Inky Mark

[Trade, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that the U.S. trade representative may retaliate against the heritage minister's split-run advertising bill as early as this week.

How can we expect the Americans to call off a trade war against Canadian farmers when the heritage minister is annoying the Americans on the split-run bill?

[Trade, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as we witness today, there is a family feud shaping up between the trade minister and the heritage minister. The trade minister believes we should sit down and talk to the United States, but the heritage minister has launched a trade war with her split-run advertising bill.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Which member of the family does the Prime Minister support? The trade minister or the heritage minister?

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member opposite.

The difference here is that farmers in the west are open to the global impact of markets and farmers down east do not have that. We do not have the protection of marketing boards.

Yes, we are talking about farmers who diversify. They grow different crops, and not only cash crops, they also have cattle and hogs. But the whole bottom is falling out because of what is happening on the international markets.

The domestic market in eastern Canada is protected by marketing boards, but western farmers do not have that protection and safeguard.

I would state at this time, because of the circumstances, that the farmers out west do need help. It is a time of crisis for them and their livelihood totally depends on that help.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Lethbridge for splitting his precious time with me.

My riding is Dauphin—Swan River and it certainly is a rural riding. Farming is the backbone of the riding. There is no doubt that the health of all the communities in my riding depends on the cash in the pockets of farmers.

There is a real farm crisis whether the government realizes it or not. It is impacting farmers, and certainly farm families, as many of them are going broke and they rely on farming for their livelihood.

I have received a countless number of calls on this issue. At times as a member of parliament I feel very helpless. All I can do is bring the messages to this House and I am very glad to have the opportunity to relate those messages to members of this House today. Hopefully the government will listen to the real people in the ridings.

I would like to put some face to the concerned farmers and farming families and tell the House what they have asked me to do. I will begin by saying that the president of KAP, the Keystone Agricultural Producers Inc., has talked to me about the crisis in farming. This organization represents many farm producers in Manitoba.

Those producers are very concerned. This is not only a crisis in Manitoba, it is a crisis in all of western Canada. In the upcoming months KAP will host meetings throughout the province to listen to farmers.

A lady by the name of Audrey Warkentin from Fork River called me. She is concerned that their family farm is at risk of going under. She is concerned about the prices at this time because they cannot meet cash requirements.

David Hanlin from Miniota in my riding wanted to talk about the low prices of grain and the high prices of chemicals and machinery. The price of grain has bottomed out. He tells me it will eventually put him out of business.

Stan Yaskiw of Birtle, Manitoba, is very concerned about the farm economy as it has been impacting his life and his family.

Bert Stewart of Benito, Manitoba, is concerned about the farming economy and low prices. The cash crunch is impacting on his family farm. He has farmed most of his life.

Don Ray from Russell, Manitoba, called about the low grain prices and his farm income, which is in jeopardy. He told me that he has 1,500 acres and that it requires $250 an acre to maintain equipment and pay for fuel. He has also experienced a crop loss due to flooding, not from a flood like the one in Winnipeg, but from too much rain. Part of my riding received too much rain over the past summer. In his area there were numerous fields which were flooded. There was a 50% loss due to excessive moisture. He wants to know how the government can help him survive as a farmer.

Bert Stewart from Benito has the same concerns. In fact, 55 cents per bushel of barley puts him at great risk. He told me that 333 bottles of beer are produced from one bushel of barley. He would like to see some of those returns.

Cam Mateika from Swan River is paying more for freight now and he is getting less money for his crops. He cannot survive. He says that many farmers are talking the same way. There certainly is a crisis out there.

David Wilson from Rapid City has a problem surviving. He says that GRIP has been a total disaster as far as he is concerned. Farmers were counting on it. He has also heard many horror stories about NISA.

Barry Durston, another constituent of mine, is concerned about commodity prices, freight rates and NISA. He is not happy with the whole business of NISA and how it has been dealt with.

There is a crisis out there. People are pleading for help. These are real people. The government needs to be accountable to these people. We help people in crisis situations like the ice storm and floods. This is a time when the government needs to help people who farm for a living because their livelihood is at stake.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, prior to being interrupted by question period, I was giving members of the House examples of irresponsibility on the part of the minister in terms of how she travelled around the world and around the country in Challenger jets.

Canada is hurting for financial support. Taxes are being raised through people who use national parks to make up for the government's shortfall. We just need to ask park employees about the cuts in the maintenance schedules, programs and infrastructure upgrades.

Here we have a minister who spends tonnes of money utilizing corporate jets that are a lot more expensive than the way most members in the House travel. I have said enough today about the minister's travels and would like to move on.

I applaud the Secretary of State for Parks for having spoken to many users of the parks system this summer. He does a good job, but the problem is that there is very little linkage between his efforts and those of the minister and the bureaucracy. I applaud the secretary of state for doing his best to resolve problems.

The purpose of Bill C-48, the marine conservation areas act, is to establish marine conservation areas and reserves under the authority of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the minister chiefly responsible for national parks.

I made comment earlier in my debate that the bill had no business being under the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It is not about parks. It is about conservation areas. In principle all Canadians believe that our ecosystems need protection on both land and on water.

I would like to make a number of observations on the bill. It is not properly a parks bill but an environmental bill. Bill C-48 seems to be the Government of Canada's response to the convention on biodiversity. The government signed the convention on biodiversity in 1994 in the last parliament when the heritage minister was the minister of the environment.

Although I was not a member in the last parliament, the voters of Dauphin—Swan River very kindly sent me here in June 1997. I understand the heritage minister did not have an easy time as minister of the environment. I even heard that a minister of the government had to resign because of her government's policy on the GST.

I understand the minister had trouble getting along with her counterparts in provincial governments. I heard that when the heritage minister was the environment minister she got very little done. I am not against a minister getting very little done if a minister is trying to do the wrong things. It is better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing.

I would like to know why the Minister of Canadian Heritage is pushing a bill on the environment. Where is the current Minister of the Environment? To paraphrase a great Chinese playwright, “a rose by any other name is still a rose” and an environment bill by any other name is still an environment bill, not a parks bill. With this bill the heritage minister expands her domain and encroaches on what is more properly the responsibility of the minister of environment, her old portfolio.

The official opposition believes in balance. The official opposition wants a balance in the management of the environment to preserve biodiversity and to conserve the environment for the enjoyment of all Canadians balanced with sustainable development. The bill has not balanced these priorities in any way, shape or form. Frankly the bill is preservationist.

The bill takes no account of future needs for development of resources in a marine environment. The bill would even require fishermen to seek and get special permission to carry on their work in areas designated under the bill. The bill controls not only the water but the air above the water and everything below the water. The bill would require special licensing for recreational activities and academic research in designated areas.

Given that the designated areas would no longer be available for sustainable resource development and given all the hoops through which fishermen, recreational users and academic researchers would have to jump, Canadians might assume that before the heritage minister designated a marine conservation area the minister would have to do so by amendment of the act with debate at all stages in parliament.

A change in the use of marine territory should be fully reviewed by parliament. However the heritage minister does not want a full review by parliament. The minister has instructed her officials to write what is known in legal circles as Henry VIII clauses.

Henry VIII seems to have so shaped the minister's approach to parliament that she has included three Henry VIII clauses. I will have more to say on that if the bill passes second reading. The heritage minister is already well aware of Henry VIII and his attitude toward parliament. I am sure some members of parliament will be interested to hear that. They will not be pleased, however.

Henry VIII believed in the divine right of kings. His motto was “God and my right”. Henry VIII did not like parliament since it tended to get in the way of what he wanted. Whether it was marrying wife number two, three or four or raising taxes, Henry VIII did not want to be bothered with parliament and the House of Commons. He looked for ways to side step parliament and its authority to pass laws.

The minister has learned a lesson well from old Henry Tudor about how to side step the proper law making authority of parliament. We wish she would learn some lessons on democracy. It is hard to learn anything these days about democratic rights in the Liberal Party. The minister wants to side step the proper role of parliament with the insertion of Henry VIII clauses that allow the cabinet to amend the act more or less at will.

It is bad enough that the heritage minister is still trying to be the environment minister. The minister's attitude toward parliament is even worse. What is left? Too much, far too much. Bill C-48 would shrink the federal crown territory available for ordinary use or occupation, for resource exploration and for extraction for dumping any substance. The bill requires specific authorization by permit for any activity in the areas.

There is an old joke that goes something like this. How many Canadians does it take to change a light bulb? The answer is one but she has to have a licence. If there is one thing that makes Canadians less competitive and lowers their standard of living it is overregulation. The bill would create yet another layer of regulation between Canadian resources and the ability of Canadians to do research, to fish, to create tourist recreation venues, and to engage in sustainable development of resources.

Bill C-48 seems to make clear there is not a regulation the minister has seen but does not like. There is one thing I would like to know. What is the minister telling the steel industry situated in her riding on the edge of one of the largest marine environments in North America? What is she telling the steelworkers will keep their industry from being shut down? One of her officials or a future heritage minister decided at whim that the western end of Lake Ontario should become a marine conservation area.

Yet this is the kind of bill the heritage minister has brought to this House. In fact, they have not scheduled any areas that would become effective immediately. They basically took a big swath of all the coastal areas east, west and north and all the inland waters as well.

This bill fails to balance preservation of biodiversity with the principle of sustainable development. This bill sidestepped the proper role and authority of parliament. Even if there were not problems with the bill on those counts, this bill is not properly a parks bill, it is an environment bill.

Let me repeat very slowly for the heritage minister's benefit she is no longer the minister of the environment. She should stop trying to enact environmental legislation and should withdraw this bill.

With that in mind I would like to propose the following reasoned amendment which I believe you will find completely in order. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas, because the bill fails not only to strike a proper balance between the preservation of `bio-diversity' and sustainable development, but takes no account of future sustainable development in designated marine conservation areas.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that I am trying to connect the bill with the minister. We are talking about credibility. We are talking about the government side wanting the opposition benches to believe in the information presented in the bill. I am saying, let us first look at the credibility of the department before I lead into the bill. I certainly will be addressing the bill as soon as I go through this short exercise.

From May 14 to May 17 the minister travelled, the jet set again, from Ottawa to Cork, on to Tunis and Santa Maria and then back to Ottawa. That jaunt around the neighbourhood cost Canadians a cited cost of about $43,979 and an extended cost of $188,779.

Ironically, the parks are crying about funds. They cannot find enough funds to operate our national parks. Here we have a minister basically travelling around the world.

On June 5 the minister winged her way to St. Catharines at a cited cost of $3,720 and at an extended cost of $15,966.

On June 7 and June 8 the minister found her way to Calgary by Challenger, the western hub of air travel, at a cited cost of $16,629 and at an extended cost of $71,379.

On June 18 the Challenger minister found her way to Winnipeg, in the best province of Canada, at a cited cost of $10,940 and at an extended cost of $46,960.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to intervene as critic for Canadian heritage on behalf of the official opposition on Bill C-48, the marine conservation act at second reading.

I will begin by saying that we oppose this bill.

The secretary of state has certainly painted a beautiful picture of a country called Canada which all of us in this House love and hold dear.

We in the opposition agree with the principle of ecosystem protection. That is not the issue and not the problem. What we disagree with is the process and how it is being done. This bill is poorly written.

The secretary of state has indicated that he feels this bill belongs to parks, but there really is no connection between land, parks and water and marine conservation districts or areas. When most people hear about parks they think about places they can go to and experience with their families. They think about protected areas that will be around for centuries so that all future generations will benefit from them.

What we have here is a marine conservation act that is really about the conservation of marine areas. In other words, it really should be in the hands of the environment minister.

This bill is also about fulfilling, in a rushed manner, the obligations this country has in terms of United Nations initiatives on ecosystem protection. Australia has quite a comprehensive program and plan, but it spent a lot of years doing extensive consultation, study and research. This government, I believe, is rushing it this time to fulfil a requirement on its part.

The biggest reason we object to this bill is that it is really a grab for power again. We find that a lot of bills that come before this House, after reading them, have too many places where the minister has the power by order in council to change the bill. This bill is another one.

I will debate this a little later, but I am surprised that there is no schedule in terms of the areas that the government wishes to establish. In other words, we need to be more definitive in terms of what will happen if this bill becomes law. There is no doubt that this is another bill that will leave Canadians with the short end of the stick while the government will end up with most of the stick.

Consultation is another problem. Consultation is quite a word. Everybody has a different definition of consultation. The secretary of state indicated that they sent out 3,000 pieces of mail to various groups in the country. It would be interesting to see the types of responses they received. It is all right to consult people, but let the people you are consulting with know what the results are. If this is the same kind of consultation that the former justice minister had with Bill C-68, I am afraid I do not have a lot of faith in this government's consultation process.

I travelled extensively throughout the summer. I talked to people from different parts of the country. I was asking them about this government's consultation process. Lo and behold I found out that people are invited to meetings, but they get responses like “Sorry you cannot make it in the middle of the week because you have a job” or “It is too bad it is snowing. There is a storm, but the meeting has to take place anyway”. A lot of questions were raised over the summer that made me believe people do not have a lot of faith in the consultative process of this government.

We appreciate the amount of work done by the Secretary of State for Parks, his officials and staff in preparing this bill. The senior minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, really cares about parks. Banff is probably a good example. She makes comments here and there in her travels. She has travelled extensively on the issue. I assume that is why she travels all over the world. During the first six months of this year she must have been preparing herself and her department. The minister must have thought it so important that she and her staff used one of the Department of National Defence Challenger jets.

On February 6 and February 7 the heritage minister travelled by Challenger corporate jet from Ottawa to Charlottetown and back at a cited cost of $7,439 and at an extended cost of $31,933. The cited cost is what National Defence gives as a cost apart from all the overhead and capital costs of maintaining the jet. The extended cost takes into account maintenance, salaries, overhead and other expenses.

On February 12 and February 13 the heritage minister travelled by Challenger jet from Ottawa to Winnipeg and back at a cited cost of $26,000 and at an extended cost of about $54,474.

On March 25 and March 26 the heritage minister, or should I say the minister of Challenger jets, travelled from Ottawa to that great national park of Toronto at a cited cost of $4,157 and at an extended cost of $17,845.

On May 1 through May 4 the Challenger jet minister travelled from Ottawa to Hamilton to see the hockey coliseum of the famous name. She went on to Barbados, to Recife in Brazil, back to Barbados and back to Ottawa. This little fact finding tour set taxpayers back a cited cost of $45,510 and an extended cost of $195,354.

I am doing this to show that we need more accountability and more credibility from the minister of heritage.

On May 9 the minister travelled from Ottawa to Yarmouth, to Greenwood and back at a cited cost of $7,658 and at an extended cost of—

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, under subclause 20(c) of this bill the minister is authorized to make regulations respecting “criteria to determine whether advertising services are directed at the Canadian market”. This amounts to authorizing the Minister of Canadian Heritage to make trade laws without passing them through parliament. Will this undermine the authority of the House?

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will just make a few comments and ask a short question to conclude this debate.

This debate really is about democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. On the opposition benches it is about trying to keep the government out of trouble. We have heard the arguments that were aired in terms of retaliation.

The reality of North American society is that we depend on the Americans for a healthy economy. There are two things we agree on. One is that Canadians love Canadian content in whatever they hear, read or watch. I am sure all sides of the House agree to that. The other statement I can make is that our economy depends on that of the United States. We are fortunate with the Asian flu that the American economy probably shelters us from a greater impact in light of the weak dollar in this country. Those are the two points that I am sure we all agree on.

On the issue of freedom of speech I believe that when the bill becomes law it will be subject to the courts' judgment. As soon as it becomes law the private sector will take it to the courts. There is no doubt about that.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member believes in free speech, why are they putting up protective barriers on a split-run issue in Bill C-55?