CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 5, 1996
Concurrence in 28th report 6091
Bill C-61. Report stage 6092
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 6102
Division on amendment deferred 6115
Bill C-62. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 6115
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6124
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6127
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6127
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6127
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6127
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6128
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6128
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6128
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6129
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6129
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6129
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6129
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6130
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6130
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6130
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6130
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6131
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6131
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6132
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6132
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 6133
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6134
Bill C-62. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 6134
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 6147
Bill C-34. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotions Nos. 2 and 3 6155
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 33; Nays; 171 6155
Motion for concurrence 6156
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 171; Nays, 33 6157
Bill C-49. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and amendment 6158
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 79;Nays, 125 6158
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 6159
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 63;Nays, 121 6159
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 56; Nays, 138 6160
Consideration resumed 6161
Amendment to the amendment negatived on division:Yeas, 38; Nays 165 6161
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 75;Nays, 128 6162
Consideration resumed of motion 6163
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 129; Nays, 63 6163
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of report stage and ofthe amendments 6164
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 46; Nays, 157 6165
Motion No. 4 negatived on division: Yeas, 34;Nays; 169 6166
Motion No. 7 negatived on division: Yeas, 34;Nays, 169 6167
Motion No. 6 negatived on division: Yeas, 41;Nays, 162 6167
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 41;Nays, 162 6168
Motion No. 13 negatived on division: Yeas, 34;Nays 169 6168
Motion No. 14 negatived on division: Yeas, 34;Nays, 169 6168
Motion No. 15 negatived on division: Yeas, 34;Nays, 169 6168
Motion for concurrence 6168
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 169; Nays, 34 6169
Bill C-47. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 6169
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 155; Nays, 47 6170
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 6171
Bill C-61. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading and the amendment 6171
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 78;Nays, 124 6171
Consideration of motion resumed 6172
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6172
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6174
Division on motion deferred 6175
6091
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, November 5, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
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 five
petitions.
* * *
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 28th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House on September 25, concerning the associate membership
of various committees, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to present today a petition which was signed by 1,825 individuals
living in the Durham region of Canada, the fastest growing region
of the country.
The petitioners call on Parliament to proceed immediately with
amendments to the Criminal Code which will ensure that the
sentence given to anyone convicted of impaired driving causing
injury or death reflects both the severity of the crime and zero
tolerance by Canada toward this crime.
(1010)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, under Standing Order 52 of the House of Commons, I
wish to request that an emergency debate be held regarding the
reprehensible actions of Quebec's lieutenant-governor, Jean-Louis
Roux.
Given the role conferred on him by section 65 of the Constitution
Act, 1867, and in light of his unacceptable, unjustifiable, and
unspeakable behaviour during the second world war, we in the Bloc
Quebecois are of the firm opinion that Mr. Roux is not able to carry
out his duties as lieutenant-governor of Quebec in a dignified
manner.
We believe that, having worn the swastika and taken part in a
demonstration whose stated purpose was to wreck the offices of
The Gazette, during which endeavour damage was done to
businesses belonging to members of the Jewish community,
Quebec's lieutenant-governor, Jean-Louis Roux, cannot carry out
his duties as representative of Her Majesty the Queen without
prejudice to the people of Quebec.
In particular, the lieutenant-governor has expressed no regret for
over 50 years, having made no public apology to Quebecers,
Canadians and the Jewish community.
I would therefore ask that you consider favourably my request
for an emergency debate.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, I received a letter this
morning from the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie asking
that an emergency debate be held.
6092
For now, it seems to me that the question raised by the member
for Laurier-Sainte-Marie is part of an ongoing debate. The Chair
therefore feels that additional consideration is not urgently
required.
I must therefore deny the request of the Leader of the Official
Opposition for the time being.
_____________________________________________
6092
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-61, an act to
implement the Canada-Israel free trade agreement, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today
to debate Bill C-61, which is in keeping with our government's
commitment to work with Canadian industry to ensure that we
work on behalf of Canadian industry in removing tariff and
non-tariff barriers to trade in markets that are of concern to Canada.
Quite clearly this free trade deal with Israel is an area that Canada
has worked on over the last number of years. It was with great
anticipation in some industry sectors that Canada actually started
the negotiations to remove the tariff barriers to trade. The Prime
Minister initiated these discussions with the former prime minister
of Israel in 1994. Some people have asked why Canada would want
to conclude a free trade deal with Israel. Why is Israel an important
state? At committee we were told that the trade figures are not so
high as to make this an obvious priority.
(1015)
The Canadian government proceeded in 1994 with the initial
discussions with the Israeli government. A number of Canadian
companies, many resident in the province of Quebec, were having
great difficulty competing in the Israeli market. This was
happening because the United States and the European Union had
entered into free trade arrangements with the state of Israel.
In many cases Canadian businesses found their products were in
a less competitive position than they would have been. They were
not getting the preferential tariff treatment that goods provided
from the United States and the European Union were getting
because of the free trade deals that had been negotiated between
those partners.
The Canadian government felt that this market, although small,
was where Canadian companies could grow. It was a market in the
Middle East where we are extremely interested in expanding
trading and investment activity.
The House knows the importance of trade to Canada. Anyone
who has been here or has worked in industry recognizes that the
health of the Canadian economy, the jobs that must grow in this
economy, are going to come by encouraging our incredibly
competitive companies in the sectors in which they operate to look
abroad for new markets. As most people in this House know,
maybe some outside do not know, Canada is the leader in the G-7
countries with respect to our percentage of GDP that comes from
trade.
The job creation record of this government since it came into
power a few years ago shows that over 600,000 jobs have been
created in the economy. Most jobs are related to trading activities,
not just with the United States and Mexico but abroad. It is the
fundamental belief of the government that if we want to see the
economy grow, want to create jobs for Canadians from coast to
coast to coast, then we must be outward looking, we must work
with companies and other governments to ensure that those
companies have an even footing when it comes to competing in
foreign markets.
This was clearly the case with Israel. The agreement was signed
in July 1996 after an almost unprecedented level of consultation
with Canadian industry. I will refer to that very briefly.
We have in Canada what are called sectoral advisory groups and
international trade. We also have groups with the provinces.
Starting November 23, 1994 when the news release first came out
literally dozens of meetings-I have pages of meetings-that took
place with various sectoral advisory groups leading up to July 31,
1996 when it was announced that Canada and Israel had signed the
free trade agreement.
Quite clearly this was not done on the back of a matchbook. It
was a very complex set of negotiations. There were some areas
which the Israeli government was very slow to move on but our
negotiators were firm in their resolve. We were flexible in our
approach but at the end of the day we knew that in order for
Canadian companies to be competitive in the Israeli market
Canadian companies had to be dealing on a level playing field.
With the special treatment afforded the United States and the
European Union it meant that Canadian companies could not be as
competitive as they had to be in order to get those contracts, service
that market and create jobs in Canada.
I remember hearing a member from Quebec tell us a real story. A
lot of times the bureaucrats will tell us that this has to be done for
this or that reason but this was a real story. It was about a company
in Montreal that was exporting into the Israeli market. Its problem
was that it could not compete with American produced goods
because of the preferential tariff afforded under the U.S.-Israel free
trade agreement. The company did as much processing of the
product in Canada as it could and then shipped a semi-finished
6093
product to the United States. In that way the value add could be
done in the United States and those goods would then qualify under
the rules of origin in the U.S.-Israel free trade deal. Those goods
then could be shipped into the Israeli market as U.S. goods. That
meant real jobs for Canadians.
(1020)
We understand on our side of the House that the Montreal
economy for a whole variety of reasons is not performing at the
level at which we would like. However, for that one company and
dozens of others which employ Canadians who live in and around
the great city of Montreal, this bill gives them a level playing field.
It means that they do not have to semi-finish their product and ship
it to the United States where citizens of the United States gain the
economic benefit and employment and the U.S. municipalities,
states and federal government get the taxes that go with that type of
economic activity. Under this deal that particular company and
dozens of others like it can make sure that all of the product and all
of the value add is done in Canada and that Canadians get 100 per
cent of the net economic benefit for the competitiveness of the
product and the entrepreneurship of the owners of those companies.
We went ahead and did that. In the free trade deal with Israel we
made sure that it also applies to the Palestinian territories. This has
been a concern of the Canadian government, of most members of
the House and of most people who are observers of what is going
on in the Middle East.
When these negotiations began we had great hopes that the peace
process, which was going on in fits and starts, would gain some
steam. Indeed, Canadians and most people around the world were
very happy with what had happened as the peace process gained
some steam and that the former administration in Israel had started
to make some real progress toward eliminating some of the
outstanding issues and solving some of the problems so that at long
last the world there would be peace in the Middle East.
One of the things Canada said from the very beginning was that
if a free trade deal was negotiated with Israel, it was absolutely
fundamental that goods that were produced in the occupied
territories should also benefit from the preferential tariff that free
trade would bring. Indeed, it has been the government's intention
from the first meetings that took place with the Israelis that the
Palestinian authorities would also be consulted to ensure that any
benefit that accrued to Israel would also accrue to goods produced
in the Palestinian territories.
All through that peace, and most particularly starting on January
12, 1995, Canada's chief negotiator was speaking with senior
Palestinian officials to ensure that they understood that we had
negotiated the CITA, the Canada-Israeli trade agreement, in
principle and that the benefits would be extended to goods
produced in the West Bank and Gaza as was agreed to in the earlier
meetings and teleconferences that senior overseas officials had
with the Palestinian authorities.
Again, in July and August the head of the mission in Israel had
met with senior ministers in the Palestinian authority to ensure that
they knew full well the terms and conditions of the Canada-Israel
free trade deal and reaffirmed Canada's commitment to enact the
necessary regulations after this legislation was ratified through the
House and Senate of Canada so that the Palestinian territory would
be included in any benefit that was given.
Again in September a commercial counsellor from our embassy
and our second secretariat met with senior Palestinian ministers of
the economy and trade and deputy ministers to provide a hard copy
of the Canada-Israel free trade agreement.
On October 20 Ambassador Berger, a former member of this
place, made sure that if the Palestinian officials had any questions
that the questions were properly couched so our officials could
respond appropriately to any concerns that they had.
On October 27 meetings took place because the Canadian
government was very concerned about some comments that had
been made during the legislative process that somehow the
Palestinians were excluded from the benefits of this deal.
(1025 )
Nothing could be further from the truth. As we speak meetings
are going on in the occupied territories, in Palestine, which have
been co-sponsored by the Palestinian ministry of trade and industry
and the Canadian government via the Canadian embassy in Israel.
The object of the meetings is to try to disseminate information to
Palestinian businesses about the benefits of this free trade deal for
goods that are produced in the occupied territories by Palestinian
entrepreneurs.
All through this peace process the Canadian government has
been extremely clear that it has always been its intention that any
economic benefit that accrues to goods produced by entrepreneurs
operating out of Israel proper would also be extended to
entrepreneurs for goods produced in the occupied territories.
To ensure transparency I should tell the House about another
thing we have done. At committee the other day, on behalf of the
government, I gave the committee a number of undertakings with
the assumption that the House passes this legislation, the Senate
deals with it in an appropriately hasty fashion, it is proclaimed in
law by the end of the year so we can live up to the timetable of the
agreement and have it enacted on January 1, 1997.
In order to provide members of the standing committee with the
assurance they needed that this deal will apply to the occupied
6094
Palestinian territories, I have agreed on behalf of the government
to do three things. First, I have agreed to put the draft regulations to
the House committee, which is unusual because the regulations
would normally be gazetted after the bill was passed at the end of
December.
The committee has deliberated and added to our understanding
and discussion of not only the economic circumstances
surrounding this deal but also of the larger geopolitical
circumstances within which this deal has been constructed. I would
hope that by next week the members of the standing committee on
foreign affairs would have at their disposal the draft regulations so
they can satisfy themselves that after this bill is passed into law, the
regulations will do what the officials said they would do, which is
de facto extend the benefits of the Canada-Israeli free trade deal to
the Palestinian territories.
Second, on behalf of the government I have undertaken to file
the letters we have received to date from the Israeli authorities with
the clerk of the committee thus making them public documents.
These letters indicate that the Israelis understand and agree that this
deal applies to the Palestinian territories and for the purposes of
this deal they will treat any goods produced in the occupied
territories the same and give them the same passage as if they were
produced within the sovereign state of Israel.
We have a letter from the Israelis on file, which we will
reconfirm. It indicates quite clearly that they will do what they
have to do with respect to rules of origin but they will do what they
have to do under this deal to ensure the goods produced in the
Palestinian territories flow seamlessly through Israel and into the
Canadian market, and vice versa that goods which are covered
under this deal from the Canadian market will flow seamlessly
through Israel and into the occupied territories.
That is a very strong document which has legal force. It is an
undertaking from one government to the other to not impede the
goods that are produced in the occupied territories or that are
produced in Canada and destined for the occupied territories.
It is also our hope that by that time we will have a letter back
from the Palestinian authority with whom we are in almost daily
contact. We hope the letter expresses agreement that the benefits
and terms of the Canada-Israeli deal do indeed flow into the
occupied territories.
All of those letters will be made public when they are deposited
with the clerk of the committee. Then the members of the foreign
affairs committee who have raised some very good suggestions and
legitimate concerns will be able to examine in the light of day how
everything we said would be done to extend this deal to the
territories indeed will have been done.
(1030 )
We must not lose sight of the fact that this deal first and foremost
has been done not to benefit the Israelis, not to benefit the
Palestinians, but to benefit Canadian companies that are active in
that region.
We must recognize that there are very major and disturbing
issues which are yet to be settled in the Middle East with respect to
the peace process in Israel, the status of the West Bank and Gaza.
However, to date nobody on the Palestinian side has told us this is
not a good deal, that it should not go forward and that they do not
want the benefits of the Canada-Israel free trade deal to be equally
applied to goods produced in the Palestinian territories.
We on the government side continue at the diplomatic level and
government to government to encourage the Israeli government to
put the peace process back on track. To date we have done
everything we can in meetings and discussions between our foreign
affairs minister and heads of state to indicate quite clearly it is
Canada's desire that the peace process which was started and seems
to have faltered of late be put back on track. It is the logic of the
Canadian government that it is only through peace in the Middle
East, no matter if they are Palestinians or Israelis, no matter who
they are, that they will be able to live to their full potential. The
region will be able to grow and stability will be long lasting when
the outstanding issues with respect to the peace process are
determined.
Canada continues to support a very strong effort by the
international community. We are part of that community. We are
part of the effort to see the peace process concluded properly.
At the same time we know that for the Palestinians, those
individuals who seek to have their political situation defined
properly in the international context, who seek peace and for the
Israelis who seek peace and security, that once this is all done,
peace and security will only be long lasting if the economic
potential of the region is realized. Then the individuals,
Palestinians, Israelis, or whoever they are will be able to live and to
prosper in the region with the type of jobs and wealth that are
required for internal and external stability.
This free trade deal is timely. We believe in spite of the fact that
the peace process appears to have slowed, that the benefits which
are in this deal are not one sided. The benefits, because they will
apply equally to the goods produced in the occupied territories and
Israeli goods, will be working on a parallel track to the peace
process. As peace comes to the Middle East we will have a greater
economic input in building the required economic stability for all
the states concerned.
Those who have been critical have said that the timing is bad.
The timing may not be the way we wanted it but it still is timely.
For those individuals who are living in the occupied territories and
find themselves cut off from international trade, even though we do
6095
not do a great deal of trade, this is an opportunity for them to find
new markets in Canada. For Canadian companies that are working
in the Middle East, this gives them equal access. It gives them a
level playing field so that their goods can compete on an equal
footing with European goods and with goods from the United
States in the Israeli market.
Further, as this free trade deal gets implemented, more and more
Canadian companies will become involved in that market. It will
open a window of opportunity for further trade in all of the
European countries and further investment by Canadian companies
in industries in Israel, in the occupied territories, in Egypt, in
Jordan, in all the states in the Middle East.
In conclusion, it is my hope that the consensus we seemed to
have in this House at second reading will continue at report stage
and third reading of this bill. I hope we will be able to dispatch this
bill to the other place. I hope when it does get to the other place that
they recognize that this bill has been carefully crafted. It has taken
over two years of negotiation. It is supported by over 20 different
sectoral advisor groups on international trade which the
government has put up.
(1035)
First and foremost, the agreement will give Canadian companies
operating in the region a level playing field. It will give them equal
access to those markets with their American and European
counterparts. In the long term it will assist in some small way in
ensuring that once the peace process is concluded, that Canadian
companies and Canadian investment will add to the stability of the
Middle East.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the parliamentary secretary for his speech. You will, however, see
in the next few minutes that the government has not earned an
honourable mention for today's speech.
First of all, I must point out that the government added the bill to
the order paper at the last minute yesterday evening, very likely on
the assumption that, since all of the members of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade were out of
the country on committee business, discussion of the bill this
morning would not pose too much of a problem.
I would point out to them, however, that we are here and are well
informed on the issue, so we too will be able to contest the stuff and
nonsense we have just been treated to.
Let me begin by stating that we are totally in agreement with the
Canada-Israel free trade agreement. We in Quebec are part of a free
trade Canada. We will not oppose the principle of a free trade
agreement between Canada and Israel. However, contrary to what
the parliamentary secretary has just admitted, we are in a position
to ask some questions about its timing. He says this is the right
time. We, on the other hand, believe that it could not be a worse
time for the ratification or implementation of such an agreement.
On October 9, I rose in this House in support of Bill C-61, the
purpose of which was to implement the Canada-Israel free trade
agreement the Government of Canada rushed to sign on July 31 last
with the government of the State of Israel.
In that speech, however, I regretted the fact that everything
surrounding the agreement had been kept secret and that there had
been an unacceptable lack of consultation in the matter. I also
referred to the dissatisfaction of Quebec's top of the line women's
swimwear industry.
While my views are the same concerning the reservations
expressed during second reading, I still believe that having a free
trade agreement may be beneficial to the Quebec and the Canadian
economy, and that this agreement will no doubt increase trade
between our two countries.
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of free trade, free trade
agreements in general and of course the free trade agreement with
Israel, but always at the appropriate time.
Since our first debate on Bill C-61 on October 9, I have now
realized that the government is trying to get this agreement through
as Parliament quickly and discreetly as possible. This raises many
questions. If this agreement is so wonderful, why is the government
trying to implement it on the sly, as it were? Because this
agreement is becoming increasingly controversial from the
political point of view. That is why.
Hon. members will agree that this morning's third reading is
foolishly being rushed through, at a time when all members of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, who heard a
number of witnesses on Bill C-61 and are very well informed on
this topic, are outside the country on committee business. Too bad
for the minister and the parliamentary secretary: there are still a
number of members in this House who know all about this issue
and the protests that were heard before the committee.
These witnesses who came before us on October 29 told us, first
of all, that the coming into force of the agreement on January 1, as
proposed in Bill C-61, was a mistake. First, because it was not the
right time to implement the agreement now that the peace process
in the Middle East is in worse shape than ever before.
(1040)
Arab groups also pointed out that this free trade agreement was
perceived by many Arabs, in Canada and in the Middle East, as a
sign that Canada supported the actions of Israel and the
government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. If this free
trade
6096
agreement were to come into force at this time, according to them it
might even endanger the peace process in the Middle East.
As for the situation of Palestinians in the occupied
territories-the agreement will automatically apply to the occupied
territories as soon as it comes into effect-its stability is very
fragile. Witnesses told us that the Palestinians do not even control
their own territory, much less their economy, which means that
today, to apply the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement to
Palestinian territory would be to recognize the albeit illegal control
the State of Israel has over the Palestinian people.
The occupied territories are at this very moment practically in a
state of war. That is what professors, Arab representatives and
entrepreneurs came to tell members of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Interestingly, these
witnesses had never been consulted previously by the department.
After listening to this testimony, which put a different light on the
matter, we tried to move amendments to Bill C-61, but to no avail.
Our goal, which was shared by many, including Liberal
members, was to defer the implementation of the agreement until
two conditions had been met. First, the peace process had to be well
under way. It seems to me this is commendable.
Second, the negotiations between the State of Israel and the
Palestinian authorities on the future of the occupied territories had
to be completed. This amendment to clause 62 of Bill C-61 reads as
follows. This is the text of the amendment presented by the Bloc
Quebecois to the committee reviewing Bill C-61:
No order may be made by the Governor in Council under subsection (1) unless he
has been advised by the committee of the House of Commons to which foreign
affairs matters are normally referred that the committee is satisfied that
(a) the Government of the State of Israel has taken satisfactory steps to implement
the agreement;
This is already in Bill C-61.
But we added the following:
(b) that the peace process between the State of Israel and the Palestinian authorities is
well under way.
I will demonstrate in a moment that this amendment to the bill is
completely consistent with the Canadian government's foreign
policy. We are therefore justified in wondering why they voted
against something that was consistent with their own policy.
And,
(c) that the negotiations between the State of Israel and the Palestinian authorities on
the political status and economic development of the West Bank and Gaza Strip
indicate that these two territories are about to gain effective control over their
economic and internal affairs.
The chairman of the Standing Committee on foreign Affairs and
International Trade ruled this amendment out of order for
procedural reasons, on the basis that the changes were outside the
scope of the bill.
We would also have liked to amend the preamble to the bill. You
realize that, with the agreement having already been signed by the
government, no changes can be made to the wording of the
agreement per se. This in itself is quite frustrating, in a
parliamentary system that claims to be democratic, for an elected
representative like myself who does not have a say until it is too
late to make any changes and the agreement has been signed.
We would have liked to amend the preamble since that is the
only part of Bill C-61 that we are entitled to change. But, again for
reasons of lack of consistency with the spirit of this agreement
entered into quietly by the parties, we were told changes could not
be made.
A clause might have been added, as suggested by some
witnesses, to deal with human rights and democratic principles.
The Bloc Quebecois considers it is essential that fundamental
rights be respected, and such a principle should be an integral part
of any agreement like this Canada-Israel free trade agreement.
(1045)
The Minister for International Trade felt and still feels that the
protection of human rights has no place in a free trade agreement,
even though the free trade agreement between Israel and the
European Union contains an interesting clause in this regard: ``The
relations between the parties, as well as all the provisions in this
agreement, are based on respect for human rights and the
democratic principles that underlie their domestic and international
policies and constitute an essential part of this agreement''.
If such an amendment to the Canada-Israel free trade agreement
had been proposed, we would have supported it right away, but we
were prevented from putting it forward by the committee on
foreign affairs and international trade.
A provision on the Canadian government's commitment to the
Middle East peace process could have been included in the
preamble. Our government could have used this provision as a
moral benchmark for its future actions in that part of the world.
A clause on Canada's foreign policy regarding the occupied
territories would have been quite appropriate. I will get back to this
glaring contradiction in the agreement a little later, but for now I
will just point out how the Canadian government has violated its
own foreign policy by signing the free trade agreement with Israel,
since it also applies to the occupied territories.
6097
The Canadian government has always maintained that these
territories are illegally occupied by the State of Israel and that the
Palestinians should be the ones in charge.
I will now quote Canada's foreign policy on the situation in that
part of the world: ``As far as the occupied territories are concerned,
Canada does not recognize the permanency of Israeli control over
the territories occupied since 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West
Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip) and opposes any
unilateral measure to determine in advance the results of
negotiations, including the establishment of new settlements in the
territories and unilateral measures to annex East Jerusalem and the
Golan Heights. In Canada's opinion, these measures contravene
international law and undermine the peace process''.
Further on in this policy, the Canadian government addresses the
rights of Palestinians, and I quote: ``Canada recognizes that the
legitimate rights of Palestinians that must be exercised in the
context of peace negotiations, including the right to
self-determination, must be respected''.
This is not interference. It is simply consistency in foreign
policy. We are in agreement with it, but when we asked the Liberal
government to observe its foreign policy, we met with a categorical
refusal.
We are in favour of establishing trade ties with the State of Israel
and the Palestinian people. But we do not feel this is the right time
to implement the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, given the
present very worrisome situation in the Middle East.
We are aware of the commitment the Canadian government
made to the State of Israel by signing the free trade agreement last
July 31. But we feel that the political and social context is no longer
the same as when the Canadian government began its negotiations
with the State of Israel. Nor is it the same as when the agreement
was finalized and signed.
Furthermore, even the Israeli government in power has changed.
We cannot deny the negative impact on the peace process of the
death of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, almost
exactly one year ago.
For some months now, the Middle East peace process has been
taking a turn for the worse. Negotiations have practically come to a
standstill. Exchanges of violence have continued since the opening
of the Jerusalem tunnel last September. Recently, the Israeli
government approved an increase in its budget, apparently in order
to bump up the number of troops at the border with Syria in the
event of war.
Spending related to Jewish settlement went up by 90 per cent
recently, although it is known for a fact that the principal source of
disagreement between Israelis and Palestinians has to do with
Jewish settlements. The situation is far from ideal and the
implementation of the agreement in this context is far from
appropriate. It is true that the government feels that this agreement
can help the peace process by increasing trade.
(1050)
That is what we thought also, but some very well informed
witnesses have explained that, on the contrary, the timing of the
agreement will be harmful instead, and will convince the
Palestinians that Canada is siding with the Israelis, contrary to its
foreign policy. Let me repeat, we are not against the Canada-Israel
Free Trade Agreement, but we do question its timing. The
worrisome situation in that part of the world is obvious to anyone
who watches the news.
What are we to do if the peace process is not successful in the
medium term? This is a legitimate question, and my answer is that,
for once, we must question the type of economic partner Canada
wants to have.
What is more, it is our opinion, as it was the opinion of the
Canadian government in its foreign policy statement from which I
have already quoted, that the government of Israel is occupying the
Gaza Strip and the West Bank illegally, in flagrant violation of
international law.
How, then, can we approve having the agreement apply
automatically to these territories, without the Palestinian
authorities' accepting the Agreement, and particularly without the
Palestinian people's having total control over its territory and its
economy, so as to reap the full benefit of this free trade agreement?
The government tells us, as the parliamentary secretary did in his
speech, that it is pursuing negotiations and exchanging letters with
Palestinian leaders. It seems to me that instead of ratifying so
quickly the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement we could wait for
the completion of these processes. We will be able to study the
letters and regulations and adopt a more enlightened position on the
issue.
During the last committee hearing, the parliamentary secretary
came in with a new card in hand, saying: ``The official opposition
members of the foreign affairs committee have brought forward
very good arguments in the last few hearings, so there is something
we forgot to tell you. It is true that we have now been in negotiation
for more than a year. It is also true that we forgot to consult several
groups, so some of them came to see me. We forgot to inform you
that we had an exchange of correspondence with the Palestinians
that we will make public after the vote on Bill C-61''.
He also said: ``It is also true that we forgot to tell you about some
regulations but we intend to make them public after the debate on
Bill C-61 in the House. Do not worry, you will see that we did some
good work. Have no fear, you will see the documents but we cannot
show them to you immediately because we have not had time to
6098
prepare them. We forgot to tell you about them, but we are
informing you now''.
This took place no later that one week ago. Why did the Liberals
bring forward new arguments just a few days before the debate on
Bill C-61 in this House? They knew very well that the present
situation would not help them and that the lack of consistency of
their foreign affairs policy would not help them either.
Therefore, they had to use some pretty ``bright'' subterfuge in
order to get us to say: ``Listen, support this agreement, support Bill
C-61, then we will make public the letters exchanged between the
Palestinian authorities and the Canadian government. Then, we
will make public the regulations designed to include the Palestinian
people, or at least to ensure they fully benefit from this free trade
agreement. Do not worry.''
But, given what we have seen for three years, for those who have
known the Liberal Party over the years, there is reason to be
somewhat concerned, at least a little concerned when we are told
after a few months, a few years of negotiation: ``Afterwards, you
will see all the documents, all the papers.'' Why were we told that
the first time only last week? This also is a little strange.
As I said, if we are given those letters, we will be able to analyze
them and to have a more informed discussion. It is true that, until
now, Palestinians have not opposed the application of the
Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement in their territory.
(1055)
They probably feel that this agreement is an unexpected opening
onto a foreign country and therefore can help them. It is exactly for
this reason that Palestinian authorities must be part of the
negotiations and that their situation should not be dealt in their
absence with the Israeli government, as the Canadian government
is trying to do now.
This is such a current issue that this very morning, the French
and English dailies contained articles dealing with the
Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement. I quote a report from
Associated Press entitled ``Call to Israel's Boycott as the Cairo
Summit approaches'', from which I will read some brief excerpts.
It is a very relevant report that appeared this morning in La Presse.
It reads as follows:
The Egyptian Union of Chambers of Commerce has called on its members to
boycott Israel and to refrain from all bilateral or multilateral co-operation with it,
including with the State of Israel.
Further on, it reads:
We reject any economic co-operation with Israel so long as a global political
settlement has not been reached in the Near East.
That was said by the representative of the Egyptian Chambers of
Commerce.
Later on, the article stated:
Palestinian manufacturers decided to boycott the economic summit by way of
protest against Israel's sealing off their territories, which is choking their economy.
The same kind of report can be found in English newspapers in
Canada today and probably everywhere in the world. This is no
secret. Liberals tried to keep the negotiations secret for a lot of
things, but this is no secret. The Palestinian situation is now well
known.
Moreover, as mentioned in these articles, one must keep in mind
the situation in the occupied territories. For the time being, the
Israelis are controlling the territories and their economy. Since
February 1996, the territories have been sealed off almost
permanently, preventing Palestinians from harvesting their crops
and even working.
According to an American study, Israel is using this
border-closing policy to prevent the influx of competitive
Palestinian farm products and manufactured goods on the Israeli
market, thus hampering all attempts of the Palestinian economy to
take off, and increasing its dependency on Israel's economy.
We can only presume that the free trade agreement will make the
situation worse, increasing Israel's control over the Palestinian
economy. On the other hand, it should be noted that the economic
life in the occupied territories is nearly at a standstill. Foreign trade
has just about disappeared. The economy is working at only 3 or 4
per cent of its capacity and, this spring, the unemployment rate was
between 60 and 70 per cent in the Gaza Strip and between 40 and
50 per cent on the West Bank, not to mention a very tense climate
and numerous violent flare-ups.
The same article went on to say, and I quote:
According to a report published last week by the UN, as a result of the repeated
sealing off of the territories, the Palestinian GDP has dropped by 23 per cent over the
past four years, and the per capita income has declined by 39 per cent over the same
period.
To conclude, we are questioning the coming into force in the
occupied territories of the free trade agreement signed by Israel, as
long as the Palestinians have not agreed to it and the Palestinian
people are not in full control of their territory and economy.
We believe that this is not the time to implement such an
agreement now that the peace process has been stopped and is in
very bad shape indeed. As long as we are not convinced, as we
mentioned in our amendments, that the explosive situation in the
Middle East has been defused, we believe that the coming into
force of Bill C-61-and consequently of the free trade
agreement-should be at least delayed. We believe that the coming
into force of this agreement on January 1st, 1997, and the passing
now
6099
of Bill C-61 send the wrong message to Canadians, the world in
general and the Arab world in particular.
(1100)
Given the evidence we heard on October 29 and the new
developments, and since Israel is preparing for war by releasing
new funds for this purpose, we would think that, on the contrary,
our intervention at this critical point in time could have a negative
impact on the peace process.
It would be much better to encourage the Israeli and the
Palestinians to seriously negotiate the restoration of peace in the
Middle East and, meanwhile, to suspend this agreement, which
could favour one of the two parties involved.
We must put pressure on the Israeli government to respect
international law and therefore the Palestinian people. The
Canadian government must have the political courage to put the
agreement on hold. The Bloc Quebecois, and probably the Reform
Party, would support such an action. The Bloc Quebecois totally
disagrees with the approach chosen by the Liberal government for
the signing of free trade agreements. The secrecy, the lack of
consultation are totally unacceptable and contrary to what we are
being told.
It is unacceptable that the Canadian government would negotiate
and sign free trade agreements by itself and without any
transparency. This is what the federal government did in the case of
the Canada-Israel agreement and it is doing the same thing for the
Canada-Chile agreement, which is now being negotiated.
Once the text of the agreement is published, it will be too late to
change it because the agreement will already have been signed.
What a remarkable democracy! Then they will ask this House to
discuss the Canada-Chile free trade agreement, as they are doing
now for Israel, saying: ``The only element you have the power to
change is the date of coming into force''. And even on that point,
the Liberal majority in committee will decide if the date should be
modified or not.
Even if the Liberal majority decides, according to its convictions
and just as it did at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, to postpone the date the agreement comes into
force, it will be very simple, they will only change the players. The
government takes the knowledgeable players and puts them on the
bench, puts them aside, then sends in people who have not heard
about this free trade agreement because, as hard working as they
are, as sharp as they are, they are part of other committees and have
other issues to examine. The government sends them to raise their
hands in committee and say: ``Agreed''.
They were not present at previous committee meetings. They did
not hear witnesses, they have only influenced the government
party's decision, as opposed to the beliefs of men and women who
were sitting on the foreign affairs committee and who had to be
replaced at the last minute so that the international trade minister
could have his bill passed clause by clause.
Even the clerk had to be replaced so that another one could come
and tell us that our amendments were out of order, even though our
amendments were totally compatible with clause 62 of the bill.
It is relatively simple. What we were supposed to put forward
dealt with the coming into force of the Canada-Israel free trade
agreement, that is: Is the timing appropriate, given the current
situation in Israel and the occupied territories? We are sending a
signal to that part of the world that Canada is going against its
foreign policy as defined by the government, not by us, as this is
not the position of the official opposition here but the position of
the Canadian government.
Does the Canadian government want to send a signal to the rest
of the world that it believes everything is well with the
Palestinians, everything is well with the Israelis, everything is well
in that part of the world, and that now we can sign a free trade
agreement, do business with everybody involved, even though
Palestinians have no control over their economy, even though
Palestinians have no control over their territory, even though the
peace process has been significantly disrupted? No.
According to the Canadian government, this position is a
figment of the imagination of the official opposition, this position
is unrealistic. News bulletins, newspaper articles must have been
made up, they must not be true. And we, the Canadian government,
they say, are prepared to send this signal to the entire world, that is,
that we can do business, no matter what the situation is, with that
part of the world. That is what the Bloc Quebecois wonders about.
(1105)
We will continue to ask questions to the government party before
supporting Bill C-61. I want to repeat that we totally agree with a
Canada-Israel free trade agreement, but only at the appropriate
time.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It is the turn of the Reform Party, but the
hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca is not here. Perhaps
Reform members might indicate who is intending to speak for their
party on this issue.
An hon. member: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: I hear a call for the question. I think there
is normally a courtesy that, speaking on debate, we might give a
moment or so to the other party to come. I have a point of order. We
will hear it while we wait to see if someone is coming from the
Reform Party.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on debate. I wanted
to speak to the question, with your permission.
6100
The Deputy Speaker: As the parliamentary secretary and
others will know, there is a provision for a speaker from each party
to speak at length on a matter.
I wonder if somebody from the Reform Party might indicate to
the Chair whether somebody is intending to speak.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, there is someone intending to
speak. He is not here yet. I understand the Bloc has another speaker
who is prepared to speak to the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Finance has the floor.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise to
speak in support of the Canada-Israel free trade agreement.
As members know, trade is extremely important to this country.
One third of the jobs in this country are dependent on exports. As
members may know, every $1 billion in trade translates into 11,000
jobs.
We should never underestimate the importance of trade to this
country. This government, recognizing that, has made several
efforts to enhance trade opportunities for Canadian businesses.
First, members will be aware of the several trade missions that
the Prime Minister has lead to various parts of the world which
have resulted in billions of dollars in contracts translating into tens
of thousands of jobs in this country.
Those trade missions and the success of those trade missions
help to explain why Canada has led the OECD in job growth. This
government has also taken other steps in the trade area, notably,
promoting trade liberalization through the GATT or the WTO as it
is known. Canada has led the multilateral effort for trade
liberalization.
This government has taken the initiative in promoting freer trade
bilaterally in the NAFTA, adding Mexico to the negotiations that
are ongoing with Chile which may well in time lead to a bilateral
free trade agreement with that country and South America, and
lately the bill we are speaking on to implement the Canada-Israel
free trade agreement.
(1110)
With respect to Israel, Canadian businesses have been at a
distinct disadvantage. Israel and the European Community have a
free trade agreement, and so does Israel and the United States. That
means Canadian businesses wishing to export products to Israel are
at a competitive disadvantage.
This trade initiative will level the playing field, leading to
enhanced trade and investment opportunities for Canadians doing
business with Israel. This deal will also give Canada a foothold in
the Middle East, maintaining us as a player in fostering freer trade
in that region and enhancing economic relations with an important
part of the world. Canada, through negotiating this treaty with
Israel, shows its readiness to embrace new and emerging
economies in this trade liberalization effort. Members should not
lose sight of the fact that the Canada-Israel treaty will be a model
for other treaties with other countries in that region.
Members opposite have raised a number of questions and a
number of questions are out there that we should respond to. One of
those questions is why free trade with Israel, why at this time. Let
me remind members that when we are talking about the Middle
East we must not lose sight of the fact that the State of Israel is the
only democracy in the Middle East, a vigorous democracy at that.
We need only reflect on the very hotly contested Israeli elections
this past spring to recognize what a vigorous and vibrant
democracy is the State of Israel today.
While others may wonder why not free trade right now with
other countries in the Middle East, we must remember that Canada
would not enter into free trade arrangements with countries which
are not members of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, and it
is only Israel in that region of the world which qualifies.
I repeat that free trade with Israel will provide a level playing
field and respond to the disadvantage that Canadian business has
been under in not having free trade access which its American and
European competitors have in that area. The free trade agreement
with Israel can certainly be a model for free trade agreements with
other countries of that region when they join the WTO.
There are members in this House and people in this country who
ask whether it is wise to benefit Israel at this time. They are
concerned about events there, as we all are, and they ask that
question. I want to respond with a couple of points.
First, I want to point out that the initiative, the impetus, the
genesis of this agreement is Canadian business. It is not the State of
Israel that has come to Canada and asked for the advantage of free
trade. It is Canadian businesses that have come to the Canadian
government and said that in the efforts to liberalize trade, let us do
something in an important area of the world, the Middle East, the
gateway to enormous business opportunities for Canadians. Let us
end this comparative disadvantage they have vis-à-vis their
American and European counterparts by negotiating a free trade
agreement. The initiative is from Canadian businesses and the
primary benefit is to Canadian businesses.
Second, I would like to focus on the fact that this treaty is
remarkably important not only for the trade and investment
opportunities it provides but for the fact that the benefits of this
treaty will extent to the Gaza and the West Bank. This initiative of
extending the free trade agreement to the Gaza and West Bank was
a development that the Canadian government undertook and is
6101
indeed one that caught our American friends by surprise, so much
so that they have now very recently extended their free trade
agreement also to Gaza and the West Bank. Canada has been a
trailblazer in this aspect of the treaty which I think will provide real
economic benefit to people not only in the State of Israel but in the
West Bank and Gaza.
(1115 )
I point out that the Government of Israel has taken all steps
required under the treaty to extend the benefit of the treaty to the
West Bank and Gaza. I have seen the letter and members will have
undoubtedly heard about it. If not, I draw their attention to a letter
from Natan Sharansky, the minister of industry and trade, the
Government of Israel, to the Minister for International Trade, our
minister responsible for this treaty.
The letter confirms that the Government of Israel supports the
principle of the extension of this treaty both inbound and outbound
to the Gaza and West Bank territories. That is extremely important.
For those who wonder if the benefit of this treaty will ever extend
to those regions, they need only look at this document. It illustrates
that Israel is doing everything it undertook to do in the treaty as
negotiated.
Notwithstanding that, there are members in the House who say
this is not good for the Palestinians or it is not good at this time. I
find it ironic that Canadian politicians can be so presumptuous in
telling the Palestinian authority what is good for it. The Palestinian
authority and the Palestinian people in the West Bank, Gaza and
elsewhere are in a position to tell us whether or not this agreement
is in the interests of the people who live in the West Bank and Gaza.
There has been no official comment to the Canadian government
that this treaty is not appropriate at this time, that it is not desirable.
Quite to the contrary. We should take note of that.
Members should recognize this treaty for free trade between
Canada and Israel provides remarkable opportunities not just for
Canadian business but also for Canadians to continue to be
significant participants in economic and other developments in an
important region of the world.
There would be no other way for the people of Gaza and the West
Bank to have the benefit of free trade, as there is no Palestinian
state and there is no other state in the Middle East that could
qualify for free trade with Canada at this time. This additional
provision of the agreement, its extension to Gaza and the West
Bank, is a remarkable opportunity to enhance economic
opportunities for people in those regions.
I urge members on all sides of the House to wholeheartedly
support this free trade agreement for the benefits it provides, for
the opportunities it provides to Canadians including Canadian
exporters, for the opportunities it provides for Canada to maintain
an important role in an extremely important part of the world. I
urge hon. members to support this bill.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague
has spoken about the benefits of the free trade deal, both for Israel
and for Palestinians in the occupied territories.
I know he was probably listening in the lobby. The spokesperson
for the official opposition indicated many times during his speech
that somehow the government should stop this process because it
was not in the best interests of the Palestinians. The member who
just spoke mentioned some documents which clearly indicate that
the Canadian government has been in constant dialogue with
Palestinian authorities.
I would like the hon. member's comments about what I said in
committee the other day. I said that sometimes some of us in public
office believe we have to speak for everyone as if no one other than
us has a voice. In this case, is it his belief that the Palestinian
authorities have had ample opportunity to express their viewpoint
particularly if they were opposed to this deal because it was not in
their best economic or political interests?
I would like to hear his comments with respect to the seminars,
which are apparently being held this week jointly sponsored by the
minister of industry for the Palestinian authority and the Canadian
embassy officials from Israel.
(1120 )
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
elaborate on what I said. Numerous contacts have been made, as I
understand it, with the Palestinian authority. The Palestinian
authority has been briefed and informed by our ambassador as to
the free trade agreement and is well aware of the fact that it is now
being debated before this House.
I do not think any of us should doubt the capacity of the
Palestinian authority to weigh in, as it does from time to time, on
issues that are of concern and importance to it. That is why it is so
ironic to find some members of this House concerned about the
impact of this particular initiative at this time on the Palestinians or
the Palestinian authority. We should afford them the respect they
deserve in their ability to speak in their own self-interests.
There are ongoing discussions as the parliamentary secretary
mentioned. Continuous economic consultations between our
embassy and Palestinian representatives are ongoing
notwithstanding the fact that we are in the midst of debate and
hopefully in very short order will be passing this important trade
agreement.
6102
I thank the parliamentary secretary for his comment and the
opportunity to elaborate.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask a few questions to the hon. member who spoke
after me. Questions which, I believe, are fairly simple and to which
I hope to receive simple and clear answers.
First of all, I would like to make a comment. Through its
parliamentary secretary, the government said that seminars would
be held this week between the Department of International Trade
and Palestinian authorities, when we are expected to deal with Bill
C-61 today. Would it not be better to have these seminars or
meetings before instead of after?
Now, here is my simple question: Could the hon. member tell us
whether, according to him and his government, Palestinians control
their economy and their territory?
[English]
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous
meetings between the Palestinian minister of economy and trade
and various others with respect to this agreement. We are not just
starting that process; this has been ongoing. The Canadian
ambassador to Israel, who is also responsible for the West Bank
and Gaza, has had numerous contacts over the last year with
Palestinian authorities on this trade agreement. This is not
something we are just starting right now.
The second issue again raises the question of who should speak
for the interests of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. I
assert emphatically that it is the Palestinian authority and it can tell
us how it feels about this. The Palestinian authority's actions speak
volumes about the importance it sees in this treaty for the West
Bank and Gaza.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the hon. member and I agree with him that one third of
the jobs in Canada depend on international trade. However, I do
deplore the lack of information. Hon. members were not kept
abreast of the negotiations leading to this agreement, and
unfortunately we now have the same problem with respect to the
negotiations between Canada and Chile.
I asked the Minister of International Trade for a progress report,
but all we got was one briefing with a public servant, who did not
answer all of our questions. As hon. members, we should be better
informed about such negotiations.
I also deplore the fact that this Canada-Israel agreement does not
include any social provisions to protect workers, as is the case in
NAFTA or the Canada-Chile agreement. These two agreements
provide for parallel agreements on labour and on the environment,
which are missing from the Canada-Israel agreement. In my
opinion, such social provisions are needed to protect Israeli,
Palestinian and Canadian workers. I would like to hear your
reaction in this regard.
(1125)
[English]
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is the nature of the negotiations
that members are briefed as soon as a deal is arrived at. It would be
pointless to brief people on a deal that had not been concluded.
Once that took place there were several meetings and debriefings
for the opposition caucus. There have been hearings before the
committee. There have been discussions at length and questions
which have been responded to.
With regard to the other social charter type issues, there are
ongoing negotiations within the WTO of which Israel is a member.
I point out that no other country in the Middle East is a member of
the WTO.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-61 dealing with the
Canada-Israel free trade agreement.
Although we support the agreement, I believe we have let down
the people of the Middle East, the Israelis, the Palestinians and the
larger Arab nations of the region with this agreement. Its roots held
great promise and possibilities for improving the socioeconomic
conditions for the Palestinian people which is absolutely integral
for peace for that is part of the major problems addressing and
affecting the terrible situation in the Middle East.
It is unfortunate that what we have seen in the last couple of
months has nearly extinguished the flame of peace. The efforts for
peace had been worked on for a long time and culminated in the
Oslo accords last year which brought much hope to Palestinians
and Israelis. It has almost been extinguished since Mr. Netanyahu
and the Likud party came into power last May. Clearly the
responsibility for what is taking place there does not rest entirely
on their shoulders. It is a responsibility of both the Palestinians and
the Israelis.
However, the bulk of what has taken place recently falls squarely
on the shoulders of Mr. Netanyahu and his Likud party. He must
understand that the health and welfare of the people he professes to
help, the Israeli people, is intimately associated with the health and
welfare of the Palestinian people. They are two halves of the same
whole, whether they like it or not.
The dance of death, destruction and mayhem we have seen for so
many years is simply not going to end unless the leaders of the
Middle East demonstrate statesmanship, courage, leadership and
faith. Without that, there is not going to be an end to the terrible and
tragic deaths that have been occurring for ever so long. Indeed, it is
6103
impossible to find any compelling justification for the deaths of
Arab and Jewish youths. It is not necessary.
With strong leadership in the Middle East by both Mr.
Netanyahu and Mr. Arafat we will find a solution for peace in the
Middle East. However, there are a number of things that they must
come to terms with.
If Mr. Netanyahu believes that he can foist peace upon the
Palestinian people, he is wrong. It will require an extraordinary
amount of militarization. He will have to go into the Palestinian
autonomous regions and it simply will not work. If he believes that
the Palestinian people will somehow capitulate to a stronger Israel
and that by foisting their ideals upon them they will back down, he
is dead wrong. History has proven that the Palestinian people will
not back down until their demands are met. On the other side, it
will require a great deal of capitulation by Mr. Arafat and the
Palestinian authority to ensure the safety of Israel and Israelis.
Both leaders will have to work together on this issue and both
will have to compromise. They are also going to have to look at
what happened around the Oslo peace accords as an example of
what compromise can effect.
(1130)
It is also going to require bold moves by Mr. Netanyahu and Mr.
Arafat if they are going to arrive at a solution.
There are a few realities that have to be recognized. The first is
that the Israeli and the Palestinian people cannot live together. The
only way to achieve long term peace is to separate Israel and
Palestine. As painful as that realization may be, both sides are
going to have to come to terms with it.
There are boundaries and maps which have been drawn by both
sides which are not too dissimilar from each other. Essentially, the
areas under Palestinian rule are the West Bank, the Gaza strip and
the Palestinian autonomous regions. A strong security cord would
be drawn around those areas. That is necessary for peace in the
region.
Second, Israeli settlements in the Palestinian autonomous
regions must be moved to other areas. The Israeli people who are
living in these armed encampments must be removed.
A compromise can be achieved if a line is drawn around the West
Bank which is contiguous with Israel and the settlers who are in the
West Bank and Gaza strip can be moved there. That will be painful
for both sides. However, they will probably be able to endure the
pain quite easily. It would be a compromise for the Israeli settlers
who wish to live in Palestinian autonomous regions and the
Palestinian people who do not want to have Israeli armed camps in
their midst. It would also defuse tension in these areas.
The Gaza strip is ready to blow up. We have been hearing that for
some time. Now we have an opportunity to defuse the situation in
the Gaza strip to avoid further killings. If the Gaza strip blows up
we will see bloodshed the likes of which we have not seen for a
very long time. That bloodshed will be needless and pointless. It is
an avoidable tragedy.
Third, the Israelis have to stop blocking the West Bank and the
Gaza strip. That completely blocks the ebb and flow of the
Palestinian people. They cannot get to work. It separates husbands
from their wives. Sick people cannot get to hospitals. It completely
destroys the commerce of the Palestinian autonomous regions.
It is also wise for us to take a look at the roots which have caused
such desperation in the Palestinian people, in particular among
Palestinian youth in the West Bank and the Gaza strip.
For anyone who has visited that region, one can only be shocked
and saddened by the deplorable and wretched conditions under
which many of the Palestinian people live. The environment of
abject poverty creates desperation. Out of desperation and
frustration comes anger. Out of anger comes violence. That is in
part why we have seen the Intifada. That is why we have seen
Hamas. That is why we have seen, to a lesser extent, Islamic jihad.
These groups have managed to retain their power out of the
frustration, the anger and the desperation which these people feel.
Therefore economic emancipation for the Palestinian people in
these areas is absolutely critical in the peace process. Ensuring that
the Palestinian people have their own autonomous state is as
important as economic emancipation.
There are two generations of Palestinian youth who are
desperate. They are unemployed. The unemployment rate is over
60 per cent in some of these areas.
(1135)
They have absolutely nothing to lose. When there is a group of
people with nothing to lose, then there is a group of people who are
desperate and will and have resorted to anything in their means.
Therefore what we need to see-I was hoping that Bill C-61
would enable Canada to take a leadership role in this-is to
improve the economic situation in the West Bank. Canada, through
Bill C-61, could have put pressure on the Israeli people to enter into
bilateral agreements with the Palestinian people to improve the
socioeconomic conditions, including health, hospitals, clinics,
water and employment in Palestinian areas.
Unfortunately we have not seen that. What we are relying on is
the goodwill of Mr. Netanyahu and his Likud Party to actually do
this. So far since they have come to power in May we have seen
6104
very little honest intention to actually work with the Palestinian
authority on looking forward to a long term peace.
That was a grave mistake by Canada in not ensuring that this bill
address that. Having said that, there are still opportunities. We can
work with the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations to help
improve the socioeconomic conditions in the West Bank and the
Gaza strip along with, of course, the Palestinian authorities.
However, if we do this, accountability and transparency must
take place because there is some disturbing evidence that has come
out that elements of the Palestinian authority is misappropriating a
great number of funds that are coming through to it. They are not
getting down to the people who desperately need this.
If moneys and funds and loans are going to come through and
endeavours are going to take place in the Palestinian areas, they
must be done with accountability and transparency. If that is not
going to take place, then it simply ought not to be done.
The aspect of Jerusalem is a touchy issue but has to also be dealt
with. I would propose, as a Roman Catholic, that Jerusalem be
made an international sight for the religions of the world. No one
single nation, no one single religion is to have control over this
sensitive sight. Indeed, it is ironic that the centre, the site, which is
so holy to the great religions of the world, would be the cause of so
much rancour, so much bloodshed and so much heartache.
It is not the intention of Jerusalem. It is the exact opposite of
what it has come to represent. Indeed, perhaps the only solution
that we can have to ensure that this site is going to be available to
the nations and the peoples of the earth to celebrate their religion is
to make that site the United Nations site for the religions of the
world, organized and guarded by the United Nations. I cannot see
anything short of that taking place.
Another key player in the situation, of course, is Syria and Mr.
Hafez al-Assad. No one is actually approaching Mr. Hafez al-Assad
directly to bring him into the peace process. It is absolutely
essential that this happen, not through intermediaries because in
the Middle East the only way there is going to be actual action on
this issue is if the leaders of the areas meet face to face.
Working through intermediaries is not going to actually produce
any kind of effective, bold moves that are going to move this area
into long term peace. Mr. al-Assad indeed as we all know in this
House is an absolute key player in the peace process.
For Mr. Arafat's part, he has to be absolutely ruthless with
Palestinian terrorists in his midst who are going to try to get rid of
Israel, create terrorist activities on Israeli soil or create terrorist
activities and terrorize his own Palestinian people.
He must demonstrate to the Israeli government and to the Israeli
people that he also is honest in his intention for peace. He cannot
work at both sides, as Mr. Netanyahu has done, paying lip service
to peace on one hand but on the other hand trying to capitulate to a
very hard line element in his midst. He has to demonstrate and go
out on a limb and say the dove of peace is more important than the
hand of war.
(1140)
He must be ruthless with his security forces to make sure that he
can demonstrate to Israel that he can control them. In September
that was not in evidence when the bloodshed erupted in the West
Bank and the Palestinian autonomous regions. Mr. Arafat did not
demonstrate that he could control his security forces. It is
absolutely essential for Israel and the Israeli people to have that
comfort that these forces can indeed be controlled.
In the end, the ultimate solution with regard to the
Israel-Palestinian situation is that these two peoples, who are very
similar in many ways, cannot live under the same roof. They will
not live as one country. Therefore both groups, both leaders, both
political powers must come to the realization that the only
effective, bold, long term solution to peace in the Middle East is
going to be Israel and Palestine consisting of a two nation state.
After that I hope that there would be bilateral and economic
endeavours, agreements and initiatives between both sides. One of
the many existing problems is the massive water problem which
few people are taking into consideration. Potable water,
particularly in Israel and Palestine, is in critical short supply. This
issue affects the people of both Israel and Palestine. Therefore it is
important that this issue be addressed co-operatively. This can
demonstrate the good will and co-operation that is needed to build
bridges between both sides.
Mr. Netanyahu has to take the first step. He has a long way to go
to demonstrate that he has the statesmanship of his predecessors,
one being Mr. Perez. He must demonstrate to the world, his people
and to the Palestinian people that he is committed to the peace
process. To do anything less will commit his nation and the region
to years of bloody civil strife and conflict with absolutely no
movement forward to long term peace.
There is a saying in the Middle East that peace is when a son
buries his father, but war is when a father buries his son. For the
sake of the children, the sons, the fathers, the daughters and the
wives of the Israeli and Palestinian people that the leaders will join
hands and demonstrate to their people and the world that they can
indeed make the bold moves necessary to finally develop a long
lasting peace in the Middle East.
I hope that Canada, a nation that has been a part of every single
peacekeeping initiative in the Middle East, a nation of great
international respect, can move forward to try to bring these two
nations together.
6105
We are fortunate that Mr. Raymond Chrétien has been appointed
the UN rapporteur to Central Africa. We have seen the Norwegians
display their statesmanship in bringing the Israeli and Palestinians
together through the Oslo accords. Canada is capable of doing the
same thing. Canada is internationally respected, we have
diplomatic power and abilities to try to bring warring groups
together under one umbrella to build bridges.
It is not going to cost Canada more money to do this. From a
purely self-centred point of view, it is actually going to save
Canada and Canadians money through drains on our defence,
immigration and international development aid budgets. There is
compelling justification for Canada to get involved, to use our
existing diplomatic structures to finally bring the Israeli and
Palestinian people together but also involve the Syrians, Egyptians
and Iranians.
(1145 )
I hope the government will take it upon itself to invest the people
we already have in this worthwhile initiative for the sake of peace
and the people of the Middle East.
I have a motion to put forward. I move:
That we amend the bill by deleting all the words after the word ``that'' and
substituting the following:
That Bill C-61, an act to implement the Canada-Israeli free trade agreement be not
now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade for the purpose of reconsidering clause 62 and, in
particular, to consider substantially changing the implementation date.
The Deputy Speaker: The member was kind enough to show
the amendment earlier and it is in order.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the hon. member opposite. Obviously he has a great deal
of knowledge and an interest to have gained the knowledge of some
of the complexities of dealing with the politics of the Middle East.
He quite eloquently described the wish of most Canadians and
most people who live in peace around the world that countries such
as Canada, which has a tremendous amount of goodwill, uses that
goodwill to try to not isolate one side from the other. These
countries should try to bring both sides together to make them
understand that it is in everybody's interest that peace be pursued
vigorously. The plans that have been laid down and the progress
that has been made in the past has to be built on. At the end of the
day the people who have suffered so long in that region because of
wars and hatreds should be allowed to live in peace and to
participate in their communities and their economies without fear
of retribution, conflict, terrorism and war.
I agree 100 per cent with what the member said. The
disagreement that I may have, however, is in the approach he takes
with respect to the bill and how that impacts on it.
The member opposite moved a motion which would put the bill
back in committee. This would likely mean that the bill would not
be implemented at the beginning of January which is the agreed
upon date.
How can the member reconcile what he has just said with respect
to Canada using its good name, good offices and its international
reputation to try to get both sides together when we would be
effectively saying to one side that we have taken sides in this
conflict? The Canadian government has made it very clear that it
wants this peace process back on track. We have made it very clear
that when we deal with the Israeli settlements on the West Bank
and Gaza that we do not believe those settlements should be there.
It is not helpful to the peace process.
We have implored the Israeli government to get back on track, to
get the negotiations going with the Palestinian authorities so that
the people, not the politicians, can enjoy peace at long last.
How could he reconcile those statements, which I happen to
agree with, with the position that the member's party has taken?
The position would be that we would then go in and say to the
Israelis: ``We are not going to sign the deal that we negotiated in
good faith because we do not happen to like the democratically
elected government of the day and how it is pursuing a particular
peace proposal''.
(1150 )
Does the member believe we have such leverage with the
legislation that it is somehow going to turn them around or would it
be better to continue the dialogue, to ask the Israeli government as
strongly as we can, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs was
extremely strong on this just a few weeks ago, to get back on track
with the peace process?
With the Palestinian authorities, the facts speak for themselves.
Members of the government, including myself, have concerns. We
want to make sure that we are not advantaging one side to the
disadvantage of the other. We have taken pains to ensure that this
deal will apply to goods that are produced in the Palestinian
territories.
I say this with the greatest respect for the opposition, nobody
from the Palestinian side has come back. We have had over a year
of discussions with the Palestinians. I understand that they have a
larger political agenda and may even agree with the larger political
agenda. But they are following a parallel track. They are pursuing
the larger political agenda for the Palestinians in the occupied
territories. They also recognize that the road to a lasting peace has
6106
to be built on investment from the outside, markets for Palestinian
goods and access to markets.
They have not told us no. If the Palestinian authorities had
believed that the best policy Canada could pursue for peace in the
Middle East was not to have this deal, not to have the economic
benefits accrue to Palestinian enterprises as well, they have had
plenty of opportunity to tell us but they have not.
How can the member reconcile his obviously very deeply felt
comments with respect to the peace process in the Middle East and
the ability that Canada has to leverage its good name with both
sides? He is right. We have had peacekeepers in that region forever.
Canadians are highly regarded. Is it not a better role for Canada to
play, to have these benefits extended to the Palestinian territories,
including the West Bank and the Gaza, not just for the benefit of the
Palestinians and not just for the benefit of the Israelis. Remember
why we have done this. We have done it for Canadian companies.
I have dozens of letters here from Canadian companies that
employ people in communities right across the country. They have
told us that this is the right thing to do. Some of the companies that
have had dealings in the Middle East have indicated to us that the
best way that Canada can increase its leverage on the peace process
is to have more Canadian companies there, making investments
both in the occupied territories and in Israel.
That is how we are going to take the good name that Canada has
and that is how we are going to have a better impact by way of
influencing both sides to get back to the table and fulfil what
seemed to be a promising peace process that was started about a
year ago.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my hon. friend from the government who always speaks so
eloquently in this House.
Basically we are saying very similar things. The intent of the
motion is to ensure what the hon. member said, that there are going
to be bilateral, co-operative efforts between Israel and the
Palestinian people, that the Palestinian people would have free
access to markets, that they would have access to the benefits of
this agreement and to ensure that there is going to be equity.
The reason why we brought this forward is that the current Likud
government in Israel has not demonstrated that it has an interest in
developing the peace process in any meaningful way.
Mr. Netanyahu has been giving lip service to the peace process
since he came into power in May, saying one thing internationally
and doing something very different domestically. That cannot be
allowed to happen. We were hoping that Canada would use the bill
as a carrot. Canada would say to the Israeli government: ``We find
your behaviour unacceptable. We have this opportunity here for
you, the Israeli people, but also for the Palestinian people, that
economic emancipation for both the Israelis and the Palestinians is
absolutely essential for peace. Mr. Netanyahu, sir, you have not
demonstrated that since you have come to power and Canada finds
it completely unacceptable''.
Therefore, here is a carrot to Israel that we can give but we want
some demonstration from the Israeli government that indeed they
are going to do what the hon. member just suggested.
(1155 )
We want some demonstration that it will ensure bilateral
economic agreements with the Palestinian people, that it will
ensure free access for the Palestinian people to markets, that it will
address the problems associated with the closures of the West Bank
and the Gaza strip which have such an enormous detrimental effect
on the economy of the Palestinian autonomous regions.
We in the Reform Party put forward this motion to ensure
Canada does not take a behind the scenes view but instead
demonstrates its intent, interest and eagerness to co-operate.
Canada should demonstrate its desire to build bridges between both
people through this bill. Again, we want to make sure the bill
addresses and helps both the Palestinians and the Israelis, not just
the Israelis.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-61, an act to
implement the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement.
According to the timetable provided for in the bill, this
agreement, which was signed in July 1996, will come into effect in
January 1997.
What is in this agreement? First of all, this free trade bill is more
concerned with goods than services. For example, customs tariffs
on industrial products of Canadian or Israeli origin will be
eliminated on January 1. Only swimwear-at Canada's
request-and certain cotton fabrics-at Israel's request-will still
be subject to duty for another two and a half years.
Low duties or no duties will apply to various products, especially
in the areas of agriculture and fisheries. These products include
grains and their byproducts, beef, maple sugar, alcoholic
beverages, and various processed components. Both parties have
excluded dairy, poultry and egg products, which will be the subject
of future negotiations to further liberalize trade in the agri-food
sector.
Like NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Israel provides for a
tribunal, a binding dispute settlement mechanism, which has
worked rather well so far in the case of free trade with the U.S. and
Mexico.
According to the government, the next step is to have the bill
passed by Parliament. Should this be done before January, the act
6107
will come into effect on January 1, 1997. I will get back to the
timetable and the process a little later.
I should point out that, according to the Government of Canada,
the sectors that will benefit the most from this agreement are the
grains and grain products industry, manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment, the environmental industry, and
other cutting-edge areas. Some sectors are excluded: neither the
Auto Pact nor cultural industries are affected.
Other areas of trade such as services and government
procurement would continue to be governed by the multilateral
rules being established through the World Trade Organization.
This is an overview of the agreement. As we can see, this is a
free trade agreement dealing much less with products than with
services. This is a first step in increasing trade currently worth
anywhere from $450 million to $500 million between Canada and
Israel.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are obviously in favour of free trade in
principle. I may remind my hon. colleagues that this has
traditionally been the position of sovereignists who, as a matter of
fact, strongly supported the implementation of the free trade
agreement between Canada and they United States. It was a central
issue in the 1988 campaign, with the sovereignists backing a party
that advocated implementing the agreement at the time.
Similarly, we supported the free trade agreement later expanded
to include all of North America, NAFTA. The purpose of these
agreements is to extend free trade zones for the benefit of
economies that specialize in areas where they have comparative
advantages.
(1200)
Everyone can benefit from free trade provided that companies
adapt and that they can specialize and be productive in areas where
the economy gives them these comparative advantages.
That said, the government must not forget that it has
responsibilities in terms of wealth redistribution and also regarding
the human rights situation, as may the case in any number of
agreements. Trade must be pursued, free trade must be promoted,
but not at the expense of our global responsibilities as individuals
and as a society.
Speaking of the pro-free trade position held by sovereignists, I
cannot help but recall the last campaign fought by the Liberal
Party, which now forms the government. At that time, the Liberals
were against the free trade agreement with the United States and
promised to renegotiate NAFTA.
Today, a few years after they came to power, we see that they
have been converted to free trade, obviously inspiredby sheer
common sense. It makes us very confident in the future to see that
the Canadian people generally seems to understand that there is a
future in relations as extensive as possible with different countries,
whether it be Israel, as is now the case, or Chile.
Some day we will talk about the expansion or the preservation of
the economic zone between Quebec and Canada which is, and I
stress it, 135 times more important than trade between Canada and
Israel.
What is positive in this agreement? The development of this free
trade agreement between Canada and Israel will enhance trade.
Trade relations will be increased and there will be increased ties
between the two countries. That being said, we should not think
this will be enough to influence the State of Israel with regard to
the peace process in the Middle East. We must be careful not to
jump to such conclusions.
Many people think that the strengthening of economic ties is a
good way to influence the internal policy of our trade partners,
down the road, because there will be more dialogue. It is desirable,
but it is certainly not enough.
We are aware of the position of the Israeli government which is
not not facilitating the peace process in the Middle East, far from it.
This peace process is very fragile and has not been working very
well lately. There might be a perception-and this is important in
the political world and in the everyday world-that this free trade
agreement between Canada and Israel is be some kind of support
for Israel. That is the most negative aspect of this agreement.
Speakers from the government side are telling us that we have to
understand the difference between the two. This could have been
specified through the various amendments moved in committee, by
the Bloc members among others. These amendments were aimed at
setting out, in the free trade agreement itself, Canada's foreign
policy position.
It has to be understood that the agreement applies in the territory
of Israel, including the Palestinian territories, and therefore that it
will apply also in the territories Israel claims as its own, but that the
international community would prefer to have dealt with during
negotiations between the State of Israel and the Palestinians. They
have not been a party to this process, but they will now be included,
and that could be an advantage with this free trade agreement.
It should not be forgotten that, in the Canadian foreign policy,
the occupation of these territories is considered illegitimate. The
Canadian policy on this issue is that Canada does not recognize
permanent Israeli control over the territories that have been
occupied since 1967. These territories include the Golan Heights,
the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip. Canada
condemns any unilateral action to predetermine the outcome of
negotiations, including those on Jewish settlements, and to annex
East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Canada considers these
6108
actions are contrary to international law and do not in any way
foster the peace process.
(1205)
So, we have two separate policies, one on foreign affairs, and the
other one on international trade, that run in different directions.
The agreement does not even mention disagreement over Israel's
policies. This is a weakness on the part of this government that is to
be found in many areas of its foreign policy concerning human
rights in general. This is a position of weakness, an
acknowledgement of failure and helplessness. It is almost as if
human rights are not a concern any more.
In many cases, this government has forsaken the international
responsibility it had taken up. It had become a major player in
various peace processes. Canada also had acquired an international
influence. Today, it seems that we are just giving up. We are hiding
behind this effort to make free trade areas wider, and we are
claiming this will eventually help us improve situations we would
like to change.
We should not be doing this right now, because we are sending
mixed signals about Canada's foreign policy concerning the peace
process in the Middle East.
Another complaint we have, and it concerns not only this
agreement, but all free trade negotiations, is that we are always
presented with a done deal, and there is not much we can do except
accept or reject the whole thing.
Because of the negotiation process used for these kinds of
agreements, Parliament, at least here in Canada, does not have a
major influence or impact, and the views of the public are
presented by their elected representatives during debate.
This is just a warning because I am sure that we will soon have
before us a free trade agreement with Chile and the same
negotiation process will have been used. A different approach
would probably have given us the opportunity to ask questions or
even to amend provisions or add parallel agreements on social
issues and the environment, as we did with NAFTA, to ensure that
those free trade agreements do not threaten our working conditions
or our environment in any way.
There is something wrong with the agreement between Canada
and Israel at that level. Maybe we can settle this issue in the future,
but for the time being we have to consider what we have before us.
I would like to remind the House that we will have to vote on the
agreement as a whole and that if Parliament does not pass the bill it
will delay the implementation of a very practical and nicely
designed agreement which has been negotiated and concluded.
Not giving Parliament the opportunity to have a greater and
more direct influence or impact on the negotiation of such
international agreements is not a very healthy way of doing things
in a democracy.
A word of caution. Canada has asked for protection for the
swimwear industry under this treaty, which means that duties will
remain in effect for another two and a half years. However, the
imbalance is due to the fact that Israel can buy supplies from the
European Economic Community, pursuant to the free trade
agreement it has with the EEC, something Canada cannot do. So,
the Canadian swimwear industry will be penalized or be at a
disadvantage compared to Israel to the tune of 25 per cent, because
Israel has signed a free trade agreement with the European
Economic Community.
We should be concerned about the potentially very negative
impact this could have on the swimwear industry, in Quebec in
particular. My hon. colleague from Terrebonne has raised this issue
several times but so far the government does not seem to be very
worried. Let us hope that behind this facade the government is at
least giving some serious consideration to the impact on the
swimwear industry, particularly in Quebec.
The Bloc brought forward a number of amendments and I want
to go over them because I believe they make of lot of sense. As a
first amendment, we wanted to include, at the very beginning of the
agreement, a declaration that Canada and Israel are committed to
human rights and the principles of democracy and that their
domestic and foreign policies must be based on that commitment.
(1210)
It was a word for word rendering of clause 1 of the free trade
agreement between the European Union and the State of Israel.
Canada did not even consider it a good thing to include this clause
in the free trade agreement between Canada and Israel. Why? The
question is legitimate, since that would have shown somewhere
that, while signing international trade agreements, Canada wants to
maintain its positive influence on the peace process and send a
clear signal to the State of Israel.
There is a second provision, in the suggested amendments, that
would have explained that Canada's signing does not sanction in
any way the position taken by the new Israeli government towards
the peace process. Canada's position is quite clear if one looks at
the foreign affairs policy, government papers and government
speeches. Thus, why not state it again?
I must remind you that the government does not recognize
Israel's control over the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East
Jerusalem and the Gaza strip. This could have been mentioned,
emphasized and indicated during the negotiations, where both sides
wanted to reach an agreement, so that everyone would be reminded
of Canada's position on its foreign affairs policy. In this way, trade
and human rights would not have been totally disconnected, as the
government seems to be doing.
6109
It is disturbing to see Canada shirk its responsibilities at the
world level for the sake of economic interests alone. There are
indeed limits to the benefits of economic development if this
development is not backed by actions on the part of a government
that assumes its primary responsibilities. Economic growth would
still exist without the government, that is for sure.
That being said, the government must ensure that growth occurs
in an orderly fashion, in accordance with the fundamental
principles of society, from redistribution of wealth to equal
opportunity, and respect for democracy. We must not abdicate these
values, which are the very foundation of the state, simply so that
some individual interests can benefit from agreements that could
go against collective interests if they are not related to the
fundamental workings of the state itself.
This is why the Bloc is worried about the schedule provided for
the passing of this bill, although we are deeply in favour of free
trade and convinced that there lies the future. Quebec is open to the
world and it always has been. In this regard, Quebec has been a
pioneer in Canada. Without Quebec, we could very well be only at
the ratification stage, or even only at the negotiation stage, of the
free trade agreement with the United States. Quebec played a major
role in the process that led to the signing of the free trade
agreement with the Unites States. I simply wanted to remind you of
that fact in closing.
However, I am reassured by the fact that the present government
has finally recognized the merits of free trade. It is reassuring for
Quebecers to see that the day they will decide to take over their
own political destiny they will have a free trade neighbour that has
an interest in its economic development and, for that reason, an
interest in negotiating with a partner with which its trade is 135
times greater than its trade with Israel. It is said that the volume of
trade between Canada and Israel is about $500 million, but trade
between Canada and Quebec represents more than $65 billion.
Understandably, under such circumstances, common sense will
prevail, but that being said we, as a society, must not forget our
responsibilities towards democratic values and human rights. I
hope the government does not abdicate those responsibilities.
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate you, since this is the first opportunity I have had to do
so, on your recent appointment. I know that you will add a great
deal to the civility of the debate in the House and that you will
ensure that members' privileges and rights are properly upheld.
Indeed, you will add greatly to the decorum of the House. My
congratulations on your appointment. It is long overdue.
My comments to the hon. member opposite again deal with
different approaches to the bill.
(1215 )
The first approach obviously has to be that the bill was done not
to benefit or to reward the Israelis or the Palestinians for any
particular behaviour. It was done because Canadian companies,
many of them resident in the province of Quebec had indicated they
were having great trouble competing in the Israeli market.
There was mention that the government of late has come to the
road of free trade and the member is correct. However, we have
always indicated that when trade deals are done, that Canadian
interests must be vigorously debated and defended during the
negotiations. I think we have done that in this deal.
I am somewhat troubled by the approach by some members of
the hon. member's party on this deal that because of the very
serious situation in the Middle East we should just forget this, take
the two years of negotiations and put the matter on hold until the
situation is further resolved.
The member should understand first that the trade deal is meant
to give Canadian companies access on an equal footing with their
competitors from the United States and the European Union in the
Israeli market. He also should know that the deal has been very
carefully crafted to ensure that whatever benefits accrue to
entrepreneurs and business people and the production of goods in
Israel also apply equally to the occupied territories.
The member also knows full well that Canada has been very firm
and very strong in its position with respect to the peace process.
Indeed, we have used our stature in the international community to
try to encourage both sides to get back to the table and deal one on
one, face to face and finally put this very tragic issue behind all of
us and bring peace to the Middle East.
I have pages of names of companies that deal with Israel. There
are companies from Montreal that produce products but if they are
destined for the Israeli market, they do not produce all of the
product. They send it to the United States for finishing, which
means jobs that Quebecers will not have. American workers finish
the product so that it can be shipped into the Israeli market under
the rules of origin requirement and it is given preferential tariff
treatment under the Israel-U.S. arrangement.
Surely the member must know that to further delay this matter
means lost jobs in Canadian companies that cannot be competitive.
Those companies that have decided they can be competitive have
gone south of the border and are literally exporting jobs from
Montreal, Quebec, from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and from
Winnipeg and North Bay. It is literally stopping the job growth
there could be if there was a level playing field.
Companies such as Price Waterhouse in Toronto have vigorously
supported the deal and indicated that it must go forward. There is
Nortel, and the Canada-Israel Industrial Research and
Development Foundation which we heard in committee. There is
the
6110
Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada. There are
Freed and Freed International of Winnipeg; Teleglobe Canada
Incorporated from Montreal; Pratt and Whitney in Ontario; and Air
Canada. The list goes on and on of Canadian companies that
provide jobs in the province of Quebec and throughout the
Canadian economy because they are competitive and when they are
given a level playing field they can get contracts which mean jobs
for Canadians no matter where they live.
In light of all the member has said, does he not see the downside
in not proceeding at this point? Does he agree with the position of
the Canadian government, that it is by promoting trade, by getting
Canadian companies and exporters into the Israeli and Palestinian
areas that we will be most able to show the benefits from the
normalization of relations in the political spirit as well as
economically for the peoples who live in the region?
(1220)
[Translation]
Mr. Brien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to certain
comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
International Trade.
He said something important in his speech. He said that the trade
deal was first meant to give Canadian companies access to the
Israeli market. He did say that was its prime objective. I understand
that, but what this also means is that the objective of putting the
peace process back on track comes in second or worse. Indeed, this
is typical of this government for which democratic values and
human rights always come in second when the time comes to talk
about economic issues in relation to respect for democratic values
and human rights.
In a sense, I am happy that he made things clear, but this does not
mean that we agree. The parliamentary secretary was clear and
frank when he said the agreement's prime objective was to give
Canadian companies access to the market in Israel.
He also said that it would benefit Quebec almost exclusively, if
we are to go by the list of Quebec companies he read out. I would
like to remind him that 80 per cent of our exports to Israel are also
food products, such as grain. We know full well that the west will
also benefit quite a lot.
Therefore, it should not be said that only Quebec stands to gain.
Of course, I am not surprised that companies from Quebec export
to Israel because Quebec understood long ago that the economy of
the future is turned towards foreign markets and free trade. I do not
want to debate this question further, but I am convinced that it is
normal that Quebec should export to other countries as well, even
countries with which we did not sign a free trade agreement.
The hon. member exaggerated a little when he said jobs would
be lost if the coming into force of the agreement was delayed. It is
as though people thought that without free trade there can be no
trade at all. Wait a minute. There is trade, but it is not as simple.
Even if duties are charged, there can be trade.
Let us take the example of Canada and the United States. Three
quarters of our trade was already liberalized even before the free
trade agreement. So people must not think that there is no trade
between countries if there is no free trade agreement. So to say that
jobs would be lost if we were to delay the implementation of the
agreement is going a bit too far. Perhaps it would delay the job
development process, which is a totally different thing. However,
as representatives of the people of Quebec and Canada, we must
not forget that Canada has a responsibility to protect human rights
in other parts of the world.
The adoption of this bill at this moment could be viewed as an
expression of support or at least would send a very ambiguous
message with regard to the peace process in the Middle East.
If the Liberals want so much to respect or to improve the peace
process in the Middle East, then why did they not accept the
amendments that were proposed? I remind them that the purpose of
these amendments was to include in the agreement, as in the free
trade agreement between the European Union and Israel, that
Canada and Israel are committed to human rights and the principles
of democracy and that their domestic and foreign policies must be
based on that commitment.
Such a provision exists in the free trade agreement between the
European Union and Israel. The inclusion of this commitment in
the deal would have been justifiable, as well as the inclusion of a
provision explaining that the signing of this deal does not mean in
any way that Canada supports the new Israeli government's
position with regard to the peace process where it is not in line with
Canada's foreign policy. This could have been mentioned as well.
This way, at least, we would have said that the Canadian
government continues to be deeply committed to these values,
which are the state's responsibility. But we can see that Canada has
reneged on that commitment and that its only objective, as
mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, is to secure better access
to these markets, whatever the circumstances.
Yes, the role of a government or a state is to promote economic
development, but not at any cost.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to take part in this important debate
today. First of all, I support the amendment proposed by the
Reform Party which would postpone the date on which the bill
would come into effect and refer the bill back to committee.
6111
(1225)
I would also like to say to the secretary of state that I was
surprised to hear him refer to the position defended by colleagues
on this side of the House as opposing the principle of this
agreement. That is not the point.
I know that the Bloc Quebecois, speaking for the majority of
Quebecers, has supported the free trade principle underlying this
agreement. However, this does not mean we cannot say that the fact
that these negotiations took place in secret may account for the
surprise apparently shown by the secretary of state today.
In the past, Canada has participated in international
peacekeeping operations. It has been praised for this. I would say
that the Bloc has been proud to participate in developing and, if
necessary, maintaining a foreign policy for Canada that is worthy
of that past. The government seems to want to sweep this fairly
recent past under the rug, as it lists the names of companies that are
pressuring the government to adopt this agreement. Is there not
something very ironic about all this?
Even in the United States people are starting to disagree with the
slogan that what is good for GM is good for the United States. Is
Canada now going to say that what is good for a number of large
corporations is good for Canada? In an area as delicate and
sensitive as the laborious peace process in the Middle East which
has now almost ground to a halt, prudence is of the essence.
The government cannot say this agreement is not a signal. It was
negotiated in the context of peace building. I may recall this
context: men and women put their lives on the line so that both
camps, the Israelis and the Palestinians, can visualize peace and
reach an agreement. This kind of peace would only be thinkable as
part of the development of Israel and Palestine. That in line with
this tendency Canada, like the European Union which has renewed
its agreement, should initiate and develop a negotiating process to
conclude a free trade agreement was entirely normal and in keeping
with Canada's history.
However, that Canada, following the latest incidents, regretted
by all supporters of the peace process and just a few days before the
sad anniversary of the death of Mr. Rabin, after initiating
negotiations and seeking to conclude the agreement in this context,
should say that this is just a business agreement does not appear to
be consistent with what Canadian policy has been so far. Such an
agreement cannot be dissociated from foreign policy, even if they
would have us believe that it is only a trade matter.
(1230)
Such a claim is impossible, it is not true. This agreement would
not have been negotiated if there had not been a vigorous desire for
peace, and if the path toward peace had not been sought and
attained, through the Oslo agreements at least.
What does the Bloc want now, then? Not for the agreement to be
set aside indefinitely. On the contrary, the Bloc believes that this
agreement can be a strong instrument of assistance, without
interfering into the internal affairs of either Israel or Palestine, in
order to send the message that the peace process is important to us.
This is the reason the Bloc Quebecois would have liked to
see-and this is a point it raised in committee-the addition to this
agreement of a clause that is included in the free trade agreement
between Israel and the European Union. Its article I reads as
follows: relations between the parties, as well as all of the clauses
making up this agreement, are based on a respect of the human
rights and democratic principles underlying their domestic and
foreign policies and constituting an essential element of this
agreement.
With this clause, the European Union can play a role which
Canada refuses to play, I repeat, which Canada refuses to play, by
signing this agreement, as if there were nothing to it.
Although we agree with the principle of this agreement-even if,
as I have said, it was negotiated in secret, as is the agreement with
Chile, as well-we have doubts about the timeliness of
implementing this bill now. At the very least, we want to see the
timing looked into.
We feel this is sending a message which we feel does not
coincide with what countries everywhere who are concerned with
the Israel-Palestine situation are trying to do in their foreign
policies. They are concerned because, this is my feeling, these two
peoples, these two nations, have suffered too much for this difficult
agreement we have arrived at not to be implemented.
What message would that send? Some claim that the Palestinians
had no problem with this agreement. We have asked for proof of
this. Until we are given proof to the contrary, however, we have our
doubts.
(1235)
I would also like to mention one surprising point. Earlier, the
secretary of state said that businesses want that agreement to be
signed as soon as possible and declared that jobs could be lost if we
do not facilitate trade with Israel and Palestine.
Well, let me say that such statement seems to conflict slightly, I
repeat slightly, with what we have heard in Quebec these past few
months concerning the harmful effects of political uncertainty on
the economy. I am emphasizing that point because there seems to
be two different analyses, two different visions. On the one hand,
businesses are in a hurry to see the amount of trade and investments
between Canada and Israel increase but, on the other hand, those
same businesses are terribly worried about the Quebec situation.
6112
I would also like to point out that during the NAFTA negotiation
process, some parallel agreements were developed on environment
and labour. We could call it a social clause process. But there is
no such thing in this agreement with Israel, although it would be
important.
In conclusion, I will simply say that in this instance they are not
striving for such parallel agreements which seemed so crucial to
this government. Let me remind you that the Liberals ranted and
raved over the free trade agreement, saying it was unacceptable to
them; but now, they are promoting the agreement after having
reassured Canadians who were concerned about parallel
agreements on labour and the environment.
We could question their efficiency but there is a message there.
And what message could the agreement with Israel be sending if
not that Canada is abdicating its foreign policy, its traditional
policy of championing and promoting peace, that it is foregoing the
minimum requirements that the European Union demanded
concerning human rights and that it is not even asking for parallel
agreements like those that accompanied NAFTA. That is why,
because the measure would send the wrong message, I will support
the Reform Party amendment.
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest and I am a bit surprised that the hon. member has made
statements in this House that are patently false. They are not true.
The hon. member would have individuals believe that the
government proceeded with this bill somehow through dark
corridors in the dead of night and that parliamentarians were not
apprised of the process as it was under way. That is simply not true.
It is important when statements are made which are factually
incorrect that it is brought to the attention of the House and the
people who are watching this debate. Indeed the member opposite
asked why with such haste has this bill gone forward. I do not know
where she or her party has been of late but this is simply not the
case with this bill.
(1240 )
On November 23, 1994, quite a while ago I would say the
member, there was a news release. It was not done in the dark of
night. It was put on the wire for the English and French press across
the country which indicated that the Prime Minister and the late
Prime Minister Rabin officially announced the launching of the
trade negotiations.
On November 29 and 30, 1994 the chief negotiator for Canada
briefed the federal-provincial trade policy committee and invited
input from provincial governments, including the government in
Quebec City.
On January 14, the Canada Gazette published the official notice
requesting submissions from any interested parties.
On January 23, 1995 the Department of Finance wrote 35
companies and industry reps requesting comments and views
regarding negotiations, particularly on things like rules of origins.
Some of those companies were in the province of Quebec.
There were at least a dozen SAGITs, industry meetings that took
place, and those representatives are from the sectoral industries
right across Canada.
On June 23, 1995 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada distributed
a working paper on Israel's agriculture and trade to the
federal-provincial agricultural trade policy committee and the
agricultural food and beverage SAGITs, again representing that
particular sector right across the country.
On January 12, 1996 another news release: ``Canada and Israel
officials reach tentative agreement on the proposed trade deal''.
On January 19, 1996 the chief negotiator held a conference call
with the provinces. And so on and so on down until June 11, 1996
when the rules of origin negotiated provides update to all of the
provinces at the seed trade meetings.
On July 31 a news release was made stating that Canada and
Israel signed the free trade deal.
In addition to that, the Bloc Quebecois caucus, the Reform Party
caucus, the Liberal Party caucus and anybody who had an interest
was offered a briefing by the senior officials who had negotiated
this deal.
In addition to that, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs,
on which we have three members from the Bloc Quebecois, did a
vigorous examination of this bill.
The second thing she indicated, which I find misleading, is that
the government is hiding something in this bill, otherwise why did
it not pass the amendments of the Bloc Quebecois. I will tell the
member that if her House leadership, at least those individuals in
the research bureau who are supposed to know about proper form
and content, would have looked at those amendments that were put
at committee they would have found that they were clearly out of
order. The reason those amendments were not put and voted upon is
they were not in the proper form. They exceeded the scope of the
bill. The chairman of the committee, who has as much authority in
committee as the Speaker does in this place, indicated quite clearly
that these motions were not in order. There was nothing nefarious
about that. Nobody changed clerks in the middle of the stream to
try to somehow subvert the rights and privileges of members of that
committee. It was all above board and done according to the rules.
6113
The last thing I want to say to the hon. member, which I think
is important, is this is about trade for Canadian companies. There
are real Canadian companies out there. Some of them may be in
Dartmouth, some in Montreal, some in Winnipeg or some in North
Bay, as I said before, that are having difficulty accessing this
market. To indicate that somehow the Government of Canada has
put trade ahead of those other very important issues like peace
in the Middle East belies the facts. This government and our
Minister of Foreign Affairs have been steadfast in his
determination to use the goodwill that Canada has abroad to
promote the peace process at every opportunity.
Concurrent with these negotiations and subsequent to these
negotiations, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister
and other ministers of this government have made it extremely
clear that it is Canada's wish and desire that the peace process
continue, that it get back on track and that there is a successful
conclusion to those negotiations.
With respect to human rights and other issues that the member
has raised, this government has always been concerned about
human rights but we fundamentally believe that a policy of
exclusion means that if there are human rights violations in any
jurisdiction they will only get worse. We do not follow that policy
with Cuba nor with a number of other countries. The members
opposite agree with the government's policy.
With respect to Israel and human rights, vis-à-vis the Israelis and
the Palestinians, the Canadian government has been very clear. We
have sent messages to both sides. We have said, in each and every
instance, that the solution to the problems in the Middle East and
more globally in other nations does not come from a policy of
exclusion and containment but from one of inclusion and dialogue.
Trade is one of the routes by which we can do that. We have done it
successfully in the past and we will continue to do it.
(1245)
I hope the member recognizes that members of her party have sat
on this committee and have contributed a great deal. They
understand what this is all about.
I hope that she will correct the record. There has not been an
attempt by the government to hide this very public deal.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, yes, once the deal was done it was
made public. This is not what I meant. What I said, and what the
committee members said, is negotiations went on behind closed
doors. On the one hand, what the secretary of state has just said
does not contradict this.
On the other, what he said about the firm stand the government
took with regard to the peace process does not contradict in any
way the fact that endorsing the agreement now will send the
message that we support the current policy.
I was happy to hear in what context negotiations started: in the
context of a slow and painful peace process which has been very
costly for both sides. These negotiations were meaningful then.
Even if, as I said before, they went on behind closed doors,
everything he said does not contradict this fact. Even if this is the
way the deal was done, we agree with it in principle, but we are
questioning the timing, and none of his answers are satisfying with
regard to the effectiveness of this agreement as far as the current
process is concerned.
The European Union will be able to intervene thanks to the
wording of the principle. We know that if the situation does not
improve, it will do so, whereas Canada will have signed an
agreement with no such provisions.
I have too much respect for the peace efforts. I had the pleasure
of being in Israel during the implementation of the Oslo agreement,
and of witnessing the peace process in action. I was able to see how
difficult it was, how deeply rooted in their history the settlers'
claims were. And it is because this process is so difficult that
countries, such as Canada, who might influence it and help the
democratic forces within to respect the Oslo agreement, must keep
up the pressure.
[English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
let me say how welcoming it is to see you in the chair. I know you
will grace it with honour, with distinction and with a sense of levity
as you bring calm, peace and quiet discussion to informed debate.
Welcome. I am pleased to see you there.
We are having a very important discussion on the Canada-Israel
free trade agreement. I would first ask my own constituency and
the people following this debate with so much interest to consider
that what I have to say first started with what my colleague, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade,
said so eloquently on this issue before the intervention of the
member for the Bloc Quebecois.
(1250 )
He outlined in a succinct way the importance and the value of the
nature of this agreement in the interests of Canadians. This bill,
first of all, was initiated because Canadians wanted a fair and even
playing field with the Americans and the Europeans.
We know what it is to have to work to an even and fair playing
field with our American colleagues, having been very much a part
of the NAFTA agreement. It is good particularly for Canadian
businesses in my riding where large companies have to
manufacture parts, not be able to complete them and put the value
added parts on because we did not have this kind of agreement. We
shipped the products to the United States to put a U.S. stamp on
6114
them even though they had been made here except for the last little
value added parts. In that way we could sell them at a reasonable
and competitive price.
Second, it is good for Israel because Canada has products that we
can sell there. They have products that we can buy here that are of
value to us.
Third, it is good for the Palestinians. The Palestinians have, at
this point, no exit route for the development of industry that is
indigenous to their part of the West Bank and Gaza. There is no
World Trade Organization agreement for any of the alliance
countries around them. Israel is the only democracy in that area
that has accreditation to the World Trade Organization, easily
referred to very often by the letters WTO.
The other thing that is so vital for us to keep in mind is that we
are Canadians in a Canadian government and we are masters of our
own internal relationships. We are not interested in having external
input into how we run our business.
Peace, order and good government is fundamental to all
countries as they see it and as they determine it. We are not the
Israelis, we are not the Palestinians. They, themselves, have to
come to some kind of agreement with the help of countries outside
their borders which are often there as peacekeepers, as the
Canadians have been.
I believe that Canadians have become peace makers. This
agreement is a ground breaking agreement with respect to the
Middle East, which is a flash point. It could have been a flash point
at any point in the history of the world and has so been.
The fact that we put into this agreement an acknowledgement of
the place and the role of the Palestinian people, the importance of
people working together in business, in trade who will, by just
merely getting together talking to each other and knowing each
other will in this inclusive environment move that dialogue toward
better relationships between people.
We all recognize this in Canada. We are a civil country with civil
discourse. There is a country that needs our example. By our very
presence in the field of trade and commerce, I believe we bring a
very important message. Our peace makers and our peacekeepers,
in whom we have great pride, have been in that country for over 26
years. We have the longest history there. We have a degree of
credibility, both with the Palestinians and the Israelis. That is an
added dimension.
I want to remind the Bloc and the Reform Party that we were the
first countries to do business with Cuba, to do business in the
Asian-Pacific area, to do business in countries that do not have
great relationships among their people, who are not as respectful of
human rights as we would like them to be.
I believe fundamentally that when you work with people, when
you bring your business culture and your business climate and your
business people in and exchange through dialogue and personal
relationships, you affect those relationships between the people
who are indigenous to that country. You are, by your very presence
as a role model, affecting change.
I believe that this agreement, the Canada-Israel free trade
agreement, is very necessary for that part of the world, is most
important for Canadians and is going to be enabling of the
Palestinians.
(1255 )
I was in Israel to monitor the Palestinian elections. I met with
many Palestinians. I talked with them in east Jerusalem. I met with
them in Ram Allah. They all knew about this trade agreement. Is it
not interesting that they knew last year and the other side of the
House seems to be just now finding out about it?
My colleague from Dartmouth has outlined all the steps since
November 1994 that have been ongoing in the development of this
free trade agreement. According to another colleague in the House
who is an expert on international trade, it is an extraordinarily well
drafted document. I gather the Bloc and the Reform Party
acknowledge that, accept that and would like to move forward
given the time.
Timing is not up to us. What is up to us is to be present to enable
a propitious moment to effect change. Although this free trade
agreement is not a reward for Israel it certainly enables Canadians,
Israelis and Palestinians.
As an aside, I found it quite rewarding to watch the minister of
trade, Natan Sharansky, signing and sending the letter. We realize
the world has changed dramatically when we see an immigrant
from Russia, an open country, who has been in Israel for barely
four or five years and is now a minister. That is a democracy of
which we can be proud.
It is the same with many people in this House who have come
from very diverse backgrounds. They have come as immigrants to
our country and are now here leading our country as ministers. We
see the same situation reflected in the values and the democratic
principles within Israel. They find themselves in a very different
political milieu, political ambience than we are privileged to have
right here in this country notwithstanding some of the discomforts
and the concerns we presently live with.
It was very exciting to meet with the leadership of the women's
movement in Ram Allah. The women talked about the importance
of the development of trade links and business, both with Israel and
the potential Canadian agreement.
6115
My colleague from Dartmouth pointed out that we have not
heard one word from the Palestinians against this accord. We have
only heard from members on the opposition benches who seem
to be becoming the ministers for international trade for the
Palestinian people, which is a most inappropriate role for them
to undertake.
I have an addition to my colleague from Dartmouth's
chronology. I continue along his outline from November 23, 1994
to July 31, 1996. My addition looks particularly at the role that has
been played by the Palestinian people.
In 1995 there were meetings and telephone conversations
between Kevin Gore, Canada's chief negotiator and Abu Allah,
then Palestinian minister of the economy and still current deputy
minister Samir Huelella.
On January 12, 1996 and July 31, 1996 ongoing negotiations
were continued. Commercial counsellor Zeisler spoke with deputy
minister Huelella and other Palestinian authority trade officials
regarding the extension of benefits and requests meetings with
Minister Masri to formally present a copy of the free trade
agreement.
On September 3, 1996 commercial counsellor Zeisler met again
with the new Palestinian minister of economy and trade.
On October 20, 1996 commercial counsellor Zeisler,
Ambassador Berger and the First Secretary Barber met with the
Palestinians. Again there were technical seminars on November 6
and November 9 on the benefits to the Palestinians under this
agreement.
On October 27 there was another meeting. October 28, a letter
was sent to Minister Masri elaborating Canada's legislative
process. It was faxed on October 29.
The whole outline is one of openness. The ability to be involved
in this undertaking is quite exciting and interesting. As a last note,
we have given an example to the world. The Americans have
decided to follow the route Canada has undertaken with respect to
the inclusion of our Palestinian cousins who are found in the area.
(1300)
I would urge the House to look upon this free trade agreement as
positive in the interests of Canada, in the interests of Israel, in the
interests of Palestinians and in the interests of forwarding the peace
movement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
An hon. member: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on the
amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The chief government
whip has requested that the vote be deferred until 5.30 p.m. this
day, at the end of Government Orders. Accordingly the vote stands
deferred.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 4, 1996, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-62, an act respecting fisheries, be now read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I could say right
away that, indeed, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to the
bill of the century, since we are talking here about reviewing
legislation that dates back almost to 1868. However, I must say
first that the bill of the century is badly structured. I am surprised to
see that the fisheries and oceans minister took only 15 minutes in
this House, yesterday, to deal with a bill of the century.
You will understand all the fears and all the concern that one may
have about such a bill when one sees that the fisheries minister
gives so little time to such a bill, the bill of the century.
(1305)
I could add that, despite the fact that the minister seems to give it
so little time, I appreciate the relevancy and the usefulness of
reviewing and updating legislation dating back to Confederation.
Unfortunately, instead of taking the opportunity to solve the serious
organizational problems within the fishing industry, the federal
government is presenting us with a bill containing major
deficiencies.
I will have the opportunity this afternoon to instruct my other
colleagues in the House. The Bloc Quebecois hopes that, this time,
the Liberal government will be able to show a little more judgment
6116
and will accept to put partisanship aside to make Bill C-62
acceptable to fishermen.
This act being about fisheries, there is a need to get the fishing
industry, the fishermen, to see it as good piece of legislation. It is
important to do a good job about it, especially if no changes are to
be made to the legislation for another century.
I must say that, until such time as major changes have been made
to the bill, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose the principles set out in
this bill for reasons I will explain later.
For the benefit of my hon. colleagues and our audience, I would
like to say that Bill C-62 has four parts. Part I deals with fisheries
conservation and management; it creates a work system. Part II is
about fish habitat conservation and protection, and pollution
prevention; it contains a series of measures allowing the legislator
to achieve his goal.
Part III is administrative sanctions. Two fisheries tribunals
would be established to look after the administration and
implementation of the administrative sanctions. Finally, part IV of
the bill deals with administration and enforcement. Basically, part
IV describes the working of the administration.
I told you how shocked I was when I saw the botched job the
government had done with its fisheries legislation. I would like to
start my remarks by recalling the three main reasons why Bloc
members will vote against Bill C-62 at second reading.
First of all, we disagree with the approach taken by the minister
in relation to fisheries management agreements. These agreements
are covered by part I of the Fisheries Act. Second, as the bill stands,
not enough powers are being delegated to the provinces, which
flies in the face of the management agreements provided for in the
same act. I will explain a little later.
The third reason why we disagree with and will vote against this
bill has to do with Part III concerning the establishment of fisheries
tribunals to manage administrative sanctions. These tribunals are a
smoke screen that will allow the minister to maintain control over
sanctions. Those are the three reasons why the Bloc Quebecois will
oppose Bill C-62.
I would not want to overlook another reason related to Part II,
which deals with habitat conservation and protection, but I will let
my colleague from Laurentides tell you about this later. I think that
Part II as drafted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
directly encroaches on environmental matters under the
jurisdiction of the provinces, including Quebec. I will let my
colleague elaborate on this.
To get back to the heart of my speech, I will try to explain the
reasons.
(1310)
I spoke to you earlier about management agreements. We did not
think the minister should propose management agreements. For the
benefit of the members present in this House and the people
listening to us, I could perhaps quote part of clause 17, whose title
is ``Fisheries Management Agreements''.
Subclause 17(1) provides that:
17. (1) Her Majesty in right of Canada, represented by the minister, may enter into
a fisheries management agreement with any organization that, in the opinion of the
minister, is representative of a class of persons or holders.
That is to say, licence holders. It is not known whether the clause
refers to licence holders or fishermen, but the word ``persons'' is
used.
What I find greatly irritating-and I fear the fisheries sector will
feel the same way-is the discretionary nature of subclause 17(1),
which specifies right away that fisheries management agreements
can only be signed by the organizations or individuals invited to do
so by the minister.
In my view, this bill shows a dichotomy. A little further in the
documentation on the new fisheries act, a link is made between
fisheries management and partnership agreements. Mention is
made of a partnership with the fisheries community. Well,
partnership should equal transparency. There is an obligation to
earn the trust of those they want to work with.
If, at the outset, the minister has the discretion to decide who he
will invite to take part in the management agreement, the whole
thing seems to be unfair, it is not fair play, as we say in the industry,
for the other partners or players sitting at the table. Those people do
not know who will be invited and when.
In other words, the minister always knows who will be invited,
but at any time he can come out and bring another partner into the
management agreement and that is when he could jeopardize the
beginning of the partnership set up by the players already involved.
This is the first problem.
I want to stress this issue because we are at the very beginning of
the revival of the groundfish industry. What I am trying to say
about subclause 17(1) will be seen as a precondition to the revival
of the cod fishing industry. Let me explain.
The fisheries resource advisory council recommended quotas
representing, year after year, close to 10 per cent of the catches
registered previously. This means that not everyone will be able to
start fishing again at the same time. It means that someone will
have to decide who will start fishing and who will go first.
6117
So, the first problem I see with this so-called bill of the century,
since the old one was passed 100 years ago and needs to be
modernized, is that the minister will have to make a
recommendation in mid-December.
How is it that he did not take advantage of the tabling of his bill
to at least write a clause somewhere to tell us that the minister or
the cabinet, the executive body of government, could establish the
rules to determine parameters thereof. There is absolutely nothing
on that subject. If we are not able to plan for the short term, it will
be at our door tomorrow morning, or almost, how can we expect to
live another hundred years with something that is still at the
minister's discretion, since the delivery of licenses is still just as
discretionary? It was a ministerial privilege.
(1315)
Fishermen will need to know that and that it is not visible.
I always make a comparison with the reopening of the cod
fishery, which many are hoping for next spring, after the
moratorium established in 1993 by the department.
When the moratorium was established, the department talked
about a rationalization of fisheries. Fishermen said that maybe the
way to do so was to make their trade a profession. Fishermen put a
lot of work into that issue. There is nothing in the bill about a
legislative framework for professional status.
Surely the multitude of officials surrounding the fisheries
minister have undoubtedly heard the fishermen's demands; how is
it that there is not one iota of this in the bill or a reference to the fact
that it will be done soon. No, there is nothing at all.
You will note that I find that, in the first paragraph only, the
minister should have mentioned two little things, that is,
professional status and a definition of the essence of fishing. He
could have told us in this clause how he sees the future, but no,
there is nothing about that either.
In the same perspective-and I would like to help people see
whether the minister is clear or not and whether he has understood
the wishes of the fishing community-when a moratorium was
imposed on the cod fishery, fishermen said that, when that fishery
would reopen, they would like more versatility. What did it mean?
It meant that they would be able to catch different species, which
seemed logical to me since there is always a risk of accidentally
catching other species.
However, when we are talking about management agreements,
we are talking about a group of individuals who will be invited to
develop management measures for a particular fishery and to
harvest that resource. How will people who are not part of the
group be allowed to join in? Will it be by designation or on the
minister's discretionary advice? If such is the case, what
confidence will the people who developed the agreement have in
this agreement? I am not talking about excluding people. I am just
asking how new people will be included in such a group. There are
methods for doing that, and I will be happy to give the minister a
course on that subject.
I want to raise a second point with regard to these management
agreements. Paragraph 17(2)(d) refers to the obligations,
responsibilities and funding arrangements with respect to
management of the fishery. But just before that, paragraph 17(2)(c)
says that Canada or Her Majesty may collect fees for the issuance
of licences.
That is exactly what Nova Scotia fishermen are contesting right
now with regard to the lobster fishery: the increase in their fishing
licence fees. All fishermen in Canada know that fishing licence
fees have been raised by 300, 500 or even 1,000 per cent in some
cases.
These increases have hurt fishing communities and have had a
devastating effect on the economic activity in these communities
because that is money taken out directly from their economy.
(1320)
In clause 17(2)(d) of the new bill, the minister immediately
announces that, in order to have access to a particular fishery, you
will now have to sign or you will be invited to sign a partnership
agreement, but, on top of that, you will have to pay new fees related
to management and protection of this resource. As it stands, this
does not resolve any of the fisheries' organizational problems, but
it does one heck of a job of resolving the department's financial
problems.
The minister has come up with this clause, and this bill, to sort
out his own problem of organization. He sets up a screen, he
appoints a committee, he can add as many players as he likes, and
to cap it all he sends them a bill.
What is the benefit to fishermen in all this? How does it help the
fishery? I repeat, it is the statute of the century. The last one was
written in 1868; it is now 1996 and we are about to be taken to the
cleaners.
With respect to financial costs alone, I would like to give the
example of the partnership agreements signed last year with
respect to the crab fishers in zone 12 of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Traditional crabbers worked like fiends, I have to say, with
Fisheries and Oceans officials over a long period of time. They
were working on a partnership agreement.
But last February, the new fisheries minister blunders in and says
``That has to go''. What happened? He brought in new players. I am
not contesting the right of new fishermen to come into this fishery.
What I have a problem with is the cavalier manner in which the
minister has acted. How can the traditional crabbers in the example
6118
I have just given trust a minister who scraps a partnership
agreement worked out by his own department. He is the boss, after
all.
And the crab fishermen. He brought in a new breed of shore
fishermen by the back door. I do not have anything against this, but
as I said with respect to clause 17(1), there must be a mechanism
setting out under what circumstances new players will be allowed
to join, something transparent for those around the table.
Imagine, the crab fishermen were preparing, for this year alone I
believe, to pay $500,000 to Fisheries and Oceans in shared
management costs. That is a lot of money. These people were going
to invest money without knowing how much ministerial honesty
and transparency there would be. If history repeats itself, how do
you think the fishermen will react? How will they react to the
minister's present request for a blank cheque?
I would like to raise another small point. I have spoken of the
first item: our position with respect to the way in which the
minister proposed the management agreements. I offered you some
examples to explain our opposition.
Now, I would like to speak about why we are opposed to the
wording of the clause concerning delegation of power to the
provinces, delegation I would characterize as insufficient and
contradictory.
In this connection, I would just like to point out that, at present,
the minister or his department is in the process of working on an
agreement in principle with British Columbia, precisely for the
purpose of reviewing the division of powers. Yet, with respect to
the division of powers referred to in the June press release over the
signatures of B.C. minister Glen Clark and the present federal
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, they indicated that everything
was on the table and negotiable.
(1325)
The delegation of power described in the present bill refers only
to transferring licensing, with the added bonus of any charges that
might be collected.
This is insufficient, if we are going to be coherent with respect to
fisheries-and I believe the B.C. Premier was when he said: ``Now
then, if we want to look at what is happening with respect to
fisheries, we must lay everything out on the table: licensing,
conservation, administrative rules. Coherence is necessary, for at
present, as everybody knows, a live fish is federal, but a dead fish is
provincial''. We must work to ensure that this industry has all the
same tools in its tool chest. When delegating, you cannot delegate
just the doorknob; you have to delegate the whole door, with
hinges, lock and key.
I gave the example of British Columbia perhaps for fear of being
criticized for talking about Quebec all the time. I will remind the
House immediately that, at the Victoria conference in November
1994, Quebec too asked for more power over fisheries.
If time permits, it may be a good idea to remind all the hon.
members in this place and the public as well of what Quebec
publicly requested and is still requesting, as repeated by Quebec
fisheries minister Guy Julien just recently, one or two weeks ago.
This public position has been reiterated.
Regarding stocks captured completely and entirely by its
residents, which basically means inshore species, Quebec was
asking for full administrative responsibility for fish stock
assessment, preservation or management policy development and
issuing of licences on the basis of allowable harvesting levels, as
well as control and monitoring of its fisheries.
To be effective in an area such as this one, you have to take a
top-down approach.
Furthermore, it was requested that the related budgets and
positions be transferred along with these responsibilities. This is
the kind of issue that can easily be settled through the transfer of
tax points. The Quebec fisheries minister was reaching out.
Looking at the federal minister's bill, I notice that he is trying to
resolve some financial problems. But Quebec's proposal would
have resolved both these financial problems and structural
problems in fisheries.
The other items requested by Quebec were that, regarding
underexploited fish stocks and stocks captured by residents of more
than one province, the federal government assume responsibility,
directly or through special agencies, for resource assessment as
well as the control and monitoring of the use made of this resource.
As far as these stocks are concerned, the preservation mandate
should go to an independent agency with decision making authority
set up by the federal government.
The Atlantic provinces and Quebec would designate
representatives from their respective industries as well as
government representatives to this agency.
Again, regarding the stocks caught by several provinces, point
(b) calls on the federal government and the provinces to establish a
multilateral process for determining provincial fleets' access to
fish resources. In other words, the quotas would be set before the
fleets went out to sea. This would be a good way of settling matters,
of being proactive. I think this kind of approach is occasionally
needed.
Under point (c), Quebec would be responsible for distributing its
share of the stocks among its own residents, and receive related
budgetary appropriations.
In other words, Quebec's minister of fisheries offered to resolve
many of the issues for his federal counterpart as long as he had the
powers to do so. In this regard, I am still in a good position to say
that the provinces may be better able to resolve fisheries-related
problems, since last spring-to get back to the example I used
6119
earlier-the current federal minister of fisheries was unable to even
make a dent in the troubles in the crab fishery.
I would suggest that he even poured oil on the fire by refusing to
meet with the parties in the fishing industry who could not come to
an agreement.
(1330)
Who restored public peace? Quebec's minister of fisheries, Guy
Julien, and New Brunswick's minister of fisheries, Mr. Thériault,
who bore the brunt of the fishermen's and factory workers'
discontent. The windows of his house were smashed.
It was not his area of jurisdiction but he had to settle the matter
himself. If there is any desire to be in the least consistent, when the
minister dares-either out of naivete or because people are thought
to be foolish enough to swallow such a thing-to draft something
like clause 9 on delegation of powers, with its insufficient
description of powers, when this spring he needed his provincial
counterparts to settle his problems, this is a real shame.
Still relating to the delegation of powers to the provinces, I
would also like to draw the attention of the minister, the members
of this House and the public, to the contradiction between a desire
to delegate powers to the provinces, as stipulated in clause 9, and
reference to fisheries management agreements as set out in clause
17.
In clause 9, what is delegated is not the power to issue licences
and to collect fees. Clause 17 on fisheries management agreements
is not subject in any way to clause 9. Thus, what will those
provinces wishing to take advantage of clause 9 have to administer
if, in another forum, the federal level, via its present Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, is signing partnership agreements with those
he himself designates, and who in his opinion represent the
fisheries? What power does he delegate to the provinces? An empty
shell.
I am getting carried away, but I see time is flying, and I would
not like to leave you without speaking of the third point which is an
irritant to myself and the Bloc members, part III of this bill which
addresses the creation of a Fisheries Tribunal, which I have just
now described as a smokescreen for the minister.
The purpose of part III, as described under the establishment of
tribunals, was to prevent Fisheries and Oceans, both the department
and the minister, from being judge and jury, in other words, from
hearing evidence that a fisherman had committed fraud or violated
a fishing regulation and then imposing the sanction right away.
I think that under any civilized system, every accused person is
innocent until proven guilty. What is being proposed here is this:
the fine will no longer be imposed by the regional directors of
Fisheries and Oceans, oh no, but by people we are going to appoint.
The minister is going to appoint people for a period of three years;
he will give them guidelines.
What is the difference between appointing a representative who
works under the supervision of the minister according to the
minister's guidelines, and the current regional directors of
Fisheries and Oceans? I do not see the difference. Perhaps the
Liberals do. The difference is that they will be able to appoint their
friends to these positions. That is obvious.
In fact, the only two criteria for being appointed judge of these
tribunals is-
Mr. Bellehumeur: To be a card-carrying Liberal.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): -to have a good knowledge of Canada's
ocean resources or a good knowledge of administrative decision
making.
I even heard someone say: perhaps to be a card-carrying Liberal.
Well, he might have to be a card-carrying member of some other
party when the time comes, but we want is transparency.
(1335)
I am not saying that people in the fisheries sector are
incompetent, but I want the process to be transparent. I want
fishermen and the people who make a living in this industry to be
judged with a genuine traditional system. These are not second
class citizens. They should not be judged by a second class court.
And especially not by friends of the party who will have to do
exactly what the minister asks them to do.
I may recall that three years is not a long time, so if you do not
do the job, my boy, they will put someone else in your place who
will do exactly what the minister wants him to do. That is how I
interpret this part and that is how it is written.
To conclude on this issue, what the minister is proposing to us is
a second-rate, parallel justice system. At the same time, he is
sending real judges, who have completed law studies and know the
system inside out, the message that they are doing a bad job. I am
not convinced the minister is in a position to teach them lessons.
If the Minister of Justice thinks that judges and lawyers should
be better informed, he should follow in Quebec's footsteps. When
Quebec amended its civil code, it invited all the judges in the
province to review the new parts of the civil code.
If the minister of fisheries thinks this is important, he should ask
the Minister of Justice to establish a process to familiarize
Canadian judges with the new fisheries act. I agree that the last one
dates back 100 years.
6120
The many points we raised show how important this is.
Fishermen are not second-class citizens. They have the right to
go to court, to benefit from a transparent, equal and equitable
justice system across Canada.
What bothers me somewhat is the perception by departmental
officials that fishermen are poachers. Fishermen are not poachers;
their goal is to catch fish at the lowest possible cost while
protecting the environment to ensure that this resource can be
sustained.
Again, regarding departmental officials' notion that fishermen
are poachers, who drafted the regulations? Who said that any cod
measuring less than 16 inches should be thrown back into the
water?
Fishermen cannot see the ocean floor, while the fish do not know
that fishermen are prohibited from catching fish measuring less
than 16 inches. So what should fishermen who inadvertently catch
fish measuring less than 16 inches in their nets do? If they bring it
back, they will become poachers and be fined by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. So what do they do? They throw the fish
back into the water. But if they throw it back into the water and
Fisheries and Oceans finds out, they are still poachers in the
department's eyes.
How can we establish a system that will treat fishermen not as
poachers but as people trying to catch fish in a cost-effective way
while protecting the environment so they can continue fishing year
after year?
(1340)
This may be a different subject, but let me tell you that, as far as
I can see, the tribunals certainly do not look like they will be fair
and impartial, given that they will be the ones making the
regulations, and I am not always sure that the people who work
there use their heads to make them.
My point, and perhaps some people will have a hard time
following, but what we must realize is that, as I said earlier, the
main problem with fishery at present is the need for a constant
relationship, the same tool box, so that all the fish caught by the
fishermen, and hopefully only the most mature fish will be caught,
all this fish can be sold. But we have just changed jurisdiction here.
Because dead fish is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Could we
not focus on seeing how fisheries will be commercialized, by
providing the fishing industry with the tools it needs to avoid
making blunders like forcing fishermen to throw their catch back in
the water?
We should work toward giving them the necessary tools. And if
the federal government does not have the authority required, it
should refer the matter to the provinces, because they are the ones
licensing fish processing plants, guaranteeing boat loans and, in
some cases, helping fund the construction of processing plants.
What is left for the federal government to be responsible for?
Issuing fishing licences.
As for conservation, I think that it is clear to everyone that stocks
overlap. We are prepared to share and to live with a central player
in the form of Fisheries and Oceans.
But for the province of Quebec or for Newfoundland, working
with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to conserve the resource or
working with NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization, boils down to the same thing. But what is better
about NAFO's rules is that they are respected by Canada and by all
other countries in the world, as well as in the provinces because
Canada is a member country. It would not be a heck of a lot harder,
and in fact would be that much easier, to get along in this respect.
I will therefore wrap up before I run out of time. I would like to
remind viewers that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against the
bill. I am nonetheless pleased to take part in discussions about a bill
that I described as the bill of the century, but I am saddened
because it is badly put together.
In review, there are three major reasons the Bloc Quebecois will
be voting against the bill at second reading. The first is that the
minister determines who may enter into management agreements.
This prevents fishermen from knowing all the players.
The second irritant, still in part I, concerns the delegation of
authority. In my view, the delegation of authority set out in clause 9
is inadequate, as well as contradictory.
The third point concerns the Fisheries Tribunal. I would call it a
front. It resolves nothing. The minister will sort things out quietly
himself behind the scenes.
At the start of my speech, I also criticized what I would call the
minister's lack of interest. And yet, at the same time, it is as though
he wants to ram the bill through. The best he could manage was a
15 minute speech yesterday in the House to launch the fisheries bill
of the century. In my view, this is a lack of respect for the fishery
and for the Canadian people. I think it is simply lacking in respect
to ram through in 15 minutes a bill that will not come up for review
for perhaps another 100 years. I hope to be able to meet with him
again to discuss this subject, because I am not certain that
Quebecers and Canadians will share his sentiments, in light of the
introduction he gave the bill.
(1345)
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address
Bill C-62. The bill gives sweeping powers to the minister to
manage the fisheries through ministerial orders, through private
fishing agreements, and it transfers authority to the provinces. The
6121
major question is does the bill address the real problems that are
facing the fishing industry.
First I would like to take a look at the west coast, where I come
from, and advance some problems that are facing the industry
there. I would like members to consider whether this bill will do
anything to alleviate those difficulties.
For example, I would like to quote from a document which was
prepared for congressional staff in the U.S. It mentions the
Canadian salmon fleet restructuring. It states that on August 9,
1996 a report by the B.C. job protection commission was released,
revealing that in the past two years the B.C. commercial salmon
fleet's decline has cost the provincial economy $180 million, with
7,800 jobs lost. At the same time, the provincial sport fishing
sector's decline has cost the economy $170 million, with the loss of
2,175 jobs.
By allowing the minister under the new act to give fish to his
friends, will that alleviate the difficulties identified in that report?
A document entitled ``Status of Anadromous Salmon and Trout
in British Columbia and the Yukon'', prepared by T.L. Slaney et al
for the American Fisheries Society's North Pacific international
chapter, attempted to give some idea to the public about the health
of fish stocks in B.C. The assessment found that 624 salmon stocks
were at high risk, 78 were at moderate risk, 230 were of special
concern and 142 were extirpated in this century. One hundred and
forty-two salmon species extinguished in this century alone. They
were unable to classify 4,172 stocks, or 43 per cent, because of an
absence of reliable data.
They go on to note that habitat degradation associated with
logging, urbanization and hydro power development contributed to
most of the 142 documented stock extinctions.
Furthermore, they say there is little doubt that overutilization by
commercial and recreational fisheries has in many cases resulted in
severe stock depressions that, when added to other factors, has put
many stocks at risk.
The question again is will this act somehow alleviate this
problem. I think not.
The preface to the bill notes that this is an act respecting
fisheries. The preamble says that the powers, duties and functions
of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans extend to seacoast and
inland fisheries. The point I want to raise is just how certain is the
minister's authority when it comes to this bill and as well to the
oceans act?
I would like to go back to December 1995. At that time the
oceans act was up for discussion. A House of Commons standing
committee received a notice from the president of Nunavut
Tunngavick Inc., the Inuit fishery organization in the territory of
Nunavut.
(1350 )
It advised the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that
sections 35 and 107 of the new oceans act, which was Bill C-98 at
that time, were ultra vires given the Nunavut Land Claims
Agreement. The NTI proposed the following amendments to the
oceans act. It proposed in section 30(5) that the governor in council
may make regulations (a) establishing marine protected areas with
approval of bodies established under land claims agreement where
required.
Section (b) would have said that the governor in council could
make regulations prescribing measures not inconsistent with
Canada's international obligations or the authority of bodies
established under land claims agreements for the conservation and
protection of fisheries resources and their habitat in marine
protected areas.
Clearly the Inuit of Nunavut interpreted their treaty as limiting
federal authority over legislation affecting arctic waters within the
Nunavut settlement agreement. The response of the committee to
this request was to acknowledge that regulations under the new
oceans act were to be limited by the terms and conditions of land
claims agreements.
The committee sent the following amendments to Parliament for
consideration at report stage of what was then Bill C-98. The
regulation then read in section 2(1):
For greater certainty nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or
derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of
Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Section 36(1) reads:
The Governor in Council, on recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, may make orders exercising any power under section 35 on an emergency
basis where the Minister is of the opinion that a marine resource or habitat is likely to
be at risk to the extent that such orders are not inconsistent with the land claims
agreement that has been given effect and has been ratified or improved by an Act of
Parliament.
That is to say, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
conceded that land claims agreements may constrain the ability of
the Government of Canada to protect a resource owned by all the
people of Canada. The question again is will this new act somehow
improve on that situation. Does it somehow allow that the minister
has the ultimate authority? No, it does not.
This will have a devastating effect on management of the
fisheries resource in British Columbia. We are looking at
approximately 40 treaties which are to be put together in the next
few years, each one of which will have the ability to overrule the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Obviously that makes the
management of fisheries unworkable.
The fisheries act, Bill C-62, which the government has laid
before this House, is a bill that will radically change the
management of the fishery as we have known it for over 150 years.
Bill
6122
C-62 gives the minister of fisheries unlimited discretion to carve up
the public fishery into private fisheries.
There is no requirement for any publication of the private
exclusive fishing agreements. There are no guidelines on whom
these agreements are to be with. The minister is given unlimited
discretion to make his own regulations, to organize the fishery by
ministerial decrees or orders. These ministerial orders can even
override regulations made by the governor in council. The
government can transfer its constitutional responsibilities for
fisheries management, enforcement and habitat protection to the
provinces without ever coming back to seek the sanction of
Parliament.
Before we examine the detail of the bill or the problems it should
address, this House would do well to remember some sage advice
from a former member of this Chamber, Stanley Knowles. He said:
``It is our experience in Parliament time and time again to think we
know what we passed when we gave final approval to a piece of
legislation only to find months later that things were being done or
restrictions were being imposed of a kind we did not believe
appeared in the bill at all. We try to find out what happened. We
discover that we had given authority to the governor in council to
make regulations for the carrying out of the purposes of the act and
that under this authority restrictive regulations were passed or
restrictive definitions were introduced of such a nature as to
produce quite a different result from the result we thought had been
intended''.
(1355 )
A recent report of this House issued another warning that bears
repeating. When delegated authority is broad and use of that
authority is not adequately supervised by Parliament, the implied
parliamentary control is absent and the supremacy of Parliament is
undermined.
I would like to refer to the bill and to some of those sections
which give the minister that kind of blanket authority to do what he
wishes. Clause 17(1) states:
Her Majesty in right of Canada, represented by the Minister, may enter into a
fisheries management agreement with any organization that, in the opinion of the
Minister, is representative of a class of persons or holders.
That is any group, whether they be friends of the minister of or
of the government, whatever, but there is no limitation as to what
that group should represent. There is no coming back to Parliament
for authority to enter into policy decisions which, as I will point out
later, will impact on the fisheries as it has been run since
Confederation.
Clause 18(1) states:
Before a fisheries management agreement is entered into, notice of it shall be
given to the holders or persons likely to be subject to it.
Again, no notice need be given to anyone other than those who
are going to be covered by it. The public at large does not need to
be informed.
Clause 19(1) states:
The Minister shall publish a fisheries management agreement in the manner the
Minister sees fit.
In other words, no publication or notice need be given of that
arrangement.
The adoption of a set of agreements between the crown and any
organization gives sweeping power to the minister to create private
fisheries out of the public fisheries of Canada. This would be the
first time since Confederation since this power has existed. All
fisheries law in tidal waters in British Columbia has so far
proceeded on the principle that all Canadians are to have equal
access to the commercial licences governing the fishery.
Apart from a brief period during the war when Canadians of
Japanese ancestry were denied this right, it has prevailed without
question.
A second exception is the recent incursion into the public fishery
by the AFS, but that was not provided for in the act and is probably
ultra vires of the act. It would not be ultra vires of Bill C-62.
The Speaker: My colleague, I am loath to interrupt your speech,
but I wonder if perhaps you could take your speech up at the end of
question period. Of course you will have the floor again. At this
time I would like to proceed to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
6122
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past weekend I attended a retirement celebration to honour the
45 years of service by Gord Rolling and 32 years of service by
Arnold Smith, more commonly known as Smitty. Both served with
distinction and dedication as firefighters on the Mount Albert
volunteer fire department.
In celebrating their retirement, it gives us the opportunity to
reflect on the contribution of all of our firefighters, particularly the
volunteers.
We are all thankful and grateful for the crucial service they
provide our communities. However, we may not be fully aware of
the hours taken away from families in fighting fires, assisting at
accidents, on training courses and other community activities. Nor
can any non-firefighter understand what it is like to respond to a
call in the middle of the night knowing the potential risk.
6123
We should all remember the extraordinary service these men
and women provide our communities and be mindful of the
sacrifices their families have made to support their good work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I
wish to pay tribute to a business woman in my riding, Lise
Brouillette. Ms. Brouillette, who has been Director General of the
Société régionale de développement économique des Moulins
since 1991, recently received the 1996 Prix Professionnelle en
développement économique du Québec in appreciation of her
contribution to the economic development of the des Moulins
region.
(1400)
As a woman very involved in the development of our region, she
managed, with her dynamic approach, to create several thousand
jobs and attract $50 million worth of investment since the
beginning of her mandate at the SORDEM.
Last year, Ms. Brouillette was awarded the Assiette d'argent de
l'Association des professionnels en développement économique du
Québec. This woman is an outstanding example of how to succeed
and a symbol of excellence for everyone.
Ms. Brouillette, the people of Des Moulins and the House of
Commons salute you. Congratulations!
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Liberals' words sound great but their actions differ: $87 million in
questionable corporate welfare to Bombardier; millions of dollars
in a questionable flag giveaway program; and more millions of
dollars on a questionable information office in Ottawa.
Meanwhile back on the west coast we see cuts; information
limited; automated light stations replace reliable manned stations;
coast guard vessels and operations are reduced, as are hatcheries
needed to rebuild endangered salmon stocks.
An unusually heavy October storm resulted in the failure of
several automated light stations leaving mariners and others who
rely on vital weather information to fend for themselves.
The decision to postpone closure of the Ganges coast guard
station was welcome but apparently has not changed the ultimate
Ottawa intention to relocate the station to Victoria. To replace a
fast, proven vessel located at the hub of maritime activity in this
very busy region with a slower vessel substantially removed from
much of that activity simply does not make sense.
This Liberal decision places west coast public safety and lives at
risk.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week marks National 4-H Week, a time to reflect on
the important work that 4-H does in developing one of our greatest
resources, our rural young people.
For nearly a century, 4-H has been giving young Canadians the
education, skills and support they need so they can grow up to be
contributing members of our society. Rural communities are a
wellspring of our economy providing the people and the resource
base that underlies much of our success as a trading nation.
One of rural Canada's leading industries, agriculture and food,
will create jobs and growth for our economy well into the 21st
century. The foundation for this growth is people who have a
wealth of creativity, ability and self-confidence to build our farms
and businesses. 4-H has a proven track record developing those
skills in our young citizens.
The Government of Canada will contribute $300,000 over three
years to 4-H activities. It is not only an investment in our young
people, it is an investment in the social fabric of our country and
the future prosperity of Canada.
I congratulate all 4-H participants.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, today I had
the honour to speak at a Remembrance Day ceremony for the
merchant navy war dead at the war memorial here in Ottawa.
During the second world war the government named the
merchant navy the fourth arm of the armed services and for good
reason. The merchant ships formed the lifeline to the free world.
They carried vital supplies of food, munitions and fuel. The
merchant navy became the designated target of the enemy and its
losses were the highest of all the war services.
Now in their seventies and eighties, only 2,900 remain of the
12,000 who went to war. They are veterans in name only without
equality of entitlement for disability pensions, health care and
other benefits.
I was disappointed that the Secretary of State for Veterans
Affairs was not able to attend the memorial service today. I call on
6124
him and the government to finally recognize the merchant navy
veterans as equals and to correct this injustice.
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
information is power. Yesterday through an innovative partnership
of the federal and provincial governments, the private and not for
profit sectors, Canadians were given a powerful tool.
New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna, Newfoundland and
Labrador Premier Brian Tobin and I launched CanWorkNet, a new
world wide web site to help Canadians find and secure the jobs they
want.
CanWorkNet will connect Canadians in all parts of the country
to information about jobs, planning their careers, upgrading skills,
accessing financial assistance and locating community services.
Whether I am talking with someone in Whitehorse or in York
North the message is the same. Information is a key element in the
decision making process. People need to know where the jobs are
and what the requirements are to get them.
CanWorkNet celebrates what is right with Canada: strong
partnerships, new technology and an ever growing modern
economy. Together we are working to ensure that tomorrow is
indeed better than today.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
talk of increased exports is taking on visible meaning in my riding
of Sarnia-Lambton.
(1405 )
Tomorrow morning hundreds of feet above the St. Clair River,
the iron workers of local 700 will put in place the final beam
joining the two halves of our second Bluewater Bridge in Point
Edward.
This new international crossing is clear evidence of the growth
of trade between Canada and the United States, and in particular,
Ontario and the Great Lakes states. With approximately 5,000
trucks crossing each day on the existing bridge, this second span
will be open for the anticipated surge of 10,000 trucks daily by the
millennium.
I look forward to joining with Councillor Barbara Horner, the
Commissioners of the Bluewater Bridge Authority and the
thousands of proud area residents in celebrating this new link.
Increased trade is not just a statistic, it is tangible in
Sarnia-Lambton, now the gateway to the NAFTA superhighway.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week a
socio-economic summit was held in Quebec, which has led to an
unprecedented mobilizing of resources for job creation and
economic renewal in Quebec. The vast majority of the principal
actors on the Quebec scene have reached a major consensus on
ways to stimulate economic growth and investment in Quebec.
Participants in the summit approached a host of subjects that are
important to Quebec society, including job sharing, family policy
and social economics. Furthermore, dozens of job creation projects
were presented, totalling more than $2.6 billion in investments,
which will create about 40,000 jobs in Quebec.
This summit, which did not forget the most vulnerable among
us, is a first step towards employment expansion and economic
recovery in Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Les
and Evelyn Browett from Langley, British Columbia, both in their
eighties, came to me the other day most distressed. Their total
income is from old age security and the Canada pension plan. It is
not much to live on these days thanks to the pathetic overspending
of Liberals and that other party.
Evelyn must have her teeth fixed because she is in terrible pain.
She and Les have been saving for several years to get the work
done and they now have some money but not enough. The interest
from that savings has just been wiped out retroactively because
health care premiums have been charged to them.
Why are Les and Evelyn treated worse than criminals in prison?
Why do Liberals and separatists and other MPs gorge on their own
lavish pension scheme while Les and Evelyn border on poverty?
When will Ontario and Atlantic Canada kick these Liberals out of
office so our seniors can live with dignity?
Please, are there any dentists in Langley, British Columbia
listening? Who can help Evelyn? This government will not do it so
let us do it ourselves.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the classic children's character, Winnie the Pooh, often
de-
6125
scribes himself as ``a bear of very little brain''. Well, Canada Post
has entered into a campaign of very little brain.
In promoting its series of Winnie the Pooh postage stamps,
Canada Post is also promoting the 25th anniversary of Walt
Disney's Magic Kingdom in Florida. Caps, T-shirts and stamps
with Winnie the Pooh in front of Disney World are available at your
local post office outlet as well as entry forms for a free trip to
Florida.
Countries around the world use postage stamps to promote what
they are proud of: national heroes, historic events and natural
beauty. So what is Canada Post promoting? Disney World. What is
next: McDonald's or Coca-Cola?
To use the much loved Winnie on Canadian postage stamps to
promote a commercial enterprise outside the country is exploitive
and demeaning. Is there no national dignity left? Can space be
bought on postage stamps to the highest bidder?
It is about time this Liberal government took our national image
more seriously.
* * *
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
year and over the previous five years, Canadians marked the 50th
anniversaries of the events of the second world war. The
anniversaries led to unprecedented media coverage of the
commemorative ceremonies for such historic events as the Battle
of Britain, the Dieppe landing, the Italian campaign, D-Day and the
end of the war. Across the country veterans organizations helped
communities stage special ceremonies and celebrations that
brought to mind the way of life of a different time, and the spirit of
dedication of those who served Canada.
We must not let go of that sense of respect for the generation of
the second world war now that the 50th anniversaries have passed. I
invite all Canadians to take time this Veterans Week, November 3
to 11, to reflect upon the contributions of those Canadians who
brought our nation through some of its most trying times and gave
it some of the proudest moments in our history.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-66 which amends the Canada Labour Code is in my view a fair
and balanced piece of legislation. There are several reasons for
this.
The first has to do with the process to produce the legislation.
Labour and management participated fully in the review process.
The second has to do with the contents of the bill. Unquestionably,
the most contentious issue to address was the replacement worker
issue and here we came up with a reasonable compromise.
The bill does not abolish the right of employers to use
replacement workers, however employers will not be able to use
replacement workers to undermine the union. It is the board that
will determine if an employer action constitutes an unfair labour
practice, not the union.
Collective bargaining is widely accepted in Canada by both
labour and management. This bill will improve the efficiency with
which the law is administered and enhance the effectiveness of the
collective bargaining process. It does nothing to alter the balance of
the labour-management relationship. In fact, it ensures a balance
will continue in a world of rapid change.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, from 1940 to 1944, Belgium, where I was living at the
time, suffered under the brutality and pillaging of the Germans.
When I was 18, I went underground for more than a year to avoid
being arrested by the Gestapo, because I had refused to go to work
in a company that worked for the enemy.
I then worked as a volunteer in operations conducted in Germany
to crush nazism and bring about its fall.
I mention these facts to illustrate my astonishment when I heard
yesterday that the lieutenant-governor of Quebec, a man who
symbolizes the supreme power in our province, walked around at
the time with a swastika on his chest.
I also want to express my indignation when I heard the Deputy
Prime Minister give another demonstration of her lack of judgment
when she justified this behaviour. Common sense dictated that she
should have said she was going to recommend that the Prime
Minister relieve him of his duties.
Fortunately, Jean-Louis Roux, who was more aware of the
seriousness of his action than the Deputy Prime Minister, has just
handed in his resignation.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over
the past 30 years dozens of Tory and Liberal politicians kept
promising Atlantic Canadians prosperity and economic growth.
This goal was to be achieved by politicians spending billions of
tax dollars on regional subsidies. Not only have these programs
failed to work, but as a new study by the Atlantic Institute for
Market Studies has proven, they have actually hurt Atlantic
6126
Canada. They have slowed growth in the Atlantic economy and
increased unemployment.
Furthermore, regional development programs like ACOA have
been used as political slush funds by Liberal and Tory governments
alike. That is why Reform would end ineffectual regional
development programs and instead would offer Atlantic Canadians
tax relief, a policy that has been conclusively proven to create jobs
and stimulate the economy.
This may mean fewer photo ops for Liberal cabinet ministers but
it will mean more real jobs for Atlantic Canadians.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House during Veterans
Week to salute the great veterans of our merchant navy, the
merchant seamen.
During World War II the merchant navy served under some of
the most dangerous conditions and hostile weather. Through their
efforts they maintained the supply routes which played a crucial
role in ensuring victory for our soldiers abroad.
However, these brave men paid a high price for their heroics.
During the course of World War II some 1,500 merchant seamen
were killed. In fact, approximately one in ten died on the high seas.
In light of their contribution to the war effort, the merchant
seamen will be participating in the remembrance ceremonies as
part of the VIP group which includes the army, the air force, the
navy and the merchant mariners.
We thank them all for their deeds. I salute these brave Canadians
who risked their lives so that we could live in freedom.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on the day after the socio-economic summit from
which they came back practically empty handed, the people of the
Outaouais are totally justified in questioning the PQ government's
attitude toward them.
In fact, PQ minister Sylvain Simard accused the people of the
Outaouais of being responsible for their lack of success at the
summit. He stated that they could not accuse Quebec of not doing
its share in the Outaouais while remaining uninterested in Quebec
and not getting involved, that if they did not adapt to Quebec, they
would miss the boat because the federal state would no longer be
there to compensate, that they should stop complaining and start
acting.
The minister's scorn for our region is unjustifiable. The PQ
government must stop its referendum vendetta against the
Outaouais and agree to give our region the same benefits as those
enjoyed by separatist regions.
* * *
(1415 )
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I would like to congratulate the Boys and Girls Club of
Ontario for raising over $90,000 toward scholarship funding for 90
youths across Ontario.
The Boys and Girls Club started a scholarship program in 1992
to cover the rising costs of post-secondary education faced by
many of their youth members. From an initial $4,000 and four
awards the program has grown to over $40,000 and 41 awards in
Ontario in 1996.
Within the riding of Victoria-Haliburton two youth members
have benefited from this scholarship program. Tracey Medina
hopes to one day work with children who have social and emotional
disabilities. She will be attending George Brown College. David
Stubbs has chosen to study recreational leadership at Humber
College and one day hopes to pursue a career with the Boys and
Girls Club. Both individuals are invaluable members of the
Lindsay club.
I would like to thank the Boys and Girls Clubs across Ontario for
raising the funding for these and other accomplished youth.
I wish Tracey and David all the best in their future endeavours.
_____________________________________________
6126
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Jean-Louis Roux has just resigned from the position of
lieutenant-governor of Quebec, in response to the pressures on him
to do so, ever since his anti-semitic activities during the second
world war were revealed.
This resignation was certainly the only possible solution under
the circumstances. Yet everyone is wondering how the Prime
Minister could have got himself into such a situation.
My question is for the Prime Minister. How can he explain
having made such a poor choice for the position of
lieutenant-governor of Quebec?
6127
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have accepted the resignation of Jean-Louis Roux as
lieutenant-governor of Quebec with enormous regret.
Jean-Louis Roux is one of the most honourable men in Quebec.
He has enjoyed an exceptional career in our province. He was
involved in all manner of causes for the defence of human rights
and freedoms in this society.
I would ask the indulgence of the Chair to demonstrate how this
man has participated in the advancement of human rights and
freedoms in Quebec. As early as 1947, he was involved in opposing
censorship in the Les enfants du Paradis affair. He was involved in
Radio-Canada's strike over the right to unionize. In 1965, he fought
class legislation concerning authors. He was even opposed to the
War Measures Act in 1970. He fought for freedom of expression
during the controversy over the play Les fées ont soif in 1978.
Way back in the 1950s he was one of the founders of Cité Libre,
in opposition to the regime of the day. He was a member of Artistes
pour la paix, Amnesty International, and the Friends of Simon
Wiesenthal, which helped people involved in tracing war criminals.
Such was the career of this man, Jean-louis Roux, one of the
greatest artists Quebec has ever known. Unfortunately, he made
one mistake-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, pardon me, but I
rarely take advantage of the House, and I am going to continue.
This is a most honourable man. Are there two standards in our
society? He was a federalist as well. I trust that some of those who
have written things about him today will have the courage to look
up what was written in Le Devoir during the 1930s and 1940s.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has only himself to be annoyed with.
He is the one responsible for the present mess.
(1420)
He is responsible for the mess and, like it or not, he will still
have to find answers to a number of questions to which the public
wants answers.
If the Prime Minister is so informed about the career of
Jean-Louis Roux, how can it be that his knowledge does not go
back further than 1949? It is what happened prior to that which has
shocked all the people of Quebec.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Roux has always spoken of that time in lectures and
radio or television discussions. He has taken part in public
discussions on radio and television explaining how Quebec society
has evolved from the thirties to the present.
He himself stated on one such program that he had made the
mistake of putting a swastika on his lab coat during his student
days, at the age of 19, and that he regretted this. He has stated
publicly that he regretted this enormously. He has also said it to me
personally. This was public, and not a question of a criminal act.
When we investigate people to whom we are offering positions,
we do not go looking into the darkest recesses of their personal
lives, we look at their record of honour as a citizen, and whether
they have a criminal record. In my opinion, Jean-Louis Roux had
an impeccable record, except that he had committed one error at
the age of 19 years while at the Université de Montréal.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister ought to have been more careful, since
his responsibilities require it, knowing what Jean-Louis Roux is
capable of saying. The Prime Minister will recall the odious
comparison he made during the last referendum. The Prime
Minister ought to have been more careful, more mistrustful.
How can the Prime Minister justify the fact that his sole concern
before appointing Jean-Louis Roux as lieutenant-governor of
Quebec was the services he had rendered to the Liberal Party of
Canada, rather than the irreproachable profile he ought to have
provided?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I invited Jean-Louis Roux to become a Senator, I did
not even know he was a Liberal. Even when I invited him to the
Senate, I said to him: ``I do not know if you are a member of my
party. If you want to sit-''
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I offered him a seat as an
independent. And, if we need to go poking into everyone's lives,
could the Leader of the Opposition tell me why people like Camille
Laurin and Denis Lazure were in Mr. Lévesque's cabinet, when
they had defended Count Jacques de Bernonville, the right hand
man to Klaus Barbie in Europe?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, to hear the Prime Minister, one would believe that Mr.
Roux should not have handed in his resignation earlier today. I am
somewhat surprised. Normally, before important appointments are
made, there is always an investigation conducted by the RCMP;
that is the routine investigation commonly called a security check.
Could the Prime Minister tell us today if he looked at the
RCMP's investigation report on Senator Roux before appointing
him as lieutenant governor?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am always apprised of the findings of security
investigations and, like the others, this one turned up nothing. I
based my decision to appoint Senator Roux on what I knew at the
time and, as
6128
everyone knows, I just listed a few of the many things he has
accomplished in Quebec society over the past 50 years.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has changed his tune a few times since
yesterday. According to his Deputy Prime Minister, he was 100 per
cent behind Jean-Louis Roux. According to what his press attache
said yesterday, the Prime Minister was not aware of Jean-Louis
Roux's remarks and actions. And today, the Prime Minister himself
tells us Jean-Louis Roux raised the matter with him.
(1425)
It is difficult to follow what the Prime Minister is saying. Let me
put my question in clear and simple terms: Will the Prime Minister
rise in his place and tell us today whether or not the routine RCMP
investigation on Senator Roux contained any reference to events
that took place in 1942?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I am saying is that this was a routine investigation,
and no one ever brought anything to my attention that might have
prevented Jean-Louis Roux's appointment as a member of the
Senate of Canada.
We spoke, yesterday evening. I did not raise this matter since I
knew nothing about it. He informed me of the facts now in the
public domain, that I shared with the House a moment ago. This
morning, he voluntarily tendered his resignation.
Yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage defended Mr.
Roux, whom I believe she described as an honourable man. Other
ministers did the same during media scrums and I stand by that
position. He made a deliberate choice to put an end to the
controversy and to resign; we did not ask for his resignation.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Jean-Louis Roux has resigned but Canadians are worried about the
government's mishandling of this issue.
They are having a hard time accepting why the government, and
yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister, tried to dismiss the wearing
of a swastika, which is the most vile symbol in history, as simply a
youthful prank.
What Mr. Roux did in 1942 is reprehensible but so is the
government's sidestepping of this issue. Instead of trying to deal
with it head on, incredibly the Prime Minister still defends him. I
ask the Prime Minister now: Will he admit that it was wrong for his
government to try to defend the wearing of a swastika? And will he
apologize to Canadians for his error in judgment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, nobody at all defended that. In fact, I said that it was an
error, and Mr. Roux himself said that it was an error which he
regretted.
Nobody said that it was a defensible thing. What the leader of
the-temporary leader, I guess, we do not see the leader very
often-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We said that it was an error
made by a young person 19 years old. We always said that it was an
error. The deputy Prime Minister never said that it was not an error.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I might
remind the Prime Minister that we had a few questions for him
yesterday about several things, although he was not here to
appreciate them.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: We are all even now so we will get on with
question period.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, we are even but I was the only one who
got cut off, you will recall.
The Prime Minister is here today and I am really glad to be able
to ask him a question. He is fond of saying that the buck stops with
him.
The Prime Minister personally appointed Quebec's
lieutenant-governor and if he did not know about Mr. Roux's past
he certainly should have. Since the truth has now come out, it
seems that he would much rather hide and hope things go away.
The sign of a good, strong leader is that if someone needs to be
fired, he gets fired. We never see that here in the House of
Commons. The Prime Minister always hopes things will go away.
Will the Prime Minister accept full responsibility for the
appointment of Jean-Louis Roux and will he admit finally, just
once, that he has made a mistake?
(1430 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have explained to the House of Commons all the
circumstances of the incident. Mr. Roux resigned today and I have
accepted his resignation.
I have to repeat that this man has served the population of
Canada extremely well. He is a great artist. He made a mistake 54
years ago when he was 19 years old. It is all in the past. I do not
believe anybody can take anything away from his great career and
his great service to the Canadian population and the people of
Quebec in particular.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we see
it spotted on the front rows here that this Prime Minister simply is
incapable of admitting that he has made a mistake. Why is it so
difficult to say I am sorry?
We have to move on from here, of course, because there is a
vacancy in the lieutenant-governorship of Quebec. Canadians
would like to think that the Prime Minister will take more care in
6129
appointing the next lieutenant-governor. The public and the
province should be consulted, and merit alone, not loyalty to the
Liberal Party, should the Prime Minister's guiding principle.
Now that the Prime Minister is ready to make another
appointment, will he consult with the public and the province
before appointing Quebec's lieutenant-governor, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will follow the rule that was established in 1867. It is the
prerogative of the Prime Minister to inform the premier of the
province but he has to take full responsibility for the appointment.
I have taken full responsibility for all lieutenant-governor
appointments I have made so far. In this case, I will repeat that this
man made an error when he was 19 years old but his record shows
very clearly to me and any objective person that he resigned
because he did not want to be the object of a controversy.
However, no one should take anything away from his great
contribution to the advancement of arts and culture in the province
of Quebec. He also participated many times at the Stratford
Festival in Ontario in a very eloquent way. It was fantastic to see a
francophone perform so well in a Shakespearian play.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's comments are rather ambiguous.
On the one hand, he tries to justify the former lieutenant-
governor's actions. He admires his great career and is sorry he
resigned. On the other hand, the Prime Minister tells us: ``I did not
know. It was not in the security report. I was not aware of these
facts''. He then tells us: ``The lieutenant-governor was courageous
enough to decide to resign on his own shedding a tear of regret''.
What we want to know is this: If the Prime Minister had known
the facts, would he still have appointed him? That is what the
people want to know.
The Speaker: The hon. member has asked a hypothetical
question, so I would ask him to please rephrase it.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I understand you are giving me
another chance to rephrase my first question so I can still ask a
supplementary. I appreciate your diligence.
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to ask the Prime Minister, what
we would like to know, is this: Does he think Jean-Louis Roux's
resignation in these circumstances is a good thing? Does he
approve of his resignation, his decision, does he think this is
proper? That is what we want to know.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, he resigned and I regretfully accepted his resignation for
the reasons I clearly explained to the House earlier.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister not agree that the Jean-Louis Roux affair adds to
the long track record of this government, whose motto is that
people are not guilty until they get caught?
(1435)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): There was
no question, so there will be no answer.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister and has to do with the use of government
credit cards by ministers.
Canadians are telling us that transparency and accountability are
fresh ideas they would really like to see in this Parliament.
Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said we had all the facts,
underline all. How strange then that more facts were released
yesterday to the press but not to us.
The former minister of defence unintentionally breached some
guidelines. He lost his job. The Secretary of State for Training and
Youth knowingly breached Treasury Board guidelines and she
continues to enjoy the support of the Prime Minister.
How does the Prime Minister decide which guidelines are to be
enforced and which are to be ignored?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we replied to these questions last week. The money has all
been paid back. There was the use of a credit card and every time
that it was used it was checked with the department and the
payments were made back to the government in a proper fashion.
No money was lost. It was just as explained last week. The
secretary of state made a clerical mistake involuntarily and all the
facts were submitted to the ethics counsellor who said that there
was no need for me to ask for a resignation.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that
Canadians still have some unanswered questions. Here are some
facts that are still needed.
Of the $9,700 whited out, $9,200 is still unaccounted for. There
are two and a half years for which we have no records. There is no
way of knowing which items were charged to taxpayers. There is
no way of knowing when personal expenses were incurred, how
6130
much they were and when precisely they were paid back. There is
no way of knowing how many other ministers are engaging in this
same type of abuse of their cards. There is no way of knowing what
the actual guidelines are-
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to please put his question.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, with the problems we have with access to
information and whiteout, will the Prime Minister commit to
tabling in this House full and complete documentation for the
entire period without whiteout?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
personal expenditures of the member are information that is of a
personal nature and is covered under the Privacy Act.
It is the role of the comptroller in every department to look at the
expenditures and to determine what is official government
expenditure and what is personal expenditure. That is what
happened in this case. There is no mystery to it. The comptrollers
have gone through it. All the money has been repaid.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Although the ceasefire declared unilaterally yesterday by the
rebel Tutsis seems to be holding, Zaire is still in the throes of a
major crisis, because the principal players hold conflicting views.
The Nairobi summit does not seem to have produced any concrete
results today, with Rwanda still opposed to an international force
being sent in.
In a context where Zaire is ruling out any peace talks until
Rwandan forces leave its territory, can the minister tell us what
efforts his government now intends to take to help resolve the
major crisis brewing in central Africa?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said yesterday, Ambassador Chrétien is now in Africa
to discuss with all parties the possibility of a meeting or a ceasefire.
The Government of Canada is prepared to take an active part in
Ambassador Chrétien's recommendations.
(1440)
At the same time, as I said yesterday, we are very concerned
about Rwanda's role, and I have asked my officials and the
ambassador to Rwanda to present Canada's positions to the
government of Rwanda in order to co-operate in all the efforts
being made to find a solution in the great lakes region of Africa.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, all players now agree on two priorities: obtain a lasting
ceasefire and open up safe humanitarian corridors.
Is the minister, or is he not, prepared to support the position of
the French government, which feels that the best way to ensure the
creation of such safe corridors is to send in an international force
by order of the Security Council?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it would be prudent that any decision about response into
the very troubled situation also involve the African states. There
should be full participation of those who are most immediately
affected.
It is a point of our own diplomacy and that of Ambassador
Chrétien on behalf of the United Nations to come up with
recommendations. One of the options or choices could well be
some form of safe refuge or safe corridor, but until those direct
consultations of the ambassador are concluded it is probably too
early for Canada to say exactly what it will do.
We are prepared and ready to respond to all requests that will
provide a solution to the situation and we can only wish God speed
to Ambassador Chrétien in the work that he is doing.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when a
top official at the CRTC opposes a bill that has passed the House
we should all be concerned. Civil servants are here to implement
policy, not lobby against policy passed by the members of
Parliament.
On September 23 this House passed Bill C-216, an act to outlaw
negative option billing. I ask the heritage minister again, does she
condone a top official at the CRTC's opposing Bill C-216,
undertaking actions to see this bill defeated in the parliamentary
process?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, I do
not accept the claim of the hon. member. In fact, over the course of
any legislation any member of Parliament in this place or the other
place is entitled to seek a briefing and indeed that was the question
in this particular case.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
seems to be a discrepancy in the minister's understanding and
mine. We will leave that as it is.
The reality is this minister is opposed to the passage of Bill
C-216. The Canadian Consumers' Association of Canada on
October 18, because it is concerned about that, wrote to her and
said: ``We are writing on behalf of Canadian consumers to ask the
6131
minister to send a clear public signal that you support Bill C-216,
the private member's bill''.
Will she undertake that she not only supports the bill, yes or no,
but that when it comes back to this House it will be undertaken as
an act of Parliament?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if you follow the logic of
the member it should not return back to this House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of
Finance.
Last week, when we asked the Minister of Finance to table his
bill that would amend the Income Tax Act, so as to eliminate the
use of family trusts as tax loopholes, he simply maintained that the
ways and means motion tabled had already taken effect. Of course
the motion takes effect when it is tabled, but subsequently, a bill is
required to amend the Income Tax Act.
Contrary to what the minister claimed last week, he must table a
bill to amend the Income Tax Act. Consequently, when does he
intend to table this bill?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week I said that when the ways and means method is used,
whatever is required in the Act to plug the loophole referred to by
the hon. member takes effect immediately.
(1445)
That being said, we intend to proceed with the bill at the
appropriate time, as usual, as soon as the House leaders on both
sides can agree on a time slot.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is prepared to offer its
immediate participation and co-operation. We are ready to support
the bill.
On the same topic, could the Minister of Finance promise that
this bill will provide a statutory and objective method to calculate
the guarantees required by Revenue Canada of millionaires who
want to transfer their assets outside Canada, instead of leaving the
choice of guarantee t the sole discretion of the government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we intend to proceed in the usual way. I repeat what I said when the
leader of the opposition asked me a similar question. I said, and I
quote: ``If there is the slightest risk the Canadian government will
not be paid its fair share of taxes, we will require a lot more than a
notice of waiver. We will require a bond, a debenture, a valid
security for ensuring that the taxes will be paid''.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
In view of the fact that Canada is about to conclude a free trade
agreement with Chile, can the minister indicate the state of
negotiations for labour and environmental side agreements to the
accord?
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure
the hon. member that the Canadian government has pursued very
aggressively the necessity of having side deals both on labour and
the environment in talks with the Chileans. I would like to inform
the member that to date the talks have been very positive and we
are very happy with the negotiations. There are some outstanding
issues and until those outstanding issues are completed, the deal is
not done.
However, on the issue of labour and side agreements at this point
we do not see any problem with those side agreements holding up
an overall agreement regarding the Canada-Chile free trade deal
at some time in the future. That of course is pending the successful
resolution of some of the other outstanding issues.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday an
experienced police officer was moved to tears after viewing reams
of child pornography, confiscated in Kirkland Lake, showing little
children being raped and sodomized.
Is the justice minister comfortable knowing that as a result of
legislation enacted by him and his government the perpetrators of
these heinous crimes may never see a court room or never do time
in prison? Is he comfortable with that?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what that question
means. But I do want to take the opportunity to congratulate the
police in Ontario who are responsible for the very excellent job of
finding the people responsible under very difficult circumstances.
I am not sure what the question means. If the hon. member is
referring to the sentencing process in this country, perhaps he could
tell us, if he is concerned about sentencing, why he voted against
our Bill C-41 which provided for tough sentences for violent
crimes. Perhaps he could tell the House why he voted against our
bill which strengthened the Young Offenders Act by doubling the
maximum penalty for first degree murder. Perhaps he could tell us
6132
why he voted against Bill C-68 which provided for mandatory
penitentiary terms of four years for those who use guns in crimes.
Perhaps he could tell us something about that.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of course the
justice minister knows full well that it is Bill C-41 and the
provisions of that bill that I am referring to.
Since the passage of that bill, which I call the ministers go soft
on crime law, a man who raped his former common-law wife is
walking free, a man who pointed a gun at his wife and fired it at her
is walking free, a man who broke into a home, beat three dogs to
death and set a truck on fire never even saw the inside of a court
room because of that legislation.
(1450)
I ask the justice minister what he has to say to the victims of
these crimes.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is no doubt part of the Reform
Party's false start. It is going to get its members about as far as
everything else they have done in the area of crime and justice by
coming to this House and picking facts out of isolated cases,
distorting their message and pretending they mean something they
do not.
When we came to this House with Bill C-41, which distinguishes
between violent and non-violent crime, which provides for tough
sentences for people who harm others, Reformers voted against the
bill.
When we came to this House with changes to the Criminal Code
to make it clear that those who use guns in crime would go to
prison for mandatory minimum time, they voted against them.
When we came here to say that those 16 and 17-year olds who
commit crimes of violence under the Young Offenders Act will be
tried in adult court unless they satisfied the onus, they voted against
it.
If anyone has any explaining to do about their position on violent
crime, it is the hon. member and his colleagues in the Reform
Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The new Canada-United States tax convention came into effect
on January 1, 1996. It penalizes low-income earners by depriving
them of 25 per cent of their American pensions. On May 6, the
minister assured us he was looking into the matter.
Since the minister recently met with his American counterpart,
is he now in a position to give the assurance that a satisfactory
solution to this matter will be found before the end of this year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the hon. member's question because this is certainly a
matter that concerns us all. The member knows full well, having
pointed it out himself, that I met with my American counterpart a
month ago. Our officials are currently working on this matter. They
intend to meet with their American counterparts before long.
I remain optimistic but, unfortunately, I am not in a position to
tell him when a solution will have be found because it will all
depend on what the other side does.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): The
clock is ticking, Mr. Speaker. It is the daily bread of those
concerned we are talking about here.
Just today, there was a report in Le Soleil on one of the many
individuals facing this problem. This person was quoted as saying:
``My monthly cheque for $400 has been cut by $110'', leaving only
$290 per month to live on. ``They have taken away whatever little
leeway I had left. I cannot make it under these circumstances''.
Thousands of low-income earners have been deprived of an
essential basic income for ten months. What concrete steps does
the minister intend to take in the short term to find a solution?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
simply to repeat what I said, I am appreciative that the hon.
member raises this issue.
It is an issue that has been raised by many members on this side
of the House, in fact on all sides of the House. There is no doubt
that as a result of this action Canadians from coast to coast have
been unfairly treated.
We have brought this matter to the attention of the Americans. I
have met with the secretary of treasury twice. It is as the result of
action taken by the American government that this situation has
arisen.
We are negotiating with them. Our officials have met with them
on numerous occasions and are going down again within the next
couple of weeks.
Unfortunately I am not in a position to say when we will arrive at
a solution, but it is uppermost in our minds. It is a priority. It is a
priority I am sure for this House. I will draw that to the attention of
my counterpart.
6133
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
The $87 million awarded to Bombardier through technology
partnerships Canada is supposed to represent one third of the
contributions required for the RJ-X project. Yet at the time of the
announcement the board of directors of Bombardier had still not
given approval to the project.
Why did the minister commit $87 million of taxpayer money
before Bombardier was prepared to make a commitment to the
project itself?
(1455 )
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not quite sure what his question is intended to show,
but if they do not want the money we will not force it on them, I can
assure him of that.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a serious problem when taxpayers are providing money and
interest free loans to a company which is profitable and they are not
provided with the details of the repayment or of the money to be
gained. In fact, the minister still refuses to provide details on
previous moneys given to that particular company.
Will the minister tell Canadians today when they can expect
Bombardier to repay the $87 million and what rate of return can be
expected from the money that has been given to Bombardier?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if it were that simple then we would not be involved in
this project using technology partnerships Canada.
What this program is intended to do is create opportunity by
participating in risky projects for research and development that
will create products which will sell on the world market. We
expect, based on our own projections of sales of the RJ-X, that we
will be fully repaid and, in fact, that we will be more than fully
repaid by this project. However, it is a risky project. That is why it
is important, if we want to create jobs in high risk, high technology
areas, for the government to be there.
If we can sell more than projected we will make more money. If
we sell less than projected we may not make as much money. That
is the way business works. However, the important thing is that
jobs are going to be created. Twenty-seven hundred jobs will be
created or sustained by this investment. That is the kind of project
we are looking to support.
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec's artists reacted with enthusiasm to a recent announcement
by the Minister of Canadian Heritage that she will increase funding
for the program to assist development of sound recordings during
the next financial year.
Could the minister explain her reasons for thinking that her
initiative will encourage the development of the Canadian
recording industry?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the recording industry
pours $1.2 billion into the Canadian economy and employs 16,000
Canadians.
As a result of the announcement we made this week, 2,000 new
jobs will be created, and since we are always trying to create jobs,
when we realized that exports have increased 175 per cent in the
last decade, we intend to work even harder on this.
* * *
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the government house leader.
The Quebec Election Act provides under section 40.92 that the
chief electoral officer of Quebec may release information
contained in the permanent voting list for Quebec to Elections
Canada, for the purposes of drawing up a similar list.
Why does the federal government refuse to use Quebec's list,
which is already ready to be used at this time, and instead insist on
doing its own enumeration?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the subject is now being considered in the Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs. I am looking into the point that was raised by
the hon. member. It is quite possible that an amendment will be
tabled in response to his concerns.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The minister
has been promising to put forward tobacco legislation since March
of last year. He has also said that somebody in cabinet is holding up
the tobacco legislation.
Who in cabinet is holding up the tobacco legislation and why?
6134
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is clearly mistaken.
There is no hold up.
(1500 )
He already knows that the consideration that is impacting on the
legislation is dictated largely by the Supreme Court decision of last
year, by the blueprint document, the consultations that have taken
place, the 2,300 submissions that have followed and the desire to
put forward legislation that will be effective, that will not end up in
court and that will do what the minister and this government has
promised: to look after the health of Canadians and to ensure the
prevention of disease.
Those are the only considerations. We have indicated before and
we will repeat it again today, as I did in committee, it will happen
soon.
* * *
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
While the stock market is soaring and records are being set on
Bay Street, Canadians are setting records for poverty. Canadian
children are going to bed hungry. The unemployment rate is
unacceptably high and millions of Canadians are looking toward a
bleak Christmas.
What specific measures does the Prime Minister intend to
introduce in the very near future in order to alleviate child poverty
and to help the unemployed? The poor and the hungry children
need help now. The unemployed need help now. They cannot wait.
Can the Prime Minister indicate what specific measures he will
bring in before Christmas to give some hope to impoverished
Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows that as a result of the tremendous and
virtually unprecedented decline in interest rates over the course of
the last year, huge numbers of Canadians are now facing the
possibility, thank Heaven, of going back to work.
The conference board said today that as a result of the decline in
interest rates, it expects close to 330,000 new jobs to open up for
Canadians over the course of the next year. At the same time, the
hon. member knows that last year the working income supplement
for families with poor children was doubled. Credits for caregivers
were increased. We made it possible for young single mothers to
have day care so they can go back to work. We have increased
possibilities for disabled Canadians.
I would suggest that if the hon. member would look at the last
budget he would see a lot of things we have done.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Labour who will be aware that a number of
working men and women on Parliament Hill have been locked out
of their jobs. They have been asked to roll back their pay of $7.25
an hour. They were forced to train their own scab replacement
workers and some say now that they have no money to buy food for
their children.
What is the minister doing to stop Bradson from using scabs to
work on Parliament Hill and other federal properties and to end this
terrible dispute?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bradson was hired and
signed a contract with Publics Works and Government Services
Canada to protect Parliament Hill. Part of that contract was that the
company would continue to supply protection regardless of what
might happen. It is fulfilling that commitment because protecting
the House of Commons is considered an essential service.
* * *
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of the House
the presence in the gallery of the Committee on Constitutional
Matters of the Parliament of Finland led by Mr. Ville Itälä,
chairman of the committee.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
6134
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1505)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-62,
an act respecting fisheries, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Delta has 31 minutes
remaining.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-62 turns
Canadian fisheries law on its ear. As I indicated before the break,
all fisheries law in tidal waters in British Columbia has so far
proceeded on the principle that Canadians are to have equal access
to the commercial licences governing the fishery.
Apart from a brief period during the war when Canadians of
Japanese origin were denied this right it has prevailed without
6135
question. The second exception is the recent incursion into public
fishery affected by the AFS but that was not provided for in the act
and is probably ultra vires the act. It would not be ultra vires Bill
C-62.
Clause 17(2) is broadly worded. Fishing industries on both
coasts which are based on security of fishing licences would be
seriously destabilized by a whole new licensing regime. There is no
restriction in clause 17(2) to existing licence holders. Existing
licence holders in the fishery such as Pacific salmon or P.E.I.
lobster could be completely bypassed by a new licensing regime
pursuant to which new commercial harvesting licences are granted
to others such as aboriginal organizations.
Clause 17(4) is garbled in its present form. Is it a condition of
every commercial salmon licence that measures set out in the
fisheries management agreement relating to the salmon fishery be
complied with? Surely that is not intended. The wording should
make that clear.
Clause 18(1) should provide that notice be given to all persons
likely affected by the bill, so that all persons holding licences with
respect to the fishery affected by the agreement are given notice.
Clause 19(1), publication in any manner the minister sees fit is
not in accordance with the policy regarding publication of statutory
instruments. The exception set out in clause 22 is not justified on
the basis that those affected by it are to be given notice by some
other means.
Clause 20 discloses the true purpose and intent of these
agreements. They are in fact regulations but do not have all the
safeguards, including prepublication, to which regulations are
subject. Here we have a dispensing power which is something that
was disallowed without express authority of Parliament by the Bill
of Rights of 1689. It was disallowed then for the same reason that it
should be disallowed now. It places too much power in the hands of
the crown. The criminal law, of which all fisheries law is part,
should be applied equally to all citizens. The crown should not be
given power to dispense the law.
(1510 )
The right of equal access to the fishery or the public's right to
fish is an issue and a guarantee which goes back to the Magna
Carta. The Magna Carta prohibited the taking of this public right to
fish without the expressed authorization of Parliament.
The Constitution Act of 1867 incorporates the English
constitution into Canadian law. The Canadian courts, in a long
series of cases, have based the public's right of access on the
Magna Carta and the common law and have held that Parliament
must expressly remove this right if it is to be a valid taking of the
right. It cannot be done by the crown acting through cabinet, as was
done with the native only commercial fishing regulations enacted
in 1994.
The taking of the public's right to fish must be done through a
specific act of Parliament. I quote from the Attorney General of
British Columbia v. the Attorney General of Canada in 1913. It
said:
It has been unquestioned law that since Magna Carta no new exclusive fishery
could be created by Royal grant in tidal waters, and that no public right of fishing in
such waters, then existing, can be taken away without competent legislation.
That same term ``competent legislation'' was used by the
Supreme Court in three decisions handed down this past August in
which the justices noted that the public right to fish has existed
since the Magna Carta and it can only be extinguished or taken
away by competent legislation, in other words, by an act of
Parliament. That has not happened.
If the government intends to proceed with these management
agreements, and we think that there is a real danger in doing so
because those major policy changes should be made only with the
expressed consent of Parliament, I would recommend a caution be
put in place with an amendment. I would suggest that what we
should have here is a clause 17(5) which would state: ``That with
the exception of agreements pertaining to fishing for food, social
and ceremonial purposes, pursuant to an aboriginal or treaty right,
the class of persons or holders encompassed by an agreement shall
not be determined on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin,
colour, religion or sex''.
It is worth noting that such wording conforms to section 15 of
the charter. The point is that such agreements are now being made
pursuant to the aboriginal fishing strategy and are having damaging
consequences on the resource and on the industry. If an
arrangement is to be established by law, Parliament should do it
expressly so that the impacts are addressed and public input
provided through the regulatory processes as required by the
Statutory Instruments Act and by Treasury Board's federal
regulatory review process.
We must ensure that the broad powers given to the minister in
this bill do not amount to undermining the authority of Parliament.
The question must be asked again: Does Bill C-62 address the
real problems of the fishery? There is a rule of statutory
interpretation that states that any new statute or law is put by
Parliament to remedy an outstanding problem, or in legal terms, to
cure a mischief.
We know what the bill does, but does it remedy the problems we
all know exist in the fishery? This is the most important question
that can be asked in today's debate. Rather than rush to a quick
answer, let us examine the facts that are on public record very
carefully.
In the summer of 1994 the department's management of the
Pacific salmon fishery was revealed to be in total chaos. The
department's failures were not exposed by its critics in the fishing
6136
or environment community. The department's failures were
exposed in its own reports by DFO employees frustrated by the
failures they saw around them. One of those reports came to my
attention and I in turn brought the report to the attention of the
House.
Let me remind members of some of the chaos identified by this
DFO report. As we hear, let us ask if this new legislation will cure
any of these problems. Steveston noted that the ability to manage
the Fraser River aboriginal fishery has been seriously
compromised. The report states that bands have not been able to
abide by the terms of the AFS fishing agreement. It notes that the
monitors at the landing sites are unable to properly count the fish as
stipulated in the fishing agreement. This compromises the
mandatory landing program agreement and creates inaccurate data.
Does the new legislation cure any of these problems?
(1515)
In Fraser Valley East and Fraser Valley West noted reduced
capabilities to maintain proper control and accountability of the
fishery and a breakdown of effective management of the native
fishery on the Fraser River.
It notes that it was not possible to enforce the regulations
pertaining to this fishery. The following issues were not addressed
adequately: closure of the fisheries; mesh size restrictions; limited
mandatory landing site enforcement; and early sets. There is very
little effort directed toward enforcement of the terms and
conditions of the fisheries. Figures gathered to date for catch in
these fisheries should be given a very low confidence level.
In Fraser Valley East and Fraser Valley West licences were being
abused and in fact there was no catch monitoring enforcement done
on this fishery by DFO officers.
Bill C-62 will not address these problems.
Summary comments in that DFO document state that issues that
have received reduced coverage and in some cases no coverage at
all include: monitoring and enforcement of ceremonial licences;
illegal fishing and illegal sales activities; monitoring and
enforcement of the mandatory landing program, and providing
coverage to ensure the integrity of the program is maintained;
licensing, participant and gear restrictions verification checks. It is
impossible to effectively control this fishery.
Does the new legislation address these rather fundamental
problems identified by the department itself? The answer is a
resounding no.
After these and other reports publicly exposed the department's
mismanagement, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans went to
Vancouver to meet with his own staff. Here is what they told him:
The only thing conserving and protecting the fisheries is the Fisheries Act. If the
act is not enforced, there will not be any more fish put on the spawning grounds than
what is being put there now.
It is becoming obvious in this region that information on critical conservation and
protection issues are not being received at the highest levels of the department-it
seems as though the only issues that are dealt with are those that are politically
sensitive and receive much media attention.
Most major undercover investigations being conducted into illegal fishing and
illegal sales have come to an abrupt end.
Complete habitat investigations and large scale poaching investigations are not
being done.
These revelations led to a major review of the department's
management of the fishery in 1994. It was conducted by a former
Speaker of this House, a British Columbian of whom we are
immensely proud. I would like to quote some of Mr. Fraser's
comments.
(1520 )
Mr. Fraser noted:
That message is simple: if something like the 1994 situation happens again, the
door to disaster will be wide open. According to what the board found, one more
12-hour opening could have virtually eliminated the late run of sockeye in the
Adams River. Such an occurrence would have devastating consequences for the
Pacific fishery, delaying stock rebuilding efforts by years and bringing dire
economic consequences to the province. The board believes that the solution to this
problem lies in fixing the system. Unless all parties work together and manage much
more competently, the tragedy that befell the Atlantic cod fishery will repeat itself on
the west coast.
What brought us so close to disaster's door? The scenario has its roots in the
1992-93 DFO Pacific region reorganization. Cutbacks and budget reductions were
made to the extent that the department was left in charge without the clear lines of
accountability or necessary tools to enforce its regulations with any credibility. In the
midst of this confusion, the aboriginal fisheries strategy was beginning to take hold
and the early evidence suggests that it too was not working as intended. Once again,
there was confusion as to who was in charge, obviating effective enforcement.
Mr. Fraser notes that the board makes a number of
recommendations for improving the system in the area of
management. We urge DFO to exercise its constitutional
conservation responsibilities and not abrogate its stewardship of
resources under federal jurisdiction, something which this act will
allow for.
At page 63 Mr. Fraser notes: ``But to allow commercial sales in
other areas now would simply add to the opportunity to poach like
current pilot sales have done''. He confirms as well that these pilot
projects proceeded as a matter of policy but without any judicial
authority. Mr. Fraser recognized that these fisheries were taking
place without proper legislative authority.
On page 64 he says: ``There is no question that the introduction
of pilot sales under the AFS cause many problems and great
consternation among stakeholders''.
6137
On page 65 he notes: ``Several persons appearing before us
pointed out there were no problems of missing fish before these
programs were implemented''. He suggested that the solution was
to abolish the pilot sales.
On page 66 he states:
Mindful of the Sparrow decision, DFO must negotiate with First Nations on the
basis of mutual respect, always considering traditional native rights and customs.
Consultation and co-operation among First Nations should be facilitated through the
watershed process and in other ways. However, DFO has no right to transfer
Canada's constitutional responsibilities to protect the resource to anyone, native or
otherwise. This responsibility must be retained always by the Government of
Canada.
The government committed to accepting all of Mr. Fraser's
recommendations. There were no exceptions; it committed to
accepting all of them. Let us look at the government's record in
living up to its commitment to abide by Mr. Fraser's
recommendations.
I refer now to a DFO document which was a response to the
Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board. It was a critique by the
department on whether or not it actually lived up to the
requirements of Mr. Fraser.
The first recommendation of Mr. Fraser was: ``We recommend
that DFO retain and exercise its constitutional responsibilities and
not in any abrogate its stewardship of resources under federal
jurisdiction. Conservation must be the primary objective of both
fisheries managers and all others participating in the fishery. The
conservation ethic must prevail throughout and be adhered to by
all''.
The reported noted: ``Retaining and not abrogating: DFO
officials do not believe they have in any way abrogated their
responsibilities, but recognize there is a perception of this
particularly in commercial and recreational fisheries. DFO did not
directly respond to this part of the recommendation or the
perceptions or concerns that underlie it''. Mr. Fraser's first
recommendation in my view was probably the most important and
DFO just ignored it.
On the notion that conservation be a primary objective: ``Again,
from DFO's point of view, this is a problem of perception, not
substance''. I will deal more with that problem later. In fact, I dealt
with it earlier when I referred to the number of runs of sockeye
salmon which have been extinguished in this century.
The report with comment on Mr. Fraser's recommendation noted
that DFO did not achieve its escapement targets for Fraser sockeye
in 1995. It notes that there can be no conservation of Fraser River
sockeye salmon in the long run without equivalent care and
protection for the habitat on which fish stocks rely. In this light, the
pending expiration of key programs as the Fraser River action plan
and the funding base that has supported it in recent years is of
utmost concern.
(1525 )
Again, the government's response to these conservation
concerns is not to do something about them but to turn
responsibility for conservation over to the very people who are the
root of the problem, that being the provincial governments. The
provincial governments are responsible for urban development.
The provincial governments are responsible for roadways which
damage the fisheries habitat. They are responsible for poor forestry
practices which again damage fish habitat. The government's
response is to turn the responsibility for conservation over to the
provincial governments.
The second recommendation of Mr. Fraser was: ``We
recommend that DFO take immediate steps to initiate a process of
planning for the future of the fishery, addressing all critical
problems affecting conservation and sustainability through an
ongoing consultative forum. Among the problems to be considered
would be overcapitalization, user group allocation and ensuring
equitable treatment under law''.
DFO's own people in reviewing their progress in addressing the
recommendations of Mr. Fraser noted: ``To date, DFO has not
established a broad multi-stakeholder consultative process to plan
for the future and address critical problems affecting conservation
and sustainability. DFO has not identified the responsibilities and
composition it should have nor its relationship to existing
processes''.
Recommendation number three: ``We recommend that DFO and
the Pacific Salmon Commission adopt a risk aversion management
strategy because of the great uncertainty on stock estimates,
in-season catch estimates and environmental problems.
Conservation goals must be achieved before any other priorities are
addressed''.
The government's own people note that a risk aversion strategy
has not yet been developed. They say: ``We found in our evaluation
that DFO's actions were not the result of an explicit, well-defined
risk averse management strategy but rather were a response to the
unprecedented events of the 1995 fishery''. They note that DFO's
actions ``were not based on a well-defined risk averse management
strategy''. They state: ``The question of how DFO defines risk
averse and how risk averse is expected to promote conservation
must be addressed. Without this clarity, there is no way to test if
DFO's activities are in fact guided by well-conceived and
well-defined strategy or whether their activities in themselves
define what DFO means by risk averse''.
That statement is critical. It clearly demonstrates to the public
and to any reader just how clear it is that the department is not
operating from a clear set of principles, but rather making it up as it
goes along.
Recommendation number four: ``We recommend that DFO in
conjunction with provincial authorities, First Nations, commercial
and recreational fishery groups, implements, both in marine and
in-river areas, a revised system to ensure that catch information is
6138
timely and reliable given that accurate counting and timely
reporting of catch are fundamental to conservation. The system
must also include a more stringent paper trail wherein there must
be stricter control of landing and sales slips and a mandatory
retention of sales slips with fish through to retail sale or export''.
The government's own report notes: ``It is not clear to what
extent measures taken by DFO provide more reliable and timely
information and how much closer it brought DFO to the realization
of its data collection goals. The mandatory hail data still suffer
from reliability concerns. And while the landings and fish tracking
plan will improve the reliability, it will not address timeliness.
Overall, a fundamental problem is that DFO has not defined what
information it needs or more to the point, how much it is willing to
invest or demand others invest to get that information''. Again, this
act does not address this concern. It is not addressing the real issues
facing the fishery at this time.
Recommendation number five from Mr. Fraser: ``We
recommend that DFO explore the application of new technology to
collect information on stock levels and ocean areas in order to
supplement catch statistics''.
(1530 )
It says again:
As with measures taken in response to recommendation 4, it is not clear whether
and to what extent these measures have brought DFO closer to the achievement of its
data collection goals. The problem is that these goals are not well-defined.
That leads us to the difficulties. The department in this bill has
not clearly defined the difficulties which it faces.
In conclusion, Bill C-62 gives sweeping powers to the minister
to manage the fishery through ministerial orders, to enter into
private fishery agreements and to transfer authority vested in the
federal government by the Constitution to the provinces. This bill
should be quietly withdrawn, pulled off the parliamentary agenda
in the dark of night. Then, in the light of day, in full view of all
Canadians, discussion should begin to establish the principles on
which our fisheries resource will be managed.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-62, the new
fisheries law, will substantially modernize and rationalize the legal
basis for fisheries conservation and habitat management in Canada.
It is the first major rewrite of the fisheries act since the last century,
since the original law of 1868 in fact, and it will provide the basis
for a sustainable fishery for the 21st century.
This rewrite is long overdue. Fishery as an industry and as a
profession for the fisher people is changing. Markets are changing.
Technology is changing. The science of fishery is changing. The
law, in turn, must respond to these dramatic changes in our society
if it is not to become an unnecessary clog in our economic growth
and our community well-being.
A few weeks ago the House passed the Canada Oceans Act. This
bill is complementary to the Canada Oceans Act which stakes out
Canada's clear legal jurisdiction over its ocean areas.
With the revised fisheries act we are putting in place the
legislative machinery and processes needed to ensure that the
fishery resources of our oceans' heritage will be used responsibly.
We are moving to ensure that those resources are conserved, not
only for the present but also for future generations. We are moving
to ensure that people who work in the fishery can earn a decent
livelihood.
This legislation is in keeping with the best principles of law
reform. Its revisions are easy to read. It consolidates provisions for
which consolidation is long overdue. It makes possible a reduction
of up to 50 per cent in existing regulations.
Let us now examine the new fisheries bill in overview. Bill C-62
will allow for a direct voice for industry in fisheries management
through partnering agreements.
It will allow for a fairer system of administrative sanctions that
would replace many of the criminal proceedings now used for
infractions.
It will allow for an order power to set fishery close times and
catch size and weight limits, all these for use by federal, provincial
and territorial managers.
It will allow for the integration of the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act with the Fisheries Act. This will create a single
legislative framework for all fishing in coastal and adjacent waters.
It will also allow for a significant and long overdue streamlining
of regulations, with a reduction in volume by as much as 50 per
cent.
The emphasis in the new fisheries bill is on self-regulation and
self-reliance. It sets a climate for long term stability in the industry.
For too long Canada's fishery has been plagued by what we may
call a gold rush mentality. Self-regulation, self-reliance and long
term stability will help eliminate this capricious and ultimately
self-destroying attitude. The revised fisheries act will go a long
way to ensuring that the fishery of the future will be
environmentally sustainable and economically viable.
There are several other important legislative changes proposed
in Bill C-62 as we seek to adjust to the needs of a rapidly evolving
industry.
The legislative base of fisheries and oceans will be streamlined
by repealing statutes which have outlived their usefulness and by
integrating provisions from those into the fisheries act. The
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act, the Fisheries Development
Act and the North Pacific Fur Seals Convention Act are being
repealed. The few industry support and development powers from
the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act and the Fisheries
Develop-
6139
ment Act that may still be needed are being incorporated into the
fisheries act.
(1535 )
Archaic provisions in the fisheries and oceans legislation are
being eliminated. Much of that legislation has existed in one form
or another since the time of Queen Victoria. It is no longer
required. The great queen is long since gone and archaic provisions
continued too reverentially from the historical epoch now passed
should be replaced where they are no longer serving a useful
purpose. For example, many fishing seasons have passed since we
have needed the rules governing cutting wood and drying fish on
vacant public lots.
Bill C-62 also provides a legal framework for delegating certain
habitat management responsibilities to the provinces. To ensure a
consistent national standard for habitat protection, provinces will
be expected to comply with certain standards of habitat
management as set out in negotiated agreements. However, there
should be no misunderstanding about this. The Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans continues to retain full legal responsibility
for the conservation and protection of the resource.
The delegation to provinces of certain freshwater habitat
responsibilities is a major change from the version of the bill that
was tabled in 1995 and it responds to the government's
commitment in the 1996 speech from the throne.
The bill will not in itself transfer habitat responsibilities to
provincial governments. It allows the federal government to
negotiate on the delegation of responsibilities with interested
provincial governments. All parties concerned would be consulted
during these negotiations. The bill will enable the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans to delegate responsibility to provinces, to
authorize certain types of projects and to exercise day to day
management powers on provincial lands.
To recapitulate, this delegation of responsibility would eliminate
an existing overlap between federal and provincial processes and
also correspond with changes taking place in other areas of
governmental activity. The federal government will maintain its
full constitutional legal authority for prescribed projects.
Provinces would have a variety of powers, including the ability
to require the installation of fish guards, fishways and other
apparatus designed to protect fish, to require the removal of
obstructions to fish passage, to provide authorization of certain
projects of local concern. Regulations will set out a list of projects
that are to remain within the realm of the federal government.
Consultations with stakeholders will also take place to determine
those classes of projects requiring permits. The mandatory permit
provisions will replace subsection 35(2) authorizations as a trigger
for the federal environmental assessment process under the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
At the present time, the provisions of the fisheries act dealing
with physical alteration of fish habitat and pollution prevention are
scattered throughout the act. The amendments will group these
provisions together for ease of use. Once again we will be making
the machinery simpler to operate.
I should also point out what is not changing in the act. First is
pollution prevention. An important management tool currently
found in section 36 is the prohibition against unauthorized deposits
of deleterious substances. It is not being changed. Along with this,
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may request that ongoing
monitoring take place to ensure that where deposits are authorized,
they are carried out in accordance with the authorizations. These
provisions, administered by the Department of the Environment,
will not be changed in any substantive way.
Second is plans and specifications. The ability of the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans to require plans and specifications for
physical alteration or deposits of deleterious substances will be
retained. Provincial ministers will have the ability to require plans
and specifications where there has been delegation. The ability of
the minister of fisheries to halt projects with governor in council
approval will remain.
Third is flows. Also remaining will be the ability of the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, or a provincial minister where there has
been a delegation, to require flows of water over and through
obstructions, such as dams, to provide for the free movement of
fish up and down stream, and for the mitigation of effects on fish
habitat.
Finally, a word on penalties. Since the penalties for habitat
offences were updated and substantially increased, there is no
necessity to amend them at this time.
Let us now turn to partnering agreements. New powers in the bill
allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to share responsibility,
decision making and management costs with groups within the
fishery through long term partnering agreements. Shared
responsibility creates obligations for both parties, the stakeholder
and the minister. We emphasize once again that the minister
maintains ultimate legal responsibility for the conservation and
protection of the resource.
Here are some of the specific matters on which fisheries and
oceans and any representative organization would be able to enter
into a management contract: harvest limits and other conservation
and management measures; the number of licences; fees payable
for licence issuance and administration; obligations and
responsibilities of each party; funding arrangements with respect to
management of the fishery; conservation and management
programs for the fishery.
6140
(1540 )
To reiterate, under partnering agreements the responsibility and
legal authority for conservation protection of the resource remains
with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is both co-operative
federalism, federal-provincial as law in action but it is also the new
pluralism: government and stakeholders in community decision
making. The minister will also continue to establish intersection
and interregion allocations.
In future, fisheries and oceans should be better able to
concentrate on its core responsibilities relating to setting policy for
fishers and conservation protection of the resource.
In this bill we are recognizing that the industry is capable of
managing many machinery aspects of the fishery. The Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans is committed to developing integrated
management plans. Stakeholders will be encouraged to assess
whether the partnering arrangements meet their specific needs.
On the new licence and appeal system I stress only that in the
new system, the new tribunals are independent, at arm's length
from the government. It is a new approach to sanctions.
The Oceans Act established our international law power under
international law in the areas we have pioneered over the oceans
and elsewhere. The fisheries act, apart from its tremendous work of
codification, rationalization and modernization, provides the legal
machinery and processes for vindication and enforcement of those
international law rights in Canadian internal municipal law.
The Speaker: At the beginning you were not asked if you were
going to split your time but I have a note here that you are going to
share your time.
Mr. McWhinney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for
neglecting to advise you.
The Speaker: I thank you for the direction.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would have
liked the parliamentary secretary to speak a bit longer because I
have the feeling that we both could use more than five minutes to
debate this issue. Anyhow, I will try to get to the point with my
question, to limit myself to only one thing.
In his speech, the parliamentary secretary mentioned fisheries
management agreements. I spoke before the parliamentary
secretary and I said that the minister's arguments were flawed with
regard to the wording of subclause 17(1).
I do not know if the parliamentary secretary agrees with the
minister, but for my part, I have some experience with management
agreements called partnership agreements; partnership means
transparency, you must know who your partners are and let them
know what is up your sleeve.
I will give you as an example the crab fishermen in zone 12 of
the Gulf of St. Lawrence, who had negotiated such an agreement
with Fisheries and Oceans in February. This agreement was broken
because the minister used his discretionary power to allow new
players in. I have nothing against the arrival of new players per se,
but nothing in the act provides for their arrival.
What annoys me is that it says ``in the opinion of the Minister'';
letting in new players is within his discretionary power, it is not
information known to fishermen. The member opposite is also a
distinguished lawyer and he must know that to make a partnership
work, partners must share information.
In view of what I have said and given the example I described,
could the parliamentary secretary tell me whether he agrees with
the opposition that there are flaws in the bill as it stands now and
whether he will support the opposition to remedy them? If he
cannot see them now, he still has the whole second reading and
report stage to become aware of them.
(1545)
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I must thank the member for his
very interesting and well-researched question. We are now talking
about a new phase in the development of our domestic
constitutional law, since formal amendments to the Constitution
are so difficult.
I just spoke about the aspect of new pluralism of our system of
government, that is, the system of partnership involves very close
co-operation between different levels of government, between the
federal government and the citizens in the present case, but it could
also be between the federal government and provincial
governments.
During my speech, I said a few times that the constitutional
responsibility lies with the federal minister. However, the spirit of
co-operation would indicate that the essential element is very close
co-operation between the two levels and this is exactly what we are
implementing in the negotiations with the British Columbia
government.
We will examine specific cases when we get to the detailed study
of the bill but, for now, I agree with the minister on this point. We
accept this movement, this new pluralism, and we are trying to do
our best within this partnership with the industry and the
fishermen.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last summer the
Supreme Court acknowledged that since the time of the Magna
Carta there has existed a public right to fish. To date the commer-
6141
cial sales portion of the aboriginal fishing strategy has operated
outside the law.
This Bill C-62 will give the minister the right to discard 800
years of common law and allow for these private fisheries and do it
without proper debate.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to address that issue,
please.
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to return to the
question of the Magna Carta, of which our distinguished colleague
opposite has spoken several times.
One of the problems is that people quote documents but do not
read them in the original. This is not the hon. member's fault alone.
It is sometimes affects judges too. One of the problems of the
Magna Carta is that there is no single version of it and no single
language. The original Latin has been translated into Norman
French and from Norman French into English. However, when the
Magna Carta is read it does not really support the principle he is
referring to. I would suggest he go back to the direct sources. It is
the only source of wisdom.
Let us come back to this issue as far as aboriginal fishing rights
are concerned. This is to misunderstand the nature of this measure.
As I said at the outset, the oceans act and the fisheries act in
combination take Canada into the 21st century because they
establish, in addition to the act of codification, rationalization and
modernization, the juridical base in Canadian municipal internal
law with the international law rights that Canadian diplomats and
Canadian foreign ministers over the years have led. That is the
triumph of these bills.
The hon. member should not worry about the petit point needle
work at the expense of seeing the large design and the large step
into the 21st century that this project of the law represents.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and speak to a timely piece
of legislation, Bill C-62, an act respecting fisheries.
I would like to deal particularly with the habitat provisions of
these amendments to the Fisheries Act and to highlight their role in
the renewal of the Canadian federation.
The federal government currently has constitutional
responsibility for both marine and freshwater fisheries. It is also
directly involved in the management of freshwater fisheries only in
Atlantic Canada, Northwest and Yukon Territories and rivers in
British Columbia that are home to spawning salmon.
(1550)
Day to day management of freshwater fisheries has been
delegated to the prairie provinces, Ontario, Quebec and to British
Columbia for non-salmon waters through regulation and general
fisheries agreements. These provinces play a significant role in
managing fish habitat usually without formal agreements with the
federal government. The exception of course is Ontario with which
we have a memorandum of intent on fish habitat.
Federal habitat responsibilities are set out in the Fisheries ACT.
In this respect the objective of the act is a net gain in productive
fish habitat. To meet this objective three goals are pursued:
conservation of existing fish habitat, restoration of previously
degraded fish habitat and development of a new habitat.
Under the conservation goal the department tries to ensure that
adverse impacts on fish habitat are avoided by assessing projects
before they are built. These assessments can require the relocation
or redesign of projects to prevent damage. The Department of
Fisheries and Oceans strives to ensure that unavoidable loss of fish
habitat is balanced by habitat replacement on a project by project
basis.
Currently inland provinces manage fish habitat with minimal
federal involvement and often without clear direction or
accountability. This can result in several problems.
One is a lack of formal agreements with the province over which
projects should or should not require review by the department. For
example, one province may refer a small project to the department
for review, while a neighbouring province may not refer a major
project with potentially significant impacts on habitat. This leads to
inconsistent levels of fish habitat and an inconsistent protection of
fish habitat across the country.
Another problem arises from the discretionary nature of some of
the habitat provisions, notably section 35 of the current Fisheries
Act which prohibits the harmful alteration, disruption or
destruction of fish habitat unless authorized by the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans.
To avoid contravening the Fisheries Act, an authorization is
required only where a project will result in harmful effects to the
habitat. Therefore an offence can occur only when harmful
alternation of habitat occurs without authorization.
This is the way we have been operating up to the present time
and it is impossible to supervise. In addressing some of the
concerns that have been raised by the opposition, the way we are
operating now, it is impossible to supervise every single thing that
goes on in these coastal waters that are covered by the Fisheries
Act.
For example, when the Department of the Environment is to look
at such things as ocean dumping on the west coast we have tens of
thousands of miles of coastline on that rugged coast, as well the
islands and all the northern region. I am talking about the Arctic
Ocean region with the islands.
6142
Yet the Department of the Environment has only a handful of
people to inspect each project and all dumping that takes place
in the ocean. Something has to change.
Better habitat protection will result if measures to protect habitat
were included in project plans and specifications in advance rather
than through enforcement after damage to habitat has occurred.
Some of our opposition is questioning whether that is possible.
As an example, I was fortunate enough to be in Nanaimo, British
Columbia at a time when there was a very important meeting
taking place. Attending that meeting were project supervisors,
representatives from the federal and provincial levels and the
ministries of environment, outside objective consultants who are
experts in environmental affairs, a project engineer from the
municipality. Here was a partnership sitting around the table and
discussing the environmental impact on a golf course that that
community was planning to build. All the concerns of an
environmental nature were being addressed in advance.
(1555 )
These people co-operatively, in partnership, came to the
conclusion that certain major changes had to take place in the
major plans that were being presented by the company that wanted
to build a golf course right on the edge of a habitat for a very
important fish species. To me, that is a democratic model. That is
what we are pushing in this bill.
It is certainly preferable to prevent damage rather than repair it.
That is what this bill intends. The provinces manage habitat on a
day to day basis while the federal government retains decision
making authority. This could create uncertainty over which level of
government should be doing what.
Delegation agreements with the provinces under this bill, by
clarifying roles and setting out clear responsibility, will reduce this
uncertainty by improving habitat management and making it more
consistent across the country.
The new fisheries act would enable us to delegate to the
provinces the responsibility to make all decisions for certain types
of projects under a number of provisions of the fisheries act.
I am aware that some environmental groups are concerned that
delegation would weaken habitat protection and lead to a
patchwork quilt of habitat management across the country. I want
to assure them that the federal government will not delegate to
provinces that are not capable or willing to effectively meet
national habitat protection standards. The provinces will be
required to show that they are meeting these standards through
appropriate accountability which could include reports to the
federal government and through periodical federal audits of their
performance.
Agreements could be for a fixed period of time or before the
agreement could be renewed there could be a review to determine if
the requirements of the fisheries act had been met.
The question of habitat management standards is not on the
table. National standards will be maintained. However, we are
flexible about the specific arrangements that would be made with
the provinces. We are currently discussing the extent and scope of
delegation with the provinces, industry and environmental groups.
A major workshop will be held this fall to examine the best
approach to take in determining what type of projects or activities
should remain under federal authority.
In summary, habitat delegation will contribute to a more
effective federation by placing in the hands of each level of
government those responsibilities they are best able to carry out.
This will end uncertainty over who should be doing what. The
results will be more effective decision making that will not delay
development project unnecessarily and will simultaneously yield
better habitat management.
It is for these reasons that I intend to support the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe
my ears. I have run into the previous speaker before in committee,
but his comments make me feel like I am on a different planet. I
will try to explain why.
He went on and on about his fears regarding habitat protection,
how the provinces would not be equal to the task. Unless something
got lost in translation, but that is clearly what he meant.
He feared that the federal government might delegate some
rights to the provinces, thereby undermining federal control over
habitat conservation. I want to reassure him. Clause 9 in part I of
the bill-which I find irritating-provides that the delegation of
powers only applies to licences and related rights, that is to say, the
money that may go with this.
What intrigues me the most-and makes me feel like I am on
another planet-is the source of the new rights the minister gives
himself in part II on habitat conservation. They are encroaching on
the jurisdiction of the provinces, especially Quebec, which owns all
the water resources and hydroelectric dams within its borders.
People can figure it out for themselves. Is this his way of
compromising our entire economic development?
(1600)
This is not the worst bill of the century, but an attack against the
provinces.
Can the hon. member admit that the provinces have done a good
job in the past 100 years; that the federal government is interfering
in an area of provincial jurisdiction; that the provinces have done a
good job of preserving habitats; and that, if it wanted to make the
6143
new fisheries act fully consistent, the federal government should
delegate more powers in this area and amend part II as it now
stands?
All he has to do is compare the current version of part II with
what was in the old law to see there is a huge difference. This is a
major case of federal interference in an area of provincial
jurisdiction, and they dare tell us that they will seek our agreement,
that they will work in partnership with us. This is off to a very bad
start, and second reading is on the principle, and I do not hold out
much hope for principles.
[English]
Mr. Dromisky: Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand where
the member is coming from. Nowhere in my presentation did I
make any statement to support what he has just finished stating.
My hon. colleague from Quebec realizes just as well as I do that,
as far as fresh water controls are concerned and jurisdiction, it is in
the hands of the province. His province has been doing an
admirable job, as have a great number of other provinces, regarding
fish habitat within those fresh water bodies. That is what I was
referring to.
Most of my speech addressed fish habitats outside the fresh
water boundaries, in other words those in the salt water. That is
what I was directing most of my presentation toward.
The partnership will exist. There is no doubt about it. In my
presentation I clearly point out that most responsibilities will be
handed over to the provinces. There will be a conference this
coming fall where more clearly defined responsibilities will
emerge. There is no doubt about it.
Responsibilities that lie in the hands of the Quebec government
will not probably be identical to those that would lie in the hands of
British Columbia or some other province simply because of so
many differences, so many other factors that have to come into the
picture.
It is practically impossible to come up with a standard formula
or a standard set of rules and regulations for each and every
province. The member knows that and I know that.
As more discoveries are made, new information and new
knowledge emerges on the scene as time goes on. His province,
with its sense of responsibility, will do the best it can to take that
knowledge, information and technology and introduce it into the
environment or situation to be sure that the fresh water habitat, as
well as the salt water habitat, are protected and maintain a certain
level of productivity that would be beneficial to the people of
Quebec just as it would be in every other area of this country.
We hope for that, we pray for that and we have to ask the
member to guarantee that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great interest that I participate in this debate today on Bill C-62, the
fisheries bill.
This bill, which died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament as
Bill C-115, is back before this House. It proposes an integrated
approach to fisheries management in Canadian waters and adjacent
waters. It is the end result of a process to simplify and modernize
the fisheries legislation. The words simplify and modernize I just
used were certainly not intended to be taken in a positive way.
While these words generally have a positive sense, we do not
consider them as such and we will not therefore support this bill put
forward by the Liberal government. The fact is that there are
serious flaws in the four parts of Bill C-62, which my colleagues
and myself will address in greater detail in our remarks.
(1605)
True to their ways and their vision of Canada, always trying to
further centralize power and acting unilaterally, the federal
Liberals are once again breaking their promise to decentralize and
allow the provinces to play a more prominent role.
Last Wednesday, I watched on the Ottawa station of the CBC, as
Quebec's favourite minister, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, who is also a favourite of cartoonists, was boasting away as
usual about this great federation whose leaders are so committed to
carrying this whole decentralization effort through. This is all
rhetoric coming from the Liberals and their school bag packing
minister. Those who carry a school bag have to do their homework,
otherwise they fail. With their Bill C-62, they are flunking the test,
they are not swimming, they are sinking, which brings us back to
the fish.
The people opposite will not have it any other way, because
decentralizing and giving more prominence to the provinces is not
consistent with federalism, with the very basis of federalism.
The federal government is certainly not prepared to commit
hara-kiri. That is why they are all words and no action. It is
becoming a real joke when the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs uses all the words in his vocabulary, always the same few
words, to try to persuade us that Canada works.
This bill is part of the farce being played out by the ministers and
their great leader, who only swears by the red book and whose
promises have gone up in smoke. The first part of the bill clearly
shows that the regime for the protection and management of
fisheries undermines the best interests of the fisheries and the
workers whose livelihood depends on this industry. This part of the
bill provides for the conservation and management of fisheries.
6144
The various elements of this part of the bill raise a lot of
questions. The minister should have looked at what is happening
in this industry in Quebec and the rest of Canada. That would have
been the logical thing to do. However, the minister chooses to put
the cart before the horse by first setting the terms of future
fisheries management agreements, as is provided for in clause 17.
Some crucial elements for a relevant and appropriate review of
the issue have been left out. These crucial elements deal with the
core of the fisher people that needs to be defined and the
appropriate fishing guidelines to be applied in the future.
The depletion of the fish stock both in the Atlantic, where
ground fish are being threatened, and on the west coast has led to a
moratorium on fishing in the Atlantic and forces us to stop and
think about the difficulties the fishing industry is facing from sea to
sea. We have to sit down with all the stakeholders and get their
input to see what the future holds for the industry.
This bill ignores several important and even crucial questions for
the fishing industry and those who depend on it. The people the
minister had indeed consulted with are complaining because they
believe nobody listened to them. What good does it do to consult
the people if you do not listen to them? But we must recognize that
members opposite are past masters in the art of fake consultations.
For almost three years now, they have been having more and more
of them in all fields.
They use these consultations as a democratic screen. In fact, it is
the finance minister who started this new fad of fake consultations.
You will remember the finance minister getting off a plane and
running, hair flying, to consult on his first budget. Liberals suffer
from a ``chronic fake consultation syndrome''. They consult to
look good while their plans are already drawn and their decisions
are already made.
Ministers keep all powers at the expense of all concerned. The
whole population of Canada even saw how the Liberal leaders
acted this way, a couple of weeks ago, at their last national
convention. A fine democracy where the die is already cast. This
bill is no exception to the Liberal smokescreen strategy.
(1610)
Indeed, clause 17 really gives the Minister of Fisheries unlimited
powers, which will make him the sole master of the fishing
industry. He will be able to sign fisheries management agreements
with any association that, in his opinion-and I repeat-in his
opinion, represents a class of licensees or people.
These agreements can determine the maximum catches, the
number of licenses, the rights that can be levied by Her Majesty,
the obligations, responsibilities and funding measures concerning
fisheries management and the applicable conservation and
management programs. The minister can even establish guidelines
for the tribunal on decisions to take in case of a severe violation.
With clause 17, the minister gives himself all the powers and,
unfortunately, this is not necessarily in the interest of those
primarily concerned, since the minister can make almost any
decision without any consideration for them.
If the minister makes a bad decision in terms of resource
allocation as a direct result of a lack of consultation or findings on
the fisheries situation, he can always change his mind under clause
21. This does not seem very serious and shows a patent lack of will
to provide a really adequate mechanism to ensure an efficient
fisheries management, which would reflect reality and which all
concerned would take part in and be satisfied with.
Given such a lack of vision for the future of fishing, we have
every reason to be worried and we should vigorously criticize the
minister and the federal government for their ineffectiveness. The
future of fishermen and fisheries is once again threatened. The
federal government does not do anything in this bill to rectify the
situation and to reassure fishermen and all the people who rely on
this industry. The future is becoming more and more gloomy.
Because of the troubling situation, this unacceptable bill and the
vital importance of this issue, we are demanding that powers for
fisheries management be transferred back to Quebec. Why should
we trust the federal government in this area any more, when it has
not done a good job of managing it and has nothing good to propose
for the future?
Even though Captain Canada, who has moved on and is now
threatening to pull the plug on the Churchill Falls contract, went to
New York with his nets and his fish, we must not be taken for fools
with regard to the content of this bill, its impact and the fact that it
does not even offer a glimpse of hope for the future of the fishing
industry.
I will now turn to part II of the bill, entitled ``Fish Habitat
Conservation and Protection, and Pollution Prevention'', which is
of particular interest to me. It is amazing to see the impact of this
bill in terms of duplication and overlap not only with the provinces,
including Quebec, but also with other federal statutes.
I am thinking about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the bill that the
environment minister tabled a few days ago about endangered
species, among others. All this is getting very complicated.
Part II of Bill C-62 includes clauses 42 to 64. It allows the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or another minister designated by
the governor in council to take action with regard to the removal of
obstructions impeding the free passage of fish or detrimental to fish
habitat, the construction of fish-ways or canals and the control of
activities or undertakings which are likely to result in the alteration
or the destruction of fish habitat or in the deposit of a deleterious
6145
substance in waters frequented by fish or in any place where that
deleterious substance may enter any such waters.
So that part of the bill concerns all the water environment and,
indirectly, the atmospheric and land environment as well, where
deleterious substances may enter a stream and alter it.
(1615)
The powers given under the bill to combat or prevent the various
forms of pollution are considerable: authorizations, permits,
notices, reports, plans and specifications, inspections, fines, orders
to close, emergency interventions, and so on.
These powers are not entirely new. They are already found in the
existing Fisheries Act, but they are given greater prominence
through various titles and groupings. The bill also provides for
more extensive powers to intervene to protect fish habitat. This part
of the bill creates a major problem, because it gives the federal
minister powers that are identical or similar to those available to
the Quebec Minister of the Environment and Fauna under the
Environment Quality Act and the Act respecting the Conservation
and Development of Wildlife.
For these reasons, part II of the bill can be considered a major
irritant in relations between the federal government and Quebec,
just like other federal legislation, including the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act or the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act.
The interference of the federal government in areas already
occupied by Quebec once again duplicates legislation, adds to the
number of public servants, and increases the constraints on
businesses and individuals, all of which lead to inflated costs and
an ineffective system. Where is the minister, with his school bag in
hand, to tell the fisheries minister that the purpose of Bill C-62 is
not to achieve efficiency and the grand designs of decentralization?
There is no sign of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in
this debate. He would rather spout nonsense on various stages and
mouth pious wishes in connection with our supposedly great and
efficient federation. But the bill we see before us, which is almost
the complete agenda of the federal government, does not pass the
test. The Liberals say one thing and do another.
I would remind you that Quebec has a fundamental
responsibility with respect to the protection and uses made of the
aquatic environment and its resources. It has ownership of public
bodies of water. It also has exclusive rights over civil rights and
public property, municipal governments, local structures and
industries, land development and resource use, and in general
anything of a local or private nature.
It is therefore responsible for integrated management of the
aquatic environment, and for taking all protective measures liable
to ensure its quality, by preserving aquatic life and the natural
processes essential to the species inhabiting that environment,
primarily halieutic species.
It seems exaggerated, therefore, for the federal government to
use its jurisdiction over fisheries and the management of conditions
favourable to the maintenance and development of fishery
resources to end up exercising identical or similar powers to those
of Quebec over the aquatic environment.
With this bill, the federal government is taking no notice
whatsoever of the concerns that have been expressed at all levels in
recent years concerning duplication, inefficiency and the dilution
of resources occasioned by the current situation.
On the contrary, Bill C-62 reaffirms and consolidates federal
domination of an area fully covered by Quebec legislation, which
directly addresses protection of the habitat of all fauna, including
fish, and water pollution control in all of its forms.
In principle, the department, or any other designated by the
governor in council, may duplicate or even countermand the
authorizations required by clause 22 of the Quebec environmental
control act, and undertake the same impact studies as those covered
by that act. Similarly, the governor in council has responsibility for
adopting regulations which more or less duplicate or overlap
Quebec regulations, as is the case at present concerning pulp and
paper plant and oil refinery effluent and the liquid effluent from
metal mines.
Even more than the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, this
bill would provide the federal government with a powerful tool for
controlling all activities taking place in the aquatic environment,
whether private property, or belonging to a municipal government
or the province of Quebec.
(1620)
The problem is that the jurisprudence on division of powers
tends to favour the federal side, since if there is any
incompatibility, the federal legislation is generally recognized as
taking precedence.
I would also like to point out that most of the decisions the
federal minister must make with respect to a new project or activity
that may affect a waterway require, according to the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, prior examination or an in-depth
study, and in some cases a complete assessment.
In other words, part II of the bill would intrude and would
continue to intrude in the future on Quebec's exclusive or predomi-
6146
nant jurisdiction over and responsibility for development,
protection and management of waterways within its territory.
To the extent that the bill reaffirms and consolidates the federal
position in this area, it causes the federal government and the
Quebec government to compete directly with each other and
ultimately favours complete federal control over environmental
management, the economy and the use of water. At best, it would
have the effect of restricting Quebec's ability to define its own
objectives, priorities and means of action and develop an integrated
water management policy.
I wonder what would happen if a project or structure receives the
requisite permit and the minister of fisheries were to decide
subsequently that the structure is harmful to a certain type of fish.
In this area, we will now have four federal acts and possibly a
larger number of regulations that, in turn, will duplicate two
Quebec acts and regulations. A real mess, in which the average
person will be hopelessly lost.
Imagine the number of public servants, bureaucrats and
ministers who would be able to intervene. The federal government
is entirely responsible for this situation. It constantly walks all over
jurisdictions already held by the provinces, especially in Quebec
and especially in environmental matters.
We wish the government would stick to its own jurisdiction, and
start by harmonizing at the federal level. The environment would
be better off as a result.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for her very interesting speech. I think she understands the
major historical trends in international laws and municipal bylaws
on environmental protection and pollution control. She agrees that
the federal government and the provinces can negotiate in good
faith. So why does she conclude there will be a conflict between the
two levels of government? We share the same goals.
In this case, I have a question for her: In order to reduce the
possibility of conflict, should Quebec not follow in British
Columbia's footsteps and negotiate an agreement on fisheries with
the federal government? Why not? This might resolve the problems
she raised with respect to the administration and purpose of this
bill.
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, the problem of overlap and
duplication does not exist only between the federal government and
the provinces, but also within the federal public service. I am
thinking in particular of the department of fisheries and that of the
environment. The problem has always existed. There have always
been overlapping laws, and the department of fisheries has always
used its discretionary power so it could fulfil its duties.
(1625)
A bill on threatened species has just been introduced in this
House, and this morning in committee we were discussing fish
habitat and protection. While we on this side are working to make
progress, and I am including the federalists-even though I am not
one of them, I can still see that some of their initiatives make
sense-the Department of Fisheries and Oceans now comes up
with a bill that interferes with the one on threatened species. This
makes no sense at all. So when federal departments draft a bill,
they should at least consult with one another so as to make their
work much more consistent and cost-effective.
Federal overlap alone is a shameless waste. Let us start with this.
As far as Quebec is concerned, I think it is doing its job and it is in
our best interests to conserve our fish stocks and protect our
environment and wildlife. I think the Quebec law on environmental
protection, on the protection of threatened species, was one of the
most forward-looking we have ever seen. It was even mentioned by
some of our Liberal colleagues.
So we can surely come to some sort of agreement, but not with
bills like this one, which is another example of the federal
government's meddling in areas not under its jurisdiction. Federal
departments cannot even speak among themselves to make sure
their laws do not overlap those drafted by other departments. That
is quite simple.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will address this
question to my hon. colleague from the Laurentides but first I
would like to made a comment and take this opportunity to take
back remarks I made earlier to the previous speaker.
I said that powers were delegated only in relation to the issue of
fishing licences. I was mistaken. I read the bill over, and, under
clause 58(1), the minister has indeed provided for delegation of
powers in relation to the environment and habitat protection.
Having done my mea culpa about what I said previously, the
problem lies, and my hon. colleague from the Laurentides is
absolutely right, with the environmental law. This is a relatively
new field of law. I realize that it may not have existed 100 years
ago, when the original fisheries act was drafted in 1868.
But it exists today. Quebec has made significant progress in this
area too, but even if fisheries were its responsibility under the
Constitution, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not have
any power regarding the environment; the law said so. The
department was not given such powers by the Constitution.
However, in clause 58(3), the minister decided that, where the
vision of any given province is inconsistent with that of the federal
government, federal law will prevail. That is what it says.
In other words, the minister is telling those who have delegated
powers: ``Kiss your powers goodbye. I decide now''. Which is
6147
more insulting. How could the federal government delegate to a
province a right that it is no longer entitled to have itself? As for the
right to protect the environment, Quebec is already looking after
that, and doing a fine job at it.
I find doubly insulting the fact that, on the one hand, the federal
government would be delegating a power that it does not have itself
and, on the other hand, where an inconsistency exists, the rule of
law will be in favour of Ottawa.
Perhaps one hundred years have gone by before the Fisheries Act
was reviewed but, with measures like these and provisions like
these, I can see one hundred years of quarrelling lying ahead. I
would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on this.
(1630)
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure I will not be around
for another century. Seriously, such a bill raises concerns. I think
that the fisheries minister had a chance to redo his homework, and
to make sure that his bill would not once again interfere in the
jurisdictions of other departments, such as the environment
department, or overlap other federal legislation, such as the
Endangered Species Bill, or the Environmental Assessment Act.
Why create a statute that overlaps others? It does not make any
sense.
As I was saying earlier, we do our homework in Quebec. I think
that protection of the environment is a responsibility, not a question
of law. It is our future and that of our children. I think we have a
duty to protect it. We must also try to administer it effectively. It is
all very fine and well to make laws, but how will they be
administered? When a bill of this sort is tabled, there must be an
assurance that it can be administered. I am telling you it will be
hell.
Even on the environment committee we had problems during
discussions with witnesses from Fisheries and Oceans, because
there is a conflict of jurisdiction. There will be more problems
because now there is discretionary power. We will have many more
problems, and I will tell you that the more trouble we have reaching
agreement, the more the process will be held up and the more the
environment jeopardized.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will use the two
minutes remaining to make a comment. I know we are at second
reading stage. We are being told that opposition members should
speak to the principles. I would therefore say right off the bat that
as far as part II is concerned-I think my colleague, the
environment critic, did a wonderful job-you have just been told
about the potential, but very real, sticking points with the
provinces.
We said that we found it insulting to be delegated authority,
when we already have it, just as you do. We said that we also found
it insulting that, in cases of disagreement between a provincial and
federal department, the federal law would prevail.
I would like the minister to tell us that he will redo his
homework. If he is trying to draft a bill that it has taken a century to
produce, I would like him to tell us that he is not looking for a
century of argument, but one of peace and productivity for the
resource, for the people who make their living from it and depend
on it. As the bill stands, what we see ahead is a century of dispute.
[English]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to speak to this legislation. I will be sharing my time
with the hon. member for Davenport.
This legislation, an act respecting fisheries, is of great
importance to the fishers throughout this country. I can speak in
particular for the fishers and the organizations that they represent
and the organizations that they have formed in the areas of my
constituency of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.
Over the last several years that I have represented this area I
have worked directly with the fishers of Atlantic Canada. I have
discovered the depth of their commitment to the management and
the proper stewardship of this resource. They have learned through
interaction with the government, some good, some bad, that if the
resource is to be properly managed, if the resource is to be properly
conserved, the stakeholders, those who are directly involved in
drawing their livelihood from the resource, have to be intimately
involved as partners in the stewardship and in the management of
this resource. That is what I understand to be the fundamental
principle behind this legislation.
(1635)
I also welcome the fact that Bill C-62 has gone through such
extensive consultation under the new fisheries minister since it was
introduced in the previous Parliament as Bill C-115. The Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans has undertaken extensive consultations
both through his officials and through the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans during the course of the passage of this
legislation. That is vitally important.
If this approach to fisheries management, which is the correct
and modern one, is to work, if it is to ensure the protection and
survival of the species and the ecosystem on which the livelihoods
of so many Canadians depend, then those people who are going to
be involved as partners with the government need to have a comfort
level, need to have their questions answered and need to understand
that they are truly partners in the management of this resource.
This legislation signals a major shift in the philosophy by which
the federal government manages the fisheries in Canada. Canada's
fishing industry has indicated the need to get government out of the
day to day management of the fishery. There is a need to redesign
our past approach, which has been viewed as paternalistic in
6148
nature. This has resulted, for the most part, in exclusive
government decision making in the way the fishery is managed.
These amendments represent a major shift in the fisheries
management activities of fisheries and oceans. The department will
shift away from the business of managing fishers to managing fish.
The department will take a more focused approach to the
management of the fisheries resource, concentrating on
conservation and sustainable utilization.
The legislation will support this shift in several ways. The aspect
that I would particularly like to emphasize is that of allowing
commercial fishers, aboriginal groups and other stakeholders to
participate in the shared management, shared discussions and
shared results of the fishery, and also to participate in the cost
sharing of services such as data collection and licence
administration.
The legislation will allow for new legally binding agreements
between the federal government and fisher groups. It will provide
harvesters with a greater role and responsibility in managing the
fishery.
The government wants to work with stakeholders to develop the
type of partnering agreements that will benefit all parties
concerned and enhance the conservation of fisheries resources.
However, the minister will retain, as he must, responsibility for
conservation and protection of the resource at all times.
New powers in the Fisheries Act will allow the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans to share decision making and develop more
efficient management strategies with groups within the fishery and
to do so through long term partnering agreements.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada and any representative
organization could enter into such agreements on several aspects of
fisheries management. A typical partnering agreement would
clearly set out the harvesting limits and other conservation
management measures for a fishery, the number of licences to be
issued, the fees payable for licence issuance and licence
administration, the obligations and responsibilities of each party,
the funding arrangements with respect to the management of the
fishery, and conservation and management programs for the
fishery.
Stakeholders will assume responsibility in choosing programs
and services which will best meet their business needs.
As I emphasized earlier, the responsibility and the legal
authority for conservation and protection of the resource will
remain with the minister. Specifically, the setting of allowable
harvesting levels, the ability to close fisheries and to ensure
conservation and protection is not compromised and enforcement
of the responsibilities and legal authorities will all remain with the
minister.
(1640 )
I will introduce a short example of what this legislation will
make possible and what it has already started. In my constituency
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence a number of groups representing
fishermen have worked out over the last two years new ways of
engaging in partnerships to jointly manage and share the resource
of the snow crab fishery in the gulf. This is quite a lucrative fishery
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and has caused a great deal of tension in
that part of Atlantic Canada. With the collapse of many of the
groundfish stocks in the gulf, many fishermen have looked with
some envy at those fortunate fishers who were able to draw
substantial incomes from limited access to the snow crab fishery.
Through a process of sometimes difficult negotiation we are
starting to work out proper partnering agreements that will not only
ensure the snow crab resource is properly managed but also that the
groups of fishermen who are stakeholders and form companies that
harvest the resource will share that resource for the benefit of all
those in their communities.
I commend the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his
predecessor for showing the flexibility of movement that has
allowed for a better sharing of that resource. That is an example in
concrete terms of what the notion of partnering and of moving
forward by involving the fishermen and other stakeholders in the
management of this resource is all about.
I will not be able to deal with all the aspects of this legislation,
but if we allow the fishermen to take responsibility for the
resource, for harvesting it in the appropriate way or assuming more
of a share in the responsibility for the benefits that flow from that
resource, we will find their good sense will prevail and will be
demonstrated in a more sound fishery.
One of the problems we have had in the past, tragedies in some
areas, that has led to the virtual collapse of many fisheries is that
nobody took real responsibility for the fishery. The fishermen had
no real responsibility because the government took it all. In the end
when mistakes were made in calculating harvest levels nobody was
there to take the responsibility and as a result we had tragic
overfishing.
We have to stop this and I think the direction the government is
taking with this legislation is the right one.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the previous
speaker noted that no one was responsible when the fishery on the
east coast collapsed. That is simply not true.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible. The beauty
of the old act is that somebody was responsible. Under these new
partnering agreements he is talking about, all that will happen is
that we will have some sort of a collective to manage the fisheries
resource. When things do not go right and we start looking around
6149
to pin the blame, there will not be anybody because there will be a
committee and it will always be the next guy who is responsible.
The department is admitting in this act that it did not have a
solution to the problems and it is looking elsewhere. It wants to
delegate that authority to somebody else rather than asking what
went wrong and what it could do about it.
For example, it was recently noted that there were over 400
violations of the forestry act in central British Columbia which
resulted in degradation of salmon habitat. The fisheries official
responsible for the area and habitat made representation to the
provincial government.
(1645 )
He said: ``There's a problem here. If I can help, let me know''.
The province never got back to him. The real issue is not that the
province did not get back to him, it is why did the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and the minister not enforce the act?
The minister has the authority under the old act to do something
about habitat degradation. Why was the act not enforced? The hon.
member who just spoke does not have to answer in the specific on
this but in general. When habitat is degraded as it was in this
instance why is the minister not live up to his constitutional
responsibility under the old act and doing something about it?
Second, the new act does not give the minister any more
authority. In fact, it just takes away authority. How does the
member think that will improve the situation?
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Mr. Speaker,
I never said that under the old act the government did not have
responsibility over the fishery. In fact, the minister of fisheries has
always retained ultimate responsibility for the management of the
fishery.
What I meant to say was that in the old philosophy of
management, the government was the sole entity that accepted
responsibility for the fishery. Very often, the stakeholders in the
industry deferred to the government to make the final decisions on
the quotas.
We saw examples of this on the east coast with overfishing, with
high grading, with improper mesh size. Nobody was willing to be
accountable for the fact that those things were taking place. The
government was unable to enforce the sanctions in the act because
there was not a shared responsibility for managing the resource.
That is the new change in philosophy the government is
introducing with this fishery. Fishermen have to be responsible for
the conservation of the resource. They have to share ownership of
that responsibility with the government. That is the philosophy that
we are trying to put forward.
I believe that fishermen are happy to accept the responsibility
provided they are fully involved in the partnership we are trying to
create. That will be the challenge the minister of fisheries will have
in implementing these new provisions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Before resuming debate, 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 Kootenay East, Telecommunications;
the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, Agriculture.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me
congratulate you on your appointment. I wish you success in that
role for which you have been predestined for a long time. We are all
very glad to see you in the chair.
Historically it can be said that the Fisheries Act has played a
very important environmental role because of its powers to
regulate the alterations or destructions of fish habitat. Many
Canadians, therefore, believe it is the most important piece of
environmental legislation in Canada. For example, the Oldman
dam environmental assessment was made possible by a trigger in
the Fisheries Act, section 35(2), which resulted in the
environmental assessment and review process.
This bill makes some important changes to the act. Clause 49 of
the bill appears to broaden protection of fish habitat by making a
general prohibition against harmful alteration. By adding the word
``activity'' to clause 49, certain types of mining found by the courts
not to be included under the term ``works or undertaking'' used in
the old act will now be included. Congratulations to the minister.
It must be said that in most provinces and territories the
Fisheries Act habitat protection provisions are the only legal
protection for wetlands, streams, shorelines and other such
ecological significant areas. Hence, the most problematic section
of the bill is clause 58(1), which would permit, by means of
regulation, the delegation of certain habitat protection and
management responsibilities to interested provincial governments.
This delegation would be limited to waters within the provinces,
largely freshwater habitat and excludes a list of ``prescribed
projects'', which would remain under the authority of the federal
government but have yet to be determined.
(1650 )
The proposed legislation is not a carte blanche transfer of
freshwater fish habitat responsibilities to the provinces, but instead
would allow the federal government to negotiate agreements for
the delegation of responsibilities to interested provinces. However,
6150
because these agreements will have great consequences for fish
habitat and environmental protection I would like to dwell on this
part of the bill.
One of the reasons advanced for negotiating delegation
agreements with the provinces is to eliminate ``duplication and
overlap'' between federal and provincial jurisdictions.
There is only anecdotal evidence to this effect and this may be
true in some isolated cases. But in Ontario, after the Harris
government's revisions of the land use planning act, protection for
environmentally significant areas such as wetland, woodlots and
ravines and prime agricultural land has been basically eliminated.
Thus, in the case of Ontario, there is very little left in the daily
operations of the ministry to operate, let alone to examine overlap
and duplication. After Premier Harris' reforms the fisheries act
now stands as the only significant protection for Ontario's
wetlands, streams and shorelines.
The terms of these agreements are of great importance therefore
to fish habitat and overall environmental protection. I am glad that
delegation will occur on a province by province basis. This will
hopefully allow for the maintenance of high standards across the
country.
Not only Ontario has greatly reduced its ministries of the
environment and natural resources. In Alberta the environment
minister's budget will be reduced by $164 million and 1,360 jobs
by the year 1999. According to the premier, industry will monitor
and regulate itself.
In Ontario, the ministry of environment and energy is being cut
by $200 million and 752 staff by the year 1997-98 and the ministry
of natural resources is being cut by $137 million and 2,170 staff
over the same time.
These massive cuts will most definitely impact negatively on the
ability of these two provincial governments to assume increased
responsibilities for the protection of fish habitat. Hence the
agreements between the government and respective provinces must
incorporate a strong and transparent monitoring system to ensure
that fish habitat is properly protected. In addition, strong
accountability mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance
incorporated into the agreements are needed. Without these
provisions, delegation could result in the de facto deregulation,
something the federal government surely does not want to do and
actually wants to avoid.
The delegation of section 35(2) in the present Fisheries Act to
the provinces also has serious ramifications for the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act passed in 1995. Under that act
section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act triggers environmental
assessment. Under Bill C-62 this will not longer be the case and
instead the government is proposing the negotiation of a list of
projects which would require a mandatory permit. The list of
projects requiring permits will be prescribed in the regulations
after being negotiated with stakeholders.
In order to maintain the original intent and the environmental
protection accorded through making section 35(2) of the Fisheries
Act a trigger for the assessment, I strongly urge the minister to
make the project list comprehensive and representative of
ecologically diverse areas and find ways of tracking and
quantifying the cumulative effects of several small projects which
might fail to come under those defined under the new Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act trigger.
Without this capacity our environmental assessment will risk
going back to a project by project approach instead of going
forward to account for the cumulative impacts of development
within a particular region.
The track record regarding the delegation of Fisheries Act
provisions to the provinces has not fared well in the past. In his
1990 report then Auditor General Kenneth Dye stated: ``In the one
area where the federal government has already delegated
monitoring and enforcement authority to the provinces, there has
been a serious deterioration in compliance. A review of the metal
mining liquid effluent regulations issues under the Fisheries Act
indicates that compliance fell from 85 per cent in 1982 to 48 per
cent in 1988''. This is found on page 28 of the auditor general's
report.
(1655)
While congratulating the minister I also urge him to ensure the
agreements with the provinces include a very strong and
transparent mechanisms for ensuring that proper monitoring and
enforcement will take place. The integrity of the fish habitat
protection demands such an approach if the Fisheries Act is to
continue to protect Canadians' health, environment and our most
precious fisheries habitat.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a few
problems with the recommendations just made by my colleague
across the way. Allow me to explain.
When he wants to see the links between the provinces and the
federal government reinforced in order to better protect the
environment-and no one would oppose such a goal, I too want to
be sure the environment is protected-in the fervour I thought I
detected at the end of the member's speech, when he said he would
like to see mechanisms reinforced in the areas of safety and
monitoring of implementation, I take this to mean a form of
partnership with the provinces to ensure that everyone does their
job and that everything goes well, how will all this work?
I keep coming back to the same two points. I would remind
members that what we are now talking about is the fisheries bill of
the century. I would also remind them that, 100 years ago,
environmental law was not mentioned in the Constitution.
Therefore, the founding nation, Quebec, has just as much right to
define its environmental law as does the rest of Canada. But since
we are talking about partnership, since we are talking about the bill
of the
6151
century, I say that Canada has no more right over the environment
than Quebec.
How dare they tell us, in clause 58(1), that the federal
government may delegate powers to a province? And how, in a
context of wanting to reinforce monitoring mechanisms rather than
dictating how they will be set up, will agreement be reached in
order to ensure that everyone wants the same degree of purity of
water, air and the ecosystem?
This is immediately followed, in clause 58(3) by coercive
measures. It says that federal environmental law will take
precedence over provincial environmental law.
This is, I would remind you, the law of the century when it
comes to the fisheries. One hundred years ago, when the two
founding peoples came together to write the Constitution, it did not
exist. Today we are being told: ``Shove over, you little guys, we are
the bosses here''. I find that the minister has not done his
homework.
First of all, as my colleague for Laurentides has already said,
there is a lack of cohesiveness, an overlap between the federal
departments themselves, between the federal Department of the
Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Now
what they are planning is to stir up quarrels and to give themselves
all of the rights with clause 58(3), saying: ``We are going to declare
the delegation of power mil if we feel it is not right''. Where is
there any partnership in that? Where is the desire to create stringent
measures of control, mechanisms to ensure a pure environment?
Clause 58(3) thumbs its nose at the rights of Quebec and the
other provinces.
(1700)
We will not understand each other if one side says ``If you do not
do what I tell you, I will cut off your rights.'' What entitles the
provinces to additional rights? This is the law of the century, I say
again.
When the Constitution was drafted 100 years ago, this was not in
it. Now, if we wish to rejuvenate the Constitution, to get more
modern, let us speak of how the mechanisms of harmonization
rather than of coercion will be used.
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I only have one minute to answer. I
wish to thank the honourable member for Gaspé for his question. It
seems to me that my colleague is living in the obscurity of his
ignorance. Had he read the Constitution, as he should have, he
would know that water is exclusively a matter of federal
jurisdiction. One cannot say that there is no federal jurisdiction in
that area. Thus, it means there is also a federal jurisdiction on
fisheries.
Naturally, we want to reinforce the links between the federal
government and the provinces. I gave only two examples, those of
Ontario and Alberta, to show that at this time, and because of
budgetary restrictions in those two provinces, we cannot expect
them to address the issue of fisheries and assume a major
responsibility in this area. These provinces have reduced their
budgets and, hence, the ability of their departments to assume more
responsibility than they have at the present time.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a bill of stealth, dressed up as modernization. This
bill gives the minister and thus the senior bureaucracy all the power
they could ever possibly want to reward their friends and
consolidate their strength and powers.
All this is coming from what is characterized as the most
centralized, top heavy and arrogant bureaucracy in the federal
government. It is amazing to me how the consolidation of powers
in this bill can be characterized as modernization. Thank goodness
I have not spent my life in academia to buy this logic hook, line and
sinker like some Liberals in this place.
In 1995 DFO and the coast guard merged. And guess what? The
DFO senior bureaucracy won the turf war which it was so well
placed to win in the Ottawa trenches since its last priority was
serving the public. British Columbians have seen the negative
consequences to coast guard services on the west coast ever since.
There is one thing that I would like to state very clearly. There is
nothing the government can do under the new fisheries act, Bill
C-62, that it cannot already do under the existing act except
extinguish the public right to fish. The central and deplorable
change with respect to fisheries management is that the minister
gains unfettered powers to do what currently requires the specific
authorization of Parliament or cabinet. The power has become the
intoxicating element of Canada's proposed fisheries act. For a
minister and department that have singlehandedly mismanaged this
resource so completely to be handed even more absolute power
would be a derogation of the trust placed in us as parliamentarians.
Bill C-62 is further testimony to the government's inability to
manage and allocate a resource and further testimony to the
government's refusal to honour historic common law regarding the
public right to fish.
(1705 )
Despite Supreme Court decisions to the contrary, this bill will
also ensure the continuation of a native only commercial fishery.
This legislation is contrary to any enlightened and cogent advice
proffered by the fishing industry, unions, commercial and recre-
6152
ational fishermen and anyone who knows anything about the
industry.
All the bill really accomplishes is to give the minister complete
discretion to enter into fisheries management agreements with any
group. It is a recipe for a patchwork, piecemeal and divisive
fisheries policy. How in the world could the minister allow his
bureaucrats to once again snow him by holding him captive to his
own ignorance and ego?
Bill C-62 gives the minister the power to end the public right to
fish and replaces this time honoured tradition with private fishing
agreements, or what the bill calls partnership agreements.
There is an expression in the banking business which goes
something like this: ``If you owe the bank $1,000 you are a debtor.
If you owe it $1 million you are partner''. With the omnipotent
power Bill C-62 now gives to the minister I can see every good
Liberal and financial contributor to the party becoming real
partners with the minister and the government.
Ministerial fiats are dictatorial and an abuse of democracy. Can
we see one town along the Fraser River in B.C. that votes Liberal
becoming a partner and another town that does not becoming a
debtor unable to strike a partnership agreement? This is outrageous
power.
These fishing agreements would be similar to the aboriginal
fishing agreements the government currently enters into with
native bands. The native only commercial fishery was undermined
by the Supreme Court's August 1996 R. v. Van der Peet, R. v. NTC
Smokehouse Ltd. and R. v. Gladstone decisions. The court ruled
against an aboriginal commercial right, saying they had no right to
an exclusive fisheries. B.C. natives, to quote, ``do not have a
constitutional right to catch and sell fish commercially''. Here we
go again, more appealed decisions leading to Supreme Court
rulings in order to bring the bureaucrats and their captive minister
to their senses.
Bill C-62 expunges historic common law public right to fish in
exchange for a privilege dependent on the discretion of the
minister. This is pure and simple fiat perpetuated by this most
centralized and arrogant bureaucracy and foisted upon a minister
and he upon the public.
If this is not going far enough, Bill C-62 gives the minister
absolute discretion to manage the fishery through ministerial
decrees or what the bill describes as fisheries management orders.
These orders would replace the regulations made by governor in
council which are now used to govern the fishery. These fishing
agreements and management orders are exempt from Canada
Gazette publication and from its more rigorous regulatory
requirements. It is sheer arrogance and purely meant to exempt the
minister from the scrutiny of those who will most be affected.
Transparency and review are the hallmarks of our parliamentary
system. If the Liberal government thinks the Reform Party will roll
over and capitulate on this attempt to defraud Canadians of their
rights, it is mistaken.
Do the minister and his bureaucrats truly believe that fiat and
management through patronage will address the problems in the
fishery?
Denial is a wonderful thing and it has become the hallmark of
this government. According to it, there is no deficit, unemployment
is not a problem, health care is secure and there is no crime.
However, the undeniable truth is there are major problems in all
these areas. If there is one area of endeavour where public
confidence is weakest in terms of the ability of the federal
government to properly manage it the fisheries.
(1710 )
On the east coast much of the fishery is closed due to the
collapse of groundfish stocks. On the west coast the problems with
the Alaskan catch of Canadian bound salmon are unresolved. Again
on the west coast the salmon fishery, the key stock, is in disarray.
There has been almost no non-native commercial fishery on the
Fraser River for the past two years and now, should that ever
change, Bill C-62 will ensure that good Liberals can be awarded
with the catch.
Furthermore, the undeniable truth is that the government's
native only commercial fishery is a mess. Our brilliant bureaucrats
and the minister introduced a native only commercial fishery based
on the expectation that the Supreme Court would hold that natives
did have such a right. I guess that is why the Supreme Court judges
and others working at fisheries and oceans regional headquarters in
Vancouver do not yet work for the justice department.
As I mentioned earlier, the Van der Peet, NTC Smokehouse and
Gladstone decisions highlight DFO's lack of authority to enter into
exclusive fishing agreements with aboriginals. Now these same
minds want to carry it a step further and enter into exclusive
commercial fishing agreements with Liberal friends. Once again
the legislation before us is an attempt to extinguish the public right
to fish.
Bill C-62 may run nearly 100 pages. It need not have. There is a
lot of verbiage intended to obfuscate the central element of the
legislation. Specific to the management of fisheries, there is
nothing the government can do under the new fisheries act that it
cannot already do under the existing act, except extinguish the
public right to fish.
6153
With respect to partnership agreements, the minister has
absolute discretion to enter into agreements which include
provisions on allocation.
The response to Bill C-62 has been universal in condemnation.
Fisheries unions fear that this power will be used to allocate fish
stocks to large corporations. Recreational fishermen fear
allocations to commercial interests. Commercial troll fishermen
fear allocations to sports fishing lodges. Corporations fear
allocations to inshore fishermen. Commercial fishermen fear
allocations to native interests. It is an all around alienation of
everyone in one fell swoop. What a statement of mismanagement
and an undermining of a resource struggling to survive. The death
knell may have finally rung.
Does the minister understand completely what the bill does? I
doubt it. Does the senior bureaucracy understand completely?
Undoubtedly.
Virtually all commercial and recreational fishing organizations
in B.C. oppose the new act and wish to preserve the public right to
fish. While commercial fishermen desire increased security of
tenure, they feel that the loss of the public's right to fish in
exchange for a privilege granted by the minister reduces their
security and transfers too much power to the minister.
In the Atlantic provinces opposition appears to be growing for
the same reasons.
Bill C-62 does not address the real problems in the fishery, for
example, declining stocks, problems with Alaskan interception and
the need for strict enforcement of conservation measures.
Bill C-62 is a desperate attempt to deal with the government's
political problems, that is, what to do with the native only
commercial fishery and the growing awareness that the present
Fisheries Act does not give the minister the authority to enter into
exclusive fishing agreements. There are some simple solutions to
the problem. Clear criteria ought to be established for the transfer
of fisheries management to the provinces. Fish tend not to notice
political boundaries.
(1715)
On the east coast chaos could result if one or all of the coastal
provinces were to take over management of the coastal fishery.
There is a need for comprehensive consultation, not abrogation, by
granting the minister such discretion.
As well, clear criteria ought to be established for any transfer to
the provinces of responsibilities for the protection of fish habitat.
Provinces now regulate forestry, agricultural practices, urban
development and waste. Why not fish habitat?
As usual the minister has chosen the easy route on this, but as
usual it is ultimately the most divisive and destructive route. Bill
C-62 expunges equal access to fishing and replaces it with granting
fishing licences by political party membership. Bill C-62 replaces
ownership of fish stocks by all Canadians to ownership by the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The unilateral actions displayed in this bill and the lack of
protection of the public interest coming from DFO are no surprise
to people involved in coastal marine activities. I will quote myself
on some recent coast guard initiatives that were promoted by the
newly merged DFO bureaucracy.
On October 24 I said: ``The hole's been patched but the ship's
still sinking about the coast guard's reprieve for boats in Powell
River, Campbell River and Ganges.
``While the coast guard is leaving the Mallard, Point Race and
Skua where they are for the time being, nothing has changed
because we have still not heard a clear vision from the Canadian
Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans about
long term objectives. We still have a top-heavy bureaucracy in
DFO in Ottawa and in the regions that does not appear responsive
to maintaining a safe waterway on the west coast. Nor do they
appear to be forthcoming in providing accurate and timely
information about their intentions.
``The coast guard, in August, announced that bases in Powell
River and Ganges would close, the vessels would be reassigned and
the 70-foot Point Race, stationed in Campbell River, would be
moved to Port Hardy. On Tuesday the coast guard announced that
temporarily Powell River's Mallard, the Point Race and French
Creek's Kestrel would remain at their current stations, along with
the Skua in Ganges.
``What we want is a world class marine service that enables safe
and efficient marine operations on Canada's coasts. This latest
announcement by the coast guard does not deliver this assurance.
The announced changes are a case of the bureaucracy trying to wait
out and defuse the most vocal opposition.
``The fact that the coast guard did not even mention the issue of
lightstations in its latest announcement shows that its plans to press
ahead with its agenda using the `damn the torpedoes' approach.
The fleet reduction plan is based on a complete focus on
downsizing and does not address the delivery of a first class marine
service.
``We have been offered a piecemeal solution that addresses some
symptoms but does not get to the heart of the problem which is:
Where is this new department headed and what is its vision for west
coast marine services?
``It appears that DFO's bureaucrats have won the fight for
control of the newly amalgamated department. DFO and the coast
guard were asked independently about the time of their merger last
year to offer spendings cuts. Both DFO and Canadian coast guard
identified the same $30 million in spending cuts. These cuts were
double counted and the coast guard component of the newly
6154
merged department has borne this $30 million extra cutback from
Treasury Board''.
(1720)
I am still quoting myself, just so the House understands the flow:
``The U.S. has a clear coast guard objective which involves using
people and technology to ensure their coastline has first class
navigation and marine services. The Reform Party has addressed
the whole issue of creating such an environment in Canada in its
recently announced platform which calls for amalgamating coast
guard into the Department of National Defence and providing more
resources for fishery surveillance and coast guard activities.
``I urge everyone whose battle for the maintenance of services to
keep up the fight. I fully credit the efforts of those who have
pursued the issue tirelessly with having won this temporary
reprieve which helps us for the time being in the lower coast.
However, the immediate future for the north coast already looks
dire with an already skimpy presence having been further diluted.
``The coastal communities and advisory groups and stakeholders
must continue to press for rationalizing the huge bureaucracy in
Ottawa and the regions and to press for world class marine
services''.
For all of those reasons I oppose Bill C-62.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I take us back to
the subject of the debate. We began with King John, wicked King
John. We have referred to Queen Victoria and she of course is dead.
I seemed to be coming back to Henry VIII when I heard the hon.
member speak.
Let me remind the House that this bill is an act of codification
and rationalization. All countries do that with their laws. They
bring them up to date, 1868 to the present. The co-partnering
arrangements are a response to the requests and demands by
stakeholders, fisher people, for more effective participation in
government decision making. This is the new pluralism to which
we have referred. Also, we seek to complement the Oceans Act by
incorporating the implementing sections of the international law
that Canadian diplomats fought for and won in the new Law of the
Sea developments.
My I suggest some clarification. The rules of interpretation have
been thrown around. Common law yields to statute law. It is
elementary. The Magna Carta has been incorporated into Canadian
law in its due process section. It is part of the charter of rights. I
feel the hon. members opposite should have a look at the Magna
Carta. Do they really suggest, for example, that sections 10 and 11
are part of Canadian law? They are the most viciously, religiously
discriminatory features of the Magna Carta which was, of course, a
medieval document with all the prejudice of the medieval age.
Let us come up to the present. Common law yields to statute law.
Magna Carta is only part of Canadian law so far as we have adopted
it. We have adopted the best parts for our charter. Delegation of
powers is responsible to the ultimate principle, respondeat
superior; that is to say the delegation is controlled by the law itself.
The minister when he delegates power is ultimately responsible
under the act.
On constitution and statute law, section 35 of the charter is not
abrogated or changed in any way by this act. Statute law cannot
prevail over the Constitution.
If we get back to some elementary rules of interpretation it may
guide us to a more relevant debate in which we do not have to quote
ourselves when we run out of inspiration.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I did not bring forward Henry VIII,
Queen Victoria or the Magna Carta. The fact that my colleague
from Vancouver Quadra brought them forward is fine with me.
I do not want to argue about the fineries of technical detail. The
broad detail and the broad thrust of this bill are the public right to
fish which has been around forever. It is a very strongly held public
right and something the public feels very close to. This bill replaces
it with ministerial fiat and ministerial order. This bill will be
challenged.
(1725)
The problem is the government has exceeded its authority time
after time. It created native only commercial fishery agreements
which also exceeded its authority. There has been challenge after
challenge. We now have a circumstance where because the
challenges have come to the point of succeeding, the federal
government now wants to change the legislation to allow it to do
what it has been doing which is inappropriate anyway.
Why do we want to create another piece of legislation, Bill C-62,
that will be challenged by an even wider range of groups? Do we
want to get into a multiple year challenge that tests the Supreme
Court once again only to see the potential for a government to
finally get itself in such a jam that it wants to create another piece
of legislation? Let us get back to basics, let us get back to square
one and let us get back to what is actually good for the resource.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, reference has
been made to the Magna Carta and the fact that some of us here do
not speak the language of the time that document was written and
so somehow that document itself is dated. The fact of the matter is
that the hon. member across who referenced this is ignoring that
the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted the Magna Carta
repeatedly since Confederation.
6155
Earlier this afternoon I quoted the part of the ruling in the 1913
case of the Attorney General of British Columbia v. the Attorney
General of Canada. The ruling stated in part:
It has been unquestioned law that since Magna Carta no exclusive fishery could
be created by Royal grant in tidal waters and no public right of fishing, in such
waters, then existing, can be taken away without competent legislation.
This past summer it was the justices of the Supreme Court of
Canada who stated again quite emphatically that since the time of
the Magna Carta there has been a public right to fish and that public
right can only be removed by competent legislation. So we are not
dreaming over here when we talk about that. We are talking about
real issues and real concerns. They are concerns that have been
addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
One of the other concerns we have, which I am sure my friend
from North Island-Powell River will share, is delegation of
authority for conservation issues. I referred to a study earlier this
afternoon which noted that habitat degradation associated with
logging, urbanization and hydro power development contributed to
most of the 142 documented stock extinctions. It was referring to
extinction of particular salmon runs.
We are concerned that what the government is doing in this bill
is simply transferring the authority for conservation to the
provincial government rather than addressing the question itself. It
is obvious that whole area of concern has been neglected by the
government, but rather than responding to it and trying to do
something about it, the government is prepared to let the provincial
government look after it.
I wonder if my friend from North Island-Powell River would
care to give some examples of the inability of the provincial
government to manage the habitat. Perhaps he could also address
the fact that what we should be talking about are principles to
manage habitat rather than simply getting rid of the problem.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I do not really know
where to begin other than to say that one of the most often asked
questions that I am asked when I am at home on the west coast is
what I think about provincial authority to take over the fishery.
The reason people are asking me that question is clearly that they
are so dissatisfied with what has happened under the jurisdiction of
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. What my colleague from
Delta is talking about is the need for the federal agency to fix what
is wrong, not go about consolidating a whole bunch of power and
authority that really abrogates the public right to fish and other
things.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at
the report stage of Bill C-34.
The House resumed from October 31 consideration of Bill C-34,
an act to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural
products, to repeal the Agricultural Products Board Act, the
Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, the Advance
Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments
Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as
reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motions.
Nos. 2 and 3.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
(1750 )
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think you would
find unanimous consent to take the deferred recorded divisions on
the private members' motions at the end of the votes later today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House has heard the
proposal of the chief government whip. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is not unanimous
consent.
The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also
applies to Motion No. 3.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 152)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -33
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
6156
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Easter
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Minna
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Robichaud
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Solomon
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wood
Zed-171
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
(1800)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion. No. 2
defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 3 defeated.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, prior to the vote the government
whip was seeking unanimous consent, with the concurrence of the
other whips, to have private members' votes today voted on last. I
interpreted that to mean private members' business was not as
important as government business. If that is not the case and the
government would like to explain the reasons why it wants it done
that way I would be pleased to reconsider my objection.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned by our colleague
opposite, the member for York South-Weston, the intention is
simply to avoid any confusion, as we have now taken the practice
of applying votes. Private members' business, giving it the due
respect it deserves in this House, we felt that we should first deal
with the government bills and subsequently, simply to avoid
confusion, we would deal with the private members' motions at the
end of the process. There is nothing else.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I accept what the government whip
is indicating. Perhaps we can deal with private members' business
first and then the government business, and that will avoid
confusion as well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I do not sense a consensus
in the House on this. I think we should proceed as we planned.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(1805)
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there consent for the
proposal of the chief government whip?
6157
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will
vote yes, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be
voting nay unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the NDP caucus present this evening
votes yes on this matter.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, the PC caucus will vote yes.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the residents of York
South-Weston will support the government's position on this
matter.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 153)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Easter
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Minna
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Robichaud
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Solomon
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wood
Zed-171
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -33
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
6158
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the amendment to Bill C-49.
* * *
The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary
measures in relation to members of certain administrative
tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous
consent that those members who have voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with the Liberal members voting no.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The members of the official opposition
will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be
voting yes unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members
present in the House this evening vote yes.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I vote yes.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the
government's position on this matter.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 154)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Riis
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-79
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Easter
English
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
6159
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wood
Zed-125
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the amendment
lost.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions on Motion No. 221.
_____________________________________________
6159
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the
motion and the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on the
amendment. The division will be taken row by row, starting with
the mover and then proceeding with those in favour of the
amendment sitting on the same side of the House as the mover.
Then those in favour of the amendment sitting on the other side of
the House will be called. Those opposed to the amendment will be
called in the same order.
All those at my left in favour of the amendment will please rise.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 155)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allmand
Beaumier
Benoit
Blaikie
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Bryden
Calder
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
Discepola
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Ianno
Jackson
Johnston
Langlois
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lincoln
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McTeague
Meredith
Minna
Nunziata
Paradis
Penson
Peric
Ramsay
Regan
Riis
Schmidt
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Wappel
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -63
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Arseneault
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Easter
English
Fillion
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Proud
Robichaud
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Wayne
Wood
Zed-121
6160
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
(1815)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the amendment
lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 156)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Asselin
Bachand
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McTeague
Mercier
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Reilly
Paradis
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Riis
Sauvageau
Shepherd
Solomon
Telegdi
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-56
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duncan
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Minna
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Proud
Ramsay
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-138
6161
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
(1825 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion lost.
* * *
The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the
motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in
reply to his Speech at the opening of the session; and of the
amendment; and the amendment to the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Pursuant to order made
Thursday, October 31, 1996, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the
amendment.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on Bill C-49, with the exception of the member for
Lanark-Carleton, be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there consent for the
proposal of the chief government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be
voting yea, unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the NDP members present in the
House of Commons tonight will vote yes on this matter.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents I vote
in favour of the government's position.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which
was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 157)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -38
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Easter
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
6162
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Minna
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wood
Zed-165
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the amendment
to the amendment lost.
The next question is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous
consent that those members who have voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting no.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Do we have the
unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members present
will be voting yes, unless instructed by their constituents to do
otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present in the House
of Commons tonight will vote no on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents I vote
in favour of the government's position.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division):
(Division No. 158)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-75
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
6163
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
de Jong
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Easter
English
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Solomon
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wood
Zed-128
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the amendment
lost.
_____________________________________________
6163
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
(1830)
[English]
The House resumed from November 4, 1996 consideration of the
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion
No. 30 under Private Members' Business.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 159)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Comuzzi
Crête
Culbert
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Finestone
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godfrey
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hubbard
Ianno
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
Malhi
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Payne
Peric
6164
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Regan
Riis
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Solomon
Speaker
Steckle
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood-129
NAYS
Members
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Campbell
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
DeVillers
Duncan
Easter
Finlay
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Goodale
Grose
Hanger
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mifflin
Minna
Nault
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Penson
Peters
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Richardson
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Serré
Silye
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Torsney
Vanclief
Walker-63
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
(1835)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
_____________________________________________
6164
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 4 consideration of Bill
C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and
Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment,
Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping
Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of the
amendments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the
report stage of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the
Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the
Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the
Canada Shipping Act.
The question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion also
applies to Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 12. This is Group No. 1.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous recorded division on the address in reply to the
throne speech be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House with Liberal members voting nay.
(1840)
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be
voting no, unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members in the House of
Commons tonight will vote yes on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents I vote
in favour of the government's position.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
6165
(Division No. 160)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Riis
Sauvageau
Solomon
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne-46
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duncan
Easter
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Minna
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-157
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 1
defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 12 defeated.
[Translation]
The next vote is on Motion No. 4. The vote on Motion No. 4 also
applies to Motions Nos. 5 and 10. If Motion No. 4 is agreed to, it
will not be necessary to proceed with the vote on Motion No. 7. If
Motion No. 4 is negatived, there will be a vote on Motion No. 7.
The vote on Motion No. 7 also applies to Motions Nos. 8 and 11,
while the vote on Motion No. 6 also applies to Motion No. 9.
6166
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House.
To facilitate things, on report stage Motions Nos. 4, 7, 13, 14 and
15, Liberal members will be voting nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there consent for the
proposal by the chief government whip?
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote nay.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be
voting yes unless instructed to do otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members of Parliament vote
no on these motions.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I vote yes.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in
York South-Weston I vote in accordance with the government's
position on this matter and that is to vote nay.
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, unless I did not hear and others at
this end of the House did not hear, I do not believe that you called
the vote on Motion No. 6. Could you please clarify.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member is
correct. We have not yet called the vote on Motion No. 6.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 161)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -34
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Easter
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Minna
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Robichaud
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Solomon
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
6167
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wood
Zed-169
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 4
defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 5 and 10 defeated.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 161.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 7
defeated and I therefore declare Motions Nos. 8 and 11 defeated. I
declare Motions Nos. 14 and 15 defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 6.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 162)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-41
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duncan
Easter
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Minna
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Simmons
Solomon
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-162
6168
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
defeated. I also declare Motion No. 9 defeated.
(1845 )
With respect to Motion No. 13, notwithstanding the consent that
was given earlier, there was an amendment moved to that motion
by the hon. member for Mercier. A vote must be held on the
amendment. That question must be put to the House.
The question is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
namely the amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 13, with
Liberal members voting nay.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this evening
will vote no on these motions.
Mrs. Wayne: I will be voting no, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents I vote
nay in accordance with the government's position.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 162.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the amendment
to Motion No. 13 lost.
In accordance with the order of the House adopted earlier I
declare Motion No. 13 defeated also.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 161.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The next question is on
Motion No. 14.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
namely Motion No. 6 at report stage and the Bloc Quebecois'
amendment to Motion No. 13 at report stage, with Liberal members
voting nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrat members vote no on
this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I vote with my Liberal colleagues
on this motion.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 161.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 14
defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 15.
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 161.]
[Translation]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage
(with amendment).
(1850)
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House. For concurrence at report stage we could
apply the vote taken on report stage Motion No. 4 of Bill C-41 in
reverse.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
6169
(Division No. 163)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Easter
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Minna
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Robichaud
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Solomon
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wood
Zed-169
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -34
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Accordingly I declare the
motion carried.
* * *
The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-47, an act respecting human reproductive
technologies and commercial transactions relating to human
reproduction, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill
C-47, an act respecting human reproductive technologies and
commercial transactions relating to human reproduction.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House. For the present vote on the motion for
6170
second reading of Bill C-47 we would apply in reverse the vote
taken on report stage Motion No. 6 for Bill C-41.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with that except that I
would like to bring to the attention of the House that the member
for Okanagan Centre had to leave. He will not be recorded on this
vote.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as
voting against this motion.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I too would like
to be recorded as being against this motion.
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be on record as
opposing this motion.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I too
will be voting against this motion.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I too will be voting
against this motion.
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as
voting nay on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 164)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duncan
Easter
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Minna
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Simmons
Solomon
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Williams
Wood
Zed-155
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Hayes
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Sauvageau
Speaker
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)-47
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
6171
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
[Translation]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill
is referred to the Standing Committee on Health.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-61,
an act to implement the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, be
read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the
amendment of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca at the
third reading stage of Bill C-61.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House with Liberal members voting nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be
voting yes, unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party caucus
members present will vote yes on this matter.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting nay.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I vote in accordance with the
government's position on this matter.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 165)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allmand
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Riis
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -78
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Arseneault
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Easter
English
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
6172
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wood
Zed -124
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Brushett
Campbell
Chamberlain
Debien
Deshaies
Duhamel
Fewchuk
Flis
Graham
Jacob
Laurin
Loubier
Ménard
Murphy
Paré
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the amendment
lost.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent
of the House to move immediately to the taking of the third reading
vote of this bill at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed with the third reading vote at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is not unanimous
consent.
It being 6.57 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
6172
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 30 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when I last addressed this topic I explained why property
rights need to be strengthened in Canada. I made the point that
property rights make society richer, that they protect freedom and
democracy and that they protect the environment.
Today I would like to go on to explain that we each have seven
fundamental property rights. The bill of rights only provides rather
feeble protection for three of these seven. First, it provides
protection or the right to the enjoyment of property. Second, in the
bill of rights there is the provision for the right not to be deprived of
property except by due process. Third is the right to a fair hearing.
(1900)
Even these rights can simply be overridden by saying so in the
legislation, just like the Liberal government did in Bill C-22 which
cancelled the Pearson airport contract.
The Canadian bill of rights does not provide protection of the
following property rights. Out of the seven there are four that are
not included. First is the right to be paid fair compensation.
Second, it is not included that it should be a right to have the
compensation fixed impartially. Third is the right to receive timely
compensation. Fourth is the right to apply to courts to obtain justice
if they feel any aspect of their property rights have been denied or
infringed upon.
This is why we need to improve the bill of rights. This is why we
need to strengthen the protection of property rights in federal law
by supporting Motion No. 205.
I would like to examine and refute the objections put forward by
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice when he
spoke in opposition to this motion on June 10 of this year.
Here is a brief list of the Liberal government's opposition to
strengthening property rights as explained by the hon. member for
Prince Albert-Churchill River in my home province of
Saskatchewan.
The Liberals say this, first, that there is already more than
adequate protection for property rights. They also said laws already
provide fair procedures and fair compensation. They said common
law already provides presumption of compensation. They said
much of the responsibility for regulating property is provincial.
6173
They said this would establish a hierarchy of rights in the bill of
rights. Last, they said it may prevent socially useful legislation.
Those were the arguments that my Liberal colleagues used in
saying we do not need this. These are pitiful excuses at best. They
can be easily refuted and I want to do that one by one.
If there already is adequate protection for property rights, why
did Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau fight so hard to include
protection for property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and denied that? He said we need to have that, but it was
opposed.
If there is such adequate protection for property rights why
during the 1980s did the House of Commons and the provincial
legislatures of British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario each
pass resolutions calling for property rights to be entrenched in the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
How can the parliamentary secretary stand in the House and read
exactly what the bureaucrats write for him when there is such
overwhelming evidence against his position? It is obvious to
everyone but him that there is not adequate protection for property
rights.
If federal laws already provide for fair procedures and fair
compensation, how can the parliamentary secretary the explain that
his government tried to expropriate the investments made by
individuals and companies that participated in the Pearson airport
contract?
How can the parliamentary secretary explain that his Liberal
government included a section in that legislation which would have
denied these property owners the right to a fair hearing and fair
compensation?
How can the parliamentary secretary explain to the Canadian
people that American and Mexican citizens have better protection
of their investments in Canada through the NAFTA than Canadian
citizens have in their own country? That is not right. And that is
why all people, all members listening to this, should support my
colleague's motion with regard to this.
If much of the responsibility for regulating property is
provincial, can the parliamentary secretary explain why he is
objecting to this motion which only proposes to strengthen
property rights with respect to the laws, activities and operations of
the federal government, not the provincial governments?
(1905)
The parliamentary secretary is concerned that passage of Motion
No. 205 would establish a hierarchy of rights in the bill of rights.
There is already a hierarchy of rights.
All the other fundamental rights and freedoms have been
strengthened by their inclusion in the Constitution and the charter
of rights and freedoms. Property rights were left out of the charter.
How can the Liberals honestly explain their refusal to strengthen
property rights with respect to federal laws as this motion
proposes? It should be put in the charter, but let us begin by putting
it in the bill of rights.
Finally, the parliamentary secretary is concerned that property
rights may prevent socially useful legislation. This, for everyone
listening, is the real reason why the Liberals of the 1990s and the
party of big government are opposed to the Reform motion to
better protect property.
The parliamentary secretary made it clear in the speech he read
in this House, the speech the justice department bureaucrats wrote
for him, the speech the Minister of Justice had him read, that
Motion No. 205 might prevent the Liberals from re-engineering
society.
The truth is that property rights are the only way average citizens
have to fight the arbitrary intrusion of big government.
Motion No. 205 might slow the Liberal government's plans to
expropriate property arbitrarily like it wanted to do with the
Pearson airport contract.
Motion No. 205 might slow the Liberal government's plans to
confiscate over half a million legally owned handguns it banned in
the passage of Bill C-68.
Motion No. 205 might interfere with the Liberal government's
plans to expand its monopoly powers over property, such as
produce and products grown by farmers in the west.
Motion No. 205 might slow the Liberal government's plans to
expropriate private property by passing any number of the
following laws, and I am quoting from the parliamentary
secretary's speech, environmental laws, land use laws, laws
provided for establishment and operation of corporations and
ownership and disposition of shares, laws on banking, laws on
bankruptcy and copyright laws.
The excuses given by the Liberals are completely without
substance. They are empty. They are void and they have just been
destroyed.
There is so much more to say. Suffice it to say that if members of
this House support Motion No. 205 the measures will not prevent
the Liberal government or any future governments from passing
laws that take property away from Canadian citizens.
Motion No. 205 will give Canadian citizens a bit of added
protection of their property rights which, based on the words and
deeds of the Liberal government, would seem more than justified.
I urge all members to vote their constituents' wishes on this
motion. Over 70 per cent of Canadians support greater protection
of property rights. It is time we moved on this.
6174
They have it right. We need this fundamental protection of
property in this country. It is totally inappropriate that Americans
and Mexicans, through the NAFTA, have more property rights in
Canada than we, ourselves, have. That ought to send a signal here
that we have a huge problem.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have been down this road before about property rights in this
House. I might add it is the topic of conversation among many
people in this country. It is not surprising that many real estate
people are very adamant about property rights. I had a meeting with
the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board and this was indeed an issue it
wanted addressed in the House of Commons.
(1910)
Motion No. 205 is merely asking that we provide a greater
measurement of protection for individual property rights by
amending the Canadian Bill of Rights. I have a difficult time
understanding why there would be even any reluctance on this
issue from this government.
I want to indicate some of the basic fundamental principles on
property rights of the Reform Party. Reform principle No. 10
enshrined in the constitution of the Reform Party states:
We believe that the creation of wealth and productive jobs for Canadians is best
achieved through the operations of a responsible, broadly-based, free enterprise
economy in which private property, freedom of contract and the operations of free
markets are encouraged and respected.
What does the Reform policy actually encompass? The Reform
Party supports amending the charter of rights to recognize that in
Canada there existed and shall continue to exist the right of every
person to the ownership, use and enjoyment of property both, real
and personal, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due
process of law. Furthermore, it should recognize that in Canada no
person shall be deprived directly or indirectly by any law of
Parliament or a provincial legislature of the ownership, use and
enjoyment of property unless that law provides for just and timely
compensation. That is exactly what my colleague just said so
articulately.
Last June the Reform assembly passed the following resolution:
Resolved that the Reform Party go on record as being opposed to legislation that
may be enacted by any of the three levels of government which would seek to
diminish or deprive individuals of their property without adequate compensation,
whether it be real property, intellectual property, or the opportunities associated
therewith.
What are property rights? Property rights are the cornerstone of
human freedom. Property rights mean freedom from arbitrary
interference in one's life by government. Property rights depend on
the notion that you own yourself and your labour and neither the
government nor the community exercising its power through
government may take your property except under three very
limiting conditions. The taking of your property must be for public
use; the taking of your property must be through due legal process
of law; the taking of your property must be with just and timely
compensation.
I have been involved in the appropriation of property for a school
board which needed property for the purchasing and building of
more schools. The process involved even from a local basis should
really be enshrined in the bill of rights. It should be very common
to all Canadians rather than a province by province or a local
district by district implementing their own rules and their own
laws.
Property rights guarantee your right not to be deprived of your
property either by taking away ownership or by restricting your
use, enjoyment or ability to transfer ownership to another person
until or unless the three conditions outlined above are met.
Property rights also guarantee your right not to be deprived of
the value of your own labour by being compelled to work under
conditions not of your choosing or by being forbidden to work
under conditions that are of your own choosing.
We have to go back to the issue of where did property rights
come from. This is not just an issue that started in Canada. We can
go back to Britain or to many countries. I would like to give some
quotes. The following quote goes as far back as 1790 and is by
Edmund Burke in Reflections on the Revolution in France:
The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable
and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends the most to the
perpetuation of society itself. It makes our weakness subservient to our virtue; it
grafts benevolence even upon avarice.
(1915)
In 1937 Walter Lippmann said in the The Good Society: ``The
only dependable foundation of personal liberty is the personal
economic security of private property''.
These kinds of issues are not something that we have created
here today; these have been talked about for years and years. It is
like many other issues in the House of Commons; one has to stand
here and wonder why it is such an issue. Why is this not just
accepted by this government? Rather than it being made a political
issue, why does it not just say that it makes common sense, that it is
for the good of all people so let us do it? What is the hesitancy?
In 1756 Benjamin Franklin said: ``Mine is better than ours''.
What a great quote. That is truly reflective of property rights.
We have to ask why these property rights need to be
strengthened. It is one of our most important rights. If we did not
have a written Constitution, the protection of property rights under
common law which dates from time immemorial would suffice.
However, since we do have a written Constitution that does
6175
entrench certain rights, these rights merely protected by common
law or federal statute are regulated to a subordinate status.
Every person's natural and fundamental right to property should
be protected as our paramount right. If circumstances do not allow
us to entrench property rights in the Constitution, then we should
take the next best step and strengthen this right in federal law using
the legislative mechanisms and constitutional powers available to
the federal government.
One has to ask: What if? Why? How? I will say it again: This
government has an obligation to act rationally and responsibly on
all issues. Because this happens to be a motion brought up by my
colleague on this side of the House does not mean that the
government has to oppose it. It means that the government should
listen to the motion, ask if it makes sense and proceed from there.
There are times in this House of Commons when politics have to
be laid aside. There is nothing wrong with entrenching property
rights in this House of Commons in the bill of rights and the charter
of rights.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, as it is my motion I wonder if I
might be allowed a minute to make a brief summation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): A right of reply is
certainly permissible. Since the hon. member is rising to speak I
must advise the House that if he speaks now he will close the
debate.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
Motion No. M-205 proposes to amend the Canadian bill of rights
by adding two new sections. The first section would allow citizens
the right to their property unless the person receives a fair hearing
in accordance with principles of fundamental justice. The second
section gives the individual property owner the right to fair
compensation for the property within a reasonable amount of time.
At present the Canadian bill of rights includes property rights yet
the guarantee of protection is minimal at best. At present there is no
requirement in Canadian constitutional law that the removal of
private property is covered by a fair procedure to deal with
compensation to the owner and there is no guarantee of fair
treatment by the courts, tribunals or officials who have the power
over individuals or corporations.
(1920 )
Individual property rights is a fundamental freedom which must
be protected. Motion No. M-205 considers giving Canadians
security that their homes and possessions are theirs and theirs
alone. This motion is about giving Canadians the right to the
protection of their own property. I would hope there would be
broad support within this House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I thank the hon. member
for Comox-Alberni.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): At the request of the chief
government ship, the vote on this motion stands deferred until
tomorrow at 5.30 p.m.
_____________________________________________