CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 16, 1997
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9793
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 9794
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 9795
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9795
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9795
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 9796
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9796
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9796
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9797
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9798
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9798
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9798
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9799
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9799
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9802
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9803
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9803
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9804
Bill C-405. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 9804
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9805
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9805
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9805
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9805
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9805
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9805
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9805
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9805
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9805
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9807
Bill C-44. Motion for third reading 9808
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 9823
Bill C-44. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 9824
Division on motion deferred 9826
Bill C-55. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 9826
Bill C-44. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 9827
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 128; Nays, 39 9827
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 9828
Bill C-55. Consideration resumed at third reading stage 9828
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 141; Nays, 27. 9828
Bill C-232. Motion for second reading 9829
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 9837
Bill C-84. Motion for second reading 9839
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the Housewent into committee thereon, Mr.
Kilgour in the chair.) 9843
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 9843
(Amendment agreed to.) 9843
(Amendment agreed to.) 9843
(Amendment agreed to.) 9843
(Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.) 9843
(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.) 9843
(Amendment agreed to.) 9844
(Amendment agreed to.) 9844
(Amendment agreed to.) 9844
(Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.) 9844
(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.) 9844
(Amendment agreed to.) 9844
(Amendment agreed to.) 9844
(Amendment agreed to.) 9844
(Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.) 9844
(Clauses 9 to 12 inclusive agreed to.) 9844
(Bill, as amended, agreed to.) 9844
(Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time andpassed.) 9844
9793
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 16, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada. We will be led by the hon. member for Calgary
North.
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week is National Volunteer Week and communities across the
country will pay tribute to their volunteers and the countless ways
in which they help individuals, organizations and causes.
Volunteer week exemplifies the motivation and dedication of the
millions of people across Canada whose efforts improve the quality
of life for us all. Volunteers are a crucial component of every
community.
This year's theme is ``Volunteers, our greatest natural resource''.
I invite all members of Parliament to help make National Volunteer
Week a success in their constituency by donating a few minutes of
their time to a local organization or cause. In doing so, we are
helping to ensure that volunteerism in Canada will continue to
survive into the 21st century.
Congratulations and a huge thank you to all our volunteers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister responsible for the Canadian Mortgage and Housing
Corporation just woke up and realized that federal and provincial
overlap is nothing but a waste of time and money.
At the signing of a Canada-Saskatchewan social housing
agreement, the minister stated that having a single level of
government in charge of administering social housing would
maximize the use of taxpayers' money by simplifying existing
arrangements and encouraging the development of a single window
concept.
When will we see powers transferred to the provinces in areas
like forestry, tourism and mining? After three and a half years, it is
time this government recognized that the Bloc Quebecois was right
about the need to eliminate overlap.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, China is repeatedly jailing dissidents like Wei Jingsheng
and student leader Wang Dan for speaking out on human rights. It
has violated its joint declaration agreement on Hong Kong and its
basic law by appointing its own legislative council, introducing
laws on subversion and rolling back Hong Kong's bill of rights.
Our government's response is not to support the UN declaration
condemning China for its human rights abuses, a complete
flip-flop. China is a superpower but it can also be a great nation.
China and Canada need to realize that a stable business
environment is conditional on human rights, democratic principles,
freedoms and the rule of law. To ignore this is to imperil not only
people but economic stability. The government must stop its
continued silence of the lambs and must speak out for human
rights.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
most young people are law-abiding citizens concerned about the
safety of others and who deplore crime and violence in any form. I
have worked with many who excel and who are working within
their communities to bring about changes for the better.
I want to congratulate one of these groups, the students of Miller
High School of Regina who came to Ottawa this week with a
petition to improve the Young Offenders Act. They have shown
initiative by preparing recommendations that would make the act
more effective and workable for offenders and their victims.
9794
In Regina crime is a serious concern. Most crimes of theft and
break and enter are committed by repeat offenders who are already
subject to the provisions of the Young Offenders Act because of
past offences.
The Miller High School students recommend reducing the age in
the Young Offenders Act to 16 years to correspond with the
responsibilities youths take on when they obtain a driver's licence.
They also recommend mandatory restitution to victims. The
students suggest that young offenders work off their crimes with
community improvement work.
These Miller High School students know it is time to get tough
on crime and hope the Liberals get serious about it too. I applaud
their initiative.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
my colleague from Hillsborough said, this week is National
Volunteer Week, an opportunity to celebrate the tremendous
contributions of volunteers to our communities across Canada.
Millions of Canadians give freely of their time to support
non-profit, voluntary and charitable organizations. Their
generosity and participation builds and maintains the quality of life
in our towns and neighbourhoods. Every year Canadians contribute
over $13 billion to charities and non-profit organizations.
Approximately 13 million people volunteer their time each year in
Canada. In my hometown of Hamilton, more than 100,000
volunteer their time and money every year.
[Translation]
On behalf of all my colleagues in the House of Commons, I want
to thank all the volunteers for giving us some of their time.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex I have received
considerable input from my constituents about the new seniors
benefit which begins in 2001. I also had the recent opportunity to
meet with the London Council for Seniors to discuss this important
new program.
Based on the input I have received, the vast majority of my
constituents who are seniors support the new seniors benefit. They
understand that it is fairer and that 75 per cent of Canadian seniors
will receive the same or higher benefits.
One area of concern raised was a possible discrimination against
married senior couples as compared to single seniors who cohabit.
Senior married couples want to know that the rules about combined
incomes will be applied the same way in both cases.
I call on the government to review this concern carefully and to
ensure a fair and just application of the new rules as they apply to
the income of all seniors.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the agreement on the management of salmon issues to be signed
today by the Prime Minister and the Premier of British Columbia
vindicates former Prime Minister Lester Pearson's concept of
co-operative federalism.
Intergovernmental relations in a federal system should be based
not on confrontation and a rush to the law courts but on pragmatic
accommodation and administrative partnership. Today most major
issues transcend the problem-solving capacities of any one level of
government and require a melding of decision making, not a
fragmentation of power into watertight compartments of
constitutional competence, federal or provincial.
We all have everything to gain by this highly pragmatic,
empirically based approach to the regulation and conservation of a
great national resource on the west coast.
(1410 )
It is to be achieved not by the frustrating processes of formal
amendment of the Constitution, but by consensus of the respective
heads of government, concretized in a legal agreement based on the
constitutional principle of good faith and on mutual benefit.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, April 13 to
19 is National Volunteer Week, which has been celebrated since
1943.
Eleven million Canadians and Quebecers generously devote
their time, energy and talents to helping others. These volunteers
express their love and generosity through a wide range of actions.
I am proud to represent the riding of Bourassa, where dozens of
community organizations are active. I want to praise the thousands
of volunteers in my riding and everywhere, who generously work
to enhance their fellow citizens' quality of life. I would like to draw
special attention to the work of the Centre d'action bénévole de
Montréal-Nord, Fondation La Visite, Coup de pouce Jeunesse,
CAMÉE, Entre-Parents, Chez Frédéric and Ignace Bourget.
9795
Finally, I encourage all Canadians and Quebecers to show even
greater support, generosity and dedication toward the most
disadvantaged members of our society.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
Liberal government has the power to improve the safety of
Canadians. In criminal law the government chooses to do little or
nothing to make our streets safer. But in Parks Canada the heavy
hand of the government is shutting down the Jasper airstrip, for no
good reason.
The Jasper airstrip does not cost taxpayers' money. There is not
one incident in the airstrip's 70-year history of environmental
damage or injury to animals. However, there are many instances of
the airstrip being used for emergency landings by pilots.
While door knocking in Jasper, of the scores of people I talked
to, all but one wanted the airstrip to remain open.
In the future when an emergency landing is needed in Jasper, will
the heritage minister accept responsibility for any personal injuries
or deaths? When will the government listen to the common sense
of the common people to do what is right for Jasper residents and
Canadians everywhere?
* * *
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today during National Volunteer Week to honour all volunteers
but most particularly women volunteers.
Every day countless numbers of women give their time to work
in our hospitals, schools and nursing homes, on boards and fund
raising committees, with literacy programs, rape crisis centres and
more. These women come from a wide cross section of society and
bring a great range of skills and expertise to the cultural, political,
social and economic fabric of the country. In fact our paid economy
could not function without the unpaid work of volunteers.
As a nation we cannot afford to take our volunteers for granted.
They are without a doubt the heart and soul of our country and on
behalf of all of us I say thank you.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago Prime Minister Chrétien announced
that Spar Aerospace located in my riding of
Bramalea-Gore-Malton will develop the space shuttle's Canada
Hand, thus creating at least 125 local jobs.
Everyone in the riding is pleased that our highly skilled local
workforce has once again helped sustain and create local jobs. In
fact, an even larger impact on local companies is expected due to
the manufacturing and marketing of commercial spin-offs resulting
from the Canada Hand robotic technology.
I want to thank the Prime Minister for his ongoing efforts to
create as many jobs as possible, despite the current tough economic
climate. Though the government cannot be satisfied with the
current level of unemployment, its efforts to date are still
commendable.
Having said that, I want to point out that I plan to pursue
additional job creation until everyone-
The Speaker: I remind you gently, hon. colleagues, not to use
our names but our titles or our ridings.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to pay tribute, here in this House, to the first magistrate of Thetford
Mines, who is also the president of the asbestos economic
development corporation, Mayor Henri Therrien who, last week,
was named personality of the year for 1996 by the chamber of
commerce of the asbestos region.
(1415)
This honour follows a long list of achievements by Mayor
Therrien, in the economic, cultural, sports and municipal areas,
among others. For ten years now, the citizens of Thetford Mines
have been proud to be able to rely on the dynamism and generosity
of their mayor.
Congratulations Henri, and thank you.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Reform Party I would like to recognize the tremendous
accomplishment and entrepreneurial spirit of the high tech industry
in the Ottawa-Lanark-Carleton region, better known as silicon
valley north.
In just a few short years these pioneers of the 21st century have
grown from an idea, to a dream, to a reality.
Last Wednesday our leader, Preston Manning, and the Reform
candidate Darrel Reid held a breakfast meeting with the Canadian
Advanced Technology Association to discuss the role of
government in assisting in their success. Prominent industry
leaders such as Denzell Doyle came to let Reformers know what
they feel has to be done.
9796
Topics discussed included their hunger for highly skilled
workers, the need for better high tech training, the damage taxes
do to high tech ventures, and their number one priority, a reduction
in the capital gains tax to encourage entrepreneurs and risk takers.
These are the leaders of tomorrow. Like the Edisons, Fords and
Rockefellers who fashioned a world from concrete and steel, they
will build a new one of fibre optics, copper wire and silicon chips.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, on behalf of my party, I moved a motion dealing with the
Bankruptcy Act.
This motion asks the Liberal government to amend the new
standards governing bankruptcies, so as to prevent the application
of more stringent rules for discharge of a student loan debt than for
other types of debt.
Our purpose is not to remove the responsibility of students, quite
the contrary. We know that the vast majority of students pay back
their loans. Rather, the motion seeks to make the government aware
of the injustice being done to students who are overburdened with
debt and not able to pay back their loans.
In its study on the issue of personal income tax reform, the Bloc
Quebecois recommended the introduction of a tax credit to help
graduating students who must start paying off their loans.
Instead of going after students, the Liberal government should
make a commitment to create jobs, which is the only concrete
solution to the student debt problem.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, too many of our children and adults of all ages and
backgrounds continue to be devastated by the group of diseases
known as leukemia.
Leukemia is still the most deadly disease for Canadian children.
But there is hope. Canadian research scientists and research centres
and hospitals across the country have made and continue to make
great progress, particularly in the treatment and life expectancy of
leukemia patients. More success has been achieved with leukemia
than any other cancer.
The Leukemia Research Fund of Canada, a national volunteer
organization, raises money to provide grants to Canadian
researchers and to educate the public about the disease and its
treatment.
I would ask my colleagues to show their support and consider in
the very near future the formal recognition of the month of June as
Leukemia Awareness Month across Canada, just as it has been
known and practised for the last 40 years.
_____________________________________________
9796
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this week at the National Assembly, members of all
parties voted unanimously in favour of a resolution asking the
government to amend section 93 of the Canadian Constitution, in
order to establish school boards in Quebec along linguistic lines.
The resolution comes after more than 30 years of debate-this
goes back to the Parent report-and after more than a year of
consultations held across Quebec, throughout the regions. Today,
the federal government tells us this was not enough.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he realizes that he is
preventing the passage of an amendment to section 93 before the
next election and thus delaying the introduction of linguistic school
boards in Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the resolution was passed last night. We received it this
morning. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explained the
party's position to the press.
(1420)
We will table a resolution in this House as soon as possible, I
hope by the end of this week, but the government does not have full
control over the rules of procedure of this House and the Upper
House. We need the co-operation of all concerned. However, we
will proceed as soon as possible, as I said yesterday.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister knows perfectly well that creating a
joint parliamentary committee will keep the amendment from
being adopted before the next election. The government is aware of
that. This is no accident.
And speaking of his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, how
could he say this morning that if Quebec had a federalist
government, it would be less of a problem, when we know that all
members of the National Assembly, both sovereignists and
federalists, voted in favour of this resolution? How could he make
such a statement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we all know that the minority living in Quebec is not
necessarily comfortable with certain situations-
9797
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): -as is often the case with
francophone minorities in other provinces.
The minister mentioned that fact, and there was a parliamentary
committee in the Senate the last time, when we had a resolution
from Newfoundland, and we believe there should be a
parliamentary committee once again. And to speed things up, we
have decided to have a joint committee of the Senate and the House
of Commons that will conduct hearings where people will be able
to express their views. There is nothing wrong with that. However,
the government intends to support the motion.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to compare the position of
language minorities in Quebec with that of language minorities
across Canada, I warn him that the official opposition is willing to
have an emergency debate on the subject here in the House, at any
time.
The Prime Minister is saying that the federal government is the
custodian of democracy in Quebec and that the democratic process
in Quebec is flawed. The Prime Minister is applying the theory of
Pierre Elliott Trudeau that federalism should be the bulwark of
democracy in Quebec. Does he realize this is an affront to the
democratic process in Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is the government's responsibility to act as directed by
the Canadian Constitution, and we intend to act on those
responsibilities as we always have.
Perhaps the hon. member should read the book published a few
days ago by one of his members, the hon. member for Québec-Est.
People thought some of his comments were not very nice to the
minority.
Personally, I am fighting for the French minority outside Quebec
and the English minority in Quebec, because the Canadian
government has a duty to defend minorities wherever they happen
to be in this country.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Denying the democratic legitimacy of the National Assembly in
the matter of linguistic school boards, Ottawa will be launching
public hearings, while all of the stakeholders in Quebec have long
ago made their opinions known on this matter. Yesterday Quebec
spoke in the National Assembly; now it is Ottawa's turn to listen.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his government is taking
refuge behind the unelected Senate in order to preclude any
possibility of this constitutional amendment being passed before
the coming election? After the Supreme Court, now the senators,
who are not elected, are the ones to set Quebec's education policy.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is suggesting is contrary to
both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of Canada. The two
parliaments, provincial and federal, must decide on this
amendment. Both have to make up their minds.
(1425)
The Canadian Parliament is also the Parliament of Quebecers.
The elected representatives of Quebec also sit in the House of
Commons. Canada in its entirety belongs to the people of Quebec.
Moreover, the federal government has specific responsibilities
toward minorities. This does not mean that the provinces are not
concerned about them, but it is our responsibility. Because we have
required a consensus, which the opposition did not want to seek, we
have protected minorities everywhere in the country. A
government proposing a constitutional amendment under section
43 which affects its minority requires the support of that minority if
it wants to get that amendment from the Parliament of Canada.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just
having a school bag does not make a person smart.
When the Government of New Brunswick was calling for a
constitutional amendment in 1993, Ottawa held no public hearings.
How can the Prime Minister justify his acting without any public
hearings, in the case of New Brunswick, while he refuses to do the
same in the case of Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the case of New Brunswick, the Government of
New Brunswick had the decency to establish a parliamentary
commission in that province in 1990.
Quebecers greatly respect democracy. They must not be very
proud of the way their provincial government has handled the
school board matter.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dion: Absolutely. It is scandalous that groups were not even
given the opportunity to express themselves. The Parliament of
Canada will give them that opportunity, knowing that Quebecers
greatly respect democracy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the country desperately needs some new thinking on the
future of federalism but look what we get.
9798
The Prime Minister last year, the member for Sherbrooke last
month and now Brian Mulroney are going back to distinct society
entrenchment as the answer. These are empty words, hollow
gestures, old ideas, all democratically rejected by Canadians in
1992 including Quebec.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why does he still cling to
this obsolete idea? Why does he have nothing fresh and new to
offer Quebec and the rest of Canada on reforming federalism?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are reforming the federation.
In a few minutes I will sign an agreement with the Government
of British Columbia to involve the province of British Columbia in
fisheries management on the west coast. We are signing
agreements with all provinces on manpower training.
In the speech from the throne a year and a few months ago we
had a list of things that had to be done. We said that we did not want
to have a grand meeting that produced nothing. We were to do it
step by step, province by province.
As I said, the House of Commons has given a veto to all regions
of Canada including Quebec. We voted for distinct society for
Quebec. We are settling the question of manpower training with the
provinces. Today we are settling the problem of fisheries with
British Columbia.
We settled the duplication in forestry, in mining and in the
environment. I could go on and on and on. The practical way is to
give Canadians an answer to one problem at a time. It is the modern
way.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is so void of new ideas that it has to go to
the public in an election after 3.5 years. It has come up empty on
national unity. The Prime Minister also has the worst string of
unemployment records since the depression. He is right up there
with R.B. Bennett.
The Prime Minister has nothing new to say to the 1.4 million
unemployed. He has nothing new to say to unemployed young
people. He has nothing new to say to the underemployed. He has
nothing new to say to the one out of four workers afraid of losing
their jobs. He has nothing new to say to the 75 per cent of
Canadians who say he has done a bad job on jobs.
(1430 )
If jobs is the number one priority of the government, why is it
that the Prime Minister has nothing new or innovative to say on the
subject at all?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member was in the House when we presented a
budget that put $350 million into jobs for young people. We have
given an incentive reduction in the employment insurance
premium. Employers hiring new people will not have to pay such
high premiums. It will help them to hire more people.
The Canadian economy has given Canadians the lowest interest
rates in 40 years. This will create jobs. Canadians had never seen a
four-year period with such low inflation as we have managed to
give them. We have increased our trade by 40 per cent in four
years. This is also creating jobs.
We will carry on because the Canadian people know we have to
stay the course. We will not try to buy the votes of Canadians by
giving them across the board tax cuts until we have reduced the
deficit to zero.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the government came to power it also promised a
new level of integrity and accountability.
Let us look at the record 3.5 years later: political interference in
the Somalia inquiry, government stonewalling of the inquiry into
tainted blood, the bungled Airbus project, the bungled Pearson
airport project, the GST alive and well and bigger than ever before,
and 73 per cent of Canadians saying that the government has done a
bad job on keeping its promises.
Why does the Prime Minister have nothing new to offer
Canadians on political accountability? What happened to the red
book promise to restore integrity to the institutions of government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I stand very proud with my party on that. During the four
years we formed government not a single minister was obliged to
resign because of a scandal.
There was a poll in Maclean's the other day which showed that
four years ago about 15 per cent of Canadians had confidence in
their national government. In the last poll, 55 per cent said it was
the best of 20 nations.
I will meet the leader of the third party on the streets of Canada
in the months to come. The people of Canada will tell him that we
are not the party that is proposing to cut the taxes of banks by10 per cent.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this week the Prime Minister tried to use Quebec's
bishops to delay implementation of linguistic school boards in
Quebec, when in fact the bishops had said they were in favour of
linguistic school boards several months ago.
Today, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs talks to us
about insufficient consultation on the school boards issue when,
and I repeat, we have been debating this issue, in general
assemblies throughout Quebec, for over 30 years now.
9799
I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs whether, with
both federalists and sovereignists in the National Assembly
unanimous, a consensus in Quebec requires, in his view, that
Alliance Quebec and The Gazette also be in agreement?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The proof is that we
support the measure. This is very good news. First of all, the
official opposition should congratulate the Canadian government,
which has just supported a measure that will be good for
Quebecers.
(1435)
Second, is should congratulate the Canadian government and
say: ``We will get the chance to have a parliamentary committee
because we, as the opposition, believe that parliamentary
committees are a good thing, and we stand behind the official
opposition in the National Assembly, which also called for a
parliamentary committee''.
That is what they should be saying, if they were not blinded by
their separatist ideology.
Mrs. Tremblay: Enrol in high school, Stéphane.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, you would think Pierre Elliott Trudeau had come back.
An hon. member: Yes, you would.
Mr. Duceppe: A Pierre Elliott Trudeau with a school bag.
The real reason, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
should say so here in the House, is that, when all is said and done,
he is afraid of the reaction of the rest of Canada, of English Canada
on the eve of an election, and of the voters of the West Island. That
is the real reason.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition can accuse me
of many things, but fear is not one of them. When have you seen
Stéphane Dion intimidated by anything? Get serious.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dion: They have always said: ``If Alliance Quebec is
against it, Dion will not support it''. I have always said that I would
not give any group a veto. Alliance Quebec is opposed and Dion is
in favour.
However, Dion, or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
since we are in the House, would like to see Alliance Quebec
support it. There will be a parliamentary committee to listen to
their views and to see what can be done to include them in the
consensus.
The opposition should be happy that there is a parliamentary
committee. The opposition will have an opportunity to express its
point of view, to hear from different groups according to a
procedure that is well established in democracy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has been
reported that the government has just settled with Pearson
Development Corporation for $60 million.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): We will see if the rest of it gets a
standing ovation.
However this is only part of the deal, part of a sad story. Earlier
the government gave the Pearson group $185 million in rent relief
and $15 million in legal costs. This Liberal bungle has cost
taxpayers $260 million.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Why has the government wasted
$260 million of taxpayers money? Why?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is well known that the government has tried to settle the
legal matter which led to the lawsuit. We tried by legislation and by
negotiation. We tried by litigation. We wanted it settled from
December 3, 1993.
The figures put forward by the hon. member are simply false. I
might add that when we tried to get that same settlement figure
through legislation his party refused to vote for it, preferring
instead to leave the taxpayer on the hook. Nevertheless we will
leave that aside.
The figure is $45 million for the expenses of the consortium and
$15 million for other expenses that have taken place since and for
legal fees. That is the cost of settling the lawsuit.
With respect to the legal fees the government had to spend, we
had a $663 million possible liability which they seem to be so
enthusiastic about encouraging. Obviously we had to spend money
to prevent that liability.
The third point is the $185 million for specifically the
construction and completion of the north-south runway, for the two
firehalls at either end of the airport and for the new de-icing
facility.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the $260
million liability the minister speaks about is because of their
bungle. There is no other reason. It was their mistake. The huge
profits that were supposed to have been in the original deal, which
was a good deal, are now in the settlement.
9800
Not only have the Liberals wasted $260 million on the
settlement, but Canada's most important piece of infrastructure
has continued to deteriorate for four years. The airport authority
is now going to have to spend $2 billion on renovations and this
will mean airport user fees.
(1440 )
Why has the minister failed Canadians twice in wasting $260
million, and we will now face airport user fees?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just do not know where that party comes from.
We have the one member of that party from Ontario who
complains. Does he mention that in Vancouver we have made rent
reduction of $46 million, that in Edmonton the figure was $127
million and in Calgary it was $117 million? No, he focuses only on
the $185 million in Toronto.
It was part of a pattern across the country which included $120
million to the airports of Montreal. It was a program to make sure
our airports could benefit from the open skies agreement and
position themselves as the leading gateways to both Europe and
Asia.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The secret everybody knew has now become public: the federal
government today announced that it has reached an agreement with
the promoters who wanted to buy terminals 1 and 2 of the Pearson
airport. Taxpayers will have to spend another $60 million on top of
the $185 million the minister gave to the airport on March 25.
Can the Minister of Transport today say that his government
erred in the case of Toronto's airport, as it did in the case of
Montreal's, and that the taxpayers will have to pay more than $245
million to cover its blunders?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat for the hon. member, who apparently was not
listening to the earlier question, that the settlement in the case of
Pearson airport is $45 million for the legitimate expenses which
were determined by an outside firm of experts in this area, plus the
$15 million for legal fees and expenses since the time of the
original contract. That is the cost of settling.
When this government entered power in 1993 we had a choice.
We looked at the Pearson airport deal and we determined that it
was not in the public interest, and it is not today in the public
interest. We had the choice of simply going along with the previous
deal which was not in the public interest or terminating it. We knew
there would be costs to terminating it. We were willing to bear
those costs and we did. They are $45 million plus $15 million.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has just acknowledged that all of the money
he put into it represents a deal with the people to put an end to the
Pearson airport scandal.
On March 25, the Minister of Transport announced $185 million
in financial assistance to the airport for projects that were over85 per cent complete. Three weeks later, everything is resolved as
if by magic, while the dispute had been going on for three and a
half years, as if the gift of $185 million had nothing to do with the
$60 million.
How does the minister explain all these coincidences on the eve
of an election?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, I should point out that the local airport authority,
ADM in Montreal, received over $100 million for special capital
expenditures and another $20 million for a special fund. ADM
received $120 million, and Montreal got $185 million.
That is why it was clear that in Toronto they needed more funds
to pay three things: the north-south runway, the de-icing area and
the fire station. That is what we paid for with the $185 million.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister and the premier of B.C. will sign a fisheries agreement
within an hour. Everyone is asking what is in it for the politicians.
The real question is what is in it for the fish.
(1445)
Rules governing land, water and waste determine whether fish
survive. These are under provincial control and the provincial
record is abominable.
The agreement to be signed today appears designed more to
improve the lot of Liberals in B.C. than to protect fish habitat.
Can the minister tell the House how this agreement will improve
the province's deplorable record of protecting fish habitat?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for recognizing this
milestone in Canadian history.
9801
The hon. member asked who will benefit from this. The
highlights of this are the following. There will be a B.C.-Canada
council of ministers to co-ordinate the major salmon resource and
habitat issues. There will be a Pacific fisheries resource
conservation council like there is in Atlantic Canada. There will
be a creation of a fisheries renewal advisory board which will
include the stakeholders and community groups to improve
co-ordination on habitat restoration and enhancement initiatives.
There will be a funding of $15 million for each government over
three years for habitat restoration. There will be a commitment
by both governments to work co-operatively to reduce overlap and
duplication and to improve efficiency on the part of everybody.
That benefits the fish and the fishermen.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this agreement
is not a milestone, it is more a headstone for the fish in B.C.
During the construction of the Vancouver Island highway the
province deviously avoided its own environmental assessment law.
The minister of fisheries played the same game and avoided an
environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act.
Rather than attempting to promote the cause of Liberals in B.C.
by jumping into bed with Glen Clark, why has the minister of
fisheries not fulfilled his constitutional obligation and charged the
province with fish habitat destruction by the Vancouver Island
highway?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I find this very strange for a party that believes the
federal government should get out of the environmental business
altogether.
I would suggest that the only headstone in this agreement is the
Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
While the Minister of Foreign Affairs is desperately looking to
the international community to justify proclaiming Canada a great
place to live, the aboriginal peoples of Quebec and Canada are
travelling across Europe denouncing some of the many red book
promises that have been broken. After three and a half years of
Liberal government, the aboriginal peoples still have record high
rates of suicide, imprisonment, unemployment and infant
mortality.
When will the government of the so-called best country in the
world to live in finally acknowledge the report of the
Erasmus-Dussault Royal Commission and seriously tackle the
problems facing aboriginal peoples?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to
Mr. Mercredi's trip to England. We have different styles.
While I was working on Manitoba treaty land entitlement, the
Dog Rib claims in the Northwest Territories, the Makivik claims in
Quebec, all significant, Mr. Mercredi was talking to the statue of
Queen Victoria.
We have been here three and a half years. The RCAP report talks
about relocations and we did them in Grise Fiord and Davis Inlet.
For veterans we did scholarships. We did June 21st aboriginal
recognition.
On governance, we did inherent right; the B.C. treaty process,
the Manitoba dismantling, 13 land management agreements;
Nunavut and Yukon.
On co-management we are doing it in Saskatchewan, B.C. and
Alberta. On treaty land entitlement we are finishing with
Saskatchewan and doing Manitoba.
I have 18 pages of bullets which I am prepared to table so the
hon. member can read in bullet form 18 pages of progress.
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
minister's information, England was not the only country they
visited, and Ovide Mercredi was not travelling alone either. The
chief of Quebec's First Nations and his delegation were with him.
Together they visited several European countries. As for Queen
Victoria's statue, it was no doubt more sensitive to aboriginal
issues than the minister.
Since the report was tabled, the First Nations have repeatedly
solicited a meeting with the Prime Minister.
Why does his government keep refusing to talk with the First
Nations and to meet them before the next federal election?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we went abroad we did it
a lot more wisely than the AFN. We went to Greenland to negotiate
economic agreements with aboriginal people. We went to New
Zealand to negotiate economic agreements between our aboriginal
people and their aboriginal people. We went to the United States to
negotiate economic agreements on agriculture. We went to Mexico
to negotiate a forestry agreement between the Meadow Lake Tribal
9802
Council and the people there. I could go on. I am glad the member
has given me this opportunity.
While they were talking, we were moving over jurisdiction in
gas and oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
We made amendments to the Indian Act which the hon. member
opposed. It gave power to those people. No country has gone as far
as Canada.
We said that these powers belonged to aboriginal people. They
came from the creator. We are prepared as a federal government to
say that education is theirs, health is theirs. Marriage, custody,
culture and language are theirs. The hon. member would not
support those things.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian recipients of U.S. social security benefits are
relieved that this government has taken steps to alleviate the U.S.
tax grab on their monthly payments, but the solution depends on
action by our Parliament and by the U.S. Senate.
Can the Minister of Finance tell the constituents of Windsor-St.
Clair what exactly the government is prepared to do to help them
recoup their losses in the event of a delay in the United States?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair is asking a question on
behalf of her constituents. She has been very active in this file. It is
a question which concerns a number of members in the House.
As the member knows, having worked on this file for some time,
what is necessary is for us to set up a system by which we can
provide the refunds as quickly as possible. It will take the
co-operation of the United States because not all seniors file
Canadian tax returns. We have to get that information and then we
have to match it to our information.
Setting up the system will take some time, but the commitment I
am prepared to make in the House is that if by the time the system
is set up it has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate, we will proceed
immediately to provide the refunds to Canadian recipients.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
during question period the justice minister denied that we need a
victims bill of rights. He mocked the request of my colleague from
Fraser Valley West for greater rights for victims by saying that the
provinces have already taken steps to do exactly what is being
asked for in the victims bill of rights, and yet the justice minister
has admitted that victims of crime need more rights, as shown by
his request to the justice committee to study the bill.
Why then does he say that these rights are already covered by
provincial legislation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, yesterday I was not
mocking victims bills of rights, I was mocking the hon. member for
Fraser Valley West.
Second, the hon. member will know that the justice committee,
at my request, is examining the entire matter of victims rights in
this country. I wrote to the committee a year ago. It is examining
the Statutes of Canada, the administration of justice in the
provinces, and it is preparing proposals to improve the justice
system to make it more sensitive to the rights of victims.
That is what I have asked the hon. member and his colleagues on
the justice committee to do.
(1455 )
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the justice minister feels that mocking a legitimate question from
the opposition is becoming, in particular on the eve of an election.
Murderer Karla Homolka has the right to a university education.
Child killer Clifford Olson has the right to apply for early release.
Criminals are demanding sex change operations, colour televisions
and computers. And now a murderer in prison in New Brunswick is
demanding the right to be transported to Nova Scotia every time he
wants a conjugal visit with his wife who is imprisoned there for her
part in the murder.
The government gives in to these demands while victims stand at
the door begging. How can the minister deny victims reasonable
rights while he continues to protect the rights of Clifford Olson and
while doing nothing to stop rapists like Darren Ursel from walking
free?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the system at present includes a
statement of victims rights adopted by the federal government and
the provinces in 1988. Since 1988 the federal government has
conducted itself, drafted its legislation, selected its priorities and
determined its policies in relation to that statement of principles. It
is in essence a victims bill of rights.
However, there is room for improvement in any system,
including the criminal justice system when it comes to victims. It is
for that reason that I have asked the justice committee, of which the
hon. member is a hardworking part, to work on the victims bill of
rights to look at how it can be improved, how the system can be
made more sensitive to the interests of victims.
I look forward to the report of that committee. This government
will examine it with care and do the right thing.
9803
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Industry.
On several occasions, I have risen in this House to question the
minister on the future of the Hyundai plant in Bromont. We have
now learned that Hyundai has moved all its automobile assembly
machinery out of the plant. More than 800 direct jobs in my region
are at stake.
Can the minister say whether discussions have been initiated
with his Quebec counterpart or any potential buyer who could take
over this idle manufacturing plant and get it running again?
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks an interesting question.
It is a matter I will have to take up with the minister. We will take
that question under advisement.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
heritage minister talked about the receptions held to salute our
Olympic athletes. I want to make it clear that the Reform Party and
all Canadians are proud of those athletes.
I am not talking about the Canadian salute to our Olympic
athletes and their cocktail party. I am talking about the federal
government caviar cocktail party held for under 100 people at the
CNN centre in Atlanta on July 22, 1996. It is time the heritage
minister came clean on this. I know two people who took pictures
at this event. These people have told us what it was like.
While Canadians are working harder and being taxed more, this
minister is having a caviar cocktail party for $65,000 for under 100
people. She should give an answer to the Canadian people
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is ironic. I thought that
in light of the fact that the member and his colleagues have not
hestitated from associating themselves with any reception he might
have hung his head in shame.
He made a reference yesterday to so-called MP junkets. I took
the time to do a bit of research. The member who decried that we
had approximately 20 young wheelchair athletes aged 14 and 15 at
this reception is the same member who took a trip to Cambridge,
England, Oslo, Norway, Tromso, Norway, Stockholm, Sweden,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
I checked today on the business class ticket price, which is
$5,000.
* * *
(1500)
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of aboriginal affairs and has to do with
concerns expressed in northern Manitoba, particularly in the riding
of Churchill, with respect to funding that was promised for
housing. The minister knows this is a concern.
Could he tell the House and the people of northern Manitoba,
particularly in the aboriginal communities, when that promised
money will be forthcoming? Will there be an announcement in the
next little while regarding how this funding will be forthcoming
and how it will be received?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
interest in aboriginal peoples which has been consistent.
I do not have the exact details because it is based on formula, but
I will get them after question period and give them to the hon.
member.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration.
The minister today tabled a 1996 annual report to Parliament on
ministerial permits. Could the minister inform the House on how
these numbers compare to those of previous years? What assurance
could the minister give Canadians that these permits are being used
responsibly?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year we issued fewer
ministerial permits than the year before, fewer than ever before.
There was a 27 per cent reduction.
We are achieving the goal of controlling the immigration
program more efficiently. Ministerial permits allow people who
would otherwise not be admissible to Canada to come in under
specific circumstances or for specific reasons. Each case is looked
at very seriously.
The safety and security of Canadians remain the priority in the
final decision.
9804
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of personal privilege. During question period the Deputy Prime
Minister showed very poor taste in her comments.
If she were to check further she would find that the trip she
mentioned was not paid for by the Canadian taxpayers in any way.
I could provide the House with that evidence at a later date.
_____________________________________________
9804
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 25 petitions.
* * *
(1505)
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, copies of the 1994 and 1995-96
annual reports of the implementation committee on the Shatu Dene
and Metis comprehensive land claim agreement.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, copies of the 1994-95 and 1995-96
annual reports of the implementation committee on the Gwitch'in
comprehensive land claim agreement.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth
report of the Standing Committee on Health.
Pursuant to the order of reference dated November 5, 1996, the
committee has adopted Bill C-47, an act respecting human
reproductive technologies and commercial transactions relating to
human reproduction, and amendments.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food which deals
with Bill C-72, the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I am proud to report the bill with several amendments.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 63rd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of
reference from the House of Commons on Thursday, February 20,
1997, in relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1998 with regard to vote 5 under Parliament, House of
Commons. The committee reports the same.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-405, an act to amend the
Privacy Act.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill
which seeks to amend the Privacy Act to allow parents and legal
guardians the right to contact the RCMP for disclosure of whether
or not an individual in trust or authority has been convicted of a
previous offence, including sexual interference and incest.
The legislation is introduced following a tragic situation in my
riding of Guelph-Wellington where a child was molested by an
individual who had a previous conviction. The child's mother was
unable to obtain any information regarding the individual. Parents
must have access to prior records to ensure that this kind of
situation cannot happen again.
The legislation is about access that will give our children much
needed protection. Society must do all it can to prevent incidents of
child abuse. I hope that my private member's bill will be another
important step in the protection of our children.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
9805
(1510)
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House. I have quite a few
petitions which I have grouped into several categories.
I am overwhelmed by the show of public support for my parental
rights Motion No. 300. In just a few months I have received 41
petitions with 940 signatures which I am pleased to present to the
House today.
The petitioners draw attention to their concerns that the
government has used the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child to create legislation, programs and bureaucracy which
undermine the fundamental rights and freedoms of parents.
These concerned Canadians request that Parliament support
Motion No. 300 which would add parental rights and
responsibilities to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the next group of petitions I am pleased to rise today to
present are signed by concerned citizens across Canada.
They oppose the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation in the
Canadian Human Rights Act. These Canadians believe that
freedom from discrimination is already protected in the human
rights act without this amendment.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the next group of petitions I rise to present are signed by
Canadian citizens from the province of Saskatchewan.
They request that Parliament amend the Criminal Code to ensure
that sentences given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired
or causing injury or death while impaired reflect both the severity
of the crime and zero tolerance by Canada toward the crime.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the next group of petitions that it is my pleasure to present
are three petitions representing 75 concerned citizens from
Manitoba.
They wish Parliament to affirm the duty of parents to
responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience
and beliefs and therefore that section 33 of the Criminal Code be
left as it is currently worded.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present another petition
signed by Canadians concerned about our national highway system
given that 38 per cent of national highways are substandard.
The petitioners request that Parliament urge the federal
government to join with the provincial governments to upgrade our
highways.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am also pleased to rise today to present petitions signed
by concerned Canadians who wish to draw to the attention of
Parliament that over 100,000 therapeutic abortions are performed
each year in Canada at a cost of over $50 million per year.
The petitioners and all Canadians deserve to have a voice in how
their health care dollars are spent and which health care procedures
they consider essential.
They call on Parliament to support a binding national
referendum to be held at the time of the next general election to
determine whether or not Canadians are in favour of federal
government funding for abortions on demand.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present petitions on behalf of
concerned Canadians.
They request that Parliament support the existing laws which
will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in a
crime, support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions
which recognize the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use
their firearms, and will repeal and modify existing gun control laws
that have not improved public safety or not proven to be cost
effective or too complex.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I also wish to present petitions signed by Canadians
concerned about the high percentage of taxes they are paying for a
litre of gasoline at the pumps.
They request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax
on gasoline in the next federal budget.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to present petitions signed by Canadians greatly
concerned about recent court decisions that have declared the
Criminal Code of Canada setting the age of consent for sexual
intercourse with females at 14 years of age, and the age of consent
for anal intercourse at 18 years of age is discriminatory on the basis
of age.
9806
The majority of Canadians believe our laws should protect
children from exploitation and abuse and that age of consent laws
are designed to control adults who want to have sex with minors.
The petitioners urge Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of
Canada to set the age of consent at 18 years of age except for
husband and wife relationships to provide protection from
exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the privilege and honour of presenting two
petitions.
In light of the fact that 38 per cent of the national highway
system is substandard, a group of citizens in Thunder
Bay-Atikokan have signed a petition asking that the federal
government join with provincial governments to upgrade the
national highway system.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I also have a very significant petition signed by 8,600
citizens from Thunder Bay, Terrace Bay, Kakabeka Falls, Ignace,
Dryden, Winnipeg, Dyment, Red Rock, Sundridge, Dorion,
Kenora, Pearl, Nolalu, Marathon, Manitouwadge, Azilda, Heron
Bay, Kaministiquia, South Gillies, Garson, Sioux Lookout,
Geraldton, Atikokan and Pass Lake.
This is the first batch of many individuals who are
acknowledging the fact that there is no CPR passenger service
between the cities of Sudbury and Winnipeg.
(1515 )
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to ensure that the
federal government, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and
VIA Rail Canada Inc. co-operatively conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of reintroducing VIA passenger service from
Sudbury to Winnipeg and that VIA passenger service be revived on
the CPR line from Sudbury to Winnipeg as soon as possible.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
wish to present a petition signed by 84 people in the Montreal area
concerning the unity of Canada.
The petitioners ask Parliament to declare that Canada is
indivisible within its boundaries, that the provinces, territories and
territorial waters may be modified only by a free vote of all
Canadians, including the amending formula stipulated by the
Constitution.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by approximately
1,600 residents of my riding which calls on the federal government
through the health protection branch to stop regulating herbal
products as if they were drugs and to clearly recognized them as
food.
In brief, the petitioners want the consumer to have choice and
not give that discretion to the bureaucracy. I fully concur with their
concerns.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House to present four petitions with signatures
gathered from concerned citizens throughout Toronto.
The first petition calls on the federal government to join with the
provinces to upgrade the national highway system.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): The second petition with
over 200 signatures from the organization Don't Tax Reading
Coalition requests that the GST not be applied to reading materials.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the second
petition requests members of Parliament to support the immediate
initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international
convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition
of all nuclear weapons.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the fourth
petition I would like to present requests that members of
Parliament cancel the sale of Candu reactors to China and withdraw
all financial and technical assistance to China for nuclear reactor
technology.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Chase,
Adams Lake, China Valley, Pritchard, Monte Lake, Monte Creek,
Pinantan, Paul Lake, Westwold and Duck Range.
These 11,000 petitioners are concerned about the high price of
gasoline, diesel fuel and propane and are asking the federal
government to consider regulating these commodities as a utility.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): I wish to present a petition
on behalf of the residents of Savona, Deadman's Creek, Cherry
Creek, Logan Lake, Blackloam, Knutsford, Kamloops, Rose Hill,
Louis Creek, Black Pines, Darfield and Squaam Bay who are
concerned about the GST as it is applied to reading material. They
ask the federal government to back off from taxing people who like
to read.
9807
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I present a
petition signed by 200 residents of the great city of Kamloops who
are concerned about the need for funding for a national highway
system. They ask that more money from the federal excise tax on
gasoline go to a fund to upgrade our national highways.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
one petition to present on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre.
The petition concerns age of consent laws. The petitioners ask
that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children
from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
wish to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents.
First, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to
support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of
an international convention which will set out a binding timetable
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
The petitioners believe that the continuing existence of nuclear
weapons poses a threat to the health and survival of human
civilization in the global environment. On behalf of my
constituents I would like to present this one which I support.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): In the second
petition, Madam Speaker, the petitioners and the Don't Tax
Reading Coalition of Toronto call on the Government of Canada to
remove the GST from books, magazines and newspapers.
The petitioners believe that applying the 7 per cent GST to
reading material is unfair and wrong. They believe that literacy and
reading are critical to Canada's future and that removing the GST
from reading material will help promote literacy in Canada.
On behalf of my constituents I humbly submit these petitions
with my full support.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents
who urge Parliament to remove the GST from books, magazines
and newspapers.
They ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's repeated
promise to remove the federal sales tax from reading.
(1520 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have three petitions. The first petition is from Regina,
Saskatchewan. It is with regard to police officers and firefighters
lost in the line of duty.
The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to establish a public
safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts or bequests for
the benefit of families of police officers and firefighters who are
killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition comes from Ottawa, Ontario. The petitioners
would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the
family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to our
society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families who choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the final petition and the most important to me personally is from
Petawawa, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and, specifically, that fetal alcohol
syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and
others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
petitions from my constituents. The first petition asks Parliament
to remove the provocation defence.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the second
petition relates to health foods.
The petitioners request that Parliament stop the process whereby
the health protection branch can arbitrarily remove those health
foods from Canadian use.
9808
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I also
have the honour of tabling two petitions, and I will do so now.
The first petition deals with the issue of taxing reading material.
[English]
It is from the Canadian coalition Don't Tax Reading. It is one I
support.
It urges Parliament to remove forthwith the GST from books and
all reading material. It is signed by 150 people from the Durham
region.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
second petition comes primarily from the Mississauga South area
of this great country. It calls on Parliament to amend the Divorce
Act to reflect the desire by families, in particular grandparents, to
have access to their grandchildren.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition signed by about 130 people from the
southwestern region, largely from the Woodstock area.
These petitioners believe that Bill C-7, the proposed controlled
drugs and substances act, to be unconstitutional. They believe it
does not serve the interests of Canadian consumers and that
amalgamating the Narcotics Control Act with parts of the existing
Food and Drugs Act puts food plants and medicinal herbs in
jeopardy.
The petitioners also believe Bill C-7 to be ambiguous and
unclear in its wording, leaving room for the health protection
branch to use it against free access to classic traditional herbal
remedies. They feel that the wishes of consumers are not being
considered by either the Minister of Health or the health protection
branch, and that this bill is being passed arbitrarily without
consulting the electorate.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament and the
parliamentary subcommittee to either drop the bill or to implement
wording that would clearly protect the traditional use of classic
herbs and the right of Canadians to the herbal remedies of their
choice.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition signed by
about 40 residents of Trois-Pistoles, Pohénégamook and Dégelis,
in my riding, who are asking Parliament to pass legislation that
would impose a ceiling, based on the Bank of Canada rate, on the
interest rates applying to credit cards issued to consumers by banks
and large retailers. In fact, this proposal has already led the banks
to change their policies.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
if Question No. 79 could be made an order for return, this return
would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 79-Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean):
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development give me a complete and
up-to-date statement on Youth Service Canada including, for each province, (a) a
description of the projects funded, (b) the names of the organizations concerned, (c)
their addresses, (d) the amount of their grants and (e) the number of participants per
project?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9808
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1525 )
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-44, an act for making the system of Canadian
ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, providing
for the establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain
harbours and ports, for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence
Seaway and ferry services and other matters related to maritime
trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and amending
and repealing other acts as a consequence, be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, after two years and much work
by many people, I have the privilege to speak to third reading of
Bill C-44, the new Canada marine act.
9809
This is important legislation for Canada's transportation system
because it gives a new outlook and direction for many of our key
marine institutions and facilities.
The core idea of the legislation is to make it easier for marine
facilities of all sorts to operate according to business principles.
That is why ports will have to work within market based decisions
about when and how new investments will be made. That is why we
will allow for the seaway to be managed under new commercial
agreements. That is why we will ensure that pilotage authorities
will have to achieve full cost recovery in their operations without
any backstop through the public treasury.
The bill also takes important steps to make sure that key plans
and decisions are taken much closer to the people who are most
directly affected by the results, who include the users of the
facilities, the adjacent communities and other interests.
That is why the nominations to port boards will have so much
more local input. That is why ports will have a system of land use
plans and substantial disclosure responsibilities regarding their
operations. That is why the divestiture program for public ports is
moving ahead so smoothly. That is why we have authority for
Marine Atlantic to divest services where they can be local
operators.
Even for a bill with all of these fine qualities, the standing
committee was able to bring in a substantial number of
improvements after listening to a wide range of comments from all
parties concerned.
In his wisdom, the hon. member for Windsor West, our House
leader, saw an opportunity to maximize the individual member's
legislative authority here in the House. He moved quickly to
transfer Bill C-44 to the Standing Committee on Transport so that
members could engage their energies in the construction of
legislation and improvements pursuant to testimony and
consultation sought from and given by a broad and profound range
of concerned citizens, both private and corporate.
Ordinary members from the Reform Party, the Bloc, the New
Democratic Party and the government constructed Bill C-44. It is a
members' bill. It is a good bill. I thank the hon. member for
Windsor West and look forward to seeing more bills moved to
committee from first reading. He would be proud to see that most
members' initiatives appear in the bill without alteration, which is
a testament to the diligence and insight of the committee.
The additional amendments made at report stage look like a lot
of change. In reality, however, most of what we have done has been
a fine tuning of two aspects of the new arrangements for port
authorities.
At the standing committee it was requested that Transport
Canada take a closer look at the treatment of subsidiaries under the
new arrangements for port authorities. This was done and a small
group of amendments has been included to cover this area.
The government also took time to look carefully at what results
would flow from the largest change introduced by the standing
committee to give crown agent status to the new port authorities.
Why was the amendment on agent status so important that all
committee members supported it? There are several reasons.
The ports need to have more certainty that they will be protected
from provincial and federal taxation.
With Bill C-44 we want to provide the right climate and
conditions to allow the ports to operate more efficiently and, as a
result, to be more competitive, especially with American ports
which, as we all know, continue to receive substantial public
subsidies.
Without agent status the ports would have to make either
arrangements with municipalities for services or, if that is not
acceptable to the municipalities, they could become subject to full
taxation. Costly challenges for both ports and municipalities could
be the result of this ambiguity.
(1530)
Crown agent status gives port authorities a clear exemption from
full property taxation and would enable them to be covered by the
Municipal Grants Act. As such they will pay grants in lieu of taxes
to those municipalities at the same levels as other federal facilities
and installations around the country. This is the more acceptable
option to both the ports and the municipalities as it provides
certainty for both parties. For most of the ports that will become
CPAs this represents a continuation of the status quo.
For the most part new obligations from agent status would come
mainly to the federal government as principal and not to the agent.
That is why we have amendments that clarify what restraints
should exist for the agent. Part of this was to have agent status
apply only to core responsibilities of the ports, not to other more
peripheral or non-core activities which they might be able to
undertake.
This is how we are able to protect the overall commercialization
objective. We say in the new amendments that any borrowing by a
port authority will not be done as a crown agent. That is consistent
with the provision already in the bill that port debts could not be
paid by the treasury and nor could loans be guaranteed.
Once this idea of a split was in place we also had to say how the
split would be specified for all to see. Since the bill already
contained the letters patent method for setting up the new port
authorities, we only needed to clarify that this split would be set
out in the letters patent. To make sure that outsiders would know
when they are dealing with an agent, the amendments obliged the
9810
port authority to make this declaration in all their non-agent
dealings with third parties. Even before agent status was added we
put measures into the bill to protect the crown from liabilities of the
ports and to ensure that they are accountable.
Because of the new relationship created by agent status, we now
have some additional points to deal with liability issues. Perhaps
the most important accountability mechanism in the bill stems
from the fact that the ports will have to raise their financing in the
private sector. Port development aspirations will be subjected to
assessments of commercial risk by commercial lenders.
The act would forbid the use of appropriations to make certain
kinds of payments to port authorities or their wholly owned
subsidiaries. This means they have to be more efficient than they
are today and to a significant extent the government, the Canadian
taxpayer, will not be on a hook for their liability.
Canada port authorities will have a high degree of transparency
through rigorous disclosure to the public. Bill C-44 requires each
port authority to provide public financing reports, public audits, a
public land use plan, an annual general meeting open to the public
at which directors and senior officers are available to answer any
and all questions, complete disclosure of remuneration and
expenses of board members and details of port operating expenses.
Ports are now covered under the Access to Information Act
which further strengthens their accountability to all stakeholders.
We have taken measures to ensure that ports must borrow in their
own names and not in the name of the crown to emphasize to
lenders that the crown does not stand behind these obligations.
In finishing its work before it reported the bill, the standing
committee asked that an up to date schedule be placed at the end
before it was put forward for second reading. This too has been
done with the result that we are now looking at several additional
ports.
I would be remiss to talk only about the future of port authorities
under the bill. It has important features for public ports, the
seaway, our pilotage authorities and the ferry services of Marine
Atlantic Incorporated.
I will outline where we are in this bill regarding the seaway. I
believe the key to the future viability of the seaway lies in
achieving efficiencies, reducing costs and making the system more
competitive. If the system has lower costs it can be viable at
relatively low traffic levels. It is also well placed to attract
additional traffic.
I am firmly of the view that commercialization of the seaway is
the best way to achieve the efficiencies and cost savings which are
vital to the future viability of the seaway system. Part III of the
Canada Marine Act enables the Minister of Transport to enter into
agreements with a not for profit corporation to operate and
maintain all or part of the seaway. Amendments made by the
standing committee also allow for future operations to be
transferred to any body that might be established through
international agreement.
(1535)
The St. Lawrence seaway authority is obliged to transfer at the
direction of the minister any parts of its assets that are required for
the new arrangement. The existing seaway authority would be
dissolved at an appropriate date.
Any entity which has entered into an agreement with the
minister to operate the seaway is obliged to have a high degree of
transparency through annual public meetings and annual public
financial statements. Special examinations of seaway operations
and financial results will be carried at least once every five years.
The proposed legislation also prohibits unjust discrimination by
the seaway operator that places any user of the seaway at a
disadvantage. This ensures fair access to all users with no undue
preference for those who take a role in the company that runs the
seaway.
On July 15, 1996 the Minister of Transport signed a letter of
intent with a group representing the major shippers and carriers on
the seaway. The target is for these users to form a not for profit
corporation to take on the operations of the seaway. The
government would retain title to the seaway's fixed assets.
The goal of this commercialization is to give the operators
strong incentives to increase efficiency and reduce costs.
We believe that the users group is best placed to take over the
system, as users are highly motivated by a desire to minimize the
seaway tolls they pay and to ensure the long term integrity of the
system. The industries represented, particularly the steel industry
in my hometown of Hamilton and the marine carriers, need the
seaway for their long term survival. A deal with the users group
would place the seaway well on the road the ongoing self
sufficiency.
Let me assure all hon. members that I am confident of the future
success of the seaway. It has been an essential component of our
national transportation infrastructure in the past and we will do
everything in our power to ensure that it remains as a revitalized
national asset and becomes a more efficient and competitive link
with our international trading partners.
We now have a balanced, well though out piece of legislation,
one that will move Canada's marine industries confidently into the
new century. I urge all hon. members to support the amended bill.
9811
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today at third reading
of Bill C-44, which makes the system of Canadian ports
competitive by rationalizing its administration, and affects a
number of aspects of the Canadian maritime industry.
One might wonder initially why such a bill is necessary. I would
like to reply with an anecdote. I settled in Gaspé in 1980. When I
arrived there, I was amazed at the port infrastructure, its natural
capacity and the fact that it was underutilized.
By that point, I was already a staunch sovereignist, but one more
significant argument in favour of sovereignty was added when one
after another of the local people explained to us that there had been
a little bit of favouritism involved when the decision was made to
give priority to Halifax, and that there had been no real investment
in this port so it could continue to operate in future and contribute
fully to the regional economy.
In fact, the only time the federal government wanted to make
proper use of it was during the Second World War. They were only
too pleased to make use of the port's natural basin to protect the
Allied fleet from repeatedly being picked off by German
submarines.
During that time, people in Canada became aware, not only in
Gaspé but everywhere in Quebec and Canada, that one of the
greatest failures of Canadian federalism is the management of
Canada's ports. There has been, particularly in the past 30 years, a
waning interest, a repeated absence of any efficient policy, because
of a stubborn desire at all stages, at all points in all of these
reforms, to keep control highly centralized and to avoid any
decentralization.
I think that it is a good thing that the need for new legislation has
been looked at, the need to establish new ground rules so that the
system will be better defined and more efficient and make a greater
contribution to the economic development of both Quebec and
Canada.
(1540)
Perhaps the Quebec sovereignists should take some of the
blame; the whole area of transportation, which falls under federal
jurisdiction, has long eluded us. Now we can see that we would
really need to have full control over this area in order to be able to
use it in support of the Quebec economy, and north-south
development in particular.
True to our word, we have taken an active part in developing the
best possible legislation in this Parliament, in spite of the fact that
we believe the best solution for Quebec is to become sovereign. In
terms of marine policy, we wanted to ensure as much as possible
that the errors of the past were cast aside because the federal
jurisdiction in this area has always led to measures that were far
from realistic.
Our port facilities were also seen as something of only local
interest in the old days. For example, the river was ignored for
many years because people had no idea of how important its
development potential was, since those who owned it, that is to say
the federal government, were not looking after it much, if at all,
and the communities where the infrastructures were located did not
feel responsible for them because they did not own them.
On both sides there were responsibilities that needed to be taken
that were not because the fact that ports are identified as coming
under federal jurisdiction in the Canadian Constitution no longer
tallies with what maritime Canada is like today.
In addition, there was always the whole issue hint of patronage,
which is still with us. Everyone in the Rivière-du-Loup area, in my
riding, remembers all the campaigns where a great deal was made
of the port of Cacouna. Before every election, the federal
government would invariably decide to add something or at least
promise to invest in the port of Cacouna. Sometimes the promise
was kept in part, sometimes not at all.
One of the best examples of this is an excellent project, a $50
million project, that had been developed toward the end of the
Conservative government's mandate. In the end, $3 million were
allocated to widen the harbour entrance, which was one of the
phases of the project. But two years after the announcement was
made, and to this day, none of the other phases of the project have
ever been implemented.
In this area as in many others in Canada, the problem is not with
the plumbing but with the design. But, as long as we are part of
Canada, we have to try to make the best possible legislation, and to
make sure existing facilities are an asset, not a liability, for the
economy.
The other important point regarding this legislation is that, in
Canada, because the transportation sector is a shared jurisdiction,
there is no integrated approach with the other transportation modes.
The development of the marine, railway and highway sectors-the
latter being a provincial jurisdiction-was always somewhat
unstructured. There was no nationally integrated strategy in the
transportation sector, and this is particularly obvious in the marine
sector, as we will see in a moment.
There was also a need to do something about the fact that, in the
past, port facilities in Canada were not subject to any performance
standards.
Madam Speaker, I hope the hon. member is listening to my
comments while she is talking, because it will make it easier for
me.
Do we realize that, until now, the whole Canadian ports system
was never really subject to any performance standards? Despite its
very capable personnel, Transport Canada has no precise idea of
the revenues and expenditures of each port facility. This says
9812
something about the number of decisions made in the past that
were not based on economic reality, on a solid development
foundation, and we were able to see that when we travelled across
the country.
The problem is this lack of obligation to perform, this somewhat
old-fashioned tradition of associating ports with patronage. Indeed,
let us not forget that, to this day-and, as I will mention later, the
current bill does not really change the situation-the government
can appoint a new harbour master right after an election; it can
replace the person who has been holding that position for seven or
eight years and start all over with a new incumbent. This is not to
say the new harbour master is not competent, but it creates
operational problems, as we experienced in Cacouna, for example.
A very competent person had been appointed under the same
process, several years earlier. That person knew the port and the
captains who used it and was able to negotiate with them and with
the longshoremen so that operations could be optimized.
(1545)
Then, overnight, after the election, the Liberal government
decided to put in somebody else, but it had nothing to do with this
person's competence. They were perfectly competent. Someone
else was appointed who is also competent, but who has had to go
through the whole learning process.
So we can see the sort of situation that existed in the marine
sector, the patronage side. Here as well there were important things
to change.
The bill's approach to rectifying matters is to say that
management must be rationalized. The best way to rationalize the
management of Canada's ports is to transfer jurisdiction to the
provinces. That is obviously the simplest solution, but with the
Canadian Constitution, simple solutions do not often work.
So since the federal government is avoiding trying to change the
Canadian Constitution because there is no viable amending
formula that would not cause a major upheaval, it decided to come
up with a bill that would allow commercialization, that would give
greater responsibility for port facilities to the communities, without
changing the responsibility provided for in the Constitution, which
could, in the long term, still create problems. But an effort has been
made in the bill to solve matters in this way, and we will look at
what it says.
It is a very big undertaking, because the bill looks at the way in
which Canada's national ports, such as Halifax, Montreal, Quebec
City and Sept-Îles, as well as large ports like Trois-Rivières and
those on the Saguenay, in addition to all regional ports, will be
dealt with in the future.
When we looked into it, we found that 80 per cent of the activity
in Canadian ports took place in 15 to 20 per cent of the ports. This
could lead one to conclude that a number of facilities are seriously
underutilized, but still generating operating costs that we can no
longer really pay for as a society because we no longer have the
means.
As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, this bill also raises
the whole issue of the St. Lawrence Seaway. We will come back to
that later, but there were many questions on what was the best
choice for the future of the St. Lawrence Seaway, ranging from
total privatization to the formation of a binational structure
involving both the U.S. and Canada, with all manner of joint
formulas thrown in for good measure. And I am not sure that we
have found the ideal formula; we will look at it in a few minutes.
There is also another important element in this bill, the Pilotage
Act. The study wanted to find out whether piloting in Canada was
working properly, whether safety was being properly ensured, and
whether it was competitive. You can see that there are two different
aspects which are hard to balance out. On the one hand, you have
the industry requirements; it wants to be competitive, able to offer
a distribution system on the world market, a maritime circuit that is
economically advantageous for those shipping by sea. On the other
hand, there is a seaway, the entire St. Lawrence system, which is
not easily navigable and has been made safe by the services ofSt. Lawrence pilots for hundreds of years.
In Quebec there is a very important tradition, one peculiar to the
St. Lawrence, that piloting is virtually always done in French. This
is important. A pilot on a ship needs to be able to communicate
with other vessels, sometimes recreational and sometimes
commercial, with all manner of vessels. Generally, the people on
these vessels speak the language of the country, which means
French, if along the St. Lawrence.
There has been a battle going on for some years now, as attempts
have been made to restrict the protection of the French language for
the pilots along the St. Lawrence, while at the same time trying to
take away some of the advantages that have been earned by these
pilots through having developed skills to ensure safe navigation of
the river, in order to save some money.
(1550)
But we have to determine what safety depends on. I think that in
this respect, the work done by the Bloc Quebecois in committee
saved the day, and I will get back to this later on when we discuss
the various amendments submitted during consideration in
committee.
A lot of work was done on this bill, as the parliamentary
secretary pointed out. The Keyes report, a report by the Standing
Committee on Transport, did an overview of the situation, which
9813
led to Bill C-44 in its initial form. At this stage, the ports were very
independent. There was practically no Canadian system.
Today, I understand why the bill was amended. It was for the
same reasons mentioned by people we met when the committee
travelled across Canada. In Bill C-44, to show people what it would
be like, structures like the ADM or Aéroports de Montréal were set
up; in other words, there was a transfer of full responsibility for an
economic sector depending on marine transportation, but without
any government supervision.
This would have led to impossible situations in a few years'
time. Institutions or companies that were responsible for the ports
might have had objectives widely differing from those of the
Quebec government or the Canadian government, and this would
have been quite unacceptable. In fact, people kept telling us this as
the committee travelled across Canada, and fortunately, their
comments were heard. Amendments were proposed which
remedied the situation to some extent.
Another aspect of the initial bill was that the future of theSt. Lawrence Seaway was somewhat hazy. What the government
had decided to do was not necessarily feasible and was in fact
pretty risky. There was some discussion of this aspect, but I believe
there has not been enough.
I referred to the pilotage situation earlier in my speech, and I
want to get back to this. What happened in this respect is very
interesting. Throughout consideration in committee, hardly any
questions were raised. The bill restored the status quo, which
satisfied the pilots' associations who saw this as a way to provide
adequate safety levels on Canada's waterways.
In the initial bill, there was no problem on that score. However,
the committee received a draft amendment-I do not know what
lobby it came from or whether it was because of the way Canadian
political parties are financed-that would take away from these
pilots many of the resources they need to maintain adequate safety
levels on the St. Lawrence.
The language of work on the St. Lawrence again became an
issue, and some shipowners' associations that wanted to improve
productivity had submitted a proposal and managed to put it on the
table, although there had been no prior discussion in committee.
I met people on both sides a few weeks before, and the pilots said
that Bill C-44 was excellent as far as the Pilotage Act was
concerned. However, that evening when the amendment reached
the committee from an unknown source, as I said earlier, the pilots
panicked and asked us to do something. They said something was
not working and wondered how it was that the government arrived
at such an amendment, which bore no resemblance whatsoever to
their submission or to their wishes. They said, for example, that the
government wanted to impose the method of pilot selection and
decide which captains could become pilots. This process does not
work they way they would like, and they would like it changed.
When they saw the amendment, the pilots called on the Bloc
Quebecois. The members of the Reform Party said this morning
that they thought the Bloc was engaging in systematic obstruction.
That is not so. The Bloc is not engaging in systematic obstruction.
It is raising arguments in committee until it can convince people of
the relevance of its arguments. That is what we tried to do.
(1555)
We convinced the Liberal majority, because, when the
committee report was tabled, we had the Liberals' agreement to
withdraw this amendment and their changes to the rules of the
game. I consider this a major victory for safety in Canada's
shipping industry.
The initial bill contained the whole issue of regional ports in
Quebec, like those in Baie-Comeau, Cacouna, Rimouski and
Gaspé, and other medium sized ports throughout Canada, which are
not identified as Canadian port authorities and which serve
different functions.
These include ports with ferry docks and commercial ports.
Initially, the bill concerned all ports indiscriminately and provided
for their transfer to regional or provincial authorities, but without
specific rules or concepts.
Through consultation and amendments in committee, we
managed to establish a distinction between the concept of ferry port
and that of commercial port. It is important to know that a ferry
port has little revenue. It is essentially a road link. Cars are
permitted to board a vessel in order to cross a waterway.
However, the income for the dock itself is not so important.
What counts is the economic benefits. We have shown this to be the
case in the Rivière-du-Loup region. A study, commissioned by the
economic development corporations of Rivière-du-Loup and
Saint-Siméon, showed that the operation of this ferry generated
$25 million per year in economic spinoffs, including $3.5 million
or $4 million in tax revenue for each of the governments.
This is one argument used to convince the federal authorities that
any subsidy given at the provincial level, for instance, to keep the
ferry in operation nine months per year instead of only four or five
months is money well spent because economic activity boosts
government revenues. It would therefore not be in the Quebec
government's interest to do away with this subsidy.
As far as the federal government is concerned, the repair costs,
for the wharf in Rivière-du-Loup for example, may seem to be a
throwback to the old days when governments handed out money to
local communities. But that is not at all the case. The truth of the
matter is that, if and when it finally agrees to divesting, the federal
government will actually be helping increase its future tax reve-
9814
nues because, with a decent port infrastructure, the ferry will go on
bringing in nearly $4 million in tax revenue every year.
At this rate, even if the federal government invested $15 million
or $20 million in a port facility with a 30 year life cycle, within five
years, this investment would be recovered, which is certainly
worthwhile.
This is another aspect of Bill C-44, which required careful
consideration and a great deal of work. Our consultations took us
on a tour that proved to be very instructive, as it made us realize
how diverse our maritimes structures are in Canada.
These consultations came about as a result of the report to which
I referred earlier, and to which the hon. member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois, made a very significant contribution, and the minority
report which, among other things, sought to protect pilots. In this
regard, we found, as I said earlier, a wide variety of port facilities in
the country, and we heard a lot from port authorities. Port
authorities are entities which are strangely similar to what the
Canada port authorities will be under the new act, but they enjoy
more leeway than will be provided in the act.
The directors of these port authorities told us: ``Before granting
private status to large Canadian ports under Bill C-44, take a look
at how we operate, because we currently enjoy greater autonomy
than is provided under the act''. We took their arguments into
account and made sure that the port authority will have a structure
closer to what it should be, even though we did not agree with all
the arguments put forward by these stakeholders.
(1600)
Before abolishing existing port authorities, the federal
government should look at all the implications, so as to make the
best possible decision. There are situations where it would be
preferable to maintain port authority status, and thus protect the
economic life of a region, through the best possible economic
development tool.
During these consultations, the national ports made an attempt to
be recognized as a federal agency. Let us be clear: in its original
form, Bill C-44 gave a great deal of autonomy to ports, as I
mentioned earlier, but without providing the guarantee enjoyed by
a federal agency.
Such a remark might seem astonishing coming from a
sovereignist, but our analysis shows that, if Quebec attains
sovereignty in two or three years, it will be very important when
federal statutes become Quebec statues during the transition period
that our national ports enjoy the status of national ports when they
turn to outside markets for loans or business. As long as we are part
of Canada, I think it important that these ports enjoy this status.
This is why, from the beginning, we supported national ports
seeking a change in their status. The round of consultations also
made us aware of the situation faced by remote ports.
Ports that are unable to keep up with the rules of market
competition are unable to meet market objectives and
requirements. We saw this in the far north. We saw it in northern
Manitoba. I think the federal government should look at the
possibility of giving this status to ports in the Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
The member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine made
absolutely no representations in this regard but, as usual, he is
rather out of touch with the concerns of the people of
Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Having spent three years trying to deliver on
a still unfulfilled promise regarding the purchase of a ferry, he has
not had time to look into the status of the port at Cap-aux-Meules. I
think the federal government could do something about this error
during the coming weeks and months, in the list of remote ports,
and see how this could be accomplished.
Other important matters were studied, including intermodality.
In the transportation sector, where at least two levels of
government are regularly involved, it has been very difficult to
establish intermodal systems. Basically, intermodal means that
what comes off a ship in Cacouna can be put on the train in a piggy
back, and when the train reaches New York, Toronto or Boston, the
freight can be shipped the rest of the way by truck.
This kind of interaction between transportation modes does not
work under the Canadian system, where the federal government
and the provincial government are both anxious to protect their
jurisdictions and keep their budgets strictly separate.
A provincial government can take action with respect to highway
transportation. In Quebec, since the federal government has
divested itself of its responsibility for railway transportation, our
highways are overloaded, due to the fact that the railway network
has been under-utilized. And consider our waterways. Imagine how
we could maximize our use of the St. Lawrence River.
The advent of free trade has made Quebecers very aware of this,
and the same applies to Ontarians. Today, we have networks that
are better integrated. For instance, the port of Montreal is
connected with Canadian Pacific, the two St. Lawrence-Hudson
railway lines which connect Montreal with the markets of Detroit
and Chicago and also provide a connection with New England.
There is a future in this sort of thing, but we were late off the mark.
We have some catching up to do. Under the present system, until
both governments have responsibilities that are distinct, I think it
will be very difficult to get satisfactory results.
9815
There is also the whole aspect of policing our ports. In this
respect, the federal government is acting like a creature of habit.
It failed to include the provinces in its planning, so that today,
and particularly in Quebec, there is no attempt to co-ordinate
police services in the ports to ensure that there is agreement on
terms of reference and responsibilities. This is one of the aspects
that remains to be resolved, and which is not dealt with
satisfactorily in this bill.
(1605)
The important work in committee went well. As far as pilotage is
concerned, we got through the Liberals' box of amendment
surprises all right. Where it came from nobody knows, but I would
guess it was from the party's election fund, because of the
longstanding dispute between the pilots and the shipowners. In
fact, it was the pilots against the shipowners through the regional
administrations. One problem has not been solved. It was, however,
a good defensive fight.
However, safety on the St. Lawrence was not questioned. And
the bill contained no clauses that would have been regretted two,
three or five years down the road after a major shipping accident as
can happen on the St. Lawrence. In addition to rowboats, there are
oil tankers and ore carriers on the river. There is a lot of shipping
that could have a major effect on the environment, in the event of
an accident. It would have been a big mistake to amend things too
quickly, under pressure and at the risk of safety. The pilots who
spoke to me about it described the situation as it stands. The status
quo is far more preferable to what was in the amendment.
Is there a happy medium? Perhaps. There should be one. We
should have taken the time before passing the bill at third reading
to look into the issue more, to resolve the problem and to record it
correctly in the legislation. Formulas are provided in the bill. That
means another battle in the coming weeks, months or years, but we
must not sacrifice safety.
The ultimate solution must provide a level of safety that is
watertight and avoid our regretting in five, ten or twenty years
passing measures that put the future of the St. Lawrence at risk,
such as in the case of the future Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine
park, probably the most popular in the world, which will be
established under federal and provincial legislation that we hope
will be passed very soon. Unfortunately, it will be after the
upcoming election, probably.
It would be totally absurd for the Canadian government put
money into developing the park while, in failing to pass adequate
safety regulations, ending up contributing to an marine disaster that
would irretrievably damage the park. In this respect, there have
accidents worldwide, which speak for themselves and are worthy
of closer consideration.
In committee, the Bloc Quebecois obtained not only that major
ports be granted federal agency status for the purpose of appointing
the boards of directors, but also that only individuals who have
relevant knowledge in the field be appointed. The minister will still
have some leeway. Perhaps some aspects of the bill should have
been made tighter, more airtight. It is not totally satisfactory, but it
is a step in the right direction. There is still a way to go, but we will
now be able to judge the current minister and his successors on the
consequences of their actions.
Aside from the point about the pilots, the finest victory the Bloc
Quebecois has won in this struggle in committee was having the
ports of the Saguenay and Trois-Rivières recognized as Canadian
port authorities, or CPAs. Had it not been for the pressure brought
to bear by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, who incidentally
nagged me day in and day out to have the port of Trois-Rivières
included in the bill, it would probably not have been included.
If members recall the statements made on air by the Prime
Minister to a certain radio station in the Mauricie region, he
himself was not too clear about what a Canadian port authority and
a local port authority were. But the hon. member for Trois-Rivières
was, and he made representations. We moved an amendment in this
respect, which the government approved after hearing our
supporting arguments.
In the case of the port of Saguenay, I remember more dramatic
events, since it was the late hon. member for Jonquière who made
representations. I remember meeting the administrator of the port
of Saguenay, in Quebec City. She showed us very clearly that, even
if the port of Saguenay is smaller than those in the rest of the
country that come under the responsibility of Canadian port
authorities, it still met all the criteria and should therefore get the
same status.
(1610)
So, the fact that two Quebec ports now come under the
responsibility of Canadian port authorities, which was not the case
under the original list, is a victory for the Bloc Quebecois.
As regards divesting of regional wharfs, we asked time and again
that the conditions of such divesting be included in the act, and that
the $125 million fund provided for these facilities be increased, so
as to be sure that they can enjoy all the necessary benefits as
quickly as possible.
We also scored a victory since an amendment was moved by a
member from Newfoundland providing that services will be
maintained until there is divesting, when a ferry service is provided
at that facility. Under that amendment, if the province decides to
maintain a ferry service, for example between Saint-Juste-du-Lac
9816
and Notre-Dame-du-Lac, in the region of Témiscouata-located in
the future riding I hope to represent in the next Parliament-the
federal government is committed to not ending the service at these
two facilities, as long as the province or local authority continues to
provide a ferry service. This significant gain was the result of our
representations and those of others.
Let us look at concrete examples of divesting. In my riding, there
are at least four cases. There is a ferry wharf in Rivière-du-Loup.
Earlier, I showed that renovating the port facility is a significant
and appropriate investment for the federal government. I think this
should be done in the next few years, at the same time as divesting
is perhaps being carried out through the Government of Quebec.
Trois-Pistoles also has a ferry.
Until now, it has been possible to patch up the wharf from
election to election. Fortunately, there are referendums from time
to time that help matters. It is grass roots politics in action, but
some local authorities made some good connections and the result
was that, by chance, they were able to obtain a nice little bonus,
something like $500,000 before the last referendum campaign. I
think people were really pleased, because it is prolonging the life of
the wharf. However, this approach is not necessarily feasible in the
medium term. A way must be found of ensuring that facilities are
developed without having to rely on the vagaries of political
patronage.
There are other situations, such as the one at Cacouna. This is a
port that is economically very attractive. It is making money and
the community is prepared to take it over. It was mentioned by the
minister, along with the port at Baie-Comeau, as a facility that the
community had already expressed an interest in buying. This, by
the way, is something I am proud of because, from the beginning, I
passed on the information to all people in the area interested in
ensuring the development of this port.
For many years now, even before my election to office, people
have been saying that the port of Cacouna should have an
independent marketing plan so as to be able to compete with other
ports on the market, and that is how divesting came to be
considered. If it could be taken over by the community under
interesting conditions, it would also be possible to have a
marketing plan that would allow this port to show, among other
things, the advantage it has in its longshoremen. The longshoremen
are highly competent and productive, and do not go around seeing
problems where there are none. Since the beginning of the year,
there has been a very significant increase in port use, which I find
very interesting.
Personally, what I see as the most significant and most satisfying
contribution is the Bloc Quebecois amendment adopted yesterday
at the report stage, aimed at altering the very objective of this bill.
In the original text, the objective is stated as to ``implement a
National Marine Policy that provides Canada with the marine
infrastructure that it needs and that will promote and safeguard
Canada's competitiveness and trade objectives''.
I have had an amendment added, which received majority
support, which now indicates that competitiveness is not the only
concern, but that it must also be an effective tool for the
achievement of local, regional and national social and economic
objectives. Thus, every time the federal government decides the
future of a port, if it respects the spirit of its legislation it will have
to take into account what the economic and social impact of closing
the facility will be.
(1615)
In the coming years, we will judge the government on its
compliance with this amendment. I am particularly happy that we
managed to convince the government to accept it so that, even
without a constitutional amendment I consider necessary, the
legislation would at least improve the present situation. We will be
able to assess the effectiveness of the current government in the
coming years.
One problem that was not adequately addressed in the policy is
its integration into the Quebec economy. The St. Lawrence is not
seen as the asset it should be. The future of the St. Lawrence
Seaway is not properly defined.
The link between rail transportation and trucking is not
sufficiently clear. It is an economic tool that has long been and will
continue to be underutilized without further amendment. Canada's
marine policy is also an economic tool that has a major impact in
the regions, whether at Cacouna, Baie-Comeau, Sept-Îles, Gaspé or
Cap-aux-Meules-all examples I gave initially.
Here are the reasons we will oppose this bill. First, in terms of
management of harbour police, no agreement was reached with the
provinces. In the problem with pilotage, safety comes first and
foremost, and the Liberals' amendments must be rejected.
Follow-up in the future must be ensured. We could today even have
gone further and come up with a real solution, but at least we took a
defensive stance protecting the safety of our waterways.
In the bill, the issue of the St. Lawrence Seaway is not addressed
clearly enough. It is not made clear enough whether it will be
privatized or become a binational corporation.
How transparent will the divesting be? Would it not have been
possible to include in the legislation some rules and procedures to
ensure the process is free from the vagaries of politics, based on
clear and specific economic choices and more sensitive to
Quebec's economic strategy? This would have required
clarification of the cost recovery issue. For instance, will
icebreaking costs ruin operations that people have taken over?
9817
There are also concerns about encountering the same kind of
difficulties encountered with airports. Nowhere in this bill is a
vision regarding intermodal transportation expressed, and no tools
are provided to deal with north-south demands in our trade
relations with the U.S. I think this developing market have been
overlooked in the bill. Finally, one last concern: they did not budge
on the issue of casinos on cruise ships.
For all these reasons, while the bill is the result of a very
meaningful and dynamic consultation process, there is still much
that remains to be improved on. The government should have
allowed time to go into more detail and resolve the problems. This
way, the bill would have been truly satisfactory in addressing the
needs of Canada's marine infrastructure as an economic tool that
will have an impact not only tomorrow and the day after tomorrow,
but also 10, 15 or 20 years down the road. For all these reasons, the
Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill at third reading.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Davenport-transportation; the hon.
member for Sarnia-Lambton-health.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to add the Reform Party's contribution to the debate on Bill
C-44. It is a wide ranging government bill that has a number of
purposes: first, to streamline, consolidate and modernize the
marine regulatory regime; second, to make Canadian ports more
competitive, efficient and commercially oriented; third, to
dismantle the bureaucratic and discredited Canada Ports
Corporation resulting in the establishment of autonomous port
authorities and the divestiture or closure of certain harbours and
ports due to inefficiency and/or redundancy; fourth, to dismantle
the ports police division of Canada Ports Corporation, shifting this
responsibility to local and regional police forces; fifth, to
commercialize the St. Lawrence Seaway through a joint venture
with the U.S. seaway authorities; sixth, to commercialize various
government ferry services and other infrastructure relating to
maritime trade and transportation, including numerous Marine
Atlantic operations; finally, seventh, to amend the federal Pilotage
Act and amend and repeal other acts as a result in order to improve
the cost effectiveness, efficiency and self-sufficiency of national
pilotage services.
(1620 )
The Reform Party supports the general intent of Bill C-44. We
believe that the independently run port authority concept strikes a
good balance between the operation of ports as crown corporations
or as purely private sector interests.
Marine user groups, port managers and chambers of commerce
in the Pacific, Atlantic and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence regions of
the country have all voiced their support for our party's stand on
this issue. Reform is reasonably satisfied with the contents of Bill
C-44 following the passage of various amendments by the Standing
Committee on Transport. However, the bill remains imperfect and
will continue to point out its ongoing shortcomings, as I will here at
the third reading stage of the bill.
During the past summer the Reform's transport critic, the
member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, studied Bill C-44 and
made notes on various concerns. He went on the road to discuss the
bill with a wide range of marine stakeholders. Virtually every
group consulted expressed similar or identical concerns, including
the following.
Bill C-44 abolishes the Canada Ports Corporation which of
course hires the Canada ports police and transfers these policing
responsibilities over to the municipal police forces. At the request
of many concerned city councils, Reform proposed an amendment
allowing municipalities to be compensated for any extraordinary
policing costs beyond the community norm, with the exact figures
to be determined by the Canada Transportation Agency, which
come about as a result of this transfer. The government refused to
support this amendment.
Bill C-44 allows the federal government to levy an annual fee or
stipend against each port authority as payment for certain services
provided to the ports by Ottawa. Although Reform does not object
to the concept of a fee per se, we strongly object to its calculation
on the basis of ports gross revenues pre-tax, as such a policy could
drive ports with low operating margins into the red. We believe any
fees should be levied on net revenues post-tax, after tax,
conforming to the standard accounting practices which should be
enforced to ensure that ports cannot hide or wipe out profits that
actually exist on their books.
That reminds me of Gracie Allen, of Burns and Allen. She had a
way of figuring out taxes and the complicated tax nature of even
the American system. She said: ``If you end up owing $5,000 to the
government when you file your return, file it to show that you owe
$10,000. That means you have a $5,000 overpayment and the
government owes you $5,000. If you owe the government $5,000
and it owes you $5,000, you are even and that is your tax return''. I
see a member opposite trying to figure that out and does it make
any sense. I was trying to advise people on how to show the
government that if you owe it $5,000, actually it owes you $5,000
and therefore you are even and so do not send money. I do not think
Revenue Canada will like that.
Ms. Fry: A Reform calculation.
Mr. Silye: That is a joke. Did you miss that?
9818
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Silye: I will do it again. If you owe the government $5,000,
fill in your return showing you owe it $10,000, then you have an
overpayment. You tell the government it owes you $5,000, you owe
the government $5,000 and now you are even.
An hon. member: Simple.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, back to the matter at hand.
Bill C-44 provides ports with federal agency status, allowing
them to continue paying municipalities grants in lieu of property
taxes after becoming independent port authorities. The result of
this is stable taxation for ports that may suffer a difficult
adjustment period as unsubsidized entities. However, harbour
commissions which were paying no fees, grants or taxes before the
passage of Bill C-44 will overnight be forced to pay grants to
municipalities at the same rate as existing ports.
Reform put forward an amendment that would have allowed
harbour commissions a five-year tax phase-in period as a financial
buffer similar to that provided to the ports. The government shot
down this proposal despite the fact that the parliamentary secretary
is from the Hamilton area.
Bill C-44 stipulates that in determining the membership of a port
authority's board of directors, one director shall be directly
appointed by concerned municipalities, one by the province and
one by the federal government, with the balance to be appointed by
Ottawa in consultation with port users.
(1625 )
The minister has stated his intention to appoint user
representatives from a list of candidates provided by those users.
However, and this is subject to interpretation, but technically Bill
C-44 does not oblige him to do so.
Reform simply wishes to ensure that the minister eliminates the
possibility of undue patronage by agreeing to place in the bill, on
paper, in writing what he has already stated before the transport
committee which is his support for the list concept as advocated by
user groups.
Bill C-44 in its current form does not provide for a dispute
settlement mechanism for shipper fee charges similar to that
contained in Bill C-101 or Bill C-14. Reform would like to see such
a mechanism included in the final version of Bill C-44.
I have evaluated all the aspects of this 90-page bill. If there is a
dispute it will be very difficult for somebody to come up with a
resolution. Things could be tied up in the courts for a very long
time.
On behalf of our transport critic who is in his constituency today,
I have agreed to submit some of his personal comments and
opinions on the bill, which of course I share as a Reform Party
member. He tells a little bit of a different story than the
parliamentary secretary to the transport minister told in his third
reading intervention. The hon. member indicated that he really
appreciated how so many people had spent two years and much
work was done by many people to provide basically what he called
a member's bill. We all know the dangers of writing laws by
committee and allowing everybody to have a say on every bill. I am
concerned that perhaps when there are some disputes it may not be
as effective as it should be in solving those disputes.
Our transport critic believes that Bill C-44 is essentially good
legislation. It has the general support of all affected groups in the
transportation industry. When the bill was sent to the Standing
Committee on Transport it was not with the intention of deciding if
it was acceptable or should be rejected. The intention was to listen
to those involved, that is, witnesses from the marine sector. These
included port authorities, shippers, port tenants, municipal and
provincial officials and others affected by this legislation.
In preparation for these hearings, the Department of Transport
was to prepare a briefing book which would explain the impact and
rationale of the legislation. Although the bill was sent to the
committee before the spring recess in 1996, no briefing manual
was provided over the entire duration of the summer. On return to
Parliament that fall our transport critic asked what the delay was
and when the document would be supplied. We were told that the
briefing document was completed and had been sent out to all
members, including the Reform transport critic. Obviously it had
not. Only after several complaints to the committee was the
document in question finally delivered.
The committee then proceeded with hearings across Canada and
in Ottawa. As a result of the testimony of witnesses, many
amendments were offered by all parties who are members of the
committee. Some were passed, some were withdrawn and some
were rejected. Among those which were withdrawn were four
government amendments that were supportable in the opinion of
our transport critic. They dealt with changes to the Pilotage Act
which would have permitted lower costs for Canadian operators in
the St. Lawrence seaway.
The Bloc Quebecois, for purely political purposes, staged a
filibuster at committee to force the government to withdraw these
amendments. The government did back down and withdrew four
amendments which were designed to aid the control of cost of
shipping in the St. Lawrence. The government members of the
committee rationalized this as necessary to move the bill along
quickly and suggested they would be able to reintroduce them at
report stage.
The first part of their rationalization soon disappeared when the
bill completed clause by clause examination and passed from the
committee.
9819
(1630 )
Over four months have gone by without the government bringing
the bill to the House. What was the rush? Was it nothing more than
a ploy to allow the Liberals to claim they had attempted to bring
those amendments in but were unable to do so because of the
opposition parties?
The second part of the government's rationalization also
disappeared when it did not reintroduce its amendments at report
stage in the House. In doing so the government was once again
deceitful in its tactics. Reform was awaiting the submission of
government report stage amendments to confirm that it was in fact
reintroducing the four amendments dropped at committee in
support of Bloc Quebecois tactics. We were told that the
amendments were printed and that a copy had been sent to us. It
had not been.
We complained and apologies were offered. We were told that a
copy would be sent immediately. It was not. It was only when the
Reform transport critic sought out the information from a
bureaucrat that a copy was finally delivered on the afternoon of
April 7. Lo and behold there were no amendments from the
government.
As the hour was late and we had expected the government to
bring Bill C-44 to the House on April 9, we had to scramble to table
the missing amendments. It was not until the next day that we
discovered that three of them had been tabled not by the
government but by a government member acting on his own. It is
nice to see there is some integrity left in its caucus, even if it only
one or two members.
There were other controversial amendments. These were the
amendments made by Reform in response to the testimony heard
before the committee and in an effort to do exactly what the
committee's intention was supposed to be: make the bill better.
One of the amendments involved the policing of the ports. Ports
operating under the umbrella of the Canadian Ports Authority were
policed by the Canada Ports Corporation Police. The bill will bring
an end to the existence of the Canada Ports Corporation and none
too soon. It was an absolute waste of money. However, with the end
of the Canada Ports Corporation also came the end of the Canada
ports police.
In typical Liberal fashion the government and government
members on the committee gave no thought to the ramifications of
the removal of the ports police. ``Let the municipalities look after
it'' was their cry in committee.
Various cities and municipalities should look after basic
policing, but the taxpayers of those communities should not be
stuck with taxes for any additional policing that the ports may
require.
The Reform amendment did not tie the hands of the government.
It did not place any extraordinary costs on the ports. It had the
support of most of the interveners who came before the committee.
In addition to the testimony heard at committee, the Reform
transport critic met separately with members of various councils.
Their position was that if they had to look after policing they were
prepared to do so as long as they did not have to impose costs on
the taxpayers of their communities for extraordinary policing
requirements. That is what the Reform motion was all about.
It was a very simple and straightforward amendment but it was
turned down by the Liberal majority. It would be bad enough if the
government simply disagreed with the Reform amendment. As it
turned out it would appear the government agreed but simply did
not want it on record that it was Reform that recognized and
corrected this deficiency in the bill.
For four months the bill sat with no action while the government
tried to resolve the problems in other ways. In the end it did but it
ended up doing exactly what the Reform motion would have done
without all the costs and delays we have been subjected to by the
Liberal government.
Another amendment that was treated in the same way involved
the payment of municipal taxes by ports. At the current time ports
under the Canada Ports Corporation pay full grants in lieu of taxes.
Ports operating under the Harbour Commissions Act were not
required to pay local taxes. However many negotiated some form
of payment for services to local government.
The new legislation will establish many of the ports previously
operating under the Harbour Commissions Act as Canadian port
authorities. As such they will be required to pay full grants in lieu
of taxes. The Reform Party has no problem with the payment of
these taxes but there should be a phasing in period.
The Reform amendment provided for a five-year phasing in
period. Ports which were already paying full grants in lieu of taxes
would continue to do so. Ports which were not required to pay these
grants would pay no less than what they have already been paying.
No city or municipality would have received less than they had
already been getting.
(1635)
At the same time the phasing in period would have allowed time
for the ports to prepare for the previously unbudgeted impact of
these payments. The Liberals rejected this sensible amendment out
of hand.
Once again it appears the government actually agreed with
Reform but did not want to admit that it was Reform that had
9820
identified and corrected this deficiency in the bill. Through closed
door negotiations the government went about trying to do exactly
what the Reform motion would have achieved so that it could take
credit for correcting a mistake of its own making. This time it
failed. As a result many small ports which will become Canadian
port authorities under the legislation will be placed in financial
risk. What a way to start a new program.
One amendment the government brought in that should be
commented on is the one to continue the current status of Hamilton
as a harbour commission. This was done for purely partisan
political purposes by Liberal members from Hamilton. It is a
betrayal of the committee's and the government's commitment to
Hamilton Harbour Commission tenants and shippers. It is simply
one more example of how the government looks after itself, no
matter the cost to Canadian taxpayers.
There is some good in the bill. In fact there is quite a bit of good
in it. However the objective of the committee, which was to
examine the bill and with the input of concerned parties make it as
good as possible, has not been met. The issues were clear. The
solutions were clear but the Liberal government has failed
miserably. It has failed not because of marine philosophy but
because of political gamesmanship. It should not take pride in
whatever accomplishments the bill might present. It should be
ashamed of failing to provide what it could have been.
I did not sit in on the committee hearings, but our transport critic
shared his information with me and has asked me to make an
intervention on his behalf. When people are asked for input to help
design a bill by consensus and by using the best ideas, why would
members of the standing committee wish to play partisan games?
Why ignore the ports police and put them out of work? Why ignore
a period of adjustment? Often government members say that a
phase in period is needed yet they did not allow one here.
Some of them were common sense amendments and common
sense suggestions but the government refused to take them. As a
member of Parliament I sat here last night voting on the 125
amendments to the bill. Could there not have been an initial draft
by a cabinet minister and the Department of Transport for which I
have a lot of respect? The department has done one heck of a good
job during the 3.5 years of Liberal government. I will give it full
marks for how it has run things. In this one area it came up with a
marines port bill. Could there not have been a rough draft rather
than 125 amendments? We sat here last night voting on 65 different
votes on the 125 amendments.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Silye: I just heard an intervention by a Liberal member. Are
the Liberals listening while I am making this point? My point is the
exact opposite. They are not listening. They ignored two or three
common sense suggestions which would improve the bill. They
are playing political partisanship games, hoping to come up with a
bill and take all the credit for it after asking all stakeholders to
participate. The parliamentary secretary thanked everyone who
participated, even members of the opposition.
In the legislation I see danger down the road. There is no
comprehensive dispute settlement mechanism. That is the same
thing that is wrong with NAFTA. The government seems to shy
away from making things simple and clear in the future. It wants to
continue to confuse matters so that people have to hire lawyers to
settle their problems.
(1640)
This is a sign of an incompetent minister who does not take the
time to review the bill before it is sent off to committee for debate
where many amendments have to be made to make it better. It is the
same as what the Minister of Justice did lately by trying to tag on to
the Reform notion of victims rights. He tried to claim it as his own
and tried to take credit for it. Lately he has been saying that he has
made amendments to section 745 to make things better for citizens
but has failed to address the real problem.
The last two justice bills we have debated were just admissions
of failure. The Minister of Justice should be trained to read every
clause and go through it clause by clause. When people are trained
as lawyers they become much better at it than individuals like
myself who are businessmen. We rely on lawyers to do this for us.
We rely on them to look at.
There was supposed to be an immediate impact statement but in
comes another bill that defers the impact statement to the year
2012. It is the same individual and the same department. That is
incompetence.
I am not talking about the quality or the intent of the bill. Its
intent is good but the quality of work comes under criticism which
I am trying to do in a constructive fashion. We waste everybody's
time when we play political partisanship, when we do not listen to
the people we asked for input, and when we come up with garbage
that has to be rewritten five different ways.
I am not talking about dotting an i or crossing a t. I am talking
about common sense amendments which should be obvious. If they
want a bill that states immediate impact statements should be
allowed, why do they put in an amendment that states they are not
allowed until the year 2012? What is the message being sent? If
they make an amendment respecting the ports police that will put
people out of work, some consideration should be given to them
and they are ignored. That is not competent work.
With all the amendments put forward a better job of debating
them could have been done in committee. It did not need to come
back to the House. I do not think many MPs knew what they were
voting on in all the votes we took. I sat here and relied on our critic
9821
or others who had looked into the matter on my behalf to say that it
fit with our party policy and is something we can support.
That is a disservice to the members of the House. We do not have
the time to listen to stuff like this coming back from committees
with 65 amendments and try to get our heads around them. We are
making it harder for MPs to do their job better.
The Liberals presented the bill. During debate and in the
intervention of the parliamentary secretary for the transport
minister, the member from Hamilton indicated that he liked the
port authority and the way a crown corporation could be
co-ordinated with the private sector because, he said, ``taxpayers
will not be on the hook''. I agree with that intent. I fully endorse
that objective.
Let us look at the Department of Transport. Did it apply the same
philosophy when it looked at Pearson airport and cancelled the
contract? That can be called an airport authority. We are moving
toward airport authorities. There is an airport authority there now.
We set up a marine port authority. We now have an airport authority
that will have directors. It will be not for profit. It will reinvest
money and improve things there.
Was the department's decision on Pearson done with the idea
that taxpayers would not be on the hook? That is what was said at
first and a lot of taxpayers believed it. In fact a lot of people voted
for the government because they felt privatization of the airport
would lead to huge profits for the private sector.
I did not have a clue. I would not have known whether or not that
was true. Somebody seemed to know. The current Prime Minister
was in opposition then. He must have had some information when
he said private developers were greedy sons-of-guns that would
sock it to us and charge us hundreds of millions of dollars.
Therefore he could not let the deal go through. What happened? It
was cancelled. They sued for damages, which the government was
willing to give. Then they sued for profits. They cannot sue for
profits. How can they tell what the profits are? That was dumb.
(1645)
The Department of Transport fought them a bit too much. Then
what happened? A year went by and we found out when they got to
the discovery stage and everybody was filing their information that
the government's defence was that it could not be sued for profits
because it had looked into the deal and those guys would have lost
money on it. Which is it? It cancels the deal because they would
have made too much money and then defends itself by saying they
would have lost money.
Guess what it cost taxpayers. The parliamentary secretary used
the Marine Port Authority as an endorsement on how good the bill
is. Taxpayers were not be on the hook. We might be because of the
ambiguity in terms of the disputes in the bill. Let us say they are
not as serious or will not cost as much as the Pearson airport. Who
knows?
Pearson airport cost $60 million off the top for withdrawing the
lawsuit. Somehow or another somebody got enough money. I
would like to know how the airport authority will come up with
$700 million, how that money will be granted and how much of it
will be a loan from the federal government somewhere down the
line. We do not know the details. Pearson airport has already cost
taxpayers about $200 million. Am I right?
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Well, $185 million in rent
concessions and $15 million in legal.
Mr. Silye: It has already cost us $185 million in rent
concessions, over $15 million in legal and the $60 million
dismissal fee.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): That is $260 million.
Mr. Silye: Yes, That is $260 million. That is a lot of money.
The same government has representatives who say that
taxpayers will not be on the hook. I am here to remind them that
they were already on the hook and dished out a quarter of a billion
dollars on Pearson airport.
I have to keep on the same vein because Liberal opposition
members are listening to my intervention and hanging on to every
word. They want to know how know the Pearson airport has cost
taxpayers $260 million.
Why are they not doing something about it? Why are they not
apologizing? Why are they not admitting they fumbled it, made a
mistake? In that event they might do better if there is an election
call in the next week or two.
The Reform Party supports Bill C-44 respecting the Marine Port
Authority. We will vote in favour of it. I appreciate the opportunity
to point out some of the flaws that are still inherent in the bill.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, if the previous speaker from the Reform Party had not
made the analogy of Gracie and George Burns and how to solve
income tax problems, I would have listened with interest to all the
other items he raised like Pearson airport. With that analogy he
made every other financial and arithmetic calculation suspect.
Perhaps we should rethink the numbers.
I thank my colleagues for allowing my amendments on Bill C-44
respecting the marine act and how it affects future transportation.
The act concerns ports and harbours, pilotage, the seaway and
the Great Lakes. There is no question that the most critical aspect
of the legislation is the restructuring of Canadian ports. The
previous structure of the ports was not efficient and had some
errors. Above all else the ports had to be restructured. The
9822
legislation adequately addresses that point. I will talk about the
harbours in a moment.
(1650)
We could have done a little better with pilotage. Although we
addressed some of the issues with respect to pilotage, I do not agree
with the remarks of the Bloc Quebecois member in the
transportation committee.
It was not an accommodation. It was an interest on the
government side to make sure fundamental issues with respect to
marine transportation would pass in this session. I am sure
pilotage, as it particularly affects the Laurentian Pilotage Authority
and pilotage on the Great Lakes, will be up for consideration as
soon as we return to the House.
There is a debate on whether the seaway and the Great Lakes
system should be exclusively with users or exclusively with a
binational panel. Some of our recommendations concerned a
combination of both. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway
system is made up of 15 locks that raise and lower ships. We must
consider the physical mechanics of running locks adequately,
especially in Canada with our diverse and severe weather
conditions starting some time in early March and lasting usually
until December 31. A binational panel could administer the locks
and bring forward economies of scale that are necessary to keep our
transportation modes competitive in Canada.
I want to discuss the harbour commissions in Canada.
Unfortunately because of the legislation the harbour commissions
have become a casualty. The harbour commissions have been a
success story in the marine transportation history of Canada. All of
them, from 1964 when the Harbour Commissions Act, the Toronto
Harbour Commission Act and the Harbour Commissions Act of
Hamilton were passed, were success stories in Canada.
I take this opportunity to thank all commissioners who have ever
served on any harbour commission in Canada for their wonderful
work, dedication and volunteerism. They ensured that their harbour
commissions operated successfully and were to the benefit of all
Canadians.
Harbour commissions will cease to be operative with the passage
of this bill. The following harbour commissions will become port
authorities: Fraser River Harbour Commission, the North Fraser
River Harbour Commission, the Nanaimo Harbour Commission,
the Oshawa Harbour Commission, the Port Alberni Harbour
Commission, the Windsor Harbour Commission and the Thunder
Bay Harbour Commission. I know the members of that commission
today and its past members, all of whom have done a tremendous
job.
My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood will speak to the
Toronto Harbour Commission and how the legislation will help that
commission unravel the log jam it has found itself in for many
years. We expect great benefits for the Toronto Harbour
Commission.
As one of my colleagues mentioned, unfortunately the Hamilton
Harbour Commission chose not to participate in the legislation.
Hopefully in the future it will see the wisdom of becoming a port in
Canada with port structure and all its benefits. We encourage that
commission to move quickly so that all ports will be under one
administration, one regulatory control, with a common set of goals.
(1655)
It is fundamental that most of us in the House are nation
builders. We should be building a strong Canada. We should be
building a unified Canada. We should be building an indivisible
Canada. We do so through the legislation we debate in the House on
a daily basis.
Sometimes it is important for all members to set aside our
parochial interests to look at Canada as a whole. In this instance I
hope all people involved in marine transportation would consider
the importance of having one unified regulated system so that we
can build the best marine transportation ever.
The goal of the transport ministry and the transport committee is
to ensure that transportation costs are efficient and cost effective. If
we achieve that goal the agricultural community, farmers and those
who manufacture goods, have the ability to deliver products to
customers in the United States, England or hopefully the emerging
South American countries. By doing so they become more
competitive than they were in past. That is good for all Canadians.
I yield the rest of my time to my colleague from
Broadview-Greenwood.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's well thought out speech.
Could he inform us on what has happened with the Laurentian
Pilotage Authority? Is it being looked at under the bill or has it
been scrapped?
Mr. Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. According to the act, in September of this year there will
be a complete review of all pilotage authorities in Canada.
To go one step further, I hope we have the opportunity in that
review to bring the technology and the expertise we have gained in
the Canadian marine transportation industry into the 21st century;
to use global positioning if it is necessary; and to use the new
innovations that are so helpful.
We must consider global positioning, whether pilotage is
necessary and whether pilots and captains can navigate ships
without the aid of pilotage. We must consider everything to lessen
the cost of the transportation of our goods in Canada.
9823
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I acknowledged the work of my colleague from Thunder
Bay-Nipigon not just in the last four years of government but over
the last nine years we have served together in the Parliament of
Canada.
He has worked passionately, diligently and carefully. He has
listened to everybody who has come to him from coast to coast,
from every region of the country. We are on the eve of an election
and we never know. The people have to decide whether or not we
come back. However I will always look back on the last nine years
with my colleague from Thunder Bay-Nipigon as a positive
constructive experience.
I want to build on a very important theme the member for
Thunder Bay-Nipigon touched upon, the whole notion that the
Chamber is about building Canada. It is about building a national
infrastructure. It is about building national standards. It is about
advantaged regions in the country looking out for disadvantaged
regions.
(1700)
That was what inspired me to work in this community. Some 18
years ago I had the privilege and the pleasure of working on the
staff of the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. To this day I admire
his vision and his passion for ensuring that we look at Canada from
coast to coast. Those regions that have must look out for those that
have not. We must ensure that this Chamber never forgets that we
are here for that reason. Even though the member represents
Thunder Bay-Nipigon and I represent downtown Toronto, we
have to care about every part of the country. That is our
responsibility in this Chamber.
We are here today to celebrate the commitment of the
Government of Canada in ensuring that its presence in the port of
Toronto is enshrined.
I want to thank the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport for listening to the Toronto
caucus and the Toronto community and ensuring that Toronto had a
port authority designation.
There is a bit of an emotional tie to this legislation in Toronto
because the very first act encapsulating the port of Toronto was
signed by Charles Parmalae. Today a press release was issued by
the current chairman of the Toronto harbour commissioners: ``This
legislation reflects the Government of Canada's faith in the future
of Toronto's port and Toronto's city centre airport operations as key
business infrastructure for economic renewal of the Toronto area''.
Charles Parmalae is the great-grandson of the Charles Parmalae
who signed the original foundation legislation in the House many
years ago. I salute the leadership of Charles Parmalae and his team
member from the Toronto board of trade who has done so much
over the last few years to ensure that the range of interests was
covered. He and others are now saying it is time for us to head into
the 21st century with a renewed thrust, with a renewed
invigoration.
It is important before we enter this era of renewal, placing
special emphasis on job creation, to acknowledge some of the
things the Toronto Harbour Commission has done. I would like to
mention three specific things which have happened over the last
while.
The Toronto Harbour Commission has expanded waterfront
lands by more than 2,000 acres by dredging and land reclamation.
This includes 644 acres of the eastern port lands, 600 acres of the
Toronto islands, nearly 200 acres of western Beaches and other
reclaimed land along the shoreline between the Humber River and
the foot of Bathurst Street. It includes 150 acres for the
metropolitan Toronto and region conservation authority at
Ashbridges Bay, Bluffer's Park and elsewhere in the eastern
Beaches, and the 430 acres at the Leslie Street spit, the Tommy
Thompson Park.
There are close to 15,000 people who live on the Toronto
Harbour Commission lands. There is employment on these lands.
There are recreational facilities on these lands, and on it goes.
We salute the Toronto Harbour Commission. We hope with this
new legislation, which continues to ensure that the city of Toronto
has a board member, that the province of Ontario and the users are
all present. They are the people who create jobs. This port will be
run in a business like manner. This port will be transparent.
(1705 )
A few hours ago in Toronto a certain member of council said:
``This is a Government of Canada land grab that is greater than
anything in Canadian history. It is bigger than when the white man
came from eastern Europe and took over Canada''. That statement
is false. These lands are Government of Canada lands. It is not
selling these lands. It is the Government of Canada presence being
reinvigorated in the city of Toronto. It is not the Government of
Canada on the eve of an election selling lands, terminals and other
things. It is the reverse of that. It is the Government of Canada
saying it is there to be a full partner in the economic renewal of the
city of Toronto.
There are some people who would ask what capacity does the
Toronto port authority have in the area of port responsibility. I
think it is very important for people to realize that currently there
are four overseas shipping lines calling at the port. The port is also
linked to both CN and CP. There are actually many other ports in
the marine act which do not have that capacity. The port is directly
linked to two major freeways. The port handles bulk, break bulk
and project cargo, and the port has the best heavy lift capacity of all
the Great Lakes.
We are here today to celebrate a commitment that the
government and the Prime Minister made almost four years ago. In
his first visit to Toronto after we won the election the Prime
Minister
9824
said Toronto will be given support on economic renewal, support
and attention the likes of which it has never seen.
Here we are on the eve of an election. We are saying in
symbolism, and local employers have said, it is a fabulous thing for
economic renewal. Many members beyond the local job creators
and people who understand the notion of tourism infrastructure are
saying it is great that the Government of Canada has taken an active
role in setting up this port in a totally transparent way.
Again I want to say that this was done with the great
co-operation of the Toronto Harbour Commission, the officials of
the Department of Transport and the parliamentary secretary. As a
measure of hope to get that economic engine of Toronto going
again at full throttle, we think it is a great step in that direction.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, if the House would indulge me I have two
very small matters to bring forward.
I believe you will find unanimous consent to revert to presenting
reports under Routine Proceedings.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9824
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour on behalf of the finance committee to table our 12th report
dealing with Bill C-93.
As I have in the past, I thank all members of all parties for their
wonderful co-operation.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe you will find consent among the parties for the following
motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, immediately after Private Members'
Business is completed on this day, the House shall consider Bill C-84 at the second
reading stage, in committee of the whole, at the report stage and at the third reading
stage;
The amendments may be proposed to the bill during the committee stage of the
said bill;
That no dilatory motions or quorum shall be received;
That the House shall adjourn immediately after completion and adoption of all the
said stages of the bill.
(1710)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have
the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9824
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pride and pleasure that I rise at third reading to address
Bill C-44, which deals with the implementation of the Canadian
marine policy, and which is called an act for making the system of
Canadian ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented,
providing for the establishing of port authorities and the divesting
of certain harbours and ports.
It is as the member representing the riding of Trois-Rivières that
I am proud to take the floor today. As you know, Trois-Rivières is
not only a port city, but also a maritime location where, for two
years now, the Festival de Trois-Rivières has been expanding so as
to better reflect that reality. I am also proud to salute Commodore
Phil Goyette for his excellent work-in co-operation with the
SDAC of the Trois-Rivières centre town-in staging a wonderful
event that keeps growing every year.
I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for his excellent work on this
issue. My colleague moved many amendments designed to
improve the bill and better protect the public interest. I thank him
particularly because of his zeal, vigilance and hard work, and also
his ability to listen.
As the member for Trois-Rivières, I would like to thank him,
because when I say ``ability to listen'' it is because he listened to
the representations I constantly made to him, as he himself was
saying earlier, on behalf of the community of Trois-Rivières. I
represented the views of that city which, having made up its mind
on this issue, wanted very much to see the port of Trois-Rivières
granted the status of Canadian port authority, as Quebec City,
Montreal and Sept-Îles had been by the first bill. Saguenay and
Trois-Rivières having been granted this status following
representations by the Bloc Quebecois, in particular the member
for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, the community of
Trois-Rivières owes him a big thank you.
9825
Yes, there was a consensus on this issue in Trois-Rivières, but
it did not come about easily. It is perhaps a good idea, on the eve
of an election, to give a brief historical overview to refresh
people's memories.
There was the scheming of the member for Saint-Maurice, the
present Prime Minister, who was a party to the whole thing, in
league with a tiny group of four, five or six Liberals who had their
eye on the port at Trois-Rivières, and whose great distinction was
to be known to be Liberals. Coincidentally as well, they had the
backing of the Prime Minister, which he blurted out at some point,
in their vague wish to eventually take over the port at
Trois-Rivières.
Fortunately, the community apparently reacted, and the
necessary representations were made. We were heard in fact by the
government on February 12, 1997, after the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup moved Motion No. 127, which
reads as follows:
That Bill C-44, in the Schedule, be amended by adding in alphabetical order the
following: ``Trois-Rivières Port Authority''.
(1715)
This was, therefore, a victory by the community which had
brought the necessary pressures to bear on the federal government,
and I am proud to have played a role in this local victory.
In the same vein, where there is the possibility of action that may
or may not be desirable, sometimes prompted by motives that may
or may not be praiseworthy themselves, I have concerns about the
minister's discretionary power over the board of directors of the
Trois-Rivières port authority. I have philosophical concerns,
because we all have first hand knowledge of what the Liberals are
like. You know them, too. We know that the Liberals have their
own way of looking at the federal government, as their property.
This is a view that is very much peculiar to the Liberals. We have
had an example of this just recently, late last week in fact. A
delegation of Liberals was literally besieging the Canadian
Parliament for partisan activities on the eve of the announcement
of an election campaign.
Imagine a similar thing happening in Quebec, with the members
of the Parti Quebecois holding meetings within the Quebec
legislature. That would make the headlines everywhere, in all of
the newspapers and all of the broadcast media as well, decrying the
attitude of the leaders of the Parti Quebecois government, if ever
such a thing were to happen. Yet we have just seen it here, a few
days ago. And again when the returning officers for the next
electoral campaign were recently appointed. This causes us to
fear-knowing as we do the Liberals and their style, their glibness,
their intellectual laziness-the possible, perhaps too systematic
appointment of people whose greatest attribute, rather than their
ability, is their membership in the Liberal Party of Canada.
Further to the introduction of this bill, I would like to draw your
attention to the ill-defined mandates given out to manage one thing
or another. This is a situation in which the government is divesting
itself of assets, including harbours and small ports, and Canada's
marine policy, as far as Quebec is concerned, involves theSt. Lawrence and the Ottawa River.
My attention has been drawn to the fact that the small docks and
the ports along the Saint-Maurice River in my region are not
covered. No one knows who to approach, who has jurisdiction. Is it
the Department of Transport or Fisheries and Oceans? It is not
easy. I have made the appropriate representations to the
Department of Transport, which accorded me considerable time,
confiding that it was an administrative mishmash. If they have a
hard time figuring things out in the minister's office, think about
the ordinary citizen and the mayor, often a community volunteer,
working part time.
This leads me to speak of the introduction into our beautiful
Quebec of the Canadian coast guard, which now has control over
the St. Lawrence Seaway and which wants to charge its users. It
will soon be involved in the management of lakes and rivers as it
may issue permits for pedal boat and rowboat owners.
Nothing says that the Canadian Coast Guard, whose mandate it is
to work from coast to coast, will not be the one interfering with the
operation of the largest seaway in the world, a complex inland
seaway. The task of marine pilots is a complex one, and I want to
commend the work done by the St. Lawrence River pilots'
association, whose members saw their jobs threatened by
government pressure.
Here again, we must thank the Bloc Quebecois, and our
colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, who made sure
that common sense prevails, given the safety risks involved, the
fact that the river is used by huge oil tankers and ore-carrying
ships, and the difficulty of manoeuvring on the St. Lawrence River,
with a narrow and sometimes shallow channel.
(1720)
I think this was an irresponsible attempt on the part of the
government. I do hope the St. Lawrence River pilots' association
will continue to prevail and survive, to ensure the protection of the
public and the riparian community. Although technology can be
very useful, it must never replace humans, as was the intention in
this case.
I would have liked to say more. I thought I would have more
time. That is unfortunate, because coast guard activities is a very
important issue. Just yesterday, I was attending a meeting of the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. The committee just
tabled a disgraceful report with obvious methodology problems.
The committee had a very narrow mandate, and no effort was made
to try and take a close look at the concerns expressed and
9826
allegations made by users of the St. Lawrence, even though they
are quite reasonable.
I am thinking in particular of the SODES and Mr. Gaudreault,
who gave an excellent presentation yesterday, showing the very
serious threat facing Quebec's economy if the Government of
Canada does not turn around and make an effort to get to the
bottom of this and see the light.
In closing, since a criticism of this recent report shows that,
under the new policy, the Quebec Cartier Mining company may
have to shut down its operations two and a half years earlier, I think
further consideration is required.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
as you know I am the Atlantic issues critic for our caucus. This
means that I bring forward issues that are of particular interest and
importance to Atlantic Canada. This will go on for a month or so
until we elect members for Reform from Atlantic Canada.
Bill C-44 impacts on Atlantic Canadian interests. It impacts on a
wonderful new opportunity for the port of Halifax to develop into a
post-Panamax port.
The post-Panamax opportunity has come about because ships are
getting so big that they can no longer get through the Panama canal.
Ships with goods from all over the world need a port on the eastern
seaboard large enough to land these goods for distribution across
North America and into South America. A port needs to be
developed to allow these huge ships to offload the containers for
trans-shipment across Canada and the United States.
This is a wonderful opportunity for the port of Halifax because it
has a lot of natural advantages that the big ports in the U.S., in
particular New York and Boston, do not have. A lot of land is
available. This port does not have to be dredged to accommodate
these huge ships, as Boston and New York would.
The potential advantage to the Atlantic provinces is enormous.
The potential income from this kind of economic activity, shipping
activity, trade activity is huge. Reports have estimated it would be
about $2 billion per year. This is not small change for a province
like Nova Scotia.
However, this bill would make it difficult, if not impossible, for
the port of Halifax, the businesses and the province to take
advantage of this opportunity for three reasons. The port would be
unable to raise the capital necessary to go ahead with this
development. To develop the port properly, to have the facilities to
offload these huge ships and to trans-ship the containers and the
goods would take about $.5 billion.
This cannot be done with the strictures being put on the port and
the port authority by this bill. The port would not be able to borrow
money. It could perhaps borrow money on cash flow which would
amount to about $40 million to $50 million maximum. Investors
could not be given equity shares in the enterprise. Here is a
wonderful opportunity and the bill puts a regime into place which
absolutely forecloses that opportunity from ever being given to the
Atlantic provinces. I have met with a number of people interested
in the matter of developing the port of Halifax. They are very
concerned.
(1725)
Unfortunately my time has been shortened due to some
arrangements in the House today. I would like to go on record as
saying that as far as the port of Halifax is concerned, the people of
Nova Scotia, Atlantic Canada and the whole of Canada, have some
real concerns that this bill limits important economic opportunities.
I would urge the government to look at this matter very carefully
before something is put in place that stifles development in a very
critical part of our country, namely, the Atlantic provinces.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An hon. member: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion is deferred
until 5.30 p.m.
* * *
The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-55, an act to amend the Criminal Code (high risk
offenders), the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the
Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the
Department of the Solicitor General Act, be read the third time and
passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
9827
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The deputy whip has requested that we
defer the vote for three minutes.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, shall we call it 5.30 p.m.?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to move the
clock ahead three minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
* * *
(1755 )
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44,
an act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive,
efficient and commercially oriented, providing for the establishing
of port authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports,
for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway and ferry
services and other matters related to maritime trade and transport
and amending the Pilotage Act and amending and repealing other
acts as a consequence, be read the third time and passed.
After the taking of the count:
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, if I inadvertently voted in favour of
the bill I would like to have my vote recorded as a no.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to change his vote?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 325)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Assad
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bélair
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Malhi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McCormick
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robillard
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Zed -128
9828
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
de Savoye
Debien
Dumas
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Hoeppner
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Riis
Rocheleau
Scott (Skeena)
Solomon
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-39
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Boudria
Brien
Cauchon
Chan
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Eggleton
Finestone
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gerrard
Grose
Harper (Churchill)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Paré
Phinney
Pillitteri
Sauvageau
Wood
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-55, an act to amend the Criminal Code (high risk
offenders), the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the
Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the
Department of the Solicitor General Act, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent that
the members who voted on the previous motion, and I would add
the name of the hon. member for Brent, be recorded as having
voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members
voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, since you did not mention it, I would
ask you to confirm that we are indeed dealing with Bill C-55. Bloc
Quebecois members will vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no, except for those who have been instructed otherwise by
their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members in the House will
vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 326)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Assad
Augustine
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Cullen
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Malhi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McCormick
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robillard
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
9829
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Zed-141
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Johnston
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-27
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Boudria
Brien
Cauchon
Chan
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Eggleton
Finestone
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gerrard
Grose
Harper (Churchill)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Paré
Phinney
Pillitteri
Sauvageau
Wood
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
_____________________________________________
9829
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
(1800)
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved that Bill C-232, an
act to prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate my appreciation to
the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden for seconding Bill C-232.
I appreciate this has been an issue of major concern of his for many
years. We have worked on this initiative together for the last three
years and we do hope that time will permit passage of this
legislation in the House as well as the other place.
I also want to acknowledge my colleague from Peace River who
also indicated an interest in seconding the legislation. I want to say
how much I appreciate his support on this initiative, and also that
he has been steadfast in his support over the last number of years on
this very important issue.
I want to indicate what was behind the initiative to introduce the
bill. In my previous life I was a professional geographer and today I
am also a governor of the Royal Canadian Geographical Society. I
have studied the issue of water transfers and water sales for nigh on
to 35 years. My interest and concern today is as much as it was at
the time the infamous North American water and power alliance
proposal, often referred to as NAWAPA, was receiving a great deal
of public attention.
This was a major project initiated by the Ralph M. Parsons'
Engineering Company of California to divert all the rivers of
northwestern Canada, including parts of Alaska, into the Rocky
Mountain trench and other river basins for eventual sale to the
American southwest and northern Mexico.
That issue, interesting enough, has not gone away. I noted with
some interest that Mr. Dale, who at one time was the United States
ambassador to Canada, two years ago was providing interviews to
Western Report magazine about the renewed interest by southern
California in revitalizing the concept of the NAWAPA plan to
divert large amounts of water from Canada to the greater
Sacramento basin which consequently would be a great business
proposal.
This has many of us very concerned. I was concerned in a
professional way as a geographer and in my capacity as member of
Parliament for Kamloops by a recent initiative taken by
entrepreneurs in western Canada and the western United states to
divert50 per cent of the flow of the North Thompson River during the
freshet period for eventual sale in the Los Angeles and San Diego
areas. The preliminary drawings had been put together. It certainly
was economically, environmentally and engineeringly feasible in
the traditional approach of evaluating projects. It was receiving a
great deal of attention until people of the North Thompson River
realized what was up and decided to take some steps against
diverting one of the major tributaries of the Fraser River for
eventual sale in the Los Angeles and San Diego areas.
I have a personal involvement as the member of Parliament
representing that area. I also think it fair to say we have seen a
number of initiatives in the last while, beginning with the free trade
agreement with the United States and ending with the North
9830
American Free Trade Agreement and more recently with the
multilateral agreement on investment.
(1805)
These three agreements would facilitate the sale of fresh water
from Canada to the United States and Mexico. In particular, the
free trade agreement and the North America Free Trade Agreement
have identified water as a good or commodity. Once water is
identified as a good or commodity, it comes under the purview of
the North America Free Trade Agreement which makes it virtually
impossible for even a national government, let alone a provincial or
any kind of local government, to take any serious steps to stop the
eventual sale of that product or that good into the United States or
into Mexico.
I suspect that people might wonder if that is the case. I suppose
we should see these trade agreements and more recently the
multilateral agreement on investment in some context.
Canada is one of the few countries in the world with no water
policy stated in any formal way. There is no legislation that would
indicate water policy. This is appalling considering that Canada is
the second largest country geographically in the world. A
tremendous amount of the world's fresh water exists within our
national boundaries. Yet we have no water policy.
In the absence of water policy, the free trade agreement with the
United States, NAFTA, and now eventually if we sign this the
multilateral agreement on investment will take priority in terms of
the rules and regulations that will govern the eventual sale of water
to the United States and northern Mexico.
I want to reiterate that the North America Free Trade Agreement
includes water as a good under the terms of the agreement for
essentially the same reason, as I stated, than does the free trade
agreement with the United States. The purpose of the free trade
agreement as set forth in article 102 is to eliminate barriers to trade
in goods and services between the territories of the parties, to
facilitate conditions of fair competition within the free trade area,
to liberalize significantly conditions for investment within the free
trade area, to establish effective procedures for the joint
administration of this agreement and a resolution of disputes and to
lay the foundation for further bilateral or multilateral co-operation
to expand and enhance the benefits of this agreement.
I want to go on to quote from article 102 under NAFTA. It sets
forth the objectives which include to eliminate barriers to trade in
and facilitate the cross-border movement of goods and services
between the territories of the parties, to establish substantially
investment opportunities in the territories of the parties, and to
establish a framework for further trilateral, regional and
multilateral co-operation to expand and enhance the benefits of this
agreement.
When we consider that the point of these two trade agreements to
which we are a signatory is to eliminate barriers in trade for goods,
is water a good under these trade agreements? Article 201.1 of the
FTA states that goods of a party mean the domestic products as
these are understood in the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
Similarly, goods of a party are defined in article 201 of NAFTA
as products, as these are understood by the general agreement on
tariffs and trade. This means that any good covered by a GATT
trade heading is subject to the provisions of the agreements
themselves unless explicitly excluded in their respective text.
Raw logs were exempt, cultural industries were exempt, some
beer was exempt and some fish products were exempt. What was
noticeably absent from the exempt list was water.
Therefore to understand the basis for inclusion of water in the
trade agreements one must first look to the relevant sections of the
harmonized commodity coding system of GATT. I know most
members are familiar with this coding system, and 22.01 states that
waters, including natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated
waters not containing added sugar or other sweetening matters, are
included.
To provide further clarification in case there is any confusion at
all, the GATT harmonized commodity description and coding
system explanatory notes were adopted by the GATT signatories in
1986. The explanatory note for heading 22.01 which represents the
only GATT sanctioned elaboration of the text is as follows: ``This
heading covers ordinary natural water of all kinds other than sea
water. Such water remains in this heading whether or not it is
clarified or purified''.
I could go on in some detail but I think this is sufficient to
indicate that however we look at this, however we interpret it,
water is a good, and goods are part of the North American Free
Trade Agreement.
(1810 )
I panic when I consider what our country is now involved in, the
multilateral agreement on investment. My guess is that 99.99 per
cent of Canadians do not know what I am speaking about at this
point because the negotiations for the multilateral agreement on
investment have been taking place in secret, behind closed doors.
They are high level negotiations that no one has been informed
about. Provincial governments have not been alerted to this. Most
members of Parliament and senators have not been alerted to the
fact that the negotiations are taking place let alone any of the items
being discussed.
The MAI's definition of investment is very broad. In the MAI
investment means ``every kind of asset owned or controlled by an
investor''. It extends to ``rights under contracts'' and ``rights
conferred pursuant to law or contract such as concessions, licences,
9831
authorizations and permits''. By implication the definition even
extends to real estate or other property, tangible or intangible,
acquired in the expectation of or used for the purpose of economic
benefit or other business purposes. It seems quite clear that this
definition of investment would open the door to international
investors mounting direct challenges against governments for
water exports.
Some people sometimes define water as a special commodity, a
special good or a special product, that it is technically owned by all
the people, that the government owns those water resources or
products until they are sold or licensed off and so on. I do not think
we can take much comfort in this. When we consider that
government is the owner, often no one takes serious claim of that
ownership. I point out the gas and oil industry, how that too
belonged to the people and how it has been essentially sold off to
the highest bidder wherever and whenever it is found. This is to say
nothing about my own province where the timber resources
theoretically belonged to the people but have now been allocated to
the last branch to one of the major forest companies for its
exclusive use.
We are now being confronted with a most serious issue. The only
product in Canada the United States does not have access to right
now is water. Until recently there was some indication that parts of
our cultural industry were protected from American inclusion. In
the last number of days the Minister for International Trade has
made it clear that will be impossible to protect in the future. Even
culture, the one industry that was named in the free trade
agreements to receive some protection, is now being abandoned
and put on the sacred altar of the free market. We are now down to
one item, water.
We have to ask ourselves why the Government of Canada is
reluctant to introduce a clear water policy for Canada and why the
House of Commons, through the government initiative, is not
prepared to introduce legislation to prohibit the interbasin transfer
of water for export.
Two jurisdictions have taken steps. British Columbia has
recently taken some steps to prohibit the interbasin transfer of
water for export and the province of Ontario under previous
administration introduced strong legislation to prohibit the
interbasin transfer of water for export sales. Saskatchewan has
done this too. When we consider that some provincial governments
have taken strong steps, why is the federal government silent on
this issue? Why does it refuse to take any initiative at all? Why
does it refuse to even discuss it? Why does it refuse to even have
the most simplistic water policy concerning the importance of
water in the second largest country in the world? These are
questions that must be asked.
As we speak there are all sorts of people who are quite anxious to
sell our water to the Americans. Americans are anxious but many
Canadians are too. I refer first to the American Society of Civil
Engineers which recently published a handbook that points out all
the benefits of diverting water from Canada to the United States, of
selling Canadian water to the United States. It points out that we
already have 54 interbasin transfer systems within Canada. This is
nothing new to our country. The export of course is.
(1815)
Even if the federal government were to pass legislation, even if
provincial governments were to pass legislation, we must us
acknowledge that as a result of international law, trade agreements
take priority over national, state or regional legislation.
We can imagine if the state of Montana passed legislation that
went against the general trust of the North American Free Trade
Agreement. It would be laughed right out of the international court.
So too would provincial, national or state governments.
At the moment we are locked in. If we agree to eventually sign
the multilateral agreement on investment, we will lock those
decisions in for a 20-year period. For 20 years a decision under that
agreement cannot be reversed once a trade or business initiative is
taken.
We have serious problems. I reluctantly say that in my own
province the Fraser Institute is an enthusiastic booster, a
cheerleader for the whole idea of selling Canadian water to
whomever. Whether it is the United States or Mexico it is anxious
to see water designated as a commodity. Recently one of its
publications articulated its position very clearly. Not only are
Americans anxious to purchase Canadian water. Some Canadians
are very anxious to sell it.
We do not have to look very far. The person who negotiated the
trade agreement with the United States, NAFTA, was Simon
Reisman. He was one of the main proponents of the interbasin
transfers of water to the United States. The thesis topic of
Manitoba's Gary Filmon when he was studying at the University of
Manitoba was an investigation of the diversion of northern
Manitoba waters into Lake Manitoba. The major objective of the
study was an assessment of the possible future scope of water
developed in western Canada and the feasibility of water exports to
the United States.
Not only are entrepreneurs and industrial and business leaders
often anxious to sell Canadian water to others, particularly the
United States and Mexico, but some of our political leaders are on
record as feeling similarly.
The lack of any initiative by the government, let alone the
previous government which we assume would have sold us out to
the United States, raises suspect whether the government is tacitly
9832
approving the notion of selling Canadian fresh water to United
States and Mexico.
An hon. member: The Prime Minister and President Clinton
were golfing and talking about giving away water.
Mr. Riis: They were talking during their golf game about
various matters. I could go on at some length but I want to hear
what my colleagues have to say about this important initiative.
Maybe Canadians are wondering how significant the issue is.
When someone goes into a store to buy a litre of water or a litre of
oil, often the litre of water is actually more expensive than the litre
of oil. We know to what extent the United States will go to ensure
its secure oil supplies. We can all agree that water is even much
more valuable than oil. We can imagine the extent to which
Americans will go to eventually have access to our fresh water.
It is important that we take whatever steps we can as a country to
indicate that Canadian water is not for sale. Canadian water is the
lifeblood of our country and is not to be treated in the same spirit as
we treat cod, copper or timber.
Mr. John Godfrey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is good
reason to applaud the initiative of the hon. member for Kamloops
in introducing the bill. The government supports the objective of
sustaining Canada's water resources and Bill C-232 proposes one
way in which we could do it.
I am concerned, however, that the prohibition of water export by
interbasin transfers may be too narrow an approach to a complex
issue. Access to adequate clean water supplies is critical to our
health, to our quality of life and to Canada's competitive position.
Much of our economy and jobs are tied directly or indirectly to our
supplies in water from farming, forestry and industrial
development to tourism and recreational sectors.
Growth in these areas will depend on sustaining the benefits of
adequate and clean water resources.
(1820 )
To put it another way, water is an essential part of all
ecosystems, from the functions and life support provided by lakes
and streams to the role of the global hydrological cycle in
sustaining water in all its forms.
Our drainage systems do not conform to political boundaries but
continue to unite different parts of our country through travel and
commerce and through co-operative efforts to conserve and protect
these waterways and their ecosystems.
The Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River connect most of
eastern Canada, as the north and south Saskatchewan Rivers link
the prairie provinces; the Fraser, most of British Columbia; and the
Mackenzie River and its tributaries, much of the north.
Current initiatives such as the Great Lakes, Fraser River andSt. Lawrence action plans are excellent examples of all levels of
government working together and with industry and
non-government organizations to address health and sustainable
development within these aquatic ecosystems.
It is essential that our decisions reflect a comprehensive
approach to sustaining water resources. On the question of water
export, we must ask ourselves at what point water removal may
result in damage to an ecosystem. It is clear that interbasin
transfers have the potential to cause the most significant social,
economic and environmental impacts.
What about other means of withdrawal of water for export
purposes such as the use of supertankers taking water from coastal
lakes and streams, the mining of groundwater reserves or the
cumulative impacts of a series of small scale withdrawals from the
same source?
Without doubt Bill C-232 is consistent with the federal water
policy which explicitly opposes water export by interbasin transfer.
I have to take issue with the hon. member in his interpretation of
the NAFTA when it talks about water as a good and refers to it as
bottled beverages. It does not refer to the large scale exports of
water to which he alluded.
Interest in water export has shifted away from proposals for the
construction of megaprojects, despite the obvious vested interest of
civil engineers, which would result in large scale interbasin
transfers of water, the focus of Bill C-232. Large scale exports
through massive engineering work such as the Grand Canal
proposal are not considered viable under current market conditions.
The costs associated with the delivery of water would greatly
exceed the prices that users would be willing to pay for water. That
is not to say that future water shortages could not result in prices
that might meet the costs of such export proposals.
The current focus of water export proposals, however, is by
tankership using water from coastal lakes and streams or by tanker
trucks or pipelines carrying water from surface to groundwater
sources.
Not only have the economics of water export clearly changed in
terms of capital investment needs but our understanding of the
scope and extent of potential environmental, social and long term
economic impacts. Water is possibly the most basic and unifying
element in ecosystems.
As I have already stated, water export must be viewed from an
ecosystem approach. Concerns relating to all forms of water export
which were not considered in the 1960s now must be factored in.
These include the effects of climate change for which recent
predictions suggest losses of water availability of about 20 per cent
for some of the settled regions of the country; the potential biotic
9833
transfer and contamination resulting from the discharges of ballast
supertankers withdrawing water from coastal streams and lakes;
the fragility of our ecosystems, particularly northern ecosystems,
to disturbance; the concerns of First Nations whose ways of life are
intimately tied to the cycles of abundance of water; the
displacement of communities or depletion of water resources
available to downstream communities; and the loss of recreational
and commercial benefits.
The measures we propose to address the water export issue must
reflect both the current and future focus of export proposals and the
broad environmental, social and long term economic impact of
such proposals. Bill C-32 fails to do.
This leads to a second concern. We should take action to address
the broad range of concerns facing fresh water in a comprehensive
way rather than limit ourselves to the one concern of water export.
The need for such an approach is based on the growing recognition
of the importance of water, the diverse and complex jurisdictional
responsibilities associated with sustainably managing water, and
the pressures on governments to continue to manage these
responsibilities effectively in the current climate of financial
restraint.
(1825)
All Canadians have stewardship responsibilities for water. It is
important that we consult with them in developing a
comprehensive approach to water export and to the many other
freshwater issues currently facing us.
Over the past 10 years the government has consulted Canadians
on a wide variety of water issues, most recently through a series of
workshops held across Canada to identify water priorities and
directions for the next century. Contrary to the suggestion of the
hon. member we are not silent. We are taking action. We are
currently conducting a review of our programs and legislation
relating to sustaining Canada's water resources. It is through this
review that a comprehensive approach to water can be developed,
including legislative measures to address water export.
I will conclude by reiterating that, first, it is imperative we
address the full range of water export options to ensure the
sustainability of Canada's water resources and the continued health
of our ecosystems. We must adopt measures whether in legislation
or by other means which provide a clear approach to resolving the
issue and which reflect the concerns of all Canadians.
Second, we must not limit our actions to the single issue of water
export in addressing the challenges facing fresh water. Taking a
piecemeal approach to the broad range of fresh water issues reflects
the ways of the past. We need an integrated and comprehensive
solution to sustaining environmental, social and economic health,
which depend on water.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great interest that I rise today to speak to the bill introduced by my
colleague in the New Democratic Party, an act to prohibit the
export of water by interbasin transfers.
Our colleague was undoubtedly motivated to introduce this bill
because of the fear that one morning he would see Canadian water
basins emptying into American ones. We would see these basins
drained or greatly reduced without being able to do anything about
it. In light of the present water shortages and climatic fluctuations
caused by greenhouse gases, this fear seems entirely legitimate to
me and certainly justifies our giving this whole issue serious
consideration.
We must ask ourselves whether our water resources are in fact
threatened in the short, medium and long term. It is clear to me that
water will be an increasingly precious resource in the future and
that people, industries and countries will therefore want to lay
claim to it by any means possible.
In the era of free trade and globalization of markets, it should
come as no surprise that fresh water is becoming a rare, not to say
very rare, commodity. We in Quebec and in Canada are lucky
enough to have large quantities of this precious commodity and
could therefore export it.
The main question we must ask ourselves is this: Can we keep
this resource, which is so abundant in this country, for ourselves
while other people on the same continent as us are suffering
shortages with very serious consequences? Can we not share this
resource intelligently for the benefit of everyone?
Moreover, can we leave this resource unprotected, at the mercy
of anyone who wants to appropriate it, which may have a disastrous
impact on the resource?
The bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops
is intended to deal with interbasin transfers, which means transfers
of huge quantities of water. According to the hon. member, it is up
to Canada to protect this natural resource, since NAFTA contains
no measures to protect or prohibit the export of this resource.
According to the hon. member, we need legislation to prohibit
massive exports by interbasin transfers.
I agree there are a number of situations that must not be allowed
to arise. For instance, the harnessing or diversion of rivers without
a licence or without authorization from the appropriate authorities.
We must of course prohibit anything that would have harmful
consequences for our resource, but is a total ban really necessary?
Since the beginning of this century we have considerably
modified our river systems. By using various technologies we have
9834
substantially altered the natural course of our lakes, rivers and
streams. Immense reservoirs like James Bay in Quebec, built to
produce electricity, and the reservoirs created for the pulp and
paper industry are good examples of the impact we have had on our
waterways.
(1830)
Today, few waterways are without a dam, a dike or at least some
control mechanism. It is clear that all these changes have had are
on a vast territory. Gradually, these changes will have
consequences on a huge scale. I think we should consider the
impact these changes have had and recognize our responsibility.
We must find out whether these artificial changes in our systems
have not had a harmful impact outside Canada. And if so, should
we not try to remedy the situation using intelligent strategies that
respect the resource?
In fact, in addition to these artificial changes, we have actually
changed quality of the water. Throughout the world we have been
remiss in the way we treated surface water by polluting it. The
consequences are reflected in the exorbitant costs of making water
safe to drink, and, even worse, in the dwindling supply of fresh,
potable water.
In fact, surface water that is potable without being treated is
practically non existent. It is found exclusively below ground at
varying depths, and we are now pumping this water in huge
quantities to sell it as bottled water. This is another phenomenon
which disturbs me and which we will have to look at seriously
without delay.
The picture is pretty clear: in Canada we have a lot of water that
we use exclusively for our own benefit. In recent years, we have
contained and dammed it by various means. Should we today open
the gates to the south, to the United States for instance, which sees
us as a huge body of water that it may endlessly dip into? Our
neighbour to the south feels that we are wasting water because we
are not using the huge reserves in the north. But when it comes to
waste, we certainly do not have anything to learn from our
neighbours south of the border.
Another aspect of the bill introduced by my colleague from the
New Democratic Party to which we should give our attention is
once again the whole issue of jurisdiction. Even though the federal
government has jurisdiction over international trade, is it desirable
for it to legislate the export of water? Imagine the situation where
Quebec decides to export water from its large reservoirs to the
United States, without any significant impact on Quebec's system.
Should the federal government block this export if it has no
negative impact? The federal government again?
The federal government is certainly no guarantee that the
environment will be protected these days. Its disengagement is
obvious and very disturbing. I wonder therefore whether we can
trust it when it comes to the management of water and the related
analyses and evaluations.
Whether it be for personal consumption, irrigation or other
purposes, I do not think we should systematically prohibit
interbasin transfers. Of course we should conserve, protect and
clean up our resource, but we can also share it.
I think there should be a broad public debate of this issue. I also
think we must continue to keep water a public resource. It would be
a much greater threat to water as a resource to leave it to the private
sector. The prospect of making a large profit quickly could empty
all of Canada's basins. The public nature of the resource therefore
constitutes a good guarantee, a sort of safeguard against possible
exploitation.
I think we should also look into this issue of export with an eye
to all the possibilities for agreements with future foreign markets
that would respect the resource itself and that would be based on
complete and transparent impact studies. We must also develop
policies with the long term in mind, based on sustainable
management of the resource.
I cannot support the bill at this stage in the debate. However, I
am considering it and I continue to weigh all the factors. This is a
major issue that deserves an open-minded approach and greater
study.
(1835)
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the issue of fresh water export has troubled Canadians for
at least three decades. There are new dimensions in the 1990s,
however, which were not part of the debate in the 1960s.
Public concern has been heightened, for example, by aboriginal
resistance to export proposals threatening their traditional areas
and by recent predictions that global warming could result in losses
of water availability of about 20 per cent for some of the settled
regions of the country.
At the same time, we should be aware that there is, as of this
date, no significant export of water resources from Canada, only a
little trade in beverages and some small exchanges of treated
supplies between neighbouring border communities. No lakes or
rivers in Canada have been diverted out of their natural courses to
flow south of the border. No supertankers have departed Canadian
shores under contract to deliver bulk water supplies to overseas
destinations. That is the reality of our present situation.
There have been, and there will continue to be, of course,
proposals for water export which range from the use of pipelines
and tanker trucks to draw on groundwater reserves, to marine
transport from coastal streams, to the more grandiose schemes
involving large scale diversions of rivers. All of these proposals
9835
have the potential to affect the social, environmental and economic
benefits Canadians derive from their water resources.
For this reason it is of paramount importance that the issue of
water export be considered in its entirety, that we do not develop
solutions to one problem at a time at the expense of a more
comprehensive approach to this whole issue.
Over the last 30 years, concern about exports of Canada's water
resources has risen primarily as a result of proposals to divert
massive amounts of water to the United States to deal with water
shortages or to allow for increased agricultural, industrial and
urban development in areas in the United States with limited
supplies. Concern has also focused on the possibility that once
these taps are turned on, it would be very difficult to turn them off.
Several of these megaprojects are worth mentioning. One of the
best known is the North American water and power alliance project
of the 1960s. It involved the diversion of water from Alaska,
northwestern Canada and watersheds surrounding Hudson Bay and
James Bay to the dry, arid areas of the western United States, the
prairie provinces and northern Mexico.
Another megaproject was the grand recycling and northern
development grand canal project which would have transferred
James Bay into a freshwater lake by building a dike at its northern
end and impounding the rivers that empty into the bay. The flows
of rivers would have been reversed to deliver water to the Great
Lakes and from there to other destinations in North America.
These megaprojects, while having the potential to create jobs
and investment in Canada in the short term, would not benefit
Canadian society in the long term.
With 9 per cent of the world's renewable fresh water resources, it
is easy for us to assume that Canada has an abundance of water and
can support limited export of its water resources. This perception is
not well founded. The idea that if we do not use all the water, it is
somehow wasted fails to recognize that there is no surplus of water
in an ecosystem. All the water serves a purpose in sustaining the
dynamics and functions of that ecosystem.
Thus, although Canada would seem to possess substantial water
resources there are regions in Canada in which scarcities exist or
will exist. These areas include the river basins of the Okanagan,
Milk, South Saskatchewan and the Red-Assiniboine Rivers, as well
as nearly all of the smaller river basins of southern Ontario.
Within this context it is worth considering whether we would be
better served by addressing all means of water export and not
limiting discussion to interbasin transfers. Bill C-232 also
mentions a need for policy, research and consultations among
federal, provincial and territorial governments on the subject of
interbasin water transfers within Canada. It provides no guidance,
however, in this area.
(1840)
That is unfortunate because Canadians have a great deal of
experience with interbasin transfer projects. In fact, the volume of
water transferred across drainage basin boundaries in Canada is
several times greater than in any other country in the world.
Virtually all of the larger existing interbasin diversion projects
support hydroelectric power generation with smaller volumes used
for irrigation, municipal supply and flood control.
Members of the House will be interested to know that the largest
of these projects was constructed in the 1970s and 1980s. Since
then construction and expansion of such megaprojects have been
shelved in all regions of the country: the Kemano Alcan project in
British Columbia; the Nelson River program in Manitoba,
expansion of the James Bay hydro project in Quebec.
Energy demands have fallen and it is less costly to promote
efficiencies on the part of the users of energy and water, rather than
to continue to develop the new supplies.
The federal water policy addresses Canada's experience with
interbasin transfer projects, but advocating caution in considering
their needs, and by endorsing other less destructive alternatives
such as demand management and water conservation.
There are no plans under consideration to proceed with any
further interbasin transfers at this time anywhere in this country.
That tells us two things of importance.
First, not only do Canadians oppose the large scale diversion of
our lakes and rivers across the international boundary, they have
learned from experience that interbasin diversions carry a high
price for their own regional economies and environments.
Second, it would be shortsighted to pursue this issue in isolation
of the larger context which considers changing public values,
competing in complementary water use relationships and
governmental priorities.
Federal programs and legislation related to the sustainability of
Canada's water resources are currently being reviewed and the
issues of export and interbasin transfers should be addressed in that
larger context.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on the bill introduced by my
colleague from Kamloops. I know he has a very deep concern on
this issue of water exports.
I share that concern, although I believe we are adequately
protected. However, it is not as crystal clear as it could be.
Therefore, it is important that we take whatever steps necessary to
9836
make sure that Canada does not get into a situation where it is
required to export water by any means such as interbasin transfer.
Water is a very important resource and will be even more
important in the future. In my riding of Peace River we have a lot
of oil and gas development. Oil and gas companies have
consistently tried to use potable ground water for flooding their oil
zones when salt water is available at a not much larger cost. I
believe we should continue to resist this misuse of potable water
because it is going to be a very serious problem in the future.
I support the bill introduced by the member for Kamloops and I
will state my reasons for supporting it.
Reform policy dating back to 1993, prior to the last election and
prior to the passage of NAFTA, makes a specific statement on
water. It states that the exclusive and unrestricted control of water
in all its forms should be maintained by and for Canada and that
both free trade agreements should be amended to reflect this.
I admit it is a little late to be talking about amending NAFTA.
Furthermore, there have been assurances from all sides that water
in lakes, streams and basins can in no way be considered a
commodity. Therefore, water in its raw format is not covered by
NAFTA. Consequently, there is nothing in NAFTA that could force
us to transfer water to the United States. Prior to signing the
NAFTA the three governments issued a joint statement to this
effect. It stated that the governments of Canada, the United States
and Mexico in order to correct false interpretations issued a joint
public statement such as the parties in the North American Free
Trade Agreement.
(1845)
The NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of
any party to the agreement. Unless water in any form has entered
into commerce and become a good or product, it is not covered in
the provisions of the trade agreement under the NAFTA.
Nothing in the NAFTA would oblige the NAFTA partners to
exploit water for commercial use or to begin to export water in any
form. Water in its natural state in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, aquifers,
water basins and the like is not a good or product. It is not traded
and therefore is not and never has been subject to any terms of the
agreement.
Just the fact that we are having to clarify it makes people wonder
whether it was missed in the free trade agreement. I restate that we
want to make sure we tie it down and not allow any possibility of it
happening.
From this statement it would seem we are safe as long as water
does not enter into commerce, but I do have that concern. Canada
already has a policy of prohibiting interbasin water transfers, but
policy is not law. New governments can bring in new policies. Why
not take he advice of the member for Kamloops and back this
policy with legislation? I agree that we should do it.
Back in 1988 similar legislation was introduced but it died on the
Order Paper and was never resurrected. Off and on over the past
decades the United States has faced significant water problems.
Despite occasional droughts Americans have an extremely high
water consumption rate per capita. This is partly due to irrigation
practices of the agriculture industry and the fact that Americans
persist in growing water intensive crops.
To deal with this recurring problem various American and
Canadian interests dreamed up massive water diversion proposals
in the mid-fifties and early sixties. There was the North American
Water and Power Alliance, PRIME and the Grand Canal scheme.
They used different methods like tunnels, canals, pipelines and
dams to divert water from B.C., Alberta and Quebec south of the
border. That was their dream.
Although the public uproar against such projects pretty much
killed them, occasionally there is still talk about scaled down
versions. Why have Canadians become so concerned? The fact is
that Canadians have less clean fresh water than one would think.
Many of southern lakes and rivers are polluted with industrial
waste and sewage, and most of our rivers of course flow north away
from our major centres. We cannot really afford to squander the
fresh water that remains. Commercial interests that want to use
fresh groundwater have put it under great pressure in some areas of
the country. Water will be a very important issue in the future and
we need to maintain it.
A further problem has to do with the environment. Sending our
water south can have massive ecological repercussions. Interbasin
transfers can introduce parasites and other organisms into new
environments where they can have devastating effects. A recent
example is the introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes.
There could also be detrimental effects on fish and bird species
where fresh water flows are introduced into estuaries affecting the
salinity of the water. Massive water diversions can change
climactic conditions and introduce mercury and other contaminants
into the food change.
In conclusion, the House should support the bill. The Reform
Party has always insisted that Canada maintain control of its
natural water. It would have been preferable to include water rights
under the NAFTA. We failed to do that. They should be included in
legislation. We should have a policy that restricts interbasin
transfer that might make water exports possible. We support our
colleague from Kamloops.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Kamloops deserves to be complimented for bringing
the bill before us. It allows us to discuss the question of water
policy.
Under a Liberal government in 1983 a study was commissioned
on water which resulted in the Pearse report entitled ``Currents of
Change'', an inquiry on federal water policy which saw the light of
9837
day in 1986. Chapter 12 of the report contained a thorough analysis
of water exports as one of the many components of water policy.
(1850)
The Pearse report has been languishing since then. Its main
recommendations are waiting either to be implemented in their
original form or modified. In this sense Bill C-232 is extremely
helpful because it reminds us that the whole question of water
needs to be visited urgently.
The bill relates to the export of water. I concur with the main
thrust of the private member's bill. However I cannot find, as he
does, any reference in the NAFTA that would commit the
Government of Canada to export water. My recollection is that
there is only a reference to mineral water, as the parliamentary
secretary indicated in his intervention. Nevertheless, if the member
for Kamloops has a section of the NAFTA that specifically implies
Canada's commitment to export water, I would be grateful if he
were to bring it to our attention.
We are talking about the role of the International Joint
Commission which needs to be revisited to determine whether it is
timely and effective and, if not, whether it has to be recast in a new
role.
We are also talking about whether our water research facilities,
particularly with respect to fresh water, are adequate; whether we
are using water in Canada in an efficient manner; whether the
quality of water at the municipal level is adequate; and whether
there are ways of improving it.
As the member for Laurentides indicated, we need to look at the
trends in groundwater. If the trends are downward, as she and some
hydrologists indicated, we need to look at the predictions for the
long term so we can ensure the use of water is sustainable and
future generations, the grandchildren of our grandchildren, will
have access to groundwater in the same manner as we do despite
the predicted increase in population.
The member for Kamloops said there was tacit approval for the
sale of water to U.S. and Mexico. He seems to be stretching it a bit
beyond belief. I do not see any evidence of that. The strong point of
the bill is that it draws our attention to the fact that whenever there
is an interbasin transfer of water there is an impact on the
ecosystem. There is an impact on plants, animals and even
sometimes on the micro climate.
Therefore interbasin transfers should be a thing of the past and
ought never to be considered again, if at all possible, as was the
case with the not lamented disappearance of the Grand Canal
proposal. That proposal received under the Conservative regime of
1984 to 1994 a grant to facilitate its fulfilment. It was one of the
greatest misuses of public money I can remember.
I welcomed the parliamentary secretary indicating that a review
of water policy was currently taking place. That was the best kept
secret in town. Nevertheless it is a good one We welcome that fact.
We all look forward to the phase when the review will become
open, which will then allow parliamentarians, the public, interested
parties and so on to participate.
(1855)
In discussing the management of water and how humans relate to
it, one cannot help but make a brief reference to dam construction
as the member for Thunder Bay did so eloquently in his
intervention. We all hope the construction of dams remains a thing
of the past. It has had its phase but we must learn to operate and
function in relation to water within the means made available to us
without interfering and damaging nature in the way we have done
so far.
In this respect I can only thing of the horrendous damage to the
native economy that has been caused by the construction of the
Great Whale Dam in northern Quebec and the proposal which
fortunately was suspended thereafter because of strong opposition
to it.
The times of megaprojects are over. At least I hope they are over
and we can manage our requirements for water in a more
thoughtful and careful manner, being aware of the ecological
impact.
We need to examine the pricing, quality and management of
water; the international questions including the question of water
export; and the role of the institutions we have established over
time to manage better the waters we share with our neighbours.
In conclusion, I cannot stress too strongly the necessity of the
Pearse report finally being made the object of a thorough review
and a policy being announced that will implement the
recommendations contained therein.
I would ask that the member for Oakville-Milton be allowed to
speak for 10 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Davenport has proposed
that there be unanimous consent to permit the member to speak for
10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to oppose the private member's bill put forward by the member
for Kamloops. It seems appropriate that a bill to oppose water
export has been introduced in the House by the member from
British Columbia. No other province has figured as prominently
over the past three decades in proposals to export fresh water from
this country. He is justifiably concerned about this state of affairs,
which I would like to review briefly.
9838
In the 1960s the most publicized of all the mega schemes to
redistribute continental water resources was the North American
Water and Power Alliance, sometimes called NAWAPA, designed
by the Ralph Parsons engineering firm of Los Angeles. It was
premised on the capture of headwaters of the Yukon, Skeena,
Peace, Columbia and Fraser Rivers and their storage in the huge
Rocky Mountain trench of British Columbia before diversion
elsewhere.
(1900)
Geologists questioned the capacity of the trench to bear the
weight of such a massive reservoir without increasing earthquake
and slide hazards. In a mountainous province where habitable
lowland is at a premium, planners were reluctant to take the risks
that such a mega scheme implied. Agricultural acreage, wildlife
habitat and communities as large as Prince George could be
flooded out. West-east rail and road links between B.C. and the rest
of Canada could be disrupted by this creation of such a huge
reservoir. At the time, British Columbians were already
experiencing enough valley floods in projects serving the
Columbia River treaty and Peace River power projects and so the
NAWAPA scheme was rejected.
In the mid-1980s, however, the provincial government in
Victoria decided to entertain another form of fresh water export,
inviting applications for marine transport from streams in its
coastal region. When drought struck, American southwest
communities like Santa Barbara looked north for supplemental
supplies and B.C. entrepreneurs were quick to respond with
supertanker proposals. Just as the first contract was about to be
signed 1991, however, the province was forced by public
controversy to declare a moratorium on this development.
Problems included aboriginal land claims and a proliferation of
applications by various proponents to draw fresh water from the
same source region. As well there were concerns about navigation
hazards and fisheries protection. This moratorium was replaced in
1995 by provincial legislation banning bulk water export of any
kind.
This 1995 legislation effectively scuttled another interbasin
transfer scheme. Multinational Water and Power Incorporated
planned to divert 1 million acre-feet of flow from the North
Thompson River to the Columbia River where it would flow across
the international boundary and then be sent by pipeline to the
Shasta reservoir in California. This was the proposal which
motivated the hon. member for Kamloops to rally his constituency
and neighbouring communities in opposition and to table well over
100,000 signatures in this House toward that end. Had the proposal
not fallen flat among British Columbians, it might well have had a
difficult time anyway passing existing federal hurdles, namely the
approvals required under the International River Improvements
Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Fisheries Act.
Meanwhile smaller exports of water have proceeded in several
forms. Treated water from greater Vancouver regional district
pipelines serves the community of Point Roberts in Washington.
Ground water supplies in the northern Okanagan Valley are trucked
in bulk to bottling plants south of the border. And of course bottled
water is exported. These represent negligible volumes at present
compared with available resources.
There is no conflict between the B.C. legislation and the federal
water policy which was tabled in this House in 1987. The policy
opposes large scale water export, as by diversion of lakes or rivers,
but allows for consideration of small scale exports under provincial
licensing, providing that federal interests such as navigation,
fisheries, aboriginal rights and external trade and treaties are taken
into account.
The Government of Canada therefore supports B.C.'s decision to
prohibit the large scale or bulk export of fresh water from the
provinces. The province's legislative initiative will encourage a
growing water bottling industry and at the same time protect its
salmon fishery and other public values.
As the hon. member for Kamloops suggested, the last chapter of
the water export story has not been written. Further proposals will
appear in response to international crisis or opportunities. If British
Columbia has passed legislation specifically to address the water
export issue to its own satisfaction, the federal government and
other provinces have not taken the same path.
The issue and its many dimensions continue to evolve. It is more
than likely that the British Columbia approach, which simply
prohibits bulk water export, will not be the solution chosen by all
other jurisdictions in Canada. Newfoundland, for example, has
decided to take advantage of the latitude allowed by the federal
water policy to explore small scale trade opportunities from
supertanker exports.
(1905)
Ontario realizes that protection of its Great Lakes advantages
depends less on unilateral declarations against exports than on
forming a common bond with neighbouring state governments in
this international drainage system.
It is clear that the hon. member's bill is too narrow to resolve the
longstanding water export issue. It addresses one prominent threat
to Canada's water heritage, proposals for the diversion of lakes and
rivers to flow to the United States. But it ignores other means by
which water can be exported and it does not offer a framework of
national applicability suitable for adoption by the Government of
Canada.
I suggest that it is not necessary to rush Bill C-232 into law in
order to save Canada's water resources from being lost to foreign
markets. There is enough time for the federal government to
consult with provinces and public interests about a more
comprehensive approach that would apply across the country, one
which is sensitive to the various water resources of our various
provinces
9839
and territories and one which will sustain Canada's regional and
national advantages over the long term.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to
Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order
of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9839
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.) moved that Bill C-84, an act to amend the
Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House to
support what I feel to be an important and necessary piece of
legislation.
Recently, it became apparent that we needed to strengthen the
provisions of the Citizenship and Immigration Acts. The Federal
Court identified this problem and brought it to the attention of the
Government. Now we intend to fix it. That is what good
government is all about: continually seeking to improve the
institutions that serve the public and the legislation that governs
society.
The issue addressed by Bill C-84 is a technical one which
potentially affects only a very small number of people.
Nevertheless, it is vital that we address it now, as it concerns two
things which are of supreme importance to the people of Canada:
national security and our citizenship.
It is clear to me that Canadians of all backgrounds and all parts
of the country value their citizenship. This is a distinction which is
very precious. Being a Canadian means belonging to a very special
home. It means holding a passport which is respected and honoured
around the world. And it means sharing a colourful national history
and a beautiful and iverse country.
Being a Canadian citizen is a special right which we share. Every
year, many immigrants come to this country with the hope of one
day becoming Canadians themselves. We are happy to share our
citizenship with those who want it and work hard to deserve it.
But there is always a small number of people who do not deserve
this distinction. There are a few individuals whose actions threaten
to tarnish and diminish the value of our citizenship. And there are
those who would use Canadian citizenship as a shield for their
subversive activity. Why should we allow them to become
citizens, or even permanent residents? No, we should not. I am sure
we are all in agreement about that.
But the reality of the situation is that we might have no choice in
certain circumstances.
(1910)
I know that this sounds surprising. But given the problem in the
law the courts have identified, there are situations in which we
might not be able to prevent men and women who are security risks
from becoming permanent residents or citizens.
Citizenship would be granted under the existing legislation
despite the best judgment of the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, the Government and the people of Canada.
That is why I am standing before you today, and why I feel that
the House must support this Bill. Our citizenship is precious, and
we must strive to protect it.
[English]
One of the primary roles of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service is to protect the national security of Canada. This is an
important organization which serves this country very well. But in
a democratic and free country like ours it is important to have
checks and balances in place to ensure that our law enforcement
agencies conduct themselves in a just and fair manner. We impose
safeguards to protect the rights and freedoms of all our citizens.
One important safeguard is the Security Intelligence Review
Committee. It monitors CSIS activities on behalf of Parliament and
the public. Over the years its members have performed their
functions professionally and admirably. Routine security checks
are an important part of the approval process in the granting of both
citizenship and permanent resident status. There are provisions in
both the Citizenship Act and Immigration Act to deny citizenship
and permanent resident status if in the opinion of both the Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor General of
Canada there are reasonable grounds to believe that an applicant is
linked to organized crime, poses a security threat or was a senior
member of a government that engaged in terrorism, flagrant human
rights violations, war crimes or crimes against humanity.
In such instances they may make a report to the Security
Intelligence Review Committee and ask for a review of the case.
An individual can be declared a threat only if the committee agrees.
This system works well. It achieves a fair balance between the
rights of the individuals concerned and the need to protect the
Canadian public from potential harm.
There are occasions when the committee may be unable to
execute its duties. There are exceptional cases where members of
the committee may find themselves in conflict of interest situations
or somehow open to a perception of bias. Under the current system
9840
there are no provisions to deal with this eventuality. The result can
be very disturbing.
If, for instance, the committee is unable to render a decision in a
citizenship case because of the perception of bias the minister
would have no choice but to grant citizenship to a person who could
compromise our country's national security. This is clearly
unacceptable.
The purpose of Bill C-84 is to deal with this potential situation.
While the cases we are discussing are rare, we cannot simply
ignore them. When we are talking about security issues we must be
vigilant and act decisively. We want to put in place an alternative
solution that would serve to replace the Security Intelligence
Review Committee when that body believes itself to be incapable
of performing its duties.
The bill proposes to give the governor in council the power to
appoint a retired judge to perform the review committee's duties
when this occurs. This judge will have the same powers and
obligations that are accorded to the review committee.
(1915)
It is that simple. We need to have a mechanism in place to deal
with relatively rare but potentially very serious situations. This will
not affect the existing criteria for refusing people entry into
Canada. This legislation will not diminish the powers of the CSIS
or the review committee in any way.
What we are proposing to do today is simply correct potential
procedural irregularities. It is a small step, but an important one.
[Translation]
We have found a problem and are taking steps to fix it. This bill
is an efficient and necessary measure. I am told that opposition
parties will be introducing amendments to improve the bill. We
will be pleased to support improvements in the interest of all
Canadians.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak today on Bill C-84, an act to amend the Citizenship Act
and the Immigration Act.
This bill was introduced on February 20 by the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, and will be passed today, with our
consent, on second and third reading. The minister has just
expressed her thanks to the official opposition for its co-operation.
You have already seen in the past four years that the Bloc
Quebecois is a responsible party.
We are a sovereignist party, and Quebecers have entrusted us
with the role of official opposition. We have fulfilled our mandate
with a great deal of ability and a serious attitude, which is why
today we are co-operating in the passage of this bill, which we feel
is an important one. We also agree to this bill being fast tracked.
The amendments to the legislation mainly address the possibility
for a retired judge appointed by the Governor in Council to replace,
and therefore perform the duties of, the security intelligence review
committee, or SIRC, when the latter is of the opinion that it cannot
fulfil its duties, because of apparent lack of impartiality, conflict of
interest, or any other reason deemed necessary.
The government has just told us that these legislative changes
are intended to ensure the security of the country. Should a
situation arise in which an individual constitutes a threat to the
security of Canada, SIRC carries out an investigation in accordance
with section 19 of the Citizenship Act. The committee then reports
to the Governor in Council, who decides whether citizenship is to
be granted or not. In the case of an application for permanent
residence, the process is the same, except that the decision comes
from the Federal Court.
Bill C-84 is presented as an alternative solution, when SIRC
cannot perform its duties, for instance by reason of lack of
impartiality. Under Bill C-84, the governor in council may appoint
a retired judge for a term of three to five years to perform the duties
of the review committee set out in the Citizenship Act and the
Immigration Act.
The bill can be retroactive. It includes transitional provisions
aimed at recognition of a legal decision rendered with respect to the
jurisdiction of SIRC before the coming into force of the bill. The
decision must, however, be definitive and without appeal.
According to section 19 of the Citizenship Act, the Minister may
make a report to the Review Committee, when of the opinion that a
person should not be granted citizenship, administered the oath of
citizenship, or issued a certificate of renunciation.
(1920)
In such cases there must be reasonable grounds to believe that
the person concerned will engage in activity that constitutes a
threat to the security of Canada or that is part of a pattern of
criminal activity planned and organized by a number of persons
acting in concert in furtherance of the commission of any offence
that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by way of
indictment.
The minister shall, within ten days after a report is made by
CSIS, send a notice informing the person concerned of the report.
The review committee shall investigate the grounds on which the
report is based. The review committee shall, as soon as practicable
after a report is made to it, send to the person with respect to whom
the report is made a statement summarizing such information
available to it. The review committee shall, on completion of an
investigation, make a report to the minister and provide the
complainant with the conclusion of the report.
9841
Bill C-84 follows on the heels of the Zundel case. Zundel, a
German citizen, applied for Canadian citizenship in 1993. On the
basis of information obtained by CSIS, the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration sent a report to the Security Intelligence Review
Committee stating there were reasonable grounds to believe that
Zundel constituted a threat to the security of Canada.
Zundel was advised that the SIRC had been ordered to
investigate him. If the report was confirmed, his application for
citizenship might be turned down, which was the case. Zundel is a
person with extreme rightwing views who denies the existence of
the Holocaust. He is a member of so-called hate organizations and
is therefore a threat to the security of Canada. These conclusions
can be found in a report on the Heritage Front. And as you know,
that particular case attracted the attention of the media.
Zundel therefore asked the Federal Court to prohibit the SIRC
from conducting an investigation on the grounds of a reasonable
apprehension of bias.
Zundel's counsel then filed an application for judicial review on
the grounds of this apprehension of bias on the part of the SIRC.
The federal court judge issued an order prohibiting the SIRC from
continuing its investigation, on the grounds of bias. The federal
court therefore upheld the appeal by Zundel's counsel.
Furthermore, the judge suggested how the legislation could be
amended to deal with such situations.
So far, the minister was not in a position to reject Ernst Zundel's
application for citizenship. He might be forced to grant him his
citizenship, even if this individual might be a threat to national
security.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the bill but obtained the consent
of the government party for moving two amendments. The first one
concerns the appointment of a retired judge and reads as follows:
``After consultation by the Prime Minister of Canada with the
Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the leader
in the House of Commons, of each party having at least twelve
members in that House, the Governor in Council may''.
With this amendment we want to avoid any hint of patronage
with respect to appointments made by this government, as has
happened in the case of commissioners appointed to the IRRB.
We also agree with the amendment moved by the Reform Party.
The second amendment by the Bloc Quebecois reads as follows:
``The person appointed under subsection 39.1(1) must, not later
than September 30 in each fiscal year, submit to the Solicitor
General of Canada a report of the activities of the person during the
preceding fiscal year and the Solicitor General of Canada must
cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any
of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the day
the Solicitor General of Canada receives it.''
(1925)
I agree with the points made earlier by the minister. This
individual denies the existence of the Holocaust in which more
than six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis during the
second world war. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to
the Jewish community for its exceptional contribution to Canada
and Quebec. I visited the Museum of the Holocaust recently in
Washington, and I again realized of why we must not let this
happen again today.
For all these reasons, I support Bill C-84.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-84. Although
the bill is very simple and straightforward, it concerns the
Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act.
The bill would allow a retired judge to review cases where SIRC
is deemed incapable of fulfilling its responsibilities. While the bill
is very straightforward its history is not. Before landed immigrants
obtain Canadian citizenship their backgrounds are reviewed. Some
individuals applying for a Canadian citizenship have involved
themselves in activities that can be deemed to be a threat to the
security of Canada. Therefore, there is a process in place to prevent
these individuals from becoming Canadian citizens, as there should
be.
Sections 19 and 20 of the Citizenship Act define the procedure
that is to be followed. These procedures are: If the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration is of the opinion that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant for Canadian
citizenship will engage in activities that will constitute a threat to
the security of Canada, the minister may make a report to this
effect to the Security Intelligence Review Committee or SIRC as it
is more commonly known. Within 10 days of making this report to
SIRC, the minister shall notify the applicant of the report. SIRC is
then required to conduct an investigation. The applicant is sent a
statement of circumstances that sets out the grounds that give rise
to the minister's report.
Following its investigation, SIRC then reports the results to the
governor in council. The governor in council may then make a
declaration that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
applicant will engage in activity that constitutes a threat to the
security of Canada.
Such a declaration precludes the applicant from being granted
Canadian citizenship but only for a two-year period. The applicant
can then make another application. What constitutes a threat to the
9842
security of Canada and how SIRC conducts its investigation is all
laid out in the Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act.
Section 48(2) of the CSIS act states that during the course of the
SIRC investigation, the applicant, the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and CSIS may all present evidence and make
representation either personally or by counsel.
I would like to refer to the Zündel case. This case which has
inspired C-34 concerns the application of Ernst Zündel. Mr. Zündel
has obtained enough notoriety that I do not believe that it is
essential to repeat his claims to infamy.
Suffice it to say that Mr. Zündel immigrated to Canada on
September 2, 1958. On October 24, 1993 he applied for Canadian
citizenship. On August 5, 1995 he was notified by the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration at that time that the minister had
made a report to SIRC pursuant to subsection 19(2) of the
Citizenship Act. The letter informed Mr. Zündel that there were
reasonable grounds to believe that he would engage in activity that
constitutes a threat to the security of Canada. The letter also stated
that the minister made his determination based on information and
advice provided by CSIS.
On August 31, 1995 the executive director of SIRC, Maurice
Archdeacon wrote to Mr. Zündel advising him that SIRC had
received the minister's report concerning his application for
citizenship. The letter also advised that SIRC would send Mr.
Zündel a summary of information available to SIRC to permit him
to be as fully informed as possible of the circumstances giving rise
to the minister's report.
On October 30, 1995 SIRC sent a letter to Mr. Zündel advising
him that a review committee was conducting an investigation and
included a statement of circumstances that gave rise to the
minister's report. The letter advised that the activities which CSIS
believed he would engage in were those described in paragraph
2(c) of the CSIS act which defines threat to the security of Canada
to mean ``activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or
in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against
persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political
objective within Canada or a foreign state''.
On November 22, 1995 counsel for SIRC and others met with
Mr. Zündel and his lawyer to explain the investigative process and
answer any questions.
(1930 )
In a letter dated December 11, 1995 Mr. Archdeacon wrote to
Mr. Zundel's counsel to advise him that SIRC was prepared to
proceed with the hearing part of the investigation. A number of
adjournments postponed the hearing phase of SIRC's investigation,
but then in a letter of February 26, 1996 Mr. Zundel's counsel
requested another adjournment so he could file an application for
judicial review on the grounds of a reasonable apprehension of bias
on the part of SIRC.
The basis of Mr. Zundel's allegation of bias was a report written
by SIRC entitled ``The Heritage Front Affair''. In a letter dated
February 28 Mr. Archdeacon refused the request. On March 21 a
motion was brought before the Federal Court of Canada seeking a
stay of proceedings concerning the SIRC hearing that was
scheduled for March 25 and an order for an expedited hearing ofMr. Zundel's application for judicial review.
Madam Justice McGillis refused to grant the stay of proceedings
but she granted the motion for an expedited hearing. On June 10
and 11 the application for judicial review was heard before Justice
Heald of the federal court in Ottawa.
After dealing with a number of procedural motions the court got
down to the narrow issue of the case to decide if SIRC should be
prohibited from carrying out the proceedings mandated by section
19 of the Citizenship Act. First the court had to determine what test
for bias was applicable to the case while acknowledging that all
administrative boards owe a duty of fairness to those whose
interests they must determine. The courts have recognized that the
duty of fairness varies depending on the nature and function of the
particular board.
For example, a board that performs policy formation should not
be susceptible to a charge of bias just because it expresses opinions
prior to its hearings. On the other hand, administrative boards that
are primarily adjudicative in their functions are expected to comply
with the standard applicable to the courts. In arguments before the
courts counsel for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
argued that SIRC's role is closer to a policy formation board, while
Mr. Zundel's counsel argued that it was primarily adjudicative and
therefore attracted the higher standard of impartiality mandated by
the informed bystander test.
In determining where on this broad spectrum SIRC's function
fell, the judge reviewed SIRC's mandate under section 19 of the
Citizenship Act, which in the words of SIRC's executive director
was to conduct an investigation to determine whether there were
reasonable grounds to believe that Zundel would engage in
activities that constituted a threat to the security of Canada.
The judge noted that while the applicant, the minister and CSIS
could make representation, SIRC's investigation would be
conducted in private. Once SIRC completed its investigation it
would make a report to the governor in council. It is the governor in
council that upon SIRC's report decides whether or not to declare
there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr, Zundel would
engage in activity considered a threat to the security of Canada.
The court pointed out that while it is not disputed it was the role
of the governor in council and not SIRC to make the final decision,
9843
SIRC's role could not be understated. It is SIRC that conducts the
hearing at which it assesses the witnesses and weighs their
evidence. It is SIRC that receives the submissions of the interested
parties. It is SIRC that takes all the available information and
issues the report.
Since Mr. Zundel could not make representation before the
governor in council, the only opportunity for him to challenge the
allegations against him was in front of SIRC. The court determined
that while SIRC was not the ultimate decision maker as to whether
there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Zundel would
engage in activity that constituted a threat to the security of
Canada, SIRC played a vital and paramount role in that
determination.
In the judge's view the function of SIRC at least in relation to
section 19 of the Citizenship Act came closer to the adjudicative
end of the function. Thus it attracted the standard of impartiality
that was required by the informed bystander test. Once the federal
court came to this conclusion it was then faced with the process of
applying the informed bystander test for bias to the Zundel case.
Mr. Zundel claimed that the view of SIRC in the Heritage Front
report gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias against him.
While the court ruled that the accuracy of the content of the
Heritage Front report was irrelevant to the issues, it was important
to note that SIRC offered the report and made the statements
contained therein. In other words the court did not have to decide
whether SIRC's findings in the Heritage Front report were valid.
What was important to this case was the fact that SIRC made those
findings.
Having been involved for over 19 months in the study of the
Heritage Front report, it was very evident to me that SIRC had
made statements about Mr. Zundel which were very biased in their
nature. The court quickly found that the statements of SIRC in the
Heritage Front report were extremely similar to those used by the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in another incident. It is
not terribly surprising because CSIS is a source of information both
for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and SIRC. It
was evident that the conclusions in the evidence given by SIRC
from the information received from CSIS led to the bias in the
report that was reported.
(1935)
The Reform Party believes some individuals have landed
immigrant status in Canada who should be denied Canadian
citizenship. Bill C-84 is an attempt by the government to undo the
difficulties created by the Security Intelligence Review Committee
overstating in the report and being too political in its discussions
and deliberations. It has placed the government in the position
where it has to protect Canadians and Canadian citizenship by
tightening the rules and regulations to allow a retired judge to take
the job that SIRC should have been able to do on its own.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went
into committee thereon, Mr. Kilgour in the chair.)
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
[Translation]
On clause 2
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-84, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 1 with the
following:
``19.1 (1) After consultation by the Prime Minister of Canada with the Leader of
the Opposition in the House of Commons and the leader in the House of
Commons of each party having at least twelve members in that House, the
Governor in Council may''
(Amendment agreed to.)
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-84, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 2 with the
following:
Remuneration
and expenses
``(3) The appointed person shall be paid, for each day that the person performs
duties under this Act, such''
(Amendment agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (bourassa, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-84, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 2 the
following:
``19.3 The person appointed under subsection 19.1(1) must, not later than
September 30 in each fiscal year, submit to the Solicitor Gneral of Canada a report of
the activities of the person during the preceding fiscal year and the Solicitor General
of Canada must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of
the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the day the Solicitor General
of Canada receives it.''
(Amendment agreed to.)
(Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.)
[English]
(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.)
9844
(1940)
[Translation]
On Clause 5
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-84, in Clause 5, be amened by replacing line 17 on page 3 with the
following:
``39.1 (1) After consultation by the Prime Minister of Canada with the Leader of the
Opposition in the House of Commons and the leader in the House of Commons of
each party having at least twelve members in that House, the Governor in Council
may''
(Amendment agreed to.)
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-84, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 3 with the
following: Remuneration and expenses
``(3) The appointed person shall be paid, for each day that the person performs
duties under this Act as, such''
Amendment agreed to.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-84, in Clause 5, be amended by adding the following after line 10 on
page 4:
``Annual Reports
39.3 The person appointed under subsection 39.1(1) must, not later than
September 30 in each fiscal year, submit to the Solicitor General of Canada a report
of the activities of the person during the preceding fiscal year and the Solicitor
General of Canada must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament
on any of the fifteen first days on which that House is sitting after the day the
Solicitor General of Canada receives it.''
(Amendment agreed to.)
(Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.)
(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.)
On Clause 8
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-84, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 5 with the
following:
``1.1 (1) After consultation by the Prime Minister of Canada with the Leader of the
Opposition in the House of Commons and the leader in the House of Commons of
each party having at least twelve members in that House, the Governor in Council
may''
(Amendment agreed to.)
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-84, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 5 with the
following: Remuneration and expenses
``(3) The appointed person shall be paid, for each day that the person performs
duties under this Act as, such''
Amendment agreed to.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-84, in Clause 8, be amended by adding the following after line 27 on
page 5:
``Annual Reports
81.3 The person appointed under subsection 81.1(1) must, not later than
September 30 in each fiscal year, submit to the Solicitor General of Canada a report
of the activities of the person during the preceding fiscal year and the Solicitor
General of Canada must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament
on any of the fifteen first days on which that House is sitting after the day the
Solicitor General of Canada receives it.''
(Amendment agreed to.)
(Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.)
(Clauses 9 to 12 inclusive agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill, as amended, agreed to.)
(Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 7.45 p.m., the House stands
adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
(The House adjourned at 7.45 p.m.)