Ron MacDonald

[Softwood Lumber, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. The Canadian government entered into an agreement with the United States called the softwood lumber agreement in which 14.7 billion board feet of lumber would be allowed to cross into the United States free of any fees for the next five years.

Over the last two quarters, the price of Canadian lumber on the U.S. market has skyrocketed. One year ago today the price was about $233 U.S. It is now trading at about $505 U.S.

As a result, many companies have decided to use more of their quotas in the first two quarters than what they would otherwise normally do because of the high price.

Because the government has always maintained that it is concerned about jobs in that very important sector, the minister has put a number of options into the program that will allow for companies that find themselves at the quota wall and unable to ship as of Friday, to make a request to the government and be able to get some quota for future years so that the jobs in those mills will continue.

[Points Of Order, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on two points of order dealing with the decorum during question period from the party of the fresh start opposite. It is the first time in eight years in Parliament that I have risen on a point of order with respect to decorum.

The member for Medicine Hat, in exchanges during question period, was heard to repeatedly refer to the right hon. Prime Minister as a sleazebag. This was clearly heard by people on this side of the House. In addition, some members on this side heard an unfortunate four letter word that was uttered after we objected to the use of the word sleaze.

The second point of order with respect to the decorum of the House has to do with the actions of the member for Beaver River who, in an exchange with the member for London West, made a gesture which we believe was inappropriate.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to address this question on behalf of the Minister for International Trade.

The question of the Helms-Burton legislation has been before Parliament and indeed before the court of world opinion for the last number of months. It is clearly the position of the Canadian government, supported by the European Union, the Mexican government and a number of international forums that this is an extraterritorial application of U.S. law, that it is inappropriate and a fundamental breach of international conventions and international law.

The member raised some very interesting points and the government would agree with the points she has raised. Number one is that it is up to an individual state whether it expropriates or nationalizes property. Indeed in the past and in the present day even in Canada we have cases where the Canadian government or the provinces or their creatures, the municipalities, can expropriate under the Expropriation Act.

What is at issue here is not whether expropriation is legal and should be undertaken, it is whether proper compensation has been done.

The issues the hon. member raised are correct. The United States government has followed a 30 year path of isolation with Cuba. That simply has not worked. We have gone a different path.

In 1980 the Canadian government settled on behalf of Canadians any outstanding issues of compensation for expropriation. Most countries have done that. The U.S. has simply refused to do it.

At the end of the day, it introduced legislation which is in and of itself a violation of international law. I would agree with the hon. member opposite and would say to her that the actions that the Canadian government has taken are to protect the interests of Canadian companies which find themselves challenged or potentially threatened by this extraterritorial application of U.S. law.

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in debate on this bill. I listened to the comments of the member opposite, who has done a significant amount of work trying to ensure that the bill is amended in a way that meets the needs of those who find themselves in financial difficulty, be they individuals or corporations, as well as outlining the clear responsibilities which those individuals or corporations that are debtors must assume in a system that is fair and reasonable.

It is a bit of déja vu for me because back in 1992 I was the consumer and corporate affairs critic when Bill C-22 was before the House. At that time the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs, Mr. Blais, did something very innovative. He knew that this was very complex legislation and that many attempts had been made since the late 1940s to amend it. Each and every time, because of the various interest groups, every valiant effort to amend the act was met with failure and had to be withdrawn.

There were instances in the past when this legislation was introduced in the Senate to try to take it away from the public's attention. Even over in that place some of the special interest groups rose up and each and every attempt hit the shoals and the act was not amended.

One of the few good things the Conservative government did in the last Parliament was to allow very open and vigorous debate in committee to try to get a bill that addressed all of the various concerns. It did that in a wholesome way which allowed the full input of members of Parliament. Since I gave that government credit back in 1992 I will do it again today in the House and, by extension, to the former minister, Mr. Blais, who is now practising law in Quebec City. He did the right thing. It showed that Parliament can work when committees are allowed to have real input on technical bills which can have a very real effect on the lives of Canadians.

I was pleased to hear from my Reform colleague that a private member's bill which he put forward in this place has been incorporated into this bill. It is very healthy for democracy when we allow members, no matter what their political stripe, to input to the fullness of their capability as legislation goes through this place.

I will make another pitch for more bills of this kind, hopefully from the government side, to be referred to committee after first reading, before they are approved in principle, or if they go after second reading to ensure that we allow the huge wealth of knowledge and ability that we have in this place, regardless of the political stripe, to be used to come up with better legislation for Canadians.

I am very pleased to see that there have been a number of amendments. When we worked on this legislation back in 1992 it took us well over a year to get it done. It was a very complex piece of work. We paid attention to detail. There were various opinions as to what we should be doing. The Speaker knows well because at that time he was the associate critic for consumer and corporate affairs. He knows the hours of debate and the work that went into that bill.

However, a number of pieces were left unfinished. Sometimes we have to go with a cake that is three-quarters baked rather than leaving the cake in the oven. That is what we did the last time.

We set a process in place whereby the bill had to be reviewed by a parliamentary committee, which is what is happening here. We also made sure that there would be an advisory committee put in place to go over the technical aspects of the bill, as well as some of the practical applications of what we had done when we amended the act with Bill C-22.

Back then I had a number of concerns. Some of them have been addressed. The fine tuning absolutely had to be done. I am pleased to see that the work has proceeded. We were worried about the last bill about having two competing pieces of legislation as a remedy for companies that got into financial difficulty. The CCAA, which has been in place for years, was used many times almost as a chapter 11 in Canada. Because of what we did in Bill C-22, with the reorganization provisions that we put in place, we had sort of a Canadian version of a chapter 11 which encouraged reorganization instead of liquidation.

It encouraged companies and individuals who got into difficulty financially, instead of having the banks which always had the priority to pull the rug out from underneath, to put some structures in place. It took the gun away from the head of the business or the individual and facilitated some discussion and dialogue to try to get over the debt problem.

Rather than laying waste to Canadian companies and individuals because of debt problems, we wanted to see if there was some way the debts could be rehabilitated and put over a longer period of time. In this way, Canadians could maintain their dignity. It is not a dignified thing for many Canadians to be forced into personal bankruptcy. Indeed, we need to assist companies that find themselves in some financial difficulty so they do not go belly up, as we say back home, and that the employees are found without a job and on the government dole.

A number of those changes that were put in the last bill have been built upon. I understand the CCAA is in this bill. We sort of anticipated that perhaps during the review there may not be a

necessity to keep the CCAA. I am pleased to see that it is there after careful review by the committee of industry. However, it is only to be used with firms whose sales are in excess of $10 million. I think that is a good starting point.

I am very pleased to see that there are some amendments in this piece of legislation dealing with environmental costs, remediation and rehabilitation of environmental sites. We spent a considerable amount of time on this in 1992 and there was generally no consensus at the end of the day on how we proceeded with it. We were concerned because we did not want companies to be able to walk away because of environmental liabilities and leave effectively the crown or the trustee or the municipality with the burden.

I am very pleased to see that basically there is a type of super priority given to environmental clean-up of these orphaned sites.

I am also pleased to see that there have been some changes in this legislation dealing with potential actions against directors and officers of companies during periods of reorganization. Clearly we have to understand that when companies get into financial difficulty we are perpetrating an even greater challenge to the company if the directors feel that they are going to be challenged during a period of reorganization because then they will leave. Therefore the very people needed to hang in to make sure that the reorganization proposal is implemented are the people who are forced out because they are concerned about potential liabilities through the legal system. I commend the committee for the work it has done in bringing these challenges in.

I can remember when this happened a few years ago. Canadian airlines was in financial difficulty and because of potential directors liability we saw some of the directors jumping ship from that airline. That clearly is not in the best interest of the rehabilitation of companies such as that. Therefore I was very pleased to see that those amendments came forward.

On farmers and fishermen we argued heavily back in 1992 that there had to be some changes in the old bankruptcy legislation to recognize that agricultural and fishery products were different than other commodities. What we did in the last bill was pretty innovative and kind of risky. The banks did not like it at the time but accepted it after we did it. We put in provisions for revindication which was key to stopping the destruction that happens many times and splashes all over the place from bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings.

At that point in time we made it very clear that if the supplier of goods, which supplied goods to a company, went bankrupt within a 30 day period of receipt of the goods and the goods were not paid for, we wanted to make very sure the banks or whoever was financing did not then run in and cause a secondary problem by seizing and liquidating the goods to put against the loans that the company had to do its operations.

What was happening in many cases is that the small business would be under the financial hammer and the crunch would be on. The banker would call and say: "You are $20,000 over your credit line. What we really have to do is apply for a higher credit line for you but you are overdue and you will have to pay down your credit line". The small businessman or woman may then be compelled to take additional stock on their own credit line back from their suppliers, sell it at a discount to try to get that liquid, to get the cash, give it to the bank. The bank would get it paid down and then say: "Sorry, our head office has looked at this and we are going to have to foreclose". That did not happen just once or twice. That was a pattern we heard from businesses, trustees in bankruptcies and accountants in our hearings.

We said that from now on the banks are not going to be able to seize. If the goods are sold within 30 days then they have the right to take them back before anybody realizes the liquidity of the assets.

However, there was a problem with farmers and fishermen because the act as it was proposed in 1992 said that they had to be able to identify their goods. What happens to a fisherman who just picked up some halibut and dropped it off to the fish dealer, along with the halibut of 30 other fishermen? Unless he can identify his particular fish, barley, oats or wheat, if one happened to be a farmer, he could not get them back.

At the 11th hour in 1992 there was agreement that this had to be done differently and changes were made. I am very pleased to see that the committee has gone further and made other changes. As the act stood after 1992, it still did not recognize the changes with respect to encouraging rehabilitation. But this bill does. It recognizes that if farmers and fishermen opt for seasonal work, which is what we are trying to encourage them to do so they can increase their income, that in and of itself would not be a reason for somebody to petition them into bankruptcy during a reorganization. In other words, the fact that they worked and made additional income to apply against their debt through reoganization is very positive.

I would like to reference a couple more things. There have been some very positive amendments to the bill. There are responsibilities that the debtor must assume and they have been outlined and highlighted in some of the amendments.

I am very pleased to see that individuals will not be able to avail themselves of provisions of the legislation in order to skirt their court ordered responsibilities with respect to support payments or restitution to victims of crime. I applaud the member for putting those proposals forward. Constantly in this place we have to review

legislation because many times it is used in a way for which it was not intended when it was debated here or examined by committee.

Clearly the amendments from 1992 never anticipated that somebody who had a court ordered restitution to a victim of crime or was ordered to pay support payments would be able to make application to effectively have them wiped out even though because of their earning potential they still had the ability to pay.

I applaud the member opposite for keeping up the fight on that. He has truly made this a better piece of legislation because of his actions. I am encouraged that every one of the amendments continues to work toward the goal of reorganization versus liquidation of assets.

However, I am slightly discouraged about the role of the crown. In 1992 we argued at length about the role of the crown when dealing with a crown debt. A crown debt is effectively treated as a super priority. In 1992, I remember specifically grilling officials from the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Industry and the members of the Superintendent of Bankruptcies' office about the role of, let us say, Revenue Canada. If a company or an individual decides to apply under the reorganization provisions to try to order their debt in such a way to have it reduced and then pay off when they can to keep from going bankrupt, I was worried that the crown because it had super priority would sit back, twiddle its thumbs and after the exhaustive and difficult process say "that is all well and good, but I want 100 per cent of my debt paid back". I wanted the crown to be treated the same way as others in the same class of secured creditor.

At the time we were told not to worry, that the minister had indicated to department of revenue officials that they were to work in these cases of reorganization and that they should be silent unless the proposals under reorganization treated them in a harsher fashion than other secured creditors.

I am dismayed that over the last four years I have had to deal with at least three cases where the crown through Revenue Canada has simply not done that.

We have a case that I am currently pursuing through the regional director of an individual who went under a reorganization three years ago under the provisions of this act. He had a debt owed to Revenue Canada but he had a lot of other debts as well. All the creditors got together and said it is better if we reduce this individual's debt and we have an orderly payment of the agreed upon debt afterwards to allow the individual to go on plying a living, making some money and rehabilitate his debtor situation.

They did that. Everybody agreed. Three years later after he sold his house, he sold all of his properties, he liquidated all of his retirement annuities and all that type of thing, he felt good about himself. He was able to pay off 60 per cent of his debt. After he has gone through three years literally of hell to pay off these debts because of the reorganization provision, he could claim that he had never had to go bankrupt, that he did what he thought he should do and that he had the financial capability of doing it. Three years later a notice comes from Revenue Canada which says: "Please be informed that you owe Revenue Canada X number of dollars plus interest over the last three years".

Somebody might ask did he pay Revenue Canada. Yes, he did. Under the terms of the reorganization provision he paid it the same as other secured creditors. I think it was 60 per cent of the debt. Revenue Canada lay in the bushes, as it were, for three years until his reorganization was completed and was discharged and then sent him a bill for the balance with interest accrued, effectively forcing this individual who had gone through the very good provisions of Bill C-22, had gone through the very positive provisions of rehabilitating his debt of now having to face a bankruptcy proceeding.

It is not the first case. It is the fourth case. Over the last number of years each time I heard of one of these cases I would call the Superintendent of Bankruptcies who agreed there was potentially a problem. It was kind of regional in nature because a lot of it was to do with the head of collections in each of the regions with Revenue Canada.

I am dismayed that this aspect of crown priority has not been fully addressed. However, I encourage members with constituents having similar problems to raise those at the appropriate level and at the political level with the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for the administration of this act, as well as with the Minister of National Revenue, where it seems in my experience at least the problem still lies in various regions of the country.

The last thing I want to say on this bill is that there is still a piece of unfinished business. Back in 1992 in order to get this bill completed I and Mr. Rodriguez, the former member for Nickel Belt who was the NDP critic, knew this file well. He had a couple of private member's bills dealing with wage earner protection: what happens when a company goes belly up which has a lot of employees, and what happens to the wages owed and the benefits owed to those employees? Under the old act there was a major problem. There was a very low limit that had not been updated in about 20 years. The new bill, Bill C-22 in 1992, made some movement in the right direction.

However, there was still a major problem that in many cases the wage earners, the people who by the sweat of their brow or the grey matter in the brain, through their inputs to the business were a key component of the business, were not treated in as fair a fashion as

the banks or the suppliers of goods or other services. The labour component was never treated fairly.

We came up with a number of proposals, none of which was acceptable to the government of the day, but at the end of the day we had made an agreement with Mr. Blais, the minister at the time, that we would look at various options for wage earner protection. Indeed, part of the agreement was to set up some type of all-party committee to look at the best ways to deal with in many cases a very major loss of wages to individuals who work in corporations that go bankrupt. They are always left at the bottom of the heap and that is unfair. That has not happened today. The agreement was not something that officially was done on the floor of the House.

However, I will jog all of my colleagues' memories who were on the committee in the last Parliament that indeed that was the commitment. As a result of that commitment we amended the entire section dealing with wage earner protection out of Bill C-22. That was a key operative component of that bill and we amended the whole thing at report stage because we were going to put a process in place to examine it.

I encourage members who have an interest in the industry committee to look at a few of those shortfalls, to take credit for the good work that has been done and further modernizing this very important piece of legislation.

Continue to ask the questions that must be asked over the next few years as to whether the wage earner protection clause are sufficient, whether further work has to be done and whether somebody has to keep a closer eye on the role of the crown and crown agents in discussions leading up to reorganization, whether they are living up to the spirit of the debate and the legislation of 1992 and 1996.

In conclusion, I appreciate having had the time to relive some history. Members are very familiar with most of what I said. I also commend the current members of the industry committee for doing a bang up job.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my 20 minute time and my question or comment time with the member for Broadview-Greenwood.

I am extremely pleased to speak on a bill that some might otherwise think is of a technical nature and that is perhaps not as stimulating in its subject matter as some others that are vigorously debated on the floor of this place.

This bill is exceptionally important for a couple of reasons. First, it shows that when this government makes a commitment with respect to what it wants to do once given the mantle of power by the Canadian public, that it is prepared, even if it is not the sexiest or the most flamboyant piece of legislation, to put its money where its mouth is. We are prepared to go forward and do what we told Canadians we would do prior to the last election, rationalize the way the federal government acts in all aspects of its responsibilities between the provinces, the municipalities and, more important, between our boards and our agencies and the people of Canada.

When the Liberals ran in the last election we made a number of commitments and the member for St. Albert from the Reform Party wanted to speak about that. He was trying to speak in an off-handed way about the commitments that this party has made in the red book.

We had a departure at the beginning of the campaign last time in 1993. We said that rather than have different people as spokespersons for our party going around the country saying different things to different audiences, we were going to put it in writing. As the Prime Minister said at the time and again the other day, you do not have to read my lips, read my record, read my red book.

In the red book we made certain commitments. The member for St. Albert did not want to hear this today but later this week with the great Liberal Party, the party that has crafted this fabulous country of ours for most of the last 130 years, at the convention this weekend there will be a book that will probably be put forward. It will indicate the successes and the commitments that we have made and we have kept through the red book on behalf of the people of Canada.

When we deal with restructuring government, we have to recognize that over the past number of years, many times when we thought that we had more resources than what we had, it was okay for governments because traditionally they had a program in a particular area to hold it close and not even want to review it to see

whether there was any modern reason for us to continue with those responsibilities or those programs.

We said to the Canadian public, after those disastrous two terms of the Tory government, the previous administration, that we understood that Canadians wanted a parliamentary system, a Parliament, a legislative body, that was modern, that was responsive, that said what it was going to do and then did it. That is exactly what the Liberal Party has proven over the last three years.

We started off by coming in and we looked at program review; things that were not always easy but things that nevertheless had to be done. We were saddled with an enormous debt and deficit and a government out of control when it came to spending the public purse. That was a right wing Conservative party at the time, subsequently replaced by a smattering of Reform Party MPs who sit across here and natter at us from time to time.

What we set about to do was put a plan in place. We wanted to ensure the Canadian public had confidence, that when the Prime Minister, the ministers at the front bench or the Minister of Finance stood in this place and said these are the programs and these are the targets, they did it with credibility, that the Canadian public and the business community would know that when we said we were going to do something we did it.

The Minister of Finance was appointed by the Prime Minister. In successive budgets we have shown ourselves capable not just in articulating the targets and the programs to reach those targets but in surpassing those targets each and every time that we have been put up to the measure of the test of the public of Canada.

Indeed we have had to do some very difficult things. We have had to go about reinventing government. We had to look at what made sense in the modern context and where the federal government should be, where its programs and responsibilities should be. Perhaps it would be better placed either with the private sector or with other levels of government.

We set out in an unprecedented fashion under the minister responsible for government reorganization and government operations. We set about an unprecedented task of program review. During that program review we looked at each and every area of program delivery of the federal government. Where it made sense we said we will keep it, enhance it. Where it made no sense we decided to look to see first if we should be in that business and second if there was another level of government or another participant in society, the private sector, that could do it better.

We had to shrink the federal public service and that was not an easy thing to do. We had to do it in order to put some fiscal sanity back into the way we conduct our business as a nation. We did some things that were easier to do. We rationalized things.

We saw, for instance, that we had a number of fleets plying the oceans of this great maritime nation. We had a coast guard fleet. Then we had a fisheries and oceans fleet. I am on the harbour in Halifax. In my riding we had a coast guard base with a fleet and we had a fisheries and oceans base with another fleet.

However, through program review we saw what made sense and consolidated both of the fleets together. It made more sense operationally, and being good guardians of the public purse, it is what we told Canadians we would do if we were given a mandate in 1993. We said we would try to put this country back on the road to fiscal sanity.

We have done a number of other things. We looked at the transportation sector. The former minister of transportation, the Minister of National Defence, had a look at that big monster called the Department of Transport and walked in with a critical view. He asked what the Department of Transport did and why do we continue to do it.

At the end of the day it made sense to get rid of the bureaucracy at the air transport sector. It made sense to allow local airport authorities to be established to make the local decisions so that those airports, the wonderful infrastructure that can create real sustainable jobs, was put in the hands of local authorities who would know best how to manage them.

We went even further than that and looked at some of the subsidies that had been in place for far too long in the transportation sector. Where they did not make sense any longer we eliminated them.

The other thing was to deal with Canada's marine policy. There is a bill currently before a House committee dealing in a wholesome and holistic fashion with every aspect of Canada's national marine transportation policy. For example, the port of Halifax has been saddled for years by a heavy bureaucracy that does not allow it to do what it can do best, which is to use its location to its advantage, to be competitive and create jobs. The government is going to unleash that yoke from around its neck. It is going to ensure that places like the port of Halifax, the port of Vancouver and the port of Montreal are able to do what they do best which is to operate under private sector principles. The government is disengaging and disentangling itself from those operations. That is what we told Canadians we would do.

The substance of this bill is important. A lot of boards and agencies are established by the governor in council. Not only do they give advice but in many cases as in the case of a tribunal, hand down major decisions that have a substantial impact on the lives of many Canadians.

Rather than sit back and say that there are 800 or 1,000 appointments that can be made by governor in council and we are going to keep them because they are there, as was the way it was done in the past, in 1994 we set out to do a complete review of these agencies and boards with the same critical eye that we did program review. We found out which ones made sense, which ones we continue to need in the interest of public policy and which ones should we keep or perhaps streamline or downsize so that they are less of a drag on the taxpayers' wallets.

As a result of that, this bill will wind up seven federal organizations. It will restructure or downsize 13 other organizations. Other amendments relating to accountability and some housekeeping measures will affect 34 other organizations. This bill will eliminate over 271 governor in council appointments and will save the Canadian taxpayer over $10 million annually.

In the broader course of large federal government expenditures this may not seem like a lot but it was a commitment we made in our campaign leading up to the 1993 election. We are a party that is committed to the details of the promises that we give to our electorate. Indeed, we have come through and we now have a more streamlined system of boards, agencies and tribunals than we have ever had before.

My Reform Party friend from St. Albert stood up and started to list by name individuals, good, solid Canadians who have given up their time to serve on public boards, agencies and tribunals to ensure that there is public input and that we do not have governments administering programs in a vacuum. He mocked those individuals on the floor of the House of Commons. He alluded to whether or not they were Liberals.

The hon. member would do his party a far greater service, instead of taking cheap political shots at individuals who have had the good sense to allow their names to stand and to serve on these agencies and boards, if he would concentrate his efforts on looking at the high calibre of individuals that the government has been able to attract and appoint to those agencies and boards for the greatness of Canada to ensure that the public policy of these boards, agencies and tribunals is executed by those of the highest integrity.

In conclusion, I wish the bill speedy passage. I hope that my friends in the official opposition and in the Reform Party finally recognize that sometimes as a government we have to appoint Liberals. After all, 60 per cent of Canadians claim to support our party.

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is good to get into a bit of a debate with my good friend and colleague from Gaspé. However, members of the Bloc Quebecois have to learn at some point that each piece of legislation which comes before this place is not an opportunity to rewrite the Constitution of Canada. That is exactly what they do. Every time something comes up they either see it as an affront to the powers of the province of Quebec or they think the bill should be rewritten to give more powers to the province of Quebec.

It is obvious that the previous government sought, within the Canadian context, to rebalance the powers between the federal and provincial governments. There is a process to do that. It should not be done, with the greatest of respect to my colleagues, on every piece of legislation that comes before this place.

I want to make this abundantly clear to anybody who cares to listen. This bill does not shift powers away from or to any government in Canada. The powers of the province of Quebec are respected in this legislation. The powers of the federal government are not enhanced by this legislation. The responsibilities of 14 different departments have been consolidated and transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, under the jurisdiction of the minister.

Perhaps Bloc members could speak to the principles of the bill instead of wasting their time in the House by getting up and talking about constitutional matters.

I say to the member, as I said to the previous speaker, it is absolute nonsense for any member of the Bloc Quebecois to indicate that, under the Canada oceans act, the government of Quebec was not asked for input and did not have an avenue to be heard. The member's voice was loud. It was strong. He participated in the committee process, as did some of his colleagues. It was a very transparent and open process which showed what can happen when we have transparent and open processes and people who are prepared to work within the committee structure of this place. It was a model, in my view, of what can be done when good people sit down and use the rules which they are given through the parliamentary committee structure.

I say once again that there was plenty of opportunity. We heard from Quebecers during our committee deliberations. We did not hear from the minister responsible in Quebec. That was not because we did not ask, it was because the minister did not want to appear.

Perhaps the vision of Bloc members is clouded. Perhaps their minds are clouded by visions of grandeur and a separate state of Quebec. Surely to goodness, when we are elected by democratic principles in every province in this great nation, we have a fundamental responsibility to participate in the processes on behalf

of the people. The minister responsible from the province of Quebec chose to be negligent in that regard and did not participate when asked.

With respect to my colleagues on the other side, and I have a great deal of respect for many of them, they would serve their constituents and all Canadians better if instead of constantly going off on their jurisdictional rants, they leave it for other forums and venues. They should use the grey power that some have to try to ensure that the processes we are privileged to avail ourselves of as members of the House of Commons, the highest court in the land, are used appropriately on behalf of their constituents to ensure that the legislation that comes before this place is the best it can be for all Canadians.

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it seems to be quite a long time ago since we first had an opportunity as a Parliament to debate this legislation. It was introduced in a previous session of Parliament, but the government, and I think all members of the House, in their wisdom thought that this was the type of bill that should be reintroduced and not be allowed to die.

This legislation is very important. As my colleague from Gander said earlier, it is historic legislation. Many times in opposition and in government I have been critical of the slow processes of government when it comes to rectifying wrongs by way of process or when it comes to trying to consolidate various arms and regulatory bodies of government so that the public good is executed and dispatched in a fairly hasty manner.

One of the areas I have always been concerned with is that when we start dealing with ocean management as distinct from fishery management there are far too many cooks at the pot. Far too many departments and programs have some vague cross jurisdiction that really stops the imperative of coming up with a comprehensive policy for the management of Canada's oceans and the resources that are inherent in it.

As the member from Gander indicated, even to modernize the territorial boundaries, the water boundaries, the economic zone, the 12-mile limit, all those regulations and legislation had to be modernized. Because over 14 different departments all could claim some degree of responsibility in jurisdiction for the various and complex issues relating to ocean management, many times the problems would be identified but leadership was clearly lacking in the past to try to pull all of those various departments, programs and ministers together and to have someone who instinctively, inherently and by law had the responsibility to lead on this issue.

This bill sought to rectify that. It is for the first time a comprehensive approach to ocean management based on the precautionary principle of sustainable development and integrated resource management.

This bill was first introduced by the former minister of fisheries, who is now the premier of Newfoundland. It staked out his territory very firmly after he was appointed minister of fisheries. It indicated that he was prepared not just to talk tough but to take tough action in order to preserve our fish stocks.

If anybody doubts the resolve of that former minister of fisheries, currently the premier of the province of Newfoundland, he need only look back and see that for the first time in our history he stood up against international bullying in the rape of some of our transborder and highly migratory stocks off the east coast of Canada.

He was the minister who stood up and said: "I am prepared to say that there will not be another species lost in our ocean on my watch". He was prepared to take on the Spanish and the European Union. He was prepared to stand tall. He was prepared to lead to ensure that the wrongs of the past, the scattered responsibility with management of our ocean resources with regard to the fisheries, were going to come to a close.

That former minister of fisheries did not just gain the support of his colleagues on the government side, he gained the support of his colleagues in the Reform Party, in the New Democratic Party, in the Conservative Party and indeed in the Bloc Quebecois.

As I recall, looking back at the issue of the great turbot dispute, the current premier of the province of Quebec, who was the then leader of the opposition, supported the measures which we put into legislation in this place to ensure that we had the legal tools at our disposal to stop that type of overfishing which had decimated stocks on the east coast of Canada and was a contributing factor to thousands of Canadians on the Atlantic coast of Canada being thrown out of work.

It should not be any surprise to the Bloc Quebecois, to the Reform Party or to any Canadian that it was that same minister at the time who said there is another piece of unfinished business, to come up with a comprehensive consolidated approach not just to fisheries management but to ocean management.

I do not think it is easy at any time to go to cabinet and say to other ministers: "There are certain pieces of legislation and certain jurisdictions which we have in our departments and are part of our responsibilities as ministers. But I think they should be removed from your areas of responsibility because it is in the greater public good that it be a consolidated approach to ocean management". That minister did that and the current minister continues in his footsteps. He saw fit to make sure that this bill, the bill that we are debating today, was reintroduced in this Parliament.

This bill consolidated activities in 14 different departments. It made it extremely clear that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was the one in the government, in the cabinet who had primary responsibilities to ensure that Canada had a comprehensive oceans policy. It made sure that some areas of jurisdiction which dealt with Canada's oceans and how we manage them were consolidated into one department. It put the Canadian Hydrographic Service, the coast guard services and many other programs and agencies of government under one roof and put them under the sole jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The opposition has talked at great length about the fee structure. I can understand its concerns. This government has ensured that when it came to the striking of new fees with respect to coast guard services that there has been broad consultation.

For the member opposite to indicate there has not been some type of a public process by which the proposals could be debated, adjudicated and if necessary changed is simply not the case. I remember quite clearly, because I am concerned about the impact of coast guard fees on the commercial shipping and also as they are applied to recreational boaters, that there was a process in place which was led by the commissioner, Mr. Thomas of the coast guard, now the associated deputy minister of fisheries and oceans. He led a very open and transparent approach. He went into the lion's den in places like Quebec City, Halifax, Saint John and St. John's. He was also on the west coast of Canada. He said: "These are the fees that we are proposing for coast guard cost recovery. I am prepared to listen and to find out what the impact is of these fees and what is a fairer approach".

As much as I may be concerned about the impact I know that I and the people I represent have been allowed to have a say through a very transparent process. For the opposition to hone in on this one area where it has concerns and to neglect to speak about the rest of the bill tells me what an effective opposition it has not become after three or four years in this place.

The other thing this bill does, and it is very important, is for the first time it recognizes the importance and sets up a structure to implement a thing called marine protected areas. Many lobbyists in the past said that because we were first and foremost a maritime nation with literally tens of thousands of miles of nooks and crannies along our three coasts, the Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans, there was a requirement in the management structure and in the line of responsibility for the establishment of marine protected areas.

Indeed this government has received accolades not just from those in Canada who have an interest in this field but from people around the world.

This piece of legislation sets in place a process for the establishment of marine protected areas. Once again Canada has shown that it is prepared to put its money where its mouth is when it talks about conservation not just within Canadian national waters but also in the international waters for species which are endangered for whatever reason, whether toxic pollution, overfishing or any other reason.

We had unprecedented consultations. If opposition members wish to give a true reflection of how this bill came about they will have to acknowledge from the documents that were provided to them as opposition members of the committee that there was an almost unprecedented level of consultation with those affected in the industry prior to this bill.

The Canadian Arctic Resources Committee did a tremendous amount of invaluable work to ensure that those in its sphere of influence who had a reason to be concerned about the new Canada oceans act were fully consulted. At the end of the day, the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee gave full marks to the federal government and to the ministers involved for being bold enough and for having the foresight to come through with such a comprehensive piece of legislation.

In the committee which I was very pleased to chair at the time we heard from individuals from around the country. In the interest of trying to save money, the committee did not travel since its takes a lot of the members' time which they need for other responsibilities in this place and in their constituencies. Instead we used teleconferencing which other committees have done in the past.

We used teleconferencing in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the west coast. We listened intently. Positions were put forward by many of the presenters to indicate there could be improvements in this bill. The committee examined those improvements. I believe many of those individuals who participated in that very broad consultative process would agree with me that if there were ever a committee that did its work and that truly had an impact on a final piece of legislation it was this committee.

The minister responsible at the time had given me his undertaking that if we dealt with the bill in a fair and reasonable manner, he would be prepared to accept any amendments that bettered the bill. As a result, what we heard in these very broad consultations at the committee stage resulted in a substantial number of amendments which were moved and agreed to and which have now found their way into this piece of legislation. In my view they have made this piece of legislation a much stronger, more enforceable and supportable piece of legislation.

The member for Gaspé, who is not only a good friend of mine but also has a deep and abiding interest in the fisheries and oceans portfolio, might remember this, as we would all remember. During one of our teleconferences we heard from some fishermen in Nova Scotia. The member for St. John's West will remember this clearly. The fishermen were wailing away at the government and the committee for coming in with these changes which were going to do all these terrible things with respect to access fees in the fisheries.

We all scratched our heads and out of respect for our witnesses I asked: "Has anybody there read this bill?" They answered that they had not read it all but that Mr. Chisholm had. As it turned out he was the person who would soon become the leader of the New Democratic Party in the province of Nova Scotia.

He had done something which I think was very unfortunate. I want to put it on record today that he was irresponsible in his approach to this bill. He obviously did not read it. If he did read it, he did not comprehend what was in it, which would not be a surprise.

What he did was misrepresent, in a major way, the provisions of the bill. He tried to tell the fishermen in Nova Scotia whom he purports to want to represent as the premier of the province of Nova Scotia, since he is now the leader of the New Democratic Party, that this bill had to be opposed because it was going to impact on access fees for the fisheries. This bill does absolutely nothing of the sort.

Anyway, I digress. I just wanted to make sure that the record showed unfortunately that the time we spent with some of our very good witnesses who gave up their time in Nova Scotia was spent

trying to correct a misapprehension that was either intentionally or unintentionally put forward about the impact of this bill by the current leader of the New Democratic Party in the province of Nova Scotia.

This is a good piece of legislation. I would have hoped that the Bloc Quebec would have recognized it. I understand it has have a particular bend. Every time something comes up in the House of Commons it feels compelled to get up and see it as somehow something that infringes on the legal rights and obligations of the people of Quebec.

I also understand, because I can be highly partisan at times, that this can take on a partisan tone. I would have thought that in dealing with a bill that had such broad support across Canada and internationally, the Bloc for once would have laid down the increasingly discredited arguments for sovereignty and dealt with the substance of the bill on behalf of those Quebecers, just like the rest of those in Canada, who have an interest in Canada's oceans and conservation who would have been well served by this bill.

I still appeal to them-there are still probably a few more speakers left-to drop this silly approach to legislation. After all, in the greatest of democratic traditions, although it is somewhat repulsive to some Canadians, the Bloc Quebecois is the official opposition, properly and duly elected by its constituents. It holds the second highest number of seats in this place.

As such, in dealing with bills such as this, which have broad implications and very positive implications for Canadians in all our provinces, it should deal not as a separatist opposition but as the official opposition and work with the government, not just in committee but also on the floor of the House.

I guess, again, it is not in its interests to show that the House of Commons and the committee structure work well for all Canadians, no matter what their language, no matter what their colour, no matter what their creed or their province of origin.

To Reform Party members I would like to say that we heard during the committee hearings and since then that they have some concerns with respect to the fee structures as proposed by the Canadian coast guard on cost recovery. They have a right and a responsibility to debate those things on behalf of their constituents and indeed all Canadians. I look forward to the continuing debate on that issue.

Let Reform members also look beyond this narrow yet important aspect of the subject matter at hand today and deal with the overall bill, whether or not this government and its ministers should be applauded for being so bold, so innovative and so forthright that they opened up a process and asked Canadians to give their input in a consultative process. It has taken many of their suggestions and come forward with what most in the world who have an interest in this area would agree is a milestone piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that will become a model for many other states.

In conclusion, there is still some unfinished business with respect to the consolidation of various pieces of legislation and responsibilities. At the end of our hearings we had indicated that we wanted to see a few more things done with respect to the oceans act.

We thought there should be a further committee study done, perhaps a joint committee, between the Standing Committee on the Environment and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, to look at a further consolidation of part VI of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act relating to ocean dumping, pollution and waste as well as certain provisions of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act within the Canada oceans act.

In recognizing that we have gone quite a long way, we must also recognize there may be a ways to go yet.

Let us not condemn the government for being bold and taking an initiative that was difficult to put together but has such positive results for Canadians. I hope that this bill would be able to garner the high level and degree of support in this place that it has garnered with the Canadian public and the international community.

Because it is probably the last time I can do this with regard to a bill that I might have had something to do with by way of process, I want to thank all the members of the committee, my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, and in particular my vice-chair at the time, the member for St. John's West, for their incredible dedication and hard work. At the end of the day they proved that this place does work when you get good people who are committed to public service. I want to thank them for that type of commitment and for the example they have shown.

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member's speech. I understand that the member opposite is doing what she thinks is best with respect to protecting the interests of her constituents.

I want to say two things. She devoted most of her speech to the proposed fee structure for recreational vessels. I guess that is fine. It is her nickel, she can do what she sees fit.

I believe it would have been wise for the member to check the degree of consultation that went into the formulation of the bill and the almost unprecedented level of acceptance by the government of recommendations from committee members to change the bill after it came to committee.

The member said something which is not true, which is not based in fact. Members of the Bloc Quebecois would like to stand in their place on every single issue that comes to the House and paint it black and white, that everything is somehow against the rights of Quebecers. This government governs as a national government. For the member to stand in her place and indicate that the province of Quebec was not consulted on this legislation is simply untrue.

In the lead-up to this legislation the department and the minister consulted extensively with the bureaucracy of the government of the province of Quebec. Indeed, in a previous life as chair of the committee that studied the bill, I can tell the House we asked the minister responsible in the province of Quebec to come and testify before the standing committee so we could find out the concerns of the Government of Quebec. However, the minister declined. What were we supposed to do? Were we supposed to play footsie with the separatists in Quebec City and drag them kicking and screaming to a House of Commons public hearing on this legislation to find out what was their position?

Members of the Bloc Quebecois sat on the committee and had full access through me as the chair to talk about the interests of Quebec and since they are supposed to be a national opposition, to talk about the interests of Canada with respect to this bill.

I am quite frankly getting a little tired of accepting these statements by the Bloc Quebecois which are not based in fact. The people of Quebec, like the people of Ontario, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories, had access to the committee throughout the process. They still have access through members of Parliament. For anybody from the Bloc Quebecois to get up and say that access was denied to the people of Quebec is simply false and cannot be tolerated in this place.

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the member's speech. The facts are quite different from the arguments he made here.

The member is trying to do two things at the same time. His party makes an argument as to why there should be further cuts in every department of government. Then he gets up in his own local interest, decries the government for the cuts it has made in trying to balance the budget and have a streamlined administration of departments, such as fisheries and oceans.

Quite clearly he cannot have it both ways. He cannot have the leader of his party or his finance critic get up day after day in this place and say: "Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut", and then get up during debates in the House of Commons and criticize the government and say: "Do not cut; put more resources in".

I am quite familiar with this diverse view that is shared by members of the Reform Party. As chairman of the committee that examined this bill, I had to live with it almost daily. Members of the Reform Party would sit down and agree with the individuals who came and made submissions. They indicated quite clearly that this bill was long overdue, that it was a courageous act by the minister of fisheries of the day, who is now the premier of Newfoundland, and the Prime Minister of Canada to come forward with such a consolidation.

Each time they would agree with the witness but when it came time to debate the principles and to support what the evidence had told us during the committee hearings, they ran away and scattered. And then they get other members who were not on the committee to stand up in this place and try to have it both ways. That is not going to be the case today.

The member just said that this government and the current minister and the previous minister basically did not have the intestinal fortitude to deal with the issues of the day. I would ask him whether or not his party supported, when we were at committee, the consolidation of programs and legislation inherent in the oceans act.

Did Reform support the efforts of this government to go in and reduce a bloated bureaucracy in many departments, including fisheries and oceans which was reduced by 40 per cent, most of which was at head office? Did Reform support the efforts of the former minister of fisheries and this government in going before

the court of world opinion and saying no to overfishing when it came to Spain and the raiding of our turbot stock on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks?

The member cannot have it both ways. Is he prepared to get up and tell us that yes, in those areas we have been courageous and yes, that what we have done is right, not always what was easy but that we have taken our responsibilities as we should have as a government? If he is, then it is fairly clear to me he is more concerned about playing to a diminishing local audience of supporters in his riding instead of getting up here and engaging in the type of vigorous and knowledgeable debate that is normally the case when bills come before this place.

[Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of this legislation and to the amendments that have been put forward.

The Canadian government has been seized with the actions south of the border with respect to the reprehensible piece of legislation put forward, not affectionately know here as the Helms-Burton legislation.

The Helms-Burton legislation is a piece of work that has come at the height of the U.S. presidential silly season of U.S. politics. The Helms-Burton bill defies the recent trend both in the United States and in most western countries to try to remove those impediments to free trade in goods and services.

When we speak of the free trade agreement that has been negotiated between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, the Helms-Burton bill-it is the strong view of the Government of Canada and I think of most in this Chamber-is not only extraterritorial in its application but is contrary to the free trade agreement that was negotiated between these three sovereign states.

In order to figure out exactly what Helms-Burton seeks to do and to figure out the response of the government and the amendments we are debating today, one has to look back and understand that there has been an increasingly protectionist move in the right wing of the U.S. Congress.

We have to recognize that during the period in question when we see these pieces of legislation which are contrary to the direction forged over the last number of years, we must recognize that it is the U.S. presidential election season. In the United States there some on both the Republican and Democratic sides who will try to curry favour with Cuban Americans who are very important electors in some states such as Florida.

Because the president did not veto this piece of legislation, he allowed this backward looking revisionist piece of legislation to be put before the U.S. Congress and passed. It seeks to punish Canadian and other foreign companies that are doing normal business in Cuba. The Canadian government has followed a foreign policy with respect to Cuba that is different from the foreign policy followed by the United States for a number of years. We have done so because we believe that it is only through a policy of engagement, of increased trade in goods and services and also investment that the current regime in Cuba will be replaced by one that is more respectful of human rights and which would be more democratic in its orientation.

We have not followed the policy of the United States of isolationism, whereby it seeks to cripple not only the economy of Cuba but also to bring undue hardship to its people because the United States government has an aversion to the political regime which is in place.

The Canadian government has voiced its concerns about human rights abuses in Cuba. The Canadian government voiced a strong objection when the Cuban government shot down a plane a few months ago which in many respects precipitated this piece of legislation, the Helms-Burton Bill, being passed by the U.S. Congress.

The Canadian government is strong in its resolve to continue its policy of engagement economically with Cuba. We believe that Canadian businesses and the Canadian government have a role to play to ensure that the good people of Cuba are not further disadvantaged by protectionist rhetoric from places like the United States.

The Helms-Burton legislation seeks to punish Canadian and foreign companies that are doing business in Cuba. The Canadian government voiced very strong reaction to this type of legislation immediately upon its passage. The Prime Minister and other ministers of crown, the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, have consulted widely with our friends around the world and with our friends in the European Union and in Mexico. We have launched a number of initiatives on a variety of fronts to clearly indicate that we believe that this type of legislation has no place in a modern trading system. We believe that this Helms-Burton legislation is a blatant exercise in extraterritoriality by the United States. Indeed, it is in violation of the responsibilities and rules of both NAFTA and the world trading organizations.

The bill we have introduced is a measured response. The bill and the amendments we are debating here today seek to ensure that any judgments which are rendered in U.S. courts as a result of the Helms-Burton legislation will not be enforceable in Canada. It allows for blocking orders to be issued, which is extremely important so that judgments which are rendered against Canadian companies and against Canadian property, individuals and businesses doing business in Cuba, the laws will not be enforceable in Canada.

It also ensures that under the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act the penalties which can be applied under the U.S. legislation are equal in measure. This is very important. We do not want to penalize Canadian companies that may be penalized under the act. We want to make exactly sure that Canadian companies do not make choices which may be contrary to their interests and indeed contrary to international law because of a difference in potential penalties in the United States jurisdiction and in Canada.

Under this legislation we have made sure that we are not going to play the same games as the Americans have with respect to other measures such as trying to give ministers of the crown in Canada the right to block individuals from coming into our country.

We believe that some of the measures that are inherent in the Helms-Burton legislation go beyond the realm of reason in trying to stop principals or families of Canadian companies that may be named according to the U.S. in trafficking in confiscated property.

We believe that is contrary to the rules and regulations under the NAFTA. We have made sure that in our response we have not become, as the U.S. has been, contrary to the rules and regulations under the NAFTA.

The amendments put forward today, the ones we are debating now, are measures which strengthen the bill. They are measures that have been discussed with all members of the committee under the chairmanship of the member for Rosedale, who has done an expert job in ensuring that this bill gets the type of quick passage required to give the Canadian government the tools it needs to defend against the intrusion into our jurisdiction and into our sovereignty.

Members of the opposition have seen this as a very positive piece of legislation, one required in order to ensure these incursions outside of jurisdiction by the United States do not go unanswered by our government.

I want to commend the members of the committee for not only ensuring the speedy passage through the committee of this legislation but also for their support of the amendments which have been put forward today which vastly strengthen the bill.

It is my hope that at the end of the day, at the end of third reading after we hear from the chairman of the committee and from members of the opposition who support the bill, the bill will received speedy passage at report stage and as well at third reading so that the Government of Canada has the tools at its disposal that are required under the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act to counter the most negative consequences of this piece of legislation, the Helms-Burton act in the U.S. Congress.