37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 053
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 2, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CHILD CARE
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| CANADA'S FISCAL POLICY
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1405
| E-GOVERNMENT
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| CURLING
|
| Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
| MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| CENTRE COMMUNAUTAIRE DE BEAUPORT
|
1410
| MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
|
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. David Anderson |
| ASSOCIATION POUR L'INTÉGRATION COMMUNAUTAIRE DE L'OUTAOUAIS
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| PARA TRANSPO
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1415
| MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| DIABETES
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| SIERRA CLUB
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1420
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1425
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ANTIMISSILE SHIELD
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| ARMS RACE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1435
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1440
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| NATIONAL AIRPORTS
|
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1445
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| TRUCKING INDUSTRY
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1450
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. John Manley |
| INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
1455
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| BILL C-15
|
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1500
| CHEESE PRODUCTION
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| POINT OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of documents
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Hon. Robert Nault |
1505
1510
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
1515
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1520
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1525
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1530
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Official Languages
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1535
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
| Bill C-341. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| PETITIONS
|
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1540
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Canadian Coast Guard
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Violence
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Poison Control
|
| Mr. David Anderson |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1545
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Second reading
|
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1550
1555
1600
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1630
1635
1640
1645
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1650
1655
1700
1705
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1710
1715
1720
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Motion
|
| CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Second reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1725
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1730
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1735
1740
1745
1750
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1755
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-272. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1800
1805
1810
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1815
1820
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1825
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1830
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
1835
1840
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1845
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Employment
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1850
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1855
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1900
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 053
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 2, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CHILD CARE
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the youth of Canada are our future and must be given every
opportunity to reach their potential.
Nunavut possesses a fast growing population and a very young
population, so making sure our children and youth are well taken
care of is a high priority. In partnership with the Government
of Canada, the new territory is aiming to do just that.
Nunavut aboriginal human resource development agreement holders
are committed to the development of a well functioning,
comprehensive core of child care services in Nunavut.
The child care forum held in Iqaluit in September 2000 was
attended by child care workers from all over Nunavut and was very
productive. Nunavut AHRDA holders are currently entering the
implementation phase of the Nunavut child care planning project
and I extend to them wishes for every success.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, with summer approaching Canadians are
on the move again. This year they will notice not only the
horrendous price of gas compared to the same time last year but
the condition of their highways.
The highway infrastructure in the country is falling apart. The
present government has a pitiful record on the upkeep of Canada's
roads. Last year in British Columbia the government collected
some $750 million in gasoline excise taxes yet spent only
$400,000.
Recently $60 million was announced for highway improvements in
British Columbia, a pittance that ignores the real problems we
are facing.
For example, in my neighbourhood a residential street serves as
a major highway connecting the Fraser Surrey docks and other
major transportation hubs and routes, yet there is no federal
money to alleviate the problem. Over 2,000 trucks a day pass
through a residential neighbourhood, trucks carrying Lord knows
what, yet the Liberal government continues to collect our money
and ignore the problem.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA'S FISCAL POLICY
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on April 10, the Canadian Minister of Finance took
part in the inauguration of a fine initiative, the launch of a
multimedia CD-ROM. It is on Canada's fiscal policy and was
created by two members of the Institute of Applied Economics at
l'École des Hautes Études Commerciales.
Essentially, its purpose is to present economics not as a
disembodied science but a management and decision making problem.
1405
This CD-ROM constitutes a top notch teaching tool providing access
to a broad range of information to aid in understanding Canada's
fiscal policy.
My congratulations to the creators of this project, which I hope
will set an example for other disciplines in the educational
field.
I extend congratulations to the École des Hautes Études Commerciales.
* * *
[English]
E-GOVERNMENT
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
incorporation of information and communications technologies into
the operation of government is believed by many to be the
greatest challenge facing democratic institutions during the next
decade.
Every industrialized democracy around the world has set
aggressive deadlines for the completion of their transition to
e-government. All are struggling, in large part due to the
unanticipated consequences of embracing a technology that changes
everything.
There are huge benefits to be realized by those countries that
are able to overcome these challenges. I am pleased to point out
that in a recent international study of progress to date, Canada
has been recognized as first in the world.
Our successes are built upon the efforts of literally thousands
of public servants at all three levels of government throughout
Canada, public servants who get it and who are not afraid to
accept the challenge and search for the value that exists in the
proper use of these new tools.
At the same time change needs a champion. In that regard, I
wish to congratulate the President of the Treasury Board and her
staff for their leadership in this important initiative.
* * *
CURLING
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I recognize the achievements of Brad Gushue, Mark Nichols, Brent
Hamilton, Mike Adam, Jamie Korab and coach Jeff Thomas, the
Canadian junior men's curling champions who went on to win the
world junior men's curling championship in Ogden, Utah, on March
25.
Mark and Mike are from my Labrador riding. They will be showing
their teammates a warm Labrador welcome on their victory tour
this week. I congratulate them on a fine performance and extend
to them my best wishes on behalf of all Labradorians.
Another Labrador west foursome, Keith Ryan, Garry Pinsent, Mike
Ryan and Dennis Langdon, represented Newfoundland and Labrador at
this year's senior men's brier.
Labrador west and the Carol Curling Club have always been hot
spots for cool winter sports. With spirit and determination, our
teams have overcome the distance and expense involved in
competing at provincial, national and international levels.
On behalf of all members, I extend my congratulations to the
boys for their world class curling achievements.
* * *
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the month of May usually means tulip season in Ottawa,
but today we are wearing carnations to recognize Multiple
Sclerosis Awareness Month.
MS is the most common neurological disease affecting young
adults today. Each day three more Canadians are diagnosed with
this unpredictable and often debilitating disease.
The causes of MS are still not known but research is getting
closer to finding some answers. For those who suffer with MS,
treatments are available to modify the course of the disease and
promising new therapies are being developed.
The MS Society of Canada is in the middle of its spring
fundraising campaign and across the country thousands of
Canadians will be participating in MS carnation campaigns as well
as walks for MS.
I encourage members of parliament and all Canadians to
participate and to give generously to this important cause,
because together we can find the answer.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May 7 to 13
marks the celebration of National Nursing Week 2001. This
year's theme, “Nurses, Champions for Health”, is significant on
two fronts.
[English]
The nurses of Canada truly have acted as champions, standing by,
supporting and leading Canadians in a collective effort to
maintain and improve health.
Their efforts in a very difficult situation have not gone
unnoticed. Once again the people of Canada have said that they
place more of their trust in nurses than in any other group of
professionals.
Just as important as speaking up for patients, nurses have
consistently voiced their concerns about the health of our
cherished health care system.
During times of significant restructuring and upheaval, nurses
in Canada have stood by both patients and the system. They have
spoken loudly in defence of the system, especially in support of
its public funding. This is at a time when the very same system
appears to be extracting a cost from their own health and
well-being.
[Translation]
I invite my colleagues to join me in acknowledging National
Nursing Week 2001 and saying a warm thank you to the nurses of
Canada, our champions for health.
* * *
CENTRE COMMUNAUTAIRE DE BEAUPORT
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, community activity in a neighbourhood or a town speaks
most clearly of the dynamism of its people and of their
attachment to their community.
In my riding, the Centre communautaire de Beauport, a non-profit
corporation, has set itself the task of providing educational,
recreational, cultural and sports leadership in order to
encourage, support and promote community recreation.
1410
The originality and diversity of the activities organized by an
experienced team of employees and over 275 volunteers mean that
nearly 15,000 people of all ages can enjoy a whole range of
quality activities.
On the occasion of the International Year of Volunteers, I would
like to praise the exceptional work done by the employees of the
Beauport community centre who, with many volunteers, contribute
to the welfare and quality of life of our society.
Without their contribution, many services would stop existing.
Their time, energy and generosity does them great credit.
Quebec needs men and women like them.
* * *
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Association of
Yukon Communities and the FCM will be holding their general
meetings this month.
I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the municipal
orders of government in Canada.
[English]
I would like to celebrate the great Yukon municipalities of
Dawson City, Teslin, Faro, Carmacks, Haines Junction, Mayo,
Watson Lake and Whitehorse.
As all of us in parliament work to solve Canada's problems, we
should remember that the municipal order of government is the
closest to the people and the resources. It has been and will
continue to be an valuable partner with us in creating solutions
for improving our nation.
When municipalities were created over 100 years ago, the
prescription for their governments was paternalistic and stilted.
Today I continue to support their efforts to achieve the autonomy
and flexibility they need to exercise the powers within their
jurisdiction in our rapidly changing modern world.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, spring has arrived and farmers are in
the fields. As always they are looking ahead with anticipation.
It seems wheat prices might even rise this spring, but that is
immaterial because farmers' grain cannot be marketed.
Durum growers are only allowed to deliver 60% of last year's
production and are prohibited from selling the remaining 40%
elsewhere. During one of the worst farm income crises ever in
the grain industry, the Canadian Wheat Board is forcing farmers
to survive on only 60% of their income.
Voluntary Canadian Wheat Board participation would allow farmers
to find markets and to process their own grain. Current buyback
requirements inhibit producers from selling or processing their
own wheat. Farmers must be allowed to find buyers for their
grain, especially when the wheat board cannot sell it.
When will the government make the Canadian Wheat Board voluntary
so that farmers can sell and process what they grow?
* * *
[Translation]
ASSOCIATION POUR L'INTÉGRATION COMMUNAUTAIRE DE L'OUTAOUAIS
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April 5, I
had the opportunity to attend a benefit dinner organized by the
Association pour l'intégration communautaire de l'Outaouais.
I am very pleased to pay tribute today to the volunteer work
done since 1957 by members of this association, and to highlight
the efforts of the men and women who daily face challenges to
become autonomous.
Founded by a group of parents who wanted to improve the quality
of life of their intellectually disabled children, the
association has had the same goal for the past 44 years: to
advance the cause of intellectual disabilities.
Through the many services made available to persons with
intellectual disabilities and their families, the Association
pour l'intégration communautaire de l'Outaouais makes it
possible for them to become full members of our community.
Long live this association, its president, Lucie Charron, and
its 200 volunteers and 28 employees.
* * *
[English]
PARA TRANSPO
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in Ottawa
10,000 people with mobility problems rely on Para Transpo to get
to work, to school and to see their friends, families and
doctors. These Canadians are being held captive in a labour
dispute, a dispute caused by privatization.
The drivers for Para Transpo are asking to be treated the same
as OC Transpo workers, but the municipality has privatized this
essential service and the private company is not treating the
workers fairly. It is unacceptable for essential services like
Para Transpo to be hived off to the private sector as somehow
less important.
Canadians with disabilities should not be at the back of the bus
when it comes to transit, especially in a federally regulated
transit system like the one in Ottawa.
I call for the federal Minister of Labour to bring in binding
arbitration in this dispute. I also call on all MPs from Ottawa to
pressure their municipal colleagues to put Para Transpo back in
the public sector.
* * *
1415
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in a letter published in yesterday's La Presse, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that even if Quebec
were a nation in the French sense of the word, it was not
necessary to recognize it formally in the Canadian constitution.
He went on to add that the Canadian constitution did not even
recognize the Canadian nation.
How can the minister not realize that the very existence of a
constitution presupposed the existence of a Canadian nation in
the eyes and minds of those who wrote it?
If we are to follow his logic, why does the federal government
make such a point of calling Ottawa its national capital?
Similarly, what are we to make of the holding of a national
summit on sport? Should we have doubts about the contents of
the National Archives of Canada or of the National Library?
What is performed at the National Arts Centre? What is studied
at the National Research Council? Worse yet, what is the role
of the Department of National Defence?
If the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wants to be
consistent, what is he waiting for to ask his colleagues to stop
referring to all—
The Speaker: The hon. member for York West.
* * *
[English]
DIABETES
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House that the federal government's
diabetes strategy is progressing well in our commitment to fight
diabetes in Canada.
Initiatives are happening throughout Canada, such as the recent
announcement by the Minister of Health and the Minister of
Justice for regional and national funding in Alberta of close to
$12 million. Alberta is part of the national diabetes
surveillance system which will yield national statistics and
trends in diabetes in Canada. This money also goes toward
education and awareness programs to help citizens learn about
preventing diabetes and its complications and programs to promote
healthy eating and active living.
I say to my friend, Gerry Tuzi, and thousands of others
suffering from diabetes, that our government's commitment is to
reach our goal of reducing the burden of diabetes and its
complications.
* * *
SIERRA CLUB
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Elizabeth May, director of the Sierra Club of Canada, is on a
hunger strike. Her message is clear: Families residing in
Whitney Pier are in danger and need to be relocated.
According to a private sector study released just last week,
area soil and water are heavily contaminated and the health and
well-being of some of the community residents are at serious risk.
Families residing on Frederick Street, Curry's Lane, Laurier
Street and Tupper Street are routinely exposed to approximately
30 carcinogens, well above Health Canada's prescribed limits,
including arsenic levels 70 times greater than Health Canada says
is acceptable.
Residents in Sydney already experience cancer rates higher than
the national average. There is no reason that Health Canada
cannot address this issue immediately.
The federal government has a moral and financial obligation to
engage and be a partner in the solution. Liberal Nova Scotia MPs
have been shamelessly silent in addressing this issue. We call
on the government to meet with the residents of this area to
ensure that we end the hunger strike of Elizabeth May.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. Everyone will want to hear
the lead question from the hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it often of
the Liberals but today I can. Can you not just feel the love?
It was just two days ago that we heard that Canadians have to
rely on U.S. agencies for health warnings related to prescription
drugs. The minister gave the impression yesterday that
everything was fine, but just yesterday Michael Decter, of the
Canadian Institute for Health Information, said “This is a sad
turn of events. We're going to a second best method of having
physicians informed by another country's agency”.
We ask the question again. How could this have happened? As
the auditor general reflected on finance matters with his
question, we now ask: Who was minding the store when this health
problem developed?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, this is an odd line of inquiry from a leader and a party
that during the election campaign questioned the need for Health
Canada at all.
During the last year the hon. Leader of the Opposition was
quoted as saying “I have to ask why we need to spend $1.2
billion and have a staff of over 3,000 in a federal department of
health that does not administer a single hospital, pay a single
nurse or fund a single surgical procedure”.
That was his position then. I am glad to see the Leader of the
Opposition understands the need for a strong Health Canada.
1420
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Once again, Mr. Speaker, no response.
During a different campaign, the 1995 referendum campaign in
Quebec to be precise, the Government of Canada told Quebecers
that one of the advantages to remaining in Canada was the
protection offered by Health Canada's examination and approval
of prescription drugs.
Now that we know that no such protection exists, what can the
minister tell Quebecers and all Canadians about the work done by
Health Canada?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as a matter of fact, the hon. member's questions derive in large
part from the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Today
the editor of that journal, Dr. John Hoey, was quoted as saying:
Health Canada...does a remarkable job in getting warnings out.
In fact Health Canada issued warnings, or had some data on this
particular drug perhaps even in advance of the FDA in the U.S.
He went on to say:
In the past couple of days what we've done has been a little bit
misinterpreted as a criticism of Health Canada, which it isn't.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister has quoted the editor of
that journal. I hope he was not trying to blame the media for
his problems.
Yesterday the Minister of Health said that Health Canada had
some things in place and that it would put up some warnings on
the website. I do not know if he is aware of this but a majority
of Canadians still do not enjoy Internet service and certainly
most seniors do not. What are those seniors supposed to do? They
do not have a website to go to. They are worried about this. What
is the minister's proposal there? Why is he leaving them without
the proper warning?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if this keeps up we will need to put health warnings on the
Leader of the Opposition.
As to access to information by consumers, naturally, whether
they are seniors or others, we are talking about prescription
drugs. The access to information is in the hands of the
physicians who are doing the prescribing and in the hands of the
pharmacists. That is the important thing.
The bottom line is that Health Canada wants to make sure
Canadians have access to safe drugs and as much information as
they or their doctors need, which has been the focus of our work.
According to the Canadian Medical Association, we are doing a
pretty darn good job.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
specifically, if 15 year old Vanessa Young had lived in the U.S.
she and her doctor would have known two things: first, she
should not have taken the drug at all because she was under 16;
and second, that this drug could cause arrhythmia and possibly
death.
Just exactly why is it that Canada's health warnings are
inferior to those in the U.S.?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I know the member would join with me in saying that nothing said
in this partisan or political discussion in the House today
detracts for a moment from the tragic loss of a 15 year old child
in Ontario. Our hearts are with her family.
Let us focus on making sure that we have the most effective and
safest health system in the world.
Coming to this particular question, we accepted every
recommendation made by the jury in the Vanessa Young case. We
will work toward making the health care system and the warning
system safer and even better. We are starting from a pretty good
base. Health Canada does do a good job, as the CMA pointed out,
and we will try to make it better.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, when I practised medicine I trusted Health Canada to
provide me with the best warnings, as did my colleagues and my
patients. Does the minister know that those warnings are
inferior to those in the U.S.? The sad thing is that Vanessa
Young's family trusted those warnings as well.
Where is the ministerial responsibility on this failure?
1425
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member was right to trust the Health Canada warnings
because Health Canada does a very good job. There is room for
improvement, as there is in any system, and we are determined to
make sure we do even better.
It is very refreshing to hear the opposition party express such
confidence in the role and the need for Health Canada. That party's
critic for health, the hon. member for South
Surrey—White Rock—Langley, said in August 2000, “If I were
minister of health, I would have my department people try to
convince me why we are in the business of health at all”. I
think they now know why and I am glad of it.
* * *
[Translation]
ANTIMISSILE SHIELD
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
Lloyd Axworthy was Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada was far
more vocal in its criticism of the planned U.S. missile defence
shield.
In March 2000, Minister Axworthy stated that the system being
proposed by the U.S. was not the best defence against nuclear
proliferation. Today, the government is more accommodating.
How can the Prime Minister explain his government's change of
attitude toward the United States' proposed national missile
defence system?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have always made it clear that we had questions on this.
What President Bush did yesterday was to make a statement of his
intent to continue with the project initiated by President
Clinton.
At that time, we had some questions, and today we still do.
That is why President Bush has assured us that an envoy will
meet with us to discuss his plan. We will share our
observations with him because we feel this is a very serious
situation. We are going to give it all the attention it
requires before reaching a final decision.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
one of the questions the Prime Minister needs to keep in mind is
the one on the impact of such a project on current treaties.
Yesterday President Bush described the Antiballistic Missile
Treaty of 1972, which has contributed greatly to reigning in
nuclear escalation, as outmoded.
Does the Prime Minister also feel this treaty is out of date,
and that from now on the arms race needs to be given precedence
over treaty diplomacy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are prepared to hold a dialogue with the United States on their
defence plan, but they have also said they want to hold
discussions with our European allies in NATO, with Russia and
with China.
There will, therefore, be dialogue of course. We feel that the
system of balances already in place was sufficient. If the
Americans want a better one, we will have a look at it.
It is my belief, however, that the balance is the result of
treaties signed several decades ago, which are still valid. If
they have something better in mind, we are prepared to look at
the potential improvements.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when Lloyd
Axworthy was Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada's foreign
policy was more rigorous. Today, we have the unpleasant feeling
that Canada's foreign policy is patterned on U.S. foreign
policy.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs recognize that, by
supporting the U.S. space shield project, there is a serious
risk that he will also support a renewed arms race?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we did not give such support, but I want to point out,
because I think the hon. member will agree, that the summit held
two weeks ago in Quebec City was a true success for our foreign
policy.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, President Bush
said that he would send envoys to explain his project to his
allies. Will the Prime Minister pledge that, contrary to what he
did with the FTAA, once he has met that envoy he will hold a
debate and a vote in the House on the position that Canada ought
to take on this issue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as regards the FTAA, a debate took place in the House and all
members were able to state their views before the meeting in
Quebec City. This is the beginning of a negotiation process that
will last four years. It will take several years before the
final documents are produced.
The hon. member may well no longer be here in four years, but
many of us on this side will still be.
* * *
1430
ARMS RACE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again, the
United States is leading us into an arms race.
Before making his announcement yesterday afternoon, President
Bush spoke on the telephone with the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister tell us what commitments he made on
behalf of Canadians concerning star wars II during this
conversation with President Bush?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
answer is none.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has again indicated that Canada has taken no
position on Star Wars II. He knows that Lloyd Axworthy has
called for extensive consultation on Star Wars II. The Prime
Minister will also recall that he and Mr. Axworthy served
together on a parliamentary committee that travelled across the
country to invite public input on Canada's response to Star Wars I.
Canadians want to know if the Prime Minister is open to similar
consultations this time. He has already stated this afternoon
that he is committed to a dialogue with the U.S. Is he open to a
dialogue with Canadians on the latest Star Wars proposal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would invite the members of the House who have an
interest in this subject to look into it, debate it and report to
the government. I do not think we will be confronted with a
decision very rapidly.
Members of any committee of this House can consult with the
Canadian public, prepare reports and give the House of Commons
and the Canadian public their views. The government of course
will consider these views before it decides.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this question is about the Duhaime loan application.
Yvon Duhaime confirmed that he owed $154,160. He confirmed that
about one-quarter of that was owed to his father-in-law. He will
not reveal to whom the other $107,000 was owed. The National
Post has one version of that document. The Business
Development Bank claims to have another version. One of them is
forged.
Will the Prime Minister guarantee that both versions will be
examined equally to determine which is the forgery, and that the
investigation will reveal the names of every entity to which
money was owed?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to quote from a letter in today's Ottawa
Citizen which says:
I see a mountain of smoke, fanned by his political adversaries,
but no flames. Nor any evidence of wrongdoing.
The letter is signed by Clayton Ruby, Ruby & Edwardh,
Barristers, Toronto. I think that says it all.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): That says
nothing at all, Mr. Speaker. It is evasion as usual.
The Business Development Bank has refused to disclose the
identity of the person at the BDC who signed the request asking
the RCMP to investigate the alleged forgery of the BDC loan
application. I wonder if it was the same person who gave
instructions to request the destruction of documents.
Will the Prime Minister table in the House the request to the
RCMP to investigate the forgery, as well as any supporting
documents the BDC provided to substantiate this request?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that same letter went on to say that to constantly be
asked to prove one's innocence in a public forum was bad public
policy and even worse constitutional law.
The problem for the leader of the Conservative Party is that he
is a one trick pony and is upset that the Leader of the
Opposition has finally managed to steal the headlines.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the immigration minister told the House that
her department does not read seized mail. However her training
manual goes through step by step instructions on how her
officials are to input details into the national database, such
as the place of birth, family members' names, and there is even a
place for comments.
Would the minister explain how her officials can obtain this
detailed information if they do not read the opened mail first?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again for the member who
obviously was not listening yesterday.
My department does not open mail. When customs rightly opens
packages that are sent into this country and it discovers
documents which it has reasonable grounds to believe are
fraudulent and could be used for fraudulent purposes in Canada,
it sends them to my department.
My department then examines them using the latest forensic
techniques, including optical scanners. However sometimes it is
enough to just feel the paper to determine that it is false,
fraudulent or forged.
1435
That is the way it works.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, she can try to blame the customs department but it is
not customs, it is the immigration department that is violating
the concerns of Canadians and of the privacy commissioner.
Some items intercepted have been affidavits which have then
ended up in the hands of government lawyers. The minister is
indiscriminately reading mail as a form of intelligence
gathering.
I will ask once again if she will explain to us how affidavits
can be distributed throughout her department if they have not
been read first.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again for the member
opposite that we do not read his grandmother's mail nor anyone
else's mail. We do gather fraudulent documents to stop the
criminals and the terrorists who want to use these documents.
Those who are concerned about stopping organized crime and
terrorism and not providing a safe haven for fraudulent documents
to be either imported or produced in Canada, would join with me
in saying that the member's position is not in the public—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la
Mitis.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, everyone admits that there are problems and that
genetically modified foods have already entered the food chain.
Today, four scientists sounded the alarm and said that the public
is unaware that it is consuming GMOs.
Does the minister not see this new warning as confirmation that
it is urgent to act and to make the labelling of genetically
modified foods mandatory?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the comments of the scientists
who commented today. We also welcome the comments and the
recommendations of the Royal Society of Canada, which the
Minister of Health, the Minister of the Environment and I
appointed, the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Council and all
others.
I have said in the House many times that there is a process
being led by many Canadian organizations, governments, government
organizations and consumers to develop a system of labelling that
could be used. However we know that it must be meaningful,
credible and enforceable.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question was clear, but the minister keeps
singing the same old tune.
Will he continue serving up his lovely speeches, or will he
finally do something concrete to restore the public's confidence
and take action while there is still time?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will continue to make the lovely
speeches that the hon. member compliments me for, and I thank her
for that.
We will continue the same process so we can have a system in the
future, if we so desire, that is meaningful, credible and
enforceable, so that Canadians can have the continued trust in
the food system which they have at the present time.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, President Bush is looking to replace mid-east oil with
North American oil. The Prime Minister has recently been
promoting the tar sands in my riding for that purpose.
Increased tar sands production to the levels suggested by the
Prime Minister would significantly increase levels of greenhouse
gas emissions for Canada.
Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister stated that this
government policy is to achieve our Kyoto commitments. If
Alberta accepts this level of American investment to develop our
tar sands, will the government also insist on the U.S. transfer
credits under the Kyoto accord for our increased emissions?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that it is in
Canada's interest in our relationships with the United States
to secure credits accruing to Canada for the clean energy exports
that we send to other countries, particularly the United States,
when that replaces a more carbon intensive source in that
country. Obviously the search for carbon credits to Canadian
advantage is very much a part of our agenda.
1440
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, given the president's and the vice-president's comments
recently about making energy development a higher priority than
the environment, just how would the minister and the government
plan to achieve the transfer of those credits to Canada?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously this will take discussion and negotiation with
the United States. We believe very much that, in respect of the
North American energy situation, there is an important
opportunity for Canadians to pursue which can bring economic
growth, jobs and technological sophistication to our country.
At the same time, we will also pursue our other parallel
objectives that relate to renewable energy, alternative fuels,
energy efficiency, energy conservation and sustainable
development, all of which are characteristics of an intelligent
society.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL AIRPORTS
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the latest trick of the federal government is to hold
the sovereignists responsible for the decline of Aéroports de
Montréal.
According to the Minister of Transport, ADM's problems are due
to the sovereignty project.
How can the minister make such an offensive statement as that,
when the problems of Aéroports de Montréal are the direct result
of a series of very bad decisions by the federal government,
including one that made Toronto the new gateway to Canada, which
was previously Montreal's role?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, clearly the reduction in air traffic in Montreal
over the past 25 years is a consequence of the political
situation.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. David Collenette: That is one of the reasons,
but with this government's policy on national airports, I have
confidence in the future of Aéroports de Montréal and the region
of Montreal.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, coming from a member from Toronto, that does not
surprise me.
While we are at it, could the Minister of Transport tell us if
he also ascribes to the sovereignty project the fact that the
region of Montreal is the world's main producer of civilian
helicopters, second only to Seattle in providing jobs in
aeronautics, the third largest producer worldwide of
biopharmaceuticals and fourth in the world in developing
information technologies?
Do these successes also reflect this discomfort created by the
sovereignty project?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I must thank the member for promoting Montreal,
thanks to the policies of this government.
I should also inform the hon. member that I am a member from
Toronto, but I am a Canadian member and I speak for all
Canadians.
* * *
[English]
HIGHWAYS
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the U.S. government has committed to
spending more on British Columbia cross-border highway projects
than the Canadian government.
Last year the federal government collected $750 million from
British Columbia fuel taxes and spent $408,000 on B.C. highways.
That works out to the grand total of one-twentieth of one per
cent of revenues returned to British Columbia highways.
Why is the federal government gouging taxpayers and ignoring our
highways?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that highway building
in this country is the responsibility of the provincial
government. It is true that the federal government has been
involved by use of the spending power for about 80 years and we
still are.
The hon. member should take note that the Minister of Finance in
last year's budget allocated $600 million toward highway
construction, and those agreements are about to be negotiated.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the federal government collects
federal fuel taxes. The provinces spend on highways what they
collect in provincial fuel taxes. In 1998-99 the federal
government collected over $4.7 billion in gas taxes and spent
only 4% of that across Canada on roads and highways. It is
called highway robbery.
When is the government going to commit to fund a national
highway strategy that meets Canada's needs and is not a national
embarrassment?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that the Canadian
government receives tax revenues from a multitude of sources and
those revenues are then invested. They have been invested
heavily in the British Columbia health care system. They have
been invested heavily in the British Columbia education system.
They have been invested heavily in research and development
throughout British Columbia.
1445
The federal government is working in partnership with the people
of British Columbia to improve the quality of life of the people
of British Columbia.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
last month's meeting of the group of 20 finance ministers there
was agreement reached on what has been termed the Montreal
consensus, which seeks to better integrate social as well as
economic objectives around the world.
Could the Minister of Finance tell the House what further
efforts are being made to advance and reinforce the Montreal
consensus?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Washington consensus in place for a number of years
now states that economic growth is a prerequisite to poverty
reduction in the poorest of the poor countries. We agree with
that, but as well we believe we must go beyond the Washington
consensus.
Industrialized countries must recognize that health care,
education, a quality environment, investing in the young and
protecting the aged are also essential constituents if poverty
reduction is to occur. That is known as the Montreal consensus.
I am pleased to say that it was endorsed yesterday at the United
Nations, at the economic and social committee.
* * *
EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It deals
with the reinstatement of the cap on equalization payments.
Recent information provided by the recipient provinces shows the
reinstatement of the cap will cause them great harm. Given the
fact that the Prime Minister, right before the election last
fall, called for removal of the cap on equalization payments and
all the provincial finance ministers now agree with that, will
the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance now lift the
ceiling or at least rebase it on 1999-2000 levels, which would be
$10.8 billion instead of $10 billion?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in September, at the time of the signing of the accord
with the provinces, the Prime Minister agreed to lift the cap for
one year. I am pleased to say that the government has carried
through on that commitment of the Prime Minister.
The hon. member also ought to know that equalization is at an
all time high. Equalization was one of the few programs that was
not cut in 1995, recognizing the constitutional, social and
economic responsibilities the Canadian government has to the
provinces. Equalization has grown consistently ever since the
government took office and it is now at an all time high.
* * *
TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, long
distance drivers are being pushed beyond the limit, yet the
Minister of Transport is advocating a proposal that would allow
truck and bus drivers to drive 14 hours a day, 84 hours a week,
week after week. In the United States drivers are limited to 60
hours a week.
The minister knows that driver fatigue is one of the main causes
of road crashes. Will he tell the House and millions of Canadian
travellers why it is necessary to have transport drivers work
limits 40% higher in Canada than in the United States?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member refers to a recommendation from the
Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, which is an
organization composed of all the provinces and the federal
government that is responding to the trucking industry which
wants a regularization of the trucking hours and an enforced rest
period.
So hon. members of the House can give their views in this very
difficult debate, I have asked the transport committee to study
the issue on an expeditious basis. I believe the committee is
about to agree to that. I would invite the hon. member to make
her views known at that committee.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has repeatedly stated
in the House that the Lancaster Aviation contract to sell surplus
DND Challenger jets was awarded by public tender. Does the
minister stand by that comment today or will he retract his
statement?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have tried to get the co-operation of the hon.
member to tell us what kind of information he has because we have
not found anything that would in any way change the position I
have taken before.
When in fact this contract was awarded to Lancaster to dispose
of these aviation assets there were five bidders. There was a
competition earlier this year in which it again won the contract.
The assets it sold brought value to the Canadian government with
the selling price being at market value.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the minister would know that the first contract to
Lancaster was to sell spare parts. There was no mention of
Challenger aircraft or of helicopters.
1450
The Challenger contract was awarded “as a special contract
without going to tender”. Will the minister now admit that he
was wrong and will he explain why two contracts worth $80 million
were awarded without going to public tender?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the contract that was awarded in 1997 provided for
the disposal of surplus aviation assets by Lancaster, the
successful competitor.
There was also a provision for a special project sale identified
as being unique project sales which may include high dollar value
items. On that basis the sale of the twin Huey helicopters and
the Challengers met the conditions of the contract.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, while the Minister of Foreign Affairs stonewalls serious
concerns about the situation in Zimbabwe, attacks on members of
the judiciary, business leaders and the recent threat against aid
donor countries continue to escalate.
Will the minister responsible for CIDA temporarily suspend all
Canadian aid to Zimbabwe until democracy, rule of law and respect
for human rights are restored?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know what stonewalling the hon. member is
talking about. He knows that we put out a statement several
months ago about both the attacks on the judiciary as well as on
the media.
He knows of the interventions that were made at the Commonwealth
ministerial action group in London a number of weeks ago. He
knows of the concerns that are being expressed at that level. If
he thinks that is stonewalling then we will need to have a little
discussion about exactly what that means.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, what I mean is quite simple. Will he stand today and
confirm that he will temporarily stop aid to Zimbabwe until
democracy and rule of law are reinstated there? Will he do that?
That is the question.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that any CIDA assistance to Zimbabwe goes
directly to assist individual people, not to the government of
Zimbabwe.
If the hon. member thinks that we should increase the hardship
being faced by many people in that poor country, we do not agree
with him.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at
a time when the World Bank is urging the international community
to increase its aid to fight poverty in the world, Canada is
constantly reducing the percentage of its GDP that is allocated
to international assistance.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is it not time to invest
in the fight against world poverty, instead of investing in a
new arms race?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech, we indicated our intention to
increase our contribution to help poor countries. We are already
doing a lot through CIDA's participation and we will continue to
do so.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister talked about increasing Canadian aid by 7%.
This is totally inadequate, given that Canadian aid would in
fact only increase from 0.25% to 0.27% of its GDP. At that rate,
it will take Canada 35 years to achieve its objective of 0.7%.
Will Canada finally increase its international assistance by,
among other things, supporting the project of Mexico's president
to create a solidarity fund of the Americas?
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is
committed to helping developing countries, and domestic
development is the reason why our economy is so strong.
When it comes to supporting the development of other countries,
we are involved and we are continually increasing the budgets
spent abroad.
* * *
[English]
NATURAL RESOURCES
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Natural
Resources dismissed the plight of the laid off workers at Chalk
River.
Will the Prime Minister fulfil the campaign promise by funding
the Canadian neutron facility?
1455
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, while the former member of parliament for that
constituency, Mr. Clouthier, was arguing very strenuously for
government support for the Chalk River facility, I never heard
one peep, not one chirp, not one jot or scintilla of advice from
the Reform Party or the Alliance Party in favour of that project.
I welcome its newfound interest in the last three weeks.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Natural Resources
had read his mail, he would have seen the letters on this issue.
Obviously a deal in principle with a government which has no
principles is no deal.
The technology to be developed by the Canadian neutron facility
holds the solution to tomorrow's energy crisis, the science for
innovative new materials and research for medical breakthroughs.
Why is cabinet holding up funding for the Canadian neutron
facility when there is no political resistance?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is in the process of considering a number
of major science initiatives across the country.
They are not initiatives that are scribbled down on the back of
an envelope or that are paid for with a dollar or two out of
petty cash. These are major projects. They need to fit within
the entire innovation agenda of the Government of Canada. They
cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and the government is
determined to make the right decisions based on sound science,
due diligence and fiscal responsibility.
* * *
BILL C-15
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am asking
this question because my constituents in Yukon have an interest
in the wording of Bill C-15. Canadians agree that cruelty to
animals should be prohibited in society. While we must not put
at risk the current legal practices of fishing and hunting, we
must stop the worst cases of cruelty and abuse.
Could the Minister of Justice reassure Canadians that the
wording of Bill C-15 will be clear and precise enough to target
the true abuse of animals?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's
desire to bring clarity to this important point, one of
considerable concern to a great many Canadians.
I want to underscore for the House that the animal cruelty
provisions in Bill C-15 in no way outlaw current lawful practices
such as farming, sport fishing or hunting. The proposed law
targets those who wilfully abuse or harm animals.
These provisions are part of the government's ongoing efforts to
modernize the criminal code for the 21st century and to reflect
the values of Canadians.
* * *
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, funding the Canadian neutron facility will not
happen without a champion at the cabinet table. Clearly the
Minister of Natural Resources is not up to the task.
Will the Minister of Industry commit today in his role as
overseer of the National Research Council to champion the
Canadian neutron facility?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the facilities at Chalk River perform a number of
important functions in the Canadian innovation system. They are
obviously important in terms of Canada's strong reputation in the
field of nuclear science. They perform functions in relation to
other dimensions of science that are also important.
Those facilities are in need of refurbishment and renewal for
the future. We have been considering the various options that
are available to us to accomplish that important objective for
the future. We will make a decision in due course based upon
sound science and fiscal responsibility.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, each day this decision is delayed
endangers our position as world leaders in materials research and
drives away the top scientists who are capable of doing this
research.
Years ago the Minister of Industry championed the tiny turbot.
This facility is a lot bigger and a lot more important than a
fish. Will he commit today to championing this facility and
getting cabinet approval by next week?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. gentleman's demeaning of
the Canadian fishery. Nor would I agree with the obvious attempt
embedded in his question to pit one part of the country against
another part of the country, one type of science against another
type of science.
1500
Canada is determined to be one of the most innovative nations on
the face of the earth. We have indicated that we intend to
double over this coming decade our investment in research and
development. Canada will be among the leading nations on the
face of the earth in the creation and dissemination of knowledge,
and we will make the appropriate decisions.
* * *
[Translation]
CHEESE PRODUCTION
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for
International Trade said last week that the issue of permits to
import cheese over and above negotiated quotas was justified by
demand or by a lack.
However, the volume of domestic cheese production easily meets
demand without the need to import.
How does the minister explain the government's permitting the
importation of cheese as a residue or in sticks, when local
producers are struggling with surpluses and the industry will
have to assume the loss of thousands of jobs?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I answered this question last week. We can return
to it.
All discussions in connection with this decision involved the
industry. They are often at the request of certain consumers
needing specific products. We look very carefully at these
requests, because, obviously, we are very concerned about the
interests of our own cheese producers.
* * *
[English]
CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation.
In my riding of Cambridge and in other parts of Canada rental
vacancy rates are at an all time low. What is being done to help
provide more affordable rental housing for Canadians,
particularly low income Canadians?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
knows, in the Speech from the Throne we committed to stimulate
construction of affordable rental housing.
My officials have been talking with the officials in the
provinces. In the next few weeks I will be discussing this with
my counterparts in the provinces. We hope very soon to have a
joint federal-provincial program of affordable rental housing so
that Canadians can take advantage of such a program.
* * *
[Translation]
POINT OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, I spoke to the government House leader, who told me
that there was no mechanism for tabling documents, other than
through a minister. I pointed out that a document could be
tabled if there were unanimous consent.
For the fourth time, at the express request of the Deputy Prime
Minister, I would like to table the lease between the Auberge
Grand-Mère and the Grand-Mère golf club, if, naturally, I obtain
the unanimous consent of this House.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, so all members understand, the
Deputy Prime Minister asked the member to make his document
public.
To my knowledge and that of others, especially those who prepare
Hansard, he never said it should be tabled in this House. And
the answer is no.
The Speaker: Obviously, there is no unanimous consent on this
point.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to six
petitions.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will take
a few moments to explain the government's latest move forward in
meeting our commitments in the Speech from the Throne.
1505
In the Speech from the Throne, the government pledged to tackle
the most pressing problems facing aboriginal people. We made a
firm commitment to support first nations initiatives, and that
means strengthening their communities.
Less than 90 days later, we are making a significant step toward
meeting that commitment. As I announced at Siksika on Monday, we
are moving forward with first nations on the governance
initiative. The first phase has begun already, the consultation
phase.
In my visits to more than 100 first nations communities over the
past year, people have told me repeatedly what they consider are
their top priorities to strengthen how their communities are run.
The people had a lot to say. They talked about women's rights,
they talked about voting rights and they talked about practices
that connect band members to their own governments.
I have also heard that if we are going to make this work, band
governments and even other first nations agencies have to be
strengthened. First nations needs stronger tools to govern. They
need clear legal powers and they need stability and long term
sustainability.
Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to speak to the House for a few
moments this afternoon is that it is just as important for the
House to understand what this initiative will not contain.
Let me be clear. It is not to alter the inherent right to
self-government. It is not to affect the federal government's
treaty relationship with first nations nor first nations treaty
rights. It will not address band status and membership
entitlements or aboriginal rights and title. Nor will the powers
of first nations in relation to lands and resources be the focus
of attention. Finally, it is not a replacement for the Indian
Act.
We will continue our work, as we have in the past, in each of
these areas. This initiative is about addressing the governance
issues facing first nations communities, issues the 130 year old
Indian Act did not envision.
This initiative will build an interim step toward
self-government. It will provide the authority for first nations
to have control over their day to day administration and
management.
As we move toward self-government, the question we all must ask
ourselves is this: will the status quo be acceptable until
self-government for all first nations is achieved? I suggest the
answer to that question is no.
How do we build that interim step? I can tell the House what I
have been told by first nations. We do it in consultation with
first nations. Parliament will provide the vehicle for change,
but first nations citizens will provide the content.
In the coming months the government will consult with first
nations like never before. Within the next few weeks we will
begin holding community level consultations across the country to
assess the scope, options and interests to be dealt with in the
legislation. These consultations will take place during the
spring and summer of this year, with the active participation of
representatives from first nations and aboriginal organizations,
from the leadership and the communities. Results from these
consultations will lead into the proposed legislation.
As we also have other innovative new ways to consult more
thoroughly with first nations people and their leadership, I want
to spend a couple of minutes talking about them, because these
tools are part of a unique and different process that the
department and the minister would like to use to consult with
first nations.
For the first time we will extensively use videos, TV and print
media to raise awareness of what is being proposed. We have set
up a 1-800 line with the Bella Bella call centre at the Heiltsuk
First Nation in British Columbia to hear what individual band
members have to say.
However, I am most excited about communicating through our
website. For the first time people will be able to access
information on the web, write their comments via e-mail or chat
with first nations members from across the country to exchange
ideas and put forward suggestions.
1510
The government will consult with first nations to consider
changes to the Indian Act, which has not been changed
significantly since 1867. I hope that my opposition colleagues
will not take issue with this change to one of Canada's oldest
pieces of legislation, which they may be attached to. There may
be a temptation to focus on the obstacles and challenges, but I
would warn the opposition that is not the point.
Too often some of the opposition in the House has focused the
blame on the failures of a few instead of looking for inspiration
to the successes found among many first nations. This
consultation process will look for what works and build on those
successes. I hope the opposition will change its approach and
credit those successes.
With this initiative I hope to strip away the powers of the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as they
relate to the day to day governance of first nations and put them
where they belong, in the hands of first nations, in an interim
step to self-government.
I would hope also that the opposition will not confuse this
initiative with its motion on financial accountability. This
initiative is about listening to first nations people, councils
and chiefs who will provide best practices on governance systems.
It is not about a few examples of the mistakes made in the past.
It is about people, not politics, and it is about hearing the
views of first nations people, not telling them about the
opinions, informed or otherwise, of politicians.
This is not about weakening first nations, as the Alliance would
have us do. Instead, this is about strengthening first nations,
about building strong, vibrant and successful first nations
leaders and communities for the generations which follow us.
I hope I will get the support of the House to improve the lives
of first nations people as we enter into this consultation.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today
in reply to the statement from the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development. I do so on behalf of my Canadian Alliance
colleagues and as the chairman of the leader's advisory committee
on Indian and Northern Affairs.
My role in that position is to listen to band members, ranchers,
the tourism industry, businesses and other Canadians affected by
this act. I would be pleased to share my findings with the
minister.
The Canadian Alliance has long advocated for and on behalf of
aboriginal people, the people who make up the bands themselves,
the people who are all too often living in squalid conditions,
with poor or limited health care. They suffer from exceptionally
high rates of diabetes, alcohol and drug abuse, infant mortality,
fetal alcohol syndrome and high rates of suicide, particularly
among their youth.
The Canadian Alliance upholds the principle of accountability,
fiscal and electoral accountability. The privilege of being
elected to a position of leadership means that we will accurately
reflect the needs of all of constituents, not just those who
agree with us. The privilege of being elected to a position of
leadership means that we must use and distribute funds and
resources wisely among all of those who need them. The privilege
of being elected to a position of leadership means that we must
bear the burden of making hard but fair decisions.
The Canadian Alliance has long stated that the Indian Act does
not work. The act is repressive and has long been in need of a
major overhaul.
I am pleased to hear that the minister has acted accordingly and
is willing to make serious changes to the way in which our
aboriginal people are governed. His announcement early this week
regarding the first nations governance act and his comments today
are a welcome first step.
The Canadian Alliance supports the consultation process
announced in this proposed bill. I do, however, wish to comment
that the consultation process must be taken seriously. It must
be transparent and real. It must truly listen to the people, not
just the aboriginal leadership. It is easy to consult with
organized groups such as the AFN and chiefs. It is not easy to
truly listen to the rank and file members. The Canadian Alliance
will ensure that those voices and concerns, both native and
non-native, are heard and listened to during this process.
1515
While the proposed bill refers to governments, there is much
debate over the term self-government. Parliamentarians, together
with all the people of Canada, must ensure that everyone knows
what self-government means.
I urge the minister and departmental officials to listen
carefully to provincial and municipal governments throughout the
process. These levels of government will, as the minister has
indicated, be engaged at the appropriate level. The term
self-government can be interpreted in a variety of ways and
requires clarification.
In my home province of B.C., the majority of land claims are
still pending. As the settlement process moves along it is
imperative that all stakeholders play an active role in the
process as we move toward native self-governance. Furthermore,
we must together ensure that the proper human, logistical and
financial resources are available to aboriginal people as they
move toward self-government.
One of our past failings has been to quickly pass responsibility
to native bands without the proper analysis and without assisting
them through the transition period to ensure they do not fall
between the cracks. Taking responsibility for a service such as
health care is important. However if the resources are not in
place to manage it then a disservice is done to the people who
need the health care. We must proceed down this path cautiously
but with the aim of effecting real change.
The minister has heard correctly from aboriginal people and the
Canadian Alliance that the status quo is not acceptable. The
system is not working. If it were, aboriginal people would not
be facing the dire conditions seen on so many reserves today. The
status quo is not acceptable, but I would caution the minister
not to rush the process. Broad based consultation is appropriate
and right. I ask the minister to find ways to ensure that all
aboriginal people can provide feedback. Chat rooms are a viable
method, but let us remember that many aboriginal people do not
have access to computers. The consultation process must gather
information from all stakeholders using a wide variety of
methods.
Contrary to what the minister would have Canadians believe, the
Canadian Alliance is about strengthening all people, including
aboriginal people. Unfortunately the Indian Act and the
government have done a good job of eroding the strength of most
Canadians. We are not here to create division. We must instead
work to create harmony and better understanding among all people.
The Canadian Alliance cautiously looks forward to the first
phase of the government's act. I urge all aboriginal people to
ensure that the minister hears their voice. This is their
opportunity to take control of their own future.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I too am pleased to discuss the important announcement
by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In principle, the Bloc Quebecois supports any measure aimed at
modernizing the archaic political system that has been imposed
for over 100 years on aboriginal communities by the federal
government.
The minister's initiative announced today is laudable, but one
wonders about the government's real intentions. We must deplore,
among other things, the quick and expeditious shelving of the
voluminous report of the Erasmus-Dussault commission.
That was a serious mistake and the Bloc Quebecois has always
been very sensitive to the implementation of the commission's
recommendations.
We also deplore the fact that, since 1999, the minister has not
kept his promises on the reform of the Indian Act, including the
sensitive issue of the matrimonial regime of women on reserves.
Aboriginal women do not all enjoy the same rights. Those living
off reserve enjoy the right to a fair splitting of the conjugal
assets when their marriage fails. Unfortunately, that is not the
case for women living on reserves.
The minister's initiative and his reassuring words must not have
the effect of putting off indefinitely what first nations have
been seeking for so long, such as the inherent right to
self-government, aboriginal and treaty rights, and management
powers over, among other things, land and natural resources.
The consultation process proposed by the minister also raises
many major issues.
1520
This strikes me as a desire to reinvent the wheel. Why launch
this consultation process when it is scarcely five years since
the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples tabled its report?
This, hon. members will recall, was a commission that did a very
thorough job and cost the Canadian taxpayer close to $50
million.
If the minister took the trouble to read that report with care,
he would certainly find it to be a major source of inspiration,
and time, energy and money would be saved. Also, there are many
questions, and nebulous questions at that.
How can the aboriginal right to vote be addressed properly if
the vital matter of the inherent right to self-government is not
touched upon at all?
How will this consultation process impact upon the negotiations
currently under way? Do they need to be suspended in order to
avoid any type of interference? How long will this famous
interim step, as the minister called it, last? Is the minister
really assured of the support of the first nations for the
consultation process?
It seems to me that the conclusions the minister wishes to reach
consist in imposing the federal government's vision on the
aboriginal people, as it has tended to do for a century, and on
the provinces, as it has for several decades.
Finally, by transferring its powers relating to day to day
administration to the first nations, is the central government
not seeking to quietly dump onto those same first nations its
fiduciary obligation, without providing them with the necessary
resources indispensable to their viability, and particularly to
their prosperity?
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the minister coming before the House today to explain
the government's latest initiative to improve relations with
first nations people specifically as it pertains to governance.
I think I speak for most Canadians when I say we were heartened
and encouraged that the Speech from the Throne made reference to
issues facing aboriginal people. In doing so it signalled a
growing recognition that the current relationship between the
government and first nations people is not sustainable. It must
be revisited, reworked and renewed, and hopefully without delay.
The Indian Act can best be described as 130 years of social
tragedy. Canada's treatment of aboriginal people is its greatest
shame. Actions to date in dealing with aboriginal people have
had the effect, either by action or omission, of creating a
permanent underclass in our society. No government to date has
had the courage or the conviction to take pro-active steps to
aggressively reverse this monumental injustice.
At the beginning of a new century there is cautious optimism
that we are within reach of a breakthrough in our relationship
with aboriginal people. In that sense we are living in historic
times.
One of my proudest moments as a member of parliament was having
the opportunity to rise in support of the historic Nisga'a
treaty. Well-meaning people throughout Canada celebrated with
the Nisga'a as they took the courageous steps necessary to
realize their inherent right to self-governance. In the House of
Commons only the Canadian Alliance voted against the Nisga'a
right to self-governance.
Now is the time to begin putting in place the necessary
legislative framework to enable all first nations communities to
exercise their right to self-determination and to achieve the
dignity, pride and self-worth that results when oppressed people
fight for and achieve that basic freedom.
I agree with the minister that the current Indian Act is
outdated and obsolete. It was created for a different era, an
era that never contemplated there would come a time when
aboriginal people would fight for and win recognition of their
inherent right to self-governance.
It is with cautious optimism that we receive the minister's
information today. We recognize the need for careful and
meaningful consultation prior to such a fundamental departure
from the status quo. We accept that there is a need to build
consensus. We appreciate what seems to be a sincere effort to
consult far and wide by whatever technology is available.
However, we caution the minister that bold reforms often breed
apprehension and mistrust.
1525
Some aboriginal leaders have already indicated that they will
boycott the process. Some say there might be a hidden agenda.
Others express frustration that they have been consulted to
death. Many point out that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples was the most comprehensive and exhaustive consultation in
recent history. Yet six years later its five volumes sit on
shelves. They say the progress report “Gathering Strength”
should have been named gathering dust because that has been the
sum total of its experience.
The aboriginal leadership does not agree on everything but it is
unanimous in one regard. It is united in calling for the
implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples. Over the course of five years and $50
million positions were developed, presented, recorded and drafted
into meaningful recommendations. However, rather than implement
the recommendations, we are about to embark on yet another round
of comprehensive consultations.
The government wants the initiative to be seen as an interim
step toward self-government. It hopes it will ultimately provide
first nations some authority and control over their day to day
administration. It also hopes broad consultations will lead to a
sharing of practices and that communities with strong
administrative skills are encouraged to provide guidance and
leadership to those with weaker skills.
Built into this aspect of the initiative is the recognition that
most first nations communities already manage their affairs in a
professional manner. It is hoped that they will share their
experience with other communities and ultimately develop national
standards of excellence.
I agree with the minister that all too often the official
opposition has focused on the failures of a few rather than the
successes of the vast majority. The Canadian Alliance Party has
been intellectually dishonest in pointing to isolated incidents
of financial mismanagement and arguing that all aboriginal
leadership is corrupt or incompetent. I resent that position.
Its continual attacks are nothing more than a thinly veiled
attempt to undermine aboriginal self-governance which it clearly
opposes vigorously.
I am encouraged to hear the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development say it is his intention to strip away his
power over the day to day governance of first nations and put it
back where it belongs: in the hands of first nations. I view
that as an interim step toward self-government.
If the minister's announcement moves us one step closer to
self-governance and self-determination for aboriginal people then
he can count on the support of the NDP caucus.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, no
public policy issues facing the government and the people of
Canada are more complex than those concerning first nations
people.
The Progressive Conservative Party endorsed the inherent right
to self-government of Canada's first nations when drafting the
1992 Charlottetown accord. It was a Conservative government that
established the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and gave
it a broad mandate to study and report on all issues affecting
the lives of Canada's aboriginal peoples. Progress on all such
issues has been slow. The Nisga'a land settlement was only
recently approved after having taken years to negotiate.
There is no one size fits all solution to the problems facing
Canada's first nations. Self-government as set out in the
Charlottetown accord and implemented by the Nisga'a agreement is
only one of many possible forms of self-government.
No matter which structure is desired, however, governments must
move in that direction. It is only through self-government that
first nations people can begin to recover the dignity and power
taken from them since the early settlement of Canada.
Many other issues face aboriginal people as well.
These include determining a sound economic basis for first
nations to grow, flourish and benefit from being a part of the
country. The legal and cultural role of first nations women
needs to be addressed especially in the movement to
self-government.
1530
Among the most pressing concerns to be addressed are the complex
issues facing first nations youth and first nations individuals
living in cities without land base. More than half the first
nations population of Canada is under the age of 25 and living in
cities. Most often they are experiencing poverty and functioning
alone, without direction. Without significant steps being taken
by governments in partnership with the first nations, these young
people will become a generation lost to Canada and their own
people.
Our party feels that the minister needs to look no further than
at the royal commission created by the former Progressive
Conservative government for ideas and changes made to the Indian
Act. It has been mentioned on a number of occasions by previous
speakers that it took years and millions of dollars to put the
royal commission together. I have seen the volumes. There are
recommendations in there that could have been implemented
yesterday be implemented now
or in the very near future without having to go through a make
work project that the minister seems to be embracing.
The PC Party believes that the ineffective paternalistic and
colonial approaches of the Indian Act must give way to greater
self-reliance and self-esteem through effective education,
economic development, social justice and local control. It must
also lead eventually to the elimination of both the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development as well as the Indian
Act, which would lead to self-government.
The PC Party does not support the establishment of a third level
of government. Instead self-government is best achieved within
the current system of our government. The current government
with this minister could make major progress, but it seems to be
choosing what on the surface may be a delay tactic. Progress
delayed is progress denied.
On the surface this initiative has the appearance of a make work
project from a government that seems to be void of ideas. It has
the opportunity to look at the royal commission and to implement
some of those ideas now. However the process that the minister
has chosen looks like another stalling tactic. I hope it is not.
I hope the minister could convince me and the first nations
people that he wishes to consult. I hope the process in place
now will come to fruition and will not be another report sitting
on a shelf gathering dust. The policy issue is far too
important, not only to the first nations but to the people of
Canada.
I wish the minister good luck and Godspeed. I also wish he will
be able to implement some of the things he is putting forward to
his government and to the House in the not too distant future.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the second report
of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.
This report has to do with the broadcasting and the availability
of the debates and proceedings of parliament in both official
languages.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank members from both
chambers on the committee. They did their work quickly but
well. I also wish to thank our staff, including the clerks, and
particularly the one who is leaving us.
I would like to mention that the committee's report takes note
of the CRTC's upcoming examination of the need to broadcast
parliamentary proceedings in both official languages and
encourages this initiative.
We also thank the Speaker of the House for appearing before us.
We encourage him to try to dovetail the contracts which must be
renegotiated and perhaps renewed with the expiry of the public
affairs cable channel licence, which the CRTC must or could
renew.
This is an undertaking of the committee and a call from the
committee. We would like a response from the government to
ensure that all Canadians, wherever they live, have access to
the broadcasts of the debates of parliament in both official
languages.
* * *
1535
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-341, an act to
amend the Access to Information Act (Cabinet confidences).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Delta—South
Richmond for seconding my bill to amend the cabinet confidences
section of the Access to Information Act.
Last week Treasury Board kept secret 33 full pages of documents
and an additional 57 partial pages, using the excuse of cabinet
confidences. All the documents pertain to a treasury board
firearms oversight committee that had been reviewing the huge
cost overruns and bureaucratic bungling of the gun registry.
The Department of Justice has used the same cabinet secrecy
excuse repeatedly to hide 172 pages of gun registry budget
documents, an entire 115 page document on the economic cost of
the gun registry, and 61 pages on how user fees would cover the
entire cost of the gun registry program.
In 1996 the information commissioner published a report entitled
“Access to Information Act and Cabinet Confidences, A Discussion
of New Approaches”.
My private member's bill would implement the information
commissioner's recommendations, and that is very important. The
information commissioner was kind enough to review an earlier
version of my bill and his recommendations have been included in
this draft. The bill should reduce some of the complaints of
government secrecy which the information commissioner says have
more than doubled in the last year.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough
area who are very interested in the work being done in Canada to
develop a bioartificial kidney.
1540
This is a device which would help people with end stage kidney
disease. People hope that it would finally replace transplants
and kidney dialysis as the only means of treatment for people
with kidney problems.
They call upon parliament to work and support the development of
the bioartificial kidney. I would like to point out that the
petition was developed by Ken Sharp, a citizen in my riding.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from citizens in the Peterborough area who would like
to see a VIA commuter service between Toronto and Peterborough
re-established.
This was a service which was present up until about 10 years ago
when it was taken away. These citizens believe that the
re-establishment of the service would be good for the
environment. It would reduce greenhouse emissions, accidents and
costs to maintain highways. It would also strengthen
Peterborough as a business, educational and tourist centre.
They call upon parliament to authorize the recommencement of a
VIA commuter service between Toronto and Peterborough. I would
add that the petition has support in five federal ridings.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I also
have a petition related to kidney disease. It is from citizens
who want to see kidney research improved in Canada.
They call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian Institutes
of Health Research to explicitly include kidney research as one
of the institutes in its system. That institute would be called
the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.
CANADA POST
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the first petition I have to present
today is from rural mail couriers. Their complaint, which is a
legitimate one, is that they lack collective bargaining rights
where other workers, people who are doing a similar job, have
those rights.
They wish that parliament would repeal or amend subsection 13(5)
of the Canada Post Corporation Act which prohibits them from
having collective bargaining rights.
CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I have is
one with over 1,000 signatures. These residents are concerned
about the disbanding of the coast guard dive team by the minister
and the resulting death of Paul Sandhu last February 18.
They maintain that more lives could be lost if the dive team is
not reinstated. They strongly request and urge the minister to
reinstate that dive team.
VIOLENCE
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the third petition is one which was
organized by a constituent of mine, Mr. Grant Campbell. This
time I am presenting almost 400 signatures.
The signators are calling upon parliament to enact immediate
changes to the criminal code to implement the necessary measures
for the protection of Canada's children from exploitive marketing
of violence on the Internet and interactive games.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, today I am presenting a petition signed by 130 citizens,
mostly from the Ottawa area but a few from other provinces as
well.
They draw to the attention of the House the intolerable human
rights situation in the southern Sudan. They pray that the House
and parliament make representations to the Sudanese government on
behalf of human rights in that country.
They pray that parliament amend the Special Economic Measures
Act so that the Canadian government can initiate a policy that
would be reflective of the need for human rights in that country,
particularly with regard to Christians in the southern Sudan.
POISON CONTROL
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present my first
petition on behalf of the constituents of Cypress
Hills—Grasslands.
The petition is signed by 370 concerned citizens regarding a
topic that is particularly near and dear to my seatmate, the
member for Lakeland. These citizens are calling on the
government to amend the regulations to allow the sale of
concentrated strychnine for use in the control of the
Richardson's ground squirrel.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have 14 petitions signed by
residents of the province of Saskatchewan who are very concerned
about the availability of liquid strychnine for the control of
the Richardson's ground squirrel.
1545
Before 1992 it was available in concentrated form. Since 1992
Health Canada has restricted this sale to a pre-mixed form with
the concentration of 0.4%. That has had the resulting effect of
this particular ground squirrel destroying crops and hay land
causing severe damage. It is very costly to farmers in lost
productivity, equipment repairs and injury to livestock.
They are petitioning parliament to amend the relevant
regulations so as to permit the sale of concentrated liquid
strychnine to registered farmers until such time as an effective
alternative can be found.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following three questions will be answered today: Nos. 22, 26 and
27.
.[Text]
Question No. 22—Mr. Peter Goldring:
Can the government provide precise and workable definitions of
the terms “affordable housing”, “poverty” and “homeless”?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib): Definitions of terms
such as these depend upon the context in which they are used. See
also Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th Edition,
Citation 428 (ff), which reads:
(ff) seek information set forth in documents equally accessible
to the questioner, as Statutes, published reports, etc.
Question No. 26—Mr. Ted White:
With respect to the
government's immigration targets and with reference to the
document entitled “Not Just Numbers, A Canadian Framework for
Future Immigration”, could the government indicate: (a) why an
annual immigration target of 1% of Canada's population was
chosen and what research material supports the selection of that
percentage instead of a higher or lower percentage; (b) what
research the government has drawn upon in determining the
proportion of immigration which should be entrepreneurial class,
family reunification class or other class; (c) what research
the government has conducted or referred to in assessing the
impact on Canada's medical system and social programs from the
existing and proposed levels of family reunification class
immigration; (d) what research the government has conducted to
determine whether the economic contribution to Canada from
immigration has been rising or falling over the past 30 years,
and whether such a rise or fall in economic contribution is a
result of the changes in target levels for specific class of
immigrants; and (e) why the government no longer considers it
an important requirement that prospective immigrants be
proficient in one of Canada's official languages, and what
studies it has drawn upon to conclude that relaxation of the
language requirement will not cause serious social stresses and
problems for new entrants?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, is recognized as
a leader in the area of policy research and for having advanced
information relative to many other countries undertaking
immigration policy research. This volume of work is available for
review, as is extensive additional information relevant to many
of the issues raised in your written request, on CIC's strategic
research and review website located at
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/srr.
With respect to the government's immigration targets:
(a) Immigration provides numerous benefits to Canada including a
larger domestic market of consumers, an increased supply of
skilled workers and inflows of financial and human capital. As
well, immigration continues to be an increasingly important
component of population growth and for addressing the shrinking
labour force.
Assuming fertility rates remain at present levels, continued
immigration is the only means of forestalling an eventual decline
in the population and resultant decline in the labour force. A
study by McDonald and Kippen entitled “Ageing: The Social and
Demographic Dimensions”, presented at the Association of the Americas
2000 annual meeting in Los Angeles, March 23-25, 2000, confirms
that the future labour supply of Canada is migration dependent.
With respect to Canada's aging population, the recent United
Nations report, “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to
Declining and Ageing Population?”, concludes that population
rejuvenation requires comparatively high levels of migration.
Likewise, only higher levels of immigration will address the
issues of population and labour force growth over the long term.
In light of the benefits of immigration, and in particular the
positive influences it can have on the demographic problems facing
the country, the Government of Canada has created a vision and a
strategy for the long term growth and sustainability of the
nation. Immigration targets of approximately 1% of the population
are fundamental underpinnings of this vision for the future of a
prosperous Canada.
In support of this vision, Citizenship and Immigration Canada is
in the process of developing a multiyear planning process that
strengthens the educated setting of annual levels targets by
constantly assessing the needs of Canada, its provinces, cities,
citizens and newcomers alike. The process will be informed not
only through research but also through consultations with
partners, including the provinces, and analysis of domestic and
global trends. It will constantly weigh the benefits and costs of
immigration, allowing for conscientious planning and managed
progress toward the vision of a sustained and prosperous Canada
through increased immigration levels. As flexibility is
fundamental to multiyear planning, the process will continue to
be refined and expanded in the years to come in order to meet the
demands raised by rapid changes in the global and domestic
environments.
(b) Each category of immigrant brings unique benefits to Canada.
A good balance for the nation is one that optimizes the benefits
of both economic immigrants and family class immigrants. Economic
immigrants support trade, industry and the economic growth of the
country. Family class immigrants help build strong families, one
of the foundations on which this nation and its communities is
built.
The proportions of the economic and family class categories
continue to be monitored by the department in consultation with
provincial and territorial partners to ensure Canada's best
interests are served. While the current balance benefits Canada
in many ways, the best balance of immigrants for the country may
change as shifts in demographics and economics occur. Canada,
like many other countries, is undergoing changes at an
increasingly rapid rate.
Due to competition for immigrants in the global marketplace and
shifts in the movement of people, the number of applications
received in the various categories and the final balance of
landings are not entirely within the control of CIC. Therefore
the department must monitor what is happening with respect to this
balance and respond accordingly to position itself to attract the
right mix of immigrants that will help build strong families and
a strong economy. Through the multiyear planning process, ongoing
analysis to ascertain the optimal balance of economic and family
class immigrants and strategies to achieve this balance continue
to be developed.
(c) In 2000 there were 60,426 immigrants landed under the family
class. The proposed target range for 2001 family class landings
is 57,000 to 61,000. The proposed target range for 2002, which
is subject to change with the tabling of the 2002-03 immigration
plan, is 59,800 to 63,700. Assuming the middle of these ranges
were to be met, the changes in family class landings would amount
to -2.4% and 2.2% respectively. The impact on Canada's medical system and
social programs from these marginally different proposed levels
is not expected to be of significance.
(d) Numerous studies have been undertaken to assess the economic
benefits to Canada through the economic contributions of
immigrants. However, experts argue that while an understanding of these
contributions is important, the issue is extremely complex and
difficult to measure reliably for the whole of the immigrant
movement, let alone by individual immigrant categories. Much of
this research activity is summarized and presented on the
website I have mentioned.
The most well developed research in relation to immigrants and
economics is in the area of the economic performance of immigrants
themselves. By and large, immigrants are found to do well.
Additional information on research initiatives in this area can
be accessed at the Metropolis project's website at
http://canada.metropolis.net. This site also includes relevant
links to other immigration policy research initiatives and
organizations that may be of interest.
(e) Language requirements for immigrants are presently being
strengthened, not relaxed, through immigration policy and
proposed legislation and regulations. Research indicates that
proficiency in one of Canada's official languages is key to
successful integration for immigrants. As such, the government
considers it of primary importance that prospective immigrants be
able to speak one of Canada's official languages and is proposing
both measuring this proficiency more precisely and giving
increased weight to this component of a prospective immigrant's
application.
Question No. 27—Mr. Peter MacKay:
With regard to the creation
of a national weapons enforcement support team, NWEST: (a) will NWEST
only support local law enforcement in anti-trafficking and
anti-smuggling efforts, or will there be occasions where NWEST
will act as the lead law enforcement unit while enforcing
firearms related laws; (b) what will be the projected cost for
the setting up and enactment of NWEST; (c) why was this funding
not given to the RCMP so that our national police force could
form a special unit similar to NWEST; (d) will the commencement
of NWEST's operations result in the diminishment of Canada's
existing law enforcement community; (e) have the new members of
NWEST been sent to the United States to be trained for the NWEST
by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, BATF, and if
so; (i) how many people were sent for training; (ii) what are
the backgrounds of the people who were trained; and (iii) what
was the cost involved for the training and the travel?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (a) NWEST will
provide training to local law enforcement in all jurisdictions.
It will work in a support role with local law enforcement to
assist in anti-trafficking and anti-smuggling efforts. The team
will also help the police community in dealing with issues of
violence with firearms. NWEST will not take a lead law
enforcement role in enforcing firearms related laws.
(b) Consultations are known currently underway with the policing
community across Canada and once these consultations are
completed and the results know, an overall budget for NWEST will
be established.
(c) As a result of consultations that took place over a two year
period, the overwhelming recommendation from the policing
community was to establish the unit initially with those directly
responsible for the administration of the Canadian firearms
program. Discussions with the RCMP are ongoing. NWEST provides
training support to all police agencies across Canada. The RCMP
provides lead investigative services and lead investigative
support services for all police services.
(d) NWEST will actually augment and provide expertise and
training to local law enforcement officials in all jurisdictions.
NWEST will support frontline police agencies in the gathering of
evidence in order to assist them in successfully prosecuting
persons involved in the illegal movement and criminal use of
firearms.
(e) No member of NWEST has been sent to the United States to be
trained by the BATF. The purpose of NWEST is to support front-
line police agencies in the gathering of evidence in order to
assist them in successfully prosecuting persons involved in the
illegal movement and criminal use of firearms.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Notice of Motions for the Production of Papers Nos. P-1 and P-2,
in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt are
acceptable to the government and the documents are tabled
immediately.
That a humble Address be presented to
Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before
this House copies of all documentation related to the Canada
Research Chairs and, in particular, information concerning
the number of Chairs that will be awarded to each of the
following agencies: Medical Research Council, Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
That an Order of the House do issue
for copies of all documentation related to the Canada
Research Chairs initiatives, and in particular, information
related to the division of funds to be awarded to the
various granting councils involved.
(Motions agreed to)
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to
call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-20.
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of any letters
since April 1, 2001, from the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons and/or the Clerk of the Privy Council to
ministers and/or Deputy ministers concerning answers to
questions in the House of Commons.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a minister of the crown, I would ask that this Motion
for the Production of Papers No. P-20 be transferred for debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The motion is
transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
(Transferred for debate)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I wish to inform the
House that because of ministerial statements, government orders
will be extended by 25 minutes.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine
conservation areas of Canada, be read the second time and sent
to a committee.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for over 100 years,
Canadians and their governments have built up a network of
national parks of world renown. This parliament now has the
opportunity to prepare the way for the establishment of a
network of national marine conservation areas.
Accordingly, future generations of Canadians will be able to
appreciate the diversity of our magnificent marine environments
and benefit from them as they already do in the case of the
exceptional natural spaces of our parks.
The long term objective we are promoting is to have each of the
29 marine regions in Canada represented in the national network
of marine conservation areas. We will similarly establish a
national park in each of the 39 natural land regions in Canada.
Each of the marine conservation areas, like each national park,
should illustrate the region it represents exceptionally.
1550
There are some who believe that national marine conservation
areas will be just watery national parks. That is not so.
In the national parks, the first priority is preservation of
ecological integrity where park zoning and visitor use are
concerned. In other words, parks are administered so as to keep
them basically unchanged by human activity.
However, marine conservation areas are designed to be models of
sustainable use. They are administered so as to balance
protection and use. That is why we need legislation that is
specifically adapted to the national marine conservation areas.
I will take advantage of this opportunity to provide a brief
overview of the legislation, indicating how it is designed to
manage protected areas in our complex marine environment.
[English]
The bill establishes the legal and regulatory framework for
creating and managing national marine conservation areas. It
does not by itself create any specific area. Instead, it
provides the mechanism for formally establishing national marine
conservation areas under the act.
A national marine conservation area is formally established when
its land description is added to a schedule of the act. This
brings those lands under the formal protection of the
legislation.
As in a recently proclaimed Canada National Parks Act, Bill C-10
sets out an order in council process for the establishment in law
of national marine conservation areas.
While the order in council process will speed up the scheduling
of new areas, I want to assure the House that the supremacy of
parliament remains. The bill requiring the proposals to
establish new national marine conservation areas must be tabled
in both Houses and referred to the appropriate standing
committees for their consideration. Should either House reject
the establishment of the new areas, the order in council would
not proceed.
I would like to stress, however, that the order in council
process would not be used for any proposal to remove lands from a
national marine conservation area. Like national parks, these
areas are established in perpetuity and thus the bill requires an
act of parliament to reduce the size of any existing site.
As is the case for our national parks, Bill C-10 requires
federal ownership of all lands to be included in a national
marine conservation area, both above and below the water. This
ensures that the Minister of Canadian Heritage will have
administration and control of these areas.
If a province owns all or part of the seabed in an area where
Parks Canada proposes to establish a national marine conservation
area, the province would have to agree to the use of those lands
for a marine conservation area and a federal-provincial agreement
would be required to transfer ownership to the federal
government.
Again, without such an agreement the proposed national marine
conservation area cannot proceed, and for greater certainty, this
requirement is specified in the legislation.
In marine areas where there is contested federal-provincial
jurisdiction, I would like to assure the House that the federal
government has no intention of acting unilaterally. There will
always be consultations with the province concerned with a view
to finding a mutually satisfactory resolution.
I would now like to address the role of consultation. There is
a very clear requirement for public consultation in the
establishment of any national marine conservation area, with
particular emphasis given to affected coastal communities. The
nature of these consultations is set out in Parks Canada
policies. The steps required by these policies can take years to
complete. The national marine conservation area feasibility
studies, which have already been launched by Parks Canada,
illustrate that this policy is already in action.
I wish to emphasize again, if there is no public support for the
creation of a national marine conservation area in a given
location, then the proposal would not be brought forward to
parliament. Parks Canada will look to another area with which to
represent the marine region.
When the government decides to take the final step and formally
establish a national marine conservation area, parliament will
have an opportunity to examine the proposal in detail and satisfy
itself that there is indeed community support.
1555
Bill C-10 also calls for active stakeholder participation in the
formulation, review and implementation of management plans.
Again, the legislation provides for accountability to parliament
through the tabling of management plans for each marine
conservation area. In addition, the minister must table a report
in parliament every two years on the state of national marine
conservation areas and on progress toward completion of the
system.
Coastal communities need certainty before an area is
established. Therefore, when a new proposal comes before
parliament, along with the report on the consultations held and
any agreements reached with the provinces and other departments,
there will also be an interim management plan. Management
advisory committees will be created for each marine conservation
area to ensure that consultation with local stakeholders
continues on an ongoing basis.
The management plans for each area must be reviewed at least
every five years. Thus the government will take a learn by doing
approach for every national marine conservation area. Ongoing
consultations within each marine conservation area will allow
Parks Canada staff to learn from local people, drawing on the
traditional ecological knowledge of coastal communities and also
aboriginal peoples.
Parks Canada has taken a partnership approach in the management
of the program and this is clearly reflected in the bill. Other
ministers have statutory responsibilities that will affect the
management of national marine conservation areas. Bill C-10 has
been carefully drafted to take that fact into account.
I would also like to address how Bill C-10 reflects the
government's commitment to working with aboriginal peoples. The
legislation includes provisions to establish reserves for
national marine conservation areas. These are established when
an area or a portion of an area is subject to a claim by
aboriginal peoples that has been accepted for negotiation by the
Government of Canada as a comprehensive land claim. Reserves are
managed as if they were national marine conservation areas, but
without prejudice to the settlement of the claim.
A non-derogation clause has been added regarding aboriginal and
treaty rights. No provisions of the act will derogate the right
guaranteed to aboriginal people under the constitution. There is
also a specific requirement in the legislation to consult with
aboriginal organizations and bodies established under land claim
agreements.
Finally, the legislation explicitly recognizes traditional
aboriginal ecological knowledge in carrying out research and
monitoring studies in national marine conservation areas.
Certain activities are indeed prohibited throughout all national
marine conservation areas. The most important of these
prohibitions concerns non-renewable resources, specifically
mineral, oil and gas. Marine conservation areas are managed for
sustainable use and by definition extraction of non-renewable
resources is not sustainable.
Other activities would also be regulated through zoning. I
would like to emphasize to the House the importance of zoning as
a powerful and flexible tool for managing use within a marine
conservation area.
In each national marine conservation area there will be multiple
use zones where ecologically sustainable uses are encouraged,
including fishing. There will also be zones where special
protection is afforded. For example, critical spawning grounds,
cultural sites, whale calving areas and scientific research
sites would be protection zones where resource use is not
permitted.
Each marine conservation area will contain these two types of
zones. At the same time enough flexibility is left in the bill
to ensure that each area can have a zoning plan that is
appropriate to its individual situation. Parks Canada will
identify the location of protection zones and surrounding
multiple use zones for each proposed marine conservation area
during the feasibility study for that area in full consultation
again with local stakeholders.
Federal legislation, such as the Fisheries Act and the Canada
Shipping Act, is already being used to manage activities in the
marine environment. These statutes were not intended to cover
the special requirements of national marine conservation areas.
Thus, Bill C-10 includes a number of regulation making
authorities which would be used to fill in the gaps in these
other statutes.
1600
For example, the bill includes authorities to make regulations
for the protection of cultural resources, for visitor safety, for
the establishment of zones and the control of activities within
those zones, and finally, for the control of overflights by
aircraft that pose a threat to wildlife.
The bill also provides checks and balances on the substance of
the regulations that may be made under the act. Specifically,
any regulations that impact on the jurisdictions of the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans or the Minister of Transport must be made
on the recommendation of both the Minister of Canadian Heritage
and the affected minister.
The proposed legislation also includes penalties for offences
against the Canada national marine conservation areas act or its
regulations, which would be exactly the same as those that are in
fact under part II of the Oceans Act. Fines of up to $500,000
may be levied for offences under the act.
I would like to reiterate that Bill C-10 is framework
legislation. It provides the tools needed to create national
marine conservation areas and to manage each one in a way that is
appropriate to its unique characteristics.
I believe that we have indeed struck an appropriate balance
between protection and sustainable use. Very few activities are
completely prohibited, but tools are available to regulate
activities to ensure that the structure and function of each
area's ecosystems are not compromised.
We have an obligation to consult affected communities during
feasibility studies, in the management planning process, and in
preparing the applicable regulations.
Each area will be unique, unique in its characteristics and also
uniquely managed. A national marine conservation area in
Georgian Bay will be distinct from one in the Beaufort Sea or in
the Strait of Georgia or in the Bay of Fundy.
Canada needs this legislation so that outstanding examples of
our country's natural and cultural marine heritage can be
provided with long term protection and so that all Canadians can
learn more about and experience this shared heritage.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak as the
official opposition critic for Canadian heritage on this bill,
Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation
areas of Canada, at second reading.
What we have before us today is the third attempt to pass this
legislation. This bill was Bill C-48, then Bill C-8 in the last
parliament, and now returns as Bill C-10 in this parliament. What
does this tell us about the commitment of the government to this
legislation? It tells us that the commitment is not very great
and it is very evident why. Even after three tries this
legislation remains seriously flawed.
First, let us not be fooled by the language that was originally
used to introduce this legislation. I certainly would not
disagree with a proposal that would require marine conservation
areas to be established for the protection and conservation of
“representative marine areas of Canadian significance” and
would be “for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people
of Canada and the world”.
However, upon closer inspection the bill does far more than the
government is prepared to admit.
The first area of concern I wish to draw attention to is one
involving the consultation process and where these 29
representative marine conservation areas are to be established.
As with the first two bills, in this current bill the schedule is
blank.
What is the government afraid of? The government is afraid that
the same thing will happen as what occurred in the Bonavista and
Notre Dame Bays area in Newfoundland, when political pressure
from the local Liberal member, and I suspect from the current
industry minister and former premier, stopped a marine
conservation area from going forward.
I am not criticizing the former member for
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception for representing his constituents
and their well founded fears that unemployment and economic
hardship would follow the good intentions of a federal bureaucrat
over 2,000 kilometres away in a comfy office, drawing a salary of
$100,000 a year.
1605
What about those ridings that have upheld the democratic process
and elected a member of the loyal opposition or, worse, have an
elected or weak or too compliant member of the government?
We have real fears when we read the literature from the
minister's department that talks about replacing the checks,
balances and safeguards of parliament for, in the words of her
department, the “simple, cost-effective procedure” of order in
council to establish or enlarge marine conservation areas.
Previous debates have pointed out this very serious flaw and yet
here it is a third time and still this flaw remains.
I pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan
River, for his input when this bill was Bill C-48. He very
clearly pointed out the Henry VIII clauses in the bill. I
encourage recently elected members of the House to read the hon.
member's speech. Henry VIII believed in the divine right to rule
and was always looking for ways to sidestep parliament and its
ultimate authority as an elected body. It seems some things
never change.
The current process, where the act has to be opened up and
amended when a new national park is contemplated or changes to an
existing park are considered, may not be as efficient as the
government would like but it is consistent with our democratic
heritage.
As the government is now beginning to realize, democracy can be
messy. It is this style of legislation, the Bill C-10s, that
will span more Quebec City types of demonstrations. As this
government seeks new and creative ways to exclude people from the
democratic process, unfortunately we will all pay the price with
a fractured nation. Separatism feeds on these sorts of
government dictates. If the minister were truly interested in
freedom of speech, she would not be proposing government by order
in council legislation.
The people of Canada have much to fear from the consultation
process of the Department of Canadian Heritage. The process is
so flawed that not only does it ignore the advice of the people,
it will not follow the advice of its own studies. Nowhere is
this more evident today than in the example of Parks Canada and
its reaction to a health and safety issue regarding park wardens.
The minister should know that there have been three separate
reports since 1993 that have identified unsafe working conditions
for park wardens, particularly with the significant increase in
fines for poaching in our national parks. Park wardens are being
put at greater and greater risk in the performance of their
duties.
It took a ruling from the HRDC labour program inspector to force
the department to respond. Did the department and the minister
do the right thing and accept the recommendations of three
separate reports, recommendations, I might add, that are
supported by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Animal
Alliance of Canada? No.
The minister chose to ignore the best advice given and is
blundering forward with an ill conceived and costly measure that
makes no sense at all. It is very clear that the minister has a
very poor record when it comes to taking good advice.
The only reason we in the official opposition can see for the
government to ignore its own advice would be because of some
hidden agenda. The reported plan to replace park wardens with
RCMP officers, with a detachment in every national park in
Canada, is absolutely sinister. What better way for a federal
government to enforce unpopular laws, laws that the provincial
governments want no part of, than to do it with its own police
force?
1610
As the federal government enacts more unpopular laws on an
unwilling rural population, how convenient that the federal
police officers are there for the Liberal government to call
upon.
This labour dispute that Parks Canada is having with its park
wardens will impact upon this legislation in a very significant
manner. Clauses 18 to 23 of Bill C-10, the enforcement section
of the act, in the current labour dispute means the act would not
be enforced. It is one thing to require RCMP officers on land to
go after poachers. Has the minister, in her $37 million request
to the treasury board for the money to replace park wardens with
RCMP officers, also put in a request for boats?
This is beginning to sound like the gun registry boondoggle,
where an $85 million cost has skyrocketed to $600 million and
counting. The people of the city of Pembroke in my riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke are currently in the process of
raising the money locally to buy a CAT scanner, thanks to the
federal government's two tier health care policy. That $637
million would save a lot of lives in the community of Pembroke
and a lot in other parts of rural Canada.
I and members of the official opposition are very concerned
about the consultative process, based on the concerns expressed
to our members over the bias of this government against rural
Canadians.
While I understand that the letter from the Mayor of Kitimat was
made available to the members on the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage when this legislation was called Bill C-48, I
would like to quote from his letter as I believe it to be a fair
reflection of the thoughts and feelings of rural Canadians:
Sadly, urban Canadians and senior levels of government seldom
grasp the values associated with rural life, whether it be
fishing, farming or forestry. All too often, regulation and
legislation occurs that impacts rural Canada and rural Canadians
significantly, while having little or no impact on urban life
and, therefore, is supported wholeheartedly by the non-rural
vote. In the best case scenario governments end up conceding
ignorance. At other times a blatant disregard for rural
Canadians occurs and is only rectified once social or economic
crisis occurs.
It continues:
As a misunderstood rural population, we often wish the same
commitment and daily practice toward our environment would be
evident in urban centres. Often it appears that those who push
for environmental and conservation laws do not enact the same
values with their own regions...We understand our rural and
remote populations are small, however...we chose to live in rural
locations. At best, it is our hope that Canada be governed based
on assessed needs and values of all Canadians...Further, we hope
that persistent inaccuracies and ignorance of rural and remote
lifestyles can be overcome.
The letter is quite a bit longer. However, I hope the essence
of what the mayor was trying to convey about the legislation is
apparent. The majority of Canadians, especially those of us in
rural Canada, do not trust the federal bureaucracy to represent
our interests fairly.
Even when we get good people who as public servants are trying
to do the best job possible, they are overruled by their
political masters, as is the case with the park wardens. Too
often our interests have been sacrificed to political expediency.
There are too many votes for the Liberals in the city of Toronto
to require it to deal with its own garbage. It is so much easier
to dump it in someone else's backyard, in this case the backyard
of the people in the riding of Timiskaming—Cochrane, near the
pretty town of Kirkland Lake. Better to lose one seat than to
jeopardize that big urban vote, and this government wonders why
rural people should fear Ottawa when cynical calculations such as
this are made by a troika of political manipulators. Actions
speak louder than words.
Where was the Minister of the Environment? For a government that
is constantly looking for ways to intrude into areas of
provincial jurisdiction, it suddenly became remarkably silent on
the issue of Toronto's garbage.
1615
I am optimistic that maybe this time, the third time the
legislation has come forward, the government might surprise
Canadians and address some of these concerns. For this I look
beyond the minister and her cabinet cohorts to her caucus
colleagues, in particular those MPs who represent rural
constituencies.
Those Ontario MPs whose ridings border the Great Lakes should be
very concerned about how the legislation will adversely impact
farmers, fishing enthusiasts, resort operators and other small
business people who are the backbone of our nation. They should
not be fooled by the soothing words of the minister and her
bureaucrats when they tell them not to worry, be happy.
How about the farmer who sprays his or her crops with herbicide?
Once the marine parks act is in place the regulators will move
into the watersheds. The legislation will finish off those
farmers who have not already been pushed out of business by
foreign subsidies.
The people of Newfoundland got off lucky when the marine
conservation area in their backyard was stopped. Will others be
so lucky when the legislation is passed? It was lucky for them
when they raised their objections that it was not yet law. Do
rural constituents favour letting the bill drop the way it was
the first two times?
It is ironic that the minister's own riding borders Lake
Ontario. It has been pointed out previously that her own
legislation could be used to shut down her constituents' largest
employer. Cootes Paradise is certainly a unique waterfront, so
unique in fact that several years ago the answer to the pollution
in Hamilton harbour was to pave the bay. I am very surprised
that the minister is proceeding with the legislation that has the
real possibility of doing great harm to her constituents.
By the department of heritage's own admission there is already
enough federal and provincial legislation in place to protect and
conserve heritage resources. Federal-provincial agreements are
in place for marine conservation areas in Ontario and British
Columbia.
Currently federal legislation is in place for the Saguenay
region of the St. Lawrence River in Quebec. The federal
legislation for St. Lawrence park was accompanied by
complementary provincial legislation. Obviously the Quebec
government saw the threat of federal intrusion and reacted
accordingly. Why is there a need for the legislation other than
the usual power grab by the Liberals?
It is no secret that the Liberal government is being pressured
by NAFTA and the United States to allow bulk water sales. The
trial balloon floated by the member for Toronto—Danforth before
the summit of the Americas was no coincidence. Some Canadians
are concerned that Bill C-10 is a Trojan horse for bulk water
sales.
The legislation clearly impacts on provincial jurisdiction and
would give the Liberal government the wedge it needs to start
negotiations for bulk water export from the Great Lakes to the
United States. These people are concerned that the government
operates on the basis of multiple hidden agendas, except this
agenda for water sales is being exposed for what it is.
What a coincidence that at the same time as Bill C-10 shows up
on the parliamentary agenda a sister bill, Bill C-6, shows up.
Surprise, surprise, it is all about licences for those people who
want to engage in bulk water exports.
Perhaps it should be the Minister of Foreign Affairs who is
identified as the sponsor of the bill. The legislation is a
clear encroachment into an area of provincial jurisdiction. Once
the bill is in place, the minister has arranged for any changes
to be by order in council and thus avoid public debate in the
House of Commons and in the media.
The province of Ontario is on record as opposing bulk water
exports from the Great Lakes, and the federal government is
currently unable to act without provincial agreement.
1620
The legislation is conceived in such a way as to avoid that
scrutiny. I challenge the federal government to accept
amendments to the legislation that would expressly prohibit the
bulk export of water from the Great Lakes and a clearer
definition of sustainable use in national marine conservation
areas.
The decision about whether Canada should or should not allow for
the bulk export of water should be done in open and in public.
The Toronto Star, as the in house organ of the Liberal
Party, is opposed to bulk water sales. We know the government is
deathly afraid of doing anything to disturb that Toronto vote and
recriminations that would be heaped upon it by the Star in
any debate regarding water.
The government is government by stealth. Unlike the Liberals we
in the official opposition want open debate regarding any issue
that impacts the public. Barring that and other changes we in
the official opposition intend to propose, we are willing to tell
the government to let the bill drop once again until, and only
until, the concerns of all Canadians are met.
It is clear that the third time out the government is timid
about Bill C-10 in public. I have had the privilege of meeting
some parliamentarians on the government side who feel the same
way the rest of us do who represent rural constituencies and must
share the same fears I have expressed about this type of
legislation.
The legislation, even if it were needed, is too flawed to go
forth in its current form. We in the Canadian Alliance affirm
the role of the federal government in the preservation of
Canada's natural and historic heritage such as national parks.
We also affirm the right of Canada as a sovereign nation to
govern itself in a way that benefits all its people. We do not
recognize the inevitable loss of sovereignty every time the Prime
Minister goes off and makes a commitment before an international
body, in this case the IUCN World Conservation Congress in
October 1996, without first consulting the people who will be
most severely affected by such an agreement.
More important, we require the input of parliament before the
people of Canada are put on the hook for something they may be
very unwilling to support. The pretext for the legislation was
that it was an international agreement. I do not believe the
framers of that agreement at the UN intended the Government of
Canada to use it in any other way to erode democracy in Canada.
This is not an issue for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. This
is legislation, albeit in a greatly changed form, that more
properly should be in the name of the Minister of the
Environment. This point was made previously in debate on Bill
C-48 and Bill C-8. The point needs to be emphasized here again:
the issues before us and our international commitments concerning
the environment should remain with that ministry.
On behalf of the Canadian Alliance I would like to be able to
support legislation to create national marine conservation areas.
However as the legislation is presented it is not justified in
its current form.
I would now like to respond to those individuals who might be
tempted to say that we should not throw the baby out with the
bathwater because there are some worthwhile aspects of the bill
that we surely can support. To those individuals I say there is
nothing in the bill the government could not accomplish if it
would just sit down and take the time to talk to the provinces,
which in turn would require the federal government to talk to
those communities that would be affected by the creation of a
marine park. As proposed, the shortcut the bill is all about is
not acceptable.
In conclusion, I call upon the minister to send the bill back to
the drawing board. Maybe the fourth time out the government can
get it right.
1625
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Employment; the hon.
member for New Brunswick Southwest, National Defence.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I ask for the
consent of the House to split my time with the hon. member for
Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous consent to
proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with
today's issue, namely marine areas, I would like to point out
that the members who are wearing a carnation today are doing so
to mark the tough battle that is fought by people suffering from
multiple sclerosis, a disease that primarily hits young people,
including my daughter.
The bill before us today was introduced in the House by the
Liberal government for the third time, after dying on the order
paper during each of the two sessions of the last parliament, as
Bill C-48 and Bill C-8 respectively.
This government, which is short on ideas, is coming back with
the same bill, except for one thing: it has a different number.
As for the rest, it is all the same as before. One would have
thought that after listening to a large number of witnesses in
committee during the last parliament, after hearing the concerns
of parliamentarians in this House and after seeking a new
mandate from the public, the Minister of Canadian Heritage would
have changed her approach.
I would have thought the minister would have gone back to the
drawing board to come up with a bill that was a bit more
sensitive to the concerns raised by witnesses before the
committee and by members in the House. Nothing was done. We
are therefore very disappointed.
By introducing a bill which is a carbon copy of the previous
version, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and her government
have once again ignored anyone who did not share their views.
That is why the bill is no more acceptable today than it was
earlier.
The purpose of Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine
conservation areas of Canada, is to provide a legal framework
for the establishment of 28 marine conservation areas,
representative of each of the Canadian ecosystems.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park is the 29th marine
conservation area. It will not be governed by this legislation
since it already has its own legislation.
It is also important to note that this bill follows a commitment
made by the present Prime Minister at the 1996 convention of the
World Conservation Union, held in Montreal. On this occasion, as
in 1994, the World Conservation Union, which represents 74
governments, 105 government agencies and more than 700 NGOs,
passed resolutions calling on all coastal nations to put marine
conservation measures in place quickly.
First, I wish to say that the Bloc Quebecois has always been in
favour of measures to protect our environment.
I remind those listening that the Bloc Quebecois supported the
government when it introduced its legislation to create the
Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park.
Why is the Bloc Quebecois opposed to this bill? Despite the
fact that we support the establishment of environmental
protection measures, the Bloc Quebecois opposes it because,
instead of focusing on working together, as it did in the case
of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park or phase III of the St.
Lawrence action plan, the federal government is introducing
marine conservation areas with no regard for Quebec's
jurisdiction over its territory and environment.
Heritage Canada is planning to introduce a new structure, marine
conservation areas, which will duplicate the marine protection
zones of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the
protected marine areas of Environment Canada.
Heritage Canada wants to have marine conservation areas, while
it has shown itself incapable of protecting the ecosystems in
existing national parks.
1630
One of the conditions essential to the establishment of a marine
conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the
area is to be established. Moreover, clause 5(2) of the bill
provides that the minister cannot establish a marine
conservation area, unless, and I quote:
(a) the Governor in Council is satisfied that Her Majesty in
right of Canada has clear title to or an unencumbered right of
ownership in the lands to be included in the marine conservation
area, other than such lands situated within the exclusive
economic zone of Canada;
There is a fairly significant legal problem here, because
subsection 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes that
the management and sale of crown land are matters of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction. There is therefore no federal title in
this context.
Furthermore, Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the
Quebec national assembly, applies to all crown lands in Quebec,
including the beds of waterways and lakes and the bed of the St.
Lawrence river, estuary and gulf, which belong to Quebec by
sovereign right.
In addition, this legislation provides that Quebec cannot
transfer its lands to the federal government.
The only thing it can do is to authorize the federal government
to use them only in connection with matters under federal
jurisdiction.
According to the notes provided us by the Minister of Canadian
Heritage with regard to the bill before us, marine conservation
areas are planned for the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence estuary
and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. These are three areas in which the
ocean floor is under Quebec's jurisdiction.
This almost sick propensity for the federal government to
interfere where it has no business being is quite simply
unacceptable. Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is here to remind
it of this, and to condemn its actions.
This approach is even more incomprehensible because co-operative
mechanisms already exist to protect ecosystems in the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park, and in the St. Lawrence River
under the agreement entitled "St. Lawrence action plan, phase
III" which was signed by all federal departments and Quebec
departments concerned.
There are two examples that should be followed: the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence Marine Park and phase III of the St. Lawrence action
plan.
In 1977, the governments of Quebec and Canada passed identical
acts to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. This
resulted in the creation of Canada's first marine conservation
area.
One of the main features of that legislation is that the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park is the first Marine Park to be
created jointly by the federal and Quebec governments, without
any transfer of territory. The two governments will continue to
fulfil their respective responsibilities.
This park includes only marine areas. Its boundaries may be
changed only through an agreement between the two governments,
provided there is joint public consultation in that regard.
This ought to have served as a model for the federal government
in the creation of other marine conservation areas, but no.
Another model that the Minister of Canadian Heritage could have
followed is phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan. That
phase, which was announced on June 8, 1998, represented a total
investment of $230 million that was shared equally by both
levels of government.
Why does the heritage minister not follow these two successful
initiatives and why is she now claiming exclusive ownership of
the seabed to set up marine conservation areas, when
partnerships in the area of the environment have so far been
successful?
We wonder about the true intentions of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
Will the federal government respect Quebec's constitutional
territorial rights in that regard, or will it again ignore it to
create marine areas where it believes such areas are necessary?
The environment is a shared jurisdiction. Let us never forget
that, under the Constitution Act, 1867, the governments of
Canada and Quebec share responsibility for the environment.
1635
Under section 92(1)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, Quebec
passed an act respecting the conservation and development of
wildlife that specifies, in section 2, the role to be played by
the Quebec minister of the environment and wildlife. It is the
following:
The Minister of the Environment and Fauna ensures the
conservation and development of wildlife and wildlife habitats.
Under Quebec's legislation, the minister also has the authority
to appoint conservation officers.
By refusing to use the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as a
model and by making title to the territory an essential
condition for the establishment of marine conservation areas,
the federal government would be able to establish marine
conservation areas on submerged lands to which it claims to have
title and thus bypass Quebec's environmental jurisdictions.
This is why it is important to be on the lookout and to reject
any form of regulation or action which would undermine the
national assembly of Quebec in this regard.
The Bloc Quebecois will not let the federal government have its
way on this issue nor let it fulfil its insatiable desire to
trivialize our institutions, our rights and our laws, just as it
is not giving in on social policy in the young offenders
legislation saga.
Respect for the integrity of Quebec's territory alone justifies
the fight the Bloc Quebecois is waging against this bill, but
there are other reasons we must oppose it.
The federal government intends to create marine conservation
areas under the responsibility of Heritage Canada, so there is a
lot of overlap within the federal government. On the one hand,
there is Heritage Canada and, on the other, there are marine
protection areas under the responsibility of Fisheries and
Oceans and marine wildlife areas under the responsibility of
Environment Canada. A lot of people are involved here.
One question immediately comes to mind. What are Heritage
Canada's reasons for establishing marine conservation areas?
They can be found in the preamble to this bill.
It is establishing marine conservation areas “to protect
natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems for the maintenance of
biological diversity"; second, “to establish a representative
system of marine conservation areas"; third, “to ensure that
Canada contributes to international efforts for the
establishment of a worldwide network of representative marine
areas"; fourth, “to provide opportunities for the people of
Canada and of the world to appreciate Canada's natural and
cultural marine heritage"; and, fifth, “to provide opportunities
within marine conservation areas for the ecologically
sustainable use of marine resources for the lasting benefit of
coastal communities".
As for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, it proposed the
establishment of marine protected areas.
However, in a discussion paper released by Fisheries and Oceans
in January 1997 and entitled “An Approach to the establishment
and Management of Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act",
the purpose of marine conservation areas is also described.
In both cases, we are told that local people will have a
significant involvement in the establishment of marine protected
areas. I wonder how many information or organization meetings
local people will be invited to in order to satisfy its
bureaucracy.
Finally, Environment Canada is proposing, so as not to be left
behind, to establish marine and wildlife reserves, expanding the
notion of the national wildlife sanctuary beyond the territorial
sea to the 200 mile limit within the exclusive economic zone
under the Canadian Oceans Act.
These areas are also subject to the Canadian Wildlife Act, but
require a different set of regulations, as the Fisheries and
Oceans Canada discussion paper states on page 49. It is quite
the pandemonium from what I can see.
At the hearings in February 1999, almost all coastal groups who
appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to
speak out against this bill emphasized their lack of
understanding of the federal government's position.
They argued that the Canadian heritage initiative would
duplicate what is already being done by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and create a great deal of confusion.
I will read from some of the testimony given. According to
Patrick McGuinness, vice-president of the Fisheries Council of
Canada:
If the challenge for Canadian industry in the milieu of
globalization is to be streamlined and efficient, we should be
able to demand government structures that are also focused and
streamlined. Regardless of the merits of MCAs, of this
initiative, the manner in which it is brought forward will lead
to confusion, duplication and conflicts in its implementation
1640
Quoting from another witness, Marc Kielly, executive director,
Newfoundland, Aquaculture Industry Association:
To empower the Minister of Canadian Heritage for the MCA
initiative effectively undermines the authority and mandate of
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as provided for under the
provisions of the Oceans Act. This should not be permitted to
occur.
Here is another excerpt, from the testimony by John Melindy,
project co-ordinator, NMCA feasibility study advisory committee:
Now, through the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans is empowered to declare marine protected areas to
conserve species under threat. In view of this fact, we are
mystified as to why Canadian Heritage is attempting to run a
parallel conservation initiative under a separate piece of
legislation.
Why, then, call witnesses and then not pay any attention to
their concerns? Why not look into the areas we were directed to
by the various witnesses?
One thing is clear. The government would have been better
advised to have a single department oversee the protection of
ecosystems and the departments concerned conclude a framework
agreement delegating their responsibilities to the one chosen to
be accountable in this matter, but the Minister of Canadian
Heritage refuses to listen to reason.
A number of witnesses emphasized the duplications within the
bill, but that is not all. Is there even more confusion in this bill?
If you answer yes, you hit the jackpot.
As unbelievable as it may seem, the bill provides that each
federal department will retain its own jurisdiction over the
marine conservation areas.
However, when the Department of Canadian Heritage deems it
appropriate, it may, in co-operation with the department
concerned, adopt regulations regarding a marine conservation
area that differ from the existing provisions.
Although this might seem normal in other circumstances, the
difficulties can only increase when Heritage Canada regulations
are enforced in marine protected areas, marine wildlife reserves
and marine conservation areas, each with their own regulations.
We have another good reason for opposing this bill: Heritage
Canada is incapable of protecting the ecosystems in existing
national parks.
In 1996, the Auditor General of Canada published chapter 31 on
the management of national parks by Parks Canada. In this
chapter, the auditor general made some, to say the least,
embarrassing observations, some of which follow:
Monitoring the ecological condition of the ecosystems in
national parks is a high priority, according to Parks Canada
policies and guidelines. However, in many national parks, the
ecological conditions are not monitored on a regular, continuing
basis.
On average, the management plans for the 18 national parks were
12 years old, when they should have been reviewed every five
years. The park management plans provide strategic direction for
the protection of park ecosystems.
The auditor general added:
Delays in preparing management plans and ecosystem conservation
plans reduce Parks Canada's ability to preserve the ecological
integrity of national parks.
They cannot do their own homework regarding the follow up on
national parks. How will they be able to do it for marine areas?
The auditor general went even further when he said:
We are concerned that Parks Canada's ability to preserve
ecological integrity in national parks and ensure sustainable
park use will be seriously challenged.
Before duplicating what is basically being done elsewhere,
including with marine wildlife reserves by Fisheries and Oceans,
would it not be logical for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to
ensure that national parks ecosystems are protected for future
generations, as stated in the National Parks Act?
This bill is a means that the Liberal government wants to have
to impose its centralizing vision.
This is a government that is anxious to intrude in provincial
jurisdictions. With this bill, we are seeing the exact opposite
of the “flexible federalism" that the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs boasts about.
Thank goodness the Bloc Quebecois is there to condemn what the
federal government is planning on doing, namely to duplicate and
totally lack any consistency.
1645
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to
Bill C-10, an act respecting the national—they have now become
national—marine conservation areas of Canada.
They were only marine conservation areas before. Now they have
become national marine conservation areas. It is a huge change
that occurred between the 36th and the 37th parliaments.
For the benefit of the people who are watching us, I would like
to remind the House that, in the first session of the 36th
parliament, the government introduced Bill C-48, which dealt with
this issue but left out the word national and just talked about
marine conservation areas.
The bill died on the order paper, because the Prime Minister
decided to prorogue the House and start a new session.
There was a new throne speech, in which the Prime Minister told
us that his government had realized that it was time to put an
end to federal-provincial overlap. That was quite a major
announcement. We looked forward to see how it would come about.
It was a disaster.
Soon after, Bill C-8 was introduced. It came earlier in the
session, as we can tell from the number it was given. It was
introduced at the beginning of the second session of the 36th
parliament.
During the first session, the bill had gone through first and
second reading. Witnesses had appeared before the committee, a
report had been tabled in the House and recommendations had been
made.
At the time, we thought that Bill C-8 would include
improvements since the government had taken its time and had
let public officials, lawyers, parliamentarians and witnesses
spend time on it. We thought “All this money will not go to
waste; the government will improve Bill C-8".
No such luck. Bill C-8 was a carbon copy of Bill C-48. The bill
went through first reading, second reading, and was referred to
a committee, which heard witnesses and reported back to the
House and made recommendations.
My former colleague, the hon. member for Portneuf who made the
wise decision of going back to teaching, would be very
disappointed to see Bill C-10, because after spending so much
time on Bill C-8, he would feel that it was a waste of his time.
However, in all fairness to the government, I must say that Bill
C-10 does include a few changes.
Some changes were made in the preamble. For example, the French
version of the old bill provided that marine areas had to be
“représentatives et protégées", whereas in the new bill, they
must be “protégées et représentatives". It goes without saying
that this change, which is found in the preamble, adds a lot to
the bill.
The government also seeks to "recognize that the marine
environment is fundamental to the social, cultural and economic
well-being of people living in coastal communities". If the
marine environment is essential to the development of coastal
communities, from a social, cultural and economic point of view,
why should we have marine areas where people will have to pay,
as is the case with every national park? We have beautiful
national parks, but we must pay to visit them.
The idea was to protect ecosystems. The idea was to make sure
that future generations would see the splendours of this vast
country, but those who do not have money can no longer see this
natural beauty, because they have to pay to do so.
1650
One has to see how the government behaves. I will use an example
with which I am very familiar. I see my colleague from
Charlevoix. We both live in a coastal area, an area where there
are problems in the lumber industry. What is being done to help
our loggers? Nothing.
We have a lot of problems with fishers. What is being done?
Sure, there are all kinds of problems. Quotas are being given to
other provinces, but the government is even unable to honour
Quebec's historic fishing quotas. We are demanding our fair
share, but it is being denied. Quotas are being given to people
who never had any before, when the policy has always been to
honour Quebec's historic quotas.
We have problems with loggers, with fishers, with seasonal
workers. We were promised a reform of the employment insurance
plan, which is not forthcoming. How do you think our coastal
communities will react when the government tries to take their
lands to create national marine conservation areas? I think we
will be able to occupy our lands to fight expropriation. We will
take action in due course.
This government's arrogant attitude in forging ties with the
communities will not serve it well when it tries to take their
marine property, ignoring all social, cultural and economic
considerations. A marine area will not put food on the table for
people in our ridings.
There is something else. The government wants to promote an
understanding of the marine environment and provide
opportunities for research and monitoring.
If being ridiculous were fatal, the people in the government
over there would all have been dead long ago.
I am going to return to some of the statements referred to by my
colleague, which I find extremely important.
In the 1996 report of the auditor general, chapter 31, on the
management of national parks by Parks Canada, the auditor
general makes the following statement “In the six national parks
we reviewed, Parks Canada's biophysical information was
out-of-date or incomplete except for La Mauricie".
It seems that everything is fine in La Mauricie National Park.
Curiously it is in the Prime Minister's riding. In five
national parks out of six that were studied, there were problems
with biophysical information.
What are we going to do to promote knowledge of the marine
environment and encourage research and monitoring activities?
How can the minister do so when the parks have been in existence
for some time and are incapable of doing this at present?
The text continues "Monitoring the ecological condition of the
ecosystems in national parks is a high priority, according to
Parks Canada policies and guidelines. However, in many national
parks—he looked at six—the ecological conditions are not
monitored on a regular, continuing basis." What will be done in
the marine parks if this is not even being done in the major
parks?
The text also states that management plans for 18 national parks
were an average of 12 years old, even though they ought to be
reviewed every five years. A fine business: the plans are to
be reviewed every five years, but 18 parks had an outdated plan.
This is the best that can be said in order to be elegant.
The plans set out strategic guidelines to protect the parks'
ecosystems. If the plan is out of date after five years, what
state can the ecosystems of the park be in when the business
plan is 12 years out of date? That makes no sense.
The auditor general added “Delays in preparing management plans
and ecosystem conservation plans reduce Parks Canada's ability
to preserve the ecological integrity of national parks".
1655
The auditor general's findings on the state of our national
parks were pitiful. He said that in almost the majority of the
parks visited there was no link between business plans and
management plans. That is pretty terrific.
I wonder why officials are asked to do them if there is no link
between the two. The auditor general also expressed concern
about the fact that, in some instances, park management plans
focus mainly on economic and social factors and little on
ecological factors. This is what they are setting up in the
parks to protect the ecosystems, and this is the department's
last concern.
The least of Parks Canada's concerns is looking after ecological
factors, the very reason for its existence.
When the government says it is going to do this in marine areas,
how can we be expected to believe what is written in black and
white? The government's intent, its political desire, is not
worth even the cost of the paper these things are written on.
The auditor general is also concerned about the impact of the
marketing plan on the preservation of ecosystems. Thanks to its
marketing strategy, Parks Canada expects to draw an increasing
number of Canadians and foreign visitors, who will stay longer.
This is about making more money, not protecting our ecosystems.
This strategy should increase visits in off seasons.
We are concerned that Parks Canada's ability to preserve
ecological integrity in national parks and ensure sustainable
park use will be seriously challenged.
We want the legislation to be updated through Bill C-10, which
includes good intentions, but already the government is not
capable of doing what it is supposed to do with the parks, and I
am not at all convinced that it will be able to do it with
marine areas.
Another change is the provision to involve federal and
provincial ministers and agencies, affected aboriginal
organizations and coastal communities and other persons and
bodies, including bodies established under land claims
agreements, in the effort to establish and maintain the
representative system of marine conservation areas.
Again, I see a good intention.
However, when we look at how the government proceeded with the
consultations on its own bill, we cannot give any credibility to
that process.
When the original bill, Bill C-48 was introduced, we told the
government “Show us the results of the consultations that took
place". We talked about these consultations in committee.
Officials came to meet us and said that consultations were held
and that this or that came out. However, when we wanted to get
the real results of the consultation process, we had to apply
under the Access to Information Act.
You know what happens when you make an access to information
request, Mr. Speaker, because you were once an opposition member.
What it boils down to is that we have access to nothing,
because what we receive are eight and a half by eleven sheets,
usually with so many lines blacked out that it is impossible to
read the text.
When I was young, we did exercises where we filled in the
blanks. It would seem that access to information officials have
retained memories of this experience and are supplying us with
all sorts of blanks by blacking out the important bits that
would allow us to understand the text. Since the text is full
of blanks, it takes quite a bit of imagination to be able to
make any sense of it.
Consultation produced absolutely nothing. We received 300
sheets of paper.
Only 73 of them resembled a sort of little reply coupon, which
was attached to the consultation document. Even then, we were
unable to see the real results of the consultation.
1700
When the department tells us that the purpose of its bill is
to respond to the concerns of those consulted, I say that that
is false. There is no evidence of this in the bill. In any
case, we are unable to obtain the evidence. When someone is
unable to prove what he is telling me when questioned, it is
because there is no proof.
If there were, we would be handed the results of a real
consultation, without a fuss, and told “Here are the questions
we asked, here are the answers we received, and here is what we
did with those answers". Instead, we are kept in the dark
and told “Yes, we consulted".
It is very important to be increasingly more democratic in this
country. The government just had 34 heads of state sign a
declaration to the effect that democracy is the most important
value. The government should apply democracy here, in our own
country, before asking others to do it.
The bill also expands on this. This is an addition to the bill.
After all, I can be fair. Clause 2(2) reads as follows:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so
as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for
existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples
of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in
section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
This was added in response to a request that they made or a
concern they had expressed.
I can see that the government responded positively to that
concern, and this is a good thing.
Clause 2(3) provides the following:
The establishment of a marine conservation area within the
exclusive economic zone of Canada does not constitute a claim to
any rights, jurisdiction or duties beyond those set out in
section 14 of the Oceans Act.
Earlier, my colleague pointed out the interesting points in this
bill. When the government decided to end the overlap in
federal-provincial jurisdictions, it forgot to look at itself.
The government will find itself with all sorts of marine areas.
We will no longer know how to distinguish among them, what to
call them, or who is responsible for what. I assume that at some
point, if something happens, everyone will pass the buck and
people will be left asking what is happening and who is
responsible for what.
The Department of Canadian Heritage wants to create national
marine conservation areas. Under the Oceans Act, Fisheries and
Oceans Canada may create marine protection zones.
Frankly, how can one tell the difference between a marine
protection zone and a national marine conservation area? The
government is playing with words, with concepts, trying to take
over as much territory as possible.
Under the Canadian Wildlife Act, the federal government, through
Environment Canada, can create national wildlife areas and
marine wildlife areas.
Under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, it can create
migratory bird sanctuaries.
I am thinking about the beautiful area I come from and about my
colleague in whose riding the beautiful Saguenay-St.Lawrence
park is located. The government might want to create not far
from there a national marine conservation area, a marine
protection zone or a national wildlife area because they might
be useful to have in this area of the country. This would bring
in more tourism, since this seems to be the goal. Moreover, a
marine wildlife area could be created there, as well as a
migratory bird sanctuary.
That would mean five things in the same spot because it is a
beautiful area and the federal government will say “It is so
beautiful, we are taking it over".
1705
The government always finds a way to get into trouble. I hope
that this session will quickly be prorogued, so that this bill
will die on the order paper, because the government did not do
its homework on this bill.
It has already been considered twice. We will have to ask
witnesses to come back, once again. The government will probably
say “So many witnesses were brought before the committee that
there is nothing more to add". On the contrary, they would
say “You did not understand a thing about what we said before".
The bill must be overhauled.
It must take into consideration what the public wants. I see
that my time is running out, so I will conclude.
I hope the government members have been listening carefully and
have realized that the time has come to follow up on things that
make sense. I really rely on the member opposite.
[English]
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise today on behalf of our party to indicate that,
with some significant reservations, we intend to support the bill
at second reading stage.
However, as happened in the last House, after committee and the
refusal on the part of the government to make the necessary
amendments to make the bill more meaningful, if we do not get
those amendments then we will be opposing it at third reading.
By way of background, I will reflect on the need for the
legislation. Canada is behind the times on having this type of
legislation. We have this huge, magnificent country, surrounded
on three sides by water. Unlike a number of our other allies, we
do not have this type of legislation to protect our marine areas.
Specifically, the United States has had legislation since, I
believe, the mid-seventies. Australia and New Zealand both have had
legislation for some period of time which goes a long way to
protect their marine environment by creating these types of parks
or conservation areas.
With regard to the environmental issues that confront us, Canada
has been slow in preparing and advancing this type of
legislation. It is high time that we have it. The proposed bill
that is before the House today and which will eventually go to
committee would empower the government to move into this area.
I want to take a moment to mention some of the areas that
environmental groups in particular, and local communities,
including, in some cases, provincial governments, first nations,
individual local municipal governments and environmental groups,
have been working on. There is a good number of these around
the country and they are becoming very frustrated with the lack
of involvement by the federal government in providing assistance
to develop and protect these marine areas.
My friend from Nova Scotia raised the issue earlier this week or
at the end of last week of the gully that is off Nova Scotia. It
is a gully that is larger than the Grand Canyon but it is
underwater and it is at serious risk. The oil and gas leases,
which are not being exploited at this time, would create very
serious damage and/or danger to the marine life and the ecosystem
if they were to proceed.
1710
A great deal of work has been done on a very large park that is
being proposed called Gwaii Hanaas off the coast of British
Columbia on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Some of the briefing
background I have indicates that environmental groups worked very
hard and for a great length of time on the particular marine
park. They have done it in co-operation with and with a great
deal of assistance from the oil industry that has oil and gas
leases in the area.
To its credit, the industry has given up its right to those
leases. Everything is ready for the area to be designated. I
believe all the work was completed by 1997. They have now been
waiting for over four years for the designation. Obviously it
will still be some time before we get the legislation
through.
There is an area in the north off Baffin Island where a
significant amount of background work has been done to prepare
the area to be designated and hence protected.
There has been work done in Lake Superior, in the northern part
of my home province, to designate an underwater park, which would
enhance some of the other work done by the provincial government
to preserve underwater parks for the enjoyment of the population.
All these projects are at significant risk, so the importance of
moving ahead cannot be overstated.
The NDP will be supporting the legislation. Hopefully it can be
moved to committee where there will be amendments to strengthen
it. The importance of the legislation is that it rounds out
other legislation, to which we have had some reference today by
other speakers.
Certainly the Fisheries Act provides some mechanism for the
government to protect marine species and ecosystems, but it is
not enough. We have the terrestrial land in the form of the work
Parks Canada does in its empowering legislation, but this
legislation fills a gap in the jurisprudence required to cover
off the need to protect these areas. I emphasize it is our
responsibility to act as good stewards of the marine territory in
a country the size of Canada. The legislation is lacking in that
regard.
I would like to cover some of the strengths and weaknesses in
the specific legislation. There is provision in the bill to
provide for public consultation. That would require consultation
specifically with the provinces and the first nation communities
involved.
We have some serious reservations. We heard concern expressed by
the previous speaker from the Bloc on whether the consultation
process was broad enough, extensive enough and meaningful enough
to satisfy the provinces and the first nation communities. We
share that concern. In fact we feel it does not go far enough in
that the bill needs to be amended and strengthened in that
regard.
I will deal specifically with a number of other issues now. One
is with regard to the lack of prohibition in the legislation in
terms of bottom trawling. It would be very detrimental to the
ecosystem in the canyon off Nova Scotia. It is deep water
trawling. It would be very damaging to fish species if it were a
permitted use of that area.
The legislation does not deal with that, and we will seek an
amendment to prohibit such commercial activity in designated
marine parks.
1715
We have a similar concern with regard to dredging and the impact
it has on fauna, currents and the general ecosystem. The
legislation does not prohibit dredging, deep sea or otherwise, in
marine parks. We will seek to change that.
The bill is also lacking in the whole area of aquaculture. The
royal society's report on genetically modified organisms warned
in very strong language that genetically modified fish must
absolutely not be allowed into the general fish population. The
bill does nothing to address that concern. It is a serious issue
because we know of instances around the world where whole fish
stocks have been wiped out. One can only imagine the impact on
our marine parks if genetically modified species escaped and ran
wild. The bill must be amended to address that issue.
We are concerned that the bill does not make ecological
integrity the primary consideration when drafting management
plans. The bill's emphasis on ecosystem management is reasonably
strong. It applies the precautionary principle and I applaud it
in that regard. It may be the first piece of legislation in
Canada to do so. That is the good part of it.
Again, however, the bill does not recognize that ecological
integrity must be the primary consideration. It is a glaring
omission, and the preamble and other sections must be amended
accordingly.
We have other concerns which our colleagues in the Bloc have
expressed. The Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park is a model for
co-operation among all three levels of government. The
arrangement is not perfect but it has worked reasonably well. It
is a model that should be incorporated into Bill C-10 and we will
be pressing for that when it goes to committee.
1720
A final point with regard to the bill is that it does not take
into account terrestrial sources of pollution or other impacts
that terrestrial activity could have on marine parks.
That has implications at the national, provincial and
international levels. Activities may be carried on in the United
States, for instance, that have a negative impact on marine parks
in Canada. The legislation does not contemplate that but it
should.
It will often be land based pollution that impacts on marine
parks. There are all sorts of examples where this has occurred.
Forestry and farming in British Columbia have affected coastal
rivers and streams and led to problems with salmon stocks. The
bill does not take into account that risk or the need to deal
with it.
Those are all the points I will make. We will be supporting the
bill at second reading with the reservations already mentioned.
We hope the government will adopt the amendments. They would
make the legislation more meaningful and help it achieve its aim
of preserving marine parks for the Canadian population and for
global use.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and I
believe you would find consent for the following motion. I
move:
That if a recorded division is requested Thursday, May 3, on a
motion to refer Bill C-23 to committee before second reading pursuant
to Standing Order 73(1), it shall be deemed deferred until the
end of government orders on Tuesday, May 8.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, an
act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
thank the member for Windsor—St. Clair for a very enjoyable
speech. I certainly learned a lot, as I am sure all of us did,
about what is good and bad in the bill.
It was interesting and kind of shocking to learn more about
what is not in the bill than what is in it. The hon. member
itemized some things he thought were glaringly absent. One was
the bill's complete silence on aquaculture, a booming new
industry which is regulated but is nonetheless a source of
apprehension.
I wonder if the hon. member would expand a little on the
growing industry of aquaculture and how it could affect the
ecological integrity of marine parks.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Madam Speaker, there have been several
instances where fish that were modified, either through breeding
or genetic means, have escaped from pens into the general
environment. I believe there have been three such instances
around the globe. In each instance the modified fish have been
more aggressive and more capable of dominating the ecosystem than
naturally occurring species.
The modified fish tend to reproduce very quickly and are
aggressive toward other species. The end result is that they
wipe out other species. This has occurred.
1725
Imagine what would happen if a modified species got into a
marine park. Destroying or damaging part of an ecosystem has a
cumulative impact on the rest of the ecosystem. More than just
one species of fish would be affected. A cumulative effect could
spread through the ecological chain and devastate the entire
park. This is a glaring omission in the bill that must be
addressed.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the member
opposite for his comments. I hope we can continue to work with
his party and get its support at final reading.
The member expressed concerns about consultations with provinces
and aboriginal peoples. We assure Canadians and all members in
the House that without a federal-provincial agreement we will not
proceed. The Saguenay—St. Lawrence is a special exception
because the sea bed is clearly within provincial jurisdiction.
Of Canada's 29 designated marine conservation areas 11 have
uncontested federal title.
Does the member not see the benefit of the federal government
having clear title? We will not proceed unless everyone is in
accord. A non-derogation clause has been included in the
legislation with respect to aboriginal rights. Does the member
not see the benefit of uniformity? Does he not feel it would
ensure accountability and preserve something for all Canadians in
the years to come? Does the hon. member not see the benefit of
proceeding only where we have clear title?
Mr. Joe Comartin: Madam Speaker, five first nations
communities addressed the environment committee over the last two
days. They expressed grave concern that they had not been
consulted about the species at risk legislation. To focus only
on federal title is simplistic and ignores the reality of where
these marine parks are. Fishing goes on in a number of these
parks, by both first nations and commercial fishermen, which
impacts on provincial economies. That must be taken into
account.
There must be consultation. Oil and gas leases need to be
negotiated with private owners. There is interest at the
provincial government level in those areas. Given the size of
marine parks, the importance of preserving them and their
importance to the adjoining land mass, it is impossible not to
consult with provincial governments and first nations.
1730
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
would also like to come back to some of the things that are not
in the bill, which were itemized in the original speech by the
member for Windsor—St. Clair. He had quite a list of things
that he thought would have to go into the bill through amendment
and I hope the government will be amenable to those changes.
He mentioned that the bill is completely silent on the issue of
deep water bottom trawling. This is a practice that is heavily
criticized by environmentalists wherever it occurs. Surely in a
marine park or in a marine preserve, we are going to have to take
active steps with strong language in this bill to preclude that
from ever happening. The same goes with dredging.
Could the hon. member perhaps outline what sort of amendment he
would contemplate to ensure that neither of these practices are
tolerated in a marine park?
Mr. Joe Comartin: Madam Speaker, I want to deal with
dredging first. One of the first cases I was involved in as a
lawyer involved the dredging of sand off Point Pelee National
Park, just near my riding. I remember fighting that case along
with a half a dozen other lawyers and law students representing
various groups. Fishers were involved and local cottagers were
being impacted by the dredging.
I always have a particular interest whenever we talk about
dredging because I have a very real sense and knowledge of the
impact it can have on the ecosystem, and that was relatively
modest dredging.
The importance I want to raise about dredging is, that I am aware,
especially in my province, that we are becoming more and more in
need of aggregate. We are losing some of our traditional sources
because of the environmental movement and conservation of
terrestrial lands. There is more and more pressure to look to
the oceans for dredging. There is some risk coming further down
the road and that is a potential problem for us. That is a bit
of a personal concern for me.
On trawling, I do not think there is any environmental group
that is not opposed. The answer to it is that it would have to
be banned. There is just no way deep sea trawling should be
permitted in a marine park. It is devastating to a fish stock.
Literally it goes in and wipes it out. It is a reflection of the
quality of the technology we have at this time of just how
effective deep sea trawling is, but it literally goes in and
wipes out all species of fish in the area. The ships are so
large, the nets are so powerful, the technology is so developed,
it just simply would have to be banned. It could not be allowed.
If we are going to allow it, we might as well forget about
designating the marine park.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker, I
also want to express concerns about the bill, perhaps not the
same concerns expressed by my colleague on the right, who is
probably not on my right but on my left.
However we have a number of concerns. In order to get them on
the record clearly, it will be necessary to read and comment
directly on pertinent parts of the bill. Before I do I want to
mention a couple of things that my hon. colleague referred to.
He talked about dredging and dragging. I agree to the extent
that there are areas which can be damaged by boat practices.
However I would hope that if we are going to establish a marine
conservation area we are certainly not going to do it in
areas where fishers try to make a living through procedures that
would include dragging. That would drive a nail into the coffin
right off the bat.
1735
In relation to dredging, when one lives in the marine
environment, one realizes that there is a constant flow of
material due to waves and sometimes river mouth action. Many of
the harbours in which fishermen live and constantly fish
occasionally start to fill up with silt, sand and the beach
moving back and forward because of tide action or river action.
The only way that these people can get into their own home ports
and the wharves where they tie up their boats is to occasionally
have that area dredged so that they do not go aground on the
material that consistently moves.
Again, I hope this will be taken into consideration before any
marine conservation area is designated. I do not think I can
give the government that much credit to think that it would be
that far-reaching in its looking ahead process. Consequently, I
would be concerned about these two processes.
However, the purpose of the bill as outlined, says that the
proposed legislation requires that national marine conservation
areas be established for two reasons: first, for the protection
and conservation of representative marine areas, and second, for the
benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada and the
world.
It is pretty hard to argue against either one of those because
they are both laudable ideals. However, if we follow through on
the process, the question we have to ask is in order to achieve
what the bill wants to do, who is going to be rewarded and who is
going to suffer because of the way that the suggested
conservation areas will be implemented?
We have been provided with basically a map of Canada. On this
list are national marine conservation areas, the natural regions.
There are 29 natural regions. Collectively they take in
practically every inch of coastland around Canada. We have the
Pacific, the Atlantic, the Arctic Ocean, the Great Lakes and also
the Bay of Fundy as part of the Atlantic Ocean. If all these
areas are considered, it means there are intentions to perhaps
set up sample national marine conservation areas in every nook
and cranny of the Canadian marine environment. Again, that may
not be an impractical or impossible thing to do provided it is
done properly and with full consultation and involvement of all
agencies, particularly the people who live in these areas.
I will throw out a word that we have used fairly often when
talking about the fishery and the word adjacency. The prime
concern of the government should be the people in the adjacent
areas. The government should consult with those people to make
sure that they fully understand what is proposed and that they
are in full agreement with it before any such marine conservation
area is established.
I have major concerns with perhaps not what is in the
legislation but how it could be interpreted and the omissions. An
area that bothers me is where it says that “subject to section 7
for the purpose of establishing or enlarging” a reserve, et
cetera, that within Canada, the Government of Canada may by order
in council amend the schedule.
That is if we wanted to increase the size of the reserve. Then
it goes on to say in another subsection:
Except as provided by subsection (2), no amendment may be made by
the Governor in Council to Schedule 2 for the purpose of removing
any portion of a reserve.
1740
What that says to me, and maybe I will be educated otherwise, is
that the government can at its own whim change, enlarge or add
to the reserve at any time by order in council but it cannot take
away. If for some reason the people in the affected area,
whether it be for fishing rights, exploratory rights or whatever,
had good reason to reduce the size of the reserve, it could not
be done by order in council.
Another clause that bothers me states:
The Minister is responsible for the administration, management
and control of marine conservation areas in relation to matters
not assigned by law to any other Minister of the Crown.
The minister referred to is the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
I would think that in selective marine environments the prime
minister would be the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. By prime
minister, I mean the minister in charge and not the Prime
Minister. However, if we are to expect either the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans or the Minister of Canadian Heritage to be
responsible for the management and enforcement of these zones, I
have major concerns with that.
Let me just mention a few areas where these people are already
involved. Let me talk about the management of the fisheries and
the protection of the people who procure the fishery.
We have talked about the coast guard. Just a while ago in this
honourable House, I expressed concerns about cutbacks in the
coast guard. Instead of being there to solidly look after the
concerns and the needs of the people who ply the oceans around
the coasts of our country, particularly Atlantic Canada, instead
of enhancing the infrastructure that is needed to ensure safety
and also to ensure proper environment and harvesting standards,
the coast guard, under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is
being cut back.
The department is taking boats out of the fleet, cutting the
helicopter fleet in half and automating 11 lighthouses. More
lighthouses were automated in the past. Now 11 more are being
automated, taking the manned operation away and using strict
automation in lighthouses that are located in unique and barren
areas of the province of Newfoundland.
In this case of the remote areas, boats plying the area and
fishermen fishing from the surrounding communities rely strictly
on the lighthouse, the lighthouse keeper and his or her family to
provide the type of information, assurance and safety precautions
that they want as they venture to sea. They rely on the
lighthouse operation more so than they do on the weatherman, or
the coast guard or anybody else.
I can list dozens of examples where the lighthouse and the
lighthouse keeper and family members prevented wrecks from
occurring, prevented other types of marine disasters, effected
rescues, helped people who had been wrecked by keeping them at
the lighthouse location until they could be picked up, et cetera.
I can go on and on. There are numerous daily occasions when they
relate to marine travellers, particularly fishermen, the weather
conditions, ice conditions and ice flows, which have stranded
many people fishing in rural areas, and other concerns that these
people would have.
1745
Lighthouses are also a major part of our culture and heritage.
Many of them have been designated national historical sites. What
are we doing? We are downplaying them to save money. We do not
seem to concern ourselves with saving lives. We are more
concerned with saving money.
Are those the types of protective services that we would see in
relation to marine conservation areas? Would we be creating all
of them as if the coastline of Canada were something that we
could put in a front room and monitor from our chesterfield? It
is not that easy. Canada is a big and wild country. To dream is
tremendous but to dream the impossible dream is something else.
This is perhaps what the minister is doing. He does not know
what he is getting into.
I will give a couple of other examples. What about fisheries
management generally? Fisheries would now get involved in
managing marine conservation areas. It cannot even manage its
present job. If there ever were a completely and more poorly
managed industry it is the fishery in every respect. We are
asking for trouble if we add anything to the duties of the
minister.
Let me zero in on the Minister of Canadian Heritage and talk
about wildlife protection. The first people the committee should
talk to are the wildlife enforcement officers, as they used to be
called. They do not know what to be called now because they have
a mixture of wildlife and forestry officials who have been given
the same duties. They now look after our forests and wildlife.
They do not have a clue what they are doing or what they are
being ordered to do.
The problem is the extremely poor management of our parks and
wildlife areas. With the legislation today, we would create a
whole new environment by bringing in people to manage in a marine
environment. Perhaps we should talk to the park wardens who have
expressed concern about how well the department understands their
duties and responsibilities and how well they are supported by
the department.
The track record of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not one that we would like to
use as an example of how to properly manage marine conservation
areas. They do not seem to give the necessary assurance to
people in the conservation areas, particularly the people in
rural parts of Canada and Atlantic Canada where the fishery is so
important. They are telling them not to worry about the marine
conservation areas as they will not affect them. The legislation
says otherwise.
There are a number of other issues. I talked about the
minister's administrative capabilities. Subclause 9(1) of the bill
says:
The Minister shall, within five years after a marine conservation
area is established, in consultation with relevant federal and
provincial ministers and agencies and affected coastal
communities, aboriginal organizations and bodies established
under land claims agreements, and with any other persons and
bodies that the Minister considers appropriate, prepare a
management plan for the marine conservation area including
provision for ecosystem protection, human use and zoning, which
shall be tabled in each House of Parliament.
It would be done in consultation with everyone who should be
consulted, but the operable words are “five years after the
establishment”.
1750
I do not know whether that makes sense to anybody else but it
certainly does not make any sense to me. My hon. colleague says
it is a postdated cheque, which is exactly what it is. Subclause
9(2) states:
The Minister shall review the management plan of a marine
conservation area at least every five years—
What it is saying is that if a mistake is made we should not
worry because every five years the minister would review it.
Who decides what changes and amendments would be made? Subclause
9(4) states:
Provisions of a management plan respecting fishing, aquaculture,
fisheries management, marine navigation and marine safety are
subject to agreement between the Minister and the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans.
The people who would decide how the affected people in the rural
communities would live through all this are the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
With the examples that I gave earlier, I do not think too many
fisherpersons in Port de Grave, St. Barbe or St. Mary's are
wondering tonight when those ministers will go there and
establish a marine conservation area.
As we know, attempts were made to establish a marine
conservation area in Newfoundland a few years ago but the people
and the agencies involved were not convinced that it would be a
good thing for them.
We have absolutely no problem with the word conservation. If we
had been conscious of conservation years ago we would have been
better off today, and Newfoundland certainly would have been a
lot better off.
We have no problems with management. In fact, we wish the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would manage the fishery much
better than he does. Let me give an example. People watching
CPAC tonight may be thinking that the government probably would
not interfere. When the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans walks
into the House, snaps his fingers and gives quotas for shrimp,
crab or anything else—and I am thinking particularly of last
year's shrimp—to anybody without any consultation with the
players involved, what does it say about the government?
If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, along with the Minister
of Canadian Heritage who is responsible for the management of our
parks and wildlife, are the two people who would secure our
heritage, our culture, our fisheries and our marine environment,
then I am extremely concerned.
The bill goes on to state a number of other things of concern to
individuals, especially in marine environments. Clause 13
states:
No person shall explore for or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals,
aggregates or any other inorganic matter within a marine
conservation area.
I have no problem with the marine conservation areas being
established beforehand with an agreement, but in many of our
coastal environments we are only now beginning to understand the
potential that we have.
It is too bad that my time is up because there are still a
number of issues that I would like to talk about, but perhaps on
another day.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for St. John's
West for his speech, because I think he did well in stating the
problem of achieving the balance between conservation and
economic activity in the surrounding areas. I think he probably
knows what he is talking about, because he was talking about his
own area.
1755
I just wanted to say briefly that the Saguenay-St. Lawrence
Marine Park that was created in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is
indeed a world class tourist attraction, but it has its
problems. Now that the park will be established, it is important
that the government allocate adequate resources.
Earlier the member talked about coastal surveillance, about the
monitoring of fish species and all marine species. The need to
ensure a balance is also true for this type of environment.
Based on his speech, could the member tell us the major elements
that he thinks are problematic in this bill?
[English]
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comments. I agree with members of the Canadian Alliance
who suggested earlier that the bill as it exists should be
dropped. It should be sent back to the drawing board for proper
consultation.
We have to be very conscious about marine conservation and our
heritage. I have no problem with that. We also have to remember
that the money generated in the country that pays for everything
else that we need to do and the money that pays our social costs
comes from the development of our resources.
We must do that in harmony with the environment. We cannot do
it despite it. Half the bill talks about enforcement, offences
and punishment rather than the real issues. Let us get back to
the drawing board and let us do it right.
* * *
[Translation]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the
Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed a bill,
to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
[English]
It being 5.57 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance) moved that Bill C-272, an act to amend the Income
Tax Act (child adoption expenses), be read the second time and
referred to committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, as I understand the process, it being
deemed a non-votable bill I have 15 minutes at the outset of the
debate tonight and then a 5 minute wrap-up at the end.
I will start by thanking my hon. colleague from Calgary
Southwest for seconding my bill tonight. I am grateful for the
opportunity to speak to Bill C-272, an act to amend the Income
Tax Act with respect to child adoption expenses.
Unfortunately one of the sad realities of the Income Tax Act,
aside from the fact that it has become a tool of oppression in
the country and should be reformed, is the fact that the act in
its present form does not contain any provisions relating to
child adoption expenses.
I have presented the bill in an attempt to correct this
injustice and with the hope of making the Income Tax Act more
equitable to all parents, in this case to those who have adopted
a child.
Adoptive parents have unique challenges when they adopt
children, all of which are not experienced by families that are
fortunate enough to conceive their own children. These
challenges and the expenses associated with them arise from the
arduous steeplechase that has become the adoption process in our
country.
Those who are involved in the administration of the adoption
process would likely argue that the process exists for the
protection of the children and is necessary to ensure that
children are placed in the best possible homes. I cannot
disagree. I concur with that wholeheartedly.
1800
I would argue that we have a duty to ensure that all children
are placed with responsible and caring adults who will raise them
in a loving family environment. While I agree that we need to
conduct evaluations and studies to ensure that the adoptive
parents are suitable, I do not agree with placing the financial
burden for this process solely on the backs of the adoptive
parents.
With the addition of each new adoption requirement or
assessment, we increase the overall cost of the adoption and, as
a consequence, decrease the number of families who can seriously
consider adoption. These requirements have compounded in recent
years to the point where, in the case of a private or
international adoption, couples may face costs in the thousands
of dollars for legal fees, travel expenses, home studies and a
number of other assessments.
Some of the letters I have received in recent months say that
these expenses can exceed $20,000. The magnitude of such upfront
costs often results in discouraging couples from even thinking of
adoption.
As a government and as a society we should be searching for ways
to reward those couples who make the courageous decision to adopt
a child. That is the inspiration behind Bill C-272.
The bill would amend the Income Tax Act to allow adoptive
parents to deduct expenses arising from the adoption of a child,
subject to a maximum of $7,000. The deduction is on a per child
basis and the expenses must have been incurred in that taxation
year or in the previous two years.
The introduction of the bill follows consultation with a number
of adoption agencies as well as individuals who have personally
adopted children. Statistics Canada's national longitudinal
survey of children and youth has clearly shown us, in empirical
terms, that an environment where there is a mother and a father
is an environment in which children thrive.
In essence the bill is very straightforward but we all know from
experience that nothing relating to the Income Tax Act is ever
straightforward, especially if any Canadian might actually derive
some benefit from it. For the amendment to have any success it
must therefore follow the format of all other approved deductions
and clearly set out who may benefit and to what extent. The bill
was drafted to do exactly that.
For the benefit of those who are following the broadcast of the
debate tonight, I would like to take a moment to highlight the
exact provisions of the bill. First, the bill would apply to
Canadian and international adoption expenses. Second, the
maximum deductions, as I have already said, per eligible child
shall not exceed $7,000. Third, it defines a child as any person
under the age of 17.
As with all income tax deductions, the claim for the deduction
must be substantiated by filing the following with the minister:
receipts issued by the payee and containing the appropriate
reference information and, second, a Canadian adoption order or a
recognition order with respect to a foreign adoption.
Acceptable adoption expenses under the legislation would
include: legal fees; home study or psychological study expenses;
expenses related to the child's immigration to Canada; travel
expenses related to the adoption of the child; and agency fees.
Expenses that would not be eligible are any expenses incurred
during the adoption in contravention of any law and any expenses
incurred in carrying out any surrogate parenting arrangement.
When one considers how well structured the bill is, one can
appreciate how I felt so confident when I submitted the bill to
the private members committee for consideration. The bill met
all of the criteria to make the bill votable. In addition, since
its introduction I have been receiving letters of support, which
continue today, from all across the country. The letters of
support were from parents who have adopted, from couples who are
wading through the adoption process and from the adoption
agencies themselves.
I would like to read to the hon. members present each of these
letters so that they could appreciate the impact the legislation
would have on future Canadian families, but in the interests of
time, I have selected but a few of the responses received which I
feel reflect the sentiments of all of those I received.
The first letter states:
I am writing in support of the adoption tax credit. My husband
and myself are in the process of an adoption from Vietnam. The
fees are over $21,000. Both of us work in social services and
needless to say, do not have a sufficient collective income to
support such a process. We are doing our best to provide a home
for an orphaned child and would greatly appreciate the support of
a tax credit to increase the feasibility of this endeavour.
1805
The second letter states:
My husband and I recently adopted from Russia a 9 month old
little girl and the overall costs were $40,000 so any amount of a
deduction would certainly go a long way to encourage others to
adopt since there are so many children that need homes and we are
trying to increase immigration and what better way than this.
Thank you for introducing this bill.
The third letter states:
My husband and I adopted a little boy from Russia 1.5 years ago
and have recently noticed in our local paper an article on the
needs in a Russian Orphanage and how we here in Canada can be
more aware of the needs to adopt. I think more people would help
these children who are in desperate need if the government would
be more encouraging to those who wish to adopt. Thank you for
introducing this bill. The need is definitely there.
The fourth letter states:
My husband and I after 7 years of trying to have our own family
are embarking on international adoption. This will take an
additional 2 or 3 years because of the substantial cost involved.
A tax deduction would shave a year off the start of our family.
The fifth letter states:
Adoption, for some people, is the only way that they can achieve
their dream of creating a family. Adoption, however, is also a
very costly way. The passage of a bill, such as the one you are
proposing, would assist couples like ourselves in making our
dream come true. We wish you much success in establishing this
bill as law.
The sixth letter states:
My wife and I are presently adopting a child in Ontario and we
are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with the
seemingly endless expenses. We know that other families who
adopt privately must be facing considerably larger costs than us,
so we wish to offer you our support for this excellent piece of
legislation that you are presenting.
The seventh letter states:
Many Canadians would like to be able to adopt from overseas, but
due to the prohibitive cost (up to $20,000 to $30,000), many are
unable to consider this option. Child poverty is a huge problem
of immense proportions around the world. Adoption is one way
Canadians can make a direct personal contribution by giving a
child from a poorer country a head start within a Canadian home,
while enriching their own lives with the blessing of a child.
Canadians have a reputation for being humanitarians...your bill
is one very practical, inexpensive way the Canadian Government
can make this a possibility for more Canadian families.
The eighth letter states:
As a parent who had adopted a child in 1999 I understand the
financial burden that is endured by the expense of the adoption
process. Our son's adoption was a very simple and
straightforward adoption; local, Canadian, birth parents (and
their families) in agreement and supportive, and no legal,
medical or procedural problems, but still the final cost of the
adoption was $9,400 by the time the adoption was finalized by a
judge. In B.C. the fee schedule for adoption has risen since we
adopted our son. It has now gone up by approximately $3,000,
therefore I am expecting that the adoption of a second child will
cost approximately $13,000 in adoption agency fees, legal fees,
court costs, medical exams, background checks and government form
processing. I cannot speak for all adopting parents, but I know
that we will have to borrow the money to finance the adoption of
a second child. I have talked to a couple through our adoption
experience that could not afford the expense of adoption and
therefore will not have a family.
I could go on indefinitely but I think I have made the point.
Better yet, in writing to me the people themselves have made the
point.
This was a soundly drafted bill aimed at benefiting children and
adoptive parents and it had national support. Who would not have
felt confident? I certainly did and perhaps that was my mistake.
Members can imagine my disappointment when I learned that the
private members; busines subcommittee did not share my confidence in the bill
and it was not deemed votable.
For the benefit of those watching the broadcast tonight, they
should understand how the process works for all private members
of all five parties on both sides of the House. First there has
to be an idea. In this case it was tax deductions for adoption
expenses. Members get help from legal counsel at the House of
Commons to draft the bill. It is then introduced in the House.
After that the member has to be lucky enough to have his or her
name drawn in a lottery. There are 300 members and 15 bills are
drawn so the odds are not that great. When it is drawn the
member has to go before an all party subcommittee and try to
persuade the members to make the item votable. Up to 5 of the 15
can be made votable.
1810
There are a lot of hurdles, no matter well intentioned the bill,
no matter how great the cause. Unfortunately this bill did not
make that hurdle to become votable so that all members could vote
on it. Hopefully it would have gone to the finance committee to
at some time in the future become law.
We are only a few months into this session and this is the
second time that I have tried to bring forward legislation to
benefit families in this country. This is the second time the
private members committee has voted not to make my bill votable.
There is a growing concern,
on the part of all members. I am appreciative of the
fact that the government House leader struck a committee to look
at changes that might include making votable all private members'
bills fortunate enough to be drawn. I certainly support that and
I hope we go on with it.
I would also like to say tonight, not just in regard to the two
bills of mine that we have debated, that I speak for myself and
other members who have had their bills drawn but not made
votable. If we do make a change in this parliament, I hope we
will make it soon and make it retroactive so that every bill that
was drawn in this parliament would go to a vote, including this
legislation.
It is well past time that instead of making adoption a very
difficult alternative we provide encouragement to families who
have the desire to adopt children.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the private member's bill
proposed by the member for Prince George—Peace River proposes to
allow taxpayers to deduct expenses related to the adoption of a
child, to a maximum of $7,000.
Let me first explain that a basic principle of our income tax
system is that tax relief is not generally provided for personal
expenses such as adoption costs.
The government is aware that parents adopting a child incur
relatively high costs, but these and other personal expenses do
not qualify for tax assistance because they are incurred at an
individual's discretion in widely varying amounts and types
depending on the individual's tastes, lifestyle and economic
status.
[Translation]
In fact, the better a taxpayer's socioeconomic situation, the
more likely he is to incur greater and more varied personal
expenses. If these expenses were deductible, a fraction of the
personal expenses incurred by certain taxpayers would be paid
for by all taxpayers.
[English]
Where tax relief is provided for personal expenses, it applies
either to expenses incurred to earn income, such as child care
expenses, union dues and moving expenses incurred to take
employment at a new location, or to largely non-discretionary
expenses such as above average medical expenses.
Let us take the example of child care expenses. As hon. members
know, eligible child care expenses are deductible in computing
income. The purpose of the child care expense deduction is to
recognize that taxpayers who need to incur child care expenses to
earn employment or business income, to attend a recognized
educational institution or to take an eligible vocational
training course have a lower ability to pay taxes than taxpayers
with the same income who do not need to incur such expenses.
[Translation]
Up to $7,000 annually can be deducted for expenses incurred for
the care of a child under the age of seven, and $4,000 for a
child between the ages of seven and fifteen. The ceiling for
children who qualify for the disability deduction is $10,000.
[English]
Because it would be very difficult to separate the personal and
non-discretionary elements of the costs associated to children,
tax assistance is provided to families with children through a
predetermined benefit rather than through tax credits or
deductions for specific expenses.
1815
The government provides considerable financial support to
families with children through the Canada child tax benefit, the
CCTB. More specifically, the Canada child tax benefit has two
components: the base benefit for low and middle income families
and a national child benefit supplement for low income families.
As of July 1, 2001, families will receive up to $1,117 per child
under the base benefit. In addition, supplements of $221 for
each child under the age of seven where no child care expenses
are claimed and of $78 for the third and each subsequent child
are added to the base benefit.
The maximum national child benefit supplement as of July 2001
will be $1,255 for the first child, $1,055 for the second and
$980 for the third and each subsequent child. Therefore, the
maximum Canada child tax benefit will be $2,372 for the first
child, $2,172 for the second child and $2,097 for each subsequent
child.
Our government has proven that it is committed to investing in
the future of our children. In fact, even before the budget was
balanced the government committed $850 million to the Canada
child tax benefit to start building the NCB in 1997. In the 1998
budget, the federal government enriched the national child
benefit by an additional $850 million. The design of this
enrichment was set out in the 1999 budget, which also proposed an
additional investment of $300 million to extend benefit
enhancements to modest and middle income families. The 2000
budget and the 2000 economic statement and budget update enriched
benefits by an additional $2.6 billion.
As a result of these actions, maximum Canada child tax benefits
will rise to more than $2,500 for the first child by the year
2004. By 2004 this will bring the federal government's
commitment to the Canada child tax benefit to $9 billion per
year.
[Translation]
As members know, improvements to the CCTB were an important part
of the general tax cuts for individuals proposed in the 2000
budget and in the economic statement and budget update for 2000.
[English]
Families will also benefit from the following measures: the
reduction in tax rates for all income levels; the elimination of
the deficit reduction surtax; the increases in the amount they
can earn tax free and the amounts at which higher tax rates
apply; the restoration of the full indexation of the personal
income tax system, which will protect families against automatic
tax increases and the erosion of benefits, including the Canada
child tax benefit, caused by inflation.
In total the 2000 budget and the 2000 economic statement and
budget update will provide $100 billion in cumulative tax relief
for Canadians by the year 2004-05.
I would like to emphasize that these cuts were especially
beneficial to families with children. By the year 2004-05 these
measures will translate into a 27% reduction in the tax burden
for families with children, compared to 21% on average for all
taxpayers.
[Translation]
Before concluding, I would like to add that measures were
announced in the 2000 budget to improve the parental leave
provisions under the EI plan.
The budget proposed to increase the number of weeks of parental
leave from 10 to 35. It also proposed changes to make benefits
more flexible and accessible. These improved benefits are also
available to parents who adopt a child effective December 31, 2000.
1820
[English]
In conclusion, the government recognizes that parents should
receive financial assistance to help ensure that their children's
needs are met. I believe I have clearly demonstrated that the
government places a very high priority on investing in children
and is providing the assistance they need.
However, it would not be appropriate to ask taxpayers at large
to subsidize adoption expenses through the tax system because of
the largely discretionary nature of these personal expenses.
For these reasons I would ask hon. members not to support the
bill.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure today that I rise to speak on Bill C-272, a private
member's bill from my colleague from Prince George—Peace River.
The bill addresses a very important issue and a very personal
issue, that of adoption, and the inordinately high costs
associated with it for Canadian families and parents who choose
to adopt children. A tax deduction of up to $7,000 for expenses
would go a long way in helping Canadians to deal with costs that
can run as high as or even greater than $20,000 per child in the
adoption process.
Clearly in an egalitarian society and a society where we speak
of the importance of equality of opportunity, the choice for
families to adopt children should not be available only to the
rich. Effectively under the current system the only people who
can make this decision are higher income individuals or those
Canadians who can make the tremendous financial sacrifice to make
this important choice.
It is not just a choice on behalf of their own families, on
behalf of these couples. There is a societal benefit to
augmenting the ability of Canadian families and parents to adopt
children. Society benefits by children living in supportive
environments, whether they be their biological families or
adoptive families. It should not make a difference.
The comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance, which obviously represent the views of the government,
clearly miss the point being made in this bill by the hon. member
for Prince George—Peace River. The fact is that all society
would benefit if we were to somehow ease the lives of families
that choose to adopt children, in this case through financial
means through the tax system.
Ironically the Liberals have no difficulty in using the tax
system for all kinds of Pavlovian policies to encourage one sort
of behaviour and to discourage another kind of behaviour.
Typically I am opposed to measures that complicate the tax code
further in order to encourage one type of behaviour or discourage
another. However, I believe that in this case the fundamental
benefit to society outweighs the negative of complicating the tax
code a little bit to implement this measure.
We in our party are supportive of this measure. It is terribly
unfortunate that this has not been deemed votable. If Liberal
members opposite had the opportunity to vote individually on this
measure, I think we would find that there would be a strong level
of support among private members opposite for this forward
thinking and important piece of legislation.
It is unfortunate, as the hon. member for Prince George—Peace
River said earlier, that this piece of legislation was not deemed
votable. In fact the process by which private member's
legislation in the House becomes votable or non-votable is
Byzantine and circuitous and certainly not constructive or
encouraging to private members who are trying to make a
difference.
1825
We should be encouraging private members' business as a
legitimate vehicle through which members of the House can express
not only the views of their constituents but also the types of
forward thinking public policy measures that can change the lives
of Canadians.
It is unfortunate that the government has not been more open to
the rights of private members in this regard. As parliamentary
reform gains some steam we are still optimistic we will see some
significant changes in the future. One of those very important
changes is to make mechanisms available to private members to
present legislation and have it deemed votable without having to
jump through the hoops and go through the current discouraging
process in that it does not provide private members with the
ability to have their legislation deemed votable.
I think the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River mentioned
that this was his second piece of legislation recently that was
not deemed votable. That is discouraging for private members who
are trying to advance important issues and policies.
In closing, we are supportive of the legislation. We wish we
could express our support quantitatively through a vote. However
we have once again been denied that opportunity through the
government's closed door process. It is not an open door
process.
Mr. Roy Cullen: It is an all party committee.
Mr. Scott Brison: The hon. member opposite just said that
it is an all party committee. All of our committees are all
party, but the fact is that one party has the majority on those
committees. Quite frequently it is difficult, if not impossible,
for an opposition member to effect change in the committee
process. It is unfortunate that case exists. It discourages
forward thinking members of parliament who sit on the opposition
benches. It discourages principled decisions from having an
impact on the future of Canada.
If we are to see some changes in our ability to effect change
and to make a difference in the lives of Canadians, it has to
start through significant parliamentary reform and not just
through tinkering.
We are supportive of the legislation and hope to see it come
back in the future to a parliament that respects the views of
private members enough to ensure that this type of legislation
comes to the House in a votable form. That would enable every
member of the House, whether on the government side or on the
opposition benches, to vote on issues of importance. I know
there is a significant level of support for this initiative on
the government benches that will not be quantified by a vote.
That is highly unfortunate.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to speak to
Bill C-272, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child adoption
expenses).
The purpose of this bill is to allow a taxpayer a deduction for
expenses of up to $7,000 related to the adoption of a child when
computing his or her income for a taxation year.
I remind the House that my colleague from the Bloc, the member
for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, introduced a
bill almost identical to this one in 1998.
Another bill, Bill C-289, was introduced in September 2000 by the
same Alliance member, but it died on the order paper when the
election was called.
It is therefore a bill my party the Bloc Quebecois and I
support.
As we know, adoption is a provincial responsibility. However,
the lack of participation on the part of the federal government
creates a grey area for adoptive parents.
1830
Indeed, why would the federal government, which has no qualms
about interfering in many areas under provincial jurisdiction,
not intervene efficiently in the area of adoption?
A federal tax deduction would not only be a welcome incentive
for adoptive parents, but would also make the tax system fairer.
Biological parents are covered under the health insurance plan
for prenatal and postnatal care whereas adoptive parents must
pay out of their own pocket the full cost of an adoption.
It is odd that the costs of in vitro fertilization are deductible
when the costs of adopting a child are not. This is neither fair
nor wise on the part of the federal government.
The Quebec government estimates that an international adoption
costs the adoptive parents an average of $20,000. Children of
the World, one of the largest Canadian adoption agencies,
estimates the cost of adopting a child in China at $17,000 per
couple. These figures include expenses in Quebec and in China.
The bill should allow taxpayers to deduct from their income the
child adoption expenses, not by an amount not exceeding $7,000,
but by double that amount.
The federal government should recognize, as Quebec does, the
important social contribution of adoptive parents to our
society. It has been observed that half of Canadian adoptions
are to Quebec families. This is in part due to the fact that
Quebec's family policy is far more progressive than that of the
federal government.
Adoptive parents face special expenses, particularly in the case
of private and international adoptions. I know whereof I speak.
Thirty-two years ago, my wife and I adopted a child.
Many couples who want to adopt a child think about it twice
because of all the expenses it entails, which is where this bill
comes in.
For almost nine years now, Quebec has undergone a change quite
unique in the western world. Every year, between 700 and 800
children from all over the world finally find in Quebec a family
to adopt them.
It obviously would have made adoption easier if the adoptive
parents had been able to deduct from their income, at the federal
level, the child adoption expenses.
We cannot talk about adoption without talking about family. In
Quebec, we are proud to have an integrated and comprehensive
family policy. This policy includes among other things a tax
credit for adoption expenses, family allowance benefits and the
development of educational services and day care for young
children, what is commonly known as the $5 a day day care. Quebec
is also developing a parental insurance program based on the
needs of families in Quebec.
In short, it is obvious that the federal government is 20 years
behind in this area. By quickly passing this bill, it would at
least be taking a step in the right direction.
In closing, I deplore the fact that this bill is not votable.
[English]
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to rise in the House to
speak to Bill C-272, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, which
deals with child adoption expenses.
Every once in a while a bill comes up in the House that grabs
someone's attention.
Bill C-272 provides fairness and equity in circumstances where
there is perhaps great need. I applaud the hon. member in the
Alliance for bringing forward this private member's bill.
1835
The purpose of the enactment of the bill is to allow taxpayers a
deduction that does not exceed $7,000 for expenses related to the
adoption of a child. The bill says that a limit of $7,000 can be
used as a deduction when they compute their income tax returns
for the tax year.
We have already heard this afternoon that a great number of the
adoptions taking place in Canada at this time cost far in excess of
$7,000. The cost of adoptions from overseas, adoptions from
Haiti, adoptions from China and adoptions from Vietnam can exceed
$20,000. The bill says that a cap of $7,000 could be used as a
deduction, not all the expenses but a certain percentage of them,
so that young people in some instances could afford to have a
family.
Expenses must have been incurred in the taxation year or in the
previous two years. A great deal of the expenses incurred in
adoption are over many years. Young couples sometimes wait
seven, eight, nine or ten years to adopt.
Adoption expenses mean any expense incurred on account of
adopting a child. Many individuals who go overseas have a huge
output of dollars so that they can stay in a country for a set
period of time. Another part of the bill says that it applies to
both children adopted within this country and those from without.
I want to relate to the House the emotional turmoil, the
feelings of young people when they realize that perhaps they will
be unable to raise a family. It puts a huge emotional burden on
them. It is an emotional roller coaster in locating a baby for
adoption. In many situations finally approved for adoption,
the birth mother changes her mind. Then again the couple is
thrown into a turbulent, emotional scene. All this emotional
stress is compounded by the financial burden, particularly for
those in lower income brackets.
I should like to explain a bit about the situation my wife and I
found ourselves in. In 1986 we were married. We decided before
we got married that we would like to have four children. After
three or four years of trying to have a baby and going through
all the tests to check out medical reasons why we could not, we
applied for adoption when it was obvious we would be unable to
conceive.
We were told at that time that it would be a seven year wait. We
left that province and moved back to Alberta and applied for the
adoption process there. We went through the open adoption route
and within a year or two our names had been chosen as prospective
adoptive parents.
I remember with great clarity the thrill we had when all of a
sudden the phone call came that told us a birth mother had chosen
us to raise the child she was still carrying. The birth mother
showed a great deal of love in saying she realized that her child
needed to be put into a home with parents who could look after
her.
The cost was close to $7,000. We were young. We were both
right out of school. I had been working for some time and we
were able to come up with the $7,000. When I came into the
network of the adoption agency I met all those other young people
who were waiting. I met young people who were 21 or 22 years old
who had been slaving away. When they were hit with the fact that
it would be $7,000, they realized they had very little chance of
ever having a family.
I saw young people break down when they were told that the costs
could be $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 or $10,000. I saw wives weep in
realization that they would never be able to raise a family.
1840
I have friends who have stood beside us and said how they
rejoice in the fact that we were able to adopt not just one but
two children, because financially they would never be able to
afford it.
The tax deduction will not perhaps change all of that, but it
does give a little more hope to those wanting to raise a family.
I applaud again the hon. member for bringing the bill forward.
On our first adoption we adopted a beautiful little girl
straight from the hospital, Kristen Nicole. She is now eight,
going on nine years old. On our second adoption it was a very
similar situation. The list was long. The list was huge. The
people who were applying for adoptions were begging for children.
Many were being turned away because of the financial restraints.
Many people were hurting.
I think back to the time of the adoptions and I remember being
with my wife when one of our friends made the announcement that
they were pregnant. I remember the evenings where my wife would
literally cry on the pillow all night, and I would feel like it
as well, because we did not think we would ever be able to have a
family.
The second adoption was another gift of God and one that we are
very thankful for. I am particularly concerned, as I have
already mentioned, for those who cannot have children and who
realize that they will never be able to afford adoption.
Adoption, as we have already spoken about, is under provincial
jurisdiction. There are a number of other things that perhaps
the federal government could do. I should research it a little
more, but at the time that we adopted the adoptive mother was not
allowed as much maternity leave.
We were all of a sudden going to have a baby. If we would have
conceived the child ourselves she would have been able to have
three months longer of maternity leave than what an adoptive
mother was allowed. That amount of time is another area the
federal government could look at because that extra time is
needed to bond.
This is a good bill. I wish the Liberal government would have
made it votable. It could have shown that it has a commitment to
families and a commitment to doing what is right.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that some other
hon. members did not elect to participate in the debate tonight.
I do not want to sound too condemning of my colleagues in other
parties or perhaps even my own. What we see unfortunately is
indicative of the need for the process to change, as I indicated
earlier.
I have not crunched the numbers to see the statistics, but I
sense there is a lower and lower priority on private members'
legislation in this place. Members on both sides, be they
government backbenchers or members of the other four parties, are
disconnecting from the process because they do not see often
enough that all their hard work getting a bill ready to be
presented in the Chamber is worthwhile. It just seems hopeless.
I think tonight is a reflection of that in that there are not
more members here to speak to such an important issue.
It is not just that I think it is an important issue because it
happens to be my bill, but it is an important issue because it
affects the lives and futures of thousands upon thousands of
Canadians.
It is a sad moment. Hon. members are increasingly
non-participatory in formulating private members' legislation to
begin with and non-participatory in the debate as well. When
they see that a piece of legislation has been deemed non-votable
anyway, what is the point?
1845
It is only going to receive the one hour, as in the case of Bill
C-272 today, and then it is dropped. Obviously from the remarks
of the parliamentary secretary there is not even a willingness on
the government's part to look at this particular issue with an
open mind.
In my brief closing comments I will say that I at least
appreciate the fact that other members participated in the debate
tonight, and I thank the parliamentary secretary for his
comments. I do not agree with them.
I certainly appreciate the fact that the parliamentary secretary
got all dressed up in a tux tonight just to come and talk to this
bill. I am sure adoptive parents, who have incurred these huge
costs and who are perhaps sitting at home in blue jeans with the
knees out of them watching the debate tonight, can appreciate the
fact that he got up and completely shot down the whole idea that
they deserved perhaps a small tax deduction.
The parliamentary secretary said something along the lines that
tax relief was not generally allowed for personal costs because
these types of expenses were incurred according to an
individual's choice. As we laid out, and as my colleague from
Crowfoot spoke so well about his personal experience, this is not
a matter of choice. In many cases this is the only choice for a
couple who cannot conceive a child of their own. It is not a
matter of choice. There is no choice.
I would argue that the government should consider looking at
something like this. If it does not like the exact way the bill
is drafted and the $7,000 cap or whatever, it should at least
look at the possibility of doing something about this and the
costs that are being incurred. It should realize that in many
cases the state would have to incur a huge cost anyway. A child
who was not adopted, because there were not sufficient numbers of
people out there who could afford it, would have to be raised by
the state, the taxpayers.
I thank the member for Etobicoke North for his support. I thank
the member for Kings—Hants and my colleague from Crowfoot for
his personal story. My cousin went through all the hoops and
expenses of adoption. They adopted two wonderful children, who
are both teenagers now. They are very grateful for the
opportunity to have provided those two children with a loving
family environment and for all the joy they have brought and
continue to bring to Dale's and Darlene's lives.
I think all of us know someone, maybe a relative, a friend or a
friend of a friend, who has gone through this. This is one piece
of legislation and one debate tonight that we can personally
relate to. It is a shame that the all party committee, like all
committees in this place that are controlled by Liberals because
they have the majority, did not deem this votable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for
the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the
order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I rise to follow up on my question on Thursday,
February 15, regarding a bizarre hiring practice that the federal
government has, whereby many jobs in the Ottawa area are only
available and open to people in Ontario and Quebec. It is
offensive that people in my riding in Nova Scotia or other
ridings in Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia, New Brunswick or
other provinces cannot even apply for jobs with the federal
government, the national government. The government is
discriminating against people by virtue of where they live.
1850
I would like to quote a couple of examples. There is a job
advertised in Ottawa for a paralegal in the Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade. It pays $38,000 a year. Who
can apply? Only those who live in eastern Ontario and western
Quebec. I find it incredible that people in Nova Scotia, British
Columbia or New Brunswick cannot apply for these jobs.
Another example is a secretary in Ontario in the Department of
Industry. It pays up to $35,000 a year. Who can apply? Only
those people who live in eastern Ontario and western Quebec. The
Government of Canada will not even hire Canadians unless they
live in a very small area.
Since I brought this up in the House, I received a copy of a
letter which the Alberta minister of international and
intergovernmental affairs sent to the government. It said:
We...have had discussions with the federal government about
eliminating the discriminatory process used by the Public Service
Commission of Canada (PSC). Alberta believes the PSC practices
are contrary to the Operating Principles and the Labour
Mobility Chapter in the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT).
I have a copy of another letter, this one addressed to the Prime
Minister from the premier of the province of Nova Scotia. He
said:
I fail to see any justification for the restriction of
applications for positions in the National Capital Region which
have a national impact.
Nova Scotia constituents or residents cannot even apply.
He went on to say:
May I point out that Article 706 of the Agreement on Internal
Trade specifically forbids any Party to “require a worker of any
other Party to be resident in its territory as a condition
of...access to employment opportunities.”
Governments are...committed to ensure, by July 1, 2001, full
compliance with these mobility provisions—
This goes on and on. The hiring practice has to stop because
the Government of Canada needs input from the east coast. It
needs input from the west coast. It needs input from the north.
If the Government of Canada in Ottawa just focuses on Quebec and
Ontario from which to draw all its employees, we will not have a
proper government nor will we reflect the needs of New Brunswick,
Alberta and British Columbia.
I ask the minister to clarify this position, to rectify it now
and tell the people in the other provinces outside of Ontario and
Quebec that all jobs in the Government of Canada in Ottawa will
be open to all people in the nation.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the member
for Cumberland—Colchester for his intervention in this area. I
can understand to some extent his frustration.
The Public Service of Canada is indeed one of our greatest
assets and the government strives very hard to ensure that the
public service in reflects the diversity of the country. I can
assure the member that there are employees across the country who
are resident in his province, in my province, in British Columbia
and in the Northwest Territories. The reality is the public
service does reflect residency across the country.
He talked very specifically about the mobility provisions. I
believe the President of the Treasury Board answered his question
to some extent when he first raised it back on February 15.
However the other issue that is important is the cost to the
public service in providing employment applications across the
country. It is the policy of the public service to only impose
this restriction on certain types of job classifications. I know
for a fact that today we are trying to acquire a new auditor
general and that is a skill set that goes across the country and
is irrelevant as to residency. It is based to some extent on the
skill set.
The thought process that is in the Public Service Employment Act
is basically to provide, for the Public Service
Commission to
restrict the hiring practices for one main reason. That is to
restrict the number of applicants. Clearly, if the jobs were
advertised across the country in certain designated fields, the
feeling is that there would be a significant number of applicants
and that the public service would have to process those
applications. That would be a significant cost to the
government. In other words, it is conceptually possible that
they would have 30,000 or 40,000 applications for one job and the
cost of processing and responding to those applications would be
substantial.
1855
I will quickly mention the charter provisions. The Public
Service Employment Act has borne the scrutiny of the justice department.
It conforms with our charter requirements.
I thank the member for his intervention on this and I look
forward to his ideas on how we could change this in the future.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am on my feet regarding a question that I put to the
Minister of National Defence regarding the sale of 40 helicopters
and 8 Challenger jets by a company called Lancaster Aviation Inc.
based in Milton, Ontario.
Something is patently wrong with that deal. I have suggested to
the minister that the crown has lost a lot of money on the deal.
In fact, it sold 8 Challenger jets for $30 million Canadian and
the market value on those jets was somewhere in the order of $50
million U.S.
I have asked the minister how Lancaster Aviation got the
contract because it was a sole source contract. Nobody else was
invited to bid on the contract. Lancaster Aviation Inc. was
awarded a contract in 1997 to sell spare parts. The contract was
then altered and a special amendment was put through without
tender to allow them to sell Bell helicopters and Challenger
jets. The results of both these sales have brought in about $70
million Canadian.
I also put a question to the minister in the form of a question
on the order paper. I asked him what commission Lancaster
Aviation Inc. received on this deal. However, the government
will not answer. What is it trying to hide?
The truth is that the Lancaster deal will make Shawinigate look
second rate. We will blow the lid off this deal because it is a
behind the scenes sort of a deal cooked up between the government
and Lancaster Aviation Inc., and we want to know for what
purpose.
We can always sense when the government is trying to hide
something. I put those questions on the floor of the House of
Commons one year ago and the government has failed to answer
them. I believe Canadians have a right to know what their
government is doing and who it is doing business with.
How could one company be given the sole contract to sell
Challenger aircraft and Bell helicopters without going through a
tendering process? Why should that be allowed to happen? We
want to know why the government has yet to come up with the
answers.
How much did Lancaster Aviation Inc. get paid to sell this
surplus material? We are talking about millions of dollars. Was
there a commission of $1 million, $2 million, $5 million or $10
million? Nobody knows. Why will the minister not stand up and
tell us what went on to allow a deal like this to happen?
We have had those questions out there for one solid year. We
will continue asking those questions until the minister stands up
in the House and tells us clearly what happened. I believe
Canadian taxpayers have a right to know how the Government of
Canada is disposing of surplus materials, if indeed they are
surplus.
In the aviation advertisement that I read, placed in an aviation
magazine by Lancaster Aviation Inc., the eight jets it sold out
of the ten it had for sale were classified as being in superior
condition and well maintained. Everyone in the aviation industry
will tell us that those jets, per unit, are worth somewhere
between $5 million and $6 million a piece. Lancaster Aviation
Inc. sold them for exactly half of what their worth would be on
the open market. Why would the Minister of National Defence
allow that to happen?
1900
Why would the minister of public works allow that to happen, for
example, reported kickback schemes within public works and
defence? Is that the case? Madam Speaker, in your limited role
as Speaker, I ask you to force the minister to answer those
questions. The Canadian public has a right to know.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the government is
committed to obtaining fair market value for surplus government
assets in a manner that respects taxpayer dollars and the laws of
our nation.
Treasury Board disposal policy calls for the utilization of
private sector disposal specialists when it is cost effective to
do so. To this end, in June 1997 a competitive contract was
awarded to Lancaster Aviation Inc. for surplus aerospace assets
disposal. Lancaster's bid met the mandatory experience, resource
and financial requirements, and it submitted the lowest
responsive bid. It won the contract fair and square.
The government held this competition because it wanted a centre
of expertise capable of marketing and selling a wide range of
surplus DND aviation assets. It was always intended that the
surplus aerospace assets disposal contract include the disposal
of surplus aviation assets such as aircraft.
The contract specifically included, under the provisions of
special project sales, unique project sales which may include
high dollar value items. It was under this provision that
surplus Challengers were reported to Lancaster Aviation, the
winner of the surplus aerospace disposal contract, as available
for sale.
The sale of this surplus equipment was completed to the letter
of Canadian law and with the interests of Canadian taxpayers in
mind, meeting both treasury board and Canadian export control
regulations.
In accordance with the surplus aerospace assets disposal
contract, commission rates were negotiated for the disposal of
the surplus Challenger fleet. The commission paid to Lancaster
Aviation for its marketing efforts was reasonable. This was the
sole manner by which Lancaster was compensated for its services.
The government received fair market value for the Challenger
aircraft. The eight aircraft were sold as a lot for a selling
price of $30 million U.S. to DDH Aviation of Fort Worth, Texas.
The sale price reflected the fact that the Challengers were not
certified for civilian use and would require modifications to
make them suitable for civilian use.
The government has conducted the sales of the Challenger
aircraft in accordance with treasury board and Canadian export
regulations. Furthermore, the commissions paid to Lancaster
Aviation for its marketing efforts were reasonable and the sale
price represented good value to the crown.
If the member opposite has information to the contrary I invite
him to table it in the House. Otherwise I fear he is wasting the
time of the House, much like the leader of his party, trying to
find a scandal where none exists.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.03 p.m.)