Norman E. Doyle

[Nunavut Act, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to make a few comments on this bill. I make my comments on behalf of the member for South Shore, our Indian affairs critic, who was unable to be here today because of pressing public business.

The creation of a new territory in the northeastern and central region of Canada on April 1, 1999 is a very historic occasion. It will create Nunavut as a separate territory from within what is currently the Northwest Territories. It is quite appropriate that I should be making a few comments today on the bill, given the fact that it will happen 50 years to the day that Newfoundland entered Confederation, quite an appropriate date for such an occurrence I might add.

I will begin with a brief history of the events leading up to this momentous occasion. The creation of the new territory in the north to be called Nunavut has been a long time coming. It has been a long time in reaching fruition. The journey has not been an easy one. It has had many hurdles along the way.

The first attempt to divide the Northwest Territories into two regions was back in 1960, as I am sure you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, and was initiated by the western region of the Northwest Territories. As we are all aware the legislation died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

The next event of significance was the release of the Carrothers report in 1966 and its recommendation that a division of the Northwest Territories would not be beneficial at that time to the Inuit living primarily in the eastern region. Instead the report made a number of recommendations including the creation of electoral constituencies in the eastern and central Arctic. As well, it suggested the appointment of a commissioner who resided in the Northwest Territories. At that time of course the commissioner of the Northwest Territories was based out of Ottawa. Finally, the report recommended the transfer of federal programs to the territorial government.

Obviously these recommendations were to set the stage for division of the Northwest Territories at a later point in time when the region would be in a better position to assume control of its administration and of its governance as well. These recommendations were acted upon in the following years.

In 1976 there was another bid for division of the territory, this time by the Inuit, or the ITC, an organization representing Inuit in Canada. A plebiscite on the issue of division followed in 1982 and it garnered a 56% rate of approval which was particularly strong among the people in the eastern Arctic.

That year also saw the formation of a constitutional alliance consisting of members of the legislative assembly in the Northwest Territories and representatives from aboriginal groups. Its objective of course was to develop an agreement on dividing up all of this territory.

Although an agreement was reached in 1987 it was not ratified by the Dene Nation and the Metis association who had a land claim settlement in the western area and objected to the proposed boundary. The agreement, as we are all aware, failed and the many groups who were involved with that agreement at that time of course dissolved as well.

The next step in the process was in 1990 when the PC government asked John Parker to determine the boundary between the two land claim settlement areas, one belonging to the Dene-Metis Nation in the western area and the Inuit in the eastern region. This was taken to a plebiscite in May 1992 and it received a 54% approval rating.

One very important piece of information I have not mentioned is that the Inuit land claim agreement that was finalized in April 1990 called for the creation of the new territory. The Inuit ratified the agreement with a vote in November 1992 with 85% of the people voting in favour of the settlement. The land claims settlement area will become the Nunavut territory on April 1, 1999. This was the largest aboriginal land claim settlement agreement in Canadian history.

Nunavut means “our land” in Inuktitut and represents almost two million, or 1.9 million square kilometres, roughly one-fifth of Canada's land mass which is quite a large piece of territory in anyone's interpretation. The capital of this new region will be Iqaluit on Baffin Island. I always have problems with that particular word, but it will be Iqaluit on Baffin Island.

There are a number of challenges that must be overcome before the creation of Nunavut in April 1999. This legislation addresses some of those concerns. It confers great powers incidentally to the interim commissioner, Jack Anawak, to enable him to enter into leases on behalf of the new territory. It ensures that employees hired for the new government positions are in permanent rather than temporary positions.

More important, this amendment to the Nunavut Act provides for an election before the date that the new territory comes into existence. This is of critical importance to ensure that a government will be in place to begin work immediately without having to go through the process of an election in what is obviously going to be a critical and a very dynamic time for the people in this new territory.

Another issue of concern to the western region was the number of elected representatives required for governing after this particular division or split occurs. Since the western region will be left with 14 members but the regulations require 15 members, the amendment to this legislation which reduces the number down to 14 is going to be welcomed by the Nunavut people. This will ensure the western region is in a position to offer a continuation of services for that area.

Also, the legislation amends the Constitution Act, 1867, to create another seat in the Senate to recognize this new territory. Currently there is only one seat for the NWT. The senator representing the NWT resides in what will become Nunavut. This amendment will eliminate any uncertainty in that area as well.

One of the greatest concerns expressed by the Inuit and others affected by the change was the need for continuation of services. This legislation helps to ensure that this will occur. At the same time there are still concerns for those people living in the eastern and central Arctic as well. There are concerns as to whether the infrastructure is going to be in place. Will financial assistance be provided? Will there be enough of it? Are there going to be enough people to fill the expected 600 new positions that will be created in Nunavut?

The new territory will consist of approximately 24,000 people. Eighty-five per cent or 18,000 of them will be Inuit. Inuktitut will be the working language for them. The hope is to have 85% of the staffing positions filled by Inuit in the long term, 45% in the short term.

The federal government has provided about $40 million for training and education to prepare the people living in the eastern and central Arctic for positions in this new government. With the settlement of land claims in this area however a number of new positions are available for the Inuit. It may be difficult to find people to staff all of these new positions. With Nunavut's plan to have government offices spread out over 11 different communities, it might be difficult to attract workers to the outlying areas.

The Nunavut Implementation Commission has reported that Nunavut will have to obtain 50% of the people for these new positions from outside its region. At the same time a report by the Government of the Northwest Territories suggests that only 10% to 15% of its staff will move to Nunavut. That means Nunavut will not have a large corporate knowledge base upon which to build.

Furthermore, it is questionable whether the infrastructure will be in place at that time. This is a great concern. Arctic conditions make it difficult not only to ensure adequate supplies but also decrease the amount of time available for construction. Moreover there is little or no private sector space available since everything is typically built on an as needed basis. Although the entire infrastructure is not required immediately and the timetable factors in a delay of two years for some of it, a continuation of services will not be possible without adequate infrastructure.

Nunavut will have a public government with Inuit and non-Inuit representatives. Although Nunavut was created as part of the land claim agreement, the Inuit chose a public government format.

The land claim agreement raises another interesting point however and that is what constitutional rights the Nunavut people will have. Although one would assume that its powers would be equivalent to those of the Yukon Territory and the western region, Nunavut will be created as part of a land claims settlement agreement under section 35 of the constitution. This is another area that is not clarified for the new territory and has the potential to create some uncertainty.

In summary let me say that the PC government initiated this process culminating in the creation of Nunavut in April 1999 when the Nunavut land claims settlement agreement was signed in May 1993. The creation of this territory is a positive move for the eastern region. The PC party supports self-government for aboriginal peoples as a means of improving their economic development and conditions.

While I agree in principle with this legislation as it attempts to rectify some omissions in the Nunavut Act, there are still a number of challenges facing a new territory as it counts down to April 1, 1999. Let us hope that these issues will be addressed quickly as the clock is ticking.

Before taking my seat, I just want to make one final comment on the amendment that the Reform Party has introduced. I believe this is an amendment the Nunavut people have not asked for. It is a feeble attempt to delay this particular piece of legislation. The issue of bringing the Senate in on this particular bill as to whether or not it should be elected is a separate issue quite apart from this bill and should not be entertained. It should be seen for what it really is which is one more attempt by the Reform Party to draw attention to its main preoccupation which is the Senate. It does nothing for the Nunavut people.

We agree in principle with this legislation. It attempts to rectify some omissions in the Nunavut Act. There are quite a number of challenges facing these people. We will be watching with interest because the clocking is ticking away.

[Competition Act, May 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words in this debate on behalf of my colleague, the member for Markham.

I acknowledge as well the efforts of my colleague from Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge in sponsoring the bill, an act to amend the Competition Act which is a protection for those who purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers that compete with them at the retail level.

As ominous as vertically integrated suppliers sounds, I think we owe it to all stakeholders to give every consideration to the intent of the bill. Beyond the intent we must also look at the bill's effectiveness.

Essentially Bill C-235 is attempting to accomplish fair pricing between a manufacturer that sells a product at retail either directly or through an affiliate and supplies product to a customer that competes with the supplier at the retail level. The bill's sponsor is also hoping to achieve an opportunity for a supplier's customer to make a similar profit as the supplier at the retail level in a given market.

Another major goal of the bill is to prevent anti-competitive acts such as predatory pricing and price discounting in industries where suppliers of products compete with their customers at the retail level.

Canada has not been oblivious to issues which are addressed by the bill. The Competition Act, implemented by the previous Conservative government to replace the Anti-Combines Act, deals with the inherent issues of Bill C-235 without making any amendments. The issues of price discrimination, price maintenance and abuse of dominance are already addressed by the act.

Let us deal with the issue of fair pricing first. The problem with the legislation is that it would create an artificial profit margin. By guaranteeing pricing to competitors based on any formula which includes retail pricing, the bill would be creating a floor price below which no one could go. The elimination of the ability to engage in discounting would be a peculiar approach to addressing fair pricing. The result would in fact be higher prices which certainly is not in the best interest of the Canadian consumer.

The Liberal government has already overburdened small and medium size businesses across the country with outrageous reporting requirements either in the area of sales tax, payroll taxes, Statistics Canada or any other number of government bureaus or agencies which enforce different degrees of compliance.

Legislators must begin searching for ways to ease the paperwork burden and let Canadian businesses get back to their core services, and this would not happen under Bill C-235. Quite the opposite would be the case.

Let us imagine how the government could possibly begin tackling the issue of what constitutes proper wholesale prices, profit margins and marketing expenses of firms. Quite simply it could not be done. We would be creating another level of bureaucracy, an extra burden of government and an enormous enforcement cost.

I realize the bill is generic in its wording but it is clear that it will have a great impact on the retail gas industry. The result would be to abandon market based forces as the proper determinant of gasoline prices and instead move to a cost based formula.

In effect we would be shackling the marketplace with a central command approach to economic questions. The reality is that the Competition Act must above all else focus on achieving desirable results for consumers. It should not be used to undermine the legitimate outcome of competition such as low prices. We believe this would be the result of Bill C-235.

The M. J. Ervin report, the Canadian retail petroleum marketing study, produced many issues of note on this subject. For instance, since 1994 Canada has enjoyed retail gasoline prices which on a pre-tax basis are among the lowest in the world. Between 1986 and 1995 gasoline jumped by 4 cents a litre and over the last six years operating margins have declined by 7 cents a litre.

All these outcomes are a result of having dynamic change and innovation in our gasoline industry, dynamic change which has benefited many Canadian consumers. The reality is that healthy competition exists in the industry.

One of the unique aspects is known as corner competition or the tub thumping effect where prices will get knocked down for a brief period of time but a correction will come about and prices will increase again.

If the House were to pass Bill C-235 we would in effect be tying the hands of suppliers from all affected industries. They would be unable to change prices in response to market forces. This could lead to vertically integrated suppliers making the decision that the burden of compliance is too great and therefore they would cease supplying competitors. This would result in less competition and higher prices.

For all these reasons we have to say that the Progressive Conservative Party will not be supporting the bill.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There does not appear to be a quorum in the House.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important issue we are talking about in the House today. It deals with Atlantic Canada. It deals with fisheries matters in Atlantic Canada and Quebec and we have one government member in the House of Commons today.

[Canada Shipping Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, to say a few words on Bill C-15, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.

The Canada Shipping Act, as we are all aware, is one of the oldest pieces of legislation still in effect in Canada. It was enacted in 1936. It is the primary legislation today for governing Canadian ships in Canada's jurisdiction.

With the reorganization of both the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport, new emphasis and a clearer outline of ministerial responsibilities of both these departments is now needed. The merger of the Canadian Coast Guard with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was completed with the responsibility for coast guard functions being transferred to DFO with the exception of harbours, ports, ship safety, pilotage and crown corporations.

Transport Canada now has the prime responsibility for overseeing the reform of the Canada Shipping Act. However, some sections of the act will fall within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, specifically those relating to pleasure craft, search and rescue, wrecks, and pollution preparedness and response.

The reform that is currently under way will help simplify the regulatory framework and make the shipping act more consistent with current regulatory policy. In the end, reforms should help contribute to a better economic performance in the marine industry.

The government has chosen to carry out these reforms in a two step approach. The first step takes place with Bill C-15. Under Bill C-15 there will be a new general part that will be added to the beginning of the act followed by a revision of the existing part one that will deal with ship registration, ownership and mortgages.

Part two of the reform to the act will deal with the remaining parts of the shipping act, specifically areas of safety, certification, conditions of work, accident investigation, navigation, wrecks and salvage and economic and environmental issues.

At this time it is my understanding that part two of the reform is estimated to be ready next year in 1999. We anxiously await these reforms. We look forward to reviewing and debating the issues that will emerge at that time.

Bill C-15 will enable Transport Canada to assume complete responsibility for ship registration and related activities. The Minister of Transport will be permitted through this act to appoint a chief registrar who will be responsible for the registration of ships. The registrar will deal with specific information such as the name and description of the Canadian ship, the official number and its registered tonnage, the name and address of its owner and details of all mortgages registered.

That gives Transport Canada the responsibility for ship registration currently performed by Revenue Canada, customs and excise division.

This legislation will require that every ship that exceeds 15 tonnes gross tonnage is owned only by qualified people and that those not registered in a foreign country would have to be registered. Also proposed in the bill for the first time certain foreign ships will be allowed to register in Canada.

We in this party are in favour of many of the reforms included in this bill. It is important to point out that Bill C-15 was introduced in October 1997. However, it is essentially the same bill as Bill C-73 introduced in December 1996. Unfortunately, because of the election, the bill died on the order paper.

Reforming the outdated shipping act is important and it can provide significant benefits for Canada such as more employment and business opportunities for Canadians, a rejuvenated marine infrastructure and better service for Canadian exporters.

In addition, under sections 35 and 36, the minister can appoint persons to be known as tonnage measurers who calculate a ship's tonnage.

The tonnage measurer may withhold the tonnage certificate until the person requesting it pays the tonnage measurer's fees and travel expenses. The minister may set limits on the fees and expenses charged. Although tonnage measuring is obviously important, we hope that fees and expenses remain reasonable so we may limit possible additional costs being passed on to shippers. This is something to consider and watch for in the future.

The current Part I of the act will be replaced with a new Part I that would modernize the registration of ships. Certificate of registry will now have an expiry date. The subject of expiration is understandable in the context of the transitional period updating the registration of ships from the old act to registration under the new act.

However, section 48 outlines many sweeping changes that cabinet may make. One area of concern under this section is the issuance and renewal of certificates of registry. Although it is important to have updated registration information about all ships, we hope that future changes that may be made will not mean more bureaucracy or excessive costs associated with too frequent registration requirements. We have to be very careful of that. It was a concern of the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

Under the bill the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will be provided with greater authority to regulate pleasure craft. In this regard we are somewhat concerned that the government not go too far in the regulation of pleasure craft. If there is a safety risk we are certainly in favour of it, but let us not have regulation for regulation's sake. We would encourage caution here.

We are pleased with certain aspects of the bill. Clauses pertaining to definitions are important. Passenger safety will be enhanced by eliminating the specific reference to owner or a charterer in the current definition of passenger, which in the past possibly permitted some charterers to get around meeting specific safety regulations. Therefore we think it is a good thing.

The member for Cumberland—Colchester wishes to bring the issue of small vessels to the attention of the House. This legislation deals mostly with large vessels. It has not taken into account that small vessels are very often built by manufacturers or individual owners that may have fallen outside of regulations that apply to larger vessels. It is important that these manufacturers comply with construction and manufacturing standards just as manufacturers of larger vessels do.

We support this bill. It is long overdue. It is unfortunate the legislation was not passed when it was in the form of Bill C-73. However, it is here now and we support it, especially since it has gone through the committee process.

When one of my colleagues addressed this bill at second reading he expressed concern that the bill would apply to pleasure craft as if they were larger commercial ships. Given the millions of pleasure craft in Canada this would, at best, be a bureaucratic nightmare. At worst it would be a huge tax grab on behalf of the federal government. I am told that our point of view prevailed at committee, so the bill's application to pleasure craft will be amended.

However, we would do well to be vigilant as we have heard rumblings that DFO will try to do this through existing regulatory power. We will be watching this matter with some concern as the future unfolds.

We support this initiative and we look forward to phase two of the reform which is slated for next year.

[Fisheries, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries.

News headlines this weekend saw some scientists and environmentalists recommending that the cod as a species be put on the endangered list. In the end they listed cod as vulnerable. This would appear to mean that the cod stock is not yet ready for commercial fishing.

Given that premise, will the minister please inform the people and the fishermen of Newfoundland what the alternatives are for the thousands of people who depend directly on the fishing industry? Would he please tell us?

[The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of fisheries. Media reports indicate recently that Newfoundland Premier Tobin met with the Prime Minister a few days ago to make a case that the Newfoundland economy cannot absorb the 18,000 people soon to be cast off the Atlantic groundfish strategy program.

Will the federal government take its responsibility seriously? Does the minister of fisheries not see the pressing need for a post TAGS program? Will he give me a simple direct answer? What is it? Will there be a post TAGS program or no post TAGS program?

[Fisheries, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the 18,000 people in the province of Newfoundland about to be thrown off the TAGS program are crying out for a sign of compassion from the federal government. Scientific assessment of the cod stocks seems to indicate that it will be quite a while before many of these people can return to the commercial fishery. Therefore it comes as no surprise when we read in the media that the Premier of Newfoundland has personally informed the Prime Minister that the Newfoundland economy cannot possibly absorb these people if the TAGS program is cut off cold turkey.

I call upon the federal government not to turn this issue into another hepatitis C issue. The federal government is responsible for the mismanagement of the cod. It has a moral responsibility to compensate the people in the fishing industry who have been affected by the shutdown.

We need a post-TAGS program and we need it now.

[Immigration, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The minister is no doubt aware of the case of Sami Durgen, a Kurdish refugee whose case has been in the system for about a decade.

Mr. Durgen has been conducting a vigil in Toronto in an effort to get his landed status which was promised by the minister five years ago. I met with Mr. Durgen yesterday. He informed me that after 10 years of living in Canada he is still awaiting security clearance.

Would the minister please indicate how long this case can go on before Mr. Durgen gets some confirmation of his status in Canada?

[Standing Orders And Procedure, April 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, listening to this debate today I have to say I was impressed that there have been so many positive references to the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons.

I would like to make all hon. members aware that many, many years ago this committee was chaired by the former member for St. John's East, the Hon. James McGrath. He represented St. John's East for many, many years. I think he was in this House for roughly 21 or 22 years. It is rare in my experience at least that a report which is 13 years old still maintains a certain amount of relevance here in parliament. It says a great deal about the quality of work that was done at that time by the Hon. James McGrath.

This morning the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough referred to the Liberal position paper on parliamentary reform which was published back in 1993. It was published at that time under the signature of the prime minister.

One of the changes the Liberals promised was for the opportunity for MPs to present their grievances here in the House of Commons. After all, this is what the people of Canada, our constituents, sent us here for. One of the changes they promised was the opportunity to present grievances here in the House of Commons.

The Liberals said that members of the House and more importantly the people they represent have to have the fullest opportunity available to place problems and grievances before parliament. The rules providing the vehicle for that, such as presentation of petitions and members statements, must be revised to facilitate that process. We do not have too many opportunities here in the House of Commons to present our grievances.

To give one example, a very important thing happened in Newfoundland recently. It affected the member for St. John's West, the member for St. John's East and the member for Burin—St. George's. It was the moving of the Marine Atlantic headquarters from Moncton to North Sydney in Nova Scotia. The member for St. John's West, the member for Burin—St. George's and myself wanted the opportunity over the last week or so to present our views here on that very important matter. However there was no opportunity for us to do so.

Statements by members are only one minute long. It is very difficult indeed to make a case on a very important issue in one's province in one minute. Even in petitions we can only speak for 45 seconds to a minute. It is very difficult to make one's case in that period of time.

The Liberals went on to promise that they would increase the time available for members statements but it has not happened. To date there has been no effort to do that and no dialogue on that issue.

I encourage the House to make more time available for members to raise many of these very important grievances which Canadians have against the treatment they receive from their government.

Earlier this year the House was asked to approve changes to the Constitution regarding the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, another very important issue. As the House knows, there are no special provisions in the rules regarding the consideration of constitutional amendments and there should be. Since it requires only the passage of a single question for the adoption of a constitutional resolution, there should be some protection and procedures laid out in the standing orders. There should be a mandatory committee procedure and a guarantee that local hearings will be held so that Canadians can have access to the members of the House of Commons.

Finally in the limited time I have available to me, I want to offer an observation about the way the House considers the important business of supply and estimates.

I spent many years in the Newfoundland House of Assembly as did my colleague, the member for St. John's West. It is a small house with 48 members but that house demanded a much higher level of scrutiny and debate before money was appropriated and expenditures authorized.

This House needs to look seriously at the estimates process. We owe that to Canadian taxpayers. We are spending their money. This will mean that ministers will have to be more available to committees. There will have to be less game playing on the part of witnesses. There will also have to be more time spent and more time made available for the very important business we have to conduct here.

I would like to endorse the feeling of the House leader who spoke this morning concerning the need to simplify private members' business. If there are ways that changes can be made and rules changed, then we on this side of the House, if it is to give additional time to members to make their constituents' cases, would support them.