we miss you already.
* * *
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kitchener
representatives of the local branch of Transport 2000, notably
George Bechtel and Mary Pappert.
Yesterday morning I had the pleasure of accepting letters from
them which express concern for the maintenance of VIA Rail
service to Kitchener and the potential impact its privatization may
have in the area. Residents have long held the belief that its rail
service is essential to the life of our community.
Clearly the local representatives have demonstrated an important
role for ensuring VIA service to the area. Indicative of this was a
recent promise from Terry Ivany, president of VIA Rail, assuring
us of its continuation, which is excellent news for Kitchener.
While the Government of Canada proceeds with downsizing and
streamlining, I am extremely encouraged by the efforts of
Kitchener's local branch of Transport 2000. Much of what has been
achieved thus far in retaining train service would not have been
possible without its help.
Whatever the final outcome on the issue of rail service, I assure
our friends at Transport 2000 that our combined efforts in both
Kitchener and Ottawa will ensure for the future a viable and
effective rail service to the area.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
was exciting to witness yesterday's presentation by the President of
the Treasury Board of 12 awards of excellence to federal
employees for their ingenuity, courage and service beyond the call
of duty.
Lives were saved and missing children were reunited with their
parents. Financial savings were achieved, as well as international
renown and market access, forensic application of DNA analysis,
merging of human resource and business plans, and partnership to
preserve aboriginal heritage.
Ms. Flora Beardy from the Department of Canadian Heritage, a
Manitoban, is one of the awardees. Her diligent documentation of
the aboriginal history at York Factory, Manitoba gives an
aboriginal perspective to the largely European accounts of northern
Manitoba history.
(1405)
Ms. Beardy and the other awardees richly deserve the
appreciation of the Canadian citizenry and the gratitude of the
House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec's directeur général des élections has laid formal charges
against certain private corporations and members of the Liberal
Party of Canada, for offences against the Quebec Referendum Act
on the occasion of the mammoth no rally last October 27. In
English Canada, some Liberal MPs are expressing the opinion that
freedom of expression is in jeopardy because of the charges laid by
the DGE.
I would remind the House that the Quebec legislation does not
prevent freedom of expression. On the contrary, in fact. The
present debate again raises the question of the justification of
limiting third party expenditures during the time leading up to
elections, and their impact on the outcome on voting day.
How would English Canada react to a Quebec citizen's spending
like there was no tomorrow in order to influence the results of a
provincial election? Must it be pointed out that even the Canada
Elections Act limits election expenses? This attack by English
Canada against a Quebec law is just one more illustration of its
double standard.
3629
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government has often portrayed the Reform taxpayers
budget as slash and burn policy, but this accusation only reflects
the government's attempt to mislead Canadians.
The real facts of this matter are these. Hidden in the Canada
health and social transfer, the Liberals intend to chop billions in
transfers to the provinces over the next four years: a $3.3 billion cut
to health care, a $1.3 billion cut to education, a $1.7 billion cut to
social services.
Reform's taxpayers budget, however, recommended reductions
to health care of only $800 million; education, $200 million; social
services, $2.5 billion. That is a total of $2.8 billion less than the
Liberals will cut.
Now you tell me, Mr. Speaker, who is slashing and burning
Canada's social programs? It is the Liberals who are putting the
country's most cherished and valued social programs in danger.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week it was my privilege to table a report of the Canadian IPU
group about its activities at the interparliamentary conference.
[Translation]
I would like to pay tribute today to the leader of our group,
Senator Peter Bosa.
[English]
At the Istanbul conference Senator Bosa was presented with the
order of merit of Italy, known as the Grande Ufficiale della
Repubblica Italiana, awarded by the president of Italy, Luigi
Scalfaro.
[Translation]
This honour, similar to our Order of Canada, was awarded to him
in recognition of his services in the advancement of
multiculturalism.
[English]
Prior to becoming a senator in 1977 Senator Bosa was the
chairman of the Consultative Council on Multiculturalism. He is
the founder of the chair in Canadian-Italian Studies at York
University as well as the Canada-Italy Parliamentary Friendship
Group. It is nice to see someone honoured this way.
[Translation]
Our sincere congratulations.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May 21, 1996
I had the pleasure of hosting another workshop in my riding of
Lincoln, this one focused on the challenges facing our youth.
The issues of concern to today's youth are the issues of concern
to all Canadians, issues like effectively addressing the school to
work transition, tackling real barriers to labour market entry and
understanding the changing world of work.
The government recognizes that without proper investment in
the future of our youth Canada will not enjoy a competitive
advantage in the 21st century. Funding of programs that encourage
entrepreneurship and proper skills training enhance our ability to
compete globally.
As a government we have no greater responsibility than to
provide the youth of Canada with a country full of opportunities
and to prepare them to compete internationally.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
public demands the sentence given to first degree murderers be the
sentence served.
The Canadian Police Association, Victims of Violence, the
Reform Party and an overwhelming number of Canadians are all on
record demanding the complete elimination of section 745, making
life mean life.
Half measures making section 745 off limits to serial killers and
other multiple murderers but open to those who only kill once is
unacceptable. The justice minister is playing politics with this very
serious issue.
(1410)
Allowing some murderers the right to appeal their parole
ineligibility while denying it to others demeans the worth of a
human life and is an insult to victims and murder victims' families.
Anything other than the complete removal of section 745 from the
Criminal Code will be unacceptable.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week, at their meeting last week, the Prime Minister
of Canada and the premier of Quebec approved the Maritimes
pipeline project.
3630
This important project will finally make this energy available
to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and a number of regions in
Quebec.
The project is estimated to be worth over $1 billion, with nearly
one quarter of this amount to be invested in Quebec.
Had it not been for the meeting of the two first ministers, the
odds are that the route across Quebec planned by the two oil
companies exploiting the pool on Sable Island, off the coast of
Nova Scotia, would have never been possible.
Here again, we have proof that co-operation between
governments provides the best assurance of Quebec's prosperity.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of parliamentarians, I would like to congratulate all those
graduating from high school across Canada.
[English]
Congratulations to all our high school students.
[Translation]
Whatever their future, whether they continue their studies or
head into the labour market, we wish them every success.
[English]
Graduation normally means parties, and we want to alert young
people to be careful. Driving to and from parties can be dangerous.
Sometimes it is difficult to avoid drinking. If possible, it should be
avoided. If that cannot be done there is a program called Safegrad,
managed almost totally by students.
[Translation]
Safegrad is almost entirely managed by students and aims to
reduce the risks of accident by ensuring that alcohol consumption
does not become a threat to safety.
To all graduates,
[English]
-on behalf of all those who love you a lot-
[Translation]
Be careful.
* * *
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the president of Gulf Canada Resources
Ltd., J.P. Bryan, said he wanted to send separatists on a boat back to
France or confine them to a North American Bantustan.
Mr. Bryan is acting like a Rhodesian full of scorn for Quebecers.
Before hiring this U.S. born executive, Gulf Canada should have
made sure he had some basic notions of history, manners and
democracy.
What is even more troubling is the fact that, instead of
condemning such an outburst, 700 executives of the Canadian oil
industry applauded. Where have understanding and respect for
democracy and freedom of expression gone? Where I come from,
we call this intolerance and provocation.
Officials of the company in Quebec ought to condemn Mr.
Bryan's antidemocratic and profoundly unacceptable remarks.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just when we
thought the fisheries minister could not create any more chaos in
Canada's fisheries we learn the worst is yet to come.
Advancing its policy of discrimination in the Atlantic food
fishery, the government feels stabbing Newfoundland in the back is
not enough. Rubbing salt in the wound might make things a little
more festive. Not only is every Atlantic province permitted to fish
for food except Newfoundland, Tourism Canada is now paying for
advertising to attract tourists to those other provinces.
The latest insult is the permitting of an unlimited food fishery for
the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon where French locals
and tourists can fish their little hearts out as close as three miles
from Newfoundland's Burin Peninsula.
Once again the province with the greatest cultural and economic
dependency on the cod fishery is the province kicked the hardest.
A few years ago a Newfoundland organization called Cod Peace
adopted the slogan ``In Cod We Trust''. Perhaps the House should
adopt a similar motion: ``For Fred We Show Disgust''.
* * *
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
weekend Canadians witnessed another flip-flop in Reform Party
policy on medicare, but this is nothing new.
The leader of the Reform Party said in September 1993 his party
would eliminate universality and then in October 1993 he said
Reform is opposed to private health care.
3631
The member for Macleod has said in the House that medicare
is bad for everybody. He has also said medicare is important to
all Canadians.
(1415 )
On April 22, 1996 the member for Calgary Centre complained in
the House that his party's health care policy was being portrayed as
a two tier system. However, at its assembly this weekend that is
exactly what his party proposed, a two tier system that will give top
quality care to the rich and leave a lower quality and less
responsive system for everybody else.
Today's article in the Toronto Star indicates the Ontario Medical
Association fully understands Reform Party policy. It knows
Reform is proposing a two tier system. It is time for Reform to
come clean with the rest of Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to salute today the presence in this House of
the hon. member for Jonquière who is back among us after a
three-month absence.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: It is when the going gets tough that the
tough get going. This is how we recognize men and women of
courage. I would like to acknowledge here the remarkable
determination of our colleague from Jonquière and, on behalf of
my colleagues from the official opposition, and of all the other
members of this House, I am sure, wish him all the best upon his
return to the Hill.
_____________________________________________
3631
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
The Prime Minister's letter to his provincial counterparts
concerning the agenda of the first ministers' conference says this:
``We will discuss, among other things, the realignment of the roles
and responsibilities of our partnership in areas such as manpower
training, federal spending powers, mining, forestry, and so on''.
Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's letter that, for
the federal government, partnership means that, as in the area of
manpower training, Ottawa will set the national standards,
guidelines or objectives and monitor the implementation of these
standards, while the provinces will have to be content with
administering the programs?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government's objective is to clarify as much as
possible the division of responsibilities between the various levels
of government to ensure that the federal government is highly
effective and competent and in a position to help Canadians in its
areas of jurisdiction, that the provinces, too, are highly competent
and effective in their own areas of jurisdiction, and that there is a
very strong partnership between the two levels of government.
The June 20 and 21 conference will give us an opportunity to
take a major step in that direction by addressing each of these
issues in a concrete and sound manner, always keeping in mind the
need to improve government services for all Canadians.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, are we also to understand that, according to this notion of
partnership, the federal government will, once again, follow the
same model as for manpower training, that is to say, it will
withdraw or say it will withdraw from operations and then refuse to
pay full compensation to the provinces, forcing them to foot the bill
while-let us not forget-it continues to pocket taxpayers' money?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a while ago, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, Mr. Young, revealed an offer made by the federal
government to all the provinces. This offer proposes a general
framework under which each province will be able to set its own
policies in its own areas of jurisdiction to better serve its people.
This offer was acclaimed everywhere in Quebec as a great step
forward, if not the finishing line for a concrete solution. We can
now say that job training is on the right track. We will soon have in
Canada one of the most admired parliamentary models.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we in Quebec were happy to hear that negotiations would
be held. There was mention of a starting point. I now realize that,
for the minister, the starting point is the finishing line.
(1420)
This is in keeping with the federalists' faultless logic. They say:
``We are at the starting point in initiating negotiations''; they then
turn around and say: ``No, no, it is the finishing line''. Thank you
very much; that is quite interesting.
In the federal government's effort to reorganize the federation,
does it not intend, in the final analysis, to reproduce the Charlotte-
3632
town accord, since it is very similar? So the Charlottetown accord
gets in through the back door, piece by piece. This agreement, need
we remind the House, was rejected not only by Quebec but by all of
Canada, as it was too much for some and not enough for others.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as far as manpower training is concerned, a general
framework was proposed and very well received across Canada.
I understand this may bother the official opposition, since it does
not want to see the Canadian federation work better all the time. On
the contrary, Bloc members want to break up the country. That is
why we will never have their co-operation in finding concrete
solutions that will help Canadians receive better services from their
governments.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, also regarding the agenda of the first ministers'
conference, the government says it is willing to make proposals to
create jobs for young people.
How does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain
that, on the one hand, Ottawa says it is withdrawing from the
manpower sector, including for youth, and, on the other hand, it is
indicating its intention to remain present in this area?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly normal for the
Government of Canada to want to maintain a presence in a many
areas where the provinces may play a very important role.
To be sure, Canada is made up of provinces whose resources are
quite different, and whose programs are not always similar. All we
are saying is that we are there to represent the interests of all
Canadians, including young Canadians. However, we want to
recognize and respect the jurisdiction of the provinces in every
case.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the letter addressed to its provincial counterparts, the
federal government also states its intention to remain present in the
social security sector. However, with the Canada social transfer,
Ottawa is withdrawing its financial support from that sector. Again,
the new federal way of doing things is to establish national
standards, while stopping financial contributions to programs,
without any compensation.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs finally recognize
that, while he is talking about partnership, his government's true
intention is to reduce the role of the provinces to that of mere
subcontractors of federal policies?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in Mr. Martin's last budget, it is indicated that-
[English]
The Speaker: We usually refer to ourselves by our titles rather
than our names.
[Translation]
Mr. Dion: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
The last budget of the Minister of Finance mentioned a
minimum amount of $11.1 billion for the Canada social transfer.
We are committed to allowing the provinces to do long term
planning as regards their budget. We made this commitment in
spite of current economic difficulties. This is a first for a federal
government. One would have a hard time finding a similar
commitment by a federal government in another federation.
If opposition members looked at other federations, they would
realize that Canadian provinces have more power and
responsibilities than the German Länders, the Swiss cantons and
the American states. Our federation is one of the most
decentralized ones in the world, and it allows each province to
express its own way of being Canadian. This is what Canada is
about.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, first
the Constitution was on the agenda for the first ministers meeting
in June, then it was off, and now it is back on. Canadians are not
sure what to make of this constitutional game of ping-pong the
Liberals are playing but it would help if the Prime Minister actually
had a plan for national unity. It does seem a little bizarre that they
are trying to sandwich serious constitutional negotiations between
the morning doughnuts and the afternoon Beaujolais.
Will there be substantive discussions on the Constitution at the
first ministers conference, or is this simply a cynical political ploy
to avoid doing what has to be done in April 1997?
(1425 )
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thought the letter was crystal clear regarding that
subject.
It is not clear whether we have met the commitment under
section 49. Our discussions on June 21 would permit us to consider
how we might move forward in the search for an amending formula
that would find wide approval from Canadians. The purpose is to
3633
be sure that we meet the commitment of section 49. Once this is
done, we want a process that will lead us to a better amending
formula for all Canadians.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what is obvious is it seems the Prime Minister is trying to change
his well deserved reputation of ``don't just do something but stand
there''. It is also painfully obvious that this government will be
presenting the premiers with constitutional proposals that have not
had any public input.
The Prime Minister's so-called plans for national unity are
supposedly contained within the speech from the throne, but the
throne speech also promises public input. If next week's
constitutional negotiations are going to be more than a political
photo-op, where is the public input? What happened to the
Canadian people?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the agenda is full of good things for Canadians.
Whether it is the economic union, the social union, or the
rebalancing of the federation, we have a full list of very important
topics that the first ministers will discuss seriously. In the end, we
will have an improved federation.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
throne speech should be positioned beside a throne where its paper
could be of much use.
The Prime Minister promised in his throne speech that
Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the
future of their country. Apparently that does not extend to such
things as the Constitution or the amending formula.
The objections of the premiers of Quebec, Alberta and B.C. are
well documented. The Canadian people apparently have been
excluded from the constitutional process. The Prime Minister has
slipped the Constitution on to the agenda and has hoped that
nobody would notice.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will Canadians get to see
the Prime Minister's constitutional proposals before he presents
them to the premiers, or will Canadians simply have to wait while
he does it behind closed doors like Brian Mulroney?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the purpose is exactly the reverse. We have an open
process to discuss a better amending formula for all Canadians.
This is the purpose. The first ministers will decide. We hope to
have the collaboration of the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last week in the House the minister gave us to understand
that he intended to disregard the unanimous will of the national
assembly in pursuit of his plan to create a Canadian securities
commission. He said that in so doing he was responding to the
request of the business community, when this same community
was letting it be known that very day in Quebec City that it did not
support his plan.
How can the minister still claim to have the support of the
Quebec business community, when the Montreal Stock Exchange,
the Mouvement Desjardins, the Barreau du Québec, the Quebec
section of the association of securities brokers, numerous firms
including Ogilvy Renault, the Investors Group, McCarthy Tétrault,
and many others, have said they are against the plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what I said, and I repeat it again, is that it is most certainly at the
request of several provinces and of the business community,
including large companies in Montreal that issue shares, Montreal
brokerage firms with national offices, which asked us to look at the
situation. We are examining the possibility. It is at the request of
the business community, at the request of the provinces.
Furthermore, I would ask the member the following question: If
the Canadian business community requests it, if the Montreal
business community requests it, should we ignore the fact that it
makes very good sense to rationalize the system in Canada in order
to be more competitive internationally?
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the official opposition asks the questions and the
government is supposed to answer. Until now, the list of those in
Quebec who oppose the plan is growing daily.
(1430)
I would ask him the following question: Will the minister admit
that a Canadian securities commission would, in the opinion of
many, concentrate all Canada's financial expertise in Toronto and
thus reduce all other financial centres, including Montreal, to mere
branch offices of the Toronto head office, without real powers?
That is the reality.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pardon me for thinking that perhaps the Bloc's finance critic had an
opinion. But if he is asking questions without having a real opinion,
that makes the debate a bit difficult.
3634
I can tell you that there is no question of concentrating
everything in one place. The point is to make it possible for the
Montreal, Vancouver, Alberta and Toronto stock exchanges to
compete on an equal footing with the New York Stock Exchange
and the NASDAQ.
With the globalization of world markets, integration is becoming
very important in order to give Quebecers and Canadians a solid
foundation on which to build. That is what we wish to do, that is the
vision for the nineties. We have left the sixties behind.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Justice said that he would not pass
legislation based on individual cases, yet today we see that he
wants to do exactly that by splitting murderers into categories in
section 745 changes. Instead of doing what Canadians want, an
outright scrapping of section 745, the minister plans to just modify
it slightly. Commit two murders and you are out of the running.
Commit only one murder and you have a chance at early parole.
What is the difference? Why should any first degree murderer,
regardless of the number of people he kills, get early release?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation I will table later
today in the House of Commons will propose changes to section
745. The bill will speak for itself.
As to the difference between those who take one life or more
than one life, the changes will introduce significant improvements
to the section and the way it operates. It will ensure that only the
most appropriate and deserving cases are given consideration under
the section. It will also respond to concerns from victims groups
that they not be required to participate in jury hearings at the sole
option of the offender. It will provide a mechanism to ensure that
cases that are brought before a jury have a reasonable prospect of
success.
If the hon. member is not able to distinguish the difference
between those who take more than one life and those who take one
life, I say that she is overlooking a fundamental feature. The fact of
the matter is that the sentencing policy for murder in this country
should reflect a difference between those who take more than one
life and those who take only one.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I can
hardly believe that the minister would be able to tell a victim: ``I
am sorry, the murderer who killed your daughter or your son just
murdered one person, so it is okay''. That is shameful and is
exactly the reason it just does not work.
There is no justification for these kinds of changes. The minister
said the bill will speak for itself. What about the thousands of
victims across the country who are speaking for themselves and
calling for an outright abolition and repeal of section 745?
What we are hearing is that one murder is okay and two murders
are bad. Murder is murder, no matter how many people are killed
and murderers should not get early release, period.
Instead of introducing these arbitrary half measures, why does
the justice minister not simply scrap section 745 altogether and
make all first degree murderers serve their entire sentence? Why
not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the proposals we will make are
based on rational, logical and appropriate distinctions in the law.
The taking of any life is not only a tragedy for the victim's family,
but it is the most serious crime in the code and it is punished
accordingly.
For the last 20 years the Criminal Code sentences for murder
have included section 745, have included recourse to a community
jury after 15 years. We are going to propose changes that will
narrow the availability of that recourse to the most deserving cases
and ensure that it is only available in those cases. In addition, we
are saying that for those who commit multiple or serial murders, it
will not be available at all.
(1435 )
I very much hope the hon. member and her party will join with
us in strengthening in the name of victims and in the name of
justice the provisions of section 745 of the Criminal Code.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
an investigation, Canadian police forces may request information
from foreign authorities. The Department of Justice is then
responsible for forwarding these inquiries to the foreign
authorities.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell
us whether it is standard procedure within his department to send
letters to foreign authorities containing clear accusations against a
Canadian citizen, when his department has no proof of that
individual's guilt?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member is
referring to the process of police investigations.
3635
Police conduct investigations but when any police force in the
country wishes to make inquiries of a foreign authority or a
foreign government, the practice is to come to the international
assistance group of the Department of Justice to communicate that
request to the foreign government. In those circumstances, the
lawyers and the senior officials of the international assistance
group meet with the police and determine that there is a reasonable
basis for taking the next step in the investigation, which is to ask
a foreign authority for assistance. Once that is done, then the
lawyers in the international assistance group work with the police
in formulating that request and send it abroad.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can
the minister tell us if it is a possibility that his department sends
letters containing unproven charges merely to ensure that the
foreign authorities will accept the inquiry being submitted to them?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to emphasize that in
this instance and in cases of this kind, we are talking about police
investigations. The issue is not whether the person under
investigation can be shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,
as would be the case if they were charged, tried and it was left to a
court to decide. That is not the test.
If that were the test very few police investigations would be
carried on. At any given moment if the police officer was stopped
and asked whether he now had sufficient evidence to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt and the officer said no but he wished to proceed
to the next step, if we were to deny that at that point, we would
never complete a police investigation.
The issue is not whether guilt can be established beyond a
reasonable doubt at that stage; the issue is whether it is reasonable
to take the next step in the investigation. That is the approach
which is taken by the international assistance group when it has
asked the police for help in communicating requests for help to
other governments. That is the practice we follow.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals' new GST scheme is a perfect example of how taxes,
taxes, taxes kill jobs, jobs, jobs.
Ending the notional input credits on used goods is nothing but a
sneaky back door method of driving up taxes and prices.
Meanwhile dealers employ people to sell used goods, from cars at
auctions, to stamps, to furniture, to RVs and boats, and all of those
industries are threatened.
Why is the finance minister gutting jobs in the used goods
industry by piling job killing GST on GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that harmonization leads to greater job creation.
That is clear. The member's position is simply nonsensical.
Harmonization is the reason the Canadian Manufacturers
Association supports it, the reason the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce supports it and the reason the Retail Sales Council
supports it. The fact is it is the reason the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business supports it. Everybody out there wants to
create jobs and wants to support harmonization.
When will the minister wake up and smell the roses?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
what Canadians are asking.
Taxes, taxes, taxes kill jobs, jobs, jobs. Since the government
came to power it has raised taxes $10.5 billion, mostly through
these kinds of sneaky back door schemes.
How does the finance minister reconcile these job killing tax
promises with his own government's red book promise to make
jobs the number one priority of his government and his own budget
promise not to raise taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
gave the member a promotion. I take it back.
(1440 )
If the hon. member wants to talk about jobs, 624,000 new jobs
have been created. That is more jobs than France and Germany
combined. In the last five months, 130,000 new jobs have been
created.
The number of full time jobs is going up month after month. The
government has brought in program after program for high
technology, for trade. They are all programs for job creation. And
every single one of them was opposed by the Reform Party that
simply does not know what the modern economy is all about.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Despite the lessons learned in the contaminated blood scandal,
we discovered on the weekend that a number of hemophiliacs are
still having to deal with poor quality blood products. Health
Canada, which has the job of ensuring a safe supply, is still not
playing its role.
How does the minister explain that Health Canada has again
allowed poor quality health products to get through, leaving it up to
the hemophiliacs themselves to look after their own safety?
3636
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member makes a very serious allegation. I am not aware of
the details of the allegation, but if she wishes to provide me with
additional detail I would be happy to examine it with my senior
officials.
However, if the hon. member does not have the details of what
she is suggesting, I think she should apologize to the House and to
the officials of the department.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
information comes from a Canadian Press article published on the
weekend, which said that some hemophiliacs had reported that the
blood products they were using from a particular company were of
poor quality.
Since it will take a long time to redesign the blood supply system
and since safety standards are currently the minister's
responsibility, could the minister propose measures under his
jurisdiction that could be implemented immediately and that would
protect hemophiliacs until the new supply system is in place?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member says she read this in an article and so informs the
House.
All I ask of the hon. member to do is provide me with specific
information and I will examine it. If the Minister of Health is going
to have to examine each and every allegation or alleged allegation
of some individual somewhere in the country, that would be my
entire responsibilities as the Minister of Health.
If the hon. member is serious about the allegation she will
provide the evidence so that we can take corrective action.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the secretary of state responsible for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
As the government continues to redefine its role in regional
economic development, and as the emphasis of ACOA broadens
from providing funds to other kinds of support, could the minister
tell the House what is being done to enhance Atlantic Canada's
opportunities with regard to federal government procurement?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State
(Veterans)(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is a
development agency with an excellent record.
Procurement is one of the many roles that it is involved in and it
costs very few dollars. This is an area where ACOA will make sure
that Atlantic Canadian firms are aware of major federal
government contracts and have an opportunity to be involved in
them.
ACOA also promotes the capability of Atlantic firms for the
international market.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
It is bad enough that the minister came up with a plan that is
going to destroy the livelihoods of thousands of B.C. fishermen,
but on top of that, this Liberal minister is seeding even more
division and anger by creating two commercial fisheries with
different rules, different quotas and different privileges. This
Liberal government promised equality but it does not practice it.
How does this Liberal government expect Canadians to accept
the fact that natives will be permitted to fish commercially in the
Alberni Inlet when non-natives will not? Why will this minister not
stand up and smell the roses?
(1445 )
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member might be a bit confused when
he talks about the two commercial fisheries.
Concerning the first commercial fishery that he degraded, just
before coming to the House I was briefed by Mr. Matkin who is the
chair of the committee that is doing the licence buy-back. In an
hour's briefing Mr. Matkin reported very positively on how the
plan was proceeding. I am sure the hon. member is very pleased to
hear that this plan is getting more and more support as its success
becomes even more apparent.
On the second point, with respect to the aboriginal fishery, the
hon. member knows that the priority for salmon is escapement or
conservation; aboriginal food, social and ceremonial; and then
recreation and commercial fishery. This priority is being followed.
It is very much in line with the aboriginal fishery strategy of which
I am sure the hon. member is aware, but he must have forgotten
during his question.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that the minister is listening to his paid
advisers and not thinking in realistic terms.
On Friday an injunction to stop this aboriginal commercial
fishery was not granted, but the court said very clearly that
3637
fishermen had been prejudiced by the minister's actions and that
the fishermen had only the minister to blame for their situation.
Why does the minister not admit that he has totally screwed up
the fishing industry on the B.C. coast? Why does he not admit that
he has created the most divisive fishing climate in Pacific coast
history? Why does the minister not resign if he cannot handle his
job?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question was but I will try to
address the intonation of the hon. member.
My only comment is that I am disappointed and I am surprised.
With the new, moderate approach of the Reform Party I was
expecting a different kind of question, so I will take his comment
under advisement.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The human resources development minister contends that the
resource envelope made available to the provinces for day care
services was cut by 60 per cent because of the provinces' lack of
interest in his program. But according to Canadian Press, the
correspondence the minister received from the provinces said just
the opposite.
Where did the funds the federal government was about to invest
in day care services in Canada really go?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the proposal put forward by the
Government of Canada before last Christmas regarding child care
is well known. It was indicated at the time that funds were
available, should the provinces want to participate in a national
child care program.
I do not wish to contradict Canadian Press, because it would be
terrible to get into a debate with Canadian Press at this time about
the content of the letters in question.
Not only did the provinces express reservations about a national
program in their letters, some going as far as rejecting the idea, but
we had the opportunity to meet all our colleagues from coast to
coast and not one of them told us: ``Yes, we have reached a
consensus to go ahead with a national child care program''.
That said, our position has always been that we can work in
partnership with the provinces to find solutions to the real
problems facing those who would like to see a day care system put
in place to meet their needs.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Quebec minister responsible for family matters has developed a
five-year plan calling for the creation of 22,000 day care spaces
over four years. On April 24, she wrote the Minister of Human
Resources Development, asking him to transfer to her, with no
strings attached, the share of federal funding coming to Quebec.
When does the minister plan to answer Pauline Marois' letter?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Quebec
and other governments change their minds and decide to participate
in a national day care program, we are naturally quite prepared to
sit down and negotiate with them.
(1450)
In this particular instance, that is certainly not the case. If it is
only a matter of transferring funds with no strings attached, then
they will have to speak to someone other than me, because I am not
in the habit of sending money anywhere without making sure the
interests of Canadian taxpayers are protected.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the new
seniors' benefit announced by the Minister of Finance is an
exercise in duplicity.
In the massive restructuring of the benefits to seniors, the
minister has slipped into the fine print a rule that will tax low
income seniors at a rate of 50 per cent on income over their seniors'
benefit. That is the same rate millionaires and billionaires pay in
this country.
Will the minister please explain this massive tax grab on low
income seniors.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
a time of shrinking financial resources, especially in a time when
the population of seniors is expected to grow, it is important for the
government to conserve its resources and basically focus on those
who will need the help the most. That is exactly what we have
done.
The alternative I suppose would have been what the Reform
Party advocated which would have virtually eviscerated, decimated
the federal government's support for senior citizens. However, we
are not prepared to do that. We are going to ensure that senior
citizens are able to retire in dignity.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance says he does not want to eviscerate payments
to seniors but when they earn more than $11,500 they are on a 50
per cent tax rate. That is the fact announced by the Minister of
Finance.
3638
Why is he doing that? Why is he penalizing seniors? Who needs
the money more, this government or seniors who are struggling
to get by?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the retirement system in this country effectively has three pillars:
the OAS, the GIS, which as a result of our changes projected ahead
we are going to ensure will be there for young Canadians and the
Canada pension plan which we will be discussing next week with
the provinces in order to make sure it is there for young Canadians.
There is the whole scheme of retirement plans and RRSPs which
have extensive tax benefits to ensure that a number of the people
the hon. member is referring to will have a decent pension.
I remind the hon. member that our changes will take place in the
year 2001. Those who are currently 60 years of age or over will be
protected whereas the plan that was suggested by the Reform Party
would have effectively gutted seniors' pensions immediately.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister for International Trade.
A United Nations international study shows there are significant
increases in foreign investment in Canada. What is the government
doing so that Canadians continue to benefit from the jobs foreign
investment creates?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, new international business investment is at a
record level in Canada. It has doubled in the last decade. That
means one in ten jobs in this country is as a result of the flow of
international investment. In fact, 50 per cent of our total exports,
75 per cent of our manufactured exports, flow out of that
international investment.
It is a positive message for Canadians. We want to get more of it.
We have a high priority and we have a lot that attracts people to
Canada, because we are a gateway into NAFTA, a market of 370
million people. We have the productivity, we have the workforce,
the competitive wages. We have the infrastructure, the energy
supplies. We have all the things we need, including compatibility
of technology through our metric system, to attract people to invest
in Canada, not to mention our very solid quality of life.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In answer to a question from the official opposition, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs pledged, on March 1st, to ensure ``that those
who have been trained here in Canada will have full access and
opportunity in the Haitian police force''.
(1455)
Three months later, and after a visit from the President of Haiti
to Canada and a trip to Haiti by the minister, the situation remains
unchanged.
Can the minister tell us why, three months after his commitment
in this House, and given that Canada is leading, at its own expense,
the UN mission in Haiti, more than 30 police officers trained in
Canada are still waiting to be integrated into the Haitian force?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of those 30 people, 20 have been given employment by
the Haitian government in a variety of security activities.
The problem is that the Haitian government does not accept dual
nationality. It passed an act of their parliament subsequent to the
training of the Canadian Haitians who hold dual passports.
We raised the matter when we were in Haiti and we are trying to
resolve it with the Haitian government. In the meantime, of those
30 people, 20 have been hired in security activities.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I remind
the minister that Canada invested close to $2 million in the training
of these police officers. The minister just told us that a number of
these young officers were hired by the Haitian government. But
there remains a number of them, in which thousands and even
millions of dollars were invested.
What does the minister intend to do to put the money invested in
the training of these police officers to good use, until they are fully
integrated into the Haitian force?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the present time the Canadian government, with the
active co-operation of many municipalities, such as the Ville de
Laval and the community of Montreal, have provided police
officers for Haiti and are providing very good training and support.
They are a great credit to their country and are of great assistance in
the redevelopment of the Haitian civil police service. Those are the
kinds of contributions we want to make, to use the experiences of
our police forces to help the Haitians develop their national force.
In the meantime we are negotiating with the Haitian government
to try and ensure that those who did receive the training have
access. Already 20 have been given security jobs. The Haitian
3639
parliament passed an act after the training took place. Now we have
to get their parliament to change that act.
I think the hon. member knows the situation. It is not that easy to
insist that Haiti pass retroactive legislation when it is struggling to
provide for its own development. We will keep working on the file.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is currently holding a
conference in Saskatoon on adding value to prairie cereal grains.
The potential for value added products for grain is great, but in
reality the Canadian Wheat Board continues to kill value added by
making farmers go through the costly and time consuming exercise
of buying back their grain from the board to sell to processors.
Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food quit stalling and
make changes now to the Canadian Wheat Board that will remove
the roadblocks to establishing more milling, malting and other
value added processing across the prairies, creating real jobs and
real economic growth?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party have
asked a number of questions in the past, indicating their opposition
to the Canadian Wheat Board. Those questions have been
answered, but they appear to be impervious to logic.
Let me try another tack. I would like to quote the May 9 edition
of the Manitoba Co-Operator and particularly remarks made by
Mr. Ken Beswick, a former commissioner of the Canadian Wheat
Board who recently resigned. Mr. Beswick said: ``I am in no way
saying the board is not an effective marketer. I think that it is
among the best in the world at marketing grain. It stands toe to toe
with the heavyweights out there in the global environment. And I
think from my window at the board I would not advocate the
elimination of single desk selling''.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister must not have heard my question. I was
talking about some roadblocks and he got off on another topic all
together.
His department has announced a magic scheme to encourage
value added processing on the prairies by offering to help the
agriculture sector create business plans. Well, it is the minister who
needs the business plan.
Prairie farmers have to buy their own grain back at Minneapolis
spot prices in order to sell to millers and maltsters down the road.
Why does the minister not force the Canadian Wheat Board to
use its own forecasted final prices as the basis for grain sales to
local markets, or better yet, let producers sell outside the board to
millers?
(1500)
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take from the hon. member's
preamble that he has now conceded the basic point about single
desk selling.
The hon. gentleman should review the submissions made to the
Western Grain Marketing Panel by the Millers and Bakers
Association of Canada. It supported the Canadian Wheat Board
before the Western Grain Marketing Panel.
It is possible that some new and more flexible ways can be
devised in terms of pricing mechanisms pertaining to the Canadian
Wheat Board. I will very anxiously await the advice of the Western
Grain Marketing Panel at the end of this month. When we have its
report we will each be in a better position to make sound decisions
for the long term, rather than constantly jumping the gun like the
knee-jerk Reformers.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
June 21 is the first ministers conference. It is also National
Aboriginal Day. It is therefore all the more ironic that the leaders of
the First Nations have been excluded from the first ministers
meeting.
Especially now that the Constitution is on the agenda, I ask the
Acting Prime Minister what justification there possibly can be now
for excluding those leaders of First Nations.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I understand the meeting,
there will not be items dealt with specific to aboriginal people.
The Prime Minister sent out a letter yesterday or today inviting
the First Nations leadership to a meeting preceding the conference
with specific ministers and for a post-conference briefing after the
meeting of June 21.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canadians are very interested in the visit of the president of
Mexico. Can the minister report to the House what initiatives have
3640
been taken to strengthen our relationship with the people and the
Government of Mexico?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
Today a number of ministers of the government met with their
counterparts to put the final touches on a quite complex and
broadly based declaration of objectives that will be presented to the
Prime Minister and the president tomorrow.
It represents quite a unique undertaking between two countries,
with the setting out of a blueprint of action covering a wide variety
of topics. It sets out a real work plan for our two countries to get
together on a wide variety of topics.
It is something very distinctive and demonstrates a new maturity
of our relationship with Mexico.
_____________________________________________
3640
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to
table in both official languages the annual report of the Columbia
River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the governments of
the United States and Canada for the period dated October 1, 1994
to September 30, 1995.
* * *
(1505 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 21st report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership and associate membership of the Standing Committee
on Fisheries and Oceans.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 21st report later this day.
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-45, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility)
and another act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-301, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill introduces the
opportunity for Elections Canada to create a permanent voters list
which I think will enhance the opportunities of saving money and
also create the opportunity to reduce the potential time period for
the general elections.
In today's age of computerization and the different levels of
government, municipal, provincial and federal, that have the
opportunity of having the information in their systems already, I
think it will enhance the accuracy and ability to use it and reduce
the cost for all concerned.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 21st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I have three petitions to present. The first one is from
Victoria, B.C.
These residents object to criminals profiting from their crimes
and ask Parliament to enact Bill C-205 as soon as possible.
3641
(1510)
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from Canadians from B.C. and Ontario who call
on Parliament to consider the advisability of extending benefits of
compensation to veterans of the wartime merchant navy equal to
those enjoyed by veterans of Canada's World War II armed
services.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is from residents of B.C. who call on Parliament to
refrain from implementing a tax on health and dental benefits and
to put on hold any future consideration of such a tax until a
complete review of the tax system and how it impacts on the health
of Canadians has been undertaken.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the hon. member for Edmonton
Southeast to present two petitions today signed mainly by residents
of Edmonton Southeast.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other
federal legislation that would provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to present three petitions.
The petitioners request that the Canadian Human Rights Act not
be amended to include the phrase sexual orientation as a prohibited
ground of discrimination or to amend the charter of rights and
freedoms to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition from Armenians in my riding who
request that Parliament change its policy of indifference toward the
Armenian genocide and promote efforts to persuade the Republic
of Turkey to recognize its crimes against humanity.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
before me three petitions.
The first has been signed by 66 people from my riding. It calls on
Parliament to refrain from implementing a tax on health and dental
benefits and to put on hold any future considerations of such a tax.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by 199 constituents and requests that
Parliament oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights
Act or any other federal legislation which would provide for the
inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
The petitioners remind me that it has come a little late to this
House, but it is in the other place and hopefully this will be
considered.
The third petition is signed by 50 Canadians from my riding of
Peace River and it has the same request, that the human rights act
not be amended.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three
petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Erie.
The petitioners pray that Parliament oppose any amendments to
the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other federal legislation
which would provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual
orientation.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have another
petition which requests that Parliament not increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 44 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 44-Mr. Godin:
Concerning the hovercrafts owned by the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) how
many are owned; (b) where are they based; (c) what are their respective
descriptions and purposes for which they are used; (d) are there plans to acquire
new hovercrafts and, if so, for what purposes and according to what schedule;
(e) what is the estimated value of the present hovercrafts; and (f) what is the
estimated cost of the planned acquisitions, if any?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): a) The Canadian Coast Guard has
three hovercraft.
b) Two are based at Sea Island near Vancouver and one in
Montreal.
c) The Sea Island hovercraft are the SRN6 type which are 48.4
feet long by 25.4 feet wide. Their maximum weight is 24,000
pounds including a cargo capacity of 11,000 pounds. They are used
primarily for search and rescue, with one craft being on 30-minute
standby, 24 hours per day. The Montreal-based hovercraft is an
AP1-88/200 type. It is 80.4 feet long and 35.5 feet wide. Its
maximum weight is 105,000 pounds, including a cargo capacity of
30,000 pounds. It is used to maintain navigational aids and break
ice in the St. Lawrence River and numerous tributaries, as well as
search and rescue.
d) The Canadian Coast Guard has two new hovercraft on order
which will be delivered in 1998. One will be assigned to the
Laurentian region to replace two obsolete vessels and will be used
for maintaining navigational aids, ice breaking and search and
3642
rescue. One will be assigned to Pacific region to replace the two
existing craft and will be used primarily as a search and rescue
craft, as well as for other tasks.
e) The two hovercraft at Sea Island are over 25 years old;
therefore, it is not possible to assign a value to them. The
Montreal-based hovercraft is valued at approximately $6 million.
f) The new hovercraft will cost approximately $13 million each.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3642
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of the amendment
made by the Senate to Bill C-13, an act to provide for the
establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons
to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations
or prosecutions.
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada)
moved:
That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-13, an act to provide for the
establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons to receive
protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions, be
now read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the original wording of
clause 9(1) of Bill C-13 provided that the commissioner may
terminate the protection given to a protectee if, in the opinion of the
commissioner, there had been a misrepresentation or a failure on
the part of the protectee to disclose information relevant to the
admission process or there has been a breach of the protectee's
obligations under the protection of the agreement.
The members of the Senate committee had concerns about the
word opinion. They felt the word opinion provided the
commissioner with too much discretion in the making of the
determination on protective services. Instead the committee voted
to require the commissioner to have evidence of wrongdoing on the
part of the protectee.
(1515 )
The government can support this amendment. The commissioner
must base this decision on the facts of the case which would be
open to judicial review in any event. In fact under clause 10 of the
bill the commissioner must provide his reasons for ending
protective services in writing to enable the protectee to understand
the basis for this decision.
It was never intended for this serious decision to be made in an
arbitrary manner by the government. Using the word evidence
instead of the word opinion underlies this objective and therefore is
acceptable by our government.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
essentially the same reasons, I believe the Senate has passed a very
useful amendment, substituting the word ``evidence'' for the word
``opinion'', a vague term leaving the commissioner unlimited
discretion.
When the commissioner terminates protective services under the
Witness Protection Program Act, he must base his opinion on
material facts that can ultimately be reviewed by the courts. In a
country that believes in the rule of law, this is a notable
improvement that deserves support.
I would particularly like to thank my friend, the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm, for all the attention and consideration he
gave this issue.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and passed.)
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from June 10 consideration of Bill C-26, an
act respecting the oceans of Canada, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee.
The Speaker: The debate will centre around Group No. 8 which
will include Motions Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53, 56 and
73. As per agreement in the House yesterday, these will have been
deemed moved and seconded. We will now proceed to debate.
3643
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-98, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 16, with
the following:
``(a) with the unanimous approval of the members of the standing committee,
shall develop and implement policies''.
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 16, with
the following:
``(b) with the approval of the standing committee, shall recommend and
coordinate with other ministers,''.
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 29, on page 16,
with the following:
``(d) may, with the approval of the standing committee and in consultation
with other minis-''.
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 36, on page
16, with the following:
``(d) may, in concert with the provincial governments and in consultation with
interested persons and bodies and with other ministers, boards and agencies of
the Government of Canada, establish, with respect for the rights and legislative
jurisdiction of the provinces, marine environmental''.
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 17,
with the following:
``(b) may enter into agreements with the provincial governments, with any''.
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 27, on page 17,
with the following:
``Treasury Board, after the House of Commons has adopted a resolution
confirming the recommendations of the standing committee approving the
making of grants and contributions; and''.
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 28, on page 17,
with the following:
``(e) may, with the unanimous approval of the members of the standing
committee, make recoverable expenditures on''.
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-26, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 18,
with the following:
``regulations, with the approval of the provinces affected and of the standing
committee,''.
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing line 43, on page 18,
with the following:
``recommendation of the Minister and after obtaining the approval of the
provinces affected, may make''.
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended by adding after line 12, on page 19,
the following:
``(4) At the request of the standing committee or of a province that is affected
by an order made under this section, the Governor in Council shall revoke the
order.''
Motion No. 73
That Bill C-26, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 24, on page 28,
with the following:
``(i) conduct or cooperate with the provinces and with persons''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to go ahead immediately;
the afternoon may be a bit longer.
(1520)
I want to be sure I have understood you correctly. The motions
are deemed to have been approved, but does that mean that there
will be a vote on each one?
Before beginning my 10-minute speech, I would like to be sure I
have understood. Last night, it was agreed with members across the
way that it was not necessary to call a vote on each one since it was
agreed a recorded division would be called on these motions.
According to what was agreed, the vote on the first motion will be
applied to the others and we will have to live with it.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, the agreement reached yesterday
will apply today. We have the unanimous consent of the House, and
that is how we will proceed. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, for those who followed
yesterday's proceedings, motions in Group No. 8 have more or less
the same purpose as those in Groups Nos. 6 and 7, in that the goal
of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, is to draw the
government's attention to the fact that the integrated ocean
management strategy it wants to put in place must be implemented
in co-operation with its partners.
This time around, the partners are the provinces that make up
Canada. Each of these motions is aimed at reminding legislators
that the provinces must be involved.
I even added another notion in these amendments, mainly in
Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 40. These three motions revolve around
the same idea: allowing the minister or the government to be a little
more open. I would like them to get the co-operation of and a form
of approval from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Of course, most members of the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans are from the government party. The
opposition is not likely to hijack this bill or to throw a wrench into
the process. This would allow the government to become more
open, as it tries to establish a partnership through the integrated
ocean management strategy.
Most members of the standing committee belong to the
government party, but the official opposition and the third party are
also
3644
represented. We even have independent and Conservative
members; we are very open. The committee is doing its work in
the least partisan way possible.
I think that allowing members of this House to first become
familiar with the issues in committee would help the government
become more open. Second, I always come back to building
bridges with the partners, the provinces. This would produce some
consistency and everyone would be less surprised.
The main problem in management of things like that is to always
ensure that our partners are informed at the same time we are.
(1525)
If we manage to maintain this trust and this communication, my
experience as an administrator tells me that 90 per cent of the
problems will be solved before they actually surface.
There are also many other motions. For example, Motions Nos.
44 and 45, which deal with part II of the act. We proposed many
motions, but these primarily seek to explain the letter and the spirit
of the act.
However, since we are discussing several issues, I wish to point
out, for the benefit of the members here and the people watching us
at home, that Motions Nos. 44 and 45 relate to the minister's
powers. The act provides that the minister may enter into
agreements and it lists the groups with which the minister can reach
such agreements, to implement the management strategy.
When I read this provision, I realized that the main partners,
namely the provinces, are not included in the list. So, like a good
team player, I am telling the government that it would be a good
idea to include, through Motion No. 44, the possibility of entering
into agreements with the provinces, since they are the main
partners in the process.
As for Motion No. 45, it provides, as regards the minister's
powers, that the minister may make grants to organizations and
groups, based on the terms and conditions approved by the
Treasury Board. Again, since this is something which must be done
with the greatest possible spirit of co-operation and with the
greatest possible transparency, I am adding to the transparency of
the process by specifying that it must be done following the
committee's recommendations.
This motion gives the government the opportunity to raise
awareness among the hon. members of the various parties
represented in this House. But once again, it would not stand in the
way of the government, since it still has a majority within the
standing committee.
As for Motions Nos. 50 and 53, I am coming back to them in the
same spirit as earlier. I am asking that the minister seek approval,
and the approval of the provinces affected in particular.
When a decision is made to implement an integrated
management strategy in a given area or to act in concert, the key
stakeholders, that is to say the provinces, should have a say in the
matter. These motions reflect this notion. I have tried-and we
have worked at it within the standing committee last year-to sell
the notion of partnership. I tried to explain the spirit in which this
kind of bill ought to be drafted.
I must confess, however, that I apparently did not succeed in
getting the idea across. Yet, the former fisheries minister, Brian
Tobin, made it clear to me in committee-and we could go back to
the proceedings if necessary-that he wanted this bill to be
implemented in co-operation, in partnership with the provinces.
That is why I feel perfectly free to raise all this again today. Every
time I hear that the minister may or shall act in co-operation and
how he should go about it, I make sure to repeat to this House that
the provinces must be identified as key stakeholders.
To wrap up and conclude, the main goal is to enable the federal
government to show the transparency necessary to ensure the
integrated management strategies that will have to be put in place
will work well.
I will call your attention, if I may, to Motion No. 56. If the
department, the minister and the governor in council look at it
closely, they will see how far they can take this spirit of
partnership.
(1530)
There are three paragraphs in this clause of the bill and I would
like to add a fourth one. Following consultations with the
provinces, or a province, the federal government could revoke an
order it issued when factors affecting the environment or the
community have not been taken into account, since the provinces
are closer to the issues than is the federal government. While we
are here in Ottawa, provincial governments are closer to the
communities.
Again, the recent crab fishery dispute in New Brunswick and in
Quebec is a good example. It is the Quebec and New Brunswick
fisheries ministers who took immediate action with plant workers.
I will let the fisheries minister answer in due time but, as you can
see, it is necessary to include the provinces when talking about
integrated ocean management. The provinces concerned are
located right along the coasts; they are aware of the issues and they
can react accordingly. In some cases, they can warn the federal
fisheries minister, thus saving Canadian and Quebec taxpayers
money. In other words, let us call on those who are concerned and
involved to make sure the strategy is truly effective.
I am now going to sit down, but I will certainly rise again when
we discuss the next group of motions.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a point of order
before we get into debate.
3645
Because these motions are grouped together-and in this group
there are nine or ten-I am not clear on how we are going to deal
with them when we vote. Are we going to vote on each one
separately or are we going to vote on the group? There are some
motions here that we would like to support and some that we
cannot support.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise me on how
these will be dealt with?
The Speaker: The voting pattern was agreed on yesterday and it
is in front of you now. Is it clear or do you need further
clarification?
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me now. I
appreciate your assistance.
The Speaker: The hon. member's 10 minutes will begin at this
point.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I will need
to utilize my whole time.
My party will be supporting Motions Nos. 36 through 46 and
Motion No. 73 because they seek to give the Standing Committee
on Fisheries and Oceans more power to review legislation. They
also require the government to report to the standing committee on
the effectiveness of the legislation.
The motions also seek to increase the government's obligation to
consult with the provinces. Essentially that is a good thing.
We cannot support several motions in this grouping, namely
Motion Nos. 50, 53 and 56, simply because their intent is to try to
interject provincial jurisdiction where we see a clear federal
responsibility.
(1535 )
I mentioned this in my remarks yesterday when we were talking
about these motions. The federal government has jurisdiction and
sovereignty over Canada's marine waters. I fail to see, and it is
difficult for anybody to see, how those marine waters can be
divided into provincial jurisdictions.
I come from British Columbia. One of the main reasons I chose
to run for office and become involved in federal politics was my
feeling that the federal government had become too powerful, that
it had interceded and injected itself into many areas where it had no
legitimate place.
I can understand the frustrations of many people, including
people from Quebec. I understand the motivation of my colleague,
the member for Gaspé, who has been working with us on the
standing committee and who has moved these motions, as to why
he would like to see the federal government back away from many
areas where it is currently involved.
When it comes to Canada's marine waters, the federal
government has jurisdiction and responsibility. Many aspects of
our marine waters are international and interprovincial in nature.
There can be only one lead player in this. It must be the federal
government.
In summary, Reform members will be supporting the motions in
this grouping that seek to increase the obligation of the federal
government to consult with the provinces and that seek to require
the federal government to report to the standing committee on a
regular basis and make the standing committee more relevant.
We cannot support those motions that attempt to increase
provincial jurisdiction.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Madam Speaker, there are 11 motions under Group No. 8 now
before us, all presented by the Bloc Quebecois, and more
specifically by my colleague, the hon. member for Gaspé. Ten
concern the part dealing with ocean management strategy and one,
the part dealing with the minister's powers. You will see from the
motions presented by the member for Gaspé that we are dealing
with two very distinct subjects that we would like to see corrected
in this bill.
The first is that we find-and we have said so repeatedly in this
debate-that the Liberal government has left the provinces out of
consultations. Among other things, the provinces are compared to a
municipal government, Indian reserves, and other persons and
bodies. In the ten amendments to the part dealing with the ocean
management strategy, it is extremely important that the
government of each province participate.
The final amendment, the eleventh in Group No. 8, focuses
specifically on the minister's powers, which we would like to limit
as much as possible in order to have considerably more
transparence.
So that everyone understands, including hon. members who may
not have read or did not bother reading the bill, I add that the act
respecting the oceans of Canada is very important and affects many
ridings. There are those who might initially think the bill does not
affect some ridings, such as my riding of Berthier-Montcalm, at
all. But to take the example of my riding, given that the St.
Lawrence River flows right through it, there will be an effect on
tariffs for pleasure boats and so on. It is therefore a bill that
concerns everyone associated in any way with the St. Lawrence and
its ports.
(1540)
Starting with Motion No. 36, we find that its intention is to
amend clause 32 to read as follows:
``32. For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans,
the Minister
(a) with the unanimous approval of the members of the standing committee,
shall develop and implement policies and programs with respect to matters
assigned by law to the Minister;''
3646
The intent of this amendment is to correct a shortcoming, an
aberration in the bill. We wish to involve the MPs who sit on the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
I am sure that you recall that one of the Liberal Party's
commitments in the famous red book was to improve the
perception of MPs, to raise the prestige of what MPs do. How
better to do this than to involve the MPs who have accepted
parliamentary duties, such as sitting on the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans?
The amendment proposed by the member for Gaspé helps the
government attain its objectives and meet its campaign promises,
which it has had difficulty doing. The hon. member for Gaspé
wishes to assist the government in raising the profile of the work of
the MPs by empowering the MPs sitting on this committee to
approve extremely important elements of the integrated ocean
management strategy.
Who can be better placed than the MPs on that standing
committee, who receive witnesses and have the opportunity to
question specialists, to present positive elements in a bill like this?
That is fine. The minister is advised by officials and bureaucrats
in skyscrapers. Sometimes I wonder if they have ever seen such a
bill and whether they can tell a panfish from a catfish. These people
are advising the minister on a bill as important as this one.
The members who have heard witnesses, done research, studied
the ins and outs of such a bill could move the debate along and
provide protection to those needing it, that is, those affected by the
Oceans Act.
Another extremely important amendment, and I am sure that
with all the transparency the Liberal government wants for its
administration it will vote in favour of this motion, which is
Motion No. 37, introduced by the member for Gaspé. It amends
sub-clause (b) of clause 32 to read as follows:
``(b) with the approval of the standing committee, shall recommend and
co-ordinate with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of
Canada the implementation of policies-''
This is exactly the intent of Motion No. 37.
Motions Nos. 40 and 41 will change sub-clause (d) of clause 32,
which appears in part II entitled ``Oceans Management Strategy'',
one of the most important sections of this bill. With the proposed
amendments, paragraph (d) would read as follows:
``may, with the approval of the standing committee in concert with the
provincial governments and in consultation with interested persons and bodies
and with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada,
establish, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the
provinces, marine environmental quality guidelines, objectives and criteria
respecting estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters.''
That is true partnership. That is what I call really consulting,
listening, participating and inviting colleagues and partners to
participate. The federal government, the provincial governments
affected as well as federal departments-because more than one
department may be affected-and interested persons and bodies are
all called upon to participate in a partnership to ensure the best
possible regulations are developed.
(1545)
This is the sole purpose of Motions Nos. 40 and 41. MotionNo. 44, which amends clause 33, seeks to do the same by including
the provincial governments in the decision making process, since
the issues often come under their jurisdiction and directly affect
them.
The purpose of Motion No. 45 is exactly the same. This motion,
which affects paragraph (d), will certainly be passed, given that it
only makes sense and improves the bill. I am convinced that the
minister, who is listening carefully to my comments, will ask his
government to support this motion.
I will end on that note, since I do not have time to discuss all the
motions. However, I wish to point out that, if Motion No. 45 is
passed, the provision will read as follows: ``(d) may make grants
and contributions on terms and conditions approved by the
Treasury Board, after the House of Commons has adopted a
resolution confirming the recommendations of the standing
committee approving the making of grants and contributions''.
As members can see, this motion seeks to ensure the
participation of the members of the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans, and also the members of this House, who
were given a mandate by their constituents to represent them and
make sure that the legislation passed by this House is as good as
can possibly be.
So, the ultimate goal is very simple: it is to promote
transparency, to ensure greater provincial government
participation, and to take away from the minister some of the
powers he is giving himself with this act, something that could
eventually be very dangerous.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, once again it is a
pleasure to address the Canada Oceans Act and in particular
Motions Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53, 56 and 73.
The act, as members know, is the product of a number of
deliberations and consultations, including the standing committee
on the subject, which has a special competence and a special
expertise in matters having to do with the oceans.
I would stress again that the work of the House on this act and
the work of the standing committee should not be turned into a
fishing expedition to elaborate casual ideas on structural
institutional changes in government or on the separation of powers
or federal-provincial relations. Neither the oceans act itself nor
3647
frankly the work of the standing committee is competent to bear
that sort of discussion. There are other committees and other
arenas. While I admire the enthusiasm with which some of the
members opposite have addressed themselves to these issues and
the interstices of discussions of the oceans act, it is simply the
wrong place and the wrong time.
The motions in this group would serve to fetter the minister's
ability to exercise his mandate to act decisively on matters within
his general mandate and responsibility for the oceans.
Some of the motions propose to change accepted parliamentary
procedure by requiring the approval of the standing committee to
conduct ministerial business. That would be an unprecedented step
in terms of parliamentary practice. Frankly, while we are prepared
as a government to discuss general plans for the improvement of
Parliament, it should be done within a committee charged with that
purpose. There are several to which I could suggest members of the
opposition address themselves.
The leadership role of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is
laid out in part II, the oceans management strategy, which
describes his role and responsibilities.
Motion No. 36 by the Bloc proposes that the minister receive
unanimous approval of a standing committee before developing or
implementing policies and programs within his mandate. This is an
unprecedented attempt to fetter the minister completely in the
exercise of his mandate. It is contrary to accepted parliamentary
practice. We would have to change the system. We are prepared to
discuss that, but surely not as a footnote to the discussion of the
oceans act itself. This is a constitutional issue that deserves another
arena and a more specialized expertise on the part of its members.
Motion No. 36 should be rejected therefore.
(1550)
Motion No. 37 proposes the minister receive approval from the
standing committee before he undertakes the role as co-ordinator
within the federal government of policies and programs respecting
coastal marine waters. Once again it flies in the face of accepted
parliamentary practice. It is an idea that is interesting in itself but
there are appropriate organs of Parliament that can consider this on
the basis of the expert competence of the members of those
committees. Motion No. 37 in this context should be rejected.
Motions Nos. 40 and 41 by the Bloc propose two different
amendments to the same line in the bill. We are not really sure what
the Bloc wants on this.
Motion No. 40 proposes once again that the minister receive
approval from the standing committee to exercise his mandate,
this time for the establishment of marine environmental quality
guidelines, objectives and criteria. This would unduly restrict the
minister in exercising his mandate and is contrary to parliamentary
practice.
Motion No. 41 proposes the minister obtain agreement from the
provinces in establishing marine environmental quality guidelines,
objectives and criteria. This is something that is within federal
purview. While the provinces must and will be part of the
collaborative effort, the constitutional responsibility for this is with
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It cannot be delegated or
transferred in the interstices of the oceans act. It is the wrong arena.
Motion No. 41 must be rejected.
Part II of the act also provides a number of other mechanisms for
the minister to use in order to perform his duties and functions.
Motion No. 44 by the Bloc asks that one add mention of the
provincial governments in the provision for entering into
agreements. It is redundant as the clause already provides for the
minister to enter into agreements with the provinces. Motion No. 44 should be rejected as redundant.
Motion No. 45 again attempts to fetter the minister's abilities,
this time his ability to make grants and contributions. The Bloc
proposes the minister, before making a grant or contribution, have
the House adopt a resolution concerning a recommendation by the
standing committee.
There are already rules developed by Treasury Board governing
the making of grants and contributions. It is a huge additional
purpose, quite unnecessary, a change in parliamentary practice, and
the wrong arena and wrong forum in which to attempt it. We do not
make constitutional changes of this sort by indirection without
substantial discussion. For these reasons Motion No. 45 should be
rejected.
On Motion No. 46, it is the same theme. The minister must have
the unanimous approval of the standing committee for making
recoverable expenditures on behalf of any ministry, board or
agency of the government. This unduly fetters the minister and is
contrary to accepted parliamentary practice. I recommend
rejection.
During its review, the standing committee greatly strengthened
the provisions relating to marine protected areas. To many
Canadians these are some of the most important clauses of the
Canada Oceans Act. Motions Nos. 50, 53 and 56 relate to clauses
dealing with the regulations making powers of the minister with
respect to marine protected areas. In a situation where a marine
resource or habitat is at risk, the government would be able to take
action immediately.
The Bloc in Motions Nos. 50, 53 and 56 seeks to amend clauses
35 and 36 concerning marine protected areas and would require the
governor in council to obtain approval from affected provinces and
from a standing committee before issuing regulations. This would
also apply to emergency marine protected areas. These motions
3648
would negate the whole purpose of this section of the act which is
to provide for the implementation of emergency marine protected
areas relatively quickly when circumstances warrant it. They
would put the marine resources in jeopardy. The Bloc would rather
veto the minister's ability to fulfil his mandate and create a very
cumbersome administrative process. Why?
Further, in Motion No. 73 the Bloc feels it necessary once again
to specify that the minister may work with the provinces. We
believe in co-operating with the provinces. We do co-operate with
the provinces. It is totally unnecessary however to specify
provinces in this section and in fact it is redundant to do so. MotionNo. 73 provides no value added to this bill. It does nothing to
clarify the text. It along with Motions Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45,
46, 50, 53 and 56 should be rejected.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I was here last
night for the first part of the debate, as was the member for
Vancouver Quadra, who had several comments on each group of
motions presented by my colleague, the member for Gaspé.
(1555)
I note today that he is no wiser for having slept on it, for he is
still singing the same tune.
First, when they talk about co-operation with the provinces,
consulting the provinces, the member, whose constitutional
expertise is recognized by everyone, takes a very legal approach,
while the proposals by the member for Gaspé boil down to this:
Why always speak of the Constitution, which was written in 1867,
when things have changed, many areas have changed, the fishery
has changed? There is something of interest here, which is
co-operation by the greatest possible number of partners.
Co-operation and consultation.
Approval is not always necessary. It is up to the minister, as
recognized by international law, and we accept that. But the
member for Gaspé is trying to suggest to the legislators that the
minister be placed under a slightly greater obligation to consult, to
be more open to those partners wishing to co-operate. Since last
night, the member for Gaspé has been holding out his hand in
co-operation.
Yesterday, he spoke primarily about the provinces; today, he is
adding another aspect. He is a member of the Standing Committee
on Fisheries and Oceans, and people reacted to his speeches.
People said: ``Yes, in fact, the member for Gaspé co-operated very
closely with other members of the fisheries and oceans
committee''. This is recognized by everybody.
But when we get to the House and consider the motions, the
reaction is always the same: ``No, no, we cannot do that. We cannot
consult the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans because it
would take powers away from the minister, it is not supposed to
happen that way, it is not consistent with parliamentary practices, it
is not part of the parliamentary tradition, it is not provided for
under current parliamentary rules''.
When I hear this, I cannot help but remain stunned and surprised.
The Chair and its officers ruled that the motions moved by the
member for Gaspé were in order, which means they can be debated.
But the member for Vancouver Quadra has a different
interpretation, saying: ``No, we should not debate these things in
here, this is not the right place''.
I am not as experienced as the member for Vancouver Quadra,
but I would like him to tell me where the right place would be, if
this is not it. We are here in the federal Parliament, in the House of
Commons, to pass pieces of legislation. Where are we supposed to
debate them?
The member for Chambly said: ``Are we always supposed to
debate constitutional issues in the Chateau Laurier, at night?'', thus
reminding us of the night of the long knives. Is this the place? If it
is not the Chateau Laurier, it might be another hotel, just tell us
which one. He never tells us where we can discuss this. Moreover,
he tells us that it is not in the standing committee. It is not in the
House, it is not in committee, it is not with the provinces. But
where on earth can people help the minister carry on his
responsibilities, and form partnerships with him?
There has been consultation on the Coast Guard, but we will get
back to this later. The minister consults people, but we know full
well he only does as he pleases. He can do it, he is the boss.
What we are asking him to do is to mention in the bill that a
spirit of consultation and co-operation is needed, but he refuses to
do so. I am surprised that such motions do not get more support
from the other side of the House.
Then the member for Berthier-Montcalm spoke with his usual
eloquence and sincere optimism. And what happened right after his
speech? We were told a blunt no, as always, on legal grounds. It is
not allowed, it cannot be done here, this is not the proper forum.
But we are never told where, when or how.
(1600)
Those with a long experience in this House should help
newcomers and say: ``If it cannot be done here, it must be done in
this other place''. And when I say other place, I am not talking
about the ``other place'', as the Senate is called, because it would
seem that is not the place where things are done either. It is not
where you find the most dynamic and innovative ideas.
From what I understand, that place is more of an extinguisher, a
delaying force. Most of the time, it exercises a power to suspend
things. Young and dynamic members, such as the member for
Gaspé, make very interesting proposals, but what do they do? They
3649
reply that this is not the right place and these are not the right
motions.
In conclusion let me say, as the member for Berthier-Montcalm
said earlier, that we will have to think about the meaning of the
words written in the Liberal program where they mentioned
reforming-maybe not the type of reform the Reform Party
wants-the parliamentary system of Canada in order to increase
the contribution of members of the federal Parliament, who were
duly elected to represent their constituents.
We present motions, considered as admissible by the Chair, but
we are told this is not in the Constitution and this is not place to do
it. Let me finish with the following thought.
I tried to share the optimism of my colleague, the member for
Berthier-Montcalm, but the reaction of the member for
Vancouver Quadra brings us back to reality; this federalism is stuck
in glue. Stand-pattism is threatening us all, in that area as in others.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): As agreed,
Motions Nos. 36, 44, 45, 50, 53 and 73 are deemed to have been put
and recorded divisions are deemed to have been requested and
deferred.
The first question is on Motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 44. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 45. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 50. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 53. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
3650
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 73. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed to Group No. 9 of motions, which includes
Motions Nos. 54, 55, 69, 71 and 92.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2, on page
19, with the following:
``of the opinion that a fishery resource is or is likely to be at risk to the extent
that''.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 55
That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended
(a) in the English version, by replacing line 2, on page 19, with the following:
``habitat is or is likely to be at risk to the extent that''; and
(b) in the French version, by replacing lines 3 to 5, on page 19, with the
following:
``incompatible avec quelque accord sur des revendications territoriales ratifié,
mis en vigueur et déclaré valide par une loi fédérale.''
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 69
That Bill C-26, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3, on page
27, with the following:
``(c) navigation safety, including the regulation of the construction,
inspection, equipment and operation of boats;''.
Motion No. 71
That Bill C-26, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25, on
page 27, with the following:
``ing to fisheries resources;''.
Motion No. 92
That Bill C-26, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing line 36, on page 49,
with the following:
``establish a protected area for fishery resources in any area of''.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motions in
Group No. 9. I admit this makes a lot of paper to deal with. This
must be tiresome for the people at home who are watching, and I
know it is a little onerous for the hon. members who are less
familiar with this type of bill.
I will talk about Motions Nos. 54, 71 and 92. I will deal with
them in three separate sections. What I am trying to make the
government understand with these motions, the message I am
trying to convey, always with the goal of avoiding the problems we
may have with this bill in the future, is to determine the areas
where there could be problems, where there might be conflicting
areas.
This is a good opportunity for doing so, since the Parliamentary
Secretary of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is also the
hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, had legal or constitutional
experience before coming to the House. In fact, he uses it a lot to
repeat this may not be the right place to change the things I am
trying to change, as the hon. member for Lévis pointed out so
brilliantly.
(1605)
I want to remind the member for Vancouver Quadra that, of
course, according to the first Constitution, fisheries were a federal
jurisdiction, but at that time, there was something we did not know
much about and that is environmental problems. It was not even
part of our vocabulary. When definitions are too all-encompassing,
when the words used to describe the things to be managed are a
little too vague, it can create problems in some cases.
I am no constitutional expert, but in order to avoid conflicts on
environmental matters for instance, I prefer asking the government
to use terms such ``fishery resources'', that is the content of the
ocean, rather than ``marine resources'', a vaster concept.
Why do I wish to make such a distinction? Well, this is still a
new concept and, since I do not think this is the intent of the bill, I
would not like to see the federal government grabbing the
opportunity to spread its jurisdiction over other spheres of activity,
besides the main one which is fisheries management.
3651
Indeed, we are now talking about ocean management. However,
I doubt that there has been enough discussions between the main
partners-the provinces and the federal government-between
ministers, and between provincial and federal officials, to agree
on wording. According to the information at my disposal, there
are different definitions of those words, different interpretations.
It is important to stress this fact.
For those who have just joined us, I also want to remind them
that last year, in committee, the former fisheries minister, Brian
Tobin, recognized that he and Sheila Copps, the then Minister of
the Environment, wer like yin and yang. What about it? Surely, this
did not mean that there was a clash of personalities between these
two people. They had been working together long before I arrived.
Must I conclude that their own officials did not have the same
perception of things? This is why I draw the minister's attention to
the necessity of being cautious, of choosing a less controversial
term. Once there has been agreement on the first term, we can go
on to the second.
During the time I have left-and it is a source of concern and
frustration to be limited to 10 minutes at report stage-I would like
to address the other motions, Motions Nos. 69 and 55.
Motion No. 69 seeks to draw the department's attention to the
safety of pleasure craft. Since he is responsible for safety, I would
like the minister to extend his definition to include the safety of
anything that navigates and not to limit himself to one kind of
floating object, that is pleasure craft. I would like safety of
commercial vessels to be taken into consideration-something
which should have been done when the Coast Guard and the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans were merged. The same
minister recently set user fees for commercial vessels. I would like
to also see him look after their commercial safety.
(1610)
As for Motion No. 55, this is one presented by the government. I
will close with this one just to prove my good faith. I can live with
what is proposed in this motion. Its purpose is to ensure that there
is no incompatibility with native land claims that have already been
ratified, would be ratified, or might be declared valid by a federal
statute. That is totally sensible and I can live with that.
In other words, if I am capable of acknowledging that the
Liberals across the way are capable of some good things, I would
like some non-partisan acknowledgment from time to time that we,
too, are capable of good things. And if we are capable of
acknowledging that care must be taken with respect to aboriginal
treaties, the same spirit ought to be reflected in the letter of the act
in view of all that was said in respect of motions in Group No. 8
concerning the provinces.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, in speaking to
these motions, we in the Reform Party can support the Bloc in its
move to have the federal government responsible for safety,
including navigation, as outlined by my colleague from Gaspé. We
are also in support of the Liberal amendment.
We cannot support Motions Nos. 71 and 92, as they seek to
increase the jurisdiction of the provinces in areas where we do not
think it is appropriate.
The idea of limiting the minister's powers to marine protected
areas, to fisheries alone, is not a move in the right direction.
Canada's marine protected areas are about much more than fish.
We have very eclectic marine wildlife in all parts of the country.
The marine protected areas must be there to ensure not only the
protection of fisheries but the protection of other aquatic and
marine life found in Canada's marine waters.
We will be supporting the first motion but we cannot support the
last two motions in this grouping.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to
resume discussion of the oceans act. I am addressing in particular
Motions Nos. 54, 55, 69, 71 and 92.
I have been impressed with the sincerity and quality of the
arguments made by the hon. member for Gaspé. If I have made
comments during the course of this very long debate on the choice
of arenas for the solution to particular problems, it is because our
constitutional system, any good constitutional system, rests on
respect for constitutional roles and missions of different organs,
including in this case parliamentary committees.
Some of the proposals the hon. member makes in the interstices
of discussion of the oceans act go to relations between the different
institutions of government. The submission of the minister to
decisions of the governor in council following on decisions by
standing committees is an interesting proposal. It has memories of
the United States congressional committees and their attitude to the
presidency, although the nearer model would be la convention, that
interesting example of government by assembly one had in the
early 1790s. There is nothing to say against this proposal as a pure
proposal. I would simply say that neither the fourth nor the fifth
French republics have followed it. It is not our system. It may well
be that in the discussion of fundamental constitutional change we
should get into that. But this is not the proper arena for it.
(1615)
I would suggest to the hon. member that he might ask his party to
consider putting him up for the committee on procedure and House
affairs, which is a de facto constitutional committee and addresses
structural problems of this sort. Having been invited as an expert
3652
witness before this committee recently, I can testify to the very
high intellectual quality of all the hon. members from all parties
who were represented there.
Some of the other suggestions on federal-provincial relations are
interesting and topical. A first ministers conference is coming up.
One of the provincial premiers has already raised marine issues as a
topic for discussion. These are issues that could be discussed there
with some value for us all.
Getting back to the specific issues before us and addressing the
points concerned, I note the responsibility of Canada to conserve
and protect the vast marine ecosystems off our three coasts for
present and future generations. We recognize the increasing
stresses on our ocean environments, particularly our coastal areas.
The standing committee of which the member for Gaspé was a
valuable and hard working member heard from Canadians from all
coasts.
In Bill C-26, marine protected areas are described as areas of the
sea designated for the conservation, protection of endangered or
threatened marine species and their unique habitats, commercial,
non-commercial fishery resources, including marine mammals and
their habitats and any other marine resource or habitat that is
necessary to fulfil the mandate.
To many Canadians this is one of the most important clauses of
the Canada oceans act. It will be a milestone in Canada's oceans
history.
In addition to this clause, Bill C-26 contains regulation making
powers with respect to the marine protected areas described above.
It prescribes measures for creating these areas in emergency
situations.
In a situation where a marine resource or habitat is at risk or
likely to be at risk, we will take action immediately. This is part of
the precautionary approach described in the preamble to the act,
erring on the side of caution.
Government Motion No. 55 seeks to correct the transcription
error in this section to allow for the protection of marine resources
or habitats that are or likely to be at risk rather than as it is currently
written, which does not provide for protection of marine resources
or habitats that are at risk. This motion also makes the French and
English texts of the bill consistent in this section.
On the other hand, in our view, the Bloc in Motion No. 54 seeks
to limit the establishment of emergency marine protected areas to
the protection of fisheries resources only. This in our view flies in
the face of the ecosystem approach. There is more in Canada's
oceans than just those species we consume and many of those
species and ecosystems require protection too. Therefore, in our
view, Motion No. 54 should be rejected.
The Bloc attempts to impose similar limitations in MotionNo. 92, where it is proposed to amend Environment Canada's
Canada Wildlife Act to apply only to fisheries resources.
We find this unacceptable for the obvious reason that the Canada
Wildlife Act is legislation to protect the wildlife of this nation, not
just fisheries resources. Therefore, we recommend rejection of
Motion No. 92.
On a similar theme, Motion No. 71 by the Bloc proposes to
restrict the minister's mandate for research to fisheries resources
only. The bill commits to an ecosystem approach to managing our
oceans. Ocean ecosystems consist of all the fisheries resources. To
restrict the minister's mandate for research to only fisheries
condemns us to ignorance of natural processes at work in our
oceans.
This is not the intent of the legislation. In fact, Motion No. 71 is
totally contrary to the ecosystem approach proposed in the
legislation and supported by Canadians. We recommend rejection
of the motion.
On another matter, Motion No. 69 by the Bloc proposes to
expand the powers of the minister to include the regulation of
construction, inspection, equipment and operation of all boats. This
clause currently only refers to pleasure craft.
(1620)
While I am sure the minister is flattered by the Bloc's
confidence, the responsibility for regulation of construction,
inspection, equipment and operation of commercial vessels
remains within the mandate of another minister, the Minister of
Transport. As such, Motion No. 69 should be defeated and the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should remain responsible only
for pleasure craft.
In summary, I recommend that an effort be continued to protect
the marine resources of Canada's three oceans for generations to
come. Members of this House should reject the Bloc MotionsNos. 54, 71 and 92 and support the government technical
amendments in Motion No. 55.
Furthermore, I urge that Motion No. 69 be rejected. It proposes
to expand the responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, as I already said, for marine safety, to commercial ships
which is clearly the responsibility of the Minister of Transport.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, the motions
proposed by the member for Gaspé are particularly relevant in this
regard. First, I wanted to check the meaning of halieutic
resources-I knew what it meant, but I wanted to be sure. Le Petit
Robert says that halieutic resources refers to anything involving
fisheries.
We can see the concern of the member for Gaspé is the role
formerly played by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that is,
3653
a concern about fishing. I find that entirely reasonable, because we
can see with the new Oceans Act that the jurisdiction of the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is now much broader.
We could look for example, at Motion No. 69, which concerns
clause 41. This clause is very explicit. It talks about Coast Guard
services; services for the safe, economical and efficient movement
of ships; aids to navigation systems and services; marine
communications and traffic management services; ice breaking and
ice management services; channel maintenance services and the
marine component of the federal search and rescue program.
This really gives us a sense of the aim of the law, which is to
significantly change the role of the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans. I am not saying we should not try to make changes. As a
matter of fact, in my previous speech I was mentioning that I
wanted changes and that changes are often a necessity because
things evolve.
With regard to the Coast Guard, personally-this is not the
Bloc's position as such-I have some trouble seeing how this is
going to be transferred from the transport department to the
department which, from now on, will be the oceans department, as
this will be a new field of jurisdiction.
Speaking of the fields of jurisdiction of various departments,
certain colleagues, especially opposite, mentioned environmental
concerns, but there is a Department of the Environment, which is
called to play a very important role. It seems to me we should have
had more time to think this through, more consultation before
going ahead with such major changes, because transferring
responsibility for the whole thing is like giving responsibility over
the ecosystem, the environment; it is giving authority over many
fields which used to come under the environment department.
I wonder about this. Of course, I did not follow the committee
proceedings as closely as the member for Gaspé, who is on the
committee, because I sit on other ones, but the member for Gaspé
mentioned them very often and told us about his concerns. Coming
from an area where there is a lot of fishing, he has shown on many
occasions how well he knows the issue. There is an old saying to
the effect that you should not bite more than you can chew.
(1625)
I am concerned about the minister who will have to play a great
many different roles which might be interrelated but could
sometimes clash, especially if, for example, he becomes
responsible for other departments. This is why it is so important to
have a mechanism for the consultation of, and the joint action with,
not only other federal departments but also the other partners, the
provinces. Consider all the resources associated with oceans; the
member for Chambly reminded us yesterday that it can mean such
things as the flotilla which ran aground at Pointe-aux-Anglais
where the shipwreck now has a definite heritage value.
Clearly the issue is not a simple one. Sometimes, when trying to
clarify things, we can complicate them by generating
contradictions between the operations of different departments.
My purpose is not to officially oppose that aspect of the bill, but
rather to remind the government to consider thoroughly all the
possible impacts of such changes in transfers, particularly in the
case of the Coast Guard.
[English]
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to comment on the amendments put forward
by the hon. member for Gaspé. I am not going to support these
amendments.
Coming from the same area as the hon. member, it is perfectly
right and legitimate that he raise these amendments to this
legislation.
The clerks at the table make a judgment on whether these
amendments are legal. That is why we have a law clerk. In fact, I
was once a law clerk in a provincial legislature. That is why we
have an assistant clerk, a chief clerk. They make those decisions.
I can also understand why the hon. member in some of his
amendments talks the way he does about the ecosystem and about
the great dissatisfaction he and his fishermen have with the way the
federal government has treated the ecosystem over the years.
The great Gaspé area puts out a brochure for June that says:
``Fishing from the wharves''. That is for saltwater fish. Just
imagine, fishing from the wharves. And under that it says: ``In
various sections of the Gaspé for this year''. There is listed which
wharves are the best wharves for fishing cod.
We cannot fish cod in Newfoundland and Labrador because of
the moratorium. However, the federal government allows fishing
from the wharves in the Gaspé for cod, mackerel, sea trout and so
on. It is a great fishing area. The best spawning area in the world
for mackerel is the Gaspé coast. What has happened over the years?
I can understand the hon. member. Over the years the federal
government had given licences to Norway, Sweden and Denmark
to fish every year at this time as the mackerel are coming in to
spawn in that great spawning area in the gulf. What these vessels
did was block the spawning path of the mackerel as it came in in
one big line. Believe me, that is not too long ago.
In fact we still have foreign licences inside 200-miles. I am
surprised that the opposition has not introduced an amendment to
end it for all time.
What happened to the squid that once frequented the Gaspé
peninsula and the eastern coast of Canada?
3654
(1630)
The hon. member talks about the ecosystem, the squid that used
to go into the gulf, the squid that were the food of the cod, the
flatfish and every other type of groundfish. The squid are born
around Florida. They come up the coastline of Canada, go into the
gulf, go way up around the east coast of Canada, come back down
in one year to Florida and die. They know where to go, do they not?
They go down to Florida in that one year cycle, reproduce and then
die. Ever since I can recall the federal government has judged squid
to be underutilized. Therefore it has granted the licences for the
great interception of the squid on their way up around the east coast
of Canada into the Gulf of the St. Lawrence and around the Gaspé
Peninsula.
I can understand what the hon. member is talking about when he
talks about the federal government's mismanaging the resource
historically. Historically there is certainly a case to be made for the
federal government's total and utter mismanagement of the
fisheries. There is no doubt about it. However, in the meantime I
will not support the hon. member's amendment. I do not want him
to get excited.
The unfortunate part of the management of the fishery that
sometimes fisheries and oceans does not understand is the fact that
fish swim. Fish actually swim.
An hon. member: Politicians talk, the fish swim.
Mr. Baker: No, the politicians make the lines in the ocean. They
draw these lines and say here will be the regulation over on this
side of the line and here is another regulation over on this side of
the line. It is as if there are police officers at the bottom of the
ocean who come up with stop signs and the fish are actually
stopping somewhere in mid-ocean and turn around.
Therefore I can understand what the hon. member is talking
about when he talks about the ecosystem that should apply to the
fishery as it is not presently applying. Let me elaborate on the
ecosystem and what is considered under these amendments.
If we look at the respect governments in Canada have for the
ecosystem and the effects that government action has on the
ecosystem we see today that while our fishermen sit at home, just
outside the 200 mile zone, on what we call the Flemish Cap, which
the hon. member for Gaspé is very familiar with, we have the
foreign nations that continue to fish every single resource there.
I can understand the hon. member's point when he says there
should be more consultation than there presently is. The only
problem, something we have to think about as parliamentarians, is
that when one gives the authority to the local area to have an input
sometimes what comes out the other end is not desirable. There has
been case after case of that.
In other words, when we tell the province of Quebec it can
manage a certain part of the fishing resource, as the federal
government has done, which has not been so for the other provinces
although they have moved over the past 20 years historically, and
then we tell Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland the same thing,
what we have is a hodge-podge of regulations. We have a
non-respect for the very thing the hon. member is promoting, the
ecosystem.
An hon. member: And very confused fish.
Mr. Baker: Yes, and even when we go to the fishermen.
Today my phone calls concern fathoms. When fishermen set a
net under 400 fathoms in the Atlantic Ocean today for turbot-a
familiar word-they must have by regulation a net size of seven
and a half inches. Unfortunately our fishermen do not have that size
nets. Above 400 fathoms it is five and half inches.
(1635)
Last year the federal government agreed to change that
regulation size. There are hundreds of fishermen saying ``how can
we continue to fish today, our fish plants will close?'' On checking
why the regulation was changed, I discovered the regulation was
changed by a conservation committee, set up by the hon. John
Crosbie when he was minister of fisheries and oceans, that
consulted with the fishermen and the environmentalists and came
up with a regulation that cannot work. Now here am I lobbying
today the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to change the very thing
he had used his consultation process to get from the local fisher
persons.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Mackenzie, human rights; the hon.
member for Sarnia-Lambton, lacrosse.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on Bill C-26. In fact, I think some work has already
been done with my colleague from Gaspé at second reading, and
we are now dealing with a group of rather important motions.
I will deal in greater detail with the environmental aspect, which
is my area of concern, and the effect of this bill on the Department
of the Environment. This new bill gives the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans some powers that already belong to the Minister of the
Environment. This is a further example of overlap between
departments, and this is not the first time there are tensions
between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the
Department of the Environment. Once again, we have the yin and
the yang.
3655
The bill seems to create a sectoral Department of the
Environment. It is like a Department of the Coastal Environment,
if you will. If each department did the same thing, the Department
of Transport would include something called Environment
Transport, the Department of Industry, something called
Environment Industry, and all government departments would
have powers over environmental protection and conservation.
If this is the direction the government wants to take, all it needs
to do is abolish the Department of the Environment. The
government's approach to the environment is to centralize powers
in Ottawa because of the national interest and of the globalization
of environmental problems. Of course, Bill C-26 matches this
approach.
I will quote a few clauses. Clauses 28 to 36 of the bill are those
pertaining to the development of a strategy for the management of
estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems. This part does not apply
to lakes and rivers. The management of these ecosystems is for the
most part under provincial jurisdiction. I think the provinces are
well aware of that, and deal with the environment. If there is
overlap, not only with the Department of the Environment, but also
with areas of provincial jurisdiction, the government is seizing
some excessive powers.
It is impossible to control a department in this way. The
government cannot meddle in jurisdictions that do not belong to it.
Once again, this will simply create confusion between the
provinces, which will not be able to reach a consensus, preferring
to defend their own particular interests, which is quite normal,
while the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will never manage to
harmonize all this. This is another bill that will be impossible to
implement and administer.
(1640)
I now want to move on to clauses 31, 32 and 33, which give the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the power to develop and
implement a national strategy for managing the ecosystems in
estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters. This strategy involves
implementing plans for the management of activities, establishing
management or consulting organizations, developing various
programs, setting environmental standards, collecting and
analyzing scientific data on the ecosystems in question. That is
quite a lot.
It must be noted that several of the activities I just mentioned are
already being carried out by the Department of the Environment.
Once again, the government is duplicating existing services, as
though it could afford such duplication.
Nowhere in this bill is the minister required to come to an
agreement with other federal departments or with the provinces. In
most cases, he can, if he so desires, request the co-operation of
other authorities. But only if he so desires. Once again, introducing
such bills without harmonizing activities with those of other
federal departments, the provinces and other levels of government
is unacceptable.
The fact that the minister is not required to work in co-operation
with officials from Environment Canada in particular and other
federal departments in general is incomprehensible and
unacceptable. At a time when jobs are being cut and when public
spending is supposed to be reduced, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans is creating duplication within the federal government.
Moreover, the new powers, duties and functions assigned to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are not exclusively his, as they do
not affect in any way the existing powers, duties and functions of
other ministers and stakeholders. This means that competition and
overlap may well develop in terms of applicable standards and
amendments, as well as priorities and special measures.
It is incomprehensible and unacceptable that the minister not be
required to work together with the provinces, when the provinces
are directly affected by marine environment management. Over the
years, Environment Canada has had to do so, through bodies such
as the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, which is
more or less satisfactory. Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
contemplating going the same route?
It is a special situation where 10 environment ministers are
working together with the aboriginals. Trying to reach an
agreement on harmonization with 10 people around the table never
works. This has prompted the Minister of the Environment to try to
enter into a bilateral agreement with each province, since
environmental priorities vary from one province to the next
depending on the industries operating in the province. Will the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans do the same?
It does not always work well. I can tell you that, sometimes, it
takes years just to settle one matter. Take for example greenhouse
effect gas. We saw what happened. At the Rio summit, before all
the other countries represented, the Canadian government made a
commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but realized, after
consulting the provinces, that it would not be possible.
Moreover, it imposed standards unilaterally. The provinces were
unable to meet these standards. As a result, come the year 2002,
instead of having reduced greenhouse gas emissions, we will be
facing another international summit where we will have to admit it
did not work. We must watch out.
It is incomprehensible and unacceptable for the provinces to be
treated, in this bill, like any other stakeholder, be it interests
groups, municipalities, or industries. To do so is to show a glaring
lack of respect for the provinces and it just does not make sense. It
seems to me that a province has much greater powers than an
interest group, a municipality or an industry. Provinces should be
3656
on an equal footing with the federal government, not at a lower
level.
The environment is not one of the exclusive jurisdictions
assigned to one level of government under the Constitution. It is
what is called an ancillary jurisdiction, arising from those
jurisdictions specifically mentioned in the Canadian Constitution.
(1645)
Theoretically, the Department of the Environment is responsible
for this ancillary jurisdiction, together with each of the departments
concerned.
Before 1985, the Quebec government, which has jurisdiction
over local and territorial matters, played a major role with respect
to the environment, occupying most of the jurisdictional area. At
the time, in accordance with the Constitution, the federal
government was content to get involved in areas complementing its
jurisdiction.
After 1985, the federal started to get involved in environmental
issues. It did so mainly through its spending power and through
new powers it received from the courts. From then on, many
instances of overlap and duplications appeared. This situation has
been steadily growing since the election of the present Liberal
government, which is doing its best to centralize the decision
making process in Ottawa.
To the Quebec government, Bill C-26 is another step toward
centralization. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a four to
three decision, divested the provinces of the management of the
ocean environment and of its territory and turned it over to the
federal government. Under Bill C-26, the federal government is
trying to get the maximum out of this decision. Because of this
centralizing tendency, Quebec fears that the federal government is
attempting, in the middle or long term, to claim management of
oceans and their resources.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): According to
the agreement, Motions Nos. 54, 55, 69 and 71 are deemed to have
been put to a vote and the recorded divisions are deemed to have
been requested and deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 54. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members ha-ving risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 55. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 69. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 71. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
3657
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
We now move on to Group No. 10, Motion No. 65.
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 65
That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 43, on page 25, the following
new Clause:
``39.12 (1) In addition to the procedures set out in the Criminal Code for
commencing a proceeding, proceedings in respect of any offence prescribed by
the regulations may be commenced by an enforcement officer
(a) completing a ticket that consists of a summons portion and an information
portion;
(b) delivering the summons portion to the accused or mailing it to the accused at
the accused's latest known address; and
(c) filing the information portion with a court of competent jurisdiction before
the summons portion has been delivered or mailed or as soon as is practicable
afterward.
(2) The summons and information portions of the ticket must
(a) set out a description of the offence and the time and place of its alleged
commission;
(b) include a statement, signed by the enforcement officer who completes the
ticket, that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused
committed the offence;
(c) set out the amount of the fine prescribed by the regulations for the offence
and the manner in which and period within which it may be paid;
(d) include a statement that if the accused pays the fine within the period set out
in the ticket, a conviction will be entered and recorded against the accused; and
(e) include a statement that if the accused wishes to plead not guilty or for any
other reason fails to pay the fine within the period set out in the ticket, the
accused must appear in the court on the day and at the time set out in the ticket.
(3) Where a thing is seized under this Act and proceedings relating to it are
commenced by way of the ticketing procedure, the enforcement officer who
completes the ticket shall give written notice to the accused that, if the accused
pays the fine prescribed by the regulations within the period set out in the ticket,
the thing, or any proceeds of its disposition, will be immediately forfeited to Her
Majesty.
(4) Where an accused to whom the summons portion of a ticket is delivered or
mailed pays the prescribed fine within the period set out in the ticket,
(a) the payment constitutes a plea of guilty to the offence and a conviction
must be entered against the accused and no further action may be taken
against the accused in respect of that offence; and
(b) notwithstanding section 39.3, any thing seized from the accused under
this Act that relates to the offence, or any proceeds of its disposition, are
forfeited to
(i) Her Majesty in right of Canada, if the thing was seized by an enforcement
officer employed in the public service of Canada, or
(ii) Her Majesty in right of a province, if the thing was seized by an
enforcement officer employed by the government of that province.
(5) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing
(a) offences in respect of which this section applies and the manner in which
the offences are to be described in tickets; and
(b) the amount of the fine for a prescribed offence, but the amount may not
exceed $2,000.''
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure
to participate again in debate on the oceans act. Specifically I will
be addressing government Motion No. 65.
The fisheries and oceans fleet and that assigned to the coast
guard became one during last year's turbot war when the red
vessels of the coast guard and the grey vessels of the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans performed admirably as a team to enforce
Canada's commitment to protect straddling stocks and highly
migratory fish from foreign predatory overfishing.
In its March 1995 report on the state of the world fisheries the
FAO, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations, highlighted problems of control and pointed toward
solutions.
Renewed international attention is focusing on unauthorized
fishing and the role of monitoring, control and surveillance.
Fisheries conservation and management are being undermined by
unauthorized fishing practices. Together with the lack of effective
monitoring, control and surveillance systems, this is threatening
the sustainability of fisheries.
Enforcement is an important issue when dealing with ocean
management. Poaching, dumping and other illegal activities
compromise the future of our oceans and of their resources. Over
the years Canadians have been confronted with challenges not only
to our jurisdiction but to resource conservation and protection
measures we exercise within our maritime areas.
Many witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans, including the Pacific Fishermen's Alliance,
requested clarification on strengthening of the enforcement
provisions of the oceans act with the explicit wording to describe
the
3658
role of the enforcement officers and the nature of and punishment
for offences.
The enforcement provisions have been strengthened through the
legislative process. The original bill text submitted to the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans only provided a
cross-reference to relevant enforcement and compliance provisions
of the Canada Wildlife Act.
To improve the clarity of the bill and to make the act user
friendly, the standing committee decided that sections 11 to 11.5
and 13 to 19 of the Canada Wildlife Act should be reproduced in
the Canada Oceans Act. Unfortunately I hate to mention that
although the king can do no wrong sometimes errors are made in
the federal government. The last section was omitted when the
sections were transcribed.
(1650)
This section outlines the procedure to be followed in the event of
contravention of the act, including the issuance of tickets, notice of
forfeiture and payment of fines. This section, which should be
clause 39(12), is critical to the application of penalties and fines
outlined in the oceans act since it provides authority and guidance
for ticketing procedures and authority for the governor in council to
make regulations prescribing offences and fines with respect to
ticketable offences.
Provision for ticketing provides an efficient and cost effective
way of enforcing provisions of the Canada Oceans Act. It allows
for speedy disposition of certain offences and avoids lengthy and
costly court proceedings.
I therefore recommend that hon. members support MotionNo. 65. It is put forward by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to
eliminate ambiguity, to resolve any potential misinterpretation of
the enforcement clauses by adding clause 39(12) which was
inadvertently omitted from the committee report and for which I
offer the apologies of the federal government.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we concur with
Motion No. 65. We believe the minister and the enforcement
officers need the power under legislation to enforce the act and to
ensure that Canada's marine areas are protected to the fullest
extent.
The member for Gander-Grand Falls raised an interesting point
in his earlier intervention which I will follow up on. It is very
counterproductive to have regulations with respect to the
requirement of Canadians to obey the law and not to violate the
sections of the act we are dealing with.
What happens when Canadians are held to one standard and
foreign nationals are held to a completely different standard? I
concur with the member's observations with respect to the food
fishing that is taking place right now in Atlantic Canada.
For Newfoundlanders it is an offence to go out and catch fish to
feed their families. Three miles away in St. Pierre and Miquelon
not only is it not an offence, but they are bringing in tourists to
catch the same fish. It is ludicrous. If Newfoundlanders have the
temerity to go more than three miles off coast and into the waters
around St. Pierre and Miquelon, they can catch fish as well without
facing the fear of being apprehended, arrested or charged by DFO
officers.
We agree with the intent and that there has to be adequate
enforcement regulations and legislation within the act. However
we question where the government is going when there is one set of
standards for people in Newfoundland, another set of standards for
people in Gaspé, a different set of standards for people in Nova
Scotia, and another one for tourists coming from Europe to fish and
to visit St. Pierre and Miquelon.
It is very difficult for Canadians to feel good about the act and to
feel that it will do what they would like to see it do when they see
this ongoing double standard taking place.
Hopefully with pressure the minister will recognize the failure of
the policy he is currently following and will back away from it.
Certainly that is the intent we will be pursuing over the next days
and weeks.
(1655)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will address
Motion No. 65. This motion is rather technical in nature and I agree
with the parliamentary secretary that it deals with an issue which
may have been overlooked at the time.
Be that as it may, I am not trying to hurt the feelings of the
government, but if it cannot agree now on how to establish a
partnership, and if the provinces cannot be included in the process
from the outset, how could I support it when it says: ``Here is how
we will hand out the penalties and fines''? The government should
know I will ask my party to vote against Motion No. 65.
I would like to go back to the comments that were just made by
the member for Skeena and to those made earlier by the member
for Gander-Grand Falls. When he talked about managing the
resource, the member for Skeena seemed to say that various
applications of the act, or different forms of penalties, would be
used, depending on whether an offence is committed on the Gaspé
coast, the coast of Newfoundland, or the coast of Nova Scotia.
We must first know what is going on locally. Is a fishery open? If
not, why? Earlier, the member for Gander-Grand Falls made a
brilliant speech on the migrating ability of the fish found along our
coasts. He is right to mention the species that arrive first. There is a
3659
reason for this. For example, squid start south and travel up the
coastline, all the way to the gulf, before going back down south to
die. Nice place to die, as the member said.
It is the migration of these species that attracts other species. I
understand why the member wanted to stress the importance of this
fact. This migration process is what attracts other species. The cod
will chase these species. This is what is called the food chain. The
big ones go after the small ones. In the case of the whale, it really
eats much smaller species. It comes into the Gulf of St. Lawrence,
around Anticosti Island, in the estuary, to eat shrimp. It is
important to realize there is a migration process going on.
Some isolated phenomena also occur as part of that food chain.
The member for Gander-Grand Falls is well aware of what I am
alluding to. We are talking about two main species. I will talk about
the cod in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. There are two main stocks,
referred to as 4RS cod and 3Pn cod, that is the one along the north
shore in Quebec and the one along the western coast of
Newfoundland.
There is cod in the southern part of the gulf. There are mainly
two stocks. When indicating that cod sport fishing was still
practised over the past few years in the Gaspé Peninsula, the hon.
member should mention that it was mainly the stock in that zone, in
the southern part of the gulf, that was being caught.
Where he comes from, it is a different stock. What is happening
with that stock, how it is faring? As we know, we sometimes see
cod of a good size and nice density in a certain bay, but biologists
warn us, saying that this is perhaps a reserve and that it should be
preserved.
What I am interested in seeing the hon. member do is bring about
the disclosure of information for the benefit of the local population.
Are the biologists telling the truth? Fishermen and people living in
local communities have as much difficulty as we do finding out
who is telling the truth on this matter, because it is very difficult to
follow.
It even happens at times that biologists do not agree among
themselves and that everything they have told us so far-and the
hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls is right about that-did not
turn out as they had predicted. Some things have been left to
deteriorate.
(1700)
This is all very important, and that is why I would like the
support of the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls.
People like Mr. Wells, not Mr. Wells, but his predecessor, play a
very important role. They created quite an uproar on the issue of
foreign fishing. It all started with his predecessor. Mr. Wells also
took some measures. Without all this fuss, would the Parliament of
Canada have done everything it did to stop or slow down foreign
overfishing? I do not think so. My experience in politics may be
limited, but I do know that you have to hit the nail over and over
again, once you have identified it, in order to drive it in.
The message has to be understood by the people. That explains
why it took three premiers of Newfoundland to try, in their
legislative assembly, here, in Ottawa, and through the national
media, to make the people of Canada understand that there was a
problem off Newfoundland. That problem had no impact at all in
the prairie provinces. Someone had to drive it in.
The motions I put forward may need to be rewritten or redrafted,
but it is important to realize that they stress the need for the
provinces to be consulted first. After all, it was the provinces that
formed Canada, so they must have a say for Canada to stand tall
and proud. Do you not find it funny that these words were spoken
by a sovereignist? The message I want to get through is that for
Canada to stand tall and proud, it must really accept the partnership
concept.
I do not come here with a sledgehammer ready to hit nor do I
hide anything. No. Everyone can see that I am empty-handed. I
speak clearly of a definite phenomenon.
As we know, there is a migration. Therefore, it is important that
we all discuss it and that the province of Newfoundland get the
means to act as soon as it gets a signal: Cod is less abundant today?
What happened? Because it takes time for the message to get here,
in Ottawa. Newfoundland needs to have the means to immediately
call a meeting. The minister responsible for the integrated
management partnership will have to be made aware of the
situation. It will be there in black and white.
That way, Newfoundland will also be able to call Quebec. It will
be able to say: ``Let us stop quarrelling about other things, call the
Quebec government and tell it we have to do this or that''. The
Quebec Minister of Fisheries will answer: ``You are right. I am glad
you told me. OK. We will go to Ottawa together. I want to hear
what you have to say to the Canadian Minister of Fisheries''. This
is real partnership. This is working together.
As I said a while ago, I am aware of the migration process. When
Quebec and British Columbia demanded that fisheries management
be transferred to the provinces at the Victoria conference in
November 1994-and this may be what the hon. member for
Gander-Grand Falls was afraid of-we never ever asked to
manage the fish stocks separately. What we asked for was the right
to manage the share of the province, i.e. the right to manage the
licences relating to the 25 or 30 per cent of the resources that could
be allocated to Quebec or New Brunswick, that could be caught in
their own fisheries and that they could themselves share out among
their communities, but always in accordance with the basic
conservation strategy.
3660
I realize that time flies, and I still have a lot of things to explain.
I do not know if we can ask for the House's consent, but I would
like to clarify this issue, with the agreement of the House. We
could try to examine the kind of true partnership that is required.
Surely, the member for Gander-Grand Falls will stand up in a
moment to tell us a bit more. But procedure at report stage does not
allow us to look at the issue in greater depth.
In conclusion, you can ask the House if it gives its consent;
meanwhile, I will sit down and wait for your ruling.
(1705 )
[English]
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a very serious problem in fisheries management
and that is France. It was only a short time ago that France was
given control over that great stretch of ocean that goes out about
150 miles in a straight line. It is a big corridor and France controls
it. All the migration the hon. member is talking about, because of
the control France has, would all be for naught. How could we
manage a fishery when we have the entire doorway to the gulf cut
off by France? It is an interesting question.
We do not have any control over those things. We should have
control over them but we do not. The Canadian government should
have done it the right way but it did not. When France was given
that territory, the Government of Canada should have apologized to
the people of Canada.
What we can control are the spawning grounds. As the hon.
member says, there are a lot of mackerel spawning grounds. They
are the best in the world. Control over the spawning grounds does
not require provincial input or input from anybody else. All it
requires is a bit of common sense. As the hon. member knows, the
mackerel now in the second week of June are coming in from the
Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to spawn. They usually
start at the end of May.
Chasing them are the blue fin tuna. Who has the highest quota
for blue fin tuna in eastern Canada?
Mr. Scott (Skeena): The Japanese.
Mr. Baker: The hon. member for Skeena said the Japanese.
Could that be correct?
What is the quota for Quebec? Thirty-five tonnes of blue fin. The
Japanese have a bycatch of 180 tonnes in Canadian waters. A
decent sized blue fin is worth $20,000 or $30,000. That is what is
paid for one fish.
Historically we have belonged to the International Tuna
Commission which involves three countries: the United States,
Japan and Canada. Once a year there is a little get-together. They
usually decide that Canada will get the lowest quota of the three.
The fattest blue fin tuna are the ones chasing the mackerel into the
hon. member's riding.
The Japanese have marvellous boats with helicopters on them.
They are incredible vessels. The quotas are given according to the
number of vessels. That might run into 10 to 14 vessels. By
international agreement they have unlimited quotas for skipjack,
albacore, yellow fin and all of the different tuna. We cannot catch
them. It would be illegal for someone from Canada to catch them.
The Japanese have a bycatch of 180 tonnes and a Canadian
province only has a quota of 35 tonnes.
(1710 )
On top of that, the feeder boats come in behind them. They load
up on yellow fin, albacore, skipjack, all these tuna, a bit of
swordfish is permitted as well, 10 per cent bycatch for these others,
and then a bycatch of a 180 tonnes of blue fin, then they go back to
Japan. Surely we do not need provincial intervention to see the
wisdom of cancelling those quotas.
Also chasing the mackerel is the porbeagle shark. Restaurants in
Quebec City or Vancouver sell shark fin soup for $200 and $300 a
bowl. Those shark fins come from the porbeagle shark off the coast
of Newfoundland. As they head in they follow the continental shelf
chasing those very mackerel which are going into the hon.
member's riding to spawn. The fins are cut off. Five hundred
tonnes for a vessel from Denmark, from the Faroe Islands. In fact
the vessel's name is the Bakker.
Far more things can be done that do not require the help or even
the suggestion of the provinces, that would maintain the federal
government as the manager of the entire fishing resource, as many
members have pointed out, as the hon. member for Skeena has just
said, as part of the ocean's ecosystem. Members of Parliament
should be promoting those things in the House every day.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened with
interest to the member for Gander-Grand Falls and the member
for Gaspé who are now having an extremely interesting debate that
demonstrates their knowledge of fishery resources. This is a
refreshing change from constitutional issues.
One thing concerns me when I read Motion No. 65. This is not in
the original bill, it is an addition to it, an addition comprising some
twenty paragraphs. In the three years I have been here, I have rarely
seen such a technical and precise motion. I would like to draw the
House's attention to it.
3661
For example, when the motion says:
(a) completing a ticket that consists of a summons portion and an information
portion;
this is quite precise language on the subject of tickets and the
manner in which they must be completed. The motion goes on:
(b) delivering the summons portion to the accused or mailing it to the accused
at the accused's latest known address; and
(c) filing the information portion with a court of competent jurisdiction
before the summons portion has been delivered or mailed or as soon as is
practicable afterward.
I believe this is obvious. I have rarely seen such wording in a bill.
Subclause (2) then reads:
(2) The summons and information portions of the ticket must
(a) set out a description of the offence and the time and place of its alleged
commission;
(b) include a statement, signed by the enforcement officer who completes the
ticket, that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused
committed the offence.
To me, that seems obvious. When an officer decides to complete
a ticket it is because he believes that someone committed an
offence. I do not see why that should be included in the bill. That
reminds me of the time when someone in the municipal council
where I was a councillor proposed a bylaw saying that it was
forbidden to steal books from the library. We had to argue for five
minutes to have him understand that it was not necessary because
everybody already knew it was forbidden to steal.
The motion continues:
(c) set out the amount of the fine prescribed by the regulations for the offence
and the manner in which and period within which it may be paid;
(d) include a statement that if the accused pays the fine within the period set out
in the ticket, a conviction will be entered and recorded against the accused.
That too seems obvious to me.
(1715)
I continue:
(e)include a statement that if the accused wishes to plead not guilty or for any
other reason fails to pay the fine within the period set out in the ticket, the
accused must appear in the court on the day and at the time set out in the ticket.
Since when is an accused not required to appear before the
court?
Then subclause (3) states:
(3) Where a thing is seized under this Act and proceedings relating to it are
commenced by way of the ticketing procedure, the enforcement officer who
completes the ticket shall give written notice to the accused that, if the accused pays
the fine prescribed by the regulations within the period set out in the ticket, the thing,
or any proceeds of its disposition, will be immediately forfeited to Her Majesty.
Namely, the Queen. I do not think this will go as far as England,
but it does not matter.
(4) Where an accused to whom the summons portion of a ticket is delivered or
mailed pays the prescribed fine within the period set out in the ticket,
(a) the payment constitutes a plea of guilty to the offence and a conviction
must be entered against the accused and no further action may be taken
against the accused in respect of that offence; and
(b) notwithstanding section 39.3, any thing seized from the accused under
this Act that relates to the offence, or any proceeds of its disposition, are
forfeited to (i) Her Majesty in right of Canada, if the thing was seized by an
enforcement officer employed in the public service of Canada, or
and this is what concerns the member for Gaspé when he says that
when it is time to collect fines, the provinces have a role to play
(ii) Her Majesty in right of a province, if the thing was seized by an
enforcement officer employed by the government of that province.
Why would the federal government want to give so many details
in a piece of legislation? It is really unusual in an act, as opposed to
a regulation, to be so specific, unless the federal government wants
to have fines collected by provincial civil servants.
This is the new role the federal government wants to hand over
to provincial governments. The federal government is doing its
planning from Ottawa and it is having trouble. I listen to the
member for Gander-Grand Falls. People think that Ottawa can
predict all the migrations the member described just now, and I saw
him get the member for Gaspé going all over again. I was saying to
myself they even know the exact time, the very week. He even says
that today the bluefin tuna are going after mackerel. Obviously
they have this level of knowledge because they are close to the
resource.
This is the concrete proof that this resource should be
administered as close as possible not just to the people, but to the
fish, the bluefin tuna and the mackerel. I am amazed at such
knowledge. In Ottawa, they want to plan things from their turf, and
when it comes to writing up tickets, they tell us exactly how. I do
not see in the bill a level of detail as astonishing as what we have
just heard from the member for Gander-Grand Falls.
I say to myself that it makes no sense to look at the
administration of fish resources like this, to talk about regulations,
and I could go on. This is the point I am trying to make. I ask the
question. I wonder if this is why the federal government wants to
deal with the provinces and does not include them in policy
planning and development consultations. However, it wants them
to have the role of collecting fines. But where is the concern with
saving fish and fish resources, when the sort of thing the members
are telling us about goes on while the resource is disappearing?
While the bluefin tuna is devouring the mackerel, we are sitting
here worrying about the form used for fines.
3662
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): According to
the agreement, for Group No. 10, the question on Motion No. 65
is deemed to have been put and a division thereon requested and
deferred.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed to Group No. 11, which includes Motions
Nos. 67, 68 and 70.
(1720)
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 67
That Bill C-26, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 15, on page
26, with the following:
``rine resources and the provision of coast guard and hydrographic services to
ensure the facilita-''.
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-26, in Clause 41, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 19 and 20, on page 26, with the following:
``41. (1) As the Minister responsible for coast guard services, the powers,
duties and'';
(b) in the French version, by replacing line 7, on page 27, with the following:
``l'intervention environnementale;''; and
(c) in the French version, by replacing line 14, on page 27, with the following:
``à (iv) sont dispensés de la manière la plus économique et la plus judicieuse
possible.''
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 70
That Bill C-26, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 12, on page
27, with the following:
``(2) In accordance to the stipulations contained in subsection 47(2), clause
48.1 and subsection 49(2), services under subparagraphs 41(1)(a)(i)to (iv)
shall be provided in the most cost effective manner possible. The level and
scope of such services, as well as the manner of their delivery, shall be defined in
full, ongoing, consultation with all beneficiaries.''
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure
again to re-enter this marathon debate at Motions Nos. 67, 68 and
70, of which Nos. 67 and 69 are government motions.
The amendments proposed in this group of motions pertain to
clauses 40 and 41 of part III of the bill. That, as we all know,
describes the powers, duties and functions of the minister. These
powers, duties and functions are over and above those already
ascribed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by other
legislation.
The standing committee has done an admirable job in
strengthening this bill, as have all hon. members. When clause 41
was modified by the committee to present the coast guard and
hydrographic services as two of the many responsibilities of the
minister of fisheries, a corresponding change was not made to
clause 40, which also refers to these services.
Government Motions Nos. 67 and 68 propose minor technical
amendments to clauses 40 and 41 to ensure uniformity of
terminology throughout the bill's text and to clarify the language.
This is very important.
I know all members will join with me in supporting Motions
Nos. 67 and 68, which maintain the quality and strength in this long
awaited legislation.
However, Motion No. 70, proposed by the Reform Party, is not a
minor amendment. In our view it would result in a significant
additional administrative burden and would add substantially to the
cost of doing business.
Motion No. 70 seeks to expand on the clause of the bill that
commits to delivering coast guard services in a cost effective
manner. The Reform Party motion proposes to restrict the
application of this clause by referring to a number of additional
amendments whereby the level and scope of coast guard services
and the method of delivery should be defined in ongoing
consultation with all beneficiaries.
Surely that is going a little too far. At a time when are concerned
with reducing government spending, increasing the effectiveness
of our interactions with Canadians, this amendment seems
offensive and meaningless. What could possibly be meant by all
beneficiaries of coast guard services? Surely that is cloud concept.
The concept of ongoing consultations on how and why a minister
might deliver his mandate is at best onerous. At worst it is a
tremendous strain on the treasury. We all know how hard the
finance minister is working to reduce the deficit.
3663
Bill C-26 is committed to the consultative approach and the
minister will consult. The government must be allowed to get on
with the business of governing to do its job as outlined in the
legislation.
Motion No. 70 in our view only serves to add another layer of
administration and bureaucracy to the cost of delivery of coast
guard services.
I should reiterate that this section of the bill lays out the
minister's powers, duties and functions within the bill. These are
clear. It is also clear that in order for business to be conducted in a
reasonably efficient manner we must let those to whom we have
assigned responsibility exercise that responsibility.
It is time we let the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans get on with
the job of managing the oceans and we should give him the means
to do so. Motion No. 70 in our view tries to limit the minister's
ability to exercise his mandate and we suggest it should be rejected.
Motions Nos. 67 and 68, in contrast, are minor technical
amendments which will improve the clarity and consistency of the
bill. We recommend their acceptance by all hon. members.
(1725 )
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, in Motion No.
70 we want to ensure that services provided by the minister shall be
provided in the most cost effective manner possible. The level and
scope of such services as well as the manner of their delivery shall
be defined in full ongoing consultation with all beneficiaries.
After listening to the parliamentary secretary's intervention I fail
to see how anybody could find this offensive. I think it is offensive
to those people who will be required to pay fees for services to be
required to do so without consultation. When the coast guard last
year announced it was to impose a fee for service that is exactly
what happened. We heard a hue and cry from one end of the
country to the other as a result.
The coast guard initially maintained it was in consultation with
shippers and ports across Canada. I know there are members
present today who were sitting on the standing committee, the
member for Gaspé and the parliamentary secretary, who heard
testimony from witnesses from Halifax, from the port of Montreal,
from the port of St. John's, from the port of Vancouver. They told
the standing committee they had not been properly consulted.
Let us put this into perspective. We are not talking about a small
amount of money. In the current year the coast guard, effective
June 1 of this year, is intending to collect $20 million from shippers
across Canada and from ports. It intends to escalate that to $40
million in 1997, $40 million in 1998 and $60 million in 1999.
We have with this legislation a window of opportunity. We have
the opportunity to ensure the minister and the department cannot
unilaterally impose fees for services without consultation and
without being able to justify that the services they are providing are
actually required by the people who will pay for them, that they are
being delivered in a cost effective and that they are being delivered
in consultation with those people who will have to pay the bill.
Let me lay out the scenario as it took place in 1995-96. Largely
due to the fact that the Treasury Board has told the coast guard its
budget is to be reduced, it will have to get by with less money or
will have to raise more money on its own, the coast guard decided
it would raise an additional $20 million in 1996.
It came up with a plan that would have seen a national rate
imposed right across the country. It did not relate the imposition of
this user fee to any services it was actually providing. Until very
recently we have not been able to get much information out of the
coast guard as to how much the services it is providing actually
cost because the coast guard has not been able to identify them. It
has not been able to identify until very recently what services are
actually required.
One good thing that has come out of the round of consultations,
which is largely the result of the work of the standing committee its
members who have insisted there be a great deal more fairness
injected into the equation, is that we now have ports on the west
coast which have agreed finally that the coast guard is starting to go
in the right direction in terms of how it will impose these fees.
Therefore we view this legislation as a window of opportunity to
ensure there is accountability, to ensure the minister and the
department cannot impose fees without consultation and without
being able to justify they are delivering the services the end users
are getting in a cost effective manner.
The only thing I find offensive is the suggestion the minister
ought to have this power without any accountability whatsoever.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from June 4, 1996, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 5:30
p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-32, an act to
amend the Copyright Act.
Call in the members.
(Motion agreed to on the following division):
3664
(Division No. 100)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-190
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gouk
Grubel
Hanger
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Wayne
Williams-36
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Beaumier
Brien
Cauchon
de Savoye
Fillion
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marleau
Richardson
St-Laurent
(1755)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried. This bill is therefore referred to the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage.
(Motion agreed to, and bill referred to a committee.)
* * *
The House resumed, from June 10, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and certain other
acts, be read for the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the
motion for second reading of Bill C-17, an act to amend the
Criminal Code and certain other acts.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
the House would give its unanimous consent that the vote on the
3665
previous motion be applied to the motion presently before the
House, the Liberal members voting yea.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, the Reform Party members present
will be voting no unless instructed by their constituents to do
otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, all New Democrats in the House
this evening will be voting no on this matter.
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, all PCs in the House tonight will
be voting in favour.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 101)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Wayne
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-186
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gouk
Grubel
Hanger
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Williams-40
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Beaumier
Brien
Cauchon
de Savoye
Fillion
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marleau
Richardson
St-Laurent
3666
(1800)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
This bill is therefore referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3666
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-212, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (audit),
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on my
private member's Bill C-212, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat
Board Act with respect to audits. The bill proposes to require that
accounts and records of the Canadian Wheat Board be audited
annually by the Auditor General of Canada. Currently the audit is
conducted by the private sector firm of Deloitte & Touche which
was chosen by the wheat board.
The bill will not represent an extra cost to the taxpayer since the
cost of the audit could be transferred to the auditor general's office
from the Canadian Wheat Board. It is almost unbelievable the
auditor general has to sign the wheat board audit without so much
as a glimpse at the actual figures. There is no way he can verify the
debt load or the operating costs.
I will give some background on the role of the auditor general in
holding government institutions accountable.
The auditor general has given Canadians some very interesting
reading. The horrors and the ridiculous can be overwhelming to a
taxpayer's mind. The people's right to control how their taxes are
spent is one of the cornerstones of democratic government.
Canadian taxpayers are telling their elected representatives that
they want the best possible value for the tax dollars they send to the
federal government.
The auditor general has gained the respect of Canadians and has
been instrumental in pinpointing waste and mismanagement to the
tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Over the years a process has developed. The government
submits to the House of Commons its spending plans for each
department; reports on the past year's activities; and provides the
public accounts that show all federal spending, borrowing and
taxing. One more link in the accountability process is required: an
independent assessment of that information.
Members of Parliament need this impartial evaluation so they
can effectively question or criticize the government on its
performance. This is where the auditor general provides a valuable
service. This service would be effective in looking at all operations
of the Canadian Wheat Board to make it more accountable.
Farmers would not have to doubt whether these figures are actual
or manufactured, especially if the information act would apply to
the CWB.
(1805)
The job of the auditor general is to help find out if value is being
obtained by the federal government. The auditor general conducts
independent audits and examinations and encourages
accountability and improvements in government operations.
Citizens will only have confidence in their government institutions
if they believe that their tax dollars are spent wisely and effectively.
Confidence in our national government depends upon clear and
timely accountability by the government and its crown
corporations and proper accounting methods.
I will touch on the Canadian Wheat Board situation. The board
has sole jurisdiction for marketing western Canadian wheat and
barley. This monopoly position results in a financial summary that
features some astronomical figures: not millions or hundreds of
millions but billions of dollars. It makes one wonder why a
government would allow some private accounting firm to audit
these books and not even have the right to double check figures at
its discretion.
In 1993-94 the board's assets were $8.86 billion and loans from
the private sector were $7.78 billion. There was no mention of what
the loans were for or what term they carried. Board revenues were
$3.87 billion and the surplus in operation was listed as $669.5
million.
The current Canadian Wheat Board Act allows the wheat board
to appoint a firm of chartered accountants for the purpose of
auditing records and accounts and certifying reports of the board.
There were 49 crown corporations in Canada in 1994-95. The
wheat board is one of seven corporations exempted from part X of
the Financial Administrations Act which allows for a private
auditor rather than the auditor general. Even among these
exempted crown corporations only the Canadian Wheat Board and
the Bank of Canada do not have the auditor general audit their
accounts and records.
The Office of the Auditor General could be more effective
because it can maintain its objectivity when conducting audits. It is
not subject to any restrictions that may occur when a private firm
audits a government agency.
3667
For example, private auditors usually include a disclaimer to
the effect that they can only ensure the accuracy of the audit based
on the information they were given. Private auditors simply do
not have the authority to ensure they have all the necessary
information. Moreover the auditor general reports directly to the
House of Commons, not to the agency or the crown corporation
in question.
Bill C-212 will also require that the board submit a report to the
minister each month that would detail its purchases and sales for
the month, as well as the quantities of grain held by it. The report
would be certified by the Auditor General of Canada.
If the auditor general has a monthly opportunity to certify the
report, the overall grain transportation system could be made more
efficient. Grain car shortages could be avoided because the grain
trade would know what the future commitments were. Similar
bottlenecks in the system could be smoothed out if we knew that
the monthly operations of the board were closely tracked by the
auditor general.
Right now in western Canada there is a debate raging about the
role of the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not think there has been a
time in the history of the board when its future has been the subject
of so much discussion.
Back in the 1993 election campaign the agriculture minister and
the Prime Minister promised a plebiscite on the marketing of wheat
and barley through the Canadian Board Board. It would now appear
they have completely backed away from their promise of allowing
producers to decide the issue. Broken Liberal promises seem to be
the order of the day and more bountiful than the days of the month.
When will this finally stop? Not as long as there is a Liberal
government.
(1810)
To add to the farmers' frustration over the broken promise of a
plebiscite is the justified perception that the wheat board is an
organization shrouded in secrecy. The wheat board is one of the
most secretive government agencies in Canada. It is a crown
agency the government set up to exclusively handle the sale of
wheat and barley for western Canada. While the government does
not fund the board it does guarantee its debt.
Another current concern about the board is that it is not subject
to the Access to Information Act. I propose to change this fact in
another private member's bill. Hopefully at some time the bill will
be drawn and the House can deliberate its merits.
The exemption ties into Bill C-212 however. By being exempt
from the Access to Information Act, the board does not have to
answer individual requests for information on how it is being run.
If the auditor general did the annual audit of the board surely there
would be more information available to the public eye.
Farmers pick up the tab for the operations of the Canadian Wheat
Board. They should be able to find whether or not their money is
being spent wisely but they cannot. A recent cause for concern has
been the rapid increase in administration expenses at the wheat
board. They have risen dramatically from $26.8 million for fiscal
year 1987 to $35.3 million in 1992 and to $41.3 million in 1994.
This was an increase of 54 per cent in seven years.
While the cost had a hefty increase, the amount of wheat and
barley produced in western Canada did not increase accordingly. In
1987 there were 37.6 million tonnes and in 1992 there were 37.9
million tonnes. That is an increase of only 1 per cent. When it
comes to jacking up costs obviously the wheat board is in a class by
itself.
Unfortunately the bill is paid by grain farmers. They have
watched the steady increase in costs with absolutely no option to
review them to see where their money was being spent. This is a
real injustice. It makes one wonder whether farmers grow wheat
and barley just to keep the Canadian Wheat Board functioning or
whether the wheat board should have to answer to farmers instead
of farmers to the wheat board.
In November 1994 I asked the board to give a breakdown of
information on pension plans and wages for Canadian Wheat Board
commissioners and staff. Regarding the pension plans I requested a
breakdown of employer versus government contributions and the
age at which the commissioners and staff were eligible to receive
pension benefits. My request was denied by Agriculture Canada on
the basis that the Canadian Wheat Board does not fall under the
terms of the Access to Information Act.
Numerous other farmers and taxpayer organizations have tried to
find this information but they have also been stonewalled because
of the wheat board secrecy. The only person it has to answer to is
the agriculture minister.
Does the agriculture minister own the wheat that farmers grow
or should the farmers have entitlement to the products they
produce?
A private researcher revealed that the board or the minister had
given severance packages of about $300,000 to former
commissioners. They also received privileges such as eight-week
vacations per year. At the time this information was made available
I was still waiting for an answer to my request.
The government quickly scaled back the packages after an
uproar in the farming community but only for the new
commissioners. Since the commissioners are not accountable to
farmers they were seemingly able to fill their pockets at will.
3668
The Liberal government has failed to correct this injustice. This
is a damning reminder of the gold plated MP pension plan all over
again.
(1815)
It is important to note the minister of agriculture is responsible
for the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. Should he not also
be accountable to farmers? Why is he trying to restrict farmers
from earning the same return for their labour as the wheat board
commissioners?
Without farmers there is no need for Canadian Wheat Board
commissioners or an agriculture minister. The whole incident has
led to producer scepticism and a loss of confidence in the board.
For over two years farmers have provided me with documents
that suggested irregularities within the wheat board. Since January
1995, I have held four news conferences and have twice asked for
an RCMP investigation into these irregularities.
I have also asked that the justice minister order a judicial inquiry
into the $180 million loss barley producers suffered this past year
according to the claims made by former wheat board commissioner
Ken Beswick.
I have received information through the access to information
office that confirms an RCMP inspector asked two RCMP
detachments to start investigating farmer complaints.
When he was informed that customs officials at the port of
Snowflake, Manitoba confirmed farmer suspicions of
irregularities, he failed to communicate this to me. Instead he took
it upon himself to declare there was no evidence of criminal intent
and seemingly altered document dates, throwing further suspicion
on the whole process.
During this period customs and revenue inspectors in
conjunction with RCMP have brought charges against farmers for
allegedly violating the Customs Act.
Two trials have received a lot of media attention in my
constituency of Lisgar-Marquette involving David Sawatzky and
Norman Desrochers.
In the David Sawatsky case, Judge Arnold Connor ruled that
Sawatzky had not broken the Customs Act but probably violated
the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Sawatzky was eventually acquitted
of his charges.
I have two photo copies of sworn affidavits by farmers that an
RCMP constable involved in prosecuting Sawatzky gave false
information to access computer files at U.S. customs offices to start
a criminal investigation. How far will the wheat board officials go
to protect the secrecy of this operation?
It also shows how rigid the board is. Many polls have been
conducted that show farmers want changes and more say in the
wheat board's operations. A recent poll in Saskatchewan shows
that 83 per cent of the responding farmers wanted more control of
the Canadian Wheat Board. This sentiment has obviously been
expressed in other prairie provinces as well.
These are examples of why farmers are calling for change. That
is why I introduced Bill C-212. The demand for a more open and
accountable board is clear.
Giving the auditor general the ability to do an audit would
represent a good first step. Unfortunately we have a minister and
government that embrace the status quo at the expense of ignoring
constructive change.
Before I turn the debate over to my colleague, I ask the House for
unanimous consent to support this bill and make it votable.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today in the debate on Bill C-212, an act to
amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
This bill would amend the act so as to require an annual audit of
the accounts and books of the Canadian Wheat Board by the Office
of the Auditor General of Canada.
(1820)
The government fully supports financial responsibility in all its
departments and agencies, however, this bill raises many questions
that warrant careful and thorough consideration. The government
must strike a fair balance between financial responsibility and the
smooth operation of its various agencies and departments.
The first question raised by the bill is that of responsibility, or
more precisely the proposal that the board be audited annually by
the Auditor General of Canada.
At first glance, this seems a wise proposal, but it should be
pointed out that the Canadian Wheat Board already has all of its
financial operations audited in depth annually.
The results of this audit by a firm of independent and highly
reputed consultants are published each year in the board's annual
report and financial statement.
A summary of this report is sent by mail each year to all those
who have a board producers' permit book, and the full report,
available on request from the Board, is tabled once a year in the
House and the Senate.
In addition to this annual audit, an internal audit committee,
comprising, among others, a representative of the board's advisory
3669
committee, elected by the members, supervises the ongoing audit,
division by division, of the board's expenditures.
Through the information it releases in its annual report, the
Canadian Wheat Board provides more financial information on its
operations than many major private grain companies.
At a time when the federal government is trying to eliminate
overlap and duplication, and put government back on the right
track, the proposal to further audit the board annually seems to add
a useless extra step, which would be duplicating established
practices and result in a waste of time, and money of course.
The board is constantly seeking to improve its planning,
management and operations. To this effect, it has on occasions
asked for outside advice, leading to recommended changes.
A review conducted in 1992 by the management consulting firm,
Deloitte and Touche, pointed out a number of things to be changed.
I have the honour to inform the House that, since the publication of
the review report, the board has proceeded with the
recommendations it contained.
The board has adopted a corporate vision and mission as well as
a set of strategic goals. It has put in place a budget process, a
business planning process, a reporting system, and a new
performance appraisal system.
We should also take into account the fact that the Canadian
Wheat Board is operating in a highly competitive environment.
Private grain companies, whether in Canada, the United States,
Europe or Australia, are very reluctant to release the slightest bit of
information that might give an edge to their competitors.
Their main goal, as is the case for the Canadian Wheat Board, is
to maximize profits on behalf of their customers. In the case we are
concerned with, the customers are the men and women who grow
wheat and barley in western Canada.
(1825)
For all the reasons I just explained, the government cannot, for
the time being, support the subject matter of this bill.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak on Bill C-212, introduced at first reading stage
on March 1 by the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette. This bill,
whose purpose is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act,
contains interesting provisions, which, unfortunately, we will not
be able to debate in this House.
Indeed, it has been agreed to make this bill a non votable item,
when in fact it has substantial impacts on western Canadian grain
producers. In this context, my desire to speak on the subject
reflects my constant concern to ensure the fair and effective
representation of producers and the Canadian farm industry as a
whole.
The primary objective of this bill is to change the procedure used
to audit the Canadian Wheat Board's financial statements. At
present, this administrative operation is carried out by the private
accounting firm Deloite and Touche. The bill introduced by the
hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette would see this responsibility
transferred to the Auditor General of Canada.
At first, we may wonder what the use is of setting the whole
legislative process in motion for a simple matter of administrative
jurisdiction. But there are much more important considerations
involved than it might seem at first glance. The sophistication of
this proposal could considerably improve the internal working of
the Canadian Wheat Board.
Whether we are dealing with the management of human
resources, the control of administrative expenditures, or even the
implementation of resolutions relating to promotional activities, an
audit by the auditor general would uncover some details that
inevitably escape the attention of private sector experts.
It is not necessary to stress that the Canadian Wheat Board is,
first and foremost, a parapublic agency in charge of maximizing
profits for Canadian grain producers. As with other government
agencies, it would be normal and essential for the government to
have a say in the administration and operation of this parapublic
body.
Of course, those opposed to this reform will raise simple
arguments like the fact that, as a commercial venture, the Canadian
Wheat Board has some room to manoeuvre that amounts to a right
to use discretion. I understand full well this aspect of the issue, and
I wish to point out that I fully endorse this principle.
I want to stress that this bill is not aimed at giving the
government the right to interfere in the private affairs of wheat
producers. On the contrary, the auditor general could provide
monitoring services going well beyond a simple financial audit by
a private firm.
(1830)
The annual tabling of the auditor general's report is a major
event allowing the government and all taxpayers to see how public
affairs are managed.
By shedding light on the operation of government agencies
through rigorous, in-depth analyses, the auditor general puts
himself in a good position to make recommendations aimed at
optimizing the operation and structure of these agencies. This
would benefit the CWB, as its relatively large structure as well as
the broad impact of its actions inevitably hide some shortcomings
that outside auditors like Deloitte & Touche cannot see.
3670
I do not want to leave any doubt as to the quality of the work
done by these specialized firms. Quite the contrary. My point has
more to do with the basic principles of performance and efficiency,
in an era of budget cuts. So, the auditor general would submit a
detailed report to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in
which a series of recommendations would be included to improve
CWB's initiatives in all its fields of activities.
I am not trying to convince the House to make the CWB
accountable to Parliament. It already is. However, this bill would
make it more accountable to wheat producers, who depend on the
soundness of the board's decisions. In fact, I could tell you about
several western producers who, every day, have to put up with
constraints imposed by the CWB regarding the marketing of their
crop.
The complex internal procedures of the board generate
widespread slowdowns in the negotiation of tariffs and the
marketing of crops. This type of problem is not noticeable to
private independent auditors, for the simple reason that it is beyond
the scope of their mandate. However, getting the auditor general
involved could remedy the situation, for the benefit of all Canadian
producers.
Before concluding, I remind members of this House that the bill
is not a votable item. This means that rejecting it could result in the
shelving of a measure that would benefit the whole industry. There
is a relatively strong consensus and we must show that we can
legislate without being guided only by partisan considerations.
In conclusion, Bill C-212, moved by a Reform Party member,
proposes a measure which would not cost anything to this
government, which could promote transparency, and which would
at least give western grain producers the guarantee that the
Canadian Wheat Board is well managed.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette
for introducing Bill C-212, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat
Board Act. It would require the board to be audited annually by the
auditor general.
(1835 )
I am sure members are aware that the Canadian Wheat Board is a
marketing board whose primary responsibility is to serve the
producers whose products it sells. In fact, the producers have no
way of knowing how well the board is performing. The only people
who have any indication of the performance record of the board is
its internal auditing firm and the minister of agriculture, who may
or may not choose to reveal that information to the producers the
board serves.
The hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette has talked about the
need to open up the books of the Canadian Wheat Board to the
auditor general so that he can report to Parliament and thereby
report back to the producers that the board serves. I agree with the
hon. member.
The member for Frontenac suggested that a performance
evaluation would also be a wise undertaking by the auditor general.
Perhaps that could be done on occasion as well as the annual audit
of the books of the Canadian Wheat Board.
There was an performance analysis of the Canadian Wheat
Board done by its auditors, Deloitte & Touche. This was instituted
in 1992. Perhaps some would argue that we do not need to have the
auditor general look at the efficiencies of the Canadian Wheat
Board because its auditors are doing it.
The problem is that this report should have been presented to the
minister of agriculture. If it was, the minister did not make the
report public. It either gathered dust at the Canadian Wheat Board
or the Privy Council. It was never released to farmers or the
Canadian public. It became a secret document which contained
much good information and was only recently unveiled to the
public when copies were made available to me and other concerned
people.
Does this report contain some top secret, classified information?
Not at all. It contains information on the performance of the board,
how well it is serving producers, whether or not it is doing a good
job. Certainly the auditor general could perform such an evaluation
on a regular basis and that would serve Canadians and farmers in
the prairie region very well.
Let us look at the internal performance audit done by Deloitte &
Touche of the Canadian Wheat Board. It discovered many areas of
significant deficiency. This was all hushed up, kept secret. Farmers
were not aware of the audit and the results.
On page 18 of the Deloitte & Touche performance evaluation, it
states that there is no evidence of an ongoing formal corporate
strategic plan or process. That is quite an allegation.
We asked the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board,
Mr. Hehn, about that. He said: ``Oh, well, we have dealt with all the
concerns that were raised by the Deloitte & Touche audit. They
have all been looked after''. How do we know? It is all secret. It is
all kept under wraps.
As far as the corporate structure of the board is concerned, it has
not changed. There are still five commissioners appointed by the
Privy Council, probably under the direction of the minister of
agriculture or whoever pulls the minister's chain. Currently there
are three commissioners running the board; one retired some time
ago and another one recently stepped down because he could not
agree with some things the board was doing. So presently three
commissioners who were appointed by the minister of agriculture
are running the Canadian Wheat Board and keeping everything
secret.
3671
The chief commissioner of the board said that they have
adequately handled all the recommendations in the Deloitte &
Touche audit. He has yet to convince me that he can answer the
charge that there is no evidence of an ongoing formal corporate
strategic plan or process, as was the criticism on page 18.
I quote again from page 19 of the report, regarding operational
management and planning:
Departmental planning resulting in annual operational plans generally does
not exist. Some departmental area plans have been submitted to the board with
no feedback or approval. Budgeting and forecasting of expenses do not exist.
This includes administrative expenses (excluding salaries) and annual
operating expenditures (storage, interest and demurrage, etc) representing
annual expenditures of approximately $200 million.
(1840 )
This is not small change. The board or senior management
approves most or all of the administrative expenditures,
individually, as incurred. That is what happens when the operation
does not have a public audit. It is inefficient and there is no way of
determining whether a problem has been rectified if one has been
identified.
With respect to accountability, page 20 of the report reads:
Specific performance targets or expectations are not set and communicated
for the senior operating management team or for senior managers. Senior
management job descriptions are out of date, incomplete or non-existent. There
is no formal performance appraisal process for senior management which
reinforces accountability for meeting objectives.
At page 21 of the report there is a rather strong indictment of the
structure of the Canadian Wheat Board. It reads:
The structure as designed (1930s) with five equal Commissioners and more
than six direct or indirect reports does not promote efficient and effective
delivery and accountability for the 1990s.
As members know, the corporate structure of the Canadian
Wheat Board is still the same. That problem has not been rectified.
It is still a 1930s model which does not serve western grain farmers
well in the 1990s.
That was corporate governance. Now I will turn, in the Deloitte
& Touche audit, to finance and accounting management. Regarding
corporate planning and budgeting, at page 67 it reads:
A formal budgeting process does not exist for the Finance and Accounting
expenditures department. There is no overall responsibility assigned to Finance
for establishing and administering a corporate budgeting process. Salary
expenditures are approved at the beginning of the year.
Obviously the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette has very
good reason to bring forward a private member's bill which would
call for an annual audit of the Canadian Wheat Board by the auditor
general. There has been no budgeting. There has been no
accountability. There has been no responsibility assigned to finance
for establishing and administering a corporate budgeting process.
This is serious stuff.
Furthermore, we know that the commissioners' salaries have
been kept secret. It has been leaked that they have extremely high
salaries. We also know that they have a very cushy benefit package.
We were astonished to find out that their severance package is
around a quarter of a million dollars. Farmers' dollars are going to
finance the commissioners and the farmers had no idea that such a
plan existed for the commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board.
We need an audit to be done by the auditor general to expose these
things.
Regarding the board's strategy and business direction, on page
78 of the audit it reads:
A formal corporate strategy does not exist for review and input to an MISD
(Management Information Services Division) strategy. No formal assessment of
business needs or direction was conducted as part of ISP project. Some
information is known about the direction of the business but has not been used
to evaluate the current system.
Page 78 continues under the heading ``Identify Issues and
Operations'' by stating:
Information systems issues and opportunities were identified but were not
based on an assessment of the current systems. As such, any opportunities with
the current systems have been overlooked.
I have talked about corporate governance. I have talked about
finance and accounting management and about strategy. I would
like to go on to talk about the sales and marketing of the Canadian
Wheat Board.
On page 31 of the Deloitte & Touche audit it states that no
formal strategic marketing plan exists. This is the Canadian Wheat
Board. It is supposed to be marketing farmers' grain. The internal
audit said that no formal strategic marketing plan exists and this
report was put on the shelf and kept away from the eyes of the
producers whom the board is to serve.
Under the heading ``Marketing Organization'' on page 32 the
report reads:
The marketing function lacks focus and co-ordination due to a lack of
direction from a corporate governance point of view, the absence of an effective
marketing plan, and separated departments within the organizational structure.
At page 35 the report reads:
Agents emphasize that relationships with the CWB are not sound/positive
business relationships. Accredited export agents indicated that they are not
being utilized as effectively as they might be in sales opportunities in niche
markets and geographic markets where CWB market knowledge is limited and
resources limited.
(1845 )
We are now getting into performance evaluation. I will conclude
with the following point. The report on transportation states:
``Several costs associated with transportation in grain movement
3672
are primarily influenced by Canadian Wheat Board operations.
However, there are no budgets or standards of performance for
these such as storage and demurrage costs''. We are talking about
the sale of hopper cars in western Canada and whether they should
be sold to the producers or to the railroads and who should allocate
the cars.
If we would have had a proper evaluation of the Canadian Wheat
Board by the auditor general it would have helped us to make wiser
decisions about those cars. However, we have had that information
kept from us and it has hurt the industry. It has increased the
mistrust of farmers in the Canadian Wheat Board. Certainly this
bill would solve that problem.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured today to add my voice to the second reading debate on
Bill C-212, an act put forward by the hon. member for
Lisgar-Marquette to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
The government does not support the bill. The government's
opposition to the bill is based on a significant number of factors
and very important considerations.
One such factor the government bases its decision on to oppose
the bill is the timing. The bill proposes to make a major change to
the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board without any
discussion or consultation with farmers across the country.
The hon. member who makes this motion comes from a party
which says it listens to what the people have to say, which says it
seeks input before making decisions to change legislation, which
says it will do what its constituents want.
Once again we see, as evidenced by this high handed,
pre-emptory proposal, an attempt to change in a very significant
and serious manner legislation without proper consultation with
farmers, organizations and people across the country whose lives
depend on farming; to change the Canadian Wheat Board in a
fundamental way without any discussion or consultation with
farmers.
This merely shows the hypocrisy with which the Reform Party
put forward this idea: listen to the constituents until they do not
agree with you and then go ahead and do what you want. This is
Reform Party policy to a tee.
The federal government has a process in place where it is now
engaged in a prairie-wide consultation with grain producers, grain
companies and other organizations that have a direct interest in the
future shape of western Canada's grain marketing system.
This is the approach that is always taken by this government. We
listen to the organizations that will be affected in order to hear what
they have to say. We listen to what farmers, grain companies and
corporations involved in the farming industry have to say. We
listen to what all stakeholders have to say with respect to the
Canadian Wheat Board before deciding on change.
Once we have gathered all the input, we then consider what
direction the Canadian Wheat Board will take in the future. This
process is in place right now.
Without addressing the specific pros and cons of the bill, the
government feels any decisions taken on either the Canadian
Wheat Board or the grain marketing system must await the final
outcome of this process. This is a process which has been started.
Obviously it makes sense that we allow this process to continue,
that we allow the committee to make its report to the minister
before making a decision.
(1850)
Certainly it would seem strange if we set out a process to review
concerns and issues with respect to the wheat board. We set that
process in place and then make changes before the process is even
complete. That does not make any sense. Then again, I suppose
what does make sense is that it would be suggested by the Reform
Party.
The whole issue about grain marketing and the role of the
Canadian Wheat Board has been the subject of very intense debate
across the prairies for the last three or four years.
The difficulty with this debate has been that it has tended to take
place in a rather ad hoc fashion with no co-ordination or focus.
That is why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food last year
established the panel that I have talked about, the committee that I
have talked about, the Western Grain Marketing Panel.
The panel is composed of a chairman and eight individuals who
represent virtually every perspective on grain marketing from one
end of the spectrum to the other. That is certainly a fair approach.
We want input to be heard by people who represent all points of
view. Proceeding in that manner, the report of the committee will
have a significant amount of credibility.
Late last year the panel distributed copies of a tabloid style
information package to all western grain producers. This ensured
that every farmer in western Canada had complete access to all the
relevant facts and figures that relate to grain marketing.
In January the panel conducted a series of town hall information
meetings across the prairies. These sessions gave grain producers
the opportunity to bring forward their perspectives and opinions, to
advance their best arguments and to engage in a logical, face to
face dialogue about all the pros and cons of the issue of grain
marketing.
3673
The panel has now completed its third phase, hearing more than
80 formal submissions from a wide variety of farm groups and
industry. These sessions took place across western Canada. They
took place in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina.
The Reform Party made a presentation before the panel on
March 18. Now it wants to pre-empt the process its members
participated in. This does not make any sense at all. As I said
before, the only thing that makes sense about something not
making sense is that it is proposed by the Reform Party. I take this
to mean its participation in the process is that its members agree
with the validity of it. I congratulate them for joining in and
participating, like they should.
Now I encourage them to let the process take its course, come
forward with its conclusions and when the minister makes his
decisions, to support the minister in his decisions, which no doubt
will be the best for the western grain farmer.
With all the consultations, examinations and
cross-examinations, everyone with an interest in western Canada's
grain marketing system has had their say on the issue.
As we debate this motion in the House today, the panel is
preparing to write its report, which will be submitted to the
minister in June. It is from this report, its observations and
conclusions based on the input of producers and other stakeholders
that the government will look for constructive suggestions on how
to move forward.
If the government agreed now to make such a major change to
the Canadian Wheat Board before it had received the report we
would be dishonouring a commitment we made to the grain
producers across the country that no major change would be made
without consulting them.
That is something the government will not do, even though the
Reform Party seems very keen on doing it. It seems evident by the
precise nature of this motion that once again it betrays the motive
of the Reform Party, which simply is to utterly destroy the
Canadian Wheat Board.
The grain industry is a very competitive industry. Every little
shred of information that a competitor can possibly get is of value.
Certainly we want to ensure a proper balance between
accountability to those it serves and protecting the competitive
edge of the Canadian Wheat Board as it is marketing its grain
worldwide.
(1855)
Here we have hon. members from the Reform Party reading
from a document that is four years old and setting out criticisms
contained in that document when the wheat board has moved on
those issues and has improved how it does its business. It has an
audit. There is no sense duplicating efforts by having another audit
take place which would have-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Prince
George-Peace River.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this evening to add my remarks to
those made by my hon. colleagues on what we view is a very
important bill put forward by my hon. colleague from
Lisgar-Marquette, Bill C-212.
What is this really all about? That is the question we have to ask
ourselves. This is about accountability. It is that simple.
I have one word for the hon. member who just spoke, the hon.
member from Prince Albert-Churchill River, and that is hogwash.
He knows it. What is he afraid of? What is the government afraid of
in making the Canadian Wheat Board accountable and allowing the
Auditor General of Canada to look at the books and perform an
annual audit on the Canadian Wheat Board? What is so wrong?
What would happen that is so bad?
The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River talked
about timing. He said the Reform Party should wait until the
process is complete. We have been waiting for three years for the
government to act in relation to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Farmers have been waiting.
The member for Prince Albert-Churchill River was never a
farmer, though I spent 20 years in the agricultural sector, farming,
as did the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette, and as did about
five or six other members of the Reform Party caucus. We have
some inkling of what farmers are going through. Quite frankly,
they are sick and tired of a government that is dragging its feet on
this issue of holding the Canadian Wheat Board accountable to the
people paying the bills.
I was quite shocked when my hon. colleague was revealing some
of the numbers and how the budget for the Canadian Wheat Board
for administration costs has increased so dramatically over the last
number of years. He read that it was over $26 million in 1987, $35
million in 1992, jumping to over $41 million in 1994, with no real
accountability. Why would the auditor general not be allowed to
audit those figures and reveal what that increase encompasses?
My hon. colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster in his brief
remarks questioned some of the issues that would be contained in
those costs such as salaries and severance packages. It reminds me
of another issue of accountability or lack of accountability, the
whole issue of MP pensions. My hon. colleague from
Lisgar-Marquette mentioned that in his speech.
I find it more than ironic to hear once again the government
saying ``do not worry about what we are doing, do as we say, not as
we do'', as the government does with pension reform. It is talking
about making cuts to Canadians' CPP pensions while it feeds at the
trough of the MP pension plan.
3674
The member for Prince Albert-Churchill River was speaking
about the need to consult farmers in this process. That is almost
laughable. Is this the same party that during the campaign promised
a plebiscite on whether it should be single or dual marketing?
Where is the plebiscite after three years?
(1900 )
The hon. member talks about consulting and now he is busy
heckling. It would be interesting if he is so verbose in his
consultations with farmers.
An hon. member: Where is the accountability of this
government?
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River)): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Lisgar-Marquette outlined examples that clearly
explained why it is imperative that the Canadian Wheat Board be
put under the jurisdiction of the auditor general. The wheat board
should also be subject to the Access to Information Act. Farmers
are asking: ``Why all the secrecy?'' Reform members of Parliament
are asking: ``Why all the secrecy?'' Why cannot this board be held
accountable to the people that are paying the bills, the farmers?
As the hon. member opposite mentioned, there has been a lot of
dissent. In my riding of Prince George-Peace River, farmers are
divided on what to do with the wheat board. It is universal across
the west that farmers are divided. However, there is one thing they
are not divided on, and that is holding the board accountable.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3674
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-26, an act respecting
the oceans of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee; and of motions in Group No. 11.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for Skeena had the floor, but perhaps I could start right away and he
can use his remaining five minutes shortly, if he wishes.
We have now reached motions in Group No. 11 at report stage of
Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.
Group No. 11 comprises three motions. I will just run over them,
since we were interrupted for a vote and for private members'
business.
The member for Vancouver Quadra referred to Motions Nos. 67
and 68 proposed by the Liberal Party. I have problems living with
what the government proposes in Motions Nos. 67 and 68. I say to
the House I intend to vote against them.
As for Motion No. 70 proposed by the Reform member for
Skeena, I am pleased to see that, even though we form the official
opposition and the hon. member for Skeena and myself represent
ridings at the opposite ends of the country, one in Vancouver and
the other in Gaspé, the nose of Quebec, we can still reach a similar
view on how to administer the Coast Guard.
I would like to read the final part of his motion, which states:
-provided in the most cost effective manner possible.
The hon. member for Skeena takes advantage of the opportunity
to add what he means by this. He says:
``The level and scope of such services, as well as the manner of their delivery,
shall be defined in full, ongoing, consultation with all beneficiaries.''
And what does this mean? Who are the beneficiaries? The
objective of the Coast Guard, through its new fee charging powers,
is to get money out of the users. They went from hearing to hearing,
trying to make us understand in committee the new Coast Guard
charges for navigational aids, trying to get through our thick skulls
the idea of user fees.
(1905)
A real user pays principle implies canvassing those using our
services to find out the type of service they really want. Those
paying for the service are also entitled to have their say. They want
to know from the government whether the service offered is at the
lowest possible cost, whether it could be offered another way and
whether privatization is a possibility. All this in the context of the
socio-economic and human impact on those who have to deal with
the rationalization.
Regardless, as for the need for this motion, as we will see later in
Group No. 12, that ideas will blend. The principle is to have the
government not collect money just for the sake of collecting it and
not to lay principles on the table and then ignore them later.
The government says: ``We want to collect money, we are
short''. The Bloc Quebecois also advocated deficit reduction in the
latest election campaign. However, the difference lies in achieving
the objective. And here I am delighted to see that even people at the
other end of the country, who call themselves reformers, can
appreciate good common sense.
3675
So, I still have to try to convince one of the three groups in
the House. I realize the job is a bit difficult, but part of our work
in Parliament is to try to find the words to help them understand
the thing.
What can I say? I spent three weeks in hearings, from 9 in the
morning to 9 at night. People would come and express their
opinions. This too is hard to take: there were consultations, but it
did not change a thing, and the legislation was not yet in force.
Imagine what would happen if we did not include right away in
this bill the principle that there must be consultation, that users
must be able to say what level of service would be appropriate and
what level of spending they feel capable of taking on. To negotiate
this change it is contemplating, this change it has to make to face
the music and reduce its deficit, the Canadian government needs
the help of the industry. It needs to establish what I would call
partnership ties. I will reaffirm this basic principle over and over
again.
In previous motions, we dealt with the notion of partnership in
the context of the integrated management strategy that needed to be
developed. In these motions, I specified that Canada's partners
were the provinces, which make up Canada. In the case at hand,
they are service users. These services are sometimes used by the
provinces, but most of the time, they are used by industries and
businesses.
As such, these should be our focus of attention. It is with them in
mind that the consultation and feedback process should be put in
place. But nowhere in this bill do I see this notion expressed. I
cannot detect this kind of spirit in there. I cannot detect a hint of
this notion either. What shall we make of it, especially when we see
the minister press on with his new tariff structure after three
quarters of those in the industry came before the committee to tell
us loud and clear and in black and white that they did not want this
new tariff structure for navigational aids, for commercial shipping?
How far will they go if we let them? That was my first point.
(1910)
Second, still on the same topic, the coast guard's new fee
schedule for navigation aids was set for purely financial reasons.
The Minister of Finance gave an order. Even though the coast guard
appeared not to have a choice, it did have one. It could have
continued to cut spending. If it wanted to collect more revenue, it
could have considered what the people had to say about this.
Talking about a $20 million financial objective is a mathematical
trick, as commercial shipping activities are not spread over 12
months. Rather, the targeted level of activity must be compressed
into the commercial shipping period. Consequently, the objective
for this summer should be set at $26 million or $28 million to take
this into account.
Furthermore, still on this topic, what is not mentioned is who
will administer all this. How will these accounts be collected? At
this point, no one knows. The funniest thing in all this is that these
orders were not published for 30 days in the Canada Gazette, as it
customary for any order of the governor in council.
This item in Part II slipped through almost unnoticed on a Friday
afternoon. The industry was flabbergasted. They are still
wondering how all this will be administered and what the
administrative costs will be. I have already heard that the person
who will administer this new fee schedule will receive a 5 per cent
commission to bill the people concerned.
The bill has not been passed yet, but the regulations on the new
fee schedule have just been put in place. There was mention of $20
million, then $28 million because of the short collection period,
and they have just added 5 per cent. There is nothing reassuring in
all this. We do not see how this shows respect for those who will
use this service. I think it is very important to instil such respect
and entrench it in this bill.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in the debate on Bill C-26, and more particularly on
Motions Nos. 67 and 68, concerning the oceans of Canada.
I congratulate the hon. member for Gaspé for his excellent work
regarding this issue. The bill seeks to recognize Canada's
jurisdiction over its maritime zones, and to define the legislative
framework required to establish a national oceans management
strategy.
Bill C-26 also seeks to define federal responsibilities regarding
ocean management, something which it fails to do. Part I
recognizes, at the national level, Canada's jurisdiction over its
maritime zones, as defined by the UN convention on the law of the
sea. This part incorporates provisions of the Canadian Laws
Offshore Application Act and of the Territorial Sea and Fishing
Zones Act. It is therefore a repetition of existing legal provisions.
Consequently, I wonder about appropriateness of this part of the
bill which, in my opinion, is not necessary.
Let us not forget that, with coastlines stretching for some
244,000 kilometres, Canada is among the first countries in the
world in that regard. These coasts are, to a large extent, along
islands in the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans. This is in
addition to the 9,500 kilometres of coastline along the Great Lakes.
In 1970, Canada affirmed its jurisdiction over a territorial sea of
12 nautical miles. On January 1, 1977, the fishing zone was
extended to 200 nautical miles.
(1915)
I take this opportunity to mention the dispute that opposed Spain
to Canada. It is an episode which I followed closely, since I am the
3676
only member of this Parliament who is of Spanish origin. The
dispute was about the turbot along the coast of Newfoundland.
A settlement was reached between Canada and the European
Union, but Spain is not entirely pleased with it. There are currently
two lawsuits before the courts: one by the Spanish government,
before the International Court of Justice, in The Hague. The other,
of a private nature, is by the owner or the captain of the Estai.
So, Spain is contesting the acts, the regulations and the measures
taken by Canada, maintaining that Canada has no right to seize
boats outside its territorial waters, and claiming compensation. The
case is before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, but
in the meantime Canada does not want to recognize that court's
jurisdiction. The case is now at the preliminary stage concerning
the jurisdiction of this international court.
In my view, this is an important problem. Canada should
recognize the jurisdiction of this tribunal so that it may hear the
case as to the substance. I think that this would greatly improve
relations between Canada and Spain, between Canada and the
European Union. I ask the Canadian government to review its
position and to recognize the jurisdiction of this international
tribunal.
Part II of Bill C-26 seeks to establish a national oceans
management strategy. However, the legislative framework is
poorly defined and federal responsibilities are not spelled out. This
paves the way for interference by the federal government in sectors
that do not come under its jurisdiction. I am thinking here of the
protection of wildlife and habitats, as well as water, where Quebec
has the greater jurisdiction.
Furthermore, clause 29 refers to provincial governments merely
in terms of collaboration, on the same level as aboriginal
organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies
affected by the issue.
It is therefore reasonable to believe that this part of the bill may
give rise to a number of conflicts between Ottawa and the
provinces, as well as with the various stakeholders in the
communities concerned. I would like the bill to involve the
provinces more, to see them fully involved in the decision making
process leading to the creation of a national ocean management
strategy. This would make it possible to clarify the responsibilities
of all partners involved.
For the foregoing reasons, I cannot support this bill as presented
to us today, and I am even less able to support it because of the
motions under consideration at this time. The number of motions to
this bill in the committee and in the House suggests it is fairly
controversial, moreover. I would also like to point out that I
support the various motions proposed by the Bloc Quebecois,
particularly those from my colleague from Gaspé. These motions
offer more clarity by redefining the relationships and powers
between the federal government and the provinces. In my opinion,
they will ensure a greater respect of provincial jurisdictions by
Ottawa.
I also support the motions on fee mechanisms for Coast Guard
services, particularly navigational aids and ice breaking. The
objectives of these motions are, among other things, to make the
fee mechanisms more equitable and to force the ministers to
collaborate with the industry and the provinces before imposing
fees or raising them. These amendments will prevent the minister
for acting unilaterally, with no concern for public hearings, as he
has done in the past.
(1920)
The fees in this bill are unevenly distributed among the various
Canadian ports. It will cost as much for a ship arriving off the
Atlantic to unload in Sept-Îles as it will in Thunder Bay, 3,700
kilometres further up the St. Lawrence. Another example: a
Canadian shipowner registering his vessel abroad will pay one
seventh the amount paid by the person registering his vessel in
Canada.
These two examples indicate that the scale of charges in Bill
C-26 is problematic. The bill contains a number of inequities. It
will considerably reduce the competitiveness of Quebec and
Canadian ports. This is why I think these clauses should be
reviewed.
In this regard, I would like to point out that the Quebec transport
minister, Jacques Brassard, the mayors of the principal cities along
the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence Ship Operators Association,
and the mayor of Rivière-du-Loup all vigorously oppose this bills
for the reasons I have just given. They demand a moratorium on
Bill C-26. I agree and think the motions put forward by the Bloc
Quebecois should be considered.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-26 and the motions in
group No. 11.
Motion No. 70 deals with how to pay for some very important
factors of fisheries and oceans. One of these is the coast guard. It is
of particular importance in my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca,
which has a large coastline and where thousands of boaters are on
the water in inclement weather and need coast guard services.
These days the coast guard is under tight fiscal constraints and is
finding it increasingly difficult to provide those necessary services
in our waters.
We in the Reform Party believe in the principle of Motion No. 70
which states that services by the coast guard are most effectively
paid for on a user fee basis. That is common sense. Why should
somebody who is not using the service pay for it?
Another ancillary problem I have in my riding, which I would
ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to look at, is what is
happening to the volunteer rescue services on our coasts. They are
3677
having an increasingly difficult time paying for the important
services they provide, given the length of coastline and the limited
number of coast guard. Often they are the first response team to
arrive at situations where people's lives are at stake.
In Sooke, British Columbia in my riding, it is of particular
importance. The people there save dozens of lives every year, yet
that service may close down. I ask the minister to look at one of the
solutions that has been discussed in my community. Perhaps a
surcharge could be established on moorage fees that could be used
locally to provide the funds necessary to maintain search and
rescue services in the community. Bear in mind this is a cost
effective way of doing it because the people who man the search
and rescue service are essentially volunteers and the moneys they
use go into the infrastructure they need; the rigid hull zodiacs, fuel,
training, et cetera.
I would ask the minister to look at that and remind him of the
desperate need of these volunteer departments across the country
for funds. Some way has to be found to enable these rescue services
to fund themselves. I know there is no more money in the pot to do
this. There are alternatives and I would suggest he look at them.
Motion No. 71 is very important and Reform opposes it. It seeks
to limit the minister's marine protection areas to fisheries alone.
We oppose it because the protection of the fish extends to their
habitat. The creatures that live in the sea depend on their habitat in
order to survive. Therefore preservation of the species without
preservation of the habitat makes no sense. They are two parts of
the same whole, and it is absolutely essential that habitat be
protected.
(1925)
I mention again my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. One of
the problems, particularly with forestry, is the large amount of
degradation of habitat up and down the coast. As a result, many
species are being devastated, particularly salmon and crustaceans
such as shellfish.
This is not solely a problem of poaching or overutilization, but a
problem of habitat destruction. Regardless of what species one is
looking at, whether on land or in the ocean, the primary reason
these species are coming down in numbers and why species around
the world are threatened is habitat destruction.
I hope that the minister will rethink Motion No. 71 and in the
future extend this to involve not only the fisheries, but also the
habitat. He only needs to look at the salmon fishery on the west
coast to see the devastation that habitat destruction has wrought.
A constructive way of improving this is to go to the people who
actually destroyed the habitat in the first place. Many of the
companies on the west coast, particularly some of the forestry
companies, are primarily responsible for the destruction of this
habitat and have got off scot-free. The minister should work with
these groups and try to have a co-operative arrangement with them
to try to improve the habitat and get it back to where it was before it
was destroyed. It can be a mutually beneficial situation that can
improve the communities and the commercial sector.
Motion No. 73 deals with research. We support this, because
research, not only in fisheries but in other aspects of our industrial
and environmental complex is quite fundamental.
I would like the minister to look at a couple of areas. There have
been a number of criticisms from other countries. I will take one
specific example. It deals with aquaculture.
As members know, Canada used to lead the world in
aquaculture. We do not lead the world any more. Chile does. Why?
It is in part because we have failed to be aggressive in the
utilization of our resources. We used to be on the cutting edge of
aquaculture, including research, but we are not there any more.
We were handed an opportunity to continue to be leaders and
also to take our position as the number one country in the world in
aquaculture, with who else but Iceland? Iceland has approached
this government, and previous governments, to make co-operative
interventions in the science of aquaculture in ways in which we can
maximize the resources within our oceans in a sustainable fashion.
The people in Iceland came to Canada on many occasions with
open arms, with good ideas and basically were told to go away, that
Canadians were not interested. That does a huge disservice to our
fisheries and to the people whose livelihood is dependent on
fisheries and oceans. This country has a huge opportunity in
fisheries and in aquaculture and we need to capitalize on that.
Part of the way we can capitalize is to invest in research and
development, primarily through co-operative arrangements with
the private sector. There is no new money, but money could be
found in the private sector. The government can take a leadership
role in this important area. It will lead to greater employment in our
country.
In short, the Reform Party supports Bill C-26, the oceans act.
Some of the motions we are going to support were not in Group No.
11. I would ask, with the constructive criticisms that the minister
has heard today, that he takes them home with him and looks at
them carefully to build a better bill.
(1930)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is about to unilaterally impose on
the marine industry user fees for Coast Guard services, notably for
navigational aids and icebreaking operations. Clauses 41 and 47 to
3678
52 of Bill C-26 give the fisheries minister the power to impose
these user fees.
Several amendments to these clauses have been moved by the
Bloc Quebecois, by my colleague the member for Gaspé, who went
to a lot of trouble to try to find a way of co-operating with the
government. As I was saying, several amendments to these clauses
have been tabled for the following purposes: to make the principle
of user fees more equitable, to force the minister to co-operate with
the industry and the provinces before imposing or increasing the
fees. These changes will prevent the minister from acting
unilaterally, without taking public consultation into account, as he
did with respect to the user fees that he wants to impose in June
1996.
Public hearings were held by the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans. All witnesses who appeared before the
committee deplored the decision and consultation process of the
Coast Guard, in particular the fact that the minister went ahead
with the user fees without first making an economic impact
assessment of this measure on the marine industry and on industrial
sectors relying on shipping.
Moreover, 75 per cent of the witnesses asked the minister to
declare a moratorium on the imposition of fees pending the result
of impact studies commissioned by the fisheries department for
next fall. The witnesses also suggested that the minister co-operate
with the marine industry in carrying out these economic impact
studies. Finally, there was a clear consensus against the minister's
proposal, which was considered unacceptable by concerned parties
in the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, notably by the Ontario and
Quebec governments.
Of course, disregarding all those recommendations and
objections, the minister seems to be determined to apply his fees
without even thinking of their potentially devastating
consequences on employment in the marine industry, which is a
highly developed economic sector in Quebec.
Another major problem is the drop in competitiveness of ports
in the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes compared with
American ports. On the one hand, ships passing through the St.
Lawrence and the seaway to reach the United States will not pay
for Coast Guard services if they do not stop in Canadian ports.
That is a serious threat to the competitiveness of the St.
Lawrence and Great Lakes ports.
On the other hand, the user pay principle advocated by the
minister is not consistently applied. In several instances, in
Sept-Îles and Port-Cartier among other places, users will pay up to
$5 million every year for only one buoy. And finally, the fees the
minister intends to apply are only the tip of the iceberg since they
cover only navigational aids. Harbour and seaway dredging and
icebreaking in the seaway are other targeted services for the
imposition of fees.
These other fees might be much higher than those for
navigational aids and we have every right to be concerned about the
survival and competitiveness of the St. Lawrence harbours,
especially the port of Montreal and several ports in the regions.
I would also like to take this opportunity to say a couple of words
on what it will do to a riding like mine. As you all know,
Laurentides is a riding where boating and water sports are very
important to the survival of tourism.
There are between 500 and 800 lakes in my riding, so you can
well imagine the impact fees on pleasure craft will have on the
economy of an area like mine. We have not heard all the details yet,
but there is talk of imposing a fee on pedalboats and sailboards. I
do not know where they will put the licence plate, but I am sure
they will think of something.
There is talk of having rowboats and canoes come under the law,
can you imagine what it might do to a tourism industry like the one
in my riding?
(1935)
Imagine the small and medium size businesses that make a
living renting this kind of equipment for the season, for the
summer; they will have to pay these fees. Will it be on a yearly
basis, or every five years? I still do not know how it will work. We
might be in for some nasty surprises. Will the fees be phased in?
All this to collect a few million dollars to put in the finance
minister's coffers. This is an outrage.
Moreover, let us keep in mind how much it will cost to collect
these fees. How will we go about finding the owners of all these
pedalboats, sailboards, rowboats, canoes? This is practically
impossible, unmanageable. In the end, the ordinary taxpayer will
have to pay once again. Once again he will have to bear the burden
of the federal government's financial problems.
We will oppose that fiercely. Coalitions are being formed right
now in my riding and elsewhere to press the government into not
adopting such a fee schedule. The Bloc Quebecois will continue its
action against this bill in the hope that the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans will find another way to fill his coffer. There would be so
many other ways.
Let me go on to another issue, waste dumped into the sea. Do
you know there is a fixed rate for the right to dump waste in the
sea? It means I can have five truckloads of waste, buy a license and
dump all of it into the sea with that one license alone. I can throw as
much waste as I want. These people are the ones you should go
after. We should make them pay the true price for their waste. It is
amazing what savings could be made that way and the environment
would be better protected.
3679
When I see the decisions being taken in order to collect $14
million and the number of public servants that will take, I am
concerned. They will have to create a new division at Fisheries
and Oceans. I can assure you the government will not get the
co-operation of all the provinces. It is not the provinces nor the
municipalities that will be collecting those fees. It will cost a
fortune. It will cost more to implement the fee schedule than to
leave things the way they are.
I encourage my colleagues to continue the debate on these
motions. I will fully support any opposition to charging fees for
ships and boats.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
pleasure for me to comment on the motions Group No.11, on Bill
C-26, a group of motions concerning the schedule of charges.
Hearings were held and 75 per cent of the interested parties came to
tell the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that he should suspend the
application of his new fee schedule until general economic impact
studies had been carried out.
I am very familiar with the St. Lawrence River region, in
particular the lower north shore. I worked for 15 years for Iron Ore
in Sept-Îles. When I left the company, in the mid seventies, it had
annual exports of 15 to 29 million tonnes of iron ore that were
loaded on 300,000 tonne supercargoes.
Of course, the cost of iron ore was not excessively high, it was 1
cent per tonne. However, Iron Ore employed thousands of people
through its two entities, the mining company and its subsidiary
Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway, and in this way it
sustained the whole economy of north shore, an economy that was
working well.
Let us come back to the measure advocated by the minister. He
does not seem to realize what impact a fee increase would have on
users on St. Lawrence River. In the port of Sept-Îles and
Port-Cartier for example, this would mean $5 million for each
buoy.
(1940)
That is hard to understand. Even though the government wants
an exorbitant price for a buoy, I am sure the mining companies,
Iron Ore Corp., Wabush Mines and Quebec Cartier Mining in
Port-Cartier could all afford hundreds of buoys. But the current
price of $5 million a year for installing a buoy they do not need is
too high. The big ocean going cargoes all use satellite positioning.
They do not need the minister's small buoys that are much more
useful for windsurfers than these supercargoes.
That is somewhat reminiscent of the highwaymen of the last
century. They would hide behind a bush, wait until someone came
by and, on whatever pretext they could think up-La Fontaine was
good at doing that in his fables-they would jump on him and rob
him. They would relieve him of all his belongings. That is what the
government is doing.
You know, this ultimately has an impact. I am sure the mining
company, Iron Ore, does not even ship 10 million tonnes a year,
while from 1970 to 1975, it shipped almost 20 million tonnes. It
employed between 10,000 and 12,000 people in its best years. At
the present time, it employs about 2,000. But the others are all
taxpayers who do not pay taxes any more, because they no longer
have a job.
That is what happened. That explains the $600 billion deficit.
The Liberals sometimes remind me of the man who will not feed
his cow yet wants it to give more milk. After a while, it does not
work any more. You cannot kill the canary and ask it to have
chicks. You must think logically and realize that policies such as
these are bad for the economy of Quebec in general and the north
shore in particular.
However, the minister is going about this in a haphazard manner.
He does not have a buoy, and it shows. He is going around,
rudderless, and has decided to hike user fees. You know, we already
pay taxes in our society. Life is not free in this society. As far as
individuals are concerned, the minister can always say they
sometimes get sick, receive hospital care, unemployment insurance
or welfare. Sometimes, they travel and we open the roads for them.
However, mining or paper companies pay taxes, but do not get
sick very often. When they get sick, they shut down. The same goes
for mining companies. They cannot receive welfare when things go
wrong. They pay taxes to begin with, like all of us, as well as a
surtax in accordance with the user pay principle. It say it is
nonsense.
There are deep water ports, in Halifax, Vancouver and Victoria
for example, where buoys are not required. These users get off
lightly, as they use services without paying since they do not have
buoys.
I think that $5 million per year, just to have a buoy at the mouth
of the bay in Sept-Îles and Port-Cartier, is excessive. The minister
should take notice because this is the kind of thing that happens
little by little, insidiously. Before you know it, the number of
workers has gone down from 2,000 to 1,500, then from 1,500 to
1,000 and from 1,000 to 300. When the minister finally wakes up,
he says that he does not understand, that the people in that region
have not been paying taxes. How could they, when they are out of
work?
Over time, small things have added up and they are now having a
disastrous effect on the regional economy, if not on the whole
province. But that, the minister does not care two hoots about. I am
still directing my remarks, through the Chair, to the hon. member
for Vancouver Quadra, who does not seem the slightest bit
perturbed by what I am saying, but this member, whom I salute,
3680
should try again to make the fisheries minister see reason to ensure
that adequate regulations are in place.
How competitive will be our ports, as compared to those in the
northern U.S. states? Take for instance a transatlantic liner coming
from Europe. It goes in the St. Lawrence River estuary, makes its
way up the river, bypassing Saint-Lambert, ends up in the Great
Lakes and heads straight for Pittsburgh.
(1945)
It pays nothing, even though it used the channel, the water and
the St. Lawrence. It pays for the locks in Saint-Lambert, but it is
getting the rest free. On the other hand, the small coastal trade
carrier on the North Shore, or on both shores of the St. Lawrence
will be hit hard.
We mentioned earlier the carrier crossing the Atlantic and
unloading its cargo in Sept-Îles; it costs a fortune, whereas the
carrier unloading in Thunder Bay has nothing to pay even though it
went 3,700 kilometres further down a waterway maintained by
Canada. Sometimes, as far as this upkeep is concerned, one
wonders if Canada has not bitten off more than it can chew. If it
cannot afford to look after such a large country, why does it not
leave a part of it to Quebecers? We could take care of it and manage
it, if Canada cannot do it.
I know this is not easy, but we will not get out of the situation by
adopting such measures, nor by acting like highwaymen.
Companies do talk to each other. They realize that ore is not
expensive on the North Shore, but they must pay an additional cost.
Moreover, they are being squeezed dry with navigation costs after
having invested billions in a region that was not really developed
before they came. Once they are grabbed by the throat, fees are
raised any which way. They respect their commitments on iron ore
tonnage, but as far as using ports and wharves is concerned, the sky
is the limit. They are asked $5 million for one buoy. Really, this is
nonsense.
Has the government yielded to the pressure of the lobby
representing eastern interests? These people from down east, from
Halifax and Newfoundland, have a great influence on the
government. When military bases are closed in that region, the
government gives them $17 million. By comparison, when a base
was closed in Quebec, our province only got $1 million. In any
case, given their small number here, MPs from the maritimes are
particularly effective. Everything generally turns against Quebec.
This bill is yet another illustration of that.
Through the Chair, I ask the member for Vancouver Quadra who
is listening so carefully to what I have to say, to try to influence his
minister and make him realize that, even if Quebec is a distinct
society, the waters, rivers, docks and ships are no different. Even if
Quebec is a relatively rich province with its iron deposits and other
minerals, such as the bauxite found in the Lac Saint-Jean region
which is transformed into aluminum ingots, this is no reason to try
to choke Quebecers by depriving them of their economic
infrastructure, unless it is a current Liberal strategy.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is looking at me and
seems surprised that we could think of such things. You know, once
we get used to hearing the current Prime Minister, we realize that
words do not have the same meaning for him as for the rest of us;
we are speaking in good faith. When the Prime Minister talks about
a chair, it is not a horizontal seat with four legs. In the Prime
Minister's mind, a chair can have two horizontal legs, two vertical
legs and a tilted seat. That is a chair or a table for the Prime
Minister. Now we have learned not to trust him. The hon. member
for Vancouver Quadra might find it very funny, but such is the sad
reality in Quebec. The Prime Minister makes promises to us, but
we learned many moons ago that we have to be cautious and
examine what he means because one never wins against him. There
is always a meaning nobody had thought of.
I think it is in the interest not only of Quebec but also of the
whole of Canada to try to make the Prime Minister understand and
reconsider this bill and its fee structure. As suggested by mayors of
municipalities and by various other interested parties, before doing
something irreparable, we should wait until we at least get impact
studies and know what disastrous consequences such a bill could
have.
(1950)
So there is no point hurrying to shoot ourselves in the foot, to
chop a hole in the bottom of the boat. Let us proceed slowly and
await the results of studies.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I speak tonight in support of the amendments put
forward by the Bloc, by my colleague from Gaspé.
I am also glad to speak against this ridiculous attempt by the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the government to charge
fees for navigational aid services, whether it is for dredging or
deicing the St. Lawrence River, without waiting for the results of
economic impact studies.
I appeal to your common sense. The St. Lawrence River in the
province of Quebec is quite unique. In any other country, in France
or anywhere else, such a huge river would be called a sea. From
Godbout to Matane, for example, this river is 26 miles wide, that is
close to 50 kilometres. The waters of the St. Lawrence River are
inland waters in Quebec. If that river had not represented
something like a huge lung for Quebec, Canada's history would
have been quite different.
Indeed, if British colonial forces had not felt the need to control
this waterway leading inland, they would have left the decision
making and the development of our people in the hands of the
Canadiens, who became known as French Canadians and are now
3681
called Quebecers. The St. Lawrence River is an inland waterway of
a different type, a type which reflects what Quebec is.
But now, without consulting the provinces, without consulting
Quebec, without consulting users and without consulting those who
will be affected by this decision, whose impact could be quite
dramatic, the minister has decided to go ahead and give himself the
power to set the fees he finds appropriate without considering the
effects it could have.
This is a major decision. It reflects a lack of interest for what
Quebec is. It reflects a lack of concern for the extremely important
economic role the St. Lawrence River could play in terms of inland
navigation and shipping. There are a large number of businesses in
my riding of Mercier, in Montreal, and the bigs ones that are still
around rely on a combination of rail and water transport for their
operations.
(1955)
They are and will continue to be affected, as will the port cities
located all along the St. Lawrence River.
Because of this government decision, this very important not
only economic but social and even cultural fabric of the province of
Quebec is being threatened.
The bill and all the literature on it give us food for thought. A
few years ago, it was decided and rightly so that polluters must pay,
whatever the field. That is when the polluter pays principle became
popular. From what I read about the St. Lawrence River, something
quite different is happening. Now it is the users who must pay. But
should they be the ones to pay? Each case should be reviewed in
terms of economic impact, social responsibilities and good
citizenship.
What is important is that the St. Lawrence River can continue to
play its role. If, contrary to what we would be inclined to think, the
government does care about the economic role of the St. Lawrence
River, how can it risk jeopardizing the economic mission of its
ports? How can it penalize in this way Quebec and, with the Great
Lakes, Ontario, before the results of the impact studies are out?
If, at least, businesses or institutions had shown some concern
or even resistance, but this is not the case, because they know
how important this is for Quebec. But what will happen when
those users will be asked to pay for the impacts of winter, the ice
removal and the dredging required as a result of erosion and
other natural events? The users in a particular context or
situation will have to pay.
I also urge and pray the member for Vancouver Quadra and the
other member from British Columbia whose riding I do not
remember to go on an excursion on the St. Lawrence River, to try to
understand why this issue goes well beyond the economic one that
I just described with some emotion; it is important, but it goes well
beyond that because we feel deprived of the control over this major
waterway which is a great, magnificent and natural feature and
which represents a unique asset, one that can also turn to our
disadvantage because the fees, the rates that will be imposed could
put in jeopardy its utilization for recreational, tourist and economic
purposes.
(2000)
We could be deprived of the full development stemming from
the existence of this outstanding waterway, the St. Lawrence River,
because the minister, in a totally arbitrary manner, empowers
himself to impose a rate structure that could be to our disadvantage
economically and favour, for instance, the harbours of northern
United States.
As members, we will do everything that is feasible to prevent the
government from ramming through this legislation which is
appalling, unfair and which shows its complete insensitivity
regarding the significance of the St. Lawrence for Quebec.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise also to express my opposition to the
government's plan to offer Coast Guard services on a user fee
basis. According to our information, this is not the first time the
government tried to invade this field in order to raise new funds for
the national treasury. We must examine carefully the content as
well as the form of this proposal.
This time, the government's objective, through the Coast Guard,
is to take in close to $160 million by year 2000 from users, starting,
in 1996, with an amount of $20 million only for navigation aids,
such as buoys and lighthouses that guide ships on the St. Lawrence
River. The issues of icebreaking and dredging of the St. Lawrence
River and approaches to ports are being determined. According to
our information, the icebreaking plan will take form next fall.
As part of its strategy, the government asked a private firm, IBI,
to study this question. As member of Parliament and associate
member of the committee, I had the honour to take part in the
proceedings of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans,
and I am also very pleased to speak as critic for regional
development. Many witnesses said that the IBI study was a hollow
sham. Yet, the study was quite voluminous, but, according to a
witness, it was not worth the paper on which it was printed. This
gives you an idea of the quality of the work done because it seems
that it was all a bogus consultation process.
Afterwards, the government had to yield to the pressure exerted
by the official opposition and call a meeting of the fisheries and
oceans committee which, in turn, invited witnesses to appear
before it in order to know the opinion of those we could call victims
3682
of this government operation. Again, this was a bogus consultation
process.
Many witnesses, and important ones at that, expressed their
views. On the one hand, we saw the arrogance of the Coast Guard
commissioner, Mr. Thomas, very self-confident, very proud to talk
about the IBI study, and on the other, there was the disappointment,
concern and even the anger of users who will have to foot the bill
without getting any real explanation of what was going on.
It must be said that over the next three years, people who play a
very important economic role, as I will explain later, will have to
pay $160 million without any impact study. Some witnesses talked
about the devastating effects of that policy, for example, the
SODES, which is an association of many highly credible maritime
stakeholders in Quebec. There is no description of the services
provided to users by the Coast Guard, nonetheless the user pay
principle will be applied.
(2005)
They did not feel the need to demonstrate rationally, as logically
as possible, as convincingly as possible, the services actually
rendered to these users they want to see pay in future. As for
conviction or the moral aspect of the matter are concerned, the
process is extremely arbitrary, as well as extremely authoritarian,
somewhat typical of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the
Commissioner of the Coast Guard, that is for sure.
As well, there has been no demonstration of any effort
whatsoever of rationalization of Coast Guard operations, because if
the Coast Guard-which, if memory serves, costs $860 million and
change yearly-had successfully rationalized its operations, as the
users suggest, those who have seen it in operation just about
everywhere in Canada, there would be less money to collect and
less reason to penalize users of these undefined Coast Guard
services. This is extremely shocking. It is obvious to people that
the Coast Guard has not cleaned up its own act before going and
setting new user fees.
All of this gives rise to what I would term some disturbing facts.
For example, the problem comes from Ottawa. Ottawa needs
money and has decided to find a new way to intervene to meet this
need. For its purposes, it has divided the country into three major
regions.
So, while the problem is exactly the same from coast to coast,
the country is divided into three parts: the west, the centre-that is,
the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence-and the maritimes. As it
happens, Quebec is the one that gets it in the neck, because it will
end up paying, with the Great Lakes, nearly 48 per cent of the $20
million at issue this year.
I have heard federalists say, for your information, that, if there is
a country, there is a country. Unless Ottawa decides simply to
divide up the country, to acknowledge in some way that there are
differences, big ones, we are obliged to talk sovereignty. There are
therefore federalists who are legitimately upset, and, we hope,
shaken by the federal government's move to divide up the country
into the three regions I just mentioned.
What is more, according to user estimates, the government is
raising costs, plus what this policy will mean eventually, by a
dollar a tonne. The Coast Guard's response to this argument is that
it is not a dollar a tonne, but ten cents a tonne. This is the kind of
debate that can generate a lot of anxiety since some will think that
10 cents is important, but a dollar is even more so in a field where
competition is exceedingly high. According to users, this will
double the cost of maritime transportation operations in the St.
Lawrence, if ever the contention of users is confirmed, that is, a $1
increase.
So they caved in to the eastern and western lobbies, but
especially the eastern lobby, that is, the maritimes, and decided on
a fee structure that seems to be clearly in favour of Halifax as
opposed to one of its competitor ports called Montreal. The port of
Halifax is a port of call for big container ships whereas the port of
Montreal is an unloading port. It seems that the decision to apply
user fees based on the tonnage of transhipped or unloaded cargo
favours Halifax, while the decision to impose user fees based on
the size of vessels would have favoured neither of these two ports.
This is a rather sneaky way to favour one port over another one
when both are competing against one another.
(2010)
There is a disturbing fact which gives a very concrete idea of
what to expect: For navigational aids, a single 25,000 tonne vessel
will pay $112,000 per year. A vessel of 25,000 tonnes, $112,000
per year. Not only that, but policies are also being designed which
will cost far more, in particular with respect to icebreaking
operations. This gives us some idea of the scope of the problem we
will soon be facing.
One wonders if this is not an effort to severely reduce the
competitiveness of the ports on the St. Lawrence compared with
those ports of the maritime provinces, of the east coast of the U.S.,
even of the whole Mississippi valley. St. Lawrence harbours are in
direct competition with those harbours and if shipowners decide it
is too expensive to sail through the St. Lawrence, the danger for not
only the Quebec economy, but also central Canada, is that they will
have missed the boat.
Aluminum plants, the whole pulp and paper industry, the oil
industry, the mining industry might then be in jeopardy, together
with tens of thousands of jobs related to all these sectors.
This is a major issue and the official opposition is asking for a
one-year moratorium. One wonders if, in a sovereign Quebec, it
3683
would even occur to the leaders to come up with such a scheme to
hurt the economy instead of helping it develop.
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, before we hear the
member for Châteauguay, I would like to remind you that we are
studying group 11, that is Motions Nos 67, 68 and 70.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to participate in this debate at report stage on Bill C-26, an
Act respecting the oceans of Canada. This bill proposes that a tariff
be unilaterally established for all services offered by the Coast
Guard to the marine industry, including ice breaking and aids to
navigation. It gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans all the
powers he needs to collect the set fees.
The Bloc Quebecois, under the leadership of my colleague, the
member for Gaspé, presented a series of 57 amendments in order to
make the fees more equitable and to bring the minister to consult
the industry and the provinces before implementing or increasing
any fees.
During public hearings, all stakeholders condemned the fact that
the Canadian Coast Guard was planning to collect fees without any
previous consultations. They asked the minister for a moratorium
until the results of impact studies on the marine industry and
industrial sectors relying on marine transportation are known.
Given the need for governments to rationalize their expenditures
one can only agree with the general principle of user fees set on a
base rate. However, the fee charged the service user must be
proportional to actual use. Otherwise the fee schedule could be a
life and death issue for a number of companies. In other words, it
would be another policy based on a double standard.
While ships will have to pay more in the St. Lawrence River and
in the Great Lakes, the port of Churchill, in Manitoba, would be
exempted from paying for some services provided by the Coast
Guard. And yet this port uses icebreakers more than any other, and
is getting generous support from the Coast Guard. A policy with a
double standard.
This policy appears to be just another part of Plan B against
Quebec and its economic hub, Montreal. We are forced to wonder
if the federal government is trying to starve out the Quebec
economy in order to cool its demands for independence. That
would, however, indicate a serious lack of knowledge of Quebec.
Such an offensive would only reinforce our sovereignist intentions.
Quebec and Montreal cannot help but be negatively affected by
this bill.
(2015)
In support of this statement, I have an April 25 press release
from the office of Quebec's ministre d'État à la métropole. The
minister is concerned about the economic impact on the Montreal
region, and the Canadian Coast Guard's planned fees.
If I may, I would like to make a few points about this. On April
25, Serge Ménard, the Quebec minister responsible for Montreal,
along with Mrs. Véra Danyluk, chairperson of the executive
committee of the Conseil régional de développement de l'île de
Montréal and of the executive committee of the Montreal Urban
Community, and Mr. Patrice Simard, President of the Metropolitan
Montreal Chamber of Commerce, all people very familiar with this
matter, issued a press release. The salient points were as follows:
they regretted the lack of an economic impact study; they called for
a moratorium on this bill; they were amazed at the lack of any
rationalization measures on Coast Guard operations. These are the
points they made in their release. There was also condemnation of
the hit or miss way the matter was being handled, and they also
stated that the burden was assessed at that time at 48 per cent for
mid-Canada (the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes), 30 per cent for the
east, and 22 per cent for the west.
But the main part of their press release dealt with the importance
of its metropolis for Quebec. This is what it said: ``Every year, the
port of Montreal handles 20 million tons of cargo and 726,000
containers transit through its facilities. This activity generates
14,000 direct and indirect jobs and revenues of $1.2 billion
annually. Many Quebec industries depend on this mode of supply.
Furthermore, the port of Montreal must support strong competition
from American east coast ports. Fifty per cent of the port of
Montreal's container traffic comes from industrialized regions of
the United States, namely the Midwest, New York state and New
England.''
``Since 60 per cent of the freight passing through the port of
Montreal is shipped by railway to various continental destinations,
the profitability of the railway network of the metropolis would
also be affected by the tariff project. The Canadian government's
proposed fee structure threatens the competitiveness of the port of
Montreal on the American market, as well as the transportation and
supply needs of Canadian industries'', concluded Minister Ménard.
Again, this bill deals with all kinds of things, but brings no
solution. Most of all, it annoys everyone. Let us consider motions
in Groups Nos. 11, 8 and 9 dealing with recreational crafts and
emergency situations. There was an emergency situation in my
riding in January, when flood waters affected 1,200 people and cost
$3 million in Châteauguay. The problem was mainly due to the fact
that the Coast Guard Rovercraft could not be used at the time
because it was being repaired.
When we asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the
House, he told us that the rescue services on tributaries of the St.
Lawrence and on the other rivers in Canada are under provincial
jurisdiction. The Canadian Coast Guard provides ice breaking
services on these tributaries at the request of the Quebec minister.
He simply said the tributaries were a provincial responsibility.
3684
(2020)
In this bill, with the intention to regulate all types of boats,
whether rowboats or pedal boats, on rivers or streams, I wonder
what the Coast Guard has to do in this area.
On the whole, this about summarizes the bill. It affects nothing
and everything. In my opinion, this bill is another bill in the style of
the government. It intervenes everywhere and resolves absolutely
nothing. Therefore, we simply have to vote against this bill.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I see in
the gallery several young people who have come here to see how
we debate legislation in the House of Commons. They must be just
as scandalized as I am to see that there is only one Liberal member
and one Reform member present. I think it is time to ask for a
quorum count so we can have a normal debate according to the
rules.
I ask that a quorum count be held, Mr. Speaker
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I see 20 members present. Resuming
debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this group of motions, Group
No. 11, concerning- The Liberals were not here a few moments
ago and now they will not stop talking. They are not any more
useful to us now than they were then.
Motion No. 70 says that the Coast Guard should provide its
services in the most cost effective manner possible and, more
importantly, that people in the industry should be consulted about
the services for which they are paying. It is an interesting motion.
To assess its relevance, it may be necessary to go back to the
substance of this bill.
We are talking about user fees on the St. Lawrence Seaway, but
most of all we are talking about conditions that will make this
seaway an important economic asset for Quebec and for Canada.
We must not forget that there are several ports along the St.
Lawrence River. Some are very large, others are smaller, but they
are always important to the region where they are located, whether
it be in Sept-Îles, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Montreal, Cacouna,
Rimouski or Matane. These are all places where ports play an
important role.
We are witnessing what I would call an attack on Quebec by the
federal government through the imposition of fees. Let us not
forget this is happening at the same time as the releasing of the
ports. On one hand, the government paints an interesting picture for
the future by decentralizing port management, but, on the other
hand, it takes measures that will make ports on the St. Lawrence
Seaway no longer competitive and no longer attractive to
businesses.
I think there is a very important message being sent to the
present government, this message being that people who are behind
Quebec's demands are not what the Liberals would call separatists,
but people from the aluminum industry, the pulp and paper
industry, the mining industry, people from all these job creating
industries that are good for the economy. The current government
should take that into consideration. These people are all members
of the Société de développement économique du Saint-Laurent. We
are talking here about well known firms such as Daishowa and
Alumax; in my area, Gaspesia, in Chandler; and F.R. Soucy, in
Rivière-du-Loup. These are all businesses that will have to make
major economic decisions for the next five, ten, fifteen or twenty
years. When we tell them about the possibility of user fees
becoming much higher, they may decide to go elsewhere, to expand
their facilities less. We then see clearly the direct link that exists
between regional development and the user fee policy.
(2025)
Why should this kind of fee structure be adopted today? Did we
make all the efforts necessary to find another solution? I myself
have a proposal for the government that would replace its
steamroller approach. As Raymond Giroux, an editorialist at Le
Soleil, wrote: ``The administrative machinery already acts as
though Canada was nothing more than a secondary residence for its
7 million francophones. Like air traffic control, the issue of ports is
handled by the offices of deputy ministers, where the true power
resides, in keeping with the Liberal tradition''.
Could the minister not get out of his deputy minister's office, go
out there and ask the people in the industry to propose solutions?
These people are ready to propose solutions. They have already
said they were willing to accept a new fee structure and, after a
reasonable time, to adhere to the user-pay principle. It is not a
matter of making Quebec pay for the services provided in the
maritimes and Newfoundland. Rather, we must review all the
solutions, not only raising fees but also looking at the way services
are provided in the region.
The people directly involved in maritime shipping have
interesting solutions to propose. Instead of raising fees, they would
take measures to significantly reduce operating costs. As is well
known, the coast guard sometimes behaves as it did in more
prosperous times. For example, since its home port has long been
outside Quebec, the icebreakers operating in the gulf must go back
to their home port in the maritimes just to fill up on fuel. Is this still
an
3685
effective way to operate? Would it be possible to save money on
this? Should we not review all of the coast guard's operations? I
think there is room for self-examination here, but this has been
somewhat neglected.
From that point of view, Motion No. 70 is interesting and I think
the government would do well to redo its homework, get back to its
users and seek proposals so that they can agree from the start on
reduction targets that make sense, targets susceptible of generating
a consensus. On this sound basis of an agreement on the targets to
be met, we could then think about how to go about meeting these
targets.
This would constitute a much more worthwhile solution than the
one consisting in using a steam roller as the minister is doing right
now.
This is a time of year when many of the costs associated with ice
during the winter months are no longer incurred. Why would the
minister not take a month or two during the summer to look into
this, review the matter and find solutions that could meet the
approval of all concerned? He could come back to the House with
much more interesting answers, answers which could have been
arrived at through parliamentary committees, by consensus,
answers which could satisfy everybody, transparent answers.
At the moment, a strong impression is being created that this is
part of an overall strategy to have Quebec lose its competitive
edge. Certain operations lead us to believe that the government is
holding a ``garage sale'', where Quebec's competitive advantages
are being sold off, and the St. Lawrence is one of them.
It is also important to ensure that there is solidarity between
users all along the river. It must be realized that, when a boat goes
down or up the river, it can stop at various ports.
(2030)
There some major ports which have the equipment necessary to
load a ship. There are also several wharfs along the river where
ships can take on cargo. For example, ships can take on wood,
powdered milk and peat moss, to name but a few, in Cacouna's
port, in order to make this stop cost effective, recover their costs
and make a profit.
However, if a decision systematically puts industries which
settle eventually in the region at a competitive disadvantage and if,
indeed, there is a reduction in the use of ports, the whole
development of Quebec will suffer, because all ports can be
affected by these decisions. Therefore, before making any decision,
the government would do well to ensure that there will be no
surprises later on.
Public hearings could have been held which would have made it
possible to take the public opinion into account. We are told that 75
per cent of stakeholders have asked for a moratorium. Should not
the government listen to these people, consider the advantages of
this moratorium, give itself time to look for other alternatives and
ensure that the business plan which would result would suit all
users and not only those who want to maintain services without
questioning their relevance?
That is why I think Motion No. 70 deserves to be supported. I
would like members, especially those whose riding is affected by
this situation, to consider their vote carefully and think about their
constituents' interests before they simply support a government
position.
True, the government must reduce its operating costs. It needs to
raise its cash inflow, but it must do so with the knowledge that it
will get a quality service at a minimal cost. It must not simply raise
the prices since, by doing that, it does not apply the basic principle
that it advocates, that is, sound management. For all these reasons,
I ask the government to vote in favour of Motion No. 70.
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time is up.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I ask the consent of the House to let me
speak a few minutes more.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to give the
member a few more minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Crête: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the House for
realizing the importance of the issue and allowing us to debate it a
little longer.
I want to emphasise a point I mentioned but did not elaborate
enough on because of time constraints. Stakeholders asking for a
moratorium as an opportunity for Quebec to suggest other solutions
are not those we traditionally identify as sovereignists in Quebec.
They are industrial stakeholders, people who make our economy
work. They are corporations like Iron Ore, Alumax, Daishowa.
They are all major economic stakeholders, people who have made
their mark in Quebec's economy and have made investments that
are growing.
Take an investment like Alumax for example. We gambled on its
profitability. When it was first established in Quebec, that
corporation had some strategic information whereby it knew that it
would have to pay so much for transportation.
Today, it sees the rules being changed. We are telling these
people very clearly and ruthlessly that, from now on, the rules will
no longer be the same, that we have decided to increase the fees.
These people know the St. Lawrence and the industry, they know
what the impact of the government's decisions will be, and they
also know what the operating costs are for these types of services.
They agree to do their share. I would compare that to my house and
3686
say I agree to pay the heating but if the tenant keeps the thermostat
at 30 or 35 degrees Celsius, I am paying a lot for nothing.
(2035)
Should it not be possible to start by finding a more economical
way of managing? This is what those concerned are asking: they
want the coast guard to provide its services in a more effective way.
Is the situation so urgent that the government must operate like a
steamroller, and listen only to its senior public servants and not to
stakeholders? I do not think so. There is time in the summer
months ahead. It would be possible to arrive at a much more
consensual solution that might please stakeholders.
I would like to draw your attention to an article published in the
newspaper Les Affaires, on Saturday, February 10, 1996. The
article is entitled ``The fees proposed by the coast guard primarily
affect St. Lawrence users'' and contains a significant comment. It
says: ``The recovery policy of the Canadian coast guard, which
comes under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is in addition
to the ports marketing policy proposed by Transport Canada''.
As you know, yesterday the transport minister tabled the Canada
Marine Act. This is a very pompous title for an act. One would
expect a general policy on the whole issue of marine transportation.
Unfortunately, we do not find what we would expect, given the title
of the legislation. Rather, this is an act dealing with the
relinquishment of ports, which will have a major impact on how the
river will be managed over the next 5, 10, 15 or 20 years.
Let us see what will happen. On the one hand, the Department of
Transport says: ``We will give very large harbours a freer hand;
they will be able to operate in a more independent way and as such
compete with each other and arrive at interesting results''. But, on
the other hand, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will
increase fees to be charged at harbours along the St. Lawrence. But
that is kept under wraps. As a result, the harbours in the maritimes
will become much more competitive.
So, what is given with one hand is taken away with the other by
changing the rules and charging unfair fees to harbour authorities
in Quebec.
So what we are facing 5, 10 or 15 years down the road is a double
challenge. I was talking about large harbours that will have
complete autonomy, but what about regional harbours? For
example, the harbour in Cacouna, which, according to the
Department of Transport, is a profitable harbour. With the level of
traffic in and out of the port we have right now, the port is efficient
and viable. The local people were told: ``You should take this in
charge''. A corporation made up of very dynamic people, called the
Corporation de développement du port de Cacouna and chaired by
the chief executive officer of F.F. Soucy, a paper mill in
Rivière-du-Loup, undertook to examine this opportunity and said:
``It would be an interesting proposition, but first, we should check
the condition the infrastructure is in and see what we can do with
it''.
And all of a sudden this issue of fees comes up. An organization
not as well informed as this one could have been taken for quite a
ride, but the chief executive officer of the paper mill immediately
realized the consequences this could have on this undertaking. He
has been experimenting for a few years, and still does today, with
ways to ferry wood from there.
Raising the fees will increase the ship rental costs and,
ultimately, this kind of wood transportation will be made less
viable.
Thus, because of those fees, an infrastructure that could be rather
interesting for the region will be lost. It comes as quite a surprise
that the government does not have a more comprehensive approach
to this sector. One of the major causes of that may be that the bill
was apparently prepared on the sly, that a firm position was taken
without even consulting the stakeholders. Could it be because a
new minister was appointed in the meantime? But is the minister
just acting like the spokesperson of senior civil servants instead of
setting the agenda? I do not know if this explains this situation, but
the results are there.
(2040)
The proposed fees for coast guard services will mainly penalize
the users of the St. Lawrence River, who see this as a concession to
the Halifax lobby. This is not new in Canada. There are many
examples of this in the past.
When Canada was founded, Gaspé could have become our
official port of entry. Its natural harbour is possibly the most
beautiful in Canada and boats could have gotten there without any
problem. No dredging or anything else would have been necessary.
If Gaspé had been chosen, the transcontinental railway could
have started there and today the economic situation of the Gaspé
peninsula would be quite different. The John A. Macdonald
government deliberately chose to develop Canada from east to
west, a decision which was very harmful to the province of Quebec.
Today, we see the same thing happening with these new fees.
The government has decided to haul the carpet out from under the
feet of Quebec users. You could say: Here goes another one of
those blasted separatists, who is going to tell us that Quebec is
hurting within Canada and that there is no other solution. He
always says the same thing.
3687
The problem the Liberal government is facing today is that the
people who are demanding changes, who want a moratorium, who
want the Coast Guard to clean up its act are not known for being
sovereignists.
In this regard, let me quote Raymond Giroux, who says in his
editorial comment: ``Until now, the major industrial
players-namely Iron Ore, Alumax and Daishowa-were scared
stiff of being accused of acting in connivance with sovereignist
politicians.'' The senior executives of Canada Steamship Lines,
property that the minister Paul Martin holds in trust and which is
part of the coalition, the SODES, the St. Lawrence Economic
Development Council, are also mentioned.
These people who are mentioned, who are not identified as
sovereignists and who were not particularly courting the yes side
last fall, all agree that the federal government's proposal is not fair
and that it will prevent Quebec from sustaining adequately
competition. They all ask the government of Canada to go back and
do its homework all over again, to look again at the way the
consultations were held, to give consideration to the advice given
by the industrial players and then-
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleague, I believe the consent of
the House was for a few minutes only and that we are now
exceeding them.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since I had the
consent of the House to extend my time, and since no specific time
limit was imposed, I ask if I may conclude.
The Deputy Speaker: I will give one minute to the member to
do so.
An hon. member: Is it one American minute, Mr. Speaker,?
Mr. Crête: To conclude, Mr. Speaker, we are speaking about
motion No. 70. This motion states that the coast guard be required
to provide services more efficiently. We support this motion
because we believe there is some cleaning up to do in the coast
guard.
Second, we are asking to allow the people in the marine industry
to have their say in the services for which they will have to pay. I
believe this would be a good solution in order to offer a better
service at a lower cost. Let us respect the voice of the marine
industry people who really know about the situation.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, I made a speech during the debate on Bill C-27, and you
were in the chair. I had the opportunity to thank the Minister of
Justice for presenting a bill aimed at the protection of women and
children. While the bill does not go far enough, it is nonetheless a
step in the right direction.
(2045)
Unfortunately, today, I will not congratulate the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans for what he intends to do with the bill we are
studying.
On the trade scene, it seems that the present government set a
course that it is following without any deviation and whose
objective is to penalize Quebec, to weaken it economically.
Just think about the research and development policy which the
Tokamak project illustrates very well, think about the GST, the
helicopter contract, the fisheries, the agriculture, the raw milk
cheese. Each and every time, Quebec is penalized. It is as though
the government had deliberately made the decision to impoverish
Quebec and to put it on its knees.
Every time the government makes a decision that goes against
Quebec's interests, the Bloc denounces it. That is what we have
done in the last few months with the maritime services fee
structure. I take the opportunity to congratulate my colleague from
Gaspé for the energy and the expertise he is showing in this debate.
Why is the Bloc Quebecois opposed to Bill C-26? After hearing
several of my colleagues I think that you probably begin to
understand, but I will explain it again for those who may not have
understood as well as you and for those who are watching us on
television. Why should Bill C-26 be rejected?
These reasons are stated in the dissenting opinion released by the
official opposition as an appendix to the report of the fisheries and
oceans committee, a committee that heard witnesses, 75 per cent of
whom agreed with the Bloc's dissenting opinion.
I will review the most important elements. First of all, the vast
majority of witnesses who appeared before the committee asked for
a one-year moratorium to allow the government to conduct
comprehensive and independent economic impact studies in
co-operation with the industry.
Even though this recommendation was perfectly reasonable,
the government chose to ignore it completely. That is why I and
my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois are taking an active part in
this debate today. Why will the minister not budge? It seems that
it is because of budgetary requirements imposed by the Minister
of Finance that must be respected, regardless of the resulting
inequities.
We can only condemn this reaction by the minister. He had a
golden opportunity to work with the people directly affected by the
new policy, who were glad to contribute to the cost of the services
they receive, but who were simply asking the minister to take a
serious look at the impacts the new policy would have on the
industry. Forget it. Once again, we were not listened to. I hope they
pay the price later on.
3688
The second reason is that by establishing three different areas,
the Laurentian area, including the St. Lawrence and the Great
Lakes, the West and the East, with rules having different impacts
for each area, the government is penalizing, that is right, you
guessed it, the St. Lawrence.
The third reason is that, as part of the second round of budgetary
measures announced, the government had to rationalize the cost of
the Coast Guard. But, according to the witnesses heard, the
government has simply not done its homework. We therefore find
ourselves in the situation where, instead of rationalizing its staff,
the government is imposing tariffs on the industry and thus
jeopardizing not only the industry but the jobs that depend on it. Is
this good management? It makes no sense at all.
The question is would the government have reacted so hastily in
another situation where the economic interests of a region other
than Quebec were at stake? I think not.
One final reason the Bloc Quebecois is rejecting Bill C-26 is that
the government has not given users a chance to give input on the
relevance and effectiveness of services for which they will have to
pay, and, subsequent to that, to comment on the method used to
charge for these services. In short, the government has behaved like
a dictator, with complete disregard for the economic interests of the
industry and of the people affected by its decisions.
(2050)
This is unacceptable. As the member for Québec, I would like to
make the House aware of the importance of the marine industry for
the economic life of my riding, and of the negative impact the
implementation of Bill C-29 will have on it. First, some statistics:
the Quebec City harbour, in my riding, accounts for 6,450 full time
jobs, 123 businesses dependant on the marine industry, and $352
million in economic spinoffs. This is the reason why I am getting
involved in this matter.
Quebec City harbour, in my riding, will be penalized by the new
fees levied by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Several
leading figures in the marine sector mentioned this to me and asked
me to rise today in the House and defend the economic interests of
my riding.
This bill jeopardizes hundreds of jobs. As a result of this bill, the
cost of sailing through the St. Lawrence will rise significantly.
Mr. Ross Gaudreault, the CEO of Quebec City harbour, believes
that the fees could result in a cost increase of 80 cents a tonne for
shippers. He fears that this increase will drive exporters to chose
alternate harbours either on the eastern or western United States.
This is the reason why we are worried.
Mr. Gaudreault is not the only one to fear such a possibility. The
Quebec Minister of Transport, the mayors of Quebec City and
Charlesbourg, the St. Lawrence Maritime Chamber, the Ship
Operators' Association, the Forest Industry Association and
business leaders have all reacted negatively to the minister's plan.
These are intelligent people who are able to analyze the kind of
project that is proposed and to say it will be a disaster for the whole
economic and marine life in the St. Lawrence River.
This bill is unfair for Québec and it is unfair for industry. It is
unfair for the people of my county and for the people of other ports
along the St. Lawrence River. It is unfair because it fails to take
into account the economic reality of the region. It is a bill based on
the division of Canada because of the inequality within the fee
system. This measure puts the competitiveness of St.Lawrence
River harbours at risk.
I hope the government will finally listen to the stakeholders,
impose a moratorium before it decides on the new fee system and
see what this measure puts at risk. Why push the adoption of bill
when there will no ice this summer. As my colleague said, why not
wait until fall to have time to shed some light on this bill?
I do not congratulate the minister of Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans. It is too bad. I would have liked to congratulate him this
evening. I like to be generous when I speak in the House and I like
to say it when people do something good. But I think their ears are
blocked and they cannot hear the Bloc members' propositions.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for Quebec, who made an excellent speech, took away from me
many regional arguments regarding the coast guard.
However, since this is an extremely important problem not only
for the Quebec City harbour, but also for the South Shore of
Quebec City, I only have to mention what this will imply in terms
of additional fees to Ultramar, which is a Quebec refinery and
which needs the coast guard services not only for de-icing, but also
for dredging activities. Ultramar accounts for 25 per cent of
transportation services for the port activities in general in the
Quebec region.
Before talking about the specific issues and the impact, I asked
myself one first question about Bill C-26, which formalizes the
transfer of the coast guard and Transport Canada to Fisheries and
Oceans Canada.
(2055)
I was naive enough to ask myself whether or not this kind of
transfer was done in order to improve things. There is a need to
assess certain criteria to determine the effectiveness of the
structure responsible for providing the new service. Did this
structure accomplish wonderful things so that it can be entrusted
with greater responsibilities?
3689
As far as Fisheries and Oceans is concerned, let us take the
example of the cod. What happened to the cod stocks? We could
even talk about a real disaster. The cod suddenly disappeared. We
could also talk about the reduced quotas for several other species.
A quarrel is under way in Acadia regarding crabs and lobsters.
This government also restricted access to unemployment
insurance. Regions like the Gaspé, Acadia and the maritimes
essentially live off fishery resources. If the people in those regions
are asked if they think Fisheries and Oceans Canada has been an
effective department, they all agree that the opposite is true.
I am a sovereignist; I am an opposition critic who likes to
criticize. In the incident involving a hovercraft under repair that
occurred in Châteauguay earlier this year, I must say that the coast
guard was rather effective. They now want to transfer this service
to the minister of Fisheries and Oceans so he can come barging in
to put some order into this. To do so, the minister and his officials
had the brilliant idea of dividing the country into three regions: the
Atlantic, the Central-Laurentian region, and the West.
Distribution must be fair. How can we in Quebec have
confidence in this? The Sir Wilfrid Laurier, an icebreaker, also
played a major role in the icebreaking operations on the river.
About three weeks ago, the Sir Wilfrid Laurier sailed off for a long
trip all the way to the west coast. Services are being phased out and
hundreds of coast guard related jobs are being cut. Just recently, I
heard of one hundred more of these jobs being cut in Quebec City.
That is incredible. They say streamlining is required because the
deficit is high, and so is the debt. We agree that streamlining is
necessary in some cases, but that is all the minister is doing. Where
tariffs did not exist, he imposes tariffs. And this is just the
beginning, $20 million just for this year and just for navigation
aids. That is $20 million just for buoys. Then, at the next stage,
involving icebreakers, similar cuts will be made. This is a five year
plan. There one year where we are told that it will progressively
add up to approximately $100 million.
Quebec alone will bear 50 per cent of the cuts. I think about the
icebreakers and I laugh. The service is still pretty good, for the time
being, but there is nevertheless some nonsense that has to be
brought to light. For example, half the icebreakers operate between
Halifax and Gaspé. They are based in Halifax and in the other
harbour. But it is a well known fact that there is no ice in those
parts. How bizarre. There are some abominable things happening.
And they want to cut the number of icebreakers. Some winters,
the hon. member for Richelieu will recall as I do-he will speak
later and I would not want to steal all his material-having to wait
four or five days for an icebreaker to come to the rescue and open
up the seaway. The seaway is not for the exclusive use of
Quebecers. We all know what it is used for and has been used for
until now, and that is for freight shipping to the Great Lakes. It is
also serving Ontario.
(2100)
This is a shortsighted government policy which will affect
Ontario, but mostly Quebec. Look at the figures. We had a little
meeting, organized by our critic, with a senior public servant who
gave us a nice chart. It shows that the objective of $20 million for
the first phase is divided as follows: $5.8 million for the Atlantic;
$4.5 million for the West; and, for the central region-that is us-,
$9.7 million only for the first phase of the policy on navigation aids
services.
This is the same proportion that will be allocated to us for the
icebreakers, again in the first phase. We say: ``Enough is enough''.
Some projects are being taken away from Quebec, and the
backbone of our economic development, the St. Lawrence, is being
targeted, first by reducing services and, second, by imposing fees.
What is the real motive? Is it because the seaway is in bad shape,
because it would cost a lot to modernize it, because the government
thinks it might be better to abandon it and let marine traffic go to
the eastern United States? If such is the vision of those who
currently manage the country and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, we
must condemn it and this is what we do. This is unbelievable.
We cannot accept a reduction of services and, at the same time, a
fee increase. If this were a private business, such an approach
would lead directly to bankruptcy. Those who provide advice to the
minister are going to put him in a terrible situation. Why should
Quebec should remain silent and be accommodating?
The hon. member for Richelieu was absolutely right when he
said it was a shame to see so few members in the House during a
debate as important as this one. There is only one member from the
other side. We are not supposed to say things like that. We cannot
insist too much. We cannot talk about those who are absent, but
there is only one member from the other side. I congratulate him
for being here and for understanding the importance of this issue
for his constituents.
Through our active participation in this debate, we, Bloc
members, want to stress the importance of a bill which will have a
destabilizing effect on our economy. We have the right to defend
our economy and we will do so.
An hon. member: Where are the Quebec Liberal members?
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise on an issue so important for Quebec and the
Laurentides-Québec area.
I am honoured to speak in the House after the prestigious
performances of the hon. members for Trois-Rivières, for Lévis,
for Québec, for Rimouski, and for Châteauguay, whom I wished to
quote earlier because I intended to use the document he introduced
3690
in the House, concerning this bill. I think he read a few paragraphs
and I will insist on using the same document later on to support his
argument which was so pertinent and which he presented in such an
eloquent and elegant way.
As regards this bill and above all the group of motions we are
studying, Group No. 11, the Liberal Party is proposing
amendments which will change neither the content nor the intent of
the law. The member opposite who has just arrived, the hon.
member from New Brunswick, is said to take an interest in this bill
only because he will vote along the party line.
I am disappointed and surprised-although I am not surprised to
see Bloc members do their work, because they always do it well,
with passion and accuracy-to realize that, in such an important
debate, the Liberal Party did not manage to recruit even one
member to present its position. They are ashamed of its position
and it shows.
(2105)
I understand why they look so sheepish over there. This bill is
clearly indefensible. They are not taking part in the debate; their
minister failed to get a single Liberal member to speak tonight in
defense of their position, particularly on the motions in GroupNo. 11. This is rather surprising.
Liberal members are very disappointed. Especially those from
Quebec, those who are directly concerned by the problem of
harbours, the problem we have shown to be serious, for example
with regard to navigational aids.
Now, these members know that this legislation lacks openness,
like their party, like their leader. Also, every time we remind them
of their promises, every time we point out they are not taking part
in a debate as important as this one, they think of their red book,
that they held up all the time on the campaign trail and that they are
now trying to hide under their feet, because none of their promises
has been kept.
Be it on the GST, on the transfer of copyright management from
the Department of Industry to the heritage department, on their
commitment to job creation programs, on the day care program,
everything has been forgotten: the election is over. This is what
Liberals always do, so this should come as a surprise to nobody.
However, we see in that party some sincere members who are
frank enough to tell us outside the House how ashamed and
disappointed this policy we are discussing today makes them.
Just imagine. It is impossible to foresee the economic impact of
this bill on users. No assessment of the impact has been made. The
bill has nevertheless been introduced in the House, and they said:
We will just wait and see what happens. But everything the Liberals
propose, whether constitutional or economic, always go wrong.
What is to be blamed for the present deficit if not the Liberal
policies of the past, more particularly from 1981 to 1984? Who has
drawn us into this constant constitutional quagmire? The Liberal
Party. And now, the Liberals are transferring the coast guard to the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans without knowing for sure
whether there will be an internal reform or whether the services of
the coast guard are those users need, and without consultation of
the users on the services they would like to have. It is quite
surprising.
They made a presentation during the committee hearings the
Bloc Quebecois called for, and witnesses said in so many words
that the study made by IBI was a sham, a totally irrelevant exercise,
as if they had studied the mating rites of the dodo bird instead of
the problem of heavy cargo ships. Nothing in this bill is relevant to
the services users really need.
These consultations were decried by all the participants. The
government should have asked itself: ``Why ask a private firm to
consult the people, when we could do it ourselves, through a
parliamentary committee that would be able, in a matter of just a
few days, to meet with all the stakeholders, who could certainly
make suggestions in the best interests of the people and the
government, because of the savings they would entail, and in the
interests of the users who, without having to face a fees increase,
would be in a better position to compete against the port of Halifax
and also the ports in the United States, and in particular, the port of
Philadelphia, known for its very aggressive approach to recruiting
new clients?''
We have a government that does not listen to anyone-as we can
see on the constitutional issue in Quebec-in all the bills it has
introduced, but this bill beats all.
We were told: ``You can rely on us''. In fact, they introduced a
bill in which they said: ``We transfer the Coast Guard to Fisheries
and Oceans Canada. But wait until you see this, we will try to
charge some new fees. Will it be 10 cents or a dollar? We do not
know exactly, we will try something and take it from there''. But if
the whole economy collapses and we muddle the issue, what will
happen? Will we be able to react? And what about the small
businesses in my area, close to the port of Sorel, Fagen, for
example, and the bigger companies, in the Bécancour industrial
park, the largest industrial park in Canada, that all need adequate
and modern services?
(2110)
The Coast Guard really needs to evaluate its own services,
especially when it comes to administrative costs. I am not talking
here of boat crews but of administrative costs. This should be
reviewed before any transfer is made, if it is ever made. There
must be valid reasons to do this, like helping the users, who will in
3691
turn better serve the people and save money while maintaining the
competitiveness of the St. Lawrence ports.
These were the questions raised a little while ago by the hon.
member for Trois-Rivières and the hon. member for Châteauguay,
who quoted a letter released by the Quebec minister representing
the views of not only the Quebec government but also the
chairperson of the executive committee of the Conseil régional de
développement de l'île de Montréal and Mr. Patrice Simard, who is
the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan
Montreal. They all agree on the great threat this can be for the
economy of Montreal. This is what these people who represent the
economic interests of Greater Montreal are saying to the
government and the government turns a deaf ear. There should be a
limit to that kind of insults.
Why does the government not listen and not take the time to read
the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois? Why does it not
postpone passage of this bill until the fall in order to hold quick
consultations on these fees that will apparently have devastating
effects? Actually, we will receive the first billing for signalling at
the beginning of July. As for icebreaking and dredging, the fees
could be astronomical, but the users will not have their say in
selecting the services they wish.
The users are certainly willing to assume their share with regard
to icebreaking, dredging and the setting up of the signals, but they
want to do it at the lowest possible cost. And there is no guarantee
for that. They know strictly nothing about the supplementary fees
that will be charged. They have to take the risk without knowing
the economic consequences. Consultation is lacking. Clearly, there
is a self-examination to make regarding the methods used by the
Coast Guard to manage the services and revise them in order to
make them more efficient, modern and well suited to the present
needs of the users.
Mr. Speaker, do I have the unanimous consent of the House to
exceed the ten minutes at my disposal?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Plamondon: This will be an opportunity for me to give a
lesson to the members opposite. I understand, however, why they
are hiding. I understand why they are ashamed of their government.
I understand why they are disappointed in their government. I
understand why they are hiding their red book.
But where are those top Liberal candidates who went everywhere
and said their red book had a solution for all of Canada's and
Quebec's problems? Where are all those top members? They are
hiding and none of them dares to make a speech tonight to defend
the interests of his own government. Even the Liberal members
from Quebec are hiding. They know that the position taken by the
government on this bill is indefensible. They know it is another
dirty trick played on Quebec by the Liberal Party, which is a past
master in this technique.
(2115)
The complicity of the Liberal members from Quebec, who are
refusing to take part in this debate, is incredible. They should, even
if they are ashamed of their government, even if they are against
this bill, even if they know that this bill will harm Quebec's
economic interests, rise and say with us, putting aside all
partisanship: ``Together, the members from Quebec, we will defend
Quebec's true interests, we will express our opposition to this bill,
we will propose amendements, we will delay the bill's passage
until next fall, we will allow the users to put forward solutions that
would serve the interests of the people, that would serve the
interests of the users, and that would ensure that the necessary
economic restraints are imposed to enhance government
management here''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Plamondon: I see the New Brunswick member on the other
side. Yes, he must regret having given up his seat for the election of
the present Prime Minister. He made the big mistake of giving up
his seat thinking that his leader could put Canada back on the road
to sound management, dynamic economic growth and good
relations with Quebec. He believed, and today he is ashamed. He
does not want to speak tonight either. He gave up his seat for
someone who does not keep his promises, reneges on his
commitments and ignores the red book.
And what is he waiting for today? We would forgive him if only
he would say: ``The interests of the nation come before the interests
of a political party''.
Mr. Robichaud: Absolutely. The interests of the country.
Mr. Plamondon: But no, he seems to be willing to serve his
party before his country. People from New Brunswick are listening
to you tonight, or rather, they are listening to your silence. Can we
talk about the sound of silence? From now on, we will talk about
the sound of silence among the Liberal members.
The Acadians thought that they had someone to defend their
interests, but no. They elected a Liberal partisan who is willing to
knuckle under and vote the way the whip says to when the bell
rings, no matter if it serves the interests of the people or hinders the
economic development of a whole area of Canada and Quebec. He
is ready to renege on his promises, his commitments and his red
book for the sole purpose of serving his party.
Mr. Robichaud: How many times did you vote against your
party, Louis?
Mr. Plamondon: I notice that the member from New Brunswick
recovered his ability to speak.
Mr. Robichaud: I find I am always able to speak out when I hear
ridiculous statement.
3692
Mr. Plamondon: So I guess he will join us in exposing this
unacceptable bill, especially considering that Motion No. 11 is
proposed by the Liberals. And yet they do not even defend it
because that party is obviously led by someone who imposes his
wishes, someone who says: ``Now we like the GST. We did not
like it during the election campaign, but we do now''. And
everybody says: ``We like the GST''.
For example, he said during the campaign that NAFTA was bad
and that we had to fight against it, but now that he is in power, he is
saying: ``Let us welcome the president of Mexico and hear him
praise us for the hard work we did which made NAFTA a success''.
That is what the Liberal leader and his government are all about.
That is why the credibility of politicians is getting lower and lower
in the polls. It is because of that kind of double talk from people
like that. That double talk, the one heard during the election
campaign and the one heard after the election campaign, is typical
of the Liberal Party.
It is nothing new. Remember the campaign against Stanfield in
the 1970s. Stanfield said: ``We will have wage and price control
because it is necessary in order to put the brakes on inflation''.
Trudeau said: ``Never''. Six months after the elections, the
Liberals, who had been elected, introduced the same wage and
price control policy that had been proposed by Stanfield.
In the 1979 referendum campaign, the Liberals said: ``We are
putting our seats on the line so elect us and we will give Quebec
what it has been asking for for 30 years''. Then, after the elections,
they started to talk about repatriating the Constitution without
Quebec's consent. It is the usual double talk. Think about the
gasoline tax. The Clark government, which had been in office for
nine months, was defeated because it wanted to increase the
gasoline tax by 18 cents, if I am not mistaken.
(2120)
And yet, six months after the Liberals were back in power, they
increased it by 65 cents. They have always sung two different
tunes. One during the election campaign, with a red book this time,
the other times it was a pamphlet. They had answers for everything,
but once in power they crumble. They crumble and they let senior
officials and deputy ministers steer the boat. It is like a bicycle with
a side basket. The Prime Minister takes his place in the basket and
the deputy ministers steer first to the left and then to the right, and
he sits back laughing and thinks he is setting the course. That is the
Liberal government for you.
It is the power trip, the limousine, and as far as the people are
concerned, they will keep their promise for the next election and
win office again if they can. As a Liberal member in my region
said: ``We are never so poor that we cannot make promises''. That
is the Liberal Party philosophy.
We can see tonight with this bill that they have not changed.
They have been like this for years. During all the years they held
power, we saw these changes of tune. Today, with an election in the
offing, people are wondering if they will trust them again. Of
course, their popularity is dropping in the polls, of course, Liberal
members are no longer able to defend the position of their party.
They are ashamed, they have quit talking.
In a bill as important as this, they are almost muzzled. But there
is no need. They hide so as not to have to defend such a position,
because it is unacceptable from an economic point of view,
unacceptable from the point of view of regional equity in Canada,
because we are speaking about large regions.
Once again, they attack the region that includes Quebec. It is
easy, because everything always goes well for the Liberal Party.
What did they say during the election campaign? They said that it
would take the fall of a big Conservative project. They looked
around for a big project and came up with the helicopters in Quebec
and figured that would be a good target to secure the votes of the
rest of Canada.
Once elected, jobs in Quebec were next. When it was a question
of reducing military spending, they wondered what they could go
after in Quebec. It is a popular thing to sock it to Quebec, andthat
was what happened with the military college in Saint-Jean. The rest
of Canada was delighted and the Liberal Party was able to keep
some popularity.
It is always an easy thing for the federal government to sock it to
Quebec. We are used to that. No wonder there is a sovereignist
movement here in Ottawa. It is because we have had enough of
being one among so many others, a province like any other that is
always the scapegoat of the federal government.
The member for Trois-Rivières was right in saying that we are
once more the victims. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières used
the word victims rightly. We are the victims of this reform, which
could have otherwise been a major restructuration project inspired
by some serious thinking on the part of all parties in this House.
Have a look at the amendments proposed by the Reform Party.
They are quite acceptable and quite debatable and would improve
the bill. The Liberal Party will reject them all. It will reject the
amendments from the Bloc, just like the users' suggestions.
Why? I call on this party, which claims to embody Canada,
which even claims to embody Canada's two nations. Will it agree
to listen to users and the other political parties, which took the time
to consult the public. Will it return to committee and forget the IBI
study, which is a sham criticized by all who have read it and have
anything to do with the area.
So it will dismiss this study and simply rearrange the bill. We
say there is a need to give thought to signage, the cost of it is very
3693
high. The cost of ice breaking is very high, the cost of dredging is
very high. What we are saying is what the users are saying and
Canada's economics interests are necessarily repeating the same
thing.
(2125)
We say that a way must be found to distribute costs so that the
taxpayers will pay less but we will maintain our competitive edge
against other areas like the United States and Halifax. To do so,
before we transfer the Coast Guard to the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans, we must consider its role and review all of its
operations not for the purpose of making it disappear but for the
purpose of transforming it into a service comparable to a private
sector business which would do ice-breaking and dredging or
provide navigational aids.
We know however that people working for the coast guard are
extremely competent. We only have to look at the safety system we
have in Quebec and Canada. I am saying that we want to reorganize
the coast guard, but we want to keep these people and pay them a
decent salary; for years now, they have made a lot of sacrifices in
terms of salary freeze, cuts and job losses. We want to keep these
competent people who are vital to sound management.
At the same time, we want to consider with them the kind of
reorganization which would better serve users and the economic
interests of the people, while meeting the goals of the government,
the official opposition and the Reform Party, namely reducing
costs. But it has to be a through a well structured reorganization,
and not by way of a bill rammed down our throat at the end of the
session.
In a couple of years, we will see the economic consequences. But
will all our ports, all our transportation industry, all our small
flourishing industries along the St. Lawrence River have been
killed off for the sake of a test? As the member for Trois-Rivières
said, if we want a fairer tax from coast to coast, let us base the
system on the tonnage of vessels rather than transhipment or
unloading, as is done in Halifax or in Montreal.
Let us think also about what the member for Châteaugay said
when he referred to extremely important demands and quoted the
letter of the stakeholders, of Simon Lacroix, which summarized the
situation by speaking about what it meant for Quebec and
Montreal. I am happy that the member from New Brunswick is
present to hear this necessary object lesson.
For your information, the port of Montreal processes 20 million
tonnes of cargo annually and 726,000 containers pass through it
every year. This capacity generates 14,000 direct or indirect jobs,
as well as revenues of $1.2 billion a year. And the hon. member
wants to kill off these economic interests.
Some hon. members: Shame.
Mr. Plamondon: No one oppposite wants to defend this bill. I
understand why. It is the shame of their party. They are ashamed of
their party, of this marine policy, of their program. They are
disappointed with their Prime Minister. They are disappointed with
their minister, who does not understand anything about the
economic reality in Quebec and in Canada as a whole.
So, we want a better user fee policy based on the ships' capacity,
without taking into account ships that do transshipping or
unloading. In brief, we would want to take the time to further
reflect on this bill, instead of passing it quickly.
(2130)
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member
for Richelieu.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my time is up. May
I continue tomorrow? I had the unanimous consent.
The Deputy Speaker: We will see tomorrow.
_____________________________________________
3693
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I hate to
interrupt a very interesting speech. I hope the member gets to
continue it tomorrow. However, we are now officially adjourned
and I wish to raise my point of business in the post-adjournment
debate.
I posed a question to the minister of public works concerning the
Peace Tower project. She answered a very small part of the broad
range of questions I raised. She pointed out that the Ann Raney and
Ray Wolf discrimination case had been withdrawn and
concentrated her answer on that.
There are a great many things the House should be aware of with
regard to the Peace Tower project. As a review, the previous
minister of public works said he could not enforce any of the
anti-discrimination clauses in the contract for the Peace Tower
project because gender discrimination had not been proven. He
essentially used the argument that it was before the courts.
That has now been proven and admitted to by the offending
parties. The present minister is seeming to say that if there is
nothing outstanding with regard to gender discrimination, there is
nothing she can say.
3694
Members are aware that there are still two outstanding
discrimination claims before the Ontario Human Rights
Commission, the case of Marcel and Denis Lamoureux.
Other aspects of this contract become more and more disturbing
as we go through it. There seems to be what I can only interpret as
mismanagement on the part of Public Works and Government
Services Canada and the officials handling the contracts.
The contract is available through the right to know legislation.
There is a 30-day arbitration clause built into the contract. This
issue began in August 1995 and public works officials did not step
in to correct the problem of $165,000 worth of work already done
on the project for which Pro-Tech, Ray Wolf's company where Ann
Raney worked, has never been paid. The salaries of 25 workers are
still outstanding as a result of that. Also, a number of tools were
left on site which they have been unable to recover.
Public works did a very poor job of investigating this situation. It
did a cursory investigation of people on the site during working
hours under the nose of the supervisor who appeared to have been
most of the problem. How can honest answers be obtained from
workers when their jobs depend on what they say about their
supervisor, the person being investigated, when their supervisor is
sitting there listening? They will not speak honestly or directly.
Public works officials never arranged to meet with them off site or
off the job. It did not do a proper investigation. Raney and Wolf
were never interviewed by public works officials, yet public works
has told the minister that it did an investigation.
Since those investigations and from listening to the CBC radio
program ``The House'', there seems to be clear evidence that the
subcontractor required that Ray Wolf as the owner of Pro-Tech pay
what amounts to kickbacks in order to maintain himself on the site.
Reports were that he paid almost $13,000 in four or five weeks in
June and early July.
(2135)
He had been told by the supervisor that if these payments
stopped there would be no work for him and his crew. It is unclear
whether the reason for the pressure on Ann Raney was to put
further pressure on Ray Wolf and his crew to continue the
payments or whether it was simply a straight matter of sexual
harassment.
However, the result has been that these workers have not been
paid. Mr. Wolf and his company have been put under severe
financial stress. He has lost a lot of tools, his truck, his car and
perhaps his reputation with this situation. It appears on the surface
at least that Mr. Wolf has acted in a relatively straightforward and
honest way in this matter.
It really makes me, as a citizen of Canada, upset to think that our
officials at public works would permit this kind of operation to go
on right under their noses, or above our heads more specifically, in
the House of Commons on the Peace Tower project and not do
anything to correct the injustice.
I had hoped the minister would address these broader issues to
the rather broad question that I had put. All the minister did was say
the parties had signed off over the sexual harassment case. I repeat,
there continues to be a human rights case before the courts. That is
true. However, all these other issues, which I think public works
Canada has within its grasp to resolve and look after our interest as
taxpayers, should be investigated. I am not sure public works
Canada officials are the ones who should be the investigators any
more.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for Mackenzie for his presentation.
Let me repeat for the hon. member this is a complicated case
which deals with two very different issues. On one hand, there were
allegations of discrimination involving two subcontractors,
Colonial Building and Pro-Tech Restoration. Fuller Construction is
the main contractor on this project.
When the Department of Public Works and Government
Services learned of the allegations of discrimination on the job site,
it immediately advised the general contractor, Fuller, that the
anti-discrimination clause would have to be respected.
In this case the contractor accepted his responsibilities for the
conduct of his subcontractor, Colonial. A settlement was
negotiated between Colonial and Mr. Wolf and Ms. Raney. This
agreement was signed by all parties involved and therefore fully
resolves the issue of discrimination.
Even though this dispute was resolved through an agreement
signed by all parties, the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services wants to do more. She wants to do whatever is within her
power to ensure this kind of situation can be dealt with more
quickly and more efficiently in the future.
For this reason the minister has instructed her officials to review
the terms of the department's contacts to ensure corrective action
can be taken against contractors who have violated laws protecting
individuals from discrimination and to ensure the department can
quickly deal with any allegations of discrimination which may
arise.
The department is also revising the terms of its contracts to
ensure the non-discrimination clause also applies to
subcontractors. This is in addition to asking Labour Canada to
strengthen the anti-discrimination clause so this type of situation
can be handled better in the future.
3695
An interdepartmental team has been put in place to explore
practices and procedures to enforce the government's commitment
to fairness in the workplace. The government strongly believes no
one should have to suffer discrimination and we are committed
to doing whatever we can to eliminate it.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak with respect to an issue that was raised several months
ago in the House dealing with priorities within the Department of
Canadian Heritage and specifically in Sports Canada.
(2140)
At the time I raised the question on March 25, I wanted to deal
with the whole issue of how the department treated sports that were
inherently and specifically Canadian. In particular I raised the
question of lacrosse.
The Department of Canadian Heritage through Sports Canada is
there to encourage sports in this country at a national level. In other
words, we would have and provide some level of funding to those
organizations which provide a national tie to other local and
provincial organizations.
In Canada there are more than 200,000 young people
participating in the sport of lacrosse, yet under the funding
framework devised by Sports Canada the Canadian Lacrosse
Association, the national co-ordinating agency for lacrosse in
Canada, was cut totally from any funding whatsoever.
It seemed that was an anomaly, a bleep in the funding
framework, created by people at Sports Canada. In bobsledding, in
which there are 400 people including athletes and support staff, its
national association received $315,500 in 1995-96. Synchronized
swimming, in which there are fewer than 10,000 people, received
$535,000 for its national association. Yet those youth, some
200,000, who participate in lacrosse in Canada are receiving
nothing.
As a result of that I raised the question to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, who replied on March 25 that she would
instruct her officials to find a way to provide funding to the
Canadian Lacrosse Association because without that national
association the sport will eventually die. There will be no national
perspective, no national tournaments.
To this date there has been no funding provided, although the
department has indicated it wants to explore it with the Canadian
Lacrosse Association. I suggest there are certain anomalies within
the department that must be corrected.
I will go one step further to what is referred to as carded A
athletes. We certainly want to encourage our top level athletes in
this country, as most countries do. We have reached a point where
we are providing funding to athletes who are very wealthy.
For example, those athletes who sign endorsements for hundreds
of thousands of dollars, in some cases more, continue to receive
$800 a month from the Government of Canada. The department
seems to have reversed its priorities, whereas it has cut lacrosse off
at the knees and provided $315,000 to bobsledding and $535,000 to
synchronized swimming. It has said to these 200,000 children
involved in lacrosse sorry, their national association does not count
because under the circumstances it is not a recognized Olympic
sport.
At the same time we are feeding out $800 a month, about $200
more than a single welfare recipient receives in the province of
Ontario. Yet at the same time they are receiving hundreds of
thousands of dollars in endorsements from commercial interests.
I am asking the department therefore to get its priorities in order,
to say we believe there are some sports that are inherently
Canadian. Let us forget about the International Olympic
Association. Let us start looking at Canada. Let us start looking
within the Department of Canadian Heritage. Let us start
encouraging those sports that are inherently Canadian and provide
funding to encourage them rather than to say we will write a blank
cheque to the International Olympic Association and provide
funding to those sports which are Olympic in nature but which in
most respects are inherently not Canadian. I once again urge the
department to move on that.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton for his interest in this
issue.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has acknowledged earlier the
importance of lacrosse as a sport in Canada and has pledged to
restore some of its funding. The minister is pleased to announce the
cultural development and heritage program within the Department
of Canadian Heritage is providing a contribution of $150,000 to the
Canadian Lacrosse Foundation.
Lacrosse, which Parliament has declared as Canada's official
national summer sport, has played an important role in the history
and culture of our country and in shaping Canadian identity.
The support being provided by the cultural development and
heritage program combined with other private sector sources of
funds will allow the Canadian Lacrosse Foundation through the
Lacrosse Heritage Institute and the Canadian Lacrosse Association
to continue this long Canadian tradition.
3696
In addition, consideration is being given to the introduction of
a sport development initiative which could assist sport
organizations with a large domestic participation base. The
minister fully expects that Lacrosse will be one of the sports that
would be eligible for funding from such an initiative once it has
met the criteria of the new program.
The minister has directed the officials of the department to work
with the Canadian Lacrosse Association in order to pursue this
avenue in greater detail. I thank the hon. member for
Sarnia-Lambton-
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 9.46 p.m.)
3697
ADRESS PRINTED AS APPENDIX
APPENDIX
Address
of
His Excellency Ernesto Zedillo
President of the United States of Mexico
to
both Houses of Parliament
in the
House of Commons, Ottawa
on
Tuesday, June 11, 1996
3698
ADDRESS
of
His Excellency Ernesto Zedillo
President of the United States of Mexico
to
both Houses of Parliament
in the
House of Commons, Ottawa
on
Tuesday, June 11, 1996
His Excellency and Madam Ernesto Zedillo were welcomed by
the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada,
the Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker of the Senate, and the
Honourable Gilbert Parent, Speaker of the House of Commons.
(1035)
[Translation]
Hon. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons):
Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, dear colleagues, Mexican
friends and fellow Canadians.
[English]
I present to you the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada, Jean
Chrétien.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister of Canada): Mr.
President, on behalf of all Canadians it is an honour to welcome
you to this special joint session of Parliament.
I want to take this opportunity to relate a little known story about
the relationship between our two countries. It is reported that in the
summer of 1861, several years before Confederation here in
Canada, a trade mission left the port of Montreal to look for new
markets for our goods. Word had reached the north that Mexico
was a promising destination. A small delegation of entrepreneurs
arrived off the port of Veracruz later that year.
Their timing was not very good. A few weeks earlier Britain and
France, our two founding nations, plus Spain had landed troops in
the city. In May 1862 Mexico fought a battle outside the city of
Puebla. Of course our Mexican guests will know that Mexico won
that battle. In fact, May 5 is still a national holiday. However, they
may not know that in the meantime the Canadians had run away
and decided to go to Brazil instead. They were not to come back
empty handed. They always tried to do business. We are still like
that.
Our bilateral relations may have been delayed somewhat in those
very early days but we have made up for it since then. In 1905
Canada posted its first trade commissioner to Mexico. A few years
ago we celebrated our 50th anniversary of official diplomatic
relations. Over those years we have developed extensive political
and economic links as well as countless personal connections
between our citizens. Most recently, our commercial relations have
been galvanized by the North American Free Trade Agreement.
(1040)
[Translation]
Trade is an important part of our relationship. Since the first year
of NAFTA, we have seen a dramatic increase in bilateral trade
between Canada and Mexico, as well as expanded trade and
investment in the entire continent. We must continue to build on
these accomplishments.
Our trade with each other is boosting economic growth and job
creation in both our countries. The scope for expanding our trade
and our investment contacts is enormous. The impressive business
delegation you have brought with you will be visiting some of the
major economic centres of Canada and will meet with our business
community. We intend to make our partnership grow.
Of course our friendship extends well beyond trade. Since March
1990 more than 35 bilateral agreements have been signed with
Mexico on matters ranging from environmental co-operation and
education to mining and energy. Your visit will see more
agreements signed, including a technical co-operation agreement
between Elections Canada and your federal electoral institute.
[English]
Your visit also comes at a time when Mexico is undergoing a
profound transformation. Under your leadership Mexico is
preparing itself for the challenges of the 21st century.
As you know, Mr. President, I have been to Mexico myself. My
visit in March 1994 coincided with one of the most tragic events in
your history. It was a challenging year for your country, and there
were some who feared for Mexico at that time.
I did not. I said that very day that I had faith in the ability of your
democracy to survive those difficult shocks. Today I am extremely
pleased to see that I was right. Two years later your administration
is moving ahead quickly with important political and economic
reforms. The turnaround you have achieved within the last few
months is dramatic. Mexico is set for solid growth this year and has
become a market economy to be reckoned with. I congratulate you
on these remarkable achievements.
Mr. President, I think you will agree that Canada and Mexico
have more in common than many people realize. Like Mexico,
Canada is a country proud of its indigenous past and proud of the
traditions we inherited from the European colonists who settled
this country. We also value the contribution made by more recent
immigrants.
Both Mexicans and Canadians are proud to have built unique and
independent nations here in North America.
Like Mexico, we share a border with a large and powerful
neighbour, the United States. Both our countries have a bilateral
relationship with that country which is sometimes frustrating, often
complex, but generally very rewarding.
3699
In the course of your visit, Mr. President, you will travel 5,000
kilometres and I hope you will gain a better picture of who we are
and the land we live in. Because the friendship between our two
countries is important to Canada as we approach the 21st century,
your visit is an opportunity for us to look to our common future, to
assess how we can work together for our mutual benefit and to lead
the way forward.
(1045 )
I am delighted that you have accepted our invitation to speak to
the Parliament of Canada today.
Fellow parliamentarians, honoured guests, mes chers amis,
please join me in welcoming our neighbour, y nuestro estimado
amigo, the President of Mexico, Ernesto Zedillo.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Editor's Note: President Ernesto Zedillo spoke in Spanish and
provided the following translation:]
[Translation]
His Excellency Ernesto Zedillo (President of the United
Mexican States): Excellency Mr. Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of
Canada; Very distinguished Mrs. Aline Chrétien; Mr. Speaker of
the Senate; Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons; Honourable
Senators and members of the House of Commons; Distinguished
members of the Diplomatic Corps; ladies and gentlemen:
I deeply thank the Prime Minister for his words, those of a
visionary statesman who has distinguished himself by serving his
country and his people, the Chief of Government of a country
respected and admired by all.
It is a great honour to address the representatives of a country
founded in the values of peace and liberty, pluralism and respect,
personal achievement and harmonious co-existence, democracy
and justice.
Canadians are greatly appreciated in Mexico and throughout all
the Continent due to their multiple origins which have become the
strength of this great country, and because it has been able to
prosper thanks to its rich diversity.
Mexico sees Canada as a nation with which we have the vision
for a high-potential hemisphere with rising opportunities.
Mexico sees Canada as a North American partner, as a
permanent interlocutor and a partner of initiatives; as a friend that
lives in and is a part of the American Continent, one who today
looks towards the American Continent like never before.
This is why Mexicans are pleased and encouraged by Canada's
presence in continental forums such as the Organization of
American States.
We are pleased and encouraged by Canada's increasing relations
with Latin America and the convergent positions towards the
Atlantic and the Pacific.
Most of all, we are pleased and inspired by the new ties of
friendship, the intensification of productive exchanges and
mutually beneficial co-operation which have been developing
between Canadians and Mexicans during the last few years.
We recognize and appreciate the conviction and determination
with which the Honourable Members of this Parliament are
contributing to increase the dialogue and the interparliamentary
relationship with Mexico.
That is why I am very pleased to be accompanied here and
throughout this State Visit, by representatives of parliamentary
groups of the Honourable Mexican Senate.
(1050)
Thanks to more intensive work done by the Legislative Powers
of both countries, the private sectors, the academic and cultural
communities of both our nations, and of both Executive Branches,
Mexico and Canada have already become close friends as well as
trusted and reliable partners.
These new links have certainly received a decisive momentum
from our partnership in the North American Free Trade Agreement.
To this effect, I pay homage to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien for
the vision and the determination with which he has steered the
Agreement's application here in Canada.
With NAFTA, the initiatives and projects used to sporadically
appear in decades, are currently proliferating in just a few months.
With NAFTA, we are proving that a framework of liberty brings
us closer, multiplies opportunities and contributes to stimulate
progress and mutual benefits.
Thus, Mexico and Canada share the will and the commitment to
include Chile in NAFTA. The access of that industrious country
and of its vigorous economy in NAFTA will increase the
opportunities and the benefits for all of us.
Mexico and Canada also share the will to extend free trade
throughout the Continent.
NAFTA constitutes the legal framework for constructive goals.
Its essence and objectives are accuracy and consensus; the defence
of each legitimate interest and the transparency and acceptance of
3700
solutions to each dispute; the recognition of rules we have jointly
created and must jointly apply.
Mexico's conviction fully coincides with Canada's when it
comes to applying and demanding respect of International Law
principles.
Thus, like Canada, Mexico opposes legislation which entails an
extraterritorial application contrary to International Law.
Like Canada, Mexico deems inadmissible any action that, while
undertaken against one country, affects other nations; that instead
of promoting liberty, it hinders someone else's; that instead of
tearing down barriers, it builds them while prejudicing
international investment and trade.
During the period in which Mexico suffered a grave foreign
threat, President Juarez was inspired by an ancient principle in
order to reaffirm that true peace may only be founded on respect of
the Law, be it between men and women as well as amongst nations.
Mexicans have been absolutely faithful to the ideals and
aspirations of liberalism that unites us as a sovereign and
independent nation. This is why we defend and believe in this
principle's validity.
(1055)
Based on the affinity of ideas and principles, and on our ever
cordial relations, Mexicans wish to establish with Canada an
alliance to achieve change, progress and justice.
Mexico has become a country dedicated to deep change, an
intense transformation that will reform past imbalances and
undertake future challenges.
These imbalances created a severe financial crisis that we had to
deal with ever since the first days of my government.
The Mexican people decided to quickly confront it in unison and
determination by means of a strategy that will be the quickest, the
one least affecting society, and the one establishing strong and
long-lasting foundations to advance a vigorous, continued and
sustained growth.
When we first applied this strategy we had the efficient and
timely financial support of friendly countries and trade partners
such as Canada. Today, I reiterate Mexico's recognition and
gratitude to the Canadian people and government for their
solidarity and their ever respectful attitude.
I also reiterate that the strategy has begun to show evidence of
being the right one. The short-term disequilibriums that brought
about the crisis have been corrected.
We are determined to preserve this strategy.
Thus, we have kept and shall keep maintaining the discipline and
rigor indispensable to recovery and growth.
That is why we shall also maintain responsible and consistent
policies to promote productive investment, protect and create jobs,
increase wages due to rising productivity, and promote our
domestic savings.
Our transformation is not short term, but one projected into years
to come.
This is why structural change has continued with greater
momentum through constitutional, legal and institutional reforms
towards a greater liberalization of our economy.
Thanks to the reforms carried out during almost a decade and
that we have reinforced in the past years, today, Mexico is
undoubtedly a market economy, an open economy founded on free
initiatives of small and large businesses, and on the free will of all
workers and farmers.
My government has not seen last year's difficulties as a reason
for paralysis and frustration, nor to go back to past policies or delay
changes, but as a challenge to renew efforts and expand the
transformation.
That is why our transformation is not only economic, but one
that also involves our justice system, our democracy and our social
life.
Based on our Constitution and freedoms, we have begun the
transformation of our justice system.
Law reinforcement lies on freedom: the antidote against crime,
corruption and impunity.
That is why laws in Mexico are being reinforced and solid
foundations have been laid so that the Judicial Power can genuinely
be impartial and independent, increasingly more professional and
better trained to honestly and reliably carry out its responsibilities.
Amidst freedom and due process, justice must prevail in strict
compliance with the law. And amidst all of this, no human rights
violation can be tolerated.
My government firmly believes that no violation should ever be
concealed, but that all authorities have a duty to rectify it and to
reconcile the rule of law with full respect to all individuals' rights
and dignity, to harmonize the individual's and society's rights.
3701
(1100)
That is the reason why, six years after its establishment, Mexico
has the world's largest ombudsman system. This system has
become an efficient tool for the protection of fundamental rights
and more important, for the creation of a new culture of respect and
awareness of human rights.
Living conditions bound by law, foster citizen participation and
are the foundation for democracy, governing and a plural and
harmonious coexistence.
The Mexican people have been transforming the norms and
practices of our political life in order to live today in a full
democracy.
Thus, even before taking office as President, I summoned all
political parties, social organizations and citizens representatives
to undertake a reform that guarantees just and impartial electoral
conditions and civility in its application.
Today, the national political parties and Congress are putting
together an electoral reform so that the 1997 federal elections be
legal, transparent and fair beyond question.
Due to my political and moral convictions, and because of the
popular mandate, I have an unyielding commitment to the
democratic development in Mexico.
Law, democracy and dialogue constitute the framework to
resolve differences inherent to a society complex and diverse,
plural and dynamic.
Our rich diversity is showing in our vigorous cultural vitality. It
is also expressed by sharp contrasts, things left undone over the
years, poverty and marginalization.
This explains why in our public policies the highest priority is
placed on social policy. More than half of the federal government's
budget is devoted toward children's education, training for youth,
family health, support for men and women living in rural areas, and
basic community services.
Social policy has been widely and efficiently applied and has
significantly enabled modern and highly developed areas in
Mexico.
By the same token, the limitations and failings in its application
help to explain why underdevelopment, poverty and injustice still
prevail in other areas.
Underdevelopment, poverty, discrimination and injustice are
precisely at the origin of conflicts which are, as in Chiapas, a
matter of concern for all Mexicans and that have attracted
international attention.
I have and will continue to have the conviction that the solution
in Chiapas lies not in violence but in the law, nor does it lie on
rancour but on dialogue; nor in confrontation but on negotiation
until concord is reached and a harmonious coexistence is
consecrated to overcome substantive problems.
A concord and a harmonious coexistence that become the source
of long-lasting tranquillity, certainty and encouragement for
communities that wish to reconcile the building conditions for a
dignified and productive life, while safe keeping their customs and
traditions.
The Mexican people are proud of these traditions and customs,
of the pluralism derived from the millennial roots of our culture
which has marked our history with its own unique seal.
In Mexico's National Emblem, an eagle stands on a cactus and
wrestles with a snake. This millennial symbol sums up duality in
the universe: celestial and earth forces, air and earth, fire and water,
are battling against each other.
(1105 )
The need for alignment, without putting aside opposite views, is
the kernel of our identity and may be recognized throughout all our
history. You can find it from the mythical creation of the sun and
the moon in Teotihuacan, and the vigorous indigenous and
European roots of our civilization, to the basic education
transmitted today via satellite in indigenous languages to the most
remote communities in our territory.
The need to not put aside opposite views but to keep and appease
this duality is what Octavio Paz has referred to as the longing to
live, that deep Mexican longing to prevail.
That is why we are committed to preserving and strengthening
our indigenous community's rights to their cultural identity, their
language and their customs.
We know that by preserving this plural vitality we cultivate the
essential strength that nurtures our society.
We know that our transformation shall be complete only if it
preserves that plural vitality; if it respects our history's and
culture's legacy; if, united in diversity, it leads us to a future of
well-being and dignity for all.
That is why Mexico is interested in developing closer ties with
Canada, a nation built upon a rich diversity which is the foundation
of its strength and which vigorously shoulders a continuous
transformation.
All Mexicans share with Canadians the desire, in Margaret
Atwood's words, of having good jobs, food on the table, a secure
future for the children, as well as respect, social justice and cultural
continuity.
3702
Mexicans also share with Canadians that, as Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien has put it, we are people who do not expect miracles to
happen. We expect integrity, hard work and an environment of trust
to overcome our challenges and benefit from opportunities.
I firmly believe that through the strengthening of our
relationship we are creating this environment of trust for intense
work and transformation, for peace and justice, for stronger
partnership and mutual prosperity, and for a closer friendship
between Mexico and Canada.
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Muchas gracias.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1110 )
[English]
Hon. Gildas L. Molgat (Speaker of the Senate): Your
Excellency, El Presidente de Mexico, monsieur le premier ministre
du Canada, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, Your
Excellencies, my colleagues in the Parliaments of Canada and
Mexico, mesdames et messieurs, buenas dias a totos y bienvenida a
Canada.
It is my honour to join my compatriots in welcoming you, Mr.
President, to the Parliament of Canada and to thank you for the
very gracious address which you have just given us. But my words
are as nothing compared to the warmth of the applause that you
heard from my colleagues.
We are doubly honoured by the attendance of so many
distinguished visitors from your country in your delegation: many
members of your Parliament and several of your cabinet ministers.
We welcome you to Canada in summer, just as so many
Canadians have been welcomed to Mexico in winter, a practice
which long preceded NAFTA.
[Translation]
Canadians greatly enjoy your climate and your culture, but,
above all, they greatly enjoy the warmth of your people.
[English]
Some 200 years ago, England's Sir Horace Walpole wrote:
The new Augustan age will dawn on the other side of the Atlantic. There will
perhaps be-a Virgil in Mexico.
[
Translation]
Given your literature, your music, your history and your modern
architecture, and also when we think about the economic recovery
that you have achieved with Canada and with the United States, we
rediscover faith like Walpole.
[English]
Your expanding outlook, your associations are far reaching
indeed. They are world-encompassing associations. Your
partnership in NAFTA, your links with the Rio Group, with the
Organization of American States and with the United Nations, all
of these are indications of the broad vision of Mexico.
Mexico and Canada have travelled far down the road to progress.
While our histories may differ in many ways, Mexico and Canada
have many similarities.
We both started from colonial roots and by the determination of
our people we have created new nations; nations committed to
human advancement. These purposes which we share, these links
which we have forged, will stand us in good stead in the years
ahead.
Co-operation now exists between us across a very diverse
spectrum, from science to communications, labour to finance, from
environment to culture. This co-operation has fostered solid
relations between our people; relations that are enhanced by
important visits such as this one.
The recently concluded 10th interparliamentary conference on
Mexico and Canada held in Ottawa also attests to our deepening
ties. I am delighted to see here, in your delegation, the Speaker of
your Senate, Senator Fernando Ortiz Arana, and others who took
part in those discussions.
Through increased tourism, student exchanges and business
associations, Canada-Mexico links are becoming stronger.
[Translation]
Our respective governments must encourage these contacts. The
friendships that these contacts build and also the opportunity to
exchange ideas that they allow will play a crucial role in promoting
mutual understanding in a world that is becoming a global village.
[English]
We thank you, Your Excellency, for your expressions of
friendship which we deeply appreciate and warmly return. We also
thank you for the insights that your address has given us. We look
forward to further opportunities to increase our ties to your
magnificent country.
(1115 )
Que la amistad entre Canada y Mexico continue prosperando.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Hon. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons):
Mr. President, we listened with a great deal of interest to the speech
that you have delivered on behalf of your government and on
behalf of the Mexican people. Your warm words reaffirm the solid
links that bind our countries, and bear witness to a friendship that is
deepening and intensifying.
3703
[English]
Mr. President, this Chamber embodies our history and reflects
the face of Canada. Here in Parliament our democracy finds its
ultimate expression and Canadians shape their destiny.
Mr. President, you have brought a very friendly atmosphere to
this normally fiery and partisan place. And I hope it stays this
pleasant when we resume our debates this afternoon.
You know, Mr. President, we follow pretty strict rules to keep
things civil in this House. For one thing, we rarely let in our
colleagues from the other place but they are here today. And we
never allow strangers to speak in this chamber.
You are no stranger to us, Mr. President.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker Parent: We reserve you this honour because you
are more than just a neighbour. We count you among our friends.
Indeed, it is you who have honoured us with your presence and
you have honoured all Canadians with your words of friendship.
It is on their behalf that I offer you our very deepest thanks for
coming to be with us.
I now adjourn this meeting.