36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 238
CONTENTS
Friday, June 4, 1999
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
| PRECLEARANCE ACT
|
| Bill S-22. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1005
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
1010
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1015
1020
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1025
1030
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1035
1040
1045
| Mr. André Bachand |
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| WHIG STANDARD
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| PEDAHBUN LODGE
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE SYNAGOGUE
|
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
1100
| ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| D-DAY
|
| Mr. Bob Wood |
| TIANANMEN SQUARE
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| TIANANMEN SQUARE
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| CHILDREN VICTIMS OF AGGRESSION
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1105
| JUSTICE
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| ONTARIO ELECTION
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| TIANANMEN SQUARE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1110
| RENÉ LÉVESQUE
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| ONTARIO ELECTION
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| ENVIRONMENT WEEK
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| ONTARIO ELECTION
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1115
| CHANTALE TREMBLAY
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| HALIFAX RIFLES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1120
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1125
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1130
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1135
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1140
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| PESTICIDES
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1145
| CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| ATHABASCA RIVER
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
1150
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| BILL C-32
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1155
| HEALTH CANADA
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NAV CANADA
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
1200
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| SAFE BOATING
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Ontario Election
|
| Mr. Allan Kerpan |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1205
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1210
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1215
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Notice of motion
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| PETITIONS
|
| The Family
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Allan Kerpan |
| MacKay Task Force
|
| Mr. Allan Kerpan |
| Refugees
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1220
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PRECLEARANCE ACT
|
| Bill S-22. Third reading
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1225
1230
| CARRIAGE BY AIR ACT
|
| Bill S-23. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Third Reading
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1235
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1240
1245
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1250
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1255
| FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-49. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1330
| NATURAL GAS
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Motion
|
1335
1340
| Mr. David Chatters |
1345
1350
| Mr. Julian Reed |
1355
1400
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1405
1410
| Mr. Ian Murray |
1415
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1420
1425
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 238
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, June 4, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
PRECLEARANCE ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-22, an act
authorizing the United States to preclear travellers and goods in
Canada for entry into the United States for the purposes of
customs, immigration, public health, food inspection and plant
and animal health, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When shall the bill
be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1005
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs) moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the preclearance act is
a key element in Canada's efforts to modernize our border with
the United States, while at the same time maintaining Canada's
sovereignty and protecting the rights and freedoms of travellers
in Canada.
The world we live in is increasingly interdependent, a world in
which capital, goods and people move ever more freely. To remain
competitive we must look outward and think globally. New
technologies and modes of transportation increasingly allow us to
transcend national boundaries. In this era of just-in-time
production we must find new and innovative ways of moving people
and goods while ensuring the safety and security of our border.
Today over $1.35 billion in trade crosses the Canada-U.S. border
each day. There are over 200 million border crossings each year.
The success of our bilateral relationship with the United States
hinges on our ability to move people and goods efficiently. I
would like to elaborate on how this act will help to modernize
the management of our border.
Preclearance is not a new concept. It was introduced in Toronto
in 1952 and is currently operating at the Vancouver, Edmonton,
Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal airports. It
allows U.S. border control officers working in Canadian airports
to determine whether people and goods can enter the United
States. In 1974 Canada and the U.S. formalized this arrangement
under the air transport preclearance agreement.
Bill S-22 will provide structure for the existing preclearance
regime and direct its enforcement. The bill represents roughly
two years of negotiations with the United States government. The
preclearance scheme is a hybrid which maintains the supremacy of
Canadian law but also allows the U.S. to administer certain civil
and administrative matters in designated areas that pertain to
the entry of persons and goods to the United States.
One of our primary objectives has been to safeguard Canadian
sovereignty. This has been accomplished by ensuring reciprocity,
by making clear that the charter of rights and freedoms and all
Canadian laws will apply and by ensuring that only Canada
enforces criminal matters in the preclearance area.
Since the signing of the open skies agreement in 1995 there has
been a 39% increase in air traffic between Canada and the United
States. Many destinations do not have customs and immigration
inspection.
When this legislation comes into force, intransit preclearance
operations will be extended in Vancouver and will be implemented
in Toronto and in Montreal's Dorval airport. Other Canadian
airports with current U.S. preclearance programs will
subsequently become eligible for intransit preclearance.
Intransit preclearance will improve service to international
transiting passengers, encourage the use of Canadian air carriers
and airports for travel from Asia and Europe to the United States
via Canadian airports and foster economic development in airport
communities.
The preclearance act is intended to be the basis for agreements
between Canada and the United States for other modes of transport
which may include air cargo, road, rail, marine and ferry. This
will further revolutionize the way we manage the border by
creating a virtual border, a border that allows travellers and
commerce to be processed at their point of departure rather than
at the physical border. It will significantly reduce costs and
increase convenience.
1010
Canada and the United States have a long history of co-operation
along the world's longest undefended border. Beyond facilitating
travel and trade, the preclearance act is a symbol of how we can
manage the border as a joint asset in the next century.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
at the outset I would like to seek unanimous consent to divide my
allotted 40 minutes with the hon. member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, given that this is my
first opportunity to do so, I would like to begin, on behalf of
the official opposition, by congratulating the Progressive
Conservative Party of Ontario and the leadership of Premier Mike
Harris for the stunning re-election last night against
overwhelming odds.
We are thrilled to see that a tax cutting, fiscally responsible
government has been re-elected in Ontario. It will certainly
help to increase transit and free trade. That is why this bill
will be much more used under a Mike Harris government in Ontario.
There will be more economic growth in this province, which will
mean more trade with our partners to the south and elsewhere.
People who are watching today on electronic Hansard will
see that the code of this bill is S-22. Sometimes they will see
bills that are C-34 or C-56 and so on. These different codes
indicate where the bill has been introduced. When the bill is
preceded by a C, it means that it has come in through the
House of Commons, which is the conventional means of introducing
a bill into parliament. When the bill is preceded by an S,
it means that it has been introduced in the other place, the
so-called upper Chamber. That would be the unaccountable,
unelected, patronage haven a few metres down the hall from here.
This just so happens to be such a bill, Bill S-22, Senate Bill
22.
We are joined by the esteemed and newly academically accredited
government House leader, to whom we extend our commendation. I
would like to point out that while he may have extraordinary
academic credentials, he does not seem very capable of managing
the legislative agenda of the government through the normal
democratic conventions of parliament by introducing legislation
first in the House of Commons. Instead, he has taken to the
objectionable practice of introducing bills such as this in the
other place. Why? Presumably because he thinks it is easier and
because they have so little work to do over there. They are so
unburdened by the business of the people that bills can be
introduced there to expedite their passage through parliament.
We want to make it clear that the official opposition objects to
government bills being brought before us in the elected and
accountable Chamber which have first been introduced in the
unelected and unaccountable Chamber. It may just seem to be a
technical complaint by members of my party, but for us it
represents a legitimization of an illegitimate upper Chamber
which ought not to be exercising powers in a modern democratic
society.
We look very closely at every bill that comes before us which is
first introduced in the Senate. Our position is to oppose those
bills simply as a symbol of our opposition to using the Senate as
a place for the introduction of legislation. We have not done
that in this case. While I have registered my serious objections
to Senate legislation, we find that this bill is good in its
intention and that it is a well drafted bill which seeks to
expedite the intra-transit flow of passengers and goods between
foreign jurisdictions and Canada en route, for instance, to our
major trading partner, the United States.
1015
In principle, the Reform Party of Canada endorses, embraces and
supports free trade. We support reducing red tape. We support
any measures that would make it more convenient for travellers,
business people and trade in goods and services to pass into
Canada and through Canada. That is the objective of the bill,
and for that reason we can support it.
Never let it be said that simply because we are in the official
opposition position we always oppose legislation unthinkingly and
in a knee-jerk fashion. That simply is not true. Members of the
government would sometimes have people believe that the
opposition opposes for the sake of opposing. That is not so. As
I understand it, the official opposition has supported roughly
half of the government bills introduced in this session of
parliament. Those have mainly been technical bills that have
achieved incremental advantages and which we have not objected to
in principle. This is such a bill.
I wanted to make that point very clear because we try to be a
constructive opposition. Where we see flaws in legislation, we
speak up and object to it and do so sometimes very vociferously.
When we see bills that are supportable, that incorporate common
sense and are reasonably well drafted, we are prepared to support
them at all stages. We do exercise discretion in the way we
analyze legislation and in what we choose to support and oppose.
Never let it be said that this official opposition is simply an
obstructionist opposition.
Yes, when it comes to the tax increase, soft on crime, top-down,
Ottawa knows best agenda of the government, we do oppose it
vigorously, as we do with various bills before parliament today,
but not Bill S-22, an act authorizing the United States to
preclear travellers and goods in Canada for entry into the United
States for the purposes of customs, immigration, public health,
food inspection and plant and animal health.
Essentially, as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs indicated, the bill deals with Canada allowing
the United States to operate preclearance centres in Canada. That
already is the practice for Canadian travellers travelling
directly to destinations in the United States. A case in point
would be someone travelling through Lester Pearson airport in
Toronto, which is the airport that had its privatization contract
screwed up by this government and which cost the taxpayers
billions of dollars.
However, if we were travelling through that Liberal white
elephant en route to the United States, we would present
ourselves at a U.S. customs desk and would have to pass through
U.S. immigration. If we were travelling to the United States so
that we could pay less taxes, we would end up not having to stop
to clear customs in the United States. This is advantageous to
our trading partners, the Americans, because it allows them to
screen potentially problematic travellers, commercial or personal
travellers, before they get onto American soil. It is to their
advantage in terms of interdicting contraband and interdicting
illegal immigrants and illegal aliens.
It is also good for Canadians because it expedites our passage.
It is very quick. We get checked in at the airline counter and
within a few minutes we pass through American customs and
immigration and are essentially in a legal no man's land until we
arrive in the United States. However, we are able to walk off
the plane there and away we go.
For tens of thousands of air travellers, this preclearance,
which happens at most of our international airports, is certainly
a convenient expedition of travel. It saves time and therefore
saves money.
The bill would essentially expand that. It would allow
in-transit preclearance services. Suppose we were to arrive from
Asia at the Vancouver International Airport on Canadian Airlines,
our preferred airline, we would find, if the bill is passed and
the elements of it are adopted and implemented, that we could
pass through this kind of preclearance allowing Canadian
transportation hubs like Vancouver to increase.
It would also assist Canadian air carriers. This is of
particular importance to Vancouver, which is becoming a major hub
for international travel. We want to do everything we can to
expedite that.
1020
If the traveller's final destination is Europe or South America
on a non-stop flight from Vancouver, the passenger can wait in
the transit lounge until his next flight and not go through
customs and immigration until his final destination. That is the
kind of thing this would allow.
I just want to make clear once again that we are distressed to
see this bill coming from the other place. We really do object
to this gratuitous legitimization of an illegitimate, unelected
Chamber by this constant introduction of government legislation.
It was a very irregular practice until this House leader and this
government began to regularize it.
We are of course going to continue our fight to legitimize that
upper chamber. Next week, we will be participating in a rally
outside the other place, co-sponsored, believe it or not, by
members of the NDP and the Liberal Party. The hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle and the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton will
be co-sponsoring the event with Reformers and concerned Canadians
who are distressed with the lack of democracy in parliament and
in the other place in particular. We will be there and one of
the things we will be objecting to is this House leader's and
this government's legitimization of that upper chamber by
introducing bills there.
In closing, I want to say that we will support Bill S-22 here at
its final stage and hope for its expeditious passage into law so
that we can increase, and make more convenient, travel for
Canadians and other passengers through this country.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to any of my colleagues
that I would be speaking on the preclearance bill. The movement
of goods and persons across the Canada-U.S. border is a pet
project of mine. I have been working with the Cascadia trade
corridor project for almost two years now and have appreciated
the preclearance that has been a pilot project at the Vancouver
airport.
Although I share the concerns of my hon. colleague, that the
bill should have and could have been introduced through the House
of Commons rather than the Senate, which is an unelected,
unaccountable body, I do feel that the legislation is very dearly
and badly needed to advance the free trade that has been
developed between Canada and the United States, as well as making
it easier for our trading partners from countries other than the
United States and Canada.
This preclearance bill will make it much easier for the
international community to use Canada as a gateway to its trade
in the U.S. or to use Canada as a gateway from the U.S. back
home. It is essential that we make the movement of people, who
have legitimate business to carry on, or a legitimate desire to
visit Canada or the United States, as unencumbered as possible.
One of the concerns people express is that travellers would fall
under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and this
preclearance bill addresses that. It allows American customs and
immigration officers to have a degree of law enforcement of the
American act on Canadian soil, but with limitations. I think
that would meet the concern that some Canadians have that the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be somewhat
undermined.
I think this preclearance bill does deal with the issue. For
anyone who is concerned about the heavy arm of the U.S.
authorities, that would be minimized. It is not to say that we
will not see the odd incident that we have seen in the past
happen, but I think the bill clarifies the role that U.S.
officials would have in Canada and reciprocally what role
Canadian officials would have in the United States.
1025
I would like to share with Canadians, who might be watching or
reading Hansard on the Internet, that we cannot
underestimate the importance of our trade with the United States.
There is over $1.4 billion worth of trade between Canada and the
United States every single day. The free trade agreement
accounts for about a third of Canada's GDP, which means a lot of
jobs. It means a lot of Canadians are working today because of
the trade arrangement we have with the United States.
Canadians can also appreciate that part of that ease of trade is
the ease of movement of persons and goods across the border. We
in the House have a responsibility to make sure that everything
humanly possible is done to make sure that the trade corridors
have the right infrastructure and the right legislation to allow
for the movement of trade, people and goods, that will allow this
free trade agreement with the United States, and potentially our
NAFTA agreement with Mexico, to reach the potential that is out
there. It means jobs for Canadians. It means an increasing
standard of living for Canadians. Hopefully, it means lower
taxation and a greater awareness of what the North American
continent has to offer to the international trade community.
The preclearance act is a start. My understanding is that this
preclearance act is primarily for airports. Although I think it
is very important that it be started with the air industry
because it has already shown that it works very well, we, in
particular on the west coast with Amtrak, would like to see this
brought in very quickly in terms of looking at train services
between Canada and the United States. We could then continue to
promote the “two nation vacation” concept that is being
promoted by Cascadia and, I would imagine, other trade corridors
are also looking at it. We could then promote the concept of
international travellers being able to land in our country and
getting preclearance in any mode of transportation. This would
allow our customs and immigration agencies to highlight their
time and pinpoint their efforts on the 20% of problem cases.
Preclearance allows far more information to be shared with our
authorities before they transfer across the border. It allows
customs and immigration officials at the border to concentrate on
those individuals who may create the problems that we are all
concerned about, whether it is illicit drugs, illicit goods or
illegal immigration flowing across the border. This would allow
both Canada and the United States to concentrate their efforts
and resources on the problem cases.
Hopefully this preclearance will be brought through not only for
air, but for rail and potentially trucks. It would be great to
see trucks enter some kind of preclearance which could take place
outside of the border corridor or the border infrastructure. What
we see now is a congestion of trucks and trains having to stop at
the borders. This has caused a problem for Canada in trying to
meet its pollution requirements under its Kyoto obligations.
A lot of pollution is caused by the delay and congestion in the
movement of people and goods by truck traffic. A lot of
pollution we see every day is caused by trucks lining up and
being put in park or neutral while they wait to proceed either on
city streets or across the border at various check points. To
have preclearance for people who are not a problem in an area
that is not consuming time at a congestion point would be such a
great thing for the advancement of our trade corridors.
1030
The preclearance act is a good first step. I am disappointed
that it came not through the House of Commons but through the
Senate. Barring that, I look forward to legislation that will
broaden the application of the preclearance. I would like to see
that it is not too long a time before these kinds of applications
are added to the preclearance.
Certainly this is a first step. I look forward to supporting it
and to making sure that at the Vancouver airport, at the Amtrak
station in Vancouver, at the border crossings this kind of
preclearance is a very effective way of moving not only goods,
but people so that we can have this two nation vacation. We can
have open borders and free trade that benefits all Canadians.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to start my remarks by pointing out as well that the
number of this bill is S-22. People are not aware that most
pieces of legislation we deal with are numbered C something, C
and then a number, meaning that bill originated in the House of
Commons. S-22 means that it originated in the Senate, in the
other place, the unelected and as other members have pointed out,
unaccountable other place.
It makes me wonder and it is mind boggling that if the
government wanted to garner the Canadian public's interest and
support for this bill why it would originate the bill in a place
that only has the support of 5% of the population. Recent
polling shows that a full 45% of the population wants to see the
Senate radically reformed, the triple E model, elected,
effective, et cetera. Another full 40% of Canadians want to see
the Senate abolished altogether. They want to see it done away
with. There are very few Canadians left who really like it the
way it is. Probably the immediate families of senators are the
only people left who think it is a really good idea.
If the government were serious about having people rally around
Bill S-22, it should have been a bill with a C number. It should
have originated in the House of Commons from elected
representatives.
Speaking to the bill, the preclearance act was introduced in the
Senate by the deputy leader of the government side in the Senate.
The bill would provide U.S. federal inspection services with the
appropriate statutory authority at designated areas in Canada to
determine what people and what goods would be allowed entry into
the United States.
Canada has allowed the U.S. federal inspection services to
operate air passenger preclearance in Canada since the 1950s.
This is not really anything new. It seeks to broaden and expand
the preclearance situation in the airports.
The NDP caucus has serious reservations about Bill S-22. We
recognize, as do members of the other parties who have spoken,
that it is in the interests of Canadian travellers to be
processed more quickly and to move more freely through the
airports if it is only a simple trip to the United States, to our
main trading partner. However we should point out a number of
problems with the bill as it stands. Our caucus hopes to have the
opportunity to move amendments which I will speak to later.
Bill S-22 represents a substantial intrusion on Canadian
sovereignty. It gives officers of a foreign government the power
to enforce foreign preclearance laws on Canadian soil. We
believe that preclearance and intransit facilities can be
legislated in a manner that is less intrusive, particularly for
Canadian citizens and permanent residents.
We also have concerns about the legal implications of the bill.
While some of our arguments were already addressed by amendments
that have been made earlier, we still have some concerns as it is
presently drafted. I would like to go through a few of those in
the time I have.
The NDP remains of the view that it is possible to achieve our
goals with a voluntary rather than a compulsory framework.
Persons wishing to go to the U.S. could voluntarily submit
themselves to examination and if necessary search. If they did
not wish to undergo that kind of process, they could then
withdraw their application to enter the U.S. and leave the
preclearance area.
1035
We do not believe it is necessary to create Canadian offences
for resisting the enforcement of foreign laws on Canadian soil.
As such we believe that clauses 33 and 34 should be removed and
that clause 10 should be amended to clearly provide that right of
withdrawal.
We also believe it is not necessary to grant preclearance
officers the power to enforce U.S. laws on Canadian soil. In
particular, we see no reason for granting the power to levy
fines, seize property or to declare it forfeit as per U.S. law.
Those in favour of the bill are arguing that the U.S. officers
should have the same powers that they enjoy at land crossings
where they are operating on American soil. In this case they
would not be operating on American soil. We believe this is a
major difference both legally and geographically.
If we grant these powers, they can result in enforcement of
penalties or the forfeiture of goods in Canada for doing things
which are not against the law under Canadian law. We are
granting U.S. officers the right to enforce and penalize
Canadians on our soil. We think this is a breach of Canadian
sovereignty.
Under the use of force, we are very concerned about clause 12
which authorizes preclearance officers to use “as much force as
is necessary” in order to effect their purposes. At the very
least, this section should be modified to add the word
“reasonably”. It is common in statutes of this type to use the
term “reasonable force” and not give carte blanche to use as
much force as is necessary. I know it is a fine legal point but
it does give a lot of latitude to the enforcement officers.
These foreign officers would have the right to hold people and
stop people from leaving. That is a fairly sweeping power to
grant a foreign officer on our soil. It means they could detain
people. If the officers think people are guilty of breaking a
law in another country, they could be held, essentially arrested.
We are granting foreigners powers on our soil which we do not
think is necessary. This needs to be reviewed.
Under that article, clauses 10 and 22 of the bill need to be
revised because they have a very low threshold for who can be
detained. The NDP is very serious about that particular issue.
We submit that the test contained in clause 24 is preferable.
There it has to be belief on reasonable grounds. Again it is a
term that would stand up in court if it was tested and
challenged. This is not present in clauses 10 and 22. At the
very least, we want the same test that is given in clause 24, to
be treated the same way in clauses 22 and 10.
On passenger information, there is a whole series of questions
that people are asked when entering the country. A lot of it is
very private information. What is done with that information?
How long is it kept?
We have to keep in mind that we are giving this information to a
foreign country, not to a Canadian official. We may not wish to
have this private information spread around, personal information
such as health records. We are told that this information will be
quickly destroyed but we do not know when. We are not told how
long this information is kept. Can this information be sold or
are they bound to keep it private? We do not have any control
over that. Privacy is becoming more and more of an issue.
The NDP remains firmly opposed to the creation of Canadian
offences for resisting or misleading a foreign preclearance
officer. We do not think it should be a Canadian offence to
mislead a foreign officer about an issue entering a foreign
country. I suppose they have every right once a person is in
their country to charge them with offences, but why should it be
a crime in Canada to knowingly mislead a foreign officer on our
soil? These are things we have serious problems with. We want
clauses 33 and 34 modified to point to those concerns.
It is not just the NDP caucus that has problems with this. The
Canadian Bar Association made a presentation to the committee and
coincidentally it pointed to many of the same clauses we want
changed. The association wants clause 10, clause 12, clause 24,
clause 28, clause 32(h) and clauses 33 and 34 amended, most of
which I mentioned in my original concerns. This is the Canadian
Bar Association, people who actually know something about this.
1040
In the interests of trying to make travel more convenient for
frequent travellers, like us and business people who travel a
lot, we are ready to trample on Canadian sovereignty. Why? Where
is the payback in this? The two things are of completely
different weight.
We are willing to give foreign officers the right to penalize
Canadians under Canadian law for telling them stories that are
not true. Frankly, it opens up such a can of worms that it should
be sent back to the other place for them to try again and take
into consideration such basic things as national pride.
The other group which spoke out very strongly against the bill
is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. It wrote:
In our view, the bill should not empower the officials of any
foreign state to detain Canadians against their will, in this
country, simply for a suspected violation of foreign law.
As I understand it, I could be arrested by a foreigner in my
country because he thinks maybe I did something wrong in
misleading by giving false information. If he thinks I might
have some illegal substance on me he is allowed to strip search
me, do all those things and hold me there against my will. In
any event, that is one of their problems. The Canadian Civil
Liberties Association went on to say:
Thus, even if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that any
Canadians seeking admission to the United States have lied about
possessing goods that they may not lawfully take into the United
States—Such Canadians should have a presumptive right to leave
the preclearance area without travelling to the United States.
In other words, rather than be arrested because the officer
thinks perhaps I have some contraband, I should at least be
allowed to leave, to change my mind, “Okay, maybe I will not go
to the U.S. If you are going to be so difficult about this, I
will just leave”. That would not be allowed. They could hold
me there against my will, detained, arrested by a foreign cop on
our soil. That is what the Canadian Civil Liberties Association
has a real problem with.
Another person who has a problem with Bill S-22 is our own
Privacy Commissioner of Canada. He wrote a very strong letter.
Mr. Bruce Phillips, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, wrote to the
chair of the foreign affairs and international trade committee:
I am writing to express my concern regarding potential privacy
issues relating to Bill S-22. ...one must not forget the fact that
customs officers in the course of exercising their duties often
collect vast amounts of personal information about travellers,
sometimes of a highly sensitive nature. As such, I feel it is my
duty to impress on the Committee the need to ensure that the
privacy rights of the travelling public are adequately honoured
and protected under this Bill.
He has serious reservations that they are being adequately
honoured under this bill. Again, as I have pointed out, there is
no real detail about how long that information can be held and in
what way that information might be used. In this electronic age
our information is at risk all the time. We dealt with that in a
previous bill in the House about privacy, electronic information,
selling of credit card numbers and no end of things.
Those are some of the reasons we cannot support Bill S-22.
Starting with its place of origin, the other place, we disapprove
of that wholeheartedly. We have made that clear. I predict, Mr.
Speaker, you are going to hear that from all the members on this
side of the House. The origin of the bill is our first problem
with it.
A key problem is clauses 33 and 34. We do not believe it is
necessary to create Canadian offences for resisting the
enforcement of foreign laws on Canadian soil. Also, we would
like to see amendments to clause 12 which authorizes the
preclearance officers to use “as much force as is necessary”
without even adding the word “reasonably” or if there are
reasonable grounds to think that someone is doing something
wrong.
There is a problem with clauses 10 and 22, holding people
against their will. If I walk into that preclearance area and
the U.S. customs official, the foreign officer, looks at me and
says, “It looks to me like you are carrying some kind of
contraband”, I cannot just turn around and walk out and say, “I
have changed my mind, this is too much trouble. I think I will
go home”.
The foreign officer can arrest me and detain me. We certainly
want that amended.
1045
Foreign officers can arrest for any number of reasons. I just
used contraband as one example. They might think I am carrying
an exotic plant, a parakeet, or whatever I might have up my
sleeve.
We want to know how long they are allowed to keep this private
information and what they intend to do with it. We need that
section amended. As well, we remain firmly opposed to the
creation of Canadian offences for resisting or misleading a
foreign preclearance officer. I have summarized that one
already. Unless we see serious amendments to the bill we cannot
vote for it.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise a second time to speak to Bill S-22.
Our party supports this bill. We do not share the criticism of
some of our colleagues in the House that the bill
comes from the other place.
I listened to Reform members, among others, speaking of the
other place. They announced that next week our Reform friends
are to have a social event outside the Senate. We wonder
whether they will be wearing sombreros. Perhaps they will be in
bikinis. Who knows. Next week Reform members will be made
fun of once again in the Senate, so the invitation is open to everyone.
They are also saying that people in the country want a complete
reform of the Senate, even its abolition. It is true that the
Senate must be reformed. It is also true, I think, that we must
look at all parliamentary institutions. They quote figures. They
say that 45% of people in Canada would like the Senate to be reformed.
Why not? They say that 41% of the people in Canada would like
the Senate to be abolished.
There may be other polls, but they fail to cite them. If we
asked
Quebecers and Canadians what they think about their politicians,
I am not sure that the rating would be very good. Does that mean
that we should commit hara-kiri? There must be a minimum of
credibility.
A credible poll was taken in Ontario—a Reform member was speaking
of Ontario earlier—not too long ago, which revealed that 91% of
Ontarians would not vote for the Reform Party. This was the
latest Gallup poll. In Ontario, 91% would not vote for the
Reform Party. Does that mean that the Reform Party should
disappear or be reformed? Perhaps.
We have to be careful with figures. What I say is that the
Senate needs not to be dumped on, but co-operation with this
House and a look at how the system could be improved.
This week there was a report on the reduction in the numbers of
French speaking Quebecers. There are political safeguards in the
Constitution. The fact that 24% or 25% of senators come from
Quebec is protection. The fact that one-third of the justices of
the supreme court come from Quebec is protection.
We must first respect the Constitution, not denigrate it. We can
make disparaging remarks about the other place, but are we not
at the same time criticizing this House? We should be very
careful.
We do not have a problem with the fact that the bill originated
in the other place. On the contrary, people in the other
place, particularly those who belong to my party, proposed
amendments to Bill S-22, thus making it a very interesting piece
of legislation. They are asking, among other things, that the
bill be reviewed in five years. Now this is interesting.
After the five-year pilot project, it would be proper and timely
to review the preclearance system in terms of its effectiveness.
This system could be very beneficial to the whole country, and
particularly to Quebec and Canadian travellers, by facilitating
transportation and trips to the United States.
There is also an economic issue involved. It is said that Canada
is becoming a gateway to the United States.
As members know, one of the Canadian carriers is currently
experiencing serious problems.
An hon. member: It is flying low.
Mr. André Bachand: Indeed, it is flying very low.
1050
Having international travellers make a stopover in Canada would
have a significant economic impact.
Earlier we talked about free trade. Thank God we signed free
trade agreements that opened doors for us.
As I said at second reading of this bill, let us not forget that
this does a service to Americans. We must not overlook this
fact. For quite some time now we have been telling Americans
“Let us facilitate the movement of people from this country”.
We have been telling them “If ever undesirables want to enter
the United States”—very few of them Canadians, of course, but
people from elsewhere—“they will be arrested before they even set
foot on U.S. territory”.
This is another thing preclearance does. It has advantages for
Canada and advantages for the United States. They tell us
“Before entering the United States, travellers from all over
will be stopping over in your country. You will have the
economic advantage, but we will have an advantage too. If they
do not suit us, we will just hand them back over to you”. Then
the Canadian justice system will deal with them. They will be
protected by the charter. The Americans wash their hands of all
this.
It has to be said that this is to their advantage. They will
have far less trouble dealing with a possibly undesirable
international clientele, because now it is Canada that will deal
with it all.
They will be returned to their country of origin at Canadian
expense, or be processed through the Canadian legal system.
My colleague from the New Democratic Party said “Yes, but the
Americans are going to apply their own legislation very
strictly”. That may be the case, but they will not do it very
often. Someone undesirable will simply be turned over to the
Canadian authorities. We will be the ones stuck with dealing
with them and expelling them from the country.
We are familiar with the problems often encountered with illegal
immigrants involved in crime, and how difficult it is to get rid
of them with all the appeal processes there are here. They will
come under Canadian jurisdiction.
That said, there is one interesting aspect for this country.
This bill casts some light on practices that were already in
place. It is a bill that comes to us from the other place and I
must draw attention to the work that was done there.
It is often said that in that other place they do not have much
to do. If that is so, it is because there is not much happening
in this place as far as legislation is concerned. Where is the
government's vision on legislation? There is none.
The main work of the other place is to review, analyse,
re-examine and possibly amend bills before returning them to us.
If they have nothing to do in the other place, it is because
there is nothing much doing here.
There are some top-notch people in the other place, as there are
many in this House. There are some so-so people in the other
place, as there are here too perhaps. Not many, of course, but
there are some.
Let us try to focus the energies and strengths that exist in
this parliament. Let us also try to improve what is being done
and how it is being done. It is not by running down the other
place that we will improve things.
If Quebecers and Canadians were asked who they trusted least,
the answer might well be this country's politicians, with the
exception of yourself, Mr. Speaker, perhaps. That does not mean
we should all go out and commit hara-kiri. We must continue to
work at improving our credibility and showing that we can make a
difference. All members of the House are motivated by one
thing: to make a difference for those we represent.
Bill S-22 can also make a difference for those we represent by
simplifying business and pleasure travel toward destinations in
the United States.
1055
Once again, it is not because the bill comes from the other
place that it is bad. I would even say that it is not because
an idea comes from the Reform Party that it is bad. Absolutely
not. Nor does this mean that all their ideas are always
sensible and well thought out. However, the fact remains that we
cannot be running each other down. We must get one thing
straight, which is that each time we say something bad about
the other place in the House, we are saying something bad about
ourselves as well.
I am therefore pleased to support Bill S-22, and I wish to
congratulate the people in the other place, as well as members
of this House, for the very fine work that was done.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are getting into
the period for Statements by Members. If the member desires, he
may use the 10 minutes remaining in his allotted time following
question period.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, the position of the party I
represent is very clear. I know that other members wish to take
part in the debate. So with great generosity—one big difference
between us and certain other parties is our great generosity—I am
going to turn the floor over to other parliamentarians. I think
that all parliamentarians and the people in the other place
should have this positive and open attitude toward the Chair and
toward the Canadian public. I will therefore leave my time for
other parliamentarians.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
WHIG STANDARD
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased for the
opportunity to recognize the Kingston Whig Standard as the
oldest continuously published daily paper in Canada.
The Whig has served well the interests of the people of
the vibrant historic city of Kingston and surrounding areas. The
Kingston Whig Standard has provided me with a daily account
of local, national and international news and happenings for many
years.
The many excellent reporters and columnists, led by publisher
Fred LaFlamme and joined by the Whig Standard community
editorial board, inform, provoke and entertain us all.
The Kingston Whig Standard has won many distinguished
awards nationally and internationally for journalism and
photographic achievements.
I am sure none of these are more valued than the 150 year record
of service to eastern Ontario. On behalf of the Deputy Speaker
of the House of Commons, who is the member of parliament for
Kingston and the Islands, myself and our constituents, I send
hearty congratulations and best wishes for ever success into the
future.
* * *
PEDAHBUN LODGE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week in the National Post it was reported that the Pedahbun
Lodge in Toronto, a government funded addiction treatment centre
for natives, had spent money on paying off the executive
director's parking tickets, hiring her family, and flying staff
to California. There were also allegations that a clinic van was
used to smuggle illegal immigrants into Canada from the U.S.
Needless to say there are many troubling questions still be
answered. Why was 15% of the budget spent on travel that was
meant to treat addicts? This is inexcusable.
My suggestion to the Minister of Health is that $500,000 given
to this dysfunctional organization may be better spent on a lodge
in Manitoba by the name of St. Norbert Foundation/Selkirk Healing
Centre.
I know that the ministers of health and foreign affairs are
aware of this establishment and its success rate. It provides
long term residential programming for aboriginal men, women,
youth and family units experiencing a variety of addiction
problems.
This organization is desperate for funding. Why not give it a
chance to prove itself and replace those that are hurting, not
helping our aboriginal people?
* * *
SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE SYNAGOGUE
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on May 21 it was my distinct privilege to witness the
presentation of a heraldic coat of arms to the 231 year old
Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue of Montreal. Its design
reflects the cultural origins of this unique institution.
Red and gold colours encircle the crest representing its members
Sephardic Jewish origin from Spain and Portugal. Four columns in
silver symbolize the four different locations they have occupied
since 1768. The 10 commandments crested by a red maple leaf on
the crown reflects Canada, where the Jewish population found
haven and security from war and discrimination.
This synagogue has evolved over the years. Today it is
multicultural and multilingual, with members coming from the
Middle East and Europe.
1100
The congregation, led by Rabbi Howard Joseph, has had many
distinguished community and civic leaders who have contributed to
our society's growth and development, including a Montreal police
chief, as well as the founders of the Montreal Waterworks, the
Montreal Board of Trade, the Bank of Montreal, la Banque
Nationale, Canada Steamships Lines, the Theatre Royale and its
members who continue to be active and contributing citizens.
In essence, this coat of arms says—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am very sorry but
we are over the allotted time.
* * *
ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
May 31 to June 6 marks Access Awareness Week in communities
across Canada. This week reminds us that access to full
participation in Canada's economy and society for people with
disabilities involves all of us as citizens.
The Government of Canada has introduced a number of initiatives
aimed at helping people with disabilities to access the
workforce. These include the opportunities fund, the Canada
study grants for students with disabilities, the employability
assistance for people with disabilities initiative in partnership
with the provinces, as well as support to national disability
organizations and improvements to the Canada pension plan
disability program.
[Translation]
In coming months we shall be working in conjunction with the
provinces and territories as well as with the disabled
themselves to ensure that Canadians with disabilities may take
full part in all aspects of Canadian society, at work and at
play.
National Access Awareness Week gives all of us an opportunity to
ask ourselves what we can do—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Nipissing.
* * *
[English]
D-DAY
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the
upcoming 55th anniversary of D-Day this Sunday, Canadians will
honour members of all our armed forces who played such a decisive
part in the assault on Normandy.
Over 15,000 Canadians, a fifth of the total allied invasion
force, successfully won a seven kilometre stretch of France from
a desperate enemy. The Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal
Canadian Air Force added to their reputations during the Neptune
offensive. The tragedy of Dieppe two years earlier was avenged.
The many cemeteries in Normandy are a timeless reminder of the
terrible cost of war. Our D-Day casualties were 359 killed and
715 wounded. More than 5,400 Canadians have their graves in
Normandy that tell of the ferocity of the battles that were to be
fought later.
The bridgehead to victory was firmly secured on June 6, 1944 and
11 months later the liberation of western Europe was complete.
We thank all of those men and women who participated in this
campaign. We will remember them.
* * *
TIANANMEN SQUARE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today, June 4, marks the 10th anniversary of the brutal
suppression of China's democracy movement at Tiananmen Square.
The world watched with horror 10 years ago as the government of
the People's Republic of China ordered its military to open fire
on young, unarmed students peacefully demonstrating their support
for freedom and democracy. Over 2,000 demonstrators died that
day. This House would never condone such government action.
Today hundreds continue to be locked up in jails for promoting
freedom and democracy. The flames of democracy have not been
extinguished in China. On this 10th anniversary we call on the
government of the People's Republic of China to release those
students still in prison for supporting freedom and democracy
that day.
* * *
TIANANMEN SQUARE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 10
years ago television cameras revealed to the world horrific
scenes of the brutal suppression of civil and political rights on
Beijing's Tiananmen Square.
In the early hours of June 4, 1989 the tanks and soldiers were
sent into the square by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping to end a
pro-democracy student protest. The protest had lasted seven
weeks. Martial law had been declared on May 19 by Chinese
Premier Li Peng and the troops began to arrive in the centre of
the city on June 3.
Reports indicate that the first soldiers arrived in the square
at 12.50 a.m. on the morning of June 4. By 4.00 a.m. the troops
had crushed the protest in a bloody massacre.
We will never know how many people died that night. Estimates,
however, put the number into the thousands. Remarkably,
unbelievably, the government of the People's Republic of China
stated that the massacre never happened.
We must resist any attempt to rewrite the history of Tiananmen
Square and we must never allow the memory of those who died in
the quest for democracy to be forgotten.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILDREN VICTIMS OF AGGRESSION
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today is
International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression.
June 4 is the day designated by the United Nations to draw
attention to the tragic lives of thousands of children around
the world.
We cannot think of the war in Kosovo without thinking of the
Kosovar and Serb children, who are the helpless victims of adult
evil, violence and perversion.
1105
It is the duty of the elected representatives of Canada and
Quebec to speak out on behalf of the most vulnerable and weakest
members of society and to come to their defence.
The day we are able to eradicate atrocities involving children
victims everywhere in the world will mark a giant step forward
for humankind.
To be aware of this reality, to speak out against and to use
every means possible to combat it on all fronts must be the
daily responsibility of each and every one of us.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week a young man was convicted of raping a toddler
and he got six months in jail. A 48 year old woman came forward
and finally charged her brother with raping her from the time she
was nine. He was convicted, sentenced to five years and served
not one day. In the same two day period 11 other victims saw
their rapists get virtually no jail time.
Do judges not realize the damage this kind of assault does? I
implore the Minister of Justice to address this issue with her
provincial counterparts. Otherwise victims will not come forward
and we will simply sweep the problem under the rug forever.
* * *
[Translation]
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a few days ago we read that certain members of the
Bloc Quebecois were sick of the concept of partnership. How
terrible.
The truth is that separatists never wanted anything to do with
this partnership. They simply do not believe in it.
What the Bloc Quebecois really wants is for Quebec to separate
from the rest of Canada. We do not need referendums to
understand this.
The exasperation of certain Bloc Quebecois members is therefore
easily understood: a die-hard separatist wants nothing to do with
any form of partnership or association between Quebec and the
rest of Canada.
What separatists really want therefore is to leave Canada,
period.
I firmly believe that Quebecers will remember this during the
next referendum on the future of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
ONTARIO ELECTION
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, last night part two of the common sense revolution
began. Congratulations to Mike Harris and the Conservative
Party. The victory marked the first back-to-back majority
government since 1971 and with 59 seats the common sense
revolution was a victory for sound fiscal management and tax
relief for Ontario.
Is there a message here for the federal Liberals? For those
federal Liberals like the member for Burlington, who claimed some
sort of moral victory in her comments last evening, may I remind
her that the united alternative vote in her home riding of
Burlington was double that of the Liberal candidate. For the
federal Minister of Health, who said that the Harris health care
plan would sink the Tories, maybe he should reflect on what the
voters said about health care in their voting patterns.
Ontarians want less taxes, back to basics education, work for
welfare and a get tough approach on crime, including a new young
offenders act, a sex offenders registry, harsh penalties for drug
pushers, drug testing for parolees and making parents more
responsible for property damage caused by their children. Yes,
there was a message for our Liberals last night from Ontario.
* * *
TIANANMEN SQUARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on the 10th anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square the
NDP pays tribute to the memory of those who were killed that day
and to the courage of the students and others who stood up for
democracy.
Since then progress on the all important political and human
rights front has been tragically absent in China. The NDP calls
on China to realize that while we understand the concern about
stability in a country with a history of internal conflict, the
reality of the world today is that countries which bottle up
dissenting views and squash dissenters are courting disaster.
We therefore call on the government of China to release those
still in prison.
We also call on China to moderate its views on Tibet, and on the
World Bank not to approve a project which would move Chinese
farmers into an area used by Tibetan and Mongolian herders for
centuries.
We have seen all too recently the ethnic conflict that
eventually occurs when the historic population of an area is
demographically attacked by an influx of a politically dominant
group. The World Bank should not finance such a scheme.
* * *
1110
[Translation]
RENÉ LÉVESQUE
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
in the presence of several dignitaries, including Premier Lucien
Bouchard, Corinne Côté-Lévesque and former PQ ministers, a
bronze life-size statue of René Lévesque, the politician who
played a pivotal role in the history of Quebec, was unveiled.
Mr. Lévesque was one of the principal architects of the quiet
revolution and, in 1968, he founded the sovereignty-association
movement that would lead to the creation of the Parti Québécois.
Elected premier of Quebec in 1976, and returned to office in
1981, he and his government were responsible for major reforms,
including the farmland protection legislation, Bill 101 and the
electoral reform legislation.
We join with all Quebecers in paying tribute to the force behind
the greatest political movement in Quebec; the movement that
will carry us to sovereignty.
Despite the referendum defeat of May 20, 1980, René Lévesque
never lost faith in the people.
We heard Mr. Lévesque loud and clear and we too say “À la
prochaine”.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the week of June 6 to 12 marks National Transportation
Week. This annual celebration recognizes the important role
played by Canada's transportation system in the social and
economic life of our nation, providing hundreds of thousands of
jobs and moving Canadians and their products throughout the
country and to international destinations and markets.
The theme of National Transportation Week '99, “Transportation:
Safe, Reliable, Efficient”, draws attention to the ongoing
dedication to the safety and reliability demonstrated by Canada's
transportation community and to the sector's continued efforts to
maximize its use of the latest transportation technology.
The kick-off is in Moncton today, National Transportation Day.
Celebrations include a day-long conference and the annual awards
dinner. Other events are planned throughout the week and
throughout the country.
It is my hope that Canadians will take time this week to reflect
on the central role that transportation plays in maintaining our
quality of life and to consider how Canadian innovation can help
prepare transportation for the challenges of the upcoming
millennium.
* * *
ONTARIO ELECTION
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I congratulate
Premier Mike Harris and the Ontario Conservatives for their
convincing re-election to government.
Premier Harris and his team have shown that reducing taxes is
one of the fundamental tools to create jobs and spur economic
growth, economic growth which generates the revenues needed for
quality health care and education. Ontario embraced progressive
change to get the province back on track, reversing the status
quo of failed Liberal and NDP policies.
Voters from my province are also hungry for a similar agenda for
change at the federal level. Last week's Gallup poll shows that
the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is the clear choice
of 31% of the Ontario electorate. Just as Ontario voters chose
the provincial Conservatives yesterday, Ontario voters are
starting to choose the federal Conservatives as the only true
alternative to the federal Liberals.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
is the last day of Environment Week, a week set aside each year
for Canadians to recommit themselves to environmental action.
Canada's environment is important to all Canadians. The
Government of Canada is committed to protect all species at risk,
all plants and animals, wherever they are in Canada. We will do
so with a holistic Canadian strategy that includes legislation,
programs, partnerships and citizen engagement.
Let us be clear. Across Canada we have a long list of laws and
regulations put in place to protect wildlife, such as the
Canadian Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the
Fisheries Act, just to name a few.
Canadians are concerned about the state of wildlife and its
habitat and that support continues to increase. This government
and this minister are determined to make the right environmental
decisions so we can pass on a proud natural legacy to future
generations of Canadians.
* * *
ONTARIO ELECTION
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, common sense prevails. Last night Mike Harris and his
team held their heads high and claimed the first back-to-back
Conservative majority in Ontario in 30 years.
What makes this victory all the sweeter is knowing that the
federal health minister declared all-out war against Mike Harris
and proved to be as influential in provincial politics as he is
at the cabinet table. Unfortunately for Dalton McGuinty, his
greatest handicap was neither himself nor his platform, but the
high tax, soft on crime, unethical spending and health care
gutting policies of the federal Liberals.
Not only were the hapless Liberals soundly rejected, but more
importantly from a B.C. perspective, the socialist, protectionist
NDP was relegated to non-party status. History does repeat
itself. Its meagre nine seats is a carbon copy of its 1993
federal failure.
The people of Ontario have spoken. They want lower taxes, safer
streets and a sound commitment to education and health care
spending. They want Mike Harris.
* * *
1115
[Translation]
CHANTALE TREMBLAY
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I
am proud to pay tribute to the exceptional work done by Chantale
Tremblay, a nurse in the riding of Jonquière and recipient of
3M's innovation clinique award.
Mrs. Tremblay was the leading force behind a program introduced
in the fall of 1998 at the Résidence Georges-Hébert to ease the
transition of new residents to the long term care facility.
Activities were set up for the pre-admission period, the day of
admission, and the post-admission period.
Mrs. Tremblay liked to say that she did not invent the wheel,
but she played a key role in supervising, co-ordinating and
assessing each stage of the program in co-operation with the 50
or so employees at the facility.
We wish Mrs. Tremblay, good luck as she joing the list of
candidates for the Grand Prix Innovation clinique to be awarded
next fall at the Congrès des infirmiers et infirmières du
Québec.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canada claims to welcome new Canadians to our country. In fact
we rely on immigration to grow our population. Yet the road to
becoming a Canadian is fraught with barriers, roadblocks and
pitfalls.
First, there is the landing fee head tax of $975, plus $500 of
other fees and charges. This is a huge barrier to people from
poor and developing nations.
The head tax is bad enough, but even more and more frequently
landed immigrants wishing to reunite their families are being
forced to produce DNA evidence to prove they are related. The
cost of over $1,000 per person in advance is absolutely
prohibitive and completely unfair.
On behalf of the Somalian community and other ethnic groups that
are disproportionately inconvenienced by these harsh and punitive
measures, I urge the government to change its policies regarding
the DNA testing and stop deterring those who seek to make Canada
their home.
* * *
HALIFAX RIFLES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
summer is the 250th birthday of the city of Halifax and would be
an apt time to reactivate the Halifax Rifles.
This regiment began in 1749 when the city of Halifax was
founded. Historically, among the distinguished Nova Scotians who
served with the Halifax Rifles were a father of Confederation,
two prime ministers of Canada, five premiers of Nova Scotia and
five lieutenant governors of Nova Scotia, along with numerous
mayors of the city of Halifax.
The defence minister has consistently refused to reconsider
reactivating the Halifax Rifles, using the excuse that he would
have to deactivate another unit. This is simply not true.
It is time for the Minister of National Defence to recognize the
importance of the Halifax Rifles to the city of Halifax and
Canada by reactivating the Halifax Rifles. It would make a
terrific 250th birthday gift to the city of Halifax.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister defends his Shawinigan spending spree by saying
that he was just doing good for Shawinigan. That sort of depends
on whether one is a long suffering taxpayer or one of the lucky
beneficiaries of a government grant.
The $6 million CIDA contract to a man who donated $10,000 to the
Prime Minister's campaign, bought a half million dollars of land
from the Prime Minister's company and then received an untendered
contract to pave the driveway to the Prime Minister's cottage is
just a bit coincidental.
Can the Prime Minister not see that doing good for his riding
also means that he should have been a mile away from these
obvious conflicts of interest?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister had no contact whatsoever with the
process of deciding on the CIDA contract in question. The
decision was made by an arm's length committee, with the majority
of voting members being part of the Government of Mali.
Is the hon. member suggesting that these people are part of some
Malian branch of the Liberal Party? No wonder the hon. member's
party is losing all credibility. What he is saying is totally
ridiculous.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
the Liberals could make it an arm of the government they probably
would.
It is kind of him to be the human shield for the Prime Minister,
but the Prime Minister has allowed himself to get into an obvious
conflict of interest and then justified it by saying he was just
doing something good for his constituents.
The unemployment rate in that region remains at over 12%. It
does not matter how many grants, loans, political contributions
and election rhetoric come from the Prime Minister. That rate
has remained chronically high for far too long.
Why did the Prime Minister allow himself to get into this
obvious conflict of interest, a mess that has left his
constituents with chronic high unemployment?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is totally
wrong and inaccurate. There is no conflict of interest.
Yesterday the member for Calgary Southeast when referring to the
Prime Minister said:
1120
No one in that party or in the opposition has presented a shred
of evidence against the Prime Minister of any wrongdoing. They
should apply to the Prime Minister the same standards they want
applied to themselves.
There is no conflict of interest. This is evident from anything
that has been said. The Prime Minister has acted perfectly
properly.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
it was just a shred it would be one thing, but there are too many
coincidences to be believed. The Prime Minister says, for
instance, that he does not own his shares in the Grand-Mère golf
course any more.
The dictionary defines sold or sale as “the exchange of a
commodity for money”. The Prime Minister defines sold as “I
still own them and I am trying to exchange them for money, but
while I own them it is okay if the value of that property goes up
because of some taxpayers funds”.
Which definition will the Deputy Prime Minister choose?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has said in the House that he sold
the shares in the company in question in 1993 before he became
Prime Minister. He does not own the shares.
I would like to ask the hon. member why he keeps raising this
matter. Is it, as I said the other day, to hide the
disintegration of the Reform Party, to hide the failure of the
united alternative concept, and to hide the revolt of Reform
members against their leader? Is that not what is going on?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, our questions are designed to uncover the truth. As the
Deputy Prime Minister just stated, the Prime Minister told the
House that he sold his shares in the Grand-Mère golf course in
1993.
However, in a public interview just this year the Prime
Minister's lawyer, Debbie Weinstein, said she had been trying to
sell these shares since 1996. How can the Prime Minister sell
shares he does not even own?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned the shares
were sold in 1993. There may be a debt owing to the Prime
Minister through his blind trust, but the Prime Minister does not
own the shares.
If the hon. member is interested in uncovering the truth, the
truth is there. All she and her party have to do is listen to
the answers of the Prime Minister.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, is the Deputy Prime Minister trying to tell us that the
Prime Minister's lawyer, his legal agent, is trying to sell on
the Prime Minister's behalf shares that the Prime Minister does
not even own?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to check the accuracy of the language that
she attributes to the Prime Minister's trustee. That is the
first step.
We often find out that what the Reform Party asserts in the
premises of their questions do not turn out to be exactly
connected with the facts. That is the first step I want to take
before answering further because, as I said, the credibility of
the Reform Party becomes less and less the more it goes into this
matter.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this morning the French President clearly indicated that Serbia
would not get aid to rebuild as long as Slobodan Milosevic
remained in power.
Mr. Chirac said “It is perfectly legitimate for us to help a
country on the condition that it makes the efforts necessary to
establish institutions and a government that respects human
rights requirements”.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether his government
shares this point of view?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are aware of the fact that an agreement may be reached between
the NATO countries and the Government of Serbia.
We are currently confirming the details of this agreement, and
there will be meetings tomorrow between NATO spokespersons
and Serbian spokespersons to work out the details
of the agreement.
It will be easier to see how this situation will unfold once we
receive confirmation from the NATO people on the position of the
Serbian government on this agreement.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I understand that the response to my question is rather
embarrassing.
1125
On April 12 the Bloc Quebecois made two specific proposals for
the reconstruction of Kosovo and stability in the Balkans: a
conference on the national minorities in Europe under the aegis
of the OSCE, and a new Marshall plan.
Will the government wait until Slobodan Milosevic is no longer
in power before initiating the process to rebuild Kosovo, or
does the condition proposed by France apply only to the rest of
Yugoslavia?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Sunday the ministers of foreign affairs of the G-8 countries
will meet.
Our minister will be there. In these discussions they will try
to set out a resolution for the United Nations. This will be
clear once we have the text of the resolution to be prepared on
Sunday by the foreign affairs ministers of the G-8 countries,
including our own Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Yugoslavian parliament's acceptance of all G-8 conditions is
perhaps the most important development pointing toward a return
to peace in Kosovo since the conflict first began.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not think that a temporary halt
to the bombing would send the Yugoslavian population a clear
signal that NATO wanted peace in addition to facilitating the
speedy and verifiable withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
this time we do not have details on Serbia's position with
respect to withdrawing its forces in a verifiable manner.
A meeting tomorrow in Belgrade between representatives of NATO
and Serbia will provide a better indication of the degree to
which Serbia will go along with the plan. Once we have these
details, and after there has been a genuine and verifiable
withdrawal of Serbian forces, we will be in a position to
consider with our allies a halt to the bombing in Yugoslavia.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by continuing
to bomb military targets in Kosovo, despite the Yugoslavian
parliament's acceptance of the G-8 conditions, NATO is asking
Serbia's military leaders to come out of hiding and offer
themselves up as targets.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not see this as a contradiction
in the government's position, and would it not be better for
NATO to temporarily suspend the bombing?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government of Mr.
Milosevic knows very well that NATO's position was that it would
not stop military engagement while ethnic cleansing was ongoing
and until the troops began to withdraw from Kosovo.
That has to be verifiable. Mr. Milosevic has gone back on his
word a number of times before. We are definitely prepared to
make the move when those things are verified.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians were appalled yesterday to see that the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans signed a deal which guarantees Americans the
ability to catch Canadian coho when Canadians themselves will not
be able to catch them.
I want to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister. Why is
it that the government continues to put the wishes and the
interests of the people of British Columbia and Canada secondary
to the wishes of the Americans and to the pressure put on the
government by the Americans? Why does it not just take down the
Maple Leaf, run up the white flag and keep it there?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nothing could be
further from the truth.
In fact the agreement moves fish to Canada. On the coho that he
just mentioned, restrictions will be introduced on Alaska
trollers so they cannot catch what they could have caught in
other years.
In 1997 the season would have been closed three weeks earlier if
this agreement would have been in place, and in 1998 and 1992 it
would have closed 10 days earlier.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I think the member who just rose and others should get
together with the Minister of Canadian Heritage. They could
practice how to defend the indefensible sellout of our culture,
now our fisheries, and before that Nanoose Bay. The list goes on
and on of the way in which the government has capitulated to
American interests.
1130
When does it end? When does the surrender end? When do we
begin to fight back instead of signing these sell-out deals on
various fronts?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not a
sell-out deal. This moves fish to Canada. We can look at Fraser
River sockeye for instance. The United States share under this
agreement will be 16.5%. This compares with last year where
their share was 24.9% and where the historical average was 20.5%
between 1985 and 1986. That is moving fish to Canada.
This agreement is for Canadians and for the future of the
fisheries. The member should be congratulating the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and the Government of Canada for negotiating
this agreement, with no thanks to the B.C. government.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
Ontario voters re-elected a Conservative government that cut
taxes by 30%. They gave Mike Harris a strong mandate to continue
cutting taxes for Ontario families, communities and businesses.
This morning Premier Harris said that federal taxes are too high
and are a barrier to job creation, investment and growth.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When will the
Liberals follow the lead of Mike Harris and cut taxes?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our first task was to eliminate the $42 billion deficit
burden created by the Conservative government of Mr. Mulroney of
which the member is a current spokesman. We eliminated that
deficit and we moved to a balanced budget. At the same time, we
have begun massive tax reductions of $16.5 billion over the next
three years.
We do not need to follow Mike Harris' lead on this. We are
doing this through a mandate from the Canadian people, including
those in Ontario. Unlike Mike Harris, we are not doing this with
one cent of borrowed money.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, the federal
Liberals broke promise after promise, from free trade to the GST,
from health care to an independent ethics counsellor. The Harris
Conservatives took a different approach. They said what they
would do before an election and actually delivered. While the
Liberals are the party of trickery, cynicism and low integrity,
the Conservatives are the party of honesty, hope and opportunity.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell Ontario voters why they
should trust the Liberals when Conservative policies have caused
Ontario to grow and the federal government to balance its books?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Ontario voters have already said what they think of
the federal Conservative Party. I am sure they are going to give
a similar verdict in the next federal election and return an
overwhelming number of federal Liberals.
* * *
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Due to the new ruling by U.S. customs on softwood lumber,
thousands of Canadian forestry jobs and even the fate of some
Canadian companies are threatened. Why has the government
allowed Canada's softwood lumber trade with the Americans to
suffer this new blow? Were the trade officials too busy
defending the magazine industry to recognize this new serious
threat of the softwood lumber agreement?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the member rather than joke about
incredible non-starting comparisons should treat the issue with
the seriousness it deserves.
We have an agreement that his province and that industry urged
the federal government to get into two and a half years ago. It
is obviously disappointing that the Americans are trying to
expand the focus of this agreement. We have taken action. We
have taken action against them at the world customs. The world
customs has agreed with us again. If they continue to persist on
the softwood rougher headed issue, we will continue to take
action against them.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we know of the action the government has taken at the
world customs, but there has been no action taken on this most
recent decision on the rougher headed lumber. Whatever happened
to the five years of lumber peace the Liberals promised by
signing the softwood lumber agreement?
It does not matter if it is softwood or split-runs, we are
getting the same scripted answers. Canadians want to know what
specifically will the government do before parliament rises to
guarantee that these forest workers do not lose their jobs?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have an agreement with the United
States. It is an agreement that was agreed to by all the four
provinces within the agreement and by the entire industry from
one coast to the other. The member knows this.
1135
Now the commodity sector has come under great pressure both in
Canada and the United States. That clearly does not justify the
single-handed action the United States has taken. We will use
every possible aspect of this agreement as well as the world
customs and NAFTA to redress in the proper way the proper
functioning of the agreement between our two countries.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made a very troubling
statement. He said the agreements signed by officials of the
federal government and those of a provincial government would
not be binding on governments and that, accordingly, cabinet was
not obliged to honour them.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development think that
his negotiator will have the trust of the Government of Quebec
on the millennium scholarships after what the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said and after what occurred in the
matter of Nanoose Bay?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I understand is that the
other agreement the member for Lac-Saint-Jean is referring to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. The
hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
[Translation]
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, as the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean has just said, I can say one thing, and that is
that the agreement had been signed by officials. That is what
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was referring to.
In the matter of the millennium scholarships, I can reassure the
member for Lac-Saint-Jean that the representative of the
Government of Canada enjoys my full confidence and that of our
government.
There will soon be another meeting between the representatives
of the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada. I am
confident that we will resolve this dispute very soon so that
Quebec students may enjoy the millennium scholarships.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is all
very well to play a semantics game and call someone a
facilitator when in fact they are a negotiator. Basically, is
the mandate of the federal facilitator not simply to facilitate
the life of the Minister of Human Resources Development by
providing him with a pretext to avoid getting on with it and
assuming his ministerial responsibilities?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when there are technicalities
and administrative standards it is absolutely clear that we
trust our officials to come up with solutions and ways to
harmonize the systems.
Once the issue becomes political, it is clear that the ministers
must speak to each other. I can assure the hon. member
that minister Legault
and myself are on the very same wavelength. We are equally
impatient.
For myself, I count on reaching an agreement so that
Quebec students may benefit from something to which they are
entitled.
The Government of Canada wants to help them finance their
studies more easily.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a bill before the Michigan legislature that if passed
would impose a tax of over 2% on Canadian companies selling into
Michigan. Should this legislation go ahead, the cost to Canadian
companies, especially the automotive sector would be more than
$100 million per year.
What is the trade minister doing to ensure that this legislation
which flies in the face of the principle of national treatment
never gets passed?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is correct in raising a very
serious issue which I think is going to be equally negative for
companies from Canada doing business in Michigan and for the
state of Michigan. I think it is going to discourage and scare
away trade and investment in that state.
We have for the last number of months been dealing directly with
the office of Governor Engler. We have been able to persuade him
to take away the retroactivity going back 10 years. The fact
remains that for companies doing business in the state of
Michigan he is still contemplating at this time imposing a 2%
tax.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we know the government's spin doctors are working overtime
selling the Pacific salmon treaty and we now see that the
parliamentary secretary is becoming part of that spin machine.
Let us look at the facts. We know the minister is afraid to
bring this treaty before the House of Commons. We know the
minister has and will spend millions of dollars buying prime time
media to sell this deal to the Canadian people. We know the
minister announced this deal in a room full of Americans and
hired armed police to keep Canadian fishermen out of the room.
If this is such a good deal for Canada, why the armed police?
Why does he have to spend taxpayers' money to sell this deal?
Whose side is he on? The Americans, obviously not ours.
1140
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have seen from
past action that the kind of tactics the hon. member opposite
takes on does nothing for the negotiations. When we want to get
a good message out there, we have to get it out.
Had this new arrangement been in place between 1985 and 1996
there would have been 4.1 million more fish available to Canadian
fishermen. That is a good deal. The hon. member, as the
Vancouver Sun did this morning, should be congratulating
the minister. It said that the minister certainly deserves—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Laval Centre.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONIE
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in her little summer kit for MPs, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage suggests some very interesting activities to help
anglophone senators and MPs celebrate, as she puts it,
Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
Suggested activities include reading a French Canadian book in
translation, viewing a sub-titled French Canadian film, and—get
this—learning Canada's national anthem in French.
With such a caricature of the French fact in this Year of the
Francophonie, can the minister tell the House why she did not
think of suggesting wearing a traditional French Canadian
Assomption sash for a swim, or sampling a bowl of pea soup?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot see why the Bloc Quebecois would be afraid of
francophiles.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in her crusade to save the French language from coast to coast,
can the minister confirm that, again this year, Quebec will be
getting 60% of federal funding for Canada Day celebrations,
while her constituents in Hamilton East will have to be happy
with eight times less money than that set aside for the
constituents of the member for Bourassa?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the most pitiful thing about the Bloc Quebecois is that
it claims to support the French fact in Canada, but that same
Bloc Quebecois found nothing to say when the Government of
Quebec refused to recognize this year as the Year of the
Francophonie in Canada.
For people who claim to be the defenders of the francophonie in
Canada their track record with respect to the French fact in
this country is pathetic, and they owe an apology to French
Canadians from Nova Scotia to British Columbia.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
April the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for
International Trade said there would a 120 day moratorium on U.S.
export regulations targeting Canadian defence and aerospace
industries. We now know there has been no moratorium as Canadian
companies have been forced to acquire export permits. It is
obvious the intervention by the foreign affairs minister has
produced nothing. We are talking about $5 billion in trade and
50,000 Canadian jobs.
Will the Prime Minister personally intervene on behalf of the
Canadian defence and aerospace industries?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfair to suggest that the
involvement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been
absolutely ineffective, far from it.
Through his actions in talking with his counterpart, the
secretary of state in the United States, they have been able to
put in the four month review. In this respect industries are
talking. We have made it abundantly clear to the Americans that
this is as negative for Canadian firms as it is for American
firms. If they have been integrated for the last 40 years, our
message is do not fix something that clearly is not broken.
* * *
PESTICIDES
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the amount of pesticides on fresh fruit and vegetables sold in
Canada has more than doubled since 1994. The amount of illegal
pesticides on our domestic produce has tripled since 1990.
Canadians want to know that their food is safe. Why will the
health minister not allow the pesticide management agency to
release pesticide ingredients lists to Canadians? Why is there
the secrecy?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning the hon. member was good enough to mention before
question period that he was going to raise this issue.
I will provide a more detailed written response. For the
present, let me point out that while the numbers quoted by the
member are accurate, it should also be observed that none of the
levels comes up to the point where the experts consider there is
any danger. In other words, the amounts have doubled but the
total concentration is still within safe limits of the total
maximum allowable.
1145
When we created the pest management regulatory agency some years
ago, it was for the purpose of examining all pesticides before
approval. They are looked at from the point of view of safety in
advance of going onto the market. We will continue doing that.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there is a Canadian heritage website which offers Canadians the
opportunity to vote for a hero.
This site was funded by Heritage Canada, yet it operates only
in English, right at this midpoint in the Année de la
Francophonie.
Can the minister explain how this site is unilingual
English when it is her responsibility to protect both official
languages of this country?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, this is not the website of Heritage
Canada. Second, it is a bilingual site.
What I find pitiful is to see the Bloc Quebecois shedding big
crocodile tears for francophones outside Quebec while, when the
time comes for a concrete gesture in support of French
Canadians, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want
nothing to do with francophones outside Quebec. That is pretty
pitiful during the Année de la Francophonie canadienne.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as NATO prepares to deploy a peace implementation force,
there is a great deal of speculation about the level of
resistance our troops will meet. How prepared are our Canadian
forces troops for deployment to this region, and how capable is
our equipment?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start
by saying how proud we are of the job our military is doing in
the Balkans, in Aviano and on other missions.
Our people and our equipment are up to the task. They will be
using the Coyote reconnaissance vehicle, which is very highly
mobile, well armed and well protected; the Bison armoured
personnel carrier; the Griffon military helicopter; and, let us
not forget, the CF-18s in Aviano.
We have no doubt that our professional soldiers have the
training, the leadership and the equipment they need to do a good
job.
* * *
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we hear the government is drafting new endangered
species legislation. Let us hope it gets it right this time.
Rural Canadians are insisting that the bill include three
fundamental principles: First, there must be equity. All
Canadians must bear an equal cost of protection, not just rural
Canadians.
Second, it must be incentive based. Landowners should be
compensated not punished for compliance.
Third, there must be consultation. Rural Canadians must have a
say in how the legislation impacts on their lives.
Will the environment minister and the Government of Canada
commit today to these principles, yes or no?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the
member opposite is interested in this legislation.
The minister has been consulting across the country with her
provincial and territorial counterparts and is prepared to table
legislation in the near future. I attended some of those
meetings and I can tell the House that some of the various issues
were considered and possible solutions were raised. We will
continue to work on the right solution.
* * *
ATHABASCA RIVER
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
year the government discontinued the marking and dredging of the
Athabasca River from Fort McMurray to Fort Chipewyan. This is a
service that has been provided for as long as anybody in the area
can remember.
As a result, the federal and provincial governments had to spend
$1 million on an emergency airlift of supplies to Fort Chipewyan
last spring. Right now the barges are aground, making the
likelihood of another emergency airlift of crucial supplies, such
as food and fuel, very possible.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. This historic
trade route is a lifeline for the people of Fort Chipewyan. Why
is the government abandoning the people of Fort Chipewyan?
1150
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will take that
question under advisement and get back to the hon. member with an
answer.
* * *
BILL C-32
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Environment Week of 1999 will be remembered as a lost
opportunity. Canadians will remember when the Liberal and Reform
Parties picked polluters as their priority and not our
environment or our health by weakening Bill C-32.
The environment commissioner states that there is confusion
between departments for taking immediate action against toxic
substances, and that it is now common knowledge that the
government buckled and sold out to industry's polluter's.
Can the Minister of Industry explain why strict environmental
laws are a nightmare for his department?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a complete
misinterpretation of the legislation we passed this week.
The legislation puts in place a strict enforcement mechanism
reflecting the commissioner's report and what the committee
wanted. It sets in place a toxic management review policy. It
forces the government to do research on endocrine disrupters. It
forces the government to evaluate 23,000 substances in Canada.
It is a good bill and an important bill for the country. It is a
win for the environment of the country.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my second question is for the Minister of Health.
At a televised committee hearing on Wednesday of this week on
pesticides, the pest management regulatory agency and various
government departments explained regulatory actions for banned
pesticides. In response to a NDP question to the director
general of the DFO on the use of non-registered pesticides in
fish pens in Canadians waters, he stated this was illegal.
This illegal use of pesticides was reported last year. Can the
Minister of Health explain why he is ignoring the illegal use of
pesticides in Canadian waters?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was not at the hearing, but I am sure a close examination of
the transcript will show that the officials who testified are
committed to enforcing the laws that parliament passes, enforcing
standards of safety in pesticides and dealing with environmental
issues consistent with our objective, which is to maintain a safe
environment for all Canadians.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last night we received another two and a half inches of rain on
already rain-soaked land.
In 1997 in the Red River Valley only 1,200 acres were affected.
Right now, in my area of Manitoba, over two million acres are
affected.
In 1997 the Government of Canada provided $26 million to address
farm losses in the Red River Valley. To date, the Minister of
Agriculture has announced nothing, zero for the people who are
being affected by this terrible disaster in southwestern
Manitoba.
What is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food going to do
for those constituents of agriculture?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification for the hon.
member, much of the assistance to the producers in the Red River
Valley a couple years ago was part of a memorandum of
understanding and part of a disaster funding assistance
agreement. That is how much of that was handled at that time
between the province and the federal government.
To date, the province of Manitoba has not asked to call on the
disaster funding assistance agreement. It may or may not apply.
It is up to the province to make its judgment call on that.
What I am doing is not leaving any stones unturned as far as
looking at how we can use programs that are already in place and
getting the flexibility in them that we can to assist these
hard-pressed producers.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
there are a lot of rocks that can be unturned.
In the Red River Valley there was a program where $10 per acre
was allowed for custom seeding. There is a small window that a
lot of these producers may well take advantage of if the minister
would look at a program like that. He may want to look at the
JERI program which would also help producers to recover some of
their lost input. Those are the options and those are the
programs.
I would ask that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food reply
to those and perhaps put them in place right now so that people
can see their land.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member and the
producers that we are looking at every possible way to assist
within existing programs. I will also be visiting the area a
week from today.
I am not questioning the disaster situation that is there at the
present time, but I will be reviewing that. I will also continue
to discuss with my provincial colleagues, the industry people,
provincial officials and my officials the different ways that we
can help.
* * *
1155
HEALTH CANADA
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Many Canadians suffer from the disabling effects of conditions
such as fibromyalgia and multiple chemical sensitivity. Can the
minister tell the House what Health Canada is doing to help
people suffering from these conditions?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all of us admire the initiative the member for Ottawa Centre took
in putting a motion before the House on this subject. It is a
motion that I am very proud to support.
Health Canada has been active for some time supporting members
of the scientific community to try to find out the causes of
these very difficult and often disabling diseases and working
with sufferers and others to look for ways of treating them.
Recently, the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control at Health
Canada has been working on issues of research to find out how we
can learn more about causes, treatments and hopefully cures.
Working in concert with those most affected by providing funding
where necessary, Health Canada is committed to advancing the
frontier—
The Speaker: The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
* * *
NAV CANADA
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the conciliator's report on Nav Canada's dispute with
the air traffic controllers was released on Monday. We could be
facing a strike before the end of June.
Does the transport minister have any plan, other than the
traditional Liberal approach to labour relations, which is
heavy-handed, back to work legislation or essential services
designation, to avoid a crippling shutdown of the aviation
industry? Will he endorse final offer selection arbitration, a
civilized approach in which the controllers have expressed
interest?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the
parties intend to resume negotiations today. I would urge both
sides to make every effort to settle their remaining differences.
* * *
[Translation]
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the decision
making centre for the Farm Credit Corporation has been moved
from Ste-Foy to Kanata, Guelph, Winnipeg and Regina. This meant
the loss of 19 positions in my riding, which were filled by
competent professionals providing service in both official
languages. Only front line staff is now left in Quebec.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Can the
minister explain the reason for this decision, apart from
distancing Quebec farmers from the policy centre and putting
competent professionals out of work?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we make any changes in the
administration of the roles and duties of the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food in Canada, we do it in such a way that
we can maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of it so that
every producer in Canada and everybody in the agri-food industry
can be treated fairly and equitably. Wherever the actual people
are does not really matter because the department is there to
service all Canadians and all of the industry in every province.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, six
provinces are delivering AIDA directly to their farmers, while
four, including Manitoba and Saskatchewan where the problems are
worse, are being administered by the federal government.
Where the program is administered provincially, almost 60% of
the claims have been processed and paid to date. It is a much
different story where it is supposed to be administered by the
Government of Canada. There were 3,815 claims as of June 1,
three days ago, and only 115 claims paid. That is an abysmal
rate of less than 3%.
Even allowing for start-up time, what is the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food doing to revamp and revitalize this
fundamentally flawed program?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member points out the fact that
applications are coming in now in response to all of us urging
the producers to do that. The staff is working 12 hours a day, 6
days a week on a rotating basis so that we can make best use of
the facilities, the administration and the equipment that we
have.
I can pledge to the hon. member that we are turning the
applications around as quickly as we possibly can because we know
the need that the producers have for the support.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, with
respect to the conflict in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
one element that existed prior to it were the sanctions imposed
on Yugoslavia. During the conflict the economic and military
sanctions were applied once again.
I would like to know the position of the Government of Canada
with respect to an immediate lifting of the economic sanctions
in order to permit the people of Yugoslavia, including those of
Kosovo, to rebuild their country as quickly as possible. What is
Canada's position on the removal of economic sanctions?
1200
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since this agreement was
ratified by the Government of Yugoslavia it has initiated a
flurry of political activity and meetings that are ongoing at the
present time.
I say to the hon. member that it is rather premature to look at
exactly what will come out of these meetings. There are meetings
being held today, tomorrow, Sunday and into next week to put
together the details of how this whole agreement will be worked
out.
* * *
[Translation]
SAFE BOATING
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are very concerned about the nearly 200 deaths and
6,000 serious accidents that occur annually in pleasure boating.
With National Safe Boating Week, which begins tomorrow, what
measures will the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be taking
to meet the concerns of Canadians?
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, DFO has consulted
the boating community. With that input we have implemented
stricter training requirements. We have implemented restrictions
on age and horsepower to protect our youth from being killed in
dangerous actions.
Promotion and boating safety awareness is key to the reduction
of accidents and fatalities. I would like to take this
opportunity to thank singer Loreena McKennitt for helping the
Canadian Coast Guard to promote these new safety boating
regulations.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ONTARIO ELECTION
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to raise a point of national concern today. As I did not have
access to the media last night or today, I wonder if someone in
the House could inform me what the election results were in
Ontario.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will check with
the clerk to see if that is indeed a point of order.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
responding to that point of national interest, the Reform Party
in Ontario yesterday got 93 votes.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a question of privilege of which I have given notice.
My question of privilege arises from a Canadian Press news story
which appeared in today's Globe and Mail under the heading
“Seal herds to be culled”. It gives its source as the member
for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands deliberately divulged
information from an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee
of Fisheries and Oceans held yesterday morning, at which the
committee was discussing the draft report as related to our study
of the east coast seal issue.
The story carried in the Globe and Mail reads as follows:
The size of Atlantic Canada's seal herd must be reduced to save
depleted cod stocks, the Commons fisheries committee decided at a
closed meeting yesterday where it rewrote a report on the
industry.
1205
The story continued:
“The committee, acting on recommendations from the Fisheries
Resource Conservation Council, will urge the federal government
to come up with a five year plan to reduce the size of the seal
herd significantly”, said Reform fisheries critic Gary Lunn.
I draw the attention of the Speaker to citation 851 of
Beauchesne's sixth edition which states:
When a committee chooses to meet in camera, all matters are
confidential. Any departure from strict confidentiality should
be by explicit committee decision which should deal with what
matters should be published, in which form and by whom.
The statement attributed to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands
was not delivered in the heat of debate in the House. This was
not a mistake in judgment or any kind of oversight. This was a
deliberate act, and one which demonstrates a disrespect and
contempt for the privileges not only of every member of the
Standing Committee for Fisheries but of every member of the
House.
As well, I was informed that there was a major interview on CBC
in Newfoundland also divulging information that was talked about
in that in camera meeting.
If you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, Mr.
Speaker, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As all members know,
the question of leaked committee reports in our parliament is one
that has plagued virtually all committees and is of great concern
to the Speaker.
I see the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is in his place.
In a moment I will ask him to put his comments on record and I
invite anyone else who would like to put their comments on record
to do so.
I will take the question of privilege under advisement and bring
it to the attention of the Speaker who will in due course report
back to the House.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the fisheries committee with which I have been involved for the
past year and a half has been plagued with this problem. In
fact, some of the reports that we have done in the past have gone
out of there by the truckload, by various people in various
departments. We are never given a chance to respond and I agree
it is a very serious problem.
In this specific case, the day before this report was in the
public domain. It was in the media. It had been released.
Members never seem to get an opportunity to respond. In
fairness, once this was in the public domain and I started to
receive calls from reporters, I first of all notified the
parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Malpeque. I also
notified the member for Burin—St. George's in Newfoundland. I
told them that my phone lines were burning up with media
interviews and it was just to let them know that I was speaking
to the media.
Out of courtesy I advised them that the report was out there. Of
course we knew that. We talked about the committee. It was in
the Globe and Mail. The report was already in the public
domain.
When I did these interviews, what I talked to the media about
was the comments that I had brought forward to the committee, not
what other members of the committee had said. I talked about my
comments, what I was pushing for in the committee. I made it
very clear. I said “This report is not completed. We will be
meeting next week. These are the areas that I will be pushing
for and I hope to get a recommendation”.
I was speaking only on behalf of myself; but out of respect for
the member, and he will verify it, I notified him prior to that,
that I was making these comments.
With respect to the CBC interview, that person also informed me
when she called that she had received calls from other members of
the committee whom I will not name and said “This is what they
are telling me. Would you like to comment?”
It was in the public domain the day before. As a courtesy I
notified the members. I only did interviews with respect to my
comments. I made it very clear that the report is still not
final at this time, that it can still be changed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Much of what has
gone on right now is debate that could take place within
committee. The problem that we have is the question of trust
within parliament as a whole in terms of the leaking of committee
reports.
1210
Committee work needs to take place in committee and perhaps the
committee can look at this matter, make a recommendation and come
back to parliament.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very briefly, there is the issue
of committee leaks. I think the Chair is quite correct, but this
is quite aside from that.
Three or four weeks ago the hon. member for Provencher, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, accidentally released information from a
committee and was forced to apologize on the floor of the House
for something accidental and did so. The exact same thing was
done deliberately this time and deserves no less consideration.
That is the point that is different from the initial leak.
If there was a leak made by whoever it is who leaked it, and
that is totally unacceptable as well, that is one matter.
However, the matter of someone else deliberately after that
saying “given that someone already leaked it I am exonerated
from my obligations”, is not correct. That is separate issue
and I would ask the Chair, perhaps not now, but to review that
matter as well.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
as a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans I
want to make a brief comment on what I consider to be a very
serious problem which has plagued the work of the fisheries and
oceans committee since I came here two years ago.
Every report gets leaked to some extent, but I think what
differentiates this circumstance is that before the committee did
not know who was leaking the reports and everyone was guessing it
was everyone else. In this case I think what makes it different
is that this time we know who gave the information to the news
media. I think that makes it quite different.
This kind of thing undermines the work of the committee. It
weakens the committee and in my view breaches the privilege of
members of parliament.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
know you have not ruled on this matter and you may want to check
into it in further depth before you do so. However, I agree with
your preliminary comment, as Beauchesne's says, that reports from
committees may be presented to the House. Beauchesne's says that
the committee has the authority to report back to the House if it
feels that its privileges have been compromised. By all means it
is free to do so. I would encourage committee members to check
into it if they want. I do believe that is the proper way to go
about it.
It is true that the draft report of the committee was already in
the public domain. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned before,
I think every draft report of every committee in the House of
Commons in a year has been released to the media.
We have a report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs that dealt with leaked reports, and that report was
leaked to the press by someone before it was released. In other
words, even that report having come to the House has not even yet
been concurred in. The suggestions in that report are put
forward as a means to try to help solve this continuous problem.
I urge the government as it considers this matter to take that
report, look at the recommendations that are contained therein,
and implement them as a first step toward solving the problem
with continuing leaked reports.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I know the Speaker
takes this matter very seriously. Aside from the specifics of
this instance, the questions of trust between us as members of
parliament and our ability to do our work in an atmosphere of
trust are seriously affected when people in trust are not able to
make a comment or ask a question in camera.
I know the Speaker takes this matter very seriously. I will
consult with the Speaker. The Speaker will read the transcript
and will make a decision on where it will go. I will recognize
the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
and that will be it.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm
what the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said. He did send me a
note yesterday saying that he would possibly be talking to the
press based on the report. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what
I sent back and I confirm it.
I said “This report has not been tabled yet and I would advise
you that if you talk on this report you are in breach of
parliament, in my view”.
1215
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is it. It is
over and I wish to thank everyone for their interventions. I
understand that everyone takes this very seriously and I
acknowledge the fact that we want to have an end to this.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a
notice of ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, a
related act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the
Customs Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.
I am also tabling explanatory notes and a background document
and I ask that an order of the day be designated for
consideration of the motion.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
THE FAMILY
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased today to present two petitions signed by people from in
and around the city of Edmonton, Alberta. Both petitions call
for the same thing.
The petitioners would like parliament to pass legislation
incorporating the rights of children and principles of equality
between parents for the benefit of our children. The petitioners
and I think that this kind of legislation would be an excellent
opportunity for the justice minister to finally accomplish
something.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions to present this morning from 54 people in my
riding concerning the EI fund and its intended purposes.
MACKAY TASK FORCE
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
also have a petition containing 312 names of people in my riding
who are asking the House to reject the recommendations of the
MacKay task force with regard to the banking industry becoming
involved in the insurance business.
Finally, I would like to say with regard to the point of order
that was brought up that I think the question is not who leaked
more, but rather—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. This
is the time to present petitions.
REFUGEES
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
would like to present a petition that was brought to me on the
subject of undocumented convention refugees in Canada. The
people who have signed this petition believe that the waiting
period should be two years rather than the current five.
THE SENATE
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
also have a petition from residents of Winnipeg who believe that
the Senate should be abolished and not reformed.
CANADA POST
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
have another petition regarding Canada Post. These people
believe that rural route mail couriers should have the right to
form a union. They are the only group of workers in Canada who
do not have the right to bargain collectively. Therefore, they
would like the government to delete section 13(5) of the Canada
Post Corporation Act.
* * *
1220
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PRECLEARANCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-22, an
act authorizing the United States to preclear travellers and
goods in Canada for entry into the United States for the purposes
of customs, immigration, public health, food inspection and plant
and animal health, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to Bill S-22,
the preclearance bill.
I would like to state upfront that my only reservation is the
fact that it was introduced in the Senate. Many of my colleagues
have raised the same point. I do not think this bill has the
same credibility, having been introduced by a body which is not
elected and therefore not accountable to the Canadian people.
Many in this House would have liked the opportunity to speak to
or speak longer to this bill. We are down to the wire with the
closing of parliament and we have approximately one hour of
debate at third reading, which makes it a bit difficult and also
leads to some misunderstanding.
As the trade critic for the Reform Party, the official
opposition, I think it is very important that this bill be passed
as quickly as possible. The reason I say that is because of our
tremendous trade relationship with the United States, our biggest
trading partner. Over 83% of our exports go to the United
States. Therefore, a lot of Canadian companies and Canadian
business people are involved and they need increased ease of
access.
The amount of trade export and imports between the United States
and Canada is massive. We have the biggest trade relationship in
the world. There is $1.5 billion a day in trade crossing our
border. It works well in most instances, but we have to
continue to work to make it easier to do business across that
important border.
I returned about three weeks ago from meetings with U.S.
senators in the western states. There was a meeting in Great
Falls, Montana. I saw the problems facing the border states and
the border provinces. I saw sweet grass in Montana cross the
line from Alberta. I saw thousands of Canadian trucks moving
cattle into the western United States.
Commerce is going to do nothing but increase. We have a number
of integrated economies. We see it continuing to develop. These
economies include steel, the automotive sector and the cattle
industry, and there are going to be more and more integrated
economies with the United States in the future.
We are in the process of trying to negotiate a hemispheric free
trade agreement, free trade for the Americas, which will bring
South America, Central America and North America into one trade
agreement. Therefore, there is all the more need for
arrangements which make it easier for our business people to
cross those borders in a timely fashion. Time means money and
these people have to have ease of access. That is what this is
really about.
This is a preclearance bill. Preclearance means that we do not
have to clear customs in the United States. It can be done in
Canada prior to boarding a flight to the United States, for
example.
As my colleague said, as well as making it easier, it will build
economies at some Canadian airports. Vancouver is a good case in
point, where travellers coming from Asia will probably use the
Vancouver airport to access the United States. We want to
encourage that. We do not want to put roadblocks in the way.
Hence, the need to have this preclearance bill.
I want to talk for a moment about the trends in trade. In the
1960s Canada exported approximately 60% of its goods to the
United States. People were concerned about that. I remember at
the time trade minister Allan MacEachen and Prime Minister Lester
B. Pearson wanting to diversify that trade into other areas,
Europe for example. However, that was not to be because Europe
was looking inward to the European Union.
We know the kind of arrangements they have there. They have a
customs union, which means that the trucks do not even stop at
the borders in the European Union. Commerce flows across those
borders every day.
1225
I am not sure if that will ever happen between Canada and the
United States, but we know that the trend is that more business
people will be travelling and there will be closer linkages.
There is an excellent article today in the Globe and Mail
by Heather Scoffield which suggests that integration is speeding
up more and more and there are calls for tax harmonization and a
common currency. We hear that right in this House.
The trend after the free trade agreement with the United States,
and following that the NAFTA, is that more Canadian companies are
looking for markets outside Canada. They see that a 30 million
person market is not good enough to serve them in the future.
They look at the big market south of the border and they want a
piece of it.
In fact, because of the free trade agreement and the NAFTA with
Canada, Mexico and the United States barriers have come down.
That means that tariffs and duties have come down. Between
Canada and the United States all duties are gone except for a
couple of selective industries. Small Canadian companies which
were doing business in Canada only had a protected market here
because of high tariff walls. They no longer have those high
tariff walls. There are companies from Mexico and United States
that are looking at Canada as an attractive place to do business.
There is fairly heavy competition for these Canadian companies
right in their home market. Therefore, they have to look
elsewhere for markets and they are looking into the United States
and Mexico where duties have also disappeared.
I am suggesting that the trend will be to more movement of
business between our three countries. As we expand free trade
into the Americas, into the hemisphere, there will be more need
to accelerate programs that can ease the way we do business in
Canada and how we clear customs in this preclearance fashion so
that goods are moved quickly.
I was at a conference in Mexico last year, five years after the
NAFTA. There were legislators there from Canada, the United
States and Mexico. I think all of us agreed that we will have to
move quickly to try to remove any impediments that we can to the
movement of goods and services, and people.
The air cargo industry made excellent points. The way business
was conducted some time ago in Canada was that small companies
would build a product which they would sell in their home
community, and that was it. Things have changed. Those
companies started looking at bigger markets, the province and the
country. Now, with barriers gone, those small companies are
building products and are sending them to destinations all over
the world, and they want it done in a timely manner. Hence, the
growth in air cargo. Products are being shipped by plane.
Companies want legislation such as Bill C-54, the electronic
commerce bill. I would suggest to the government that it is
important to have that bill passed quickly. There are a lot of
Canadian companies that are asking for that electronic commerce
bill to be passed because it will speed up how they can get paid
for their products. That is what this is all about.
Bill S-22, although I disagree with its origins, is a good bill.
It needs to have speedy passage and our party will support it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
1230
CARRIAGE BY AIR ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-23, an act to
amend the Carriage by Air Act to give effect to a Protocol to
amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules
Relating to International Carriage by Air and to give effect to
the Convention, Supplementary to the Warsaw Convention, for the
Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage
by Air Performed by a Person Other than the Contracting Carrier,
as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Transport) moved that
the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): When shall the bill
be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Transport) moved that
the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to
Bill S-23 on the occasion of its third reading in the House.
On May 27 the members of the Standing Committee on Transport
examined the proposed legislation in detail and voted unanimously
to send it forward for third reading. I thank my colleagues for
having dealt with this bill so expeditiously.
Members will recall that the purpose of Bill S-23 is to amend
the Carriage by Air Act so Canada can officially ratify and
become a party to two international instruments dealing with air
carrier liability, those being Montreal protocol No. 4 and the
Guadalajara convention. These two documents update and modernize
elements of the Warsaw convention which sets out the legal rights
and responsibilities of the carrier, passengers and shippers in
relation to international air transportation.
This bill will enhance air carrier liability coverage and
requirements.
Montreal protocol No. 4 amends the liability regime as it
applies to cargo by providing stricter carrier liability and
establishing maximum limits. It also simplifies the cargo
documentation requirements and authorizes the electronic
transmission of information. This transmission of cargo
information usually means other than the traditional multicopy
air waybill and will provide significant cost savings to carriers
and shippers.
It has become extremely important that Canada act quickly to see
to this protocol as it came into effect internationally in June
1998. This means that until Canada has been able to deposit its
own ratification documents and have the protocol come into effect
in Canada, our carriers and our shippers are at a competitive
disadvantage vis-à-vis their counterparts.
The Guadalajara convention on the other hand clarifies the
relationship between passengers and shippers for the first part
and carriers for the other. This convention is already widely in
force. It distinguishes the contracting carrier from the carrier
performing the carriage on its behalf and sets out the varying
liability of each. This sharing of the liability between
contracting and operating carrier when they are not the same has
become increasingly important as international carriers,
including both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, join together in
global commercial alliances and carry each other's passengers.
Both Montreal protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara convention have
the unanimous support of the aviation industry. The industry
supports Bill S-23 without reservation and urges parliament to
pass the bill as quickly as possible.
1235
I conclude by saying that the intent of Bill S-23 is both timely
and non-controversial. It will provide clarity and certainty not
only for our Canadian carriers, but for the international
carriers with whom they co-operate or compete. It should reduce
the potential for litigation and bring improved economies of time
and cost to carriers and shippers.
We should move quickly to adopt this short but important bill.
To delay would be to increase the length of time our carriers
will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to briefly address Bill S-23, an act to
amend the Carriage by Air Act.
This is routine legislation to amend the Carriage by Air Act and
bring Canada into line with other countries in order to implement
Montreal protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara supplementary
convention. These were themselves extensions of earlier
agreements, the Warsaw convention of 1929, which is the basis of
all rules governing international carriage by air, and The Hague
protocol of 1995 which updated the Warsaw convention.
Among other things, the Montreal protocol simplifies and
decreases cargo documentation and brings air billing into the
20th century by authorizing electronic transmission of documents.
Unfortunately, it took 23 years to round up the requisite 30
national ratifications of the protocol in 1998, but at least the
new rules are in place for the 21st century. It is now
imperative that Canada get on board to help its carriers remain
competitive.
The protocol also clarifies limits of carrier liability in order
to avoid complex international conflict over the settlement of
claims. A carrier will be responsible for damages even if it is
not overtly negligent, but on the other hand, it cannot be
assessed for damages beyond a mandated maximum even in the event
of gross negligence. Thus both shipper and carrier are protected
from catastrophic losses.
The Guadalajara convention extends the rules of the Warsaw
convention to carriage performed by a carrier other than the one
with whom the passenger or shipper actually entered into his
contract. Why we are adopting this convention 38 years after its
initiation is beyond me. The mills of the gods may turn slowly,
but compared to the adoption of international rules with respect
to air cargo, they are spinning wildly. In any event the bill is
now before us and I urge the House to pass it without further
ado.
My only serious problem with this legislation derives from its
origin down the hall in what, because we are not allowed to call
it by its proper name, I generally refer to as hog hollow. Some
members refer to it as the other place. The hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans refers to
it as the other house. Perhaps outhouse would be more
appropriate.
The Senate as currently constituted has no legitimacy and it is
not supported by the people of Canada. Nobody elected it and
although I would be the first to admit that it does include a few
hard working and public spirited individuals, it is overflowing
with defeated Liberal and Tory candidates, retired bagmen and
other assorted political hacks. At the moment it even has a
couple of convicted felons clutched to its bosom.
One might think that because I so thoroughly dislike the
institution as currently constituted that I would share the view
of those MPs including the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
who at one time or another have called for its abolition. Not at
all. The Fathers of Confederation created the institution for a
good reason.
That reason, although they referred to it as sober second
thought, was really to protect the citizens of Canada from their
own duly elected legislature.
1240
Now that the House of Commons has degenerated into a rubber
stamp for an elected dictatorship, we need an effective Senate
more than we ever did. Right now it is not protecting anybody.
Why not? Because its appointed Liberal majority has become a
mere extension of the PMO, a yes sir, of course sir institution,
as malleable and ineffective as the Liberal backbench.
The answer to the problem is not to precipitously trash the
institution. The answer is to fix it. The ideal Senate would be
a triple E Senate, elected, effective and equal. This is a
concept I heartily endorse. I realize there are barriers to
getting such an institution and that these barriers are
formidable since this would require a major constitutional
amendment requiring the consent of all provinces. But reform can
proceed as it did in the U.S.A., incrementally.
The United States did not always elect its senators. As a
matter a fact the first state to do so was the state of Oregon
around the turn of the century. Once it set the precedent, the
idea caught fire. It was only about a decade before all of the
then lower mainland states had fallen into line.
One E, effective, already exists in theory in the Canadian
Senate because the Senate has great power under our constitution.
However, it is not generally exercised because of the
institution's illegitimacy.
The second E, elected, requires no change other than a change in
the heart of the Prime Minister. We have already had one highly
respected elected senator, the late Stan Waters. We have right
now revved up and ready to come to Ottawa two Alberta senators in
waiting who were elected at large by the electors of the entire
province of Alberta, Mr. Ted Morton and Mr. Burt Brown. However,
the government of today refuses to recognize the wishes and
desires of the people of Alberta and those two senators, even
though senators—
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
Is the hon. member going to deal with this piece of legislation
at any point in time in his diatribe?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must ask the hon.
member who has the floor to try to be more careful in the words
that he chooses when he speaks of the other place and also to
debate the bill before the House.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Madam Speaker, had the hon. member for
Brandon—Souris had his ears open, he would have heard me
speaking at some length on the details of the bill. I am sure
the hon. parliamentary secretary will confirm that.
There is a direct relevance and connection between the use of
the Senate as a vehicle for transmitting bills to the House and
the bill which was actually transmitted. To me this is a fairly
logical connection.
This is a matter of grave importance to the people of Canada.
Nothing is more important at the end of the day than the way in
which we are governed.
All of the other decisions that are made hang on that particular
aspect of our lives. If we do not have a good framework for
government we cannot have good government. That is fairly simple.
1245
I would reiterate that I never again want to see important
legislation coming to the House from that other place and, in
effect, taking over the powers of the House of Commons. This is
not right. It is not done to my knowledge in the mother of
parliaments on which we base our procedures here. It is high
time that we brought ourselves into the 20th century and have in
the Government of Canada an elected, effective and, hopefully one
day, equal Senate.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I would like to speak directly to Bill S-23. Everyone has
concerns about the origin of the bill, but we also have to
acknowledge to Canadians and to parliamentarians that the bill is
to amend the Carriage by Air Act. Canada passed the Carriage by
Air Act in 1947 to enact the 1929 Warsaw Convention. Back then,
we had biplanes.
Flying to orbit the globe, as Ms. Payette, one of our honourable
Canadians, has done and who is now on her way back home, and this
whole evolution of air transportation and aerospace
transportation is now before us. However, with this
modernization came two agreements: the 1988 Montreal protocol
and the 1961 Guadalajara convention.
This modernization by amending the Carriage by Air Act is long
overdue. The last update, as we said, was over 40 years ago. We
have challenges before us in this whole development.
I would like to place a challenge before the House, the
government and I guess the Senate. Perhaps there was
shortsightedness in the Senate, or perhaps the day was a little
blurry or a little too busy, but I think it has overlooked a
major issue, a passenger bill of rights for Canadians. We
recently witnessed the drafting of such a bill of rights in the
United States which will protect the rights of passengers.
The bill is not only about modernizing the whole issue of
primary carrier responsibilities. If I board an Air Canada plane
tonight and I then have to switch planes, which happens to be
Canadian Airlines or Athabaska Airways, the primary
responsibility for any rights or liabilities I have would rest
with the primary air carrier, which would be Air Canada.
Whichever carrier owns the plane I first board becomes the
primary carrier. This is highlighted in the bill.
The Montreal protocol is very interesting. It allows air
carriers to now use new technology to transmit documents
electronically and updates the currency references in the
conventions from French francs to the International Monetary Fund
of conversion units.
I would like to speak about the first issue of new technology
and the whole issue of the environment and how much paper is
being wasted on the issue of air transportation in the country.
When we board a plane today, our plane tickets and boarding
passes are all made out of flimsy paper that is derived from the
fibre of trees. With the millions of passengers, not only in
Canada but worldwide, this whole issue has to emerge to a new
format. It could be done through the electronic monitoring of
passengers in some shape or form, either by card registry or as
we do with Interac. A few years ago we dreamed of not seeing a
plastic based currency but it is now a reality.
This bill amending the Carriage by Air Act will require and
challenge the air transportation industry in Canada to look at
the new technologies that will be available for them to be
competitive.
1250
In my closing comments, I will speak about competitiveness. I
read an article about Canada being pushed on several fronts
toward integration with the United States. There is a fear that
our Canadian airlines, such as Air Canada and Canadian, would be
swallowed up and integrated into an American interest in the
future.
We are here to protect our sovereign rights and to make our
rules, regulations and passenger bill of rights. We must protect
our needs and our industries and make them competitive. One way
of doing it is by bringing this forward into the House and by
regulating and modernizing our laws.
Unfortunately, the bill before us originated in the Senate and
it might be a little shortsighted in terms of not expounding on a
bill of rights. If there are opportunities for the government
and the minister to possibly amend this bill, it should be done
in the near future. Maybe in this parliament we will see that
take place here in Canada.
A passenger bill of rights and electronic forms of transactions
for passengers, which will eliminate the use of cutting down
trees for paper, will protect our aviation industry and the
rights of passengers.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker, I
do not wish to take up an extraordinary amount of the House's
time, but I would like to speak on behalf of our transportation
critic for Cumberland—Colchester.
I would like to take a moment to express our support for Bill
S-23. The bill not only receives our support but the support of
the Air Transport Association of Canada, a body representing the
major airlines and many cargo operators as well. The industry
regards this legislation as long overdue and essential for the
modernization and commercial viability of Canadian commercial
aviation.
I would be remiss if I did not respond briefly to the member
from the Reform Party who suggested that because the bill is an
S-bill that came from the Senate that perhaps it does not provide
a good service for Canadians. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Not everybody has a lock on all the ideas. The Reform
members should certainly recognize that because, quite frankly, I
do not believe they have a lock on any good ideas.
The Senate, in its wisdom, decided to bring forward a piece of
legislation that is needed and necessary in the industry. The
bill amends the Carriage by Air Act by implementing two
international agreements respecting air flights, the Montreal
Protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara Supplementary Convention.
These multilateral agreements modernize the rules regarding
airline liability for passengers and cargo, and also simplify
documentation for the international carriage of that cargo. They
were originally established under the Warsaw Convention of 1929
and its amendment, the Hague Protocol of 1955.
The Montreal Protocol No. 4 deals exclusively with cargo. It
provides that a carrier is liable for damages to cargo to the
limits of the liability, but only after those damages have been
estimated. As a result, the carrier cannot escape liability by
taking all necessary precautions and cannot be assessed damages
beyond the maximum limit, even in the event of gross negligence.
Another important feature of Protocol No. 4 is that it changes
airline liability for damage to cargo on board an aircraft by
removing the requirement that a plaintiff prove that the airline
was at fault. Together, these changes will reduce the litigation
and contribution to controlling costs associated with insurance
and cargo rates.
The Montreal Protocol No. 4 came into effect in the United
States in March of this year and thus puts U.S. carriers at a
competitive advantage over Canadian carriers.
The Guadalajara Convention clarifies the relationship between
passengers and shippers on the one hand and air carriers on the
other. It is also widely in force and clarifies the application
of the Warsaw Convention to situations where the contract of
carriage was made by a carrier that did not actually perform some
or all of the carriage by air.
Bill S-23 has received unanimous support. I say that again.
Bill S-23 has received unanimous support. All potentially
affected parties, including carriers and their associations, the
Air Transport Association of Canada, manufacturers, shippers,
tour operators, consumers and the legal profession were
consulted.
1255
As I have stated, the legislation is long overdue. All aspects
of the bill are already in practice worldwide. Canadian carriers
and airlines realize it is good business, so does the PC Party.
We support the bill and urge quick passage.
Because it came from the Senate does not mean that it is an
inferior piece of legislation. What it means is that it was
brought forward by a group of individuals who saw a need, reacted
to that need and brought it forward to this House.
The Reform Party will never accept that. It never has, it never
will and it never can accept that principle. Quite frankly, it
is very frustrating for not only myself but most Canadians.
We will support the bill regardless of the letter on it because
it is the right thing to do.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved the second reading of, and
concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-49, an
act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect
of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak once again in this
place to Bill C-49, the First Nations Land Management Act.
I would like to inform my colleagues that I will not be
exercising the full time allocation to speak to this. I thank
the members across the way for agreeing to move quickly so that
we can proceed with the bill. I also have a colleague from the
Bloc who wishes to speak to this after I have concluded.
I want to say that we thank the members in the other place, the
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in the Senate, for their
very constructive work on the bill. We met with them and made
representations to them and they to us. We have understood one
another and clearly worked out what I think are some of the more
contentious elements of the bill.
I am pleased to state that I believe when the bill comes forward
hopefully next week that we will again have unanimous support in
the House.
I would ask my Reform Party colleagues to join with all of us in
the House of Commons to once again support this very important
legislation, which will move along in those 14 first nations in
respect to areas of land management. It will deal with the very
important topic of private sector investment so that they too can
participate in the 21st century. It will ameliorate the poverty
and the concerns that are expressed here every day in the House
by the opposition, particularly the Reform Party, raising those
even again this morning on those questions. This will deal with
those matters in a very capable way and will act as a precise
instrument to move those first nations to places where we all
want them to be, which is to participate in Canada and become
full members in that process.
With that, I will thank my colleagues for their help here this
morning. I look forward to their help again next week when the
bill comes back before the House.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise to
speak to Bill C-49 and the amendments that have been passed in
the Senate.
The reason the bill went to the Senate for amendments was that
the Liberal government did not have the courage, or maybe I
should say did not want to admit to the serious flaws in the bill
when they were brought to their attention late last fall and
again early in the spring.
1300
These flaws were not only brought to the attention of the
government by the Reform Party but by many Canadians,
particularly aboriginal Canadians across Canada and especially
those in my home province of British Columbia.
The Senate amendments are a small step in the right direction.
They certainly are an improvement to the bill. We had three
major concerns with Bill C-49 which we presented to the
government in December 1998 and again in the spring 1999. They
had to do with the vast expropriation powers granted under the
legislation; the lack of matrimonial property rights,
particularly for aboriginal women; and the fact that there was no
requirement on the part of aboriginal bands and adjacent
municipalities to consult with one another on areas of mutual
concern and interest when it came to development issues such as
sewer, water and road projects and so on.
The bill came back from the Senate. It addresses in a small way
our concern with respect to its expropriation powers. However,
it does absolutely nothing to address our concerns with respect
to the disposition of matrimonial property in the event of a
marriage breakdown. It does nothing to address the concerns of
adjacent municipalities that wish to be consulted and are quite
willing to provide an obligation to consult them on issues of
joint concern when it comes to land development.
I will talk a bit about private property rights issues, a key
question aboriginal people living on reserves in Canada face
today. Aboriginal people do not enjoy property rights like all
other Canadians when they choose to live on reserve. The reserve
lands are owned collectively. They are not even owned by the
band council, by the band or by the collectivity of the
particular tribe or tribal council. The underlying title is
vested in the crown, which is to say the federal Government of
Canada.
When there are no private property rights there cannot be a
proper disposition in the event of marriage breakdown. There is
not even the ability to provide an inheritance for children and
their children when it comes to the house or property parents
have resided in all their lives.
Speaking to that point for a minute, I had an opportunity to
meet a wonderful lady several months ago. I hope she is watching
today. Her name is Mazie Baker and she comes from the Squamish
reserve. She has been fighting for a long time for the right to
be able to pass along to her children the house in which she has
lived all her life, the house she grew up in, the house she
considers her home but to which she has no title. She does have
a certificate of possession but she does not have title to the
home because there is no such thing as title on reserve. There
are no private property rights.
Mazie is very concerned about Bill C-49. She is representative
of many aboriginal people living on reserve we have talked to. I
spent a couple of hours with her in Vancouver in February this
year. She asked me how the fruits of her labour, the house that
means everything to her and her family, where they had their
Christmas and Thanksgiving dinners together, could be passed on
to her children if there were no property rights.
Then she looked at Bill C-49 and said that it was not taking her
closer to a private property right, that it was taking her
further away.
1305
The bill is concentrating the decision making power of who is to
possess what land and live in what house on reserve in the hands
of chief and council. Band members will be dependent on the good
will and the sense of fairness and justice of the band council.
In many cases band councils will be fair about it but in other
cases they will not. That is human nature. I would not want to
be dependent on the municipality I live in right now to be fair
about the inheritance of the property I own by my children. I
would not want to be dependent on them. I would want something
firm and solid, a property right, but that is not granted on
reserve.
I want to talk about what happens in the event of a marriage
breakdown. Aboriginal women in Canada do not enjoy the same
rights as all other Canadian women. I could provide many
examples. I think I may have spoken about the case of an
aboriginal lady who splits from her husband but it bears
repeating.
In the last election I was campaigning in Prince Rupert, a
significant community in my riding. A relatively young
aboriginal lady came up to me in tears and asked whether I could
help. I asked her what was the problem and said I would see what
I could do. She had three young children all below the age of
10. If my memory serves me right, two of them were below the age
of 5.
Her husband had left her on her own. She could not get a job
because she had to look after her kids. Her husband was not
paying any child support. He was making good money. He was a
fisherman.
I asked why she did not do what what everybody else does, go to
court and get a court order forcing him to pay child support.
That is what we do in Canada. That is how we protect not the
women but the children. That is what it is all about.
She said that she went to court and obtained a court order, but
he moved back on to the reserve where the court order was not
enforceable.
How is that fair to this woman and thousands of other women who
end up in the same situation? How can Canadians sit back and say
this is the best country in the world in which to live when that
kind of inequity exists?
If one spends time talking with aboriginal people and visiting
them on reserve and off reserve, one will find out that most
often when an aboriginal woman marries a man she moves on to his
reserve. Most of these communities are small communities with
small populations, so he is living in a community where he is
either related to or has a very close association with some of
the people on the band council.
They live in a house which is not owned by them but by the band.
They may get a certificate of possession if they are lucky, but
the band decides who will live where. People in the community do
not decide that; the band council decides that.
Let us take the situation of a couple that is married for some
5, 10 or 15 years. For whatever reason marriages breakdown, they
decide to live apart and their marriage is dissolved. In that
situation who will be out on the street?
Most of the time it is the woman because she has no private
property rights. She is not protected by any of the other laws
that protect Canadian women from coast to coast. The chief and
council make the administrative decision about who will retain
possession and custody of the house.
Is that what we in Canada want to see? Is that fair to women
who are already dependent on government because of the
paternalistic system that has been constructed around aboriginal
people over the last 130 years?
1310
Is it fair for the Government of Canada to do that? I would
argue that it is not. I would argue that we have a very serious
moral and possibly even legal obligation. Certainly we have a
moral obligation to make sure that aboriginal women who end up in
that situation are protected.
Bill C-49 does nothing to address that issue. It puts the
decision making power in land management and land use in an even
more concentrated form into the hands of the chief and council.
How will that advance the cause of aboriginal women?
I know all parliamentarians have received pleas for help from
aboriginal women. The Aboriginal Women's Association of British
Columbia and the Aboriginal Women's Association of Canada have
come to us. We were not the ones who raised the issue. These
people came to us when they became aware of Bill C-49. They came
to me and to my colleagues on all sides of the House and asked us
not to compromise their interests but to do something in the bill
to protect them so they have the right not only to protection for
themselves but for their children.
When a marriage breaks down, most often it is the woman who ends
up with the care and custody of the children. We said this to
the government last fall in the debate on Bill C-49. In
committee we asked the government to rethink the bill and to
include some clauses in the legislation that would provide some
guaranteed protection for aboriginal women in the event of
marriage breakdown.
Some kind of property right should be included even if it is not
the fee simple land ownership the rest of us enjoy, something
that moves further in the direction of the private property
rights we all enjoy. The government said no, that it would leave
that up to the chief. It did not want to interfere in what the
chief and council were doing.
We have an obligation. We live in a democracy. The party
across the way and some of the other parties in the House have
lost sight of this fact. I say very seriously that in a
democracy we ought to have a deeper commitment and a deeper
obligation to the rights of individuals over the rights of
collectivities.
That is the crux of what is wrong with the bill. It speaks to
the rights of collectivities. I know our friends in the NDP
would be happy with that because they believe very much in
collectivities. We believe in individual rights. Democracies
are founded on the principle of individual rights. The bill is
not founded on the basic principles of democracy. It talks about
buttressing and strengthening collective rights.
There are collectivities in all democracies and there is nothing
wrong with collectivities. The Reform Party of Canada is a
collectivity of some sort. There is no question that
collectivities are legitimate and have a place in society, but we
must ensure individual rights supersede collective rights.
The government across the way has been in government for most of
the past 30 years but not all of it. Our friends close to the
door were in government for about 9 of those years. However our
friends in the Liberal Party have lost their way.
Back in the latter part of the 19th century liberalism meant
something completely different from what it means in modern day
terms. A liberal in the latter part of the 19th century was a
person who was very much committed to the notion of individual
rights, a person who was very much committed to the equality of
all people in society. They have lost this and the bill reflects
that point very clearly.
I will talk a bit about what happened when the bill went to the
Senate.
The government and some of its backbenchers, actually the member
for Vancouver—Quadra made statements that were printed in the
Vancouver newspapers. He talked about the fact that this bill was
seriously flawed and needed to be fixed. He said that before the
bill went to the Senate. The government did not have the courage
and not just that, I submit it did not want to suffer the
embarrassment of acknowledging in the House that the bill was
flawed. It would put its own political interests ahead of doing
what was right.
1315
What the government did is it made some backroom deal. The
evidence of that is everywhere now. It has spilled out to the
media. Some of the government's own backbenchers said they were
not going to deal with the problems in this bill in the House.
They said they would send it over there and instruct the Senate
to bring in the amendments to fix it. So the government sent the
bill to the Senate as it was unwilling to address the serious
flaws in the bill.
An hon. member: We cannot instruct the Senate.
Mr. Mike Scott: The member says we cannot instruct the
Senate. He knows full well that the Prime Minister is the one
who appoints the senators and the senators are beholden to the
him. He knows full well that the Senate will do the Prime
Minister's bidding virtually every time. That is one of the
problems my colleague from Cypress Hills was alluding to a few
minutes ago.
The government sent the bill to the senate. A backroom deal was
made and the government got the Liberal senators to agree to
propose amendments to it.
The Senate decided to hold committee hearings on the bill. We
found out about this and made sure that the people who had
approached us, the Aboriginal Women's Society of Canada, the
Aboriginal Women's Society of British Columbia, Mazie Baker and
Wendy Lundberg from Vancouver had the knowledge that this would
be in front of the Senate. They came to Ottawa and testified in
front of the Senate. I could not sit in on all the Senate
committee meetings unfortunately because my parliamentary duties
would not allow it, but I sat in on as many as I could. It was
an eye opener to hear what those ladies had to say.
Judging by the looks on some of the faces of the senators, they
were absolutely astounded and had no idea how to deal with this.
It was almost as if everybody was afraid to say that the emperor
has no clothes. I can assure everyone that the emperor has no
clothes. We cannot pass this kind of legislation on the one hand
and on the other hand say that we are concerned about the rights
of aboriginal women. The two are incompatible.
These women came from British Columbia and other parts of Canada
and made presentations to the committee. They were very
compelling in the arguments they advanced and in the stories they
told in their own languages and in their own words. They were
plain spoken, direct and no nonsense. They did not use six and
seven syllable legalese terms. They talked about how it affected
them, their families and their children. The senators sat and
listened.
I talked to some of the senators. I did have personal contact
with some of the senators on this. Many of them felt at a loss
as to what they could do. I think the Liberal senators, who are
a majority in the other place right now, were instructed by the
minister and her department as to what they could or could not do
in terms of amendments. Judging by the amendments we see today,
I think the minister gave them a very short leash.
There are some changes with respect to expropriation but they
are not sufficient by half. There is nothing with respect to
marriage breakdown and marital property. There is nothing with
respect to inheritance and nothing with respect to any kind of
requirement for adjacent municipalities and aboriginal
communities to have some kind of consultation when it comes to
property development.
I want to talk for a minute about what happens when government
passes this kind of legislation without wanting to think about
what the ramifications are. Some of its members are very
intelligent people. They do not act like it a lot of the time
but I know them and they are very capable people.
I submit that at times they do not want to look into the future,
they do not want to admit what the net effect of these policies
are going to be.
1320
Let us look at what happens when government deals in this kind
of legislation without that kind of consideration.
Back in 1965 the Government of Canada, the department of Indian
affairs, encouraged the Musqueam band to get into the land
development business. The Musqueam band owned a piece of
property located in Vancouver. There was nothing on it. I am
sure this is how it happened. The Department of Indian Affairs
told the band that since it did not need this property it should
subdivide it and lease it out.
The band, the department and a private enterprise developer in
Vancouver entered into a deal. The Department of Indian Affairs
signed on behalf of the band. It signed on behalf of the
Government of Canada actually because the property is still in
the name of the crown. The Musqueam leaseholders came into
being. That was in 1965.
When the master lease was signed in 1965, 74 leasehold
properties were created. The department of Indian affairs signed
the master lease and all of the subleases. The master lease
governs the entire 74 properties but each individual property is
considered a sublease.
Once the department of Indian affairs had signed the master
lease people living in Vancouver started to buy the leases. At
the time it cost $18,000 to buy a lease and people had an
obligation to pay so many dollars a year. The lease price for
this land was negotiated in 1965 at about $350 a year but on top
of that property taxes had to be paid. It was a 99 year lease
with the initial term being 30 years. It was up for renegotiation
in 1995.
The people living in these houses believed they had a 99 year
lease with a 30 year term which would be renegotiated in 1995.
They believed they were dealing with the department of Indian
affairs, the Government of Canada. They thought they could not
go wrong. Surely the Government of Canada would never do anything
to compromise good taxpaying Canadians, some of whom were
veterans of World War II. The Government of Canada would never do
anything to compromise their interests.
In 1980 the federal government, the minister of Indian affairs
signed a deal without giving any notice, without any consultation
or discussion with the leaseholders and transferred the federal
government's authority for the leases over to the band. Nobody
was aware of this except the band. No disclosure was made at
all.
Through the 1980s and into the early 1990s people continued to
buy and sell houses which everyone understood were on leased
land. Nobody ever bothered to tell the leaseholders that this
huge change in administrative authority had taken place. It was
done under section 53 of the Indian Act which the minister of
Indian affairs at the time was empowered to do, but there was no
disclosure.
In 1991 the federal government signed a further deal with the
Musqueam band allowing it to enter into direct taxation for
property taxes on these leases. Until that time there was a deal
between the federal government, the band and the municipality of
Vancouver wherein the municipality of Vancouver would provide the
services and collect the taxes.
In 1991 the band became the property tax collector. It passed
on some of the money to the city of Vancouver because the city of
Vancouver had to be paid for the services it was delivering. The
residents had no knowledge that this was going to happen. There
was no consultation. It was just done.
It was done without their knowledge as a fait accompli.
1325
After it was a fait accompli residents became aware of it very
quickly. Their property taxes skyrocketed. The band since that
time has been collecting property taxes. It will argue that it
is not collecting school taxes, but I would argue it is
collecting much higher levels of taxes now than what was
collected when the city of Vancouver was the property tax
assessor and collector.
The band is not providing school services to those residents. It
is not turning over any of the tax revenues it is collecting to
the Government of British Columbia in aid of providing school
services for the children of the leaseholders who live on that
reserve. In some cases it has almost as much as tripled the
property taxes these people pay.
In the municipality in which I live, and all municipalities are
the same, property taxes are not there as some kind of cash cow
for the municipality to do whatever it wants. Taxes are tied to
the services the municipality delivers. Municipalities by law
are not allowed to run either a deficit or a surplus. They
collect only as much taxes as are required for them to operate
the municipality on an annualized basis. I would submit that
because the people who pay the property taxes in municipalities
get to elect their municipal councillors, these people are also
very accountable for how those tax dollars are spent.
We have a completely different situation in Musqueam. There are
74 people who are paying property taxes to the Musqueam band
council but they are not allowed to vote for any of the band
councillors. They are not allowed to run for office. In fact,
they are not legally entitled to even show up at the council
meetings. Now I ask, is that a very wise decision on the part of
government?
This is why I am very concerned about this bill. The government
makes decisions and it does not consider the long term impact of
those decisions. On the Musqueam reserve, because of this
taxation policy, there is the absolutely unbearable prospect of
taxation without representation. The American break from Great
Britain happened over taxation without representation. That is
how important it is to people.
Do we in Canada think we are so clever and so intelligent that
we can reinvent these failed policies and somehow make them work?
I do not understand the thinking behind this. There are far too
many people involved in the policy making decisions in this
country, particularly in the bureaucracy around here, who are
clever, well educated and totally impractical and who totally
blind themselves to history.
I would submit that the Musqueam leaseholders story in the
chronicles of modern Canadian history is an absolute nightmare.
It is absolutely beyond my ability to comprehend. I have gone
there and met with the leaseholders. I know what kind of pain
and suffering these people have been through and are still going
through.
A fellow the other day sent me the lease bill he had just
received from the Musqueam band. His lease bill was $74,000 for
the property that his house is on. There was a tiny little
polite note at the bottom to please pay it within 30 days. Is
that not interesting? I wonder how the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development would like it if we sent her a
bill like that. I wonder how anybody else in the House would
feel if they received a bill like that.
We have to be so politically correct we are not even supposed to
discuss these issues in the House of Commons. We are not even
supposed to raise these issues.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member.
[Translation]
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business according to the
order indicated in today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1330
[English]
NATURAL GAS
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions,
to address environment concerns and high energy costs.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am truly proud to rise to speak to my
first private member's bill of the 36th Parliament on behalf of
Canadians in the riding of Churchill River, Saskatchewan, and all
Canadians.
The initiative of Motion No. 292, which was deemed votable, will
be a benefit which all Canadians will be able to enjoy, as well
as future generations.
Motion No. 292 reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide
initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions, to
address environment concerns and high energy costs.
Canada is the third largest producer of natural gas. Without a
doubt, continuing developments and discoveries such as the
Northwest Territories and Sable Island fields will ensure that a
fair share of our natural gas resources will be distributed in
the country, not only in royalties or opportunities but the
distribution of natural gas itself.
Natural gas presently is distributed to more than four million
customers in six provinces. Natural gas provides 26% of Canada's
energy needs and this number is increasing each year.
In addition, Canada's natural gas exports are experiencing
exponential growth. When we have natural gas exports it means we
have surplus supply. In terms of trade we must take care of our
own families first before we share with the rest of the world.
That is the whole context of sharing with unserviced areas of
this country.
We share our natural gas with major cities in the south, but
there are entire regions of this country that do not have natural
gas service which are being disadvantaged because of lost
economic development opportunities. Natural gas provides an
opportunity for economic development in unserviced regions. When
major industries and manufacturing companies, pulp mills,
sawmills, grocery stores, schools, hospitals and university
campuses calculate the energy costs of certain communities and
certain neighbourhoods, energy is the major portion of their high
cost of maintaining these facilities. If natural gas were to be
provided equally to certain neighbourhoods, certain communities
and certain regions, this disadvantage would not be there. Not
having this service is detrimental to job creation, community
growth and community maintenance.
I believe that we as parliamentarians can contribute to the
progress of this country into the next millennium. We have the
opportunity to ensure that all regions can afford the economic
and environmental benefits that natural gas presents. There are
several options to look at. The biggest option for us to
consider when natural gas is being distributed is that it is one
of the cheapest and most economically sound of all the fossil
fuels.
The fossil fuel industry in Canada has been a growing and
vibrant industry. However, in recent years greenhouse gas
emissions and the Kyoto protocol have challenged what we can do
in the future. The first thing we can do is consider the
cleanest of the fossil fuels, which is natural gas. This should
be shared with all our communities so that we make a conscious
effort to use heat and energy without polluting in the extreme
our environment and our children's health.
At Kyoto I had an opportunity to look at the future development
of the Kyoto protocol and its implications. One of the issues
that I would like to raise is the domestic greenhouse emission
credits that should be considered. When Europe considered the
Kyoto negotiations it considered itself a bubble, so that certain
regions of economic and industrial development would not suffer
in terms of their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Canada has to look at itself as a bubble as well. There are
regions that are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, on coal-fired
electrical generation and on the coal industry. Greenhouse gas
is another consideration. We could equalize these industries.
We could normalize our total output and meet our commitments.
1335
The scary side of emission credits is that if we continue to
increase our greenhouse gases we will be paying hard cash to
other countries when they diminish their greenhouse gases in the
future. This credit trading will be a major issue. I would
rather see that hard earned Canadian cash invested in our own
communities.
Any initiative to increase a cleaner carbon source is of course
environmentally sound. As part of environment week, I am very
honoured to raise Motion No. 292. There should be a conscious
effort by parliamentarians to rally behind this motion and to
challenge the federal government to undertake initiatives to
share our natural resources.
Access to cleaner fuels is an economic advantage, but it is also
a major win. The Kyoto credits would be another win. In terms
of air pollution there is another consideration which we cannot
overlook and that is health care. There are health care costs
such as asthma and other illnesses caused by air pollution in our
communities and neighbourhoods, especially in major urban
centres. If there is any way we could reduce air pollution it
would be a major win for the health care of the country.
In terms of high cost, there are far northern communities which
do not have natural gas. There are major subsections of our
communities, even here in Ottawa, which do not have natural gas,
especially in older sections of town. Maybe the older sections
of Montreal, Halifax, Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary
have been overlooked, but some of them have been served for many
years and it is taken for granted.
I ask that parliamentarians consider all Canadians in an equal
light and share our natural gas. Families could realize savings
against the high cost of living, not only those living in remote
areas but those living in the high cost regions of the country.
Savings would be made on the maintenance of their homes. Canada
has a northern climate where 40 below is a natural phenomenon in
January and after Christmas when people are huddled around.
Natural gas would certainly be an advantage.
Looking into the future we see the development of fuel cells and
the whole technology of solar and wind energy. That might take a
decade. It might take a few decades to bring forward, but
natural gas will always be accessible to all of our communities.
Natural gas is being used by many taxi companies. Many
communities have had opportunities to look at other sources of
energy for transportation. If it is distributed equally
throughout the country, it would mean that vehicles adapted for
this type of fuel could be used by Canadians to travel more
widely. Travel would be more accessible.
Motion No. 292 is a votable motion. I would humbly ask for
the support of all parties and all members of the House. I
believe it is a win-win situation. It is a win situation for the
natural gas resources industry. We have distribution companies
all over the provinces and regions. It is also a win situation
for the health and educational industries. We have institutions
that have high costs. Imagine the cost of heating and cooling
the House of Commons.
These institutions, which we take for granted, might be
generations old. They need to be retrofitted. It is a win-win
situation for the trades industry. Tradespeople will retrofit
the heating units of many facilities. It is a job intensive
situation.
It will take people off the unemployment lists. There could be
seasonal work for young people. If this work could not be done
in the winter, it would certainly have to be done in the summer
when heating systems are shut off. Students could gain
employment and maybe valuable apprenticeship positions as a
result of this.
1340
Industries would consider our small communities that do not have
the distribution. Industries certainly look at high energy costs
and natural gas has proven itself as an energy efficient and a
cost effective way to provide energy to any facility, including
manufacturing facilities. For example, the lumber industry uses
kilns for drying lumber. We have kilns in the arts industry. We
have heating systems in many car plants and hospitals. To make
Canada a more self-sufficient country, let us consider sharing
the abundant natural resource of natural gas.
There could be a major development in relation to the Sable
Island project. Big pipelines will be installed along highways,
but they will not be shared laterally. Lateral pipes will not be
available to the neighbourhoods which this major pipeline will
run through.
I challenge this government to look at initiatives. It might be
a new infrastructure initiative. It might be a millennium
initiative. It might be a greenhouse gas initiative. Let us not
overlook natural gas.
While we are ripping up our highways and redoing the potholes in
our back roads, highways, streets and sidewalks, while we are
fixing up the infrastructure of this country, let us lay down
natural gas pipelines and share our resources with all the people
of this country. It is a win-win situation which we should not
miss. Our children will have to do it if we do not. We should
consider our infrastructure in that vision.
I ask for a national vision. I know there are provincial
interests and industry interests, but I think the federal
government could tie up all of the initiatives. The Department
of Finance, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department
of the Environment and the Department of Industry all deal with
major resources. All of these departments may have separate
initiatives, but let us share a national vision. Let us make
sure that all Canadians are treated equally and that we share our
natural resources equally.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to private member's Motion No. 292. I
support the principle which the member speaks of, but the
initiative is perhaps somewhat misplaced in that this motion
proposes that the federal government provide the delivery of
natural gas to rural regions in Canada. While I can accept that
the federal government would and should make a contribution to
the process, the provision of public utilities falls under the
responsibility of provincial and municipal governments. As well,
there are existing federal programs which might apply to this
kind of program. Accordingly, I do not support this motion for
the simple reason that it brings federal interference into an
issue of provincial jurisdiction.
Many provinces already have in place programs to address the
intention of this bill, to deliver natural gas to unserviced
regions. I will quickly go over an example of such a program in
my province of Alberta. Alberta has had just such a program and
has been helping Albertans since 1973.
The natural gas distribution system serving rural Albertans
began in the early 1960s with small systems built and operated by
local groups and co-operatives. Interest in natural gas services
grew throughout the decade. In the early 1970s the provincial
government took action to expand the provision for natural gas to
rural Albertans at a reasonable cost. This action was taken in
accord with the general conclusion that it was in the public
interest to improve the economic viability of smaller centres and
that the family farm should be preserved.
1345
It was felt that all Albertans, including those in rural
Alberta, deserved a fair share of the benefits enjoyed by the
people of that province from the ownership of natural resources
and the revenue that flows from the development of those natural
resources.
Because of the higher cost of serving scattered rural areas, it
was decided that a provincial funding program to support
construction of rural gas distribution systems was needed. To
support this initiative the rural gas act was enacted in 1973 and
soon after the rural gas program administered by the rural
utilities branch of Alberta Energy was established.
This program brought many benefits to program users. The
primary benefits included affordable installation costs where
adequate gas sources are available, lower costs and reliability
of fuel supply. Obviously all these benefits are crucially
important to those living in rural areas.
Under this program approximately 4,000 new rural gas services
are installed each year. Eligible services include uses such as
homes, outbuildings, irrigation, grain drying, poultry and hog
barns, greenhouses and more. Until this program was established
individuals simply could not afford to access gas distribution in
rural areas past already established transmission lines.
However, this program attempts to reduce consumer costs to a
reasonable level by establishing a grant program under which
participating utilities could receive grants based on a cost
sharing formula from the provincial government. Under this
arrangement consumers in the same class pay the same contract
amount in any year, even though the costs to provide the service
may vary widely.
Funding for the new gas installation is based on a formula that
calculates the pooled costs per service within each franchise
area. For example, for a rural installation service that has a
capital cost of up to $2,600, the capital cost is shared 100%
between the distributor and the customer. However, for a rural
installation that costs above $2,600 and up to $15,000, the
distributor or consumer covers 25% of the cost and 75% is covered
by the provincial grant. With this formula a typical farm
installation costing $5,000 would receive a grant of $1,800.
Obviously this makes the convenience of natural gas much more
affordable to those living in rural areas.
There are a number of factors that contribute to the success of
the rural gas program. First, with the expansion of natural gas
services into rural areas, a new system of franchising had to be
created to focus on the special requirements of rural areas. This
concept of franchise areas was applied in the rural gas act to
ensure a customer base for future viability of the new
distributors.
Other criteria included consideration of major obstacles to
pipeline construction such as rivers or highways. Under an
assigned franchise a distributor has the right and responsibility
to offer service where economically feasible to all potential
rural and urban residential customers who did not have natural
gas service prior to 1973.
Second is the formation of member owned co-operatives in the
less populated areas of the province. The provincial government
recognized the dedication, initiative and independent spirit of
rural dwellers and felt the program had a better chance of
success in these areas if the local community controlled its own
destiny. Where have we heard that statement before?
Third is the provision of grant funding on a cost shared basis
to make rural gas systems economically viable. Through
contributions by the customer, government and co-ops, the
resulting gas rates could be competitive with urban rates.
Finally, Gas Alberta was established to negotiate price and
arrange for gas supplies for the co-ops. Through a postage stamp
wholesale rate throughout the province, all co-ops were on an
equal footing with respect to gas costs.
The rural gas program has been very successful in Alberta. To
March 31, 1999, services have been provided or systems upgraded
for over 171,600 rural, urban, irrigation, grain dryer services
by over 90 distributors throughout a network of pipelines
totalling 116,521 kilometres.
The point I make by referring to the Alberta example is that
obviously programs such as those proposed by the motion already
function and are doing well under provincial jurisdiction. As
well, keeping in mind it is the province that collects royalties
from the export of natural gas and oil, the provinces already
have a built in funding system without asking Canadian taxpayers
to unnecessarily subsidize a rural gas installation program.
1350
The Reform Party supports the principle that the provinces
should have exclusive jurisdiction over natural resources and
that citizens of the provinces should all benefit from the
development of those resources.
Alberta is not the only province that receives substantial
royalty income from the sale of natural gas. The province of
Saskatchewan received $44.5 million last year in natural gas
revenue. It would seem reasonable to me that all the residents
of Saskatchewan, even those in remote northern communities,
should benefit from the development of natural gas resources as
much as any other province.
However, the prime responsibility for making that happen lies
first with the local community and second with the province.
Third, there is room for federal participation through existing
programs such as the PFRA or prairie farm rehabilitation program.
For all these reasons I will not support the motion and I would
encourage other members of the House to do the same.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon.
member for Churchill River is proposing that the federal
government should subsidize natural gas expansion projects for
remote communities as a way of reducing the cost of living of
residents and achieving environmental benefits.
I thank the hon. member for his interest in this very valuable
natural resource. Natural gas is a cleaner burning, efficient,
cost effective fuel which is why it has become one of Canada's
number one natural resources. Canada also has an abundant supply
with an estimated available total of between 504 and 617 trillion
cubic feet.
It is the stated objective of the Minister of Natural Resources
to make Canada into the world's smartest natural resources
steward, developer, user and exporter. To become the world's
smartest resource developer means in part adopting a considered,
practical market oriented approach that balances the needs of all
interests. It is this type of approach that is behind the
natural gas success story. It is a thriving competitive industry
that has followed a course of continuous and sustainable growth.
To understand the present, it is important to look at the past
to see how the natural gas industry developed in Canada. Members
in the House may remember the energy crisis of the 1970s and the
concern for Canadian energy security that followed. In response,
a group of off oil programs were designed to expand the use of
domestic natural gas in Canada. These programs were phased out
in the early 1980s when world crude oil markets stabilized and
crude oil prices fell.
In the mid-1980s the crude oil and natural gas markets in Canada
were deregulated. For the Canadian natural gas industry this
resulted in lower natural gas prices and a surge in natural gas
activity. Since then natural gas production, along with
associated transmission and distribution infrastructure. has
increased at a healthy and in some cases dramatic pace.
Expansions to Canada's natural gas infrastructure whether of a
local or international dimension have been governed by a
combination of economic opportunity, economic viability and
technology development.
It is the government's current energy policy not to fund energy
megaprojects but to leave it to the competitive market to decide
what goes forward and what does not. This is one reason we have
difficulty in supporting the hon. member's motion. This policy
has not resulted in a stalled natural gas industry, far from it.
The result has been some very exciting private sector driven
developments, including the expansion of natural gas distribution
and production into new previously unserviced regions.
Let us consider the Sable offshore energy project. In late 1999
natural gas resources from off the coast of Nova Scotia will be
coming ashore. The onshore maritimes and northeast pipeline will
make natural gas available in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for
the first time. Natural gas was first discovered at Sable Island
in the 1960s, but it had never been economically viable for
production until now, thanks to new drilling technology and new
alliances between oil companies and engineering and construction
contractors.
1355
I must emphasize that the building of laterals within a province
such as the hon. member is suggesting falls under the
jurisdiction of the provinces as my hon. friend from Athabasca
said. In the member for Churchill River's case it is the
province of Saskatchewan.
In these cases expanding the distribution system is the
responsibility of provincially regulated local distribution
utilities. Provincial regulators set financial tests for new
projects. Where a project cannot generate enough revenue to
justify its capital cost, the local distribution company will ask
potential gas consumers to make financial contributions, as my
friend from Athabasca so ably pointed out. They are known as
grants in aid of construction to bring the project to the point
of economic viability.
If converting to natural gas offers an opportunity for reduced
fuel bills, consumers can use a portion of their savings to
finance the cost of conversion. From 1995 to 1997 there was an
average of 125,000 new residential hookups per year. Of these
customer additions, 70,000 were new constructions and 55,000 were
conversions from other energy sources. What this means is that
48% of Canadian homes are now gas heated on a normal commercial
market driven supply system.
From an energy policy point of view it would not be sensible to
depart from the principle of the market must decide where
laterals are built. However, for other non-energy policy reasons
there may be programs in other departments which seek to achieve
economic development or environmental or other goals through the
subsidization of laterals. I invite hon. member to investigate
those.
In the hon. member's home province of Saskatchewan, for example,
the western economic partnership agreement between federal and
provincial governments allowed for such funding. Indeed the
federal government approached the provincial NDP government to
explore whether a portion of the economic partnership agreement
funding could be reserved to build laterals in remote areas. The
provincial NDP government said no, not the federal government.
Another example of federal funding that was available to help
with laterals was the Canada infrastructure works program which
the government introduced some five years ago. In the province
of Manitoba natural gas laterals to rural communities were
identified as a priority and a portion of Manitoba's
infrastructure funding was set aside to help build these
laterals, not for energy policy reasons but for local economic
and community development purposes.
Let me assure the House that the Government of Canada is also
very sensitive to the fact that many remote rural areas face high
cost energy and general environmental sensitivity. That is why
the department has specifically designed alternative and
renewable energy programs, as well as energy efficiency in
conservation programs, that will help these communities meet
their energy needs, lower their cost of living and receive
environmental benefits.
Pursuing these initiatives is the most workable, economically
viable and environmentally friendly way of meeting the needs of
rural and remote areas. Adapting these new technologies could
bring these communities savings of $200 million per year, not to
mention significant environmental benefits.
For example, some communities are totally dependent upon fuel
oil that is shipped at great expense. There are new technology
programs in the energy section of NRCan that focus on developing
alternative and renewable sources of supply, including
bio-energy, small hydro, wind, photovoltaics and active solar
energy.
In addition to these technology initiatives the department has
developed tools to help communities analyse what kind of supply
source would be reasonable and what they would need to pursue it.
Another initiative is the development of community energy
systems to improve energy efficiency and allow the better use of
waste heat. Under this approach energy use is reduced by
integrating conventional energy supply, renewable energy sources,
the energy demands of the building, transportation and industrial
sectors, and the use of waste heat.
The department is also working toward increasing the energy
efficiency of buildings. Consider the following example: This
year's federal budget allocated $1.6 million over three years for
Natural Resources Canada to establish a program with the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities to identify opportunities
for energy efficiency retrofits in municipal buildings. Under
this initiative, municipalities expect to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 30% to 40% and save $108 million to $175 million.
1400
Initiatives like this are the best options for delivering a
lower cost of living and environmental benefits to rural and
remote communities. They are the wave of the future for rural
and remote areas. I urge the hon. member for Churchill River to
investigate all of them thoroughly.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise today to debate Motion No. 292 put forward by
the member for Churchill River: that the government provide
initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions, to
address environmental concerns and energy costs.
I listened to the other speakers, as well as the member for
Churchill River, and I think he should be congratulated on an
excellent motion. I also listened closely to the government's
answer thinking that much of what the government member said was
true. However, this was before the government signed the Kyoto
protocol which will very much change the way we look at energy
and the way we use energy.
We signed a commitment to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by
the year 2010. We knew, the G-8 countries knew and the
industrialized nations of the world knew when they signed that
commitment that they would not be able to meet that commitment. I
do think the countries signed the commitment in good faith and
that they meant well. However, I am not sure they are willing to
put their money where their mouths are.
The member for Churchill River raises a point that many of us
who represent rural ridings face. We have significant areas in
our ridings that are now serviced by fuel oil, diesel fuel,
electricity, coal-fired electricity and various sources of energy
that are fairly expensive. If we could reduce the cost for our
industries in the ridings we represent, that would certainly
benefit our position as MPs and we would actually be able to
bring something back to our ridings. We would actually be able
to deliver a service.
The member for Churchill River discussed the various energy
plays that are occurring in Canada at this time and the amount of
natural gas which is abundant in this country. I am discussing
fields such as Venture, South Venture and Thebaud off Sable
Island. I am also talking about fields and potential fields in
the Laurentian Channel and the Sub-Laurentian basin, exciting new
discoveries in the high Arctic such as Fort Liard, and a lot of
natural gas exploration in northern Alberta and northern B.C. now
which will be put into the alliance pipeline and sent all the way
to Chicago.
We are becoming major exporters of natural gas to other places
on this continent. The Sable fields will go to the maritimes
northeast pipeline. Much of it will go into New England. I have
seen the plans put forth by the present provincial government in
Nova Scotia but I am not convinced it will service the rest of
the province. I am not convinced that P.E.I. will be serviced at
all. I am not convinced that some of the exciting natural gas
discoveries off Newfoundland are going to put natural gas into
Newfoundland.
Perhaps now that we have entered a new era and have signed a
protocol which is going to force us to use cleaner sources of
energy, it is time for the federal government to look at
assisting rural areas in provinces that are not now serviced by
natural gas to provide service to these areas.
1405
The member for Churchill River should be aware of the flaw that
is within the system on the east coast. Many households in the
rural areas are now heated by fuel oil. The oil delivery people
and the Canadian Oil Heat Association of Nova Scotia have never
been subsidized. They put those oil furnaces in the homes and
the people bought them with their own dollars. There were no
subsidies. We are now talking about putting in natural gas,
which is subsidized, and giving the natural gas distributors an
unfair advantage.
However, that does not mean that we cannot find ways to overcome
that or that we should stop looking at this very good motion put
forward by the hon. member.
There are several other areas that we need to look at, but the
most important one is how we go about delivering the natural gas.
In Nova Scotia in particular, it is absolutely asinine to
discuss natural gas delivery if we do not have a plan to build a
lateral pipeline from the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline which
will allow a large enough pipe to come off the Maritimes and
Northeast Pipeline down to somewhere in Stewiacke and into the
Musquodoboit Valley area. It should be a line that is at least
18 inches in diameter that can then be split and fed into the
urban and metro areas of Dartmouth and Halifax, with another line
that will split off and go down into the Annapolis Valley and
hopefully into the Yarmouth area and then another line off that
which will go down the South Shore.
We have a natural asset in the province of Nova Scotia with our
abandoned rail bed. We could lay a natural gas pipeline along
this rail bed to service all of the communities along the South
Shore area, the riding I represent, and not disturb the road
system or the highway system. It would be very convenient and
very economical to use that existing rail bed, the railroad that
has long since been torn up, to lay a natural gas pipeline. We
could continue to use the same bed for recreational purposes and
other purposes.
The other asset that would certainly service the South Shore
riding would be the fact that we have some heavy industry. We
have a hardwood mill in East Chester, a pulp mill in Liverpool,
and Michelin Tires in Bridgewater. We also have a number of
small manufacturing industries that could be well serviced by
natural gas.
There was one thing that I was not clear on and I am not sure if
the member for Churchill River mentioned it: Can we use natural
gas for refrigeration? Very clearly there are hundreds of fish
plants in the South Shore that could easily convert to natural
gas and be able to use that to generate refrigeration.
The opportunity for major savings and a major benefit for the
majority of the citizens in the South Shore is there, but there
is a problem problem for the existing oil heat people who have
already been servicing the area for domestic heat. I think the
problem can be worked out to the satisfaction of both the
consumers who are looking for a cleaner and more efficient
source, and the consumers who have already invested in oil heat.
In conclusion, I recognize that the member on the government
side said that this was provincial jurisdiction. However, I
think that was true before we had a hole in the ozone layer,
before we had signed the Kyoto protocol, before we became a major
exporter of natural gas, and before much of the world was turning
to natural gas. They cannot get enough of it.
The thing that has not been mentioned is the potential for us to
bring liquefied natural gas out of the high Arctic. Some very
exciting wells were drilled in the high Arctic on some excellent
fields. We have been trying to bring more infrastructure, more
jobs, more economic opportunities and more industry into the high
Arctic. We abandoned the high Arctic years ago when we never
should have.
We left for no good reason. Now it is time that we went back
there and reopened those fields so that we can bring liquefied
natural gas out of the high Arctic by containers and use it in
southern Canada or use it for export. If we are to meet the
Kyoto protocol we have absolutely no choice but to convert to
more natural gas use within the country.
1410
Fortunately British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba
and much of Ontario already have the infrastructure for natural
gas. I am very envious of that and very thankful that they do
because it certainly helps all Canadians. That does not mean we
should not look at some way to service the other areas of Canada
that do not have accessibility to natural gas at this time.
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to address the motion on
natural gas introduced by the hon. member for Churchill River.
It is the government's current energy policy not to fund energy
megaprojects but to leave it to the competitive market to decide
what goes forward and what does not. This is one reason we have
difficulty in supporting the hon. member's motion.
This policy has not resulted in a stalled natural gas industry.
Far from it. The result has been some very exciting private
sector driven developments including the expansion of natural gas
distribution and production into new previously unserviced
regions.
From an energy policy point of view it would not be sensible to
depart from the basic principle that the market must decide where
laterals are built. However, for other non-energy policy reasons
there may be programs in other departments which seek to achieve
economic development or environmental or other goals through the
subsidization of laterals.
I repeat what my hon. friend from Halton said earlier, that the
western economic partnership agreement was a possible avenue for
some federal government support in this area, but the NDP
government in Saskatchewan turned it down.
I understand the hon. member's desire to ensure an
environmentally friendly and secure energy source for his region.
That is what Canada's approach to the complex evolving global
challenge of climate change is all about. We see it as a
challenge that is both environmental and economic.
The Kyoto protocol in December 1997 reaffirmed the conviction
among some 160 nations that the six commonly identified
greenhouse gases are accumulating in the world's atmosphere at
such a rate and to such an extent that they are putting the
world's future climate at risk. For Canada this could mean more
severe and more frequent weather disruptions, more inland floods
in some areas, more droughts in others, rising sea levels and
flooded coastlines, more wind and hail and ice storms, and
greater threats to public safety and economic security.
The vast majority of global scientific opinion suggests that
human conduct is certainly contributing to the problem and making
it worse. The protocol involved a commitment on the part of the
industrialized world to bring down greenhouse gas emissions. This
action is much like an insurance policy against those future
risks, and just like buying insurance one cannot get the coverage
one should have had after the fact.
For Canada, our Kyoto target is to get our emissions down by the
period between 2008 and 2012 to 6% below the level they were at
in 1990. It will not be easy. Canada's northern climate and
vast distances, its increasing population and increasing
reduction, and its resource based and energy intensive economy
all make our commitment much more difficult to meet. If we just
carry on from this point forward with no changes, business as
usual, by the year 2010 Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will
rise to about 25% above our Kyoto target. We obviously have to
slow that trajectory, flatten it out, and then turn it downward
to reach our target within about a decade.
Where we will be when it ends will depend upon how astute we
were at managing our domestic climate change challenges in
relation to the rest of the world. We need to marry strong
environmental performance with a strong economy.
About 85% of human made emissions are related to the way we
produce and consume energy. The more energy efficient we become,
the fewer emissions we generate. The more we achieve in this
regard through greater energy efficiency, the less we will have
to rely on other means to satisfy our Kyoto protocol obligations.
1415
Across our entire national economy, in every sector and in the
individual behaviour of each one of us we must achieve energy
efficiency excellence. From a government policy perspective we
have thus far used a variety of tools to achieve greater energy
efficiency.
For one thing, we have tried to improve our own operations
within the Government of Canada. We are on track to slash our
emissions by more than 20% and to reach that goal by 2005.
Another tool is the provision of accurate information with which
people can make informed decisions about energy use. The
EnerGuide label is a good illustration. A third tool is peer
group challenges like VCR Inc., the voluntary challenge registry
program where industries and businesses pledge to improve their
performances and report their progress in a tangible and public
way.
There are incentives like Natural Resources Canada's commercial
buildings program which is putting up some cash to encourage
developers and builders to incorporate best practices from the
ground up.
Hand in hand with these tools we must achieve a faster rate of
new technology development and timely deployment of new
technology. This is a key underpinning for everything else.
Consider an innovation like the Solarwall developed by Conserval
Engineering, a new solar based energy saving technique for large
building ventilation systems. It requires modestly increased
construction costs one time but it generates significant savings
in ongoing operating costs year after year, a more efficient
ventilation system, fewer greenhouse gas emissions and a growing
market across North America and around the world.
We must build our capacity for efficiency innovation within
government labs, in academic institutions and in the private
sector and we must put that new knowledge to work quickly in the
marketplace. For our part federally, we are moving in that
direction, specifically in each of our last three federal
budgets.
Within Natural Resources Canada about $100 million each year is
normally invested in the search for climate change solutions.
Other federal departments add another $50 million annually. The
1998 federal budget contributed a further $150 million over three
years to our climate change action fund. Altogether the annual
federal financial commitment is now at $200 million.
There is no one single silver bullet solution to the global
climate change challenge. We cannot expect to get everything we
will need from energy efficiency and technology alone. Among
other things, we must take greater advantage of the diversified
mix of energy sources with which we have been blessed, such as
hydro, solar, wind, earth and bioenergy. We need progress on a
range of other issues such as recycling in the metals industry,
municipal landfill management, and biotechnologies that can save
energy and agriculture.
We need to strongly engage the enthusiastic participation of the
average Canadian consumer. Taken together our collective
behaviour can make a big difference. We need to focus on how to
get more and more people to think globally about a profound
problem like climate change and act locally to do something
meaningful about it through their own energy efficiency.
These and a host of other issues are currently being assessed
through our national climate change consultative process. It is
a very transparent and inclusive process involving more than 450
people representing every dimension of Canadian life working
through a series of 16 issue tables. We will start to hear their
detailed advice this summer.
The bottom line of all this is there is no one answer.
As we open the 21st century we must establish Canada as the
world's smartest natural resources steward, developer, user and
exporter, as the most high tech, the most socially responsible
and environmentally friendly, as the most productive and
competitive. With respect to energy in particular we need to be
the very best, the most intelligent, innovative and efficient at
finding, developing, producing, delivering, consuming and
exporting the world's most sophisticated and diversified energy
products, skills, services and science.
I believe that is a worthy Canadian ambition.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am very happy to get involved in this debate. I compliment the
member for Churchill River for raising this issue for two good
reasons. It touches on two things people think about a great
deal: one, saving operating costs for homeowners, businesses or
property owners; and two, saving our environment.
We obviously have to do something about the urgent issue of
greenhouse gas emissions. As much as the Reform Party denies it
is an issue, we know it is an issue.
We know that the hole in the ozone layer is growing. We know that
Canada has an obligation to do something, to do all it can to
bring down harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
1420
I used to work on the oil rigs. I used to work in the oil patch
on oil rigs, on those big triple rigs we see. There is something
I am kind of ashamed of. I was always mystified frankly, but for
the industry's sake I am ashamed of it, that every time we hit
gas everybody would curse “Oh no, more gas”. We would cap off
the well, tear down the rig and move to another hole.
Sometimes that gas had such force, there was so much of it. It
had such force it was actually dangerous to cap it off. It was
very difficult to contain what we had tapped into. There were
these huge massive reserves of natural gas, a precious energy
commodity like that and nobody could have been more disappointed.
The driller would be dejected and the engineer would probably be
fired for putting us into an area where we would hit gas again. I
just wanted to share that story.
That has been the attitude about something the rest of the world
considers absolutely precious and we in this country do not take
full advantage of it. It is our most abundant energy resource,
yet we choose to heat our homes, businesses and factories et
cetera with other more expensive means of energy.
Unbelievably, in much of Atlantic Canada homes are heated with
coal thermal generated electricity, the most wasteful, expensive
and polluting way to generate electricity. Some of these people
have heating bills of $900 a month I am told. I have never lived
there but apparently $800 or $900 a month is not unrealistic.
Imagine a working class family living in a harsh climate and the
best system their government can think of to provide energy to
heat their homes is thermal powered electricity. It is
unbelievable.
It raises the question, should the government be involved in the
distribution of natural gas? Should it ever be involved in it or
should it be left up to the private sector? I would remind
members that one of the most famous debates that ever took place
in this House of Commons was the great pipeline debate in the
late 1950s. It is legendary. I still hear stories about it from
the veteran parliamentarians who relish telling the story about
that great debate.
Fortunately, saner heads prevailed and we did build the
trans-Canada pipeline. We did build a national infrastructure.
Frankly the plan then was how to sell our resources. It was not
so much as how to distribute them in Canada. I am suggesting we
need a whole new national pipeline debate.
Again, I am very proud that the member for Churchill River has
brought this up today. Now we have to talk about something even
more pressing, which is the distribution. How do we as Canadians
benefit from our precious natural resources instead of finding
ways to fire them out of the country?
Another thing that was raised was that with the FTA and
everything else there are more and more opportunities to get our
products on to distribution networks south of the border. I
would caution hon. members that when they read NAFTA and the FTA
carefully, whatever rate of export we have we are bound to. Even
if we run short of that resource in our country and even if we do
not have enough fuel to heat our own homes, we are committed to
maintain the same level of export that we started. It is a tap
we cannot turn off. It is one of the things we have always
criticized about the free trade agreement.
The public should be involved in natural gas. It is a special
thing and we have the luxury of having an abundance of this
resource.
In the province I come from, which has a Tory government,
Manitoba Hydro is publicly owned. It is a crown corporation.
Centra Gas is a private gas distribution company owned by
Westcoast Energy, I believe, or some massive conglomerate out in
western Canada that owns all of the natural gas companies.
Just recently Manitoba Hydro, a publicly owned company, bought
Centra Gas. It saw the sense in having gas distribution publicly
owned because it is too important a thing to leave to the free
market. Apart from that we were being jerked by Centra Gas.
Being a privately owned company it was making bad real estate
investments and then passing on its losses to gas customers.
Homeowners were getting jacked up rate increases because Centra
Gas made some bad flip on the real estate market.
That is an example and it is a Tory government. It sounds like a
socialist idea that maybe we should nationalize the natural gas
industry. I am not saying we should go that far, but in Manitoba
we just did. In 1999 with a Tory government Manitoba saw the
sense in having a government role in the distribution of natural
gas. I wish we could convince the members on the government side
that there is nothing wrong with that idea.
1425
We seem so afraid to start national projects. Somebody even
mentioned that we should not be diving into megaprojects.
In my province we have what we call Duff's ditch. Somebody in
the 1960s had the sense to dig a diversion around our town so the
town would not flood every spring. They called Duff Roblin a
madman for digging Duff's ditch. It was the largest engineering
project ever undertaken in the country at the time and it has
saved our bacon every year thereafter. It was the best couple of
million dollars ever spent. Yes, it was a megaproject and yes
everybody dumps on megaprojects these days but it was a necessary
megaproject.
We are arguing that government get involved in a natural gas
distribution project of this kind. Yes, it could be called a
megaproject but it would be spread out evenly throughout the
whole country. Every rural area that needs that break and an
abundant supply of cheap clean energy would benefit. The
megaproject would not be concentrated in any one area where all
the jobs would be, it would be all over the place.
The hon. member for Churchill River mentioned the unbelievable
job creation opportunities. We could put a generation of kids
back to work in the new burgeoning field of rural gasification,
if we did it in a big way and not in little minor flare-ups where
it was financially profitable.
I really like the idea of one of the Tory members who said we
should use the old rail lines. We are ripping up railroads all
across the prairies. In every small town that used to have a
rail spur they are ripping them up. We could turn something bad
into something positive by using them as the road beds for
natural gas pipelines.
Imagine the difference it would make if we could reduce the
operating costs of our homes and businesses. Every dollar not
spent on energy could be spent elsewhere in the economy. We
would achieve the multiplier effect where every dollar is spent
four times before it finds its natural state of repose. It
usually winds up in the pocket of somebody like Conrad Black but
it does circulate into the economy many, many times first. That
is a benefit. Then there are the jobs.
We are talking about energy retrofitting. We are talking about
job creation through energy conservation. The natural gas
heating system is only one aspect of a comprehensive energy
retrofit.
Let us start with all our publicly owned buildings. There is a
good reason right there to bring a natural gas spur line into a
smaller community where there might be a federal government
building. We could bring down our own operating costs and
provide ourselves an energy cost break.
We did a lot of research on this. When I was the head of the
carpenter's union we did abundant research on the job creation
opportunities in energy retrofitting as opposed to new
construction. There is seven times the person years in
employment per dollar invested in energy retrofit construction as
opposed to new construction. There are the benefits of reducing
operating costs by 30% and 40% and creating seven times the
number of jobs. It is an absolute win-win situation.
Of course that involves the building envelope and the HVAC
system. The heating system is where the natural gas aspect of it
comes in.
One of the things industries look for most when they are looking
for a place to locate is an abundant supply of cheap clean fuel.
The clean is not usually that much of a consideration; cheap
energy is what they really want. There is almost the feeling of
build it and they will come. If we are trying to expand the
economic development in rural and underdeveloped areas, one of
the most important things that can be done is to provide a
constant supply of cheap clean energy.
I want to thank the hon. member again for raising the issue. I
hope we can convince more people in the second and third hours of
debate.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
[English]
It being almost 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until
Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.29 p.m.)