David Anderson

[Anglican Church of Canada Act, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That Bill S-25, an act to amend the act of incorporation of The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee and reported to the House without amendment, concurred in at the report stage, read a third time and passed.

[Taiwan Affairs Act, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate the bill put forward by my hon. friend from the Kootenays.

I would like to preface my remarks by saying, as the hon. member has indicated, that I am sure everyone in the House regards the development of democracy in Taiwan as extremely important. My first visit was in 1967 and enormous strides have been made since that time. That said, it is a part of the world where democracy has been achieved and where an essentially Leninist dictatorship has disappeared.

In that same timeframe, Canada and Taiwan's relationship has been transformed dramatically. It began with trade and immigration, but it now takes into account many areas. As indicated by the hon. member, health, education, science, technology and the environment are many of the areas of relationship between our two peoples. In fact, one of our largest trade missions in the world is located in Taipei.

That is where we are today and as we can expect in any bilateral relationship, there will be occasional times of stress, but we do not expect to always have all issues settled all the time with all countries. However, we should bear in mind the contrasts where those areas of Canadian and Taiwanese priorities differ and consider also the big picture, dealing essentially with the subject which is paramount, and should be paramount in the interests of all parliamentarians, and that is the interests of the Canadian people. Our job is to serve our Canadian constituents in a manner that contributes to their overall well-being and prosperity. I am looking at the proposed legislation from that point of view, from that Canadian perspective.

Back in the 1970s, when we switched our recognition from Taipei to Beijing, we did so in a way which provided for flexibility to remain substantially engaged with Taiwan and, at the same time, leaving the door open for a growing and important relationship with mainland China. In short, we created a deal whereby we did not need to choose entirely between one and the other as the choice had been presented at that time. We chose to engage with both and the results of this balanced approach speak for themselves.

Since then our relations with Taiwan have expanded dramatically, as I indicated. We now have a variety of memoranda of understanding between the Canadian government departments and agencies and their Taiwanese counterparts. We have had a large number of high level trips to China by Canadian ministers, one of whom was myself.

I believe I was the first western minister to go to Taipei after the missile rattling event of some seven or eight years ago. We have had frequent interaction between officials and between 2002 and 2004, Canada received 18 visits by cabinet level Taiwanese officials, including the vice-minister of economic affairs, the minister of justice, who came twice, the chairman of the council of aboriginal affairs and the minister of transport and communications.

Economically, Taiwan is one of Canada's top ten trading partners and is our 14th largest export market worldwide. We have a large number of Canadian corporations operating in Taiwan which have had significant success. Of course, the same is true that Taiwanese companies have entered Canada and we have good relationships and transportation links through aircraft companies that link our two areas.

Our involvement with Taiwan has been successful and our policy has produced win-win outcomes for both Canada and Taiwan, but now we have a bill which indicates, as some members believe, that the best way to preserve this situation is to revise it in a manner which does away with the flexibility that we have benefited from in the past.

Bill C-357, the bill we are discussing at this time, would put us in that very situation by providing Taiwan with the benefits of a state under Canadian law, and therefore de jure recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign entity in Canada. That is clear.

The fact is that there is no country in the world which officially recognizes both Taiwan and China and we, therefore, as a result of this legislation would be forced to choose and reverse the successful policies of the last 35 years. With this bill, we cannot have our cake and eat it. I believe that we, therefore, have a very clear choice before us at the present time.

As had been indicated by indeed the proposer of the legislation when he referred to his conversations with the embassy of China here in Ottawa, support for this legislation would seriously damage our longstanding and growing relationship with China. When we are considering that fact, I think it would be useful to highlight the inadequacy of the legislation because it spells out clearly what Canada is obliged to do for Taiwan and not what Taiwan's obligation to Canada might be.

To give an example to the hon. member, there is the issue of beef exports where the Taiwanese have opened their market to the American beef but not to Canadian beef. They have rejected the science information we have put forward. That is an example of a trade dispute to which the Taiwanese have not responded as we would have liked and where a change, as indicated by this legislation, would make no difference at all.

We know on both sides of the House that there are other issues, other motivations, and other factors which underline this legislation.

We know full well that the issues on which Taipei and Beijing differ are real and important. In fact, they have created the risk of war on many occasions over the last few decades. Those differences between Taipei and Beijing will not be resolved by legislative efforts in other countries such as Canada.

Canadian foreign policy is formulated not in Beijing or in Taipei, but here in Ottawa. It is in the interests of the Canadian people. That is paramount when we are considering such legislation.

There is an old Chinese proverb which says that even the wisest official cannot judge a family dispute. The dispute between Taipei and Beijing is essentially a family dispute. It is not one where we should be intervening with legislation such as this which so clearly takes sides in that family dispute.

Canada has been supporting Taiwan's democracy and should continue to do so. That does not mean that the Canadian government must support unconditionally any particularly policy of any particular political party in Taiwan. This legislation would appear to support those who would favour a permanent separation of Taiwan from China, which we all know will likely result in instability in east Asia and possibly even war.

It is incumbent upon those who propose this change in our policy to indicate why the warnings from Beijing should be ignored on this particular piece of legislation. It is after all an issue which is of supreme importance to the security of the Asia-Pacific region.

Recently, the leaders of the opposition parties in Taiwan which represent, as in this House, approximately 50% of the population, visited Beijing only in the last few weeks. The leaders had a very different message, which is a message of reconciliation between the two parts of China, mainland China and the province of Taiwan.

It is particularly important to recognize that since 1949, at the end of the outbreak of hostilities, the first meeting of the Kuomintang officials and officials of the Chinese communist party recently took place. This was the first meeting at that level of the top representatives of the two governments. At the time of rapprochement, which we have at the present time, why would any parliamentarian in Canada who values peace and prosperity be seen as supporting anything except that reconciliation process?

The legislation that we have before us today will not aid that reconciliation process. In fact, given Canada's importance in trade with both countries and our importance as an Asia-Pacific power, it would very seriously destabilize the reconciliation process that is taking place.

Let me repeat that only Beijing and Taipei can resolve their complicated and longstanding issues that go right back to the twenties. We will not be playing a helpful role by enacting this bill in the process of reconciliation and rapprochement, which we all hope will continue successfully. Our willingness to facilitate rapprochement is well known by both sides, but involvement in this piece of legislation would be a serious mistake in those efforts.

While we trust the two sides are working together, we should continue, in the meantime, our utmost efforts to develop good relations with both Beijing and Taipei which is in the best interests of Canadians and the Government of Canada.

[Infrastructure, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Cities and Municipalities late last week announced an agreement between British Columbia and Canada on financial support for municipalities.

I would like to ask the minister what guarantees are included to prevent a province from reducing its own support for municipalities by the amount of the federal contribution?

[Transportation, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the port of Prince Rupert has the advantage of much shorter sea routes to Asian destinations than all the other west coast ports in both Canada and the United States.

I wonder if the Minister of Transport could explain to the House what plans the government may have to improve the capacity of the port of Prince Rupert.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am at a disadvantage because my hon. questioner is a Ph.D. of considerable scientific distinction in glaciology, but nevertheless a man of great scientific ability. I can only say as a person whose graduate work was in the Institute of Oriental Studies at the University of Hong Kong, I am not a scientist. I can suggest, however, having listened to many scientists, that the issue of ocean temperature is going to be a very important factor, not only for the stress level of the fish itself, but also of course with respect to feed and the current changes that may take place.

Fish go on a gyre. Salmon on their time out a sea are in a gyre. They are in that great sort of swirling of ocean currents. When those currents are affected, they can simply disappear. That is why we have had such uneven success on reintroducing chinook or coho in rivers in New Zealand or other parts of the world. The current system does not suit the fish that we put out there.

All I can say is that this is another major factor. Overall, based on the reading I have done and the consultation and discussion with scientists that I have had, we are facing a gloomy future for Pacific salmon unless we are able to do something more effective about climate change, and obviously that is global, not only in Canada.

It seems to me that those of us concerned about salmon, and I think everyone in this room that has spoken has concerns of one sort and another, should recognize that this is perhaps one of the key--

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has referred to a report, which will be a report of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and which is not yet out. Neither he nor I know what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is going to come up with, so we cannot really comment on a report that is non-existent.

He may be right in his suspicions. I cannot judge that, but as far as the fundamental thrust of his argument goes, let me say flatly on the floor of the House that our people who work for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as scientists are among the very best in the world.

The problem is that the science is extraordinarily difficult. It is not easy. If one is watching birds, observation systems can be set up quite easily. How can one do that 1,000 feet under the water? It is not the same. It is difficult. They have to rely on secondary sources such as catch data. They are first class people.

The problem comes, as is described by Mr. Crosbie well in his book, when we start listening and we get the political interference into the science, because our interests are for fishermen who vote, not for the fish that do not. That is the fundamental difference. Who speaks up for the fish? I went to the fisheries committee this morning. I have listened to debate here this afternoon. There is next to no speaking up for the fish. It is all about catch quotas for fishermen.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

That is why we are telling him to think well before he asks for it, because he is not going to get any real happiness out of what he is asking for. He will get the reverse.

You will get delay, high costs and a system that will not provide answers that will assist fishermen.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to find the question in that, but I assume the hon. member is saying that the question is this: how can we expect a judicial inquiry on this issue to be like the other ones? Well, because that is how they work. That is what they are for. They are to allow people whose interests may be affected to have full legal rights of representation. They are to allow full cross-examination. That is what they do, and as for saying that there is going to be agreement, all he is arguing is that they can have equal agreement under the proposal of the minister.

It is just not logical to say this one will be different from the others because people would like to see an end to it. If that is the case, let them work under the inquiry set up by the minister, because people do have the right for legal representation. These are judicial inquiries. They are judicialized. That is what the member is asking for.

You do not seem to understand what you are asking for.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague says to borrow it from the public library. That may not be what Mr. Crosbie would like best, but I will point out the suggestion by the hon. member for Peterborough.

In any event, on the issue of the aboriginal fishery, it was Mr. Crosbie who started the aboriginal sales on the Fraser River, the legalization of the sales of what was previously considered to be poached salmon. It was 1991, and he said at page 390 of his book:

I decided to allow B.C. natives to sell salmon legally.

He went on to say:

Massive military style patrols of the three vast river systems in British Columbia would be necessary if we were to stop the illegal sale of salmon by natives.

Then he went on to say, a little bit critical here:

But all the media attention was focused...[on] the relentless, racist bullying of the Native communities by some spokesmen for the commercial industry.

It is worth reading his book to get the history and background. The problem we are facing today with respect to fishing on the Fraser was the direct decision of a Conservative government and a Conservative minister then on the cod, as well as of course on the Fraser River. It would be worthwhile for the hon. members opposite to look at that carefully because that is where the problems have arisen from. That is what we are dealing with today.

I have suggested that we get the process chosen by the minister. It is the best one in terms of the best balance between speed and cost effectiveness.

Whom has he chosen? He has chosen an outstanding British Columbian, a chief justice of our appeal court. As a British Columbian, I do not like the patronizing way this man has been characterized in the House by the opposition. He is a first-class jurist with an international reputation. The attempt to denigrate him really was not very respectful and it certainly did not do any honour to the House of Commons. I regret that as a British Columbian.

We have someone who can do the job and do it well. The process chosen can do the job and do it well. The proposals of the opposition to turn this into a judicial inquiry would simply be the wrong way to go because it would not provide the minister with the information he needs and in the timeframe that he needs that information.

The situation is fairly clear to me. On one hand, we have a proposal which is unrealistic, expensive and cumbersome. On the other hand, we have the minister's proposal which is efficient. Of course the fisheries committee will be looking at some aspects as well. To say that we should go the route suggested by the opposition is simply wrong. There is my suggestion.

The question is, what are we dealing with on the Fraser River? This is not the first time this has happened. We have had problems in the Fraser with sockeye before. The problems are temperature and poaching.

The party opposite should understand that we are getting more years of high temperatures, i.e., 22°C and 23°C because of changes in precipitation, an increase in terms of elevation of the snow line, and less snow pack to keep the river cooler in the summer. It is not possible to prove this of course, but these are all the indications that scientists have suggested are likely to occur because of climate change.

It seems to me that if we are going down to fundamentals, we should recognize that there are major conditions changing on the west coast. It is detrimental. We should look carefully at some of the less rational approaches to climate change that have been adopted by the official opposition. It is happening there just as it is happening on the east slope of the Rockies as well, which is going to dramatically affect agriculture in Alberta.

We have to take measures now across the country to deal with this fundamental issue. If we do not, the predictions are that Pacific salmon will wind up in the Bering Sea and probably not on the British Columbia coast at all.

Whether those predictions will materialize, I do not know. But I do know that we cannot simply pretend that there is no connection between those higher river temperatures and the loss of fish. That is the problem. We need to wake up to that fact in the House and be a little more realistic about saying that by having more judges, more lawyers, more judicial processes, we can deal with a problem as fundamental as climate change.

I commend the minister for starting the process. My candid opinion is that I think in British Columbia we have far too many consultation processes and we do not have enough clear direction. The minister knows my views on this point. He might strip down some of the consultation processes and increase perhaps the value of the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which could do more and some of the others could do less.

This is not a question of lack of consultation. It is a problem that we are facing with consultation, which perhaps is now leading to a certain amount of, I would not say rigor mortis, but let me say slowness, in decision making on important issues, and of course, this constant effort by particular interest groups to advance their particular interests over those of other groups.

My view is that the process should be allowed to work, the committee should be allowed to work--I have a pun here--and the red herring in the Fraser River, which is this idea of a judicial inquiry, should be put to rest.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate and to focus on the areas that I think are most important. To do that, I look back at some of the material that has come before us in the past.

First of all, I had a look at the letter to the Prime Minister of Canada from the Newfoundland member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, who has spoken and is sitting right here.

In his letter he correctly pointed out there had been a substantial loss to the cod stocks of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada by reason of mistakes made in management. What better source, thought I, than the book by Mr. John Crosbie, the former minister of fisheries and prominent Newfoundland politician over the years, a man who I am sure everyone in the House is well aware of.

I looked at his book and what he said was perfectly clear. The title of the chapter is “Who Hears the Fishes When They Cry?” It is clear that he felt compelled to have a total allowable catch of virtually double what was being recommended by the DFO scientists. This was even before he became fisheries minister, when Mr. Siddon was fisheries minister under the Mulroney government. That continued over the years, as is well documented in his book.

He made it perfectly clear that it was political pressure and the concerns of his constituents--and I understand this, as I think everybody in the House would--that led him to ignore the scientific advice and to have a total allowable catch of double that what was recommended. I believe the recommended figure was 125,000 tonnes and the actual amount that took place was 235,000 tonnes, almost double.

I am not here to criticize decisions of the past. I think we should, however, learn from them. It is important to recognize that there was major pressure from interest groups which led to the decisions that ultimately led to the destruction of the cod stocks. That was at a particularly critical time, 1989 to 1991. Of course similar decisions had been taken in years previous to that which had led to the reduction in the stocks and indeed to the problem that Mr. Crosbie was faced with at the end of the decade. It is important to recognize that.

Mr. Crosbie made clear that it was political pressure in Newfoundland from fishing interests that led to the political decisions that ultimately destroyed the cod stocks. This is not a value judgment of mine. These are the words of the man who had to make the tough decisions at the time. He admits quite honestly in his book that he probably made the wrong ones from the point of view of the fish.

In the letter to the Prime Minister the hon. member correctly made clear that we do not want a similar situation to arrive on the west coast, which is certainly true. We want to make the correct decisions. The issue before us is fundamentally the issue of whether we have a commission of inquiry with all the trappings of lawyers and cross-examination, the whole nine yards of the legal process, as opposed to a former chief justice of the province adopting a less formal process which would be quicker.

Why do I think it is important to make this distinction? If we followed the procedure recommended by the Conservative Party opposite in this resolution, we likely would have some years of hearings of the commission. They would undoubtedly go into great detail. There undoubtedly would be many lawyers protecting the rights of their clients, quite properly, I am not criticizing that, but it would take a long time.

We had a few examples of this. In British Columbia we had the APEC commission. This was in fact under the RCMP legislation, but it is a good example of the type of judicial process that is being recommended here today. I believe it had to hear 139 witnesses and it took three months to hear the first nine. Why? Because there were 22 or 23 lawyers in the hearing room asking questions, cross-examining, defending the interests of various people, determined to make sure they did a good job as lawyers on behalf of their clients. I am not criticizing that. I am simply asking if that is what we want.

The APEC inquiry went on and on. It took three years. It cost close to $5 million. I cannot quite remember what was said at the end of it. I am not sure many people here do either because it took so long and ultimately got lost in the mists of history.

The Krever inquiry on tainted blood went on and on. I checked on that one. I have a press report here on the cost of it. The press were only able to determine that it cost somewhere between $10 million and $30 million, according to the story I have here, and indeed it took years.

The Somalia inquiry went on for a couple of years. I think it cost $10 million and was finally terminated. The commission was instructed to write a report because Parliament and the government simply got tired of waiting and waiting on the process that it in fact had put in place.

This is not to be critical of any individuals or indeed the commissioners of these inquiries. I am sure they all did a good job. However for us, concerned about a problem with fish this year, and very concerned about what might happen next year, to set up a process that may not report until 2006 or 2007 does not make a great deal of sense to me.

We need information fairly quickly. We do not need to have every single Indian band that fishes on the Fraser River with legal representation; we do not need every single commercial interest with legal representation; we do not need every sports organization with legal representation at this judicial inquiry as is proposed. We know that is what is going to happen. We know there is no way that under that judicial process we can in any way anticipate an early decision.

That means the minister, the department, ourselves as members of Parliament will be going into next year without the best information we can get.

It is true that if we have this judicialized process we may get a little extra after enormous expenditures. We would get 90% of the information in the first 10% of the expenditure and the last 10% of the information would come with 90% of the expenditure, and similarly with time. We would get 90% of the information in the first few weeks and we would spend years getting that last 10%.

That is why lawyers do so well. Of course my wife is a professor of law and she obviously wants her former students to be employed, but as a parliamentarian I do not think it is necessarily the best way to go, to create such a system to look into a matter of fact: what happened in the river. We know certain things happened in the river, and I will speculate in a moment, but I think it is really important.

The second point is the issue of the aboriginal fishery. Once again I was interested in Mr. Crosbie's book. Mr. Crosbie is a very engaging writer. I recommend his book. It is cheap at the price. I think it cost $39. It is No Holds Barred by John Crosbie. Christmas is coming. Buying a couple of dozen copies for friends would do the former minister a lot of good. I certainly believe that former ministers' books should be bought and read.