CONTENTS
Friday, March 15, 1996
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 757
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 758
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 758
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 766
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 767
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 767
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 767
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 15, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY-CHURCHILL FALLS HYDRO CONTRACT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.) moved:
That this House condemn the government for its neglect of Labrador, and for
refusing to resolve the injustice of the Churchill Falls hydro contract, thus
perpetuating interprovincial trade barriers and denying the residents of
Labrador the right to enjoy the benefits of their own natural resources.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to lead off the debate on
what I think is an often neglected subject in the House of
Commons. Labrador is a region of the country that is the news for
its natural resources and for its natural beauty. It is something we
appreciate as part of Canada. However, it is an area that is taken for
granted and has been taken advantage of for years.
It is time to address some of those issues in this debate. I hope
that during the discussion we will be able to decide how we can
better appreciate the assets of Labrador and correct some of the
wrongs that have been perpetrated on the region in the past.
Yesterday during question period we discussed how a contract
was awarded in Atlantic Canada but was taken away from a Halifax
firm and awarded to someone in another province. Atlantic
Canadians, and in particular Labradorians, feel that has happened
far too often.
The Churchill Falls contract has been a severe irritant to the
people in Labrador since it was signed 25 or 26 years ago. The
contract forces Labrador and Newfoundland to sell its power to
Quebec, which in turn sells it to the Americans. The price is jacked
up 25-fold and Quebec reaps the benefits of a deal that pays almost
no return to the people of Labrador.
The people of Labrador deserve much better than this. For 25
years they have sent off their electricity, specifically, and in return
have received almost no benefits. They have had almost no
infrastructure spending in their region. They do not have a
passable highway through their region. They do not receive the tax
benefits of a deal that is worth $800 million a year to Quebec.
Every time a premier from Newfoundland says: ``We are going
to renegotiate, we are going to be tough, we are going to force the
federal government to use some of its powers'' nothing happens.
This has been going on for a long time.
Labradorians are going to make another choice in the next
election about who will represent them best in the House of
Commons. They will be looking to see how sincere the federal
government is in addressing what has been, as we all know, an
injustice to the people of Labrador.
Recently we have been hearing more talk from the government
side that it is working on an internal trade agreement that will help
the free flow of goods between provinces, including trade in
electricity. Two years ago it came forward with a trade agreement
that would break down the internal barriers to trade. However, the
energy chapter is missing. It said not to worry, that by July of last
year it would have the energy chapter all intact. That did not
happen.
By September of last year a government spokesman said: ``Now
we will have the contract'' but again it was not signed. In other
words, the federal government does not seem to be able to
understand that an internal trade barrier called Churchill Falls is
holding up the entire internal trade agreement. It seems unwilling
to exercise its powers and influence to strike that trading barrier
down. During the day other speakers will be elaborating on specific
points.
I would like to emphasize that although there is much the federal
government can do to address this wrong, some of the feel good
messages being sent out by the new Quebec premier about how he
wants to get along with people, mend fences and so on, it would be
a good time for him to express some of those feelings of goodwill
in striking a new agreement with Labrador on Churchill Falls.
It is not enough to say we would like to get along. If something is
unjust and we know it is unjust, then it needs to be addressed. I
750
would hope that the new Quebec premier will take the opportunity
during these negotiations on the internal trade agreement to fix
what is an absolute injustice to Labrador and renegotiate that
contract.
In 1969 Newfoundland signed a deal that sold power from
Churchill Falls to Quebec for 65 years. Newfoundland signed this
deal for two reasons. First, there was an energy glut at the time. It
was before the rise of OPEC, the rise in the cost of energy generally
in the world.
Second, Quebec frankly refused to allow Newfoundland to build
transmission lines on its soil in order to transmit that electricity to
the New England states where it was to be sold. In essence
Newfoundland had to sign the deal. There is a contract, there is a
deal and that cannot be denied.
The deal is so bad and so unjust that it is time not only the
Quebec government, but the federal government, waded into this
fray and said this is so wrong and it needs to be addressed.
(1010 )
Labrador has no access by land to the rest of North America
except through Quebec. Quebec at the time had Labrador over a
barrel. Labrador and Newfoundland signed. I wonder where the
federal government was at the time. It was an unjust deal. Trudeau
refused to deal with it. Clark refused to deal with it. Turner did not
deal with it. Mulroney would not deal with it. The current
government seems content to talk about it some more. It is talking
and it urges us to be patient.
The people in Labrador are tired of being patient. When does the
deal expire? It does not expire for another 45 years. For 45 more
years the people in Labrador are expected to sell their power at one
twenty-fifth of the going rate. Twenty years from now there is a
renegotiation clause and the rate will drop again. Labrador will get
even less money. It is so unjust that it has to be remedied.
Quebec has an opportunity to show its good faith and willingness
to negotiate. The premier of Quebec says he wants good relations
as a sovereign nation. It would be a good step for him to renegotiate
a contract that is obviously unjust. At the end of this contract in
2041 Labrador will have transferred almost $50 billion to Quebec
under this contract. That is $800 million to $1 billion a year. I
understand that Quebec signed in good faith at the time but they
need now to address an injustice.
The federal government can do something. It could not break the
contract, of course. However, it could regulate interprovincial
trade. This is one of the powers that should be enhanced as we
reconfigure Confederation. Many things should be transferred to
the provinces. This is what the Reform Party has said time and time
again. We should allow the provinces, Quebec, Labrador and
Newfoundland, all the provinces to benefit from their own natural
resources. We should transfer many of the responsibilities to the
provinces. I think that realignment of powers is a good sign.
One of the things the federal government should do is strengthen
its power to regulate and to strike down interprovincial trade
barriers. Those barriers cost Canadians between $3 billion and $5
billion a year. The first thing we must do is strike down those
barriers if we are to have a free trade agreement that works in North
America and the world.
In July of 1975 the minister of energy, Alastair Gillespie, said in
a speech in Labrador that he favoured the use of the BNA act to
declare hydro lines to be under federal jurisdiction so that they
could be built across provinces.
In the west we do not deal much in the transfer of electrical
energy, although certainly it is transferred without interest.
However oil and gas products are transferred across provinces
without an $800 million a year transfer in western Canada.
In 1976 the member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador,
Bill Rompkey, now a senator, and the person whose seat in
Labrador is now vacant because he has been bumped up to la-la
land in the other place, asked this of the minister of industry.
-is the Minister now optimistic that hydro resources in Labrador can be
developed for the benefit of the Atlantic region, and will he ensure that the full
force of his office, and indeed the Government of Canada is used to bring this
about?
Of course there was no answer from the government of the day.
Mr. Rompkey said he would talk about it and maybe someone
would fix it some day. Here we are 20 years later asking a Liberal
federal government about Mr. Rompkey's comments. Is it willing
to champion the cause of Labrador and make this deal and the
future development of lower Churchill Falls an important issue for
the federal government? It does not seem to be.
(1015)
It is interesting that other parties have made comments about
this. In 1976 John Crosbie, the member for St. John's, said: ``The
federal government has put us in the hands of Quebec''. To that a
parliamentary secretary on the Liberal side responded: ``The
government has a strong preference to explore the co-operative
approach and to consider exercising constitutional leverage only as
a last resort''. In other words, ``we would like to talk about it'', they
said in 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and for the rest of time, ``and
Labrador just has to be patient. You do not get a road. You do not
get to develop your own assets. You do not get to benefit from
future development''.
People now in Labrador are saying: ``Are we even going to
benefit from Voisey Bay? What do we do, just take it on the chin?
You eliminate our fish stocks. You take away our way of living.
751
You take away our future prospects for benefiting from our own
natural resources''. It is a shame.
In 1980 Mr. Trudeau, another well known Liberal, said: ``The
federal government could act if two conditions were met: if
Newfoundland had an actual contract to sell power and if Quebec
charged too much to transfer that power to Newfoundland''. He
said the federal government would act. He said an unreasonable
charge would constitute a trade barrier.
This places Labrador and Newfoundland in a catch-22. How can
they enter into a contract when they cannot get permission to
transfer their power? If they cannot get permission, how can they
get a contract? If they cannot get a contract the feds say they will
not act. There they are hung on the horns of a dilemma saying: ``We
would like to develop something. We would like to put forward a
proposal but we are not allowed to wheel our power through
Quebec and we are not allowed to build transmission lines. What
are we supposed to do?''
The federal government should step in and say it wants to help
Newfoundland and Labrador and it is willing to do it in a couple of
ways. There are a couple of avenues for addressing this problem.
The first thing the government could do is follow up on a
recommendation by a federal government mandated group which
tabled a report in 1988 called ``Energy and Canadians: Into the 21st
Century'' which we are approaching. The section entitled ``Federal
Government Role'' recommends:
The federal government should articulate the conditions under which one
province has a right to access, on a business basis, another province's electricity
corridor or electrical grid for the purpose of transmitting electricity to a market
not adjacent to the first province.
In other words, in 1988 again it said: ``The federal government
should set out the terms and conditions that we could transfer
power from one region or one province through another province
for sale''. The federal government should do that and that has been
recommended by that government mandated group back in 1988,
which again promised to do something about it.
That is the first thing the government should do. It should state
the right of provinces on interprovincial trade, that the right exists.
The government should say it will happen, the right exists to
transfer power on the electricity grid, to wheel power through
another province for sale. The federal government should say that
is part of its job and it will do it. It would not require legislation. It
is a statement of policy. That is what we should at least be
attempting, but the federal government is reluctant for some reason
to even do that.
If that is not enough the federal government could take another
step. Several suggestions were made by the National Energy Board
in a study in 1992. If people in Atlantic Canada could live on
studies they would have a very high standard of living. They have
been studied to death and everyone tells them they all need help.
The Inter-Utility Trade Review in 1992 suggested several
amendments to the National Energy Board Act. One suggestion
was to amend the act to give the NEB the power to open up
Quebec's transmission lines to allow exports of electricity to other
provinces and regions. We are not talking about expropriating any
land from Quebec. We are talking about the opportunity to use the
lines. Other provinces do it; why not through Quebec? The NEB act
could be amended to do that.
The same study talked about the huge benefits of that free trade
in electricity; up to $3 billion a year Canadians would benefit from.
Another NEB suggestion which can be used is that we can ask for a
land corridor to build a new transmission line through another
province. We have the power to do that. Section 58(4) of the
National Energy Board Act says we can designate a corridor
through Quebec.
(1020 )
However, we have to do something because it has been talked
about for 25 or 26 years with promises of more studies, talks and
negotiations. If the people in Labrador and Newfoundland are told
they have to pay 25 or 30 times more for the power to run their own
homes and businesses than the selling price is for export, it is
unacceptable. The people in Labrador deserve the right to develop
and benefit from their own natural resources.
If anything is to come out of the negotiations to settle what role
each level of government has in the future of Canada, surely the
people who should benefit from the natural resources should be in
the province that owns the natural resources. Certainly Quebec
would want and demand, and rightfully so, the control over its
mining regulations and control over its own destiny when it comes
to natural resources. B.C. demands the same thing. Labrador and
Newfoundland demand it and should get no less. It is $800 million
a year which is not going down the tubes but down the lines and the
people are not getting the benefit of it.
The people in Labrador have been taken for granted for too long.
It is time the federal government stood up for them and said it will
doing something, that it will articulate a policy to request that the
internal trade barriers come down, that the people in Newfoundland
benefit, that the people in Labrador get to develop their natural
resources, that Voisey Bay will not be farmed out to Ontario or to
another province, that Newfoundland and Labrador will have the
electricity, power and access to the natural resources so that they
can become a have province and not dependent on others for a
federal transfer payment.
If we were to move that way today and at least say that is to be
the policy of the government and the thing we are striving for, we
could send a message to the people in Atlantic Canada that they are
752
not there only for the votes come whatever, but that they are also
there because they deserve the right, as Reform Party policy states,
to develop their own natural resources.
I hope the House will agree with me today. I anticipate and hope
someone on the Liberal side has been studying this issue and will
say more than we should talk, study and think about it, but that they
are now ready to act.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have a certain amount of respect for the previous
speaker, after working with him in the human rights committee. If I
were a teacher and you were to ask me to assess how rigorous his
arguments have been this morning, however, I would be forced to
give him a big fat zero. Let me explain.
What we are dealing with is a dispute between two self-managed
crown corporations with their own administrative policies. An hon.
member rose in the House this morning-and I think that this
shows a lot of nerve, not to say chutzpa, even a little rudeness on
the part of the Reform Party-to put forward an opposition motion
urging the federal government to intervene in a dispute between
two crown corporations.
You may tell me: ``Yes, but a dispute is possible in relation to
what is most sacred in law, namely a contract''. Anyone who went
to university and took a few law courses knows that a contract is
what binds the parties in a world where order, justice and equity
mean something.
How can the hon. member rise and ask the federal government to
intervene in an area that is none of its business on the basis of a
contract that was signed by what we can assume are two
enlightened, knowledgeable parties and that runs until the year
2031? How can the hon. member show so much disrespect for
Quebec, its premier and its representatives by rising in this House
and telling us that it is unfair?
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to pay a
little more respect and remind him that, in our system, when people
sign their names to a legal document called a contract, they are
bound by it. If this means nothing to Reformers, it just goes to
show that those people will never form the government.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I will be interested to hear some of the
speeches from the hon. member during this debate.
It will come down to the position of the member.
(1025 )
I am not disputing a contract exists. I have never said that. It has
already been to the Supreme Court. The contract exists, but is it
right? Would Quebec feel it is right? I do not think so.
Quebec might say ``there was a contract and they got us over a
barrel. We are taking power at one twenty-fifth of the going rate
and for doing that we are netting $800 million to $1 billion a year.
We have them by the shorts and for the next 35 or 45 years we will
take the boots to them and say they signed so suffer and live with
it''.
I will ask the hon. member during the speeches that follow if it is
just. It is not just. The member knows that. Nobody foresaw the
OPEC situation; nobody saw the escalation in prices and demand.
Because of this we have a deal which for the next 65 years will
keep Labrador and Newfoundland in a have not position; three
generations.
We will allow that area to be depopulated. We will allow the
people there to suffer the consequences because the deal gives us
$1 billion a year. If a deal was signed that would last three
generations to the effect that Quebec will take the shaft for the next
65 years at $1 billion a year, would the member say c'est la vie,
whatever? I hope he would be up saying Quebec is getting ripped
off, that it is not fair and it is not just. If it is not just it needs to be
addressed, which is what I hope the new premier of Quebec will do,
address an injustice, something that is not fair.
On the legality of the contract, by all means I know it is legal. If
by the contract they want to let someone suffer, if they think that is
fair, they can do it. I hope they would not. That is one issue.
The other issue is what is the position of the Quebec government
on a land corridor for transferring other power from the lower
Churchill Falls site? What is its position on the fact that one should
be allowed to wield power through the province of Quebec as is
done in all other provinces? It is now becoming a North American
grid. I hope it would say: ``By all means, if you develop Lower
Churchill in the years to come you can have either access, a land
corridor to transfer that power, or you can have access to our own
existing hydro lines to wield the power as we do through all other
regions and areas in North America''.
There are two issues. Is it just? It is not just. That should be
addressed and corrected. More important, ``We will not let this
continue. We will give you access to our lines and we will give you
access to if not that at least a land corridor, something so you can
benefit from Voisey Bay mineral deposits with the smelter that will
come. We will not make you suffer any longer''. That is what is
will come down to.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the debate on the Churchill Falls contract has been in the
753
House many times. I put the emphasis on timing because this has
been given a thorough contract and has gone all the way to the
Supreme Court of Canada which ruled that it was a binding
contract.
It is the nature of the Reform Party's presentation that concerns
me. Reformers came here saying they would do business
differently, that they would play. The only reason they are here
today is there is a byelection in Labrador. That is the only reason
they would ever bring this forward. They cannot hide behind
something like that.
We hear the praises that they will pave their roads. Those poor
people are being taken down the garden path that you will fix the
Churchill Falls agreement. Again, that is something you cannot
deliver on.
The Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member please address
his remarks through the Chair and remember that from now on.
Mr. Richardson: Do you think-
The Deputy Speaker: This is the second time. The member is a
parliamentary secretary now. I ask the member to obey this rule in
the House and put his remarks through the Chair.
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I should know better.
(1030 )
I wonder if the party opposite understands that this is an issue
which has been given thorough examination by the House and by
the Supreme Court. Even though on the surface it looks like it is a
bad contract-and it is a bad contract in my mind-it is a valid
contract. When a contract is valid the parties have to live with it,
unless one side is prepared to acquiesce and say it thinks it is bad
and it would like to amend it. That is the only way the contract can
be changed.
Does the hon. member know of another method?
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Liberals say we
are not a national party because we do not have any members of
Parliament from Atlantic Canada. We are definitely trying to be a
party from coast to coast. We are running candidates all over the
place. We are running in all the byelections.
When we do our job, when we are out there addressing issues
from coast to coast, the member says that we should not be there. I
do not know if he wants us to ignore it. I do not know what he
expects. However, we are going to be there. We are not going to go
away. We are going to be there in his face in the next election. He
might as well get used to it because that is the political fact.
We have never said that we should pave a road from one end of
the riding to another. We have never said that a paved road is going
to be practical. It is never going to be practical to spend that kind
of money. However, there could be a road that is at least
serviceable, at least a gravel road, something the rest of us take for
granted. They just tell people to take a skidoo and have a nice day.
We could at least promise them not a paved road with shoulders but
a gravel road that could be serviceable so that when the spring
breakup comes they do not have to park their vehicles until July.
I have already mentioned three things the government can do.
First is on intent and policy. The internal trade agreement is being
renegotiated. It has been two years since the energy chapter was
promised and it has not been delivered. During the discussions on
the energy chapter of the internal trade agreement the federal
government could put its foot down and say it is going to break
down the barriers to trade.
Second, the government could instruct the National Energy
Board to amend the act to allow access either through a land
corridor or through a wheeling mechanism to allow electricity to be
sold in other areas.
Finally, we should allow Labrador in the very near future, as it
develops Voisey Bay and the other rich mineral deposits that are
going to pull that province up from a have not province to a have
province, to have access to as much electricity and power as it
needs so it can develop and benefit from its own natural resources
in the years to come.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great enthusiasm that I participate in today's debate.
I take great exception to the hon. member's motion. Historically
the federal government has been a firm supporter of Newfoundland
and Labrador and its economic pursuits. I might remind the House
that it was a Liberal government that negotiated Newfoundland's
entry to Canada.
The Reform Party introduced today's motion because there is a
byelection in Labrador and it hopes to gain votes by pretending to
be a voice for the people of Labrador. The Reform Party took an
interest in Labrador only after its member of Parliament, the hon.
Bill Rompkey, moved to the Senate causing the byelection. There
is no evidence that this issue was important to the Reform Party
before that.
The Reform Party election platform only makes reference to the
revenue from hydroelectric projects in relation to equalization. It
states:
The Reform Party supports the inclusion of economic rents from
hydroelectric activities in the public revenue of all provinces for the purpose of
calculating the size of federal-provincial transfer payments.
In general, the Reform Party supports energy policies based on
market mechanisms with no government involvement.
754
What makes the Reform Party think it will be able to find a
new resolution to this longstanding issue which has been debated
by experts for years and heard by the courts?
The Reform Party, which it says is a strong supporter of free
enterprise, is questioning a contract which has been ruled valid by
the Supreme Court. By raising this issue the Reform Party may be
trying to mask its extreme right wing economic agenda which is
not attractive to the voters of Labrador.
(1035)
The Reform Party plans to turn programs such as employment
insurance and the Canada Pension Plan into personalized savings
accounts or private insurance. That will not find support among the
workers in Labrador. The Reform's opposition to any active role by
governments in economic development and creating new
employment opportunities would indeed hurt the workers of
Labrador.
The Reform Party avoids telling the voters of Labrador about its
opposition to regional development programs. It thinks that
regional development spending in Atlantic Canada has been a
failure and Reform would slash programs and eliminate subsidies.
The hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound sums up what his
party thinks about Atlantic Canadians and regional development by
saying: ``We do not give money to our children after a certain stage
because we know if we keep giving them money they will never
become independent. Sometimes the best things we can do for our
children is say no''.
Another Reform member of Parliament in his determination to
uncover failed attempts at regional development by ACOA
resorted to exaggeration to try to make his point. The member
attacked ACOA for giving $22,323 to a food research centre at the
University of Moncton for a study to develop blueberry jelly for
Mega Bleu, a company in Tracadie, New Brunswick. In fact,
ACOA had only granted $6,000 and would increase the amount
only if the company decided to market its product. Moreover the
money was not for jelly but for blueberry products.
The same Reform MP told Nova Scotians he would run there in
the next election. When asked about this by a newspaper in his
riding in British Columbia, he said: ``I was trying to be nice
because I knew it would be in the Atlantic Canadian papers. I did
not want to say: Who the hell would want to run there?'' That is a
quote from the Halifax Chronicle Herald of September 22, 1995.
I remind all members of the House that this federal government
has a long history of partnership and co-operation with all the
provinces and territories. In no way would this government hinder
responsible resource development in Newfoundland and Labrador.
It has a solid record of working with that province to resolve
outstanding issues and dismantle barricades to resource
development.
For example, I look at how the federal government is working
with Newfoundland and Labrador and other stakeholders to resolve
issues surrounding mineral development in Voisey Bay. For more
than three decades the federal government has been working with
Newfoundland and Labrador on the development of its
hydroelectric resources. I can cite countless examples of federal
support to my province. Recent examples include the Hibernia
development project. We are encouraged with the progress that is
being made in connection with the Terra Nova project.
We should establish at the outset that the rights of the provinces
in the area of natural resources are clearly set out in the 1982
amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867. Those rights are exactly
the same for every province.
The province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the complete
right to enjoy its own natural resources. It further has the right to
control the development of these resources and any benefits from
financial gains by way of royalties and taxes. The same is true
again for all provinces.
All crown lands within Newfoundland are owned by the
province of Newfoundland. These ownership rights give the
province the right to royalties from mineral developments such as
in Voisey Bay, as well as for all oil and gas development within the
province's boundaries. The province also has the right to royalties
from offshore oil and gas development such as Hibernia. The same
would be true for any other similar projects brought on line.
These rights are clearly set out under the legislation and are
further guaranteed under a number of co-operative agreements
between the federal government and the province of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
That ownership of crown lands also gives the province the right
to control the development of forestry resources. That right has
allowed Newfoundland to develop and maintain a sustainable
forest resource.
The ownership of crown lands is only one way in which
Newfoundland has the right to benefit from its natural resources.
There are many other ways which are equally important. The
province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the constitutional
authority to legislate natural resource related works and
undertakings within its boundaries. That constitutional
responsibility also gives the province jurisdiction over the
generation and distribution of electricity.
(1040)
I mentioned the amendment to the Constitution Act which
clarifies the rights of provinces to control their own natural
755
resources. The amendment deals with provincial rights concerning
non-renewable natural resources and it includes forestry resources
and electricity. The amendment states that provinces can make
laws regarding the exploration for natural resources. Again, all
provinces have this right, including Newfoundland.
The provinces may further pass laws covering the development,
conservation and management of non-renewable resources as well
as forestry. Again all provinces have the right to make laws
concerning the generation and production of electricity including
everything from development to conservation to the management
of the sites and facilities. In addition, Newfoundland and all other
provinces have the constitutional right to pass laws regarding the
export of electricity. They can pass legislation covering the
taxation of electrical generating facilities.
Some members may feel these rights should be changed,
expanded or perhaps cutback. My own view is that they represent a
reasonable and fair allocation of authority. These rights are clearly
outlined and equally applied. I cannot see how these rights have in
any way been denied to Newfoundland or any other province.
Newfoundland has constitutional control of its natural resources
as do all other provinces. It is Newfoundland that decided how
those natural resources would be developed, how they would be
conserved and it is Newfoundland that will decide what the best
advantage is.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have just listened to an astounding speech. I cannot believe that a
member from Newfoundland would take the stance that it is okay
to hold her constituents' heads under water while their pockets
were being picked.
The member did not address the motion in any way that I could
understand. Does the hon. member agree that Newfoundlanders
should bear the brunt of this injustice over the next 45 years?
Should her constituents do without the benefit of the resources that
will help them build their economy, give them jobs, put their
children in schools, put money on the table, give them
independence? Who does the member represent? Does she
represent her constituents or does she represent the Liberal Party in
this Parliament?
Mrs. Payne: Mr. Speaker, I do represent my constituents and I
do represent the province of Newfoundland. I am very glad to be
able to do that.
I do not concur with breaking a legitimate agreement that was
put in place and which has gone through the courts and has been
ruled as a legal and binding agreement. Another member of the
third party was asked earlier what he would do to renegotiate the
agreement. He was unable to provide an answer. Does the hon.
member have any suggestions as to how to renegotiate this?
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I was asked the
question, I would be happy to respond. I am going to respond very
briefly because I will have the opportunity to deal with it in detail
in my speech.
When the member says the hon. member for Fraser Valley East
did not offer any suggestions, that is entirely inaccurate. She is
correct when she says that there is a legitimate contract. The
Supreme Court has even ruled on that. What she does not say is that
there are other avenues the federal government could take to
relieve Newfoundland of this burden. The member does not speak
of those but the hon. member for Fraser Valley East certainly did
and I will be referring to them later in my speech.
(1045)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
why is this motion being put forward today? Why waste the time of
this House again when we have already wasted two consecutive
days this week? The motion reads as follows:
That this House condemn the government for its neglect of Labrador, and for
refusing to resolve the injustice of the Churchill Falls Hydro Contract-
And so on. The motion talks about injustice. But as far as I am
concerned, the Reformers do not know the meaning of the word
``injustice''. In a moment, I will give them a brief history of these
contracts which, as my hon. colleague from Newfoundland said
earlier, were entered into in good faith.
Why is this motion before the House today? It is a matter of
political expediency for the Reform Party, and that is cheap. You all
know as well as I do that a number of byelections are coming up.
Had they not been motivated by these byelections, I hope that they
would have chosen a different topic for this opposition day.
You know that the unemployed are worried. In my riding, 5,000
of the 6,500 residents of a small town took to the streets. Not all
demonstrators were from Amqui of course. Some of them came
from outside of town to show support.
We are going to debate this motion here, while jobless people are
in the street. Nice doing. Even at the political level, I am sure that
putting this motion before the House and condemning this
government will not do much to help the people of Labrador. When
I first came to this House, two years or two and a half years ago, it
thought that the Liberal government was extremely centralizing
and was under the impression that the Reform Party was a tad more
understanding toward the provinces.
Today, I realize that the Reformers are worse than the Liberals.
They are in fact asking the government to meddle in the provinces'
affairs on the pretext of resolving an injustice. I should remind the
hon. member from the Reform Party that his party's position is to
756
the effect that the provinces should enter into agreements between
themselves and increase interprovincial trade as much as possible.
Here is what a document, released by that party in January 1996,
says: The Reform Party's vision of a new Confederation is that of a
Canada in full expansion, that of a stronger and more creative
country-how nice-which is as rich, as prosperous and as varied
as our land. Our vision rejects the overcentralization of powers in
the hands of a few, while insisting on the numerous benefits of a
more equitable distribution of powers everywhere in the country
and to the provinces.
Does the hon. member not agree with his party's proposals? Is he
telling us that his party's vision is only for election purposes, and
that if the Reform Party ever becomes the government, which
would be a tragedy, it would be much more centralizing than the
current government? And Heaven knows that the government
opposite is very centralizing. Imagine the worst.
I would like to give a brief historical outline. I could go back to
George V, but I will start in 1963. At that time, Hydro-Quebec said
that it was prepared to buy all the electric power produced at
Churchill Falls, provided it could sell its surplus to Ontario.
(1050)
Negotiations got under way in 1963, but the parties could not
agree on production costs and on a price per kilowatt-hour. Three
years later, in 1966, Hydro-Quebec again offered to buy the energy
produced at Churchill Falls and, this time, accepted to pay the
asking price.
As you can see, the contracts were not entered into lightly. It
took three years of negotiating before finally reaching an
agreement, in 1966. Daniel Johnson senior was somewhat reluctant
to sign the deal, and rightly so, because he feared that the
agreement might be interpreted as a tacit approval of a 1927 Privy
Council decision regarding the border between Quebec and
Newfoundland, following which Labrador became part of
Newfoundland. You are all aware of that dispute.
Finally, on October 30, 1966, Johnson endorsed the
Hydro-Quebec proposal, taking pains to make it clear his
authorization was not of a Newfoundland-Quebec agreement but
rather of one between Hydro-Quebec and the Churchill Falls and
Labrador Co., alias CFLCO.
Six years after negotiations began, on March 12, 1969, the
contract was signed, for the term that has just been referred to: 65
years. It stipulated that Hydro-Quebec would receive 5,225
megawatts from Churchill Falls. Another 300 of the megawatts
produced at the Falls would be reserved for the Newfoundland
companies.
The contract was not a one way negotiation; the two parties held
discussions for years and this was the conclusion they both
reached. In exchange, Hydro-Quebec accepted the bulk of the
financial risks associated with the project, assuming a portion of
the eventual expenditure outlay. It also contributed its technology
in the area of high voltage transmission lines. At that time, this was
what Newfoundland needed. We should note that the Smallwood
government of Newfoundland approved and signed the contract. It
bears the signature of the premier himself.
In 1974, Newfoundland nationalized CFLCO and, in 1984, as
has been said, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision-which
is rather rare-in favour of Quebec, rejected Newfoundland's 1980
request to break the contract between CFLCO and Hydro-Quebec.
In 1988, another Supreme Court decision confirmed the primacy of
the contract signed in 1969.
The Reform Party has a lot of nerve terming this an injustice.
The contract was the result of years of negotiations, and both
parties were satisfied with its terms, as well they should. My hon.
colleague should keep in mind that all of the provinces in this
country sign trade agreements and have met on several occasions
recently to try to lessen internal trade barriers.
Increasingly there are agreements with Ontario, with New
Brunswick, with the Maritimes, that do not involve the federal
government. We want to see more of this. It is far easier for
provinces to reach agreements between themselves than with the
federal government. This is why we are anxious for sovereignty, so
that we can negotiate with Canada as well, for that will lead to
agreements and to our being heeded more than in the past.
(1055)
It is not up to the federal parliament to dictate the behaviour of
these two provinces in an area that comes under provincial
jurisdiction exclusively according to the British North America
Act. The government's intereference in an agreement reached
between two provinces strikes me as totally unacceptable. I hope
the government shares my view.
My colleagues from the Reform Party, who don the garb of
ardent defenders of federalism for a day, should understand that
provincial relations is a matter for the provinces. I am still
surprised that my colleague has tabled this motion in the House.
The members of the Reform Party are always calling for
decentralization and returning matters to the provinces, and yet,
today, they are playing petty, second rate politics with this motion.
They think they will earn votes in Labrador by defending the
people there and claiming an injustice has been done.
In other words, we Quebecers are penalizing the people of
Labrador, because a contract was properly signed. Even the
Supreme Court says this contract is valid and meets the required
standards, and must therefore be adhered to.
757
I would like to ask the Reform Party to withdraw the word
``injustice'', because it is not injustice that Quebec is creating. We
even have agreements with Newfoundland on a number of matters.
We have teachers working in Newfoundland, and relations are
excellent.
Certainly, the going gets a bit rougher when its premier, in his
capacity as representative of all the people of Newfoundland, told
us that the five little conditions we were looking for in the Meech
Lake accord were not acceptable. At that point, on some issues it
really hurt and it hurt a lot.
However, as far as the contract is concerned, it was signed by
two firms, not the government, and it is valid. There is no injustice,
and it takes a lot of nerve to call the contract unjust.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, it being 11 o'clock, we will
now proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
757
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the same time that Atlantic Canada's marine fishery
continues to decline, world aquaculture production is expanding. In
fact, it will account for 25 per cent of the total global fish harvest
by the turn of the century.
I am proud to announce an important initiative in the Atlantic
aquaculture industry. Recently at the Nova Scotia Agriculture
College in Truro I had the pleasure of announcing a Bachelor of
Science degree program in aquaculture. This program was made
possible by more than $1 million in funding from Atlantic Canada
Opportunities.
The aquaculture science degree program will provide our youth
with the opportunity to train in a sector where there is tremendous
potential for economic growth.
The University of British Columbia and now the Nova Scotia
Agriculture College in Truro are the only two degree granting
programs in aquaculture in Canada. With the huge coastline of the
Atlantic provinces, this is a bold step forward in partnership to
educate our youth for future jobs in fish farming.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister displayed amazing ignorance about how jobs are
created when he said a few weeks ago that it is now up to business
to spend money to create jobs.
How would the Prime Minister like it if he had a GIC paying 6
per cent interest but at year's end the bank sent a letter saying sorry,
it created unnecessary jobs with the interest it was supposed to pay
him, so there is no return on the investment? That is exactly what
he is asking business to do, to create unnecessary jobs at the
expense of its investment returns.
Businesses will create jobs when it is in their interests to do so,
when they need more employees. Business has told the government
how that can happen. Stop the deficit financing. Start running
surpluses so that taxes can be reduced.
With more money in the pockets of consumers demand will
increase and companies will need lots more employees. It is not a
hard concept to grasp.
If the Prime Minister truly wants to help create jobs, budget
surpluses and tax reductions are all it takes.
* * *
CESO INTERNATIONAL SERVICES
Mr. Janko
Peric
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise
today to welcome home one of my constituents.
Mr. Donald MacLeod of Cambridge has recently returned home
from working overseas for CESO International Services.
Mr. MacLeod visited a recently privatized cold storage and food
processing company in Russia, where he helped to introduce an
investment evaluation program and installed a profit planning and
project evaluation system to help this company become more
profitable.
CESO volunteer advisers are professional, skilled, generally
retired men and women who share their expertise with needy
businesses and organizations in developing nations.
It is through the efforts of Canadians like Mr. MacLeod that we
establish our national pride and international reputation. I
congratulate him and CESO for their volunteer efforts.
* * *
WHAT CANADA MEANS TO ME
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to
share information about an essay contest I am sponsoring in my
riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington: ``What
Canada Means to me''.
As we began this year one of my constituents, James E.
MacDonald, suggested a contest that would provide an opportunity
for citizens of HFL&A to express their love of Canada and to
contribute in a positive way to Canadian identity and Canadian
unity discussions. I decided to act on Jim's great idea.
758
On Heritage Day constituents were invited to write a short
essay. I invited the people of my riding to express their personal
reflections on Canada and their vision of Canada in the future.
A red ribbon panel of judges will read the essays on the merit of
heartfelt expression and love of Canada. Together we will select
winners in three categories to be announced on Canada Day. The
three winners will join me for lunch in the parliamentary
restaurant, enjoy a tour of the Parliament Buildings and witness
question period from the gallery.
I invite colleagues to stop by our table to congratulate the
winning authors. I also invite members to borrow this idea in their
ridings across Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am proud to tell this House about the success of the economic
development policy implemented by the municipal council of
Bromptonville, in the Quebec riding of Richmond-Wolfe.
A few years ago, the Bromptonville municipal council, headed
by mayor Clément Nault, decided it would try to attract businesses
to the region. Its initiatives took off and continue to be very
profitable. Among other things, it developed an industrial park,
which, with the large demand from these businesses for rental
space, has grown steadily from the outset.
In addition, the Kruger paper company recently decided to build
a $20 million electric power plant at its Bromptonville factory, and
a few days ago announced that it had selected Bromptonville as the
site for a $325 million glazed paper plant.
These excellent pieces of news provide me with an opportunity
to congratulate the members of the Bromptonville municipal
council on the undeniable success of their economic development
initiative.
* * *
[
English]
STRATFORD FESTIVAL
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to talk about the Stratford
Shakespearian Festival.
I note the important contribution that French Canadians have
made to this success story. While the Stratford Festival is known as
North American's foremost English speaking repertory theatre, this
title does not reveal the whole truth.
It is a proud fact that the festival's success has come in large part
from the dedication and skills of the theatre's French Canadian
cast, crew and management.
Richard Monette, Berthold Carrière, Jean Gascon and Denise
Pelletier are just a few of those Canadians with francophone
backgrounds who have given so much of themselves to make the
Stratford Festival what it is today. The festival is just one of many
examples across Canada in which individuals from every culture
and every language work hand in hand for the benefit of all. I
encourage all Canadians to think about this and the many other
examples of unity and tolerance that bless our great nation.
* * *
(1105)
SYDNEY TAR PONDS
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
how much do the Liberals care about the Sydney tar ponds? The
environment minister says: ``We will let the province do the
assessment''. Now we hear the open cesspool of sludge is far worse
than anyone ever thought. Talk about throwing money down the
sewer.
Their infrastructure program was supposed to rebuild sewers,
but they spent it on boccie ball courts. Instead of showing some
leadership, instead of showing the people with the highest cancer
rate in North America how much they care, they back away.
There is a recurrent theme here. When it comes to pouring
money down sewers, the government is number one. No matter
how much perfume it splashes on it, the vile odour of truth remains.
Its own MP, a Cape Bretoner from Sydney and health minister no
less, gave a $6,600 grant to a contributor to his campaign. What
for? To study sewers in Jamaica. Is this a caring government?
* * *
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is an
example of what a group of Canadians in Peterborough riding are
saying about national unity:
``We believe the only effective way to heal this country's wounds
and avoid separation of its peoples is not to rely solely on the
efforts of our politicians, but to do whatever we can as citizens,
working in concert with you and others.
``We believe only a groundswell or grassroots movement of
some kind can truly heal this country's wounds and avoid a
separation of its people. Only individual Canadians of common
purpose working collectively, massively, can make the profound
impact that must be if this country is to survive''.
759
These are excerpts from a letter to the Prime Minister from a
small group in my riding working actively to strengthen Canada.
I call on all citizens and members of the House to join them.
* * *
CESO INTERNATIONAL SERVICES
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.) Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are known in the world community as a generous and
caring people. Canadians have a long and proud tradition of
dedicating their efforts and energies to the less developed areas of
the world in the name of fellowship, international development and
peace.
I rise in this place to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Mr.
Michael Blender of Chesley, Ontario, a gentleman who embodies
this spirit.
Mr. Blender travelled to Guyana to advise a furniture supplier on
manufacturing methods. He made a number of recommendations
designed to improve product flow and quality and suggested types
of supplies and machines and other equipment.
He went under the auspices of the Canadian Executive Services
Organization. These volunteers are skilled women and men,
usually retired, who willingly share their lifetime of practical
experience with those in the rest of the world who need it the most.
Once again I congratulate Mr. Michael Blender of Chesley for
his altruism and spirit of service to people of the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
HULL CASINO
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the new Hull casino will open its doors next week.
I would like to congratulate the mayor of Hull, Yves Ducharme,
and all the economic stakeholders in the Quebec Outaouais for
their fine work on this initiative. Thanks to the casino, the national
capital region has just added 1,000 direct new jobs and over 1,500
indirect jobs to its job creation record in the region.
The hotel sector alone hopes to rent an additional 75,000 rooms
next year, for an increase of $5 million. Overall, the annual
economic benefit to Hull, the Quebec Outaouais, Ottawa-Carleton
and Eastern Ontario will amount to several tens of millions of
dollars. And that is to say nothing of the number of local
inhabitants who will spend their money here rather than travelling
somewhere else.
Today, I pay tribute to the people of Hull and the Outaouais who,
once again, have led the way in sustainable economic development
in the national capital region.
* * *
DECENTRALIZATION OF POWER
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Quebec sovereignists have long asked the federal
government to stop acting with arrogance and a superior attitude
toward Quebec. Last weekend, Daniel Johnson, a Quebec
federalist, conveyed more or less the same message.
It is high time that the federal government stop using our money
to brainwash us by drowning us in flags and advertising. It is high
time that it at least listen to its allies in the Quebec Liberal Party,
who are calling for more real decentralization. Otherwise, the
centralizing Liberals in this government will widen the gap not
only between the federal government and the sovereignists, but
also between Ottawa and the Quebec federalists.
(1110)
Your Canada's unity will not be built with a flag on the hood of a
car or a beaver tail as consolation prize.
Those concerned should take note.
* * *
[
English]
ATHABASCA RIVER
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
will be shocked to learn that northern aboriginal communities in
my constituency are being treated unfairly by the government.
The government has declared it will stop dredging the Athabasca
River this fall. This historic trade route links the city of Fort
McMurray to these northern communities. When the coast guard
stops dredging this river summer transportation and commerce on
the river will stop. The proposed seasonal road linking Points North
and Lake Athabasca will not be completed until the turn of the
century. What are these communities to do until then?
The dredging of the Athabasca River must continue until this
road is completed. I and my constituents do not understand why
this road is proposed to the east end of the lake when a seasonal
road already exists to the west end of the lake.
Ending the dredging will have a major environmental effect on
the Athabasca delta. When the dredging stops the river silt will
build up and block the river. The consequences could be as
devastating as the Bennet Dam was.
760
The government, which professes to be so green, must address
these issues before major changes-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Erie.
* * *
TERRORISM
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are
deeply disturbed by the pernicious effects of terrorism. We are
outraged by recent incidents of terrorism such as the subway
poison gas attack in Tokyo, the Oklahoma bombing, the
assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin and the four
recent Hamas suicide bombings in Israel.
Terrorism knows no borders. Canadians recognize that terrorism
constitutes a flagrant violation of human rights, that terrorism
undermines societal structures and institutions, that there is
absolutely no justification for terrorism under any circumstances.
We have passed the time for rhetoric. It is now time for action.
Terrorist organizations must be targeted. We call on all countries of
the world to establish an effective mechanism for the exchange of
information, assistance, technology and training to combat
terrorism in all its aspects.
We call on all countries to establish programs of
counter-terrorism and to immediately conclude terrorist extradition
treaties. We must eradicate these merchants of hate for the good of
all mankind.
* * *
[
Translation]
LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, although
he has succeeded Lucien Bouchard on paper at least, yesterday's
pitiful performance by the hon. member for Roberval shows that he
does not have the makings of a party leader and that he is not
worthy of that post.
In an interview with Le Soleil, the hon. member for Roberval
attacks our Prime Minister with impunity and with obvious
disregard for the truth, saying, and I quote: ``-that, over time, he
has become an Ontarian with the Canadian mentality''.
All Quebecers and Canadians know that our Prime Minister is a
true Quebecer and a proud Canadian. He represents the riding of
Saint-Maurice in Quebec, and he needs no lesson in ethnic purity
from the hon. member for Roberval.
If the Bloc Quebecois now considers the main residence to be a
criterion for being a real Quebecer, people like Luc Plamondon,
Mario Lemieux and Jacques Villeneuve do not qualify.
CANADIAN CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal Party won the election by promising stable
financing for Canada's major cultural institutions.
However, since the Liberals came to power, parliamentary
appropriations for the National Film Board have dropped from $82
million in 1994-95 to $65 million in 1996-97, not counting further
cuts yet to be announced. At this rate, the NFB's budget will have
shrunk by 30 per cent in four years on account of the Liberals' slash
and burn management.
By imposing repeated funding cuts on the NFB, the CBC and
Telefilm Canada, the government is altering the nature of the
mandate of these major cultural institutions, simply by cutting off
their funding.
We demand that promises be acted on and that stable multiyear
financing be provided to enable the CBC, the NFB and Telefilm
Canada to fulfil their mandate.
* * *
[
English]
THE DEBT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is content to allow the national debt to top $600 billion
within its mandate. The recent budget is a no hope budget with no
prospect of tax relief within this century.
(1115 )
For businesses and individuals, present and future, who must
suffer reduced incomes because of the Liberal government, the
House should remember them in their suffering by observing a
period of silence.
During this minute of reflection the national debt rose by over
$62,000. The government cannot afford to be silent any longer.
_____________________________________________
760
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in their brief yesterday to the human resources
development committee, the Fédération des femmes du Québec
stated that fewer and fewer women will be eligible for maternity
benefits because of the unemployment insurance reform. The
Liberal MPs on the committee were, moreover, unable to disprove
the federation's statement.
761
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development realize
that, by setting a minimum number of hours worked ranging from
420 to 700 hours, he will be preventing a considerable number
of women from drawing maternity benefits?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question being raised by the
House leader of the official opposition is indeed a very important
one. It is true that the changes proposed in Bill C-12 would impact
upon women, as the hon. member says. This is one of the very good
reasons why we are in the process of examining the bill in
committee, and why we want to hear witnesses and to find out
about problems such as this.
I am sure the committee members from all parties will address
the problem identified yesterday by the Fédération des femmes du
Québec. I trust that here, as in other sectors, amendments will be
proposed to improve or totally eliminate the problem referred to by
the hon. member.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister can count on the official opposition to bring
in such amendments, and I trust we can count on the minister to
support them. This is not the only area in which there is a problem.
Women will be penalized, not only by maternity benefit
restrictions, but also when they return to work if they opt to devote
several years to rearing their children. Let us keep in mind that the
minister intends to triple, from 300 to 910 hours, the minimum
number of hours of work required for eligibility for benefits.
I am asking the minister, who has announced major amendments
and who again this morning has said he is open to certain
amendments, whether he has looked at changing the rules proposed
in his bill relating to people returning to the work force after more
than three years, after having left to devote their time to rearing a
child or for some other reason?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are trying to be as equitable
as we can in addressing all of the questions that will be brought to
the attention of the committee.
In response to a comment by the House leader for the official
opposition, we will look with great interest at any of the
amendments brought forward by any of the political parties
represented on the committee. Whether we can agree with them in
totality we will have to wait and see. I am sure we will do the best
we can.
With respect to the re-entry qualifications I want to make it clear
that they apply across the board to all new entrants or re-entrants.
We will take into account any special circumstances. Again there I
understand the honourable member's comment about the need for
mothers to take extended periods of time to deal with the rearing of
their children. I expect the committee will be making suggestions
and recommendations on this and a number of other areas.
I am very pleased to see that members of the official opposition
now recognize the value of having this piece of legislation
considered by the committee. I am sure as time goes on, as was the
case yesterday and as will be the case next week, there will be a lot
of constructive suggestions made and we will deal with them.
(1120 )
The one thing I would say we are totally committed to is the
fiscal parameters that were set out for the overall EI reform. Within
that restriction we are prepared to look at anything which will
render the situation as equitable and as fair to women and
everybody else who must have access to employment insurance.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the minister is pleased with the possibility of
amendments by the official opposition, I trust that he also realizes
that, if the official opposition had not opposed the initial bill so
strenuously, and if there had not been demonstrations across the
country-which are still continuing-the government would
perhaps not have acted and would perhaps not be considering
changing the bill, which was unacceptable right from the start. As
well as the professional agitators-
In Quebec, women hold 68 per cent of the part time jobs. From
now on, in order to be entitled to benefits, people will have to have
worked between 420 and 700 hours, depending on the region. Does
the minister realize that people who work 15 hours a week, the
large majority of these women, would see the number of weeks
they would have to work to draw benefits raised from 28 to 47
weeks? This is often a problem for those with unstable
employment, seasonal employment, and 68 per cent of such jobs
are done by women.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a large number of women,
students, people everywhere in Canada working a few hours
weekly, a few hours yearly, are not eligible at all for unemployment
insurance benefits under the system as it now stands.
There is no doubt that the matter of 15 hours needs looking at,
for it is very important to understand that 15 is the total number of
hours worked in a week required at the present time to be eligible
for unemployment insurance.
It would be necessary to know how many people, including
women, work exactly 15 hours a week-not 14, not 16, not 18, not
22-to find out exactly what the impacts will be. We are prepared
to present all of the impact analyses once the committee has
762
finished its work, or even while they are still sitting, in order to try
to assess the implications of this or that change.
I trust that my hon. colleague recognizes that, by changing the
system to start counting from the first hour worked for everyone,
women included, we have taken a forward step. We have succeeded
in protecting many people and I am prepared, in due time, and in
committee, to see that my departmental employees present all
possible data to ensure that everything is clarified. We will need to
look at the impact on women, on those who have been excluded
from the unemployment insurance system all these years because
they did not have their 15 hours a week, in order to see whether
where we are headed will be fair to women and to all who need
access to the employment insurance program.
* * *
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
also for the Minister of Human Resources Development. When
asked in the House on Monday about employment assistance
programs for students, the minister wrongly accused the official
opposition of being out of touch with reality. Unfortunately for the
minister, he was confronted the next day by students who
reminding him of how precarious student life is and how
ineffectual, indeed pathetic, government programs are. We now
know who is out of touch with reality.
Will the minister recognize that all the employment assistance
programs for students in the world will never compensate for the
hundreds of millions of dollars the government is going to cut from
post-secondary education and for the increased tuition fees the cut
will mean?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week I had the opportunity
to meet with young people from across the country at Forum
Canada. The hon. member's claim that I was confronted by young
people who had raised the issues he intimates in his question is
wrong.
Just to let you know what is happening with the money made
available for post-secondary institutions in this country, obviously
we have jurisdiction-because the member and his party are
always interested in jurisdiction. The provinces have jurisdiction.
(1125)
The money transferred by the Government of Canada is being
used as well to fund certain provincial expenditures for
post-secondary institutions.
Tuition fees for universities, cegeps, community colleges and
post-secondary institutions are set by the institution or by the
government, depending on the system.
The Minister of Finance announced in his budget last week that
we were going to stabilize the amounts available to the provinces
under the Canada social transfer.
I hope we will all work together, as we did federally, by trying
not only to provide the tools needed for young people to progress,
but also the funds needed through job creation for students this
summer to enable them to meet their objectives.
To suggest that the Government of Canada is totally responsible
for the situation in universities or post-secondary institutions
across the country does not really indicate where the responsibility
lies. It lies with the provinces, which have jurisdiction.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister just
talked about lowering transfer payments. We have some figures for
him on the consequences for Quebec, in particular.
While the federal government has cut more than $400 million in
two years in transfer payments to Quebec for post-secondary
education, it will allocate an additional $15 million only for
summer jobs in Quebec.
Will the minister acknowledge that the recent announcements
are nothing more than window dressing hiding major cuts for
students?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can have differences of
opinion with representatives of various political parties on a
number of issues. Surely one of the areas on which we will all find
some common ground is that governments of all political stripes at
all levels are faced with extremely difficult decisions.
That is the situation in the province of Quebec today on a whole
number of fronts that are entirely within the jurisdiction of the
Government of Quebec. Although we have very serious and
profound differences on a number of issues, the future of the
country for example, one thing I do agree on with the premier of
Quebec is the need for that government to take serious action to
address its fiscal problems.
It is simply not accurate to suggest that the Government of
Canada is entirely responsible for the problems that exist with
financing post-secondary institutions in Quebec. On the other hand
when we announced we were doubling the amount of money
available in Canada for summer student employment from $60
million to $120 million and the portion going to Quebec would be
$15 million, it recognized that we did understand the problem
facing young people in Quebec and their need to find summer jobs.
I did not suggest that the $120 million for summer employment
for students was going to be a panacea for their need to find jobs. It
is just part of the solution, which will have to be met by other
763
provinces, municipal governments, and particularly the private
sector.
* * *
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
first it was a letter calling on soldiers in the Canadian Armed
Forces to shift their allegiance to a Quebec army. Now it is high
level negotiations and agreements between Quebec officers and the
PQ government to establish a Quebec defence staff headquarters
after a yes vote.
This is a very serious matter. It strikes at the very integrity of the
Canadian Armed Forces. What will the Minister of National
Defence do to investigate the separatist attempt to destabilize the
Canadian Armed Forces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I noted the
comments of the hon. member from Charlesbourg which have been
in the press. Certainly those kinds of allegations are quite serious. I
agree with my friend opposite on the gravity of such an accusation.
The chief of the defence staff has consulted with his predecessor,
General de Chastelain, and other senior officers in the last number
of hours. I can assure the House that there have been no plans
drawn up. There have been no discussions authorized by the
leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces for the eventual creation
of two armed forces or the integration of a Quebec-Canada army.
That would be totally inappropriate and unacceptable.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am glad to hear that assurance from the minister.
(1130 )
Is this the first time the minister has heard of these allegations
that are being made about the interplay between the Bloc
Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois and the Canadian Armed Forces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we should view
this in perspective.
During the referendum campaign there were lots of assertions
and accusations made and a lot of emotional debate. The hon.
member for Charlesbourg had sent a letter to certain officers in the
province of Quebec. The matter was of such gravity that you, Mr.
Speaker, ruled that the House debate a motion by a member of the
Reform Party, my opposition critic. The matter is now before the
House.
Any accusations or suggestions made by the hon. member for
Charlesbourg on the latest accusation or on the letter is something
that has to be dealt with by the committee. If the hon. member for
Charlesbourg has any evidence to substantiate this kind of
allegation, he has a duty as a member of this House to bring it
forward to that committee so that it can be examined.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this goes beyond the allegations concerning the member for
Charlesbourg. It goes beyond the matter that will be placed before
the committee presumably next week. This is a very serious matter.
I find the minister's answers to date unacceptable.
The BQ letter and the PQ secret negotiations are exactly why we
have been trying to open it up and get the government to discuss the
terms of separation well in advance but it has chosen not to do that.
That is precisely why we are in a problem right now. Before the
final showdown with the Quebec separatists, the government
cannot continue to sit on the fence; it has to come out.
Will the minister make it perfectly crystal clear in whatever
public domain to the Bloc Quebecois, to Lucien Bouchard and to
every member of the Canadian Armed Forces that the Canadian
forces are off limits in the debate on Quebec sovereignty?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member was a very distinguished general officer in the armed
forces. He knows that the role of the Canadian Armed Forces is to
support the duly elected Government of Canada and the
Constitution of Canada. I am confident that the men and women of
Canada's armed forces are doing exactly that.
The burden of proof about any actions of members of the armed
forces as alleged by the hon. member for Charlesbourg is on that
member to come forward and give us that proof. Only at that time
will we launch a greater investigation other than the one I have in a
sense launched in the last number of hours with the chief of the
defence staff who has assured me that these allegations are
unfounded.
* * *
[
Translation]
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
In response to a question from the official opposition, the
minister recognized and confirmed that several amendments to the
UI program will result in greater numbers on the welfare rolls,
since thousands of newly unemployed workers will no longer be
eligible for UI benefits.
Does the minister not find it scandalous that people who lose
their jobs are forced to turn to a form of assistance of last resort,
764
instead of receiving UI benefits to which they have contributed and
to which they are entitled?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the hon.
member can say that I agree with opposition members. This is not
the case at all. What happens is that, with the legislation as it was
proposed, the calculation is to be based on the number of
accumulated hours.
(1135)
However, I think that, with the amendments that will be moved
during the course of the legislative process, we will end up with a
system whereby many part time workers will not have to turn to
social assistance and will in fact be eligible for UI benefits. Some
employers, for all sorts of reasons, provide less than 15 hours of
work per week to their employees. These workers are currently not
eligible for the UI program, or for other support programs that are
in place to help the majority of Canadian workers.
Hopefully, and contrary to what the hon. member implied, these
amendments will reduce the number of people who have to turn to
social assistance.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is well aware that, since new entrants will
now have to work 910 hours instead of 300 to be eligible for UI
benefits, these young people will be forced to turn to social
assistance.
Will the minister recognize that, in addition to being a terrible
measure for the unemployed, this is a roundabout way of making
the provinces pay part of the costs of the UI reform?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his
colleagues are working very hard trying to create a situation. They
talk about people who are going to go on social assistance. Then in
the question the hon. member talks about new entrants onto the
system.
If a person is already connected to the unemployment insurance
system then he is not not a new entrant unless he or she has been
out of the system for a number of years. Then that person becomes
a re-entrant.
We are not advancing the quality of the debate or trying to deal
with the problems facing real people by trying to raise all kinds of
unnecessary concerns. The requirement for new entrants into the
system is not based on just the 52 weeks of the calendar we have
normally applied it to. They can actually bank the weeks, or hours
as the case will be after January 1, 1997, from the previous year's
work.
If the hon. member wants to put forward his arguments in a place
where we can sit down and look specifically at what he is proposing
and what concerns him and how we can respond to his questions,
we will be happy to do that. However that is not the interest of the
hon. member and his colleagues. They want to continue to provide
ammunition to those who, for all kinds of other reasons than
protecting those at the bottom end of the income scale, want to
agitate and make even more anxious real families with real
problems who want real solutions.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the current environment minister was in
charge of immigration, he apparently ordered up to 30,000 copies
of a 25 page booklet telling Canadians what a wonderful job he was
doing. However, when the new minister of immigration learned
that this Liberal propaganda exercise was costing Canadian
taxpayers $20,000 she immediately ordered the secret destruction
of all copies.
Can the parliamentary secretary explain how the government
could spend $20,000 of taxpayers' money on producing partisan
propaganda and then pay civil servants to destroy it?
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the new
minister for the department, the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration was within her right and it is her prerogative to refuse
a document which was prepared by her predecessor which did not
reflect her prospectus or her priorities for the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration. Therefore, the document was not
distributed and her staff took the appropriate action and means to
have the document destroyed.
As the new minister of the department it is her prerogative to
decide what the priorities of the department are.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is reported that the new immigration minister
turned to CSIS to destroy these potentially embarrassing
documents. If this is true, it would be another example of CSIS
involving itself in partisan politics by protecting the party in power.
Before the solicitor general comments on these allegations,
would he explain whether he has given any instruction to CSIS that
it is no longer responsible for investigating threats to the security of
Canada but rather that it is responsible for concentrating its efforts
on investigating threats to the Liberal Party of Canada?
(1140 )
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have been advised that the allegations made by the hon. member
that CSIS was asked to destroy these documents and did so are
765
totally false. CSIS was not asked to destroy these documents and it
did not destroy the documents.
Furthermore, I am confident that CSIS is very well aware of its
responsibilities under the law established by this Parliament and is
carrying them out.
* * *
[
Translation]
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Two Ontario women are currently challenging, in court, the
parental leave provision of the unemployment insurance plan,
which treats adoptive parents very differently from natural parents.
There is a huge difference, in that adoptive parents are entitled to
15 fewer weeks of leave.
In light of the fact that the purpose of parental leave is to nurture
the child, how can the minister explain this double standard for
biological and adoptive parents?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult question.
As the hon. member said, there is a matter before the courts so I do
not want to specifically address that problem.
This is a question that has to be dealt deal with in the most
sensitive way possible. I have been informed of the decision to
move in this direction and I have been trying to become better
acquainted with the rationale behind it.
On the question of maternity benefits, as the hon. member says it
has the component of taking care of the child. It also has the very
obvious and significant element of taking care of the natural
mother as she goes through the process of childbirth.
I understand the concerns raised by people who feel there should
be as much opportunity as possible for nurturing a newborn child or
a newly adopted child in those situations. However, it would seem
to me, and there is no doubt of the decision of the government in
terms of how to deal with this issue, that there were differences not
in the needs of children to be cared for by their mothers for as long
as possible, but in the difference between the situation faced by a
natural mother in terms of her own physical capacity to deal with a
birth as opposed to that of an adoptive mother dealing with an
adopted child.
I do not think there are ever any easy solutions to these
questions. I hope my hon. colleague would understand there is at
least that difference between the two situations of a natural mother
and an adoptive mother, and the need to look at them somewhat
differently.
[Translation]
DAY CARE
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, still on the subject of children's well-being, given that
adequate child care can greatly improve their quality of life, could
the minister explain to parents in Quebec and Canada what has
become of the 150,000 new day care spaces his government has
been promising for three years?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is always a timely topic.
Before Christmas, the Government of Canada made a proposal to
the provinces and territories, suggesting that a national day care
system be established.
It will come as no surprise to my hon. friend to learn that several
provinces, including Quebec, have expressed serious reservations
about the appropriateness of federal interference in an area of
provincial jurisdiction. I agree with this reaction. What we are
suggesting to our partners from all the provinces is that we need to
sit down together and try to figure out how the Government of
Canada could help resolve, at least in part, the problem raised by
my hon. friend, while at the same time respecting the provinces'
jurisdiction.
In this context, I promise, not only the hon. member who asked
the question, but also the representatives of all governments across
the country, that we will do our best to fulfil the commitment made
by the federal government in the throne speech not to interfere
unilaterally, through its spending power, in an area of provincial
jurisdiction.
(1145)
We will nonetheless try to find, within these parameters, a way
to co-operate with the provinces in order to help those who need the
kind of support that a financial contribution to day care would
provide.
* * *
[
English]
BYELECTIONS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
apparently the Liberal pork machine is well in gear for the
upcoming byelections.
Pierre Pettigrew has decided that he may have trouble winning
his seat so he has decided to try and buy it. He does not have the
portfolio which would allow him to spend millions of dollars in his
own riding, so he has decided instead to spend $3.8 million in Haiti
in an attempt to buy votes in Papineau. Apparently he is shameless.
On behalf of Canadian taxpayers who will have to foot the
multimillion dollar bill for this, I ask the Minister of Foreign
Affairs if he will bring this matter to the House of Commons for
766
debate so that we can see whether the $3.8 million is for the benefit
of Haitians or for the benefit of Pierre Pettigrew.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the question absolutely
incredible. Canada is very proud of its longstanding commitment to
Haiti and to the people of Haiti.
The announcement made yesterday by the minister who has the
responsibility of the francophonie, of which Haiti is a member, is
also the minister responsible for international co-operation. He
made the announcement in a series of Canadian government
announcements in support of the people of Haiti.
The two projects announced yesterday will be implemented by
two Canadian NGOs, CECI and CESO by name. They will be
working in collaboration with Haitian non-government
organizations.
All of the funding is for the benefit of the people of Haiti, not for
the people of Canada, whatever their origin, and certainly not for
the personal benefit of the minister.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when a minister does not yet have a seat in the House of Commons,
how convenient it is to spend money to buy a few votes in one
region of his riding.
Canadians are justifiably proud of their commitment to Haiti.
We have sent many people to Haiti. We continue to send money.
We want to help to restore democracy in Haiti.
However, it is unconscionable that Pierre Pettigrew would funnel
$3.8 million at this time, in the middle of a byelection, at a critical
moment, in order to help himself in a byelection attempt.
Does the minister personally condone spending money 10 days
before a byelection in an obvious attempt to buy-
The Speaker: Even by the furthest stretch of the imagination,
the question does not fall under the purview of the minister's
administrative responsibilities. It is out of order.
* * *
[
Translation]
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of Indian affairs.
On February 28, the community of Kanesatake voted a
resounding no to the following question: ``Do you want Jerry
Peltier as grand chief and chief negotiator?'' Yet, the minister
seems torn since Mr. Peltier wrote him that he wanted to remain as
chief.
Since the minister has long supported the principle of Native
self-government, when will he recognize the Kanesatake
community's inalienable right to choose its own leaders?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I responded to that question last
week.
That community had an election. We hired Coopers and Lybrand
to oversee the election. The report was returned saying that it was a
proper election of Jerry Peltier.
The community had a meeting a few weeks ago and they now
have a second chief. However, Mr. Peltier's term is for three years
and he has not resigned. In the spirit of self-government, I am
hoping the community will work itself through the process.
On the upside, the difficulty in the community has not affected
the fact that there are seven members on the council. Six are still
there. The majority is still working.
(1150 )
Why do Bloc members always pick on Jerry Peltier and the
Mohawks? They are back to Mohawk bashing. Why do they not
pay some attention to the Algonquins or the Abenakis? They do not
have any interest north of here. It is always the Mohawks. Why?
The Mohawks see through this party for what they are. They see
them as ideologues and they will continue to ask these questions
about the proud Mohawks.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I should point out to the minister that I am a member of
the Bloc Quebecois and not the Reform Party, thank God.
Does the minister not agree that, by continuing to protect former
chief Jerry Peltier-who, may I remind you, used to work for his
department-and by failing to acknowledge the February 28 vote,
he is showing disrespect for the community of Kanesatake and
treating all Native communities in Canada like children?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I face the separatists and the
Bloc every day and I know they are very concerned about territorial
integrity and the political position of the Mohawks.
These are not my words, these are the words of Daniel Turp, the
candidate for the Bloc in Papineau and the man who gives this
party advice. He said: ``If Quebec were to object to sovereignty
measures democratically approved, these native nations could
undoubtedly claim that their democratic rights to
self-determination and to secession have been violated''. This party
is violating this.
767
TERRORISM
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has just returned from Egypt after attending an
international conference on terrorism. Would the secretary of state
for Africa tell the House the outcome of the conference and what
steps is Canada taking to ensure that the peace process is not
hijacked by terrorism?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the conference that took place in
Egypt this week sent a very important message to the international
community that collectively people, including those who
historically were sometimes antagonists, can come together to
confront terrorism, violence and the cowardice of that in our world
community. It is an important message, particularly to the Middle
East peace process, at this time.
The summit was a very short process. There was agreement that
a working group be formed. Canada will participate in that working
group to find other ways in which the international community can
improve its efforts and collaboration toward ending terrorism and
violence around the world.
Our departments are meeting to see how we can, in fact, prevent
fundraising and the organizational work of terrorists in our country.
* * *
CORNWALLIS PARK DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Cornwallis Park Development Agency has some serious problems
within it, not the least of which is political interference from the
Liberal member for South West Nova.
For example, Mark Phillips got a management job for $33,000
and pocketed another $7,500 as a part time consultant. His
qualifications were that of a cook and president of the Digby
Liberal Association.
My question is for the minister responsible for ACOA. Will the
government disclose the criteria and qualifications for selecting the
board of the Cornwallis Park Development Agency besides being
Liberal, or do we have to dissect this whole operation piece by
piece?
The Speaker: Colleagues, in question period I try to give every
latitude in the framing of questions. I would ask members to be
very careful in the preamble.
(1155 )
I have to wait until the end of the question to see if it is in order.
That is what we are dealing with here. Sometimes in the questions
and sometimes in the answers members are taking, in my view, a
little bit of licence. I would ask them to please try to compact the
preamble to questions so the wait is not so long before I can
intercede and make a decision.
This question is in order and I will allow the solicitor general to
respond if he wants to. I saw him on his feet.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): I will follow
your admonition most closely, Mr. Speaker.
I will say simply that I do not accept in any way what I consider
to be the unwarranted insinuations and premise in the hon.
member's question. I do not see why his question should start out
with an unwarranted attack on a very distinguished and hard
working member of this House.
I will be happy to take these allegations, in spite of their
unwarranted nature, and bring them to the attention of the minister
responsible for ACOA. I understand the new agency is in place and
its administration is being put in place in the proper way. I am sure
the minister responsible for ACOA will have full answers when he
is back in the House.
In the meantime, I see no reason why the hon. member should
make these unwarranted attacks on a very distinguished,
hardworking and effective member of this House.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): I guess, Mr.
Speaker, when you are dealing with facts, you are dealing with
facts and I do not see them as unwarranted at all, having already
undertaken an investigation.
We have unsolicited bids, we have hiring of unqualified people
and we have political patronage which are commonplace in this
particular agency. The vultures have started picking at the carcass
of a closed military base.
Will the minister agree to a public inquiry of the Cornwallis Park
Development Agency? If he will not, will he allow the opposition
to review the records of ACOA and the Cornwallis Park
Development Agency with respect to its finances and its
operations?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in answering this question I want to make it clear that I do not
accept in any way the premise, the insinuations or innuendos in the
hon. member's question.
This matter will be looked into by the minister responsible for
ACOA and he will be in a position to report back in the appropriate
way.
In the meantime, in spite of the hon. member's reference to facts,
he has not demonstrated in this House that he always has a
complete grasp of them himself.
768
[Translation]
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
The minister recently claimed to have given $80 million to the
Davis Inlet community. However, according to information
provided by Innu leaders from Davis Inlet, the actual amount given
to the community is $7 million, not $80 million as claimed by the
minister. Moreover, it seems that the 35 consultation reports that
the minister boasts about were paid with moneys targeted for
emergencies and vocational training.
How can the minister consider Davis Inlet as a success for his
government, considering that the Innu live in abject poverty and
that, according to their leaders, they are still being exploited?
Which version are we to believe?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will start taking advice from
the Bloc on Davis Inlet when they send as many members of
Parliament to Davis Inlet as the Liberal Party has.
We have been there several times. We have a plan over a term of
years to deal with health, to deal with housing. I have crawled
under those houses myself to see what was being constructed.
When the Bloc gets under a house at Davis Inlet and looks at what
is being done, then I will start listening to them.
The figure is over a term of years. We are working with the very
unfortunate people at Davis Inlet. We hope that this will be a
success story in Canadian history where the Government of
Newfoundland, the Government of Canada works with native
people. Unlike the Bloc, we work with native people, not against
them.
* * *
KREVER COMMISSION
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Krever
inquiry is an important inquiry to Canadians. Japan has had a very
similar inquiry.
(1200 )
The new health minister in Japan, after taking on the portfolio,
very quickly apologized publicly both on behalf of his government
and the companies involved. In Canada the new health minister is
subverting the process of Judge Krever.
The question is straightforward again to the novice health
minister. Why will he not let Judge Krever speak?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the premise of the hon. member's question is inaccurate, false and
erroneous. To give credibility to that question would be giving
credibility to a member who has no credibility.
* * *
CHILD CARE
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of National Revenue.
Last week in his budget the Minister of Finance announced
changes to the country's child care expense provisions. Would the
Minister of National Revenue please explain to the House how the
child care expense provisions have been modified?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a result of last week's budget there have been changes
to the child care expense deduction.
First, the age of eligibility for children has been increased from
14 to 16, recognizing that there are parents who do work night
shifts and need to have support in the home for their children.
Therefore those costs should be deductible.
Second, we know there are single parents who are enrolled in full
time education and who have not been able to use the deduction in
the past. We have changed this process so that they will now be
included. These reflect the changes in Canadian society. I believe
the changes will be appreciated by Canadians.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
VISITORS IN GALLERY
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, more questions have come my way about the presence in
the gallery of the 25 cadets from No. 23 Squadron, Royal Canadian
Air Cadets and their officers, all from St. Catharines. Their officers
are Captain Greenwood and Captain Jeffrey. I understand they are
visiting Ottawa for three days on a citizenship tour.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Thank you for that timely point of order.
_____________________________________________
768
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to three petitions presented during the first
session.
769
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92.
This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
I also have the honour to present the eighth report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of Standing Committees on Citizenship and
Immigration, Natural Resources, and the associate membership on
the Standing Committee of Finance.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this report later this day.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to read into the record a short statement in reply to the
statement by the chief government whip concerning the Standing
Committee on Procedures and House Affairs.
(1205 )
Members were initially informed there were three days of
hearings for the subcommittee on private members' business of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. These
meetings were to start on Tuesday, March 12 and end on Tuesday,
March 19.
Several of our members were counting on being able to present
their items to the committee on March 19 and planned trips back to
their ridings for most of that week. On Tuesday, March 12 our
members were informed the meeting on the March 19 was
cancelled and the committee wanted to report back to the House
this week.
This 11th hour cancellation made it virtually impossible for a
number of our members to present their items to the committee on
their own behalf. Because of this change private members'
business would now start on March 18 instead of March 25. This in
turn created another set of last minute scheduling headaches for a
number of our members.
We hope the cordial and efficient manner in which the
committee functioned during the first session of the 35th
Parliament will soon re-establish itself during the current session.
It is our sincere hope that the unfortunate events of this week were
merely a temporary aberration from the co-operative atmosphere
members had become accustomed to in that subcommittee.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I understand the point raised by the
hon. whip from the Reform Party. It is of course the intention of
everyone to make this subcommittee work as efficiently and
appropriately as possible. I believe the committee even left empty
spots to ensure members who could not be heard during the first
round would have room deliberately made for them for a quick
second report so that all members who have private members'
items that should be made votable are made votable at the earliest
opportunity.
* * *
RADIOACTIVE WASTE IMPORTATION ACT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-236, an act to prevent the importation of
radioactive waste into Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have introduced this bill for a couple of
reasons. First, the government is considering a major overhaul in
dealing with the nuclear industry and radioactive waste.
Second, there have been musings by different towns, including
Meadow Lake Indian Reserve, of wanting and desiring radioactive
waste in their own areas as make work projects.
I do not think Canadians want to import radioactive waste into
Canada. This bill would prevent that, NAFTA notwithstanding.
That is what this bill is about.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT
Mr. Janko
Peric
(Cambridge, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-237, an act
to amend the Immigration Act and Transfer of Offenders Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is identical to Bill C-316, which I
introduced in the House of Commons exactly one year ago, on
March 15, 1995.
Pursuant to a special order of the House passed on March 4, I am
requesting this bill be reinstated to the position it was in prior to the
prorogation of the House. This bill would facilitate the deportation
of non-citizens convicted of violent criminal offences punishable
by 10 or more years imprisonment by allowing judges to issue
deportation orders at the time of sentencing.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is satisfied that the bill is in the
same form as Bill C-316 at the time of the prorogation of the first
session of the 35th Parliament.
[Translation]
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996,
the bill is deemed to have been read the second time and referred to
the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
770
(1210)
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the House gives its consent I move, seconded by the
parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, that the eighth
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
PETITIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present two petitions on behalf of the constituents of
Simcoe Centre today.
The first groups of petitioners request that the Government of
Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the undefined
phrase sexual orientation. Refusing to define the statement leaves
interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.
Parliament has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that
legislation cannot be misinterpreted.
AGE OF CONSENT
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition concerns the age of consent laws. The petitioners ask that
Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children
from sexual exploitation and abuse.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I request that all questions be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
770
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY-CHURCHILL FALLS HYDRO CONTRACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Matapédia-Matane has concluded his remarks. We will now go on
to the period for questions and comments.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the contract we are discussing concerns two Canadian
provinces. I understand that if Quebec separates from the rest of
Canada, the Churchill Falls contract will be nul and void. It will
have to be renegotiated. It seems to me that that would be good for
Labrador and Newfoundland.
I would like to ask the member for Matapédia-Matane to tell us
his thoughts on this matter, which is of some interest to all
Canadians.
Mr. Canuel: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague. This
contract, which runs until the year 2041, was signed after a great
deal of reflection. If we become sovereign, this contract and others
will be maintained. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that this
contract was valid. When we went back in 1988, the original ruling
was upheld. In such a case, I think an agreement should be
honoured. It would be really easy for us to establish the legitimacy
of these contracts.
Agreements with other countries would be maintained. In the
case of NAFTA or the GATT agreement, the international courts
would recognize our new country's sovereignty and tell us that we
are right and that the agreements are valid.
There is no problem with that and the people of Quebec
understand that, if over 49 per cent of them voted in favour of
sovereignty, it is because these laws are and always will be
respected. We are going to make that demand.
(1215)
There should be no attempt to frighten people by saying that this
or that contract would be cancelled the day after sovereignty is
achieved. This is not what happened in other countries that have
become sovereign and this is not what will happen in our case.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the question. I would like to expand on it a little bit.
It occurred to me as I listened very carefully to the minister's
brief history lesson that when the contract was being agreed on and
signed, there was a Liberal government in Newfoundland, a Liberal
government in Quebec and a Liberal government in Ottawa. I
wonder if the Newfoundland voters consider this as they think
about who is representing their interests.
It also occurs to me while we listen to members of the Bloc
Quebecois talk about honouring contracts, there is another contract
that many of us hold quite dear, originally known as the British
North America Act, the Canadian Constitution.
Bloc members seem to feel there is some injustice in their
province. Some members of Parliament and Canadians would very
much like to accommodate the legitimate concerns of Quebec so
that every province, including Quebec, would have a legitimate and
771
meaningful place in the country. While this is being done, there are
other members of a rump group, who are saying: ``No, we will tear
up that contract. We will go our own way. We will forget about
that''.
I would like to add that question to the previous question. It
seems to me that if the province of Quebec no longer exists and
becomes a country, whatever name they choose to call it, then it is
necessary to re-establish contracts and certainly this contract with
Newfoundland and Labrador.
How does the member consider breaking the contract of
confederation and his insistence that the previous contract with
Newfoundland and Labrador cannot be touched?
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is getting it all mixed
up. I do not understand. When we become a country, we do it
democratically. We have people vote. We all presented the
referendum honestly. If there were another, we would present it to
everyone too. And if people chose to do so at that point, we would
become a country.
A contract is another matter altogether. A contract is signed
between two companies. At that point the contract is signed. When
I look back to 1867, when Canada became a country, the provinces
were very powerful. Over the years, all their powers have
essentially been picked off. We are left with basically nothing.
It is true that over the past 60 years, we have had Maurice
Duplessis, who spoke of provincial autonomy and went and got
income tax; Jean Lesage, who spoke of ``maîtres chez nous'' and
wanted almost sovereignty; and Daniel Johnson senior, who
wanted equality or independence.
It is just crazy to compare two contracts duly signed by two
companies, Hydro-Churchill and Hydro-Quebec, with the desire of
a people to become sovereign through a democratic vote of all
citizens duly recognized in Quebec, regardless of their colour or
language. We are very open to these people. We have told all ethnic
groups that they are very welcome in Quebec, that they have the
right to vote against or for sovereignty. This is no contract, this is
the process of setting up a country, because, at the outset-I am
providing a little historical background for my colleague, because
his knowledge seems to be a bit lacking-at the outset in Canada,
there were two peoples, two equal peoples.
(1220)
At one point, we lost much of our powers, and not only the
sovereignists now want them back.
A few minutes ago, I mentioned Jean Lesage. He sat in this
House and had a high regard for Canada's Parliament; he spoke of
``Maîtres chez nous'', saying that to assume our powers, we had to
get them back. While he did not manage it, he did make significant
progress. I readily admit that. I congratulate the Liberals of that
period. René Lévesque was a member of cabinet and it was he who
was responsible for setting up Hydro-Quebec. The Liberals did a
huge job.
I will conclude by saying that apples and oranges should not be
mixed and that the Reformers, unfortunately, have been doing so
for the past while. They have a talent for getting everything all
mixed up.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the poet Robert Frost penned the very eloquent words: ``Something
there is; that doesn't love a wall; that wants it down''.
This is a sentiment with which Quebec's new premier is starting
to agree. He wants to mend and remove broken fences, to heal old
wounds, to show that Quebec is a good neighbour and that it would
be a good trading partner, as a sovereign country of course.
However, one fence which Quebec and Labrador have between
them which needs major repair is the Churchill Falls contract.
Twenty-seven years ago a 65-year contract was signed between
the Churchill Falls Corporation of Labrador and Hydro Quebec.
The contract requires that Newfoundland sell cheap power to
Quebec from the gigantic hydroelectric project on the Churchill
River until the year 2041 at pre-1973 oil prices.
It is an extremely unfair contract. Newfoundland earns $20
million each year from Churchill Falls' electricity sales. Hydro
Quebec, on the other hand, makes a staggering profit of $800
million from the resale of Newfoundland power to New England.
That is a difference of $780 million.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are extremely upset
and even embittered over the contract. This is a matter which dates
back long before the days when the Reform Party was in politics. It
was a matter of great concern and sadness before I ever thought
about politics.
It is an unjust contract. It is an unfair contract. It is an oppressive
contract. Newfoundlanders know they erred in signing it. They
realize that Quebec has wilfully and knowingly taken advantage of
them. Quebec knows that too.
When Newfoundlanders suffer, Canada suffers. The $780
million that Newfoundland and Labrador lose to Quebec every year
is nearly equal to the amount that Newfoundland gets in
equalization payments from Ottawa. The Churchill Falls contract is
extremely unfair to the Canadian taxpayer as well.
If Quebec wants to be a good neighbour, if it wants to build good
fences rather than poor ones, if it wants to show the world that it
can be trusted, it will come back to the table and renegotiate the
772
contract with Newfoundland and Labrador. We challenge the
premier of Quebec to make this commitment.
Newfoundland is a have not province. It suffers from the highest
unemployment rate in the country. Over 20 per cent of the
population is unemployed. The cod fishing industry is practically
non-existent and its economy is in a complete shambles.
If a fair contract had been signed, or if the federal Liberal
government had intervened to ensure that Newfoundland received
an equitable share of the profits from this megaproject, the
economic situation in Newfoundland would be quite different
today. There would be jobs. There would be growth. There would
be prosperity in Newfoundland today.
(1225)
Newfoundland has been unable to finance a power line to siphon
off some of Churchill's power to the island. It has also been unable
to finance the construction of a second Labrador power plant on the
lower Churchill River, estimated to cost $11 billion. This project
would create 24,000 construction jobs. Newfoundland also cannot
afford to develop a smelter in the Voisey Bay, a project that would
create hundreds, if not thousands of jobs.
The federal government promised to create jobs, jobs, jobs.
There is no place in Canada that needs jobs more than
Newfoundland. However, for the last 27 years the federal
government has failed to act on behalf of Newfoundlanders
concerning this matter. It has failed to intervene and to guarantee
one of the poorest provinces in the country its fair share of profits
from the direct sale of power to the New England states.
If Quebec does not want to be a good neighbour, if it does not
want to build good fences and voluntarily agree to renegotiate the
Churchill Falls contract, then we challenge the federal government
to stand up for the people of Newfoundland. We challenge the
federal government to lower internal trade barriers in Canada and
to push Quebec to the negotiating table.
Quebec has refused to allow Newfoundland to build its own
power lines on Quebec soil. Consequently, Labrador cannot
develop the lower Churchill Falls hydroelectric plant. Quebec also
has refused to allow Newfoundland to use its transmission lines to
transmit electricity to markets in other parts of Canada or the
United States, to join in the North American power grid.
Clearly Quebec has backed Newfoundland and Labrador into a
very tight catch-22 position. It cannot develop the untapped
resources of the lower Churchill Falls unless it gets an energy
contract. It cannot get a contract without a way to transmit the
electricity to the buyer.
Quebec has established a barrier to the free movement of
electricity from Newfoundland to places outside Quebec. If Quebec
does not want to be a good neighbour, if it does not want to mend
walls with Newfoundland and Labrador and voluntarily agree to
break down this trade barrier, then the federal government must
move to have the trade impediment removed. This would lead to
prosperity, not only for Newfoundland and Labrador, but increased
prosperity for Quebec as well.
In western Canada natural gas, electricity and oil freely cross
provincial boundaries. This neighbourly approach to trade creates a
harmonious relationship among western provinces and produces
greater wealth for all the provinces involved as these provinces
have free access to each other's markets.
If Quebec would be this kind of good neighbour, Labrador and
Quebec would both prosper, shoulder to shoulder into the 21st
century.
By this August there is supposed to be a second draft of the
internal trade agreement to be signed. Unfortunately it is not in
Quebec's economic interest to sign the internal trade agreement.
Quebec would have to give up some of the benefits it receives from
Churchill Falls contracts. It is unwilling to do this so it will not
come to the table.
It is important for Ottawa to finally take a stand for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. It needs to take a strong stand and say
that enough is enough. Quebec must come back to the negotiating
table. It must help build good fences between good neighbours. It
must work to allow Newfoundlanders to benefit from their own
resources.
The federal government can urge Quebec to be more neighbourly
by first of all following a recommendation by a federal government
mandated group that tabled a report in 1988 called: ``Energy and
Canadians: Into the 21st Century''. That report recommends:
The federal government should articulate the conditions under which one
province has a right to access, on a business basis, another province's electricity
corridor or electrical grid for the purposes of transmitting electricity to a market not
adjacent to the first province.
(1230 )
This is the first step for the federal government: state the right of
the provinces to interprovincial trade, then articulate the conditions
under which that trade might exist. Taking this stand would not
require legislation. It is a direct statement of policy.
The government must assert its authority under section 121 of
the Constitution to bring down internal trade barriers. Section 121
reads: ``All articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any
one of the provinces shall from and after the union be admitted free
into each of the other provinces''. If the federal government is
willing to use this section of the Constitution, it might be enough to
encourage Quebec to come back to the negotiating table on this
subject.
773
If Quebec still refuses to be a good neighbour, the federal
government could act further. It could give the National Energy
Board the power to open up Quebec's transmission lines to allow
export of electricity from another province. This would allow
Newfoundland to channel electricity through Quebec lines to
markets in the United States.
Quebec would still have the original Churchill Falls contract. Its
earning power would remain in place but Quebec would also be
helping out a neighbour. It would be helping all the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador to get back on their feet financially so
they could get off government assistance and back to work. This
would help build a prosperous future for their families right into
the 21st century. It would be a neighbourly act indeed.
If Quebec refuses to be a good neighbour and remains unwilling
to mend fences between itself and Labrador, the federal
government might consider a second position suggested by the
National Energy Board. That option is to use section 58(4) of the
National Energy Board Act to designate a corridor through Quebec
on which hydro lines could be built by Newfoundland for the
transmission of its own power. This could be done through an order
in council.
What I have just discussed are only options. They are options
available to the parties and to the federal government. They are
options that would encourage Quebec to become more neighbourly
in its attitude and more giving in its actions.
The fences between Quebec and Labrador are in need of much
repair. Newfoundland and Labrador have suffered financially for
years due to the Churchill Falls contract and Quebec's trade
barriers. They are extremely embittered. The people of
Newfoundland and Labrador want a change and they have wanted it
for years.
The new premier of Quebec wants to mend broken fences, to
heal old wounds, to show that Quebec is a good neighbour and that
it would be a good trading partner as a sovereign country. This is a
prime opportunity for Quebec to come back to the table voluntarily
to renegotiate this contract with Labrador to break down internal
trade barriers. If Quebec does this, then and only then will Quebec
together with Newfoundland and Labrador be able to say that well
mended fences make good neighbours. However, if this is not
possible, the Government of Canada representing the interests of
all provinces must intervene.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish I could
understand what Reformers have in mind with such a proposal. I
have been trying all morning to figure out their real motives. Are
they defending the interests of a private firm or their own interests
on the eve of a byelection? This is what we must ask ourselves.
After all, the basis of their argument is that the federal government
should get involved in a dispute between two private firms that
signed a contract a few years ago and concerning which one of
them is not happy.
(1235)
This is like asking the federal government to step in between two
hockey clubs because, two years after trading Lindros, one of them
is not happy and feels it got shortchanged. This is almost the same
thing.
Are we going to ask the federal government to get involved
every time a private contract is signed by two major companies but
one of them suddenly decides that it suffered a prejudice because it
feels it could have made greater profits by acting differently or by
agreeing to different conditions?
When one signs a contract, one must behave like an adult. Those
who represented Churchill Falls when the contract was signed
behaved like adults, as did those who represented Hydro-Quebec.
There is a duly signed contract between two private firms. I do not
see why we would want to set a precedent and ask the federal
government to get involved, except to make voters believe that the
Reform Party is the one that understands them best, the one with
the solution to their economic woes of the last few years.
The best thing that voters can do is to wonder if they should put
their trust in the Reform Party, given that, in the eyes of that party,
an agreement is no assurance for the future.
[English]
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, the member would have us believe
that the Reform Party has come to Ottawa to begin thinking about
what the country needs. I did not come to Ottawa because I was
interested in the self-serving drivel I have heard from the opposite
side and the government benches. I entered politics because of
serious concerns of longstanding issues that need redress from my
part of the country.
We did not go into Labrador simply to win a byelection. We were
there long before this byelection was called. This is not a new issue
that the Reform Party has dreamed up. This is an old, old issue that
has been hurting and crying for redress for years and years and
years. Simply because the Reform Party has the guts to stand up
and say that enough is enough, something has to be done does not
mean it was invented by the Reform Party.
We are simply speaking on behalf of the people who have been
calling for redress for decades. This is nonsense that I am hearing
from the member. This is an unjust contract. He knows it and what
he says is to serve his own political purposes.
774
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member from the Reform Party is dreaming if
he thinks the contract will be reopened under any current
circumstances primarily because it is far too profitable for Quebec.
The Reform Party has taken the position that Canada should set
the terms for sovereignty before the next referendum. Has it
occurred to the hon. member and his party that the Churchill Falls
contract would certainly be something that would be open for
negotiation in the event of any kind of debate or negotiation with
respect to sovereignty?
I do not think we will ever see the day when there will be a
referendum in which Quebecers choose to separate from Canada.
However, we should still put on the table the fact that were there
negotiations for a separate Quebec, the Churchill Falls contract
would have to be on the table and Quebec would have to concede a
fair arrangement with Newfoundland and Labrador which would
probably cost the new sovereign state of Quebec many hundreds of
millions of dollars annually.
Perhaps my colleague from the Reform Party would care to
comment on those remarks.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, Quebec has been calling for fairness
and justice about the injustice it has been suffering. Newfoundland
and Labrador has been hurting very badly for a long time. If we are
to have a country in which all of the provinces can hold together,
then the interests and the needs of every region of the country must
be given attention.
(1240)
Are we to say to Quebec that its needs have not been met so it
can go? Are we to say to Newfoundland that it has been hurting for
a long time and maybe if it leaves Confederation it will be able to
renegotiate a contract or say to go stuff it?
The interests of Newfoundland and Labrador must be attended
to. The Government of Canada must attend to the interests of all
regions of the country, including the eastern region of
Newfoundland and Labrador. It must also attend to the needs of
Quebec, I agree.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that, on occasion, I
have wished in this House that the Reform Party became the
official government of Canada. But over the past few weeks, and
especially today, I have changed my mind.
The motion before us today deals with a contract signed on
behalf of two corporations by very smart individuals who took
months to negotiate and reach an agreement. The case was heard by
the Supreme Court of Canada, and the contract declared valid. A
contract is a contract.
Reform members are taking advantage of the forthcoming
elections in Newfoundland to engage in some Quebec bashing,
telling Newfoundlanders that we are bad neighbours.
If you recall, Mr. Parizeau himself, at the last premiers' meeting,
when Mr. Wells was still premier of Newfoundland, surprised Mr.
Wells with a private offer to renegotiate the issue of a corridor
through Quebec should the province become a country in the short
term, which at the time was a strong possibility. We are very open
to this kind of negotiations.
I would like to remind my colleague that if it were not for
Quebec weighing heavily in favour of NAFTA, there would be no
NAFTA agreement between Quebec and the U.S., and probably no
GATT agreement, since it had a profound impact on the decisions
in this respect.
I would like to ask a question of my hon. colleague who raised
the issue of contracts; we have a proper contract, by which we will
abide. In Canada, there is a basic contract called the Canadian
Constitution. In 1982, the Constitution was patriated and Quebec
was deliberately excluded from this contract. The terms of the
contract were changed without Quebec's assent, against the will of
Quebec's national assembly, even though Quebec used to be party
to the contract. In Quebec, no premier, no political party-forget
about sovereignists and let us look at federalists in Quebec-no
federalist, the allies of our friends opposite, agreed to sign. We
were excluded from this contract. Does my colleague find this
normal?
[English]
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member
would say we are calling to have this contract judged. That has
already been done. That is not what we are asking for. We are
asking to have the contract renegotiated.
It is not only Churchill Falls that is the problem here. The
problem is the blocking of a development which is waiting to
spring up and benefit the people in that part of the country. The
lower Churchill, the Voisey; there is so much happening there and
this contract is a plug that will not allow events to flow through.
The Government of Canada should be prepared to take some
leadership in opening up the possibilities for this to be resolved.
We have suggested some of those possibilities but we are not the
government in power. We are urging, pushing and suggesting that
the government must take the initiative. If it cares for
Newfoundland and the development of Labrador it must take the
initiative. It must adjudicate fairly to the interests of both Quebec
and Labrador. It must take action to relieve this impossible
situation.
775
(1245)
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have been in the Chamber for some time; you much longer than
I. When I read today's orders of the day I was surprised, but not
completely, the Reform Party of Canada put down as one of its
opposition motions a subject matter dealing with a particular
constituency which happens to be in the midst of a federal
byelection.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dingwall: We will have an opportunity to exchange views
during the questions period. Whether the hon. member is disabled
or not, we will have that opportunity. I ask him to be patient in
terms of his interventions.
To the hon. member from Fraser Valley East, is if there was one
shred of concern for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
why did he not have the absolute decency to come to the Chamber
and put before us a votable motion? It is not a votable motion. That
shows the strength of the conviction of the hon. member opposite.
Some people in Newfoundland-not I-would say this is
hypocrisy at its worst.
This is absolutely despicable on the part of Reform Party
members, who are trying to position themselves as individuals
concerned about the plight of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador; so much so that they have gone one step beyond by
attempting to bloody the good name of the former member of
Parliament who served there with great distinction for over 24
years. I think of my colleague, Mr. Rompkey, who we all know was
able, concerned, dedicated and sincere in all of his activities on
behalf of his constituents.
I find it passing strange the Reform Party would use this
occasion, when a byelection is under way, to raise these issues,
when it has never in the two years we have been in the House raised
issues which affect the people of Labrador.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not buy this.
They will not buy your new found faith, your new found concern,
your new found care, your new found compassion-
The Deputy Speaker: A minister who has been in the House
will know he is not to address his colleagues by ``you'' but to
address his remarks through the Chair.
Mr. Dingwall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues opposite
know this will not wash with the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. I assure them of that.
If they really wanted to debate something that could be resolved
quite easily they would have put some other subject matters on.
They chose a particular contract, duly consummated between the
Government of Quebec and the Government of Newfoundland.
This has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Canada as
being a binding, legal contract on the parties. What does the
Reform Party do? It says it should be broken up. To hell with the
Supreme Court of Canada.
(1250)
What hypocrisy. What stupidity. What unbelievable arrogance
on the part of the Reform Party to tell the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador that the way to go is to break legally binding
contracts.
The hon. member shakes his head. He says: ``We are just looking
for a new way to resolve this dispute'', but he has not given one
shred of evidence, one piece of constructive advice.
He disputes the government's position in dealing with this
through the provision of internal trade agreements, which
negotiations are being led by my very able colleague, the Minister
of Industry, as well as the Minister of Natural Resources.
What is taking place here is nothing more than a sham by the
Reform Party of Canada.
I thought its members might have talked about certain projects in
the province of Newfoundland such as Hibernia, in which the
Government of Canada has been involved. No, we have not heard
from them on that initiative. They are probably against Hibernia, if
the truth were known. If they are in favour of Hibernia, I would
think the hon. member opposite would want to stand up to say he
fully supports it.
Where are they on CFB Goose Bay? Where is the Reform Party
on that issue? Silent. Not a word. Not a reference. No interventions
relate to that. The base in Goose Bay, Labrador contributes about
$128 million to the province's GDP. That was in 1992. It has
probably increased substantially in recent years. It is a significant
boost to the economy.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is working with
community groups intending to foster economic development in
that region. Has the hon. member stood in his place and said we
need more of that kind of assistance and intervention by the state?
No. His colleague stands in the House to criticize minister after
minister who is trying to make money available for the purposes of
economic development.
Mr. Strahl: Especially Liberals.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, he just said it all. It proves the point
that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East is trying to play
politics with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Vancouver Province of March 14, 1996 described hon.
members opposite as: ``Wacko Reform''. In Newfoundland people
do not have to be reminded by Vancouver newspapers; they know
the Reform Party is wacko reform when it comes to protecting and
enhancing their economic interests.
776
Through ACOA the province of Newfoundland, in co-operation
with the Government of Canada, has some of the best economic
educational programs in North America. It build not only physical
infrastructure but, just as important if not more so, human
infrastructure. ACOA has added to that to assist in developing and
in diversifying its economy.
The hon. member opposite has not stood in his place during
question period over the last two and a half years supporting those
efforts. He has criticized them; again my thesis that the hon.
member opposite is playing cheap, nasty, dirty politics, which is
typical of the leader of the Reform Party.
Perhaps the hon. member should state on the floor of the House
of Commons whether he supports the leader of the Reform Party.
We know the hon. member for Macleod, the bellhop for the party,
does not support his leader. Perhaps I should correct that. The
leader of the Reform Party does not support the hon. member for
Macleod.
(1255 )
I raise this issue because this is the same member who stood up
Thursday after the budget and said we were not putting enough into
transfer payments. He had the byelections in Quebec and in
Newfoundland in mind when he was saying those things.
What did his leader say this week? His leader cut him off, as he
should have cut him off, and said: ``I am sorry, there have to be
more cuts to transfer payments''.
At some point in time some will think it is a flip-flop on the part
of Reform members in terms of their interests. They consistently
say one thing in one part of Canada and another thing in another
part of Canada.
When they go to Quebec they ease up and they are goozy, teary
eyed, and they want to be friends to the people of Quebec. When
they go to Newfoundland the handkerchiefs come out and they
want to ooze up to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; also
when they go to Nova Scotia.
Canadians are not fooled by that. They have rejected Reform
overwhelmingly and that is why members of its caucus are
desperately seeking headlines in the byelection in Newfoundland in
terms of misinformation, erroneous information, false information.
Newfoundlanders have told me time and time again that the
Reform Party is pretty careless with the truth.
The hon. member has not made one sentence in terms of the
comprehensive Labrador co-operation agreement of $67.2 million.,
He has said nothing about the $100 million economic renewal
program which will also benefit Labrador. He has said nothing with
regard to the Atlantic ground fishery program which will benefit
the people of Labrador.
He made reference to one contract consummated by the Supreme
Court of Canada which cannot be changed. The only reason he does
that, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, is he knows it
cannot be changed. He is doing it for political purposes. I would
have thought the hon. member opposite would have a different
view from that of his leader and some of his caucus members and
that he would have come here today with constructive suggestions
in terms of how the economy in one of the poorest regions of the
country could be improved. No, he sets up a straw man, knowing
full well what the Supreme Court of Canada has decided.
There is language to describe such conduct. I think the language
will be best demonstrated to the hon. member, to the hon. member
for McLeod and of course to the famous leader of the Reform Party
clearly and unequivocally on election day when the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador make their decision and reject
overwhelmingly the hypocrisy of this member opposite and of the
Reform Party in general.
Mr. Strahl: Nervous?
Mr. Dingwall: Nervous? Mr. Speaker, I will pay the hon.
member $15,000 or $20,000 if he would only run against me. I will
hold fundraisers for him if he would only come down and run
against me. Run anywhere in Atlantic Canada. I will pay the
member $25,000. We will have a fundraiser just for the Reform
Party so it can find a candidate.
(1300 )
If the hon. member wishes to take me up on the offer he has to
put something on the table also such as a little bit of integrity, a
little bit of honesty, a little bit of compassion, as opposed to being
this anti-institution, anti-government, anti-individual, anti-Quebec,
anti-democracy, anti-everything.
Their ranks are starting to grow, Mr. Speaker. They are like
earwigs, they multiply when a little issue comes to the forefront.
One of their caucus members said about their own leader and
their own party: ``I have had enough of labouring under the image
of a party that is downright scary''. That does not come from us.
That comes from the members opposite which adds to the thesis.
This group of Canadians in the Reform Party are not concerned
about Newfoundland. They are not concerned about the economic
interests in that part of the country. They are not concerned about
the economic interests of the people of Quebec or indeed
elsewhere. They are playing an old game of cheap, sleazy politics.
This was the politics that the leader of the Reform Party said he
was not going to be involved in. He is doing it. That is exactly what
he is doing. I find, and I am sure Canadians will find, this kind of
conduct very disgusting and will vote accordingly.
777
I do not need notes to debate the hon. member. I would debate
the hon. member anywhere on any subject that he chooses to
debate. The problem is that it is very difficult to debate with
anyone who uses false and erroneous information and who tries
to use poor people and poor regions of the country to his own
political advantage.
I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the
Reform Party has absolutely nothing to offer them in this election,
absolutely nothing. The hon. member opposite asks me: ``What do
you have to offer?''. We have lots to offer the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. The work that the hon. member who
was the member for Labrador for 24 years will continue when we
elect a Liberal member of Parliament from that constituency.
In closing, let me challenge the Reform Party. Instead of being
anti-poor regions of this country, instead of being anti-Quebec,
instead of being anti-those who are less fortunate than you are,
stand in your place and put constructive ideas before the House of
Commons. Support measures which will help people who are less
fortunate than you are as opposed to playing cheap political games.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a few comments and ask a couple of question of
the minister. I thank him for that diatribe but I do not know why I
really should.
There were a couple things I noticed. One is that he would like to
run against me in a future campaign. This is interesting. If he could
ever figure out where the west coast is, he could come and take a
tour. I could show him around. He would be welcome to run against
me there.
Even if he were to run, of course, I know the minister is good at
raising dollars. He raises and spends lots of bucks. If he wants to
give me $25,000 to run against him, he should be aware that in the
debate, in a battle of wits he is unarmed. I hate to take advantage of
an unarmed man.
He brought forward the following points. First, he did not deal
with the motion at all. The sad part about the speeches of the
Liberal side today is that they do not want to talk about this. They
are saying: ``Let's not talk about this. We are happy with the status
quo. What is going on is perfect''.
Mr. Rompkey was there for 25 years and for 25 years Labrador
has been shipping hundreds of millions of dollars a year to Quebec
under this deal and the Liberals are satisfied. They say: ``It's a good
deal. Don't talk about it. Don't ruffle the feathers. Don't cause any
problems. We are happy over here on the Liberal side. It's a good
deal. We're happy. Don't worry, be happy''.
(1305 )
The people of Labrador are not happy. They have not been happy
since this deal was signed and the minister's complacency, saying
``just live with it because that's the way she is'' is not good enough.
Development in Labrador is not good enough. The ability of
Labrador to develop its natural resources is not good enough. It has
not been able to take advantage of its natural wealth. It is not good
enough to say just live with it.
The minister asks them to be satisfied with the TAGS program.
First, the fishery is destroyed and then they are asked to be satisfied
with some government handout. The people in Labrador do not
need handouts. They need the federal government to quit taking
them for granted.
If the hon. member would speak to the motion we could believe
that he would be dissatisfied with the deal for not only Labrador,
but for most of Atlantic Canada. Instead the minister defends his
record as if he thinks he is doing a good job. Frankly I do not think
the people of Atlantic Canada, and specifically Labrador, believe
he is.
I think of the work done by the hon. member for Kootenay West
when the Liberal government was willing to shut down the ferry
service in Labrador Straits. The hon. member received many letters
from that region thanking the Reform Party for standing up for
their rights. I am getting phone calls and faxes throughout the day,
even comments from people on the Hill that finally somebody is
talking about Labrador. However, nothing has been said on the
government side. They seem to be satisfied with the status quo.
I think of the wealth that is in Labrador. I have been to Voisey
Bay. I have been on the ground and talked to the people. I have
been throughout that whole region. I will go again and hope to go
often.
When I see the wealth that is there and the fact they are not
encouraged to develop it for the benefit of themselves and for the
people in Newfoundland, I think it is disgusting that the Liberal
Party opposite says: ``Everything is okay, we do not want to talk
about it. Mr. Strahl, why did you bring this motion up? We are
happy to ignore Labrador, just suck out the resources, tax their
pants off and leave them standing naked in a cold wind storm''. It is
not good enough.
Finally, I know the minister will support me on this. His initial
thesis, if you can call it that, was that we did not care because this
motion is not votable. I would ask for unanimous consent of the
House to make the motion votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, is there unanimous consent
to make the motion votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
778
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Deputy Speaker: Very well. Do I see-
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I will ask again. Is there unanimous
consent to make the motion votable?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not hear any nos. I will assume
therefore that the motion by unanimous consent is made votable.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health in reply.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, let me reply to the hon. member's
intervention when he said: ``I did not speak to the motion''. I spoke
to his motion. He said: ``That the House condemns the government
for its neglect of Labrador''. The things I have outlined are exactly
the things that the government has done for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the things we intend to do in the
future. Therefore the first issue is false.
Second, the hon. member says that we are satisfied with the
status quo. We are not satisfied with the status quo but we are
certainly not satisfied with the approach of the Reform Party. It
wishes to cut transfer payments even further. It wants to do away
with regional and economic development.
Mr. Strahl: You would not need those things.
Mr. Dingwall The hon. member says: ``You would not need
these those things''. He knows that there is a legally binding
contract, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The hon.
member's reaction opposite is to throw his hands in the air and say,
so what?
I am afraid that members on this side of the House and people
across the country respect the law and it is high time that the hon.
member opposite showed some respect for the law as well.
The hon. member is somewhat agitated and I can understand
why. His party has gone down to 13 per cent nationally and it is
going to go down the tubes in Newfoundland and Labrador.
(1310 )
The hon. member is making a false case. If he thinks that the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to buy this new
found concern and compassion during an election campaign when
you have stood in this House and repeatedly faulted this
government for putting money into regional economic
development, for putting money into Goose Bay, for putting money
into various economic development agreements, for putting money
into various institutions in that part of the country, you are the party
that have opposed all that.
The Deputy Speaker: The minister has now used the word you
at least seven or eight times. I would ask him if he would please
remember the rules of the House and not use the word you other
than referring to the occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well
that his is the party that has consistently and repeatedly railed
against economic development in Canada for two and a half years.
Now, all of a sudden, because there is a byelection in
Newfoundland, the people in that part of the country are now going
to accept that the members opposite are compassionate. We will
not be fooled by that hypocrisy.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member.
Before I do, colleagues, I might indicate that not having heard a no
on the final time I asked if there were any nos, I ruled that the
matter was votable and the question will be put at the end of the
debate.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am privileged
to debate this issue. The previous speaker was pretty good. I would
say he generated fair emotion and experience in his speech.
However, I do reflect on his words in a specific way. I would like
those who are listening to the debate to decide whether the minister
is satisfied with the Churchill Falls power agreement. Is he
satisfied with the status quo?
I was the first Reformer to go to Labrador. I visited quite some
time ago. It was my choice to visit. Having made that choice, some
of my colleagues asked: ``Why are you going there? This is a cold
and bitter spot. Why would you go to Labrador?'' The answer is
very straightforward. I am quite interested in the activities of the
north and I found myself on the ground.
I was inexperienced in Labrador. I have spent some time in the
north in my own part of the country but I had never been lucky
enough to go to Labrador. It was fascinating how I was treated. I
was treated with some scepticism, I must admit. I was treated with
some degree of misunderstanding, which I also accept. However, I
found a few issues in Labrador that are profoundly important to the
people there.
One of those issues was brought to the table by my colleague, the
power agreement at Churchill Falls. I met one of the men who first
worked in Churchill Falls. He told me that whatever Reformers do,
we should not buy the line that the Churchill Falls agreement is
over and done with forever. He told me to look at the agreement
and I would find that the excess power that is generated could be
used by Newfoundland. It need not go through the convoluted
agreement to coffers elsewhere. He told me to look carefully and I
would find that the only thing necessary for Newfoundlanders to
benefit from their own power is for superconductor transmission
lines to go from Churchill Falls, the source of the power, through
779
Newfoundland. In fact Churchill Falls could provide all of the
power needs for Newfoundland at a significant savings to that
province. Why can we not do that? We cannot do that because the
money is not available to build that transmission line.
(1315)
I took the time to look into that agreement and what he told me
was true, that Newfoundland could generate its own power and the
excess power and benefit from it. To those status quo Liberals who
say that the Supreme Court has ruled this agreement is over and
done with, I say hear, hear. The agreement is a secure binding
agreement, but Newfoundland could take the excess power.
The fellow who showed me around Labrador also said that the
former member had been a very dignified member. I take nothing
from the member who has gone on to the Senate, his reward in the
sky. He told me that when the issue of gun registration came on the
table, many Labradorians did not understand it. They asked for the
former member's advice. They could not reach the member; he
would not come home; he did not respond. His executive assistant
in Labrador was usually easy to reach but he seemed to disappear
and became very difficult to reach. He would not answer their
phone calls and he would not respond when they asked for public
meetings.
This individual took me to meet people to whom firearm
registration was an unknown concept. He asked me what we would
do with firearm registration. I told him that I had a commitment
from my leader and my caucus colleagues that firearm registration
was not the way to go. I told him we would love to have the bill
split into two. We would quickly pass the portion of the bill that
makes stricter penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms. We
would take the part of the bill that talked about interfering where
we do not think interference would be successful and we would toss
it into the dustbin of history. He asked if I would give him that in
writing. I said not only would I give it to him in writing but I would
get it in writing from my leader. He responded by saying we should
talk to some people with strong feelings on the issue.
On a rainy Sunday afternoon he drove me out to a gravel pit. I
wondered where I was going; I thought perhaps he was going to
finish me off. At the gravel pit there was a group of young men who
were keen internationally renowned competitive shooters. He said
to them: ``Fellows, come over here and talk to this guy. He is from
Alberta, a Reform member of Parliament. He is the first one to step
on Labrador soil as a member of Parliament. He says the Reform
Party will throw the gun registration component of Bill C-68 into
the dustbin of history. Do you believe him?'' They replied: ``No,
we don't believe him for a second. He is a politician and they are all
as crooked as question marks''. The fellow said: ``Boys, I have
talked to a lot of politicians and I have looked them in the eye and I
think this fellow is telling us the truth''. He said that he was going
to join the party and that he would work hard for it.
This was well before the byelection was called, well before there
was any idea that we would be fighting on this ground. I came back
and told my colleagues that there was fertile ground in Labrador.
There is another issue that annoyed the people of Labrador.
There is a line on most maps that indicates the boundary between
Labrador and Quebec. One of the fellows told me there are some
people in Quebec who do not accept that boundary. In fact, on some
maps the boundary is absent. When tourists come from Quebec to
Labrador, they are actually told that Labrador is part of Quebec.
Mr. Strahl: Come on.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): It is true. Annoy a Labradorian more than
to tell a Labradorian they do not belong to Newfoundland; I do not
believe that can be done. He said to me: ``You make sure that your
Reform colleagues know that Labrador is a part of Newfoundland
and we are going to stay a part of Newfoundland. When you come
here make certain that is clear''.
(1320)
It was fertile ground for Reform well before the byelection. It
was fertile ground because those individuals determined that we
are no longer going to dump wheelbarrows full of money on the
ground to try to buy their votes. Reformers will tell it exactly as it
is.
ACOA, FEDNOR and western economic diversification have
been mechanisms for big political parties to buy votes. The way to
get votes in Labrador is to tell the truth, to specifically say to
individuals in Labrador that they do not need handouts. They need
an environment in which they can thrive. They need a debt that is
no longer sucking the lifeblood out of the future of their children.
They need to have places where they can go to university and not
be left without training.
Labradorians respond to that truth. Labradorians respond to
common sense. Labradorians respond to a specific issue that says
when they send a Reformer from Labrador to the Parliament of
Canada they will not be sending a trained seal. They will not be
sending someone who bows to the party wishes. They will be
sending someone who gives party input.
I say plainly to my colleagues across the way: When the old way
of doing politics is over, when the old way of campaigning is over,
Labradorians may look again at the Liberals for their member of
Parliament.
I make a prediction here today that Labradorians are going to
show the way of the future in Canada when they vote in the
byelection.
780
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the words of my colleague from the
third party.
He spoke about Newfoundland being a part of Labrador.
Newfoundlanders always knew that Labrador was a part of
Newfoundland, not Quebec. They have known it for years. We do
not have to be told that. We are not dumb.
He also said that we need to get rid of the debt so that the
government is not sucking the lifeblood out of Newfoundlanders.
During the budget debate and prior to it, if we took what they were
saying, those members would have sucked the lifeblood out of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians long ago, not just
Newfoundlanders but other Canadians as well.
There is one point the hon. member made to which I take
particular exception. It was his comment that the gentleman who
took him on a tour of Labrador brought him to a sandpit and he
thought he was going to be done in. Newfoundlanders are not like
that. Newfoundlanders are responsible, trusting, respectable
people. We do not go around doing other people in.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I seem to have struck an
interesting chord with the hon. member opposite.
Light hearted comments made in the House I am sure should be
taken in a light hearted fashion. If the hon. member thinks for one
second that I really thought I was going to be done in during my
visit to the gravel pit, that is quite far from the truth. A little
chuckle might be worthwhile in the House occasionally.
(1325)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have a short question and a small comment. Can my colleague from
the Reform Party tell us why his party, which has so much to say
about the law and financial matters, which has so many principles
on paper, introduced this debate today, unless, as my colleagues
across the way have so eloquently said, it was simply for the
purpose of indulging in petty politics, or wasting the time of the
entire House? I hope that he will give an honest answer to this
question.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, why a debate on this topic? Is
a byelection not a very important debate for the Bloc Quebecois
members? It is not a very important question for him, but it is very
important for us. It is difficult for a Western party to come East and
make a new proposal for this region of Canada.
I have a question for the Bloc Quebecois member. Before the
sovereignty debate, why did we speak about Quebec? It is the same
thing.
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the
Reform Party motion.
I will talk a little bit about the actual facts in the motion, the
Churchill Falls agreement. I want to talk about what has been
discussed over the last few minutes, exactly how much support the
federal government has provided to Newfoundland and Labrador. It
is indeed significant.
I will also talk about the absolute political inconsistency and
hypocrisy of the Reform Party in bringing forward this motion
some few days before a byelection takes place in Labrador, an area
which before the byelection the Reform Party hardly new existed.
I will be quite straightforward. A contract exists in respect of
Churchill Falls that was freely entered into and which has been
ratified by the Supreme Court. That is a reality. In hindsight one
might suggest it was not necessarily a good contract to enter into.
Coming from the financial business area, I can say there are a lot of
contracts that one could look back on and ask: I wonder why I ever
did that. Unfortunately, one rule of law, one of the tenets we have in
Canada and something that keeps us going is the fact that we
respect contracts. In this case, the contract has been ratified by the
Supreme Court.
The member is right. Things have changed a lot since the
contract was signed. At the time it probably seemed like a good
deal. Energy costs were low. The only practical way to deliver
power from Labrador is through Quebec. Quite frankly, when the
project was being developed thousands of jobs were created for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, hindsight is
20-20. An oil crisis ensued shortly after that and there was an
increase in the cost of energy. I guess we learned that long term
contracts are probably not always the best way to go. The Supreme
Court spoke to this matter and clearly stated that it was a firm
contract.
The Reform Party knows and consistently insists that natural
resources and the management of natural resources is not the
purview of the federal government but is the purview of provincial
governments. That is something the Reform Party not only wants to
see continue but it also wants to see it enhanced.
(1330 )
Quite frankly, the federal government does assist Labrador and
Newfoundland in developing its natural resources. It has worked
with the province in the hope of finding ways to develop on the
lower Churchill. It went on record in 1975 of offering financial
assistance in the development of a transmission link to the island. It
is now working at Voisey Bay to find the tools we need to find ways
of streamlining the regulatory regime. In fact the member who put
forward this motion has worked closely with the natural resources
781
committee and signed off on a unanimous report on finding ways to
ensure that we can assist in the important development of Voisey
Bay to make sure that it can come on stream, that it can be a reality
and that jobs will be created in Labrador and Newfoundland.
Not just as the federal government have we supported that
province through the natural resource sector, in Labrador today
there is the Canadian forces base at Goose Bay which adds $128
million to the local economy. That is more than fish harvesting and
trapping; it is about the same as what pulp and paper and
agriculture together supply. The federal government through the
establishment of CFB Goose Bay adds tremendously to the
economy.
Other types of assistance are provided. There is the whole issue
of transfer payments from the federal government to the provincial
governments. I know that my Reform colleagues across the way
might suggest it should be equal for each province, but we feel a
little differently over here. Areas of the country which are most in
need require greater assistance than some of the other areas. That is
borne out when we look at the fact that Labrador and
Newfoundland has the highest per capita rate by which we provide
transfers to the provinces. That is the way it should be. It is the way
the Reform Party would want to see ended.
Let us talk about the Reform Party and Labrador and
Newfoundland. First, it was very difficult in fact near impossible to
find that subject in the 1993 Reform Party campaign literature and
campaign platform. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this
discovery of Labrador and Newfoundland seems to have occurred
only with the advent of a byelection in that area. If one goes
through the record of this House and looks in Hansard for a
reference to Labrador by the Reform Party, it will be a very thin
record that will be found.
Let us talk a bit about the Reform Party and what great things it
will do for Labrador. I notice the finance critic was one of the
architects of the 1995 Reform budget. Unfortunately the Reform
Party did not get around to doing a 1996 one. I will touch on some
of the things Reform suggested and the impact they would have on
the people of Labrador.
Reform would get rid of the Canada pension plan. It would give
up on it and replace it with private RRSPs. This is great if one
happens to have a lot of money. Those who earn a lot of money can
establish their own RRSPs. With the Reform budget, those who are
not that fortunate to be at the upper end of the income scale are
simply out of luck.
A $20 billion suggestion on reductions in social programs was in
the Reform budget of 1995. I wonder how that would play out for
the people of Labrador. I doubt that it would be a real positive thing
for them.
Besides looking at the Reform budget and campaign literature,
perhaps we should move right to what the Reform leader had to say
about Labrador and Newfoundland. I understand the leader was in
that area in September 1994. I happened to look at a couple of
newspaper clippings on that visit. I want to make sure the people of
Labrador know exactly what the leader of the Reform Party had to
say. On another issue affecting Newfoundland he said: ``The
unemployment insurance system should be reformed so that
seasonal workers are taken out of the system''. My goodness, the
leader of the third party is suggesting that seasonal workers, on
whom we depend so much in rural Canada and in Labrador, should
not be included in the UI system. I hope the people of Labrador
know that is the position of the leader of the Reform Party.
(1335)
We know from many exchanges in the House that the Reform
Party does not believe in regional development agencies. That is
certainly shared by the Reform leader when he goes on to say in
that article that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency should
be disbanded.
The Reform Party is suggesting all the assistance that has been
provided over the years has not been the appropriate way to go,
regardless of the fact that there might be an economy that is in need
of special assistance so that the private sector can do its job. I agree
with him that long term job creation will come from the private
sector but sometimes the private sector needs assistance. The
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency does that but the Reform
Party would see it eliminated.
There are some inconsistencies between what is being put
forward by the third party today, what its policy seems to be
suggesting in this motion and what in fact it says on an ongoing
basis. Earlier we talked about natural resources. The Reform
Party's policy states clearly that the federal government ought not
to have a role in the management of natural resources. What did
Reform do today? It put forward a motion that suggested the
federal government should intervene in it. This is totally
inconsistent. Reform cannot on the one hand say we do not have
any business there and then on the other hand say we should
intervene.
We have here a party which prides itself on being the party of
free enterprise, the party of the private sector, and all of the stuff
that goes with that. Yet the Reform Party says a contract that was
freely entered into, probably as a mistake by some of the parties,
and confirmed by the Supreme Court should be set aside. That
seems a very strange position to be taken by the Reform Party.
We should see this motion for exactly what it is: a crass political
attempt during a byelection to gain political support in a part of the
country the Reform Party historically has ignored. It is a party
782
whose policies are certainly not in the best interests of the people
of Labrador and Newfoundland.
Reformers talk about doing politics in a new way and bringing
something new to this House. All we have seen is old politics, the
old way of trying to take advantage of the situation and the old
inconsistencies.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the member has made some point of discussing the regional
economic development which goes on out there and Reform Party
policy. He mentioned my leader, the member from Calgary
Southwest, at least three times. He has said a lot of things.
The hon. member should look at what the Reform Party is about
and not simply what his own party is saying about Reformers. The
Reform Party really would like to see Canadians be independent, to
be able to care for themselves, to take satisfaction in their
achievements. That is what we would like for the provinces as well.
We would like for Labrador and Newfoundland, as well as all the
other provinces, to be strong, economically capable and
self-sufficient. As a British Columbian I am really proud that we
have the strength, the economy and the wealth that benefits other
provinces and other people in Canada.
(1340)
In the member's justification of all the things the government
has done over the years for Newfoundland and Labrador, such as
the army bases and bringing in money through economic
development funds, would he tell me how prosperous the province
has become as a result of Liberal initiatives?
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite went on
about his great pride in the country, which I share with him.
He talked about wanting to have the opportunity for everybody
to have a fair shot at economic prosperity. What is missed here,
which I think the Reform Party generally misses, is that
government has a role to help both the people and the areas of the
country that are least advantaged.
Reformers are right in that we have an economic responsibility
as a government. We fulfil that economic responsibility very well.
But what they forget and what they ignore is the fact that
government has a second responsibility, a social responsibility. The
people of Labrador and Newfoundland know very well that the
Reform Party if given an opportunity to govern would spend its
time strictly on economic affairs and would forget the social
responsibility. That is what the future would hold if that party were
in power.
The government when it governs the people must remember that
it has that dual responsibility. Yes, it must manage the economic
affairs of the country well and it has a firm responsibility in that
area. However, it has a social responsibility to ensure that those
regions which are less advantaged and those individuals in society
who are less advantaged have an opportunity as well.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
1969, the federal government could have forced Quebec to open a
corridor to let Newfoundland run its power lines through Quebec's
territory. It did not do that. Had it done so, it would have been
totally unacceptable.
I ask the member opposite, who is the chairman of the natural
resources committee, to assure me that his government will respect
the terms of the contract, which was duly signed-as the member
himself said earlier-between the CFLCO and Hydro-Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I accept the fact that there is a
contract in place which governs the power coming from the upper
Churchill River. There will come a day, hopefully in the not too
distant future, when the economics of energy will be a little
different from what they are today. The demand for
hydroelectricity will increase and the opportunity will exist for
Labrador and Newfoundland to sell the power to create new
facilities on the lower part of the system. That will come when the
economy changes and demand increases. At that time it will be
quite right for the people of Labrador and Newfoundland to look at
the best way in which they can use that increased capacity.
I look forward to that day. I look forward to the people of
Labrador and Newfoundland being able to do further development
in their best interests.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to respond to a total falsehood which was
presented by the hon. member when he mentioned that the Reform
taxpayers budget had planned to cut $20 billion out of social
program spending. Our budget committed very firmly to a
maximum reduction in transfers to provinces, the famous money
going to medicare, higher education and CAP, of only about $3
billion. Whereas his government took $7 billion from this program.
It is totally false.
(1345)
Over three years the total reduction in program spending would
have been $16 billion, and well over half of that would have come
out of savings, inefficiencies, overlap between governments,
outrageous programs that had been bloated over the last 30 years.
This is simply an incorrect representation which is despicable
because it adds to something that is simply wrong.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, it does not add to something which
is totally false, it simply reinforces the reality of the situation.
783
The budget brought forward by the Reform Party stated a goal,
an objective of where it wanted to be economically. Then it listed
a number of fiscal measures that should be undertaken. There was
a funny thing about that. When we add up the specific measures
it suggested and compared them with the goal it was trying to
reach, the two did not match.
There was a big pool of cuts that needed to be made which it was
not willing to make clear. There were big cuts the Canadian people
were to be asked to undertake but they were not spelled out. It did
not tell Canadians the specifics of what they would be. That is the
reality of the Reform budget.
It was calling for all of these cuts and these things to happen, but
it was not willing to put in writing each and every cut that would
have to be made to reach the target it wanted to achieve.
Quite frankly, the Liberal government and the finance minister
through his three budgets have shown a path to the Canadian people
by which we can reach good fiscal management, substantially
reduce the deficit and do it in a way that is paced in an appropriate
manner and in a way that combines the two responsibilities I talked
about earlier, the fiscal responsibility the government has and its
social responsibility.
I think the reaction of Canadians to the budget of the Minister of
Finance shows we are on the right course which will bring sound
fiscal management to the country in a way the Canadian people
think is appropriate.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to
respond to the last statement from the hon. member for Parry
Sound-Muskoka, the answer to the question from the member for
Capilano-Howe Sound was very revealing not only about the
communications techniques of the government but about the
character of the hon. member.
He was caught expressing, I suspect inadvertently, a falsehood
regarding what was in Reform's budget proposal last year. He said
the party had committed to cutting $20 billion out of social
spending, something which by simply referencing the page can
seen to be untrue.
Then having been caught saying that, his answer is the budget
really did not specify the cuts at all. Now he says precisely the
opposite. He might want to bother to check the documents before
he makes statements.
Reform proposed in the last election precisely what it would cut.
It expressed those cuts to the people of Labrador as well as to
people in other parts of the country. It did the same thing in the
taxpayers budget. The numbers add, up if the hon. member bothers
to read them.
Where we will not find reference to cuts, reference to cutting
seasonal workers on unemployment insurance, reference to the
elimination of old age security, reference to the massive cuts in the
order of 40 per cent to 50 per cent in transfers for health, post
secondary education and welfare is in the red book. Nor will they
be found in the document on which his party and this member ran
in Newfoundland and in all other provinces.
(1350)
This member will get up and pontificate so wisely on these
issues but he ran on one thing and he will now vote for the precise
opposite measure in every other category.
I am not afraid to say what I believe because that is the platform
I ran on. Some of those measures are positive. We ran on those
measures. That is what we said should have been done. However,
this member who is enrolled in the MP pension plan had an
obligation to tell his own electors the truth, but he did not do that.
Instead he told people what they wanted to hear. Now he goes along
with the party because he will go along with anything. That is what
we have and that is precisely why in Labrador and in so many other
parts of the country politics is held in such disrepute.
I repeat what I said in my budget speech. I honestly do not know
how some of these socialist Liberals live with this. Some of them
are sincerely committed to their principles. They have now
proposed and enacted $25 billion in cuts. That is a figure from the
last budget by the Minister of Finance; more cuts than were
proposed by the Reform Party in 1993, the slash and burn Reform
Party.
We still have a $15 billion deficit which is the real unknown
figure. How are we to fix that remaining $14 billion, although they
say it is $17 billion counting their reserves? How is that remaining
$14 billion to be cut? We have not been told that yet. I suspect
much of it will come near the turn of the century when they actually
implement their cuts to old age security. Then we will find out what
they really mean.
We found out on health care. We talked about cutting health care,
saying we should actually spend zero in 1993. We said we should
have cut about a billion last year. They said this was awful. Now
the cuts in the health care area are many times that; $4.3 billion.
The motion today is:
That this House condemn the government for its neglect of Labrador, and for
refusing to resolve the injustice of the Churchill Falls Hydro Contract, thus
perpetuating interprovincial trade barriers and denying the residents of Labrador the
right to enjoy the benefits of their own natural resources.
The hon. member sees this as a contradiction; another of his
contradictions. He said: ``I thought the Reform Party would stay
out of natural resources. Now it wants to regulate natural
resources''. Nobody is proposing to tell the Government of
Newfoundland how to run its power. We are proposing to open up
784
interprovincial trade. It is just a slight distinction but the hon.
member may want to read the motion.
Reform has chosen this as its motion for supply day. In that
regard the debate has been very interesting. We have been talking
on this side about the Churchill Falls contract and about the
situation of Labrador, Newfoundland generally, in Confederation,
in interprovincial trade and in other arrangements.
The official opposition has had nothing to say. We are told this is
the national opposition. It has nothing to say because it does not
happen in Quebec and therefore has no relevance. It does address
Quebec indirectly but it is of no relevance whatsoever.
In the case of the Liberal Party, rarely if at all today have we
heard the issue addressed. Instead we have heard constant reference
to the fact there are two byelections in Newfoundland, one in
Labrador and one in the riding of the former minister of fisheries.
That is what the Liberals' main concern has been, an election. The
focus is that there is an election and there is electioneering. Who
has been talking about elections here today? The Liberals.
(1355)
There is a byelection in Labrador and those who say it is a
terrible, dishonourable and despicable thing to somehow talk about
the needs of Labrador at this time I think are wrong. I say
byelection, why not? Why not talk about the concerns of Labrador
when there is a byelection in Labrador?
Mr. Speaker, as you know and have written very eloquently on
this problem, this is one of the perennially ignored backwater
regions of the country, one that is always getting the short end of
the stick and never paid any attention at election time.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is quite right that
the Reform Party election platform never mentioned Labrador in
the last election. Without having reviewed every page of it, any
money Labrador is not mentioned in the red book either, from a
party that has been in existence since Confederation and that has
represented that riding for most of its time in Canada.
It has been ignored, not unlike the west, not unlike many of the
ridings our members represent in western Canada, particularly in
the northern part of western Canada. It has been viewed, as are
many of the ridings of more remote areas, by traditional parties as
really rotten boroughs, a place where a few handouts can be
provided and the member can be expected to be re-elected until
such time as he moves on to the other place.
One of my colleagues referred to the other place as his reward
high above. I think that is a little different. The rewards may not all
be high above. The place down there is on the same level as this, at
least in terms of altitude.
I have mentioned many times in the House that we need Senate
reform. Labrador is incredibly large. We need Senate reform so that
important large resource producing regions have a meaningful long
term role in the governance of the country.
A few people in the House probably remember that in 1971 the
people in Labrador were so outraged by their treatment not only by
the signing of the Churchill Falls contract in 1969 but by their
general treatment from the Government of Newfoundland that they
actually elected an independent Labrador representative, a
representative from the New Labrador Party in 1971.
It caused quite a sensation at the time because the member very
briefly held the balance of power between the two traditional
parties. It was one brief attempt by the people of Labrador to assert
their needs in the political system. It did not last long because
frankly the system makes it very difficult for an area like that to
play a meaningful role.
We have heard from the Liberals nothing but concerns about the
election itself and electioneering. We have heard on the issue itself
silence, particularly from Newfoundland members. I notice with
some pride and gratitude that the government has agreed to make
this a votable motion. It is now a votable motion. I am happy to see
that.
I was in the House when consent for a votable motion was asked.
I know the hon. member for St. John's West did not want this to be
votable motion for whatever reason. I guess because she is such a
well trained Liberal backbencher she was not used to shouting out
her point of view. Mr. Speaker, you decided you had heard
unanimity. I am glad to see we have a votable motion today.
It is very interesting to listen to the Liberals today bragging
about their concern for Labrador and pointing to what they see as
the Reform Party's lack of concern for this region and similar
regions.
The bases for their accusations are the following. I will point out
several things I have heard referenced. The Reform Party is not
firmly supportive of the current system of unemployment
insurance, particularly as it relates to seasonal industry. The
Reform Party does not fully support all the workings and objectives
of the welfare system. The Reform Party is not the strongest
supporter of TAGS, the strongest supporter of subsidies to the
beleaguered fishing industry.
(1400 )
The Minister of Health, in particular, went on at great length
about how this illustrates the Reform Party's lack of
compassion-words we heard a lot today-its lack of sympathy or
its lack of pity for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I
believe that, more than anything, illustrates the difference between
these two parties.
785
It is true that this party does not want to view the people of
Labrador and Newfoundland with compassion, with sympathy and
with pity. These people, like Canadians in my province and
elsewhere, deserve hope, deserve economic growth and economic
opportunity. They are not pitiful and sympathetic characters just
around for when it comes to some program the Liberals can point
to and say: ``We are giving you billions of dollars in your own
money''. That is a very different attitude toward not only how we
deal with the remote and undeveloped regions of the country, but
it is also an attitude which tells us why we have such large, remote
and undeveloped regions in this country.
The Churchill Falls project in Labrador, which is at the centre of
the motion, is also a very interesting topic symbolically because it
underlines a perspective heard in Newfoundland and particularly in
Labrador that is very different than the problems of Quebec
separation.
The people from this part of the world, particularly from Ontario
where I grew up, are very concerned that if Quebec leaves it creates
this giant hole and a divided country. This is of course a concern we
all share. However, when we look at what has happened with the
Churchill Falls contract and what happened with Labrador's
attempts to integrate its economy into North America, we see that
already for those people the country is already divided and there is
a giant hole between them and the markets in the rest of North
America.
It goes back not just to the Churchill Falls contract but even
before that. Despite the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador were
knitted into this country in 1949 with an agreement that respected
their territory, the province of Quebec has consistently not only
used its geographical position to block Labrador but has even
staked territorial claims on the province of Newfoundland. Frankly,
I am not aware of anything resembling this in another federation,
certainly not in the 20th century.
Newfoundland's territory was recognized in the 1949 terms of
the union but that has not stopped provincial governments not only
in Quebec from publishing maps which show all or part of
Labrador as part of Quebec, but even in the case of the federal
Progressive Conservatives. It actually in its own campaign
literature in Quebec used to show Labrador as a part of Quebec.
That was a federal political party.
Churchill Falls is, in my view, Newfoundland's national energy
program. The national energy program was, as you know, Mr.
Speaker, probably one of the most blatant attempts of a
government, in the history of a democratic country, to plunder the
legal resources of another part of the country through federal
statutes. It was, as some will use the expression here, a contract. It
was law. It certainly was law. It did a lot of damage. We know the
numbers from Alberta. It did a lot of damage. In the case of the
Churchill Falls contract, the damage has been longer, deeper and,
in a sense, much more serious because although strictly the
financial numbers are not quite as impressive as the national energy
program, we are dealing with an economy that is much shallower
and much less developed.
In a sense, because nobody would respect the rights of
Newfoundland and Labrador under the Constitution, it was all
legal, just like the national energy program was legal. It was just
like the Pearson airport contract was legal but it did not stop that
from being torn up. It was just like the EH-101 contracts were all
legal. It was just like the red book made promises to Canadians
about their health care, their pensions and the GST. We can tear all
those up too. But this one is a contract. It is legal.
(1405)
The fact is this contract was implemented primarily because
Quebec was able to use its geographic position to block the sale of
Labrador power and it was backed in doing so by the complicity
through silence of the federal government, actually the Liberal
Pearson government of the 1960s.
The contract was signed in 1969. It requires Newfoundland to
sell power to Hydro Quebec at a flat pre-OPEC price. When it was
signed Hydro Quebec would not permit Newfoundland to construct
the hydro facilities necessary to send its power to customers in the
New England states unless Newfoundland sold the power to
Quebec which in turn sold it to New England.
The situation presents a clear trade barrier. At the time the
agreement was signed the federal government knew that it was in a
position to require Hydro Quebec to allow Newfoundland to wheel
power for export to New England. It simply failed to do so.
In 1995 the net result of the power contract is that Newfoundland
earns only $20 million each year from Churchill Falls electricity
sales. Hydro Quebec, on the other hand, earns an annual profit of
$800 million from the resale of Newfoundland power in New
England.
This is an interesting statistic. This $800 million constitutes
two-thirds of Newfoundland's entire equalization payments. Once
again, there is the difference I was talking about. There is no
problem with giving Newfoundland $800 million if it can be given
in the form of a handout or a welfare cheque where they can then
say: ``See how dependent they are on the magnificent generosity of
the federal Liberal government''. When it comes to making sure
Newfoundland has $800 million in economic opportunity it cannot
do anything about that. That is business.
Patrick O'Flaherty of the Montreal Gazette wrote:
The only reason Newfoundland was forced to sell hydro power to a hostile broker in
the first place was that the Pearson Liberals declined to force Quebec to accept a power
786
corridor through its territory-something Ottawa had the authority to do.
Without such a corridor, the development of Churchill Falls could take place only
on Quebec's terms which was exactly what happened.
I would like to point out the relevant sections of the Constitution
if they had been enforced by the appropriate authorities. The
federal government has the right to create a power corridor through
the following sections of the BNA act: section 92(10), provincial
legislative authority extends to the following; local works and
undertakings other than such as are of the following classes: (a)
lines of steam and other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and
other works and undertakings connecting the province with any
other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of
the province; section 91, legislative authority of Parliament
extends to the regulation of trade and commerce; and section 121,
provides that all articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of
any one of the provinces shall, from and after the union, be
admitted free into each of the other provinces.
The fact is that successive Liberal and Conservative
governments over the past 27 years have failed to uphold
Newfoundland's constitutional right to sell power directly to New
England.
I would also point out that the recently negotiated internal trade
agreement provides no such guarantee to Newfoundland in the
future. The energy provisions of the deal are still under negotiation.
Meanwhile the Churchill Falls power contract extends to the year
2041.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): A
point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am forced to rise and interrupt the
hon. member and I apologize to him for doing so. I understand that
we have to do these things at the earliest opportunity.
I have just received a copy of what is commonly referred to as
the ``blues'', or the accelerated or fast version of the Hansard of
today. It is in reference to something that occurred earlier in which
Mr. Speaker said in reference to unanimous consent and I read here
from the record:
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, is there unanimous consent
to make the motion votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Deputy Speaker: Very well, do I see-
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I will ask again. Is there unanimous
consent to make the motion votable?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not hear any nos. I will assume
therefore the motion by unanimous consent is made votable-
Some hon. members: No.
(1410 )
On two occasions on the record of the House of Commons it is
stated that members refused unanimous consent.
Third, I would invite the Speaker to check the remarks made
only two or three minutes ago by the hon. member from Calgary
who had the floor. He admitted hearing the hon. member for St.
John's West say no.
The admission of the hon. member, whose party asked a little
earlier to make the motion votable, was that consent had been
refused by another hon. member. Furthermore, there are the two
references in Hansard.
I recognize that it will be difficult for the Chair to rule on this
immediately. But I invite Mr. Speaker to review both the ``blues'' I
just referred to and the remarks of a moment ago by the hon.
member from Calgary in which he admitted that unanimous
consent had not been achieved and to rule on it, possibly on
Monday on the return of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is on the same
issue and is along the same line as the comments made by the
Liberal member.
There was a misunderstanding in the House, I believe. Some
members did say no. However, when you asked the question a
second time, a large number of members had already left, probably
to have lunch. This is the reason for that misunderstanding. The
fact is that some members from both sides of the House had said
no.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on the same point of order. I think confusion rests, as is often
the case when something comes up which is somewhat unexpected,
with members going back and forth asking what to do, especially
on the government's side. That is where the confusion seemed to
be.
The Minister of Health specifically said that I had refused to
make it votable. In my response I said: ``Then let us make it
votable''. He then spoke to his colleagues.
I know you were very definite. You said it several times.
However, Standing Order 10 says:
The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of
order. In deciding a point of order or practice, the Speaker shall state the
Standing Order or other authority applicable to the case. No debate shall be
permitted on any such decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an
appeal to the House.
We are being appealed to and I think it is out of order.
787
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, I have the ``blues'' as well.
I think the chief whip to the government has accurately stated what
the ``blues'' say.
The difficulty is that the gentleman or lady who sits at the table
may hear things that the Chair does not. As you all know,
colleagues, the Chair is a long way from where members sit. I think
frequently the gentlemen taking the notes may have heard
somebody say no. I did not hear anybody say no.
I hasten to say that I heard no the first time. But as my colleague
indicated, the member who said no got up and left the Chamber
between the first and second question.
With respect to the point that the hon. member for Calgary West
said he heard the member for St. John's West whisper or say no, I
did not hear the hon. member for St. John's West or any member
say no at the time the second question was asked.
Accordingly, I would remind hon. colleagues, this is what I
heard and the Chair has to listen with his or her own ears. In future
if members wish to say no, they should make it very clear as I have
already indicated to one member. Do not whisper and hope it will
not be heard. If members wish to say no, they should get up and
bellow it. If the Speaker is hard of hearing, then they should make
sure that he or she hears the no, loudly and clearly.
The hon. member for Calgary West has the floor for another two
minutes.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
I thought I heard the member for St. John's West say no. I also
thought that senior members of the Liberal Party had really
discouraged that response because the government would want this
votable. It has now been clarified and it should be very clear for the
record that what has happened is that the hon. member for St.
John's West has joined with the Bloc Quebecois in not making it
possible for there to be a vote on this issue. That is unfortunate.
(1415)
I would like to conclude by making some observations from the
point of view of Quebec's role.
I notice that the premier of Quebec this week talked about
amending article 1 of the program of the Parti Quebecois to talk
explicitly about a new partnership with Canada, presumably after
Quebec independence. Obviously it is not a secret that Canadians
outside Quebec overwhelmingly want their country to stay
together. They value a great deal the partnership which exists today
among the 10 provinces.
If the premier of Quebec is sincere in his desire for partnership,
even from his own sovereignist perspective, he has a perfect
opportunity to chart a new course on this issue, to look at the
injustice that has been done and to send very different signals to all
the people of Canada, including the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, about what the partnership would entail.
We have a partnership today. I do not think in the future that
Canadians outside Quebec would be interested in a partnership
with a province that wanted to have blockades, land blockades, sea
blockades or otherwise. Unfortunately, that is what has been behind
the particular arrangement which has existed between Quebec and
Newfoundland. It is extremely unfortunate.
I would urge the premier of Quebec, who obviously has a
somewhat different strategy now-and I do not think we know
what his long term strategy really is-to take a look at the contract
and Quebec's relationship with Newfoundland to see if we can
arrive at a much more just situation. My suspicion is when we have
a vote on this issue that the federal government will not be willing
to do its share to reconcile this particular problem.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
I said earlier, the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of
Hydro-Quebec twice. Furthermore, the federal government did not
use its political power to override these court rulings because the
contract no longer suited its purpose or because the political
balance of power had shifted. A contract is a contract.
No one forced Newfoundland to sign this agreement, which at
the time appeared to be beneficial for both parties. Newfoundland
benefited from Hydro-Quebec's contribution in terms of both
money and expertise. In return, Hydro-Quebec would maintain
fixed prices for the electricity generated. We might even add that,
had Hydro-Quebec not been involved in this project, Churchill
Falls might never have been harnessed.
As I said earlier, this agreement was negotiated for years and
years. It is almost insulting to those who signed it. As you know,
the then premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Smallwood, was one of the
signatories. I do not understand how those people can be accused of
acting hastily. On the contrary, they knew exactly what they were
doing.
Obviously, there were pros and cons. It was beneficial. It was
seen as a good deal. A few years later, we realize that it may be
true, that one of the parties may have got the short end of the stick,
but the fact is that the contract was signed.
How can my colleague ask the federal government to intervene
in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, when these contracts
were originally signed by two companies that were both extremely
responsible? Why ask the government to intervene? Above all,
why-and this is what I find most shocking-are they talking about
injustice in this case?
788
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, it is as though my
colleague owned a house and I bought all the land around it,
barring his access to his house unless he gave me 90 per cent of
it. It is the same thing.
(1420)
That sort of action would clearly be illegal and the authorities
can defend the rights and freedoms of my colleague. But if the
authorities refuse to do so, I can force my colleague to sign a
contract. And that is the situation here, the federal government
refused to defend the rights of Newfoundland. That is the situation.
If the Bloc Quebecois members want to talk about the contract
and the Supreme Court, I will talk about the great Canadian
contract we have in the form of the Constitution signed by the
provinces when they entered Confederation, including Quebec in
1867. It was through this contract that the Constitution was
amended and the Supreme Court decided that it applied to all of
Canada.
This contract cannot be changed without respecting the
amending formula and the rights of every province in this
Confederation. There is no right to separate unilaterally in this
contract, despite what the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois
said at the time of the last referendum. There is no right to separate
unilaterally, and that is the contract of this country. My party has
been very clear in the debate this week about the fact that the rules
of the game must be respected, that the rules of this Confederation
must be respected, as with the whole issue of the communiqué to
the Canadian Armed Forces. In the future, these contracts must be
respected, and it is our intention to pursue this matter in the House.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Calgary
West. I was not at all disturbed with the premise that we should be
having this debate because there is a byelection occurring in
Labrador. It is quite proper to bring issues from ridings to the floor
when a byelection is about to take place. This may be the Reform
Party's motive for bringing the motion forward, but in something
like this when we are facing a byelection, we should be very honest
with the voters and not attempt to raise false hopes.
I say that because I have listened to the debate very carefully. It
is very clear that the existing contract is one which has been
affirmed by the Supreme Court and cannot be broken. I believe
every member on the Liberal side would agree with me that it has
been a most inequitable contract and that Newfoundland and
Labrador is not getting its fair share in this.
However, the Reform Party is also a party which argues very
strongly for provincial rights as opposed to federal power:
decentralization and more sovereignty to the provinces. Therefore,
we get into a contradiction because even though it is an inequitable
contract, I do not think we can ever realistically believe that the
current Quebec government or even its predecessors would ever
agree to the reopening of the contract at a cost to the province of
Quebec of $200 million to $300 million annually if the contract
were to be renegotiated in a fair manner.
The motion states that ``this House condemn the government for
refusing to resolve the injustice of the Churchill Falls hydro
contract''. If, heaven forbid, the member for Calgary West actually
were the leader of a party that had the majority in this House, if the
Reform Party ever arrived at that happy state, what would he do to
resolve this injustice without actually breaking the contract that
exists or without actually applying great federal power on the
province? It seems to me he would have great difficulty.
(1425 )
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, obviously there are
difficult legal and constitutional issues around this. We all
recognize that.
However, when one controls a majority government in the
federal Parliament it is amazing what one can do. The member
suggests this could be trampling on provincial rights and asks how
this could possibly be done. I find this a strange question coming
from a member of a government that has successively and
successfully intervened in jurisdiction after jurisdiction of
provincial authority. It has used its spending power, taxing power
or whatever it happens to be at the moment.
Far be it for me to suggest which mechanism would be most
appropriate. We do not want to conduct the government in an
arbitrary manner the way it has been done. However, to suggest the
federal government could not do something about it is quite
erroneous.
I congratulate the hon. member for suggesting and for saying
explicitly that while he may not agree with this motion he at least
recognizes this contract is an injustice and I would presume the
situation behind it that brought it about is an injustice. His
colleagues have not been prepared to say that today. I have listened
to Liberal after Liberal either avoid that issue or state that there is
absolutely nothing wrong with this situation, including members
from Atlantic Canada. It is good that somebody on that side
recognizes this is not proper.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to ask a question of my
colleague.
In the beginning of his speech he talked about the economic
issues. We have talked a lot about that today. It has to do with
whether there is a role for government to intervene, a role for
government to work in partnership with the private sector, a role
for government to work with regions to ensure we level out the
playing field. We must establish if it is appropriate to use federal
money, our financial resources, to help areas like Labrador and
Newfoundland.
The party opposite is absolutely correct that the private sector
must be the primary engine. However, there is a role for
government. I believe our government's policies are appropriate
and need to be implemented in order to help that area. The hon.
member's party's position and what he is suggesting is that we
totally withdraw, that we simply leave it on its own even though it
is a disadvantaged area.
789
I defer to the member on another point. I was able to check my
notes and the figure I should have used was $15 billion, not $20
billion.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, of course there is a
role for government, as I and my colleagues have stated. That is
why we are here. There is a role for government to lay the
groundwork for the kind of economy that provides growth and
opportunity for people, which is what it should be doing. It should
be concentrating on those things it can do for the people of
Labrador to exploit their opportunities and have real economic
growth.
If the hon. member thinks the historic policies of the Liberal
Party have genuinely levelled the playing field in Labrador or
Atlantic Canada or some of our northern regions and made those
places areas of hope, growth and opportunity, he is sadly mistaken
about the economy of those regions and about the economic record
of the Liberal Party.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.30 p.m. it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings. Pursuant to the unanimous consent the
Speaker heard earlier this day I will now put the question.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the
recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 18.
The House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.31 p.m.)