House of Commons Hansard #145 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was heritage.

Topics

TributesOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Léo, André and Sam, at long last the Speaker gets to speak. My colleagues, today is a very special day. It is very special for all of us because in a very real sense we who serve in this House and the people who help us to discharge our duties as parliamentarians know full well of the pressures and demands that are placed on all of us. I include here the officers of this House.

Today as we say goodbye to Léo and Sam, I must say that I had hoped in my tenure to never be able to avail myself of your services, but already once I have had to call upon you when one of our members would not withdraw. I have forgiven him long since.

My colleagues, today also we say goodbye to André Fréchette. I ask the pages who are here today to come and stand around the Chair. There have been many pages that André has worked with and whom he has helped over the years.

I am happy to see you are all here, our pages, my pages, the pages of all Canadians.

It is indeed fitting that at this time of the year, as we prepare to go home, as we prepare ourselves indeed to be with our families and friends that we, the family that is Parliament, and most especially these three men who are leaving us today, would say to them, and I do today claim my right to speak on behalf of all parliamentarians when I say to you: Thank you for a job well done. We appreciate you very much.

TributesOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that I could dispense with the Thursday

question today, but it seems that my hon. colleague has a number of items to announce, so I would ask him to proceed.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I have a few offerings for my hon. colleagues, just before the holidays.

First of all, in my capacity as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, I want to join in the congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Fréchette, Mr. Robitaille and Mr. Renaud.

This afternoon we will continue consideration of third reading stage of Bill C-53. I believe there is an understanding that we will vote on this today. However, there will be an interruption at around 4.30 or 5 p.m. when the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod will summon the House to the other place for a royal assent ceremony. I understand that will be the last formal activity in Parliament by His Excellency the current Governor General before he leaves office early in the new year.

Also, I understand there is some considerable desire on both sides of the House to adjourn for the winter adjournment provided for in Standing Order 28 after completing Bill C-53 and the royal assent.

I will announce the business for the day when we return during the week before that date, hopefully not in this House but directly to my hon. colleagues. I want to say that tentatively I am looking at Bill C-44 and Bill C-62 as the selections likely to be called.

Finally, I would like to extend to the other House leaders and all members of this House my non-partisan best wishes for the holidays and the new year.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, if indeed we do break today, I invite all of you to join me for a reception in my quarters before you leave today.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I informed you and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans earlier today, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to a discrepancy in the supplemental answer given today to Order Paper Question No. 82. The answer is again inaccurate and misleading. It misrepresents the facts and is contradicted by DFO enforcement documents which I have received under access to information.

I was prepared to meet with the deputy House leader and the minister as per your instructions to discuss a satisfactory answer to Question No. 82. I sought such a meeting. A meeting never occurred and instead, the minister tabled a supplemental answer this morning.

The question asked the effect the late signing of the aboriginal fisheries agreement had on enforcement of fisheries agreements and fisheries regulations in 1994. The minister's answer does not respond to the effect on enforcement.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Is this new information the member is giving the House, or is it a repetition of the information he put before the House previously? Can the hon. member clarify that?

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, the information is new. What I am doing is responding to the supplemental answer to Question No. 82 which was tabled this morning.

The minister's supplemental answer to Question No. 82 which I refer to does not respond to the effect on enforcement. The departmental documents received under access to information deal specifically with the effect on enforcement.

The minister's supplemental answer deals with the management of the aboriginal fishing strategy, not the effect on enforcement of fisheries regulations, that is, the Fisheries Act. Now is not the time to debate the aboriginal fishing strategy.

The answer implies that aboriginal guardians were on duty as usual and that licences were given out as required under the regulations. That is simply not true. Virtual chaos reigned on the west coast. Fisheries documents prove it.

The issue before this House is whether the minister's answer misleads this House and prevents me as a member from carrying out my duties.

Let me read a few short sections from the August fisheries enforcement document on early Stuart migration which clearly demonstrates that the minister's supplemental answer is inaccurate. In Steveston it was reported that "the ability to properly manage the Fraser River aboriginal fishery has been seriously compromised". It also states: "The late signing of the aboriginal agreements has also resulted in difficulties in respect to proper management of the fishery, and in many cases bands have not been able to abide by the terms of the agreement".

In Fraser Valley East and Fraser Valley West the report states that the lateness in the signing of the 1994 aboriginal fishery agreement has resulted in the breakdown of effective management in the native fishery on the Fraser River. DFO officers were unable to perform their duties effectively because updated licensing data was not available, therefore proper gear and licence checks could not be done. Mandatory landing sites were not operational until late July. Arrangements were not made by

the harvest committee as per agreement to recover landing slips-

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair is in a quandary. It would seem to me that what we have here is information which is deemed to be accurate by one side and deemed to be inaccurate by the other side. What we are into now I believe is a point of debate. I wonder if the hon. member could move to identify the specific point of privilege he is referring to.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, in point of fact I asked the question: What effect did the late signing of the aboriginal fishing agreements in British Columbia have on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' enforcement of the agreement and fisheries regulations in 1994?

The answer that was originally provided said that the impact was minimal. The documents which I received under access to information proved otherwise. The supplemental answer which I received this morning did not address the issue. Instead it addressed the issue of the management of the aboriginal fishing strategy. It did not address the question asked.

The breach of privilege as I suggested the other day for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, was the 1978 decision where the member for Northumberland-Durham raised a question of privilege in the House. The Solicitor General had written and provided information which later proved to be erroneous and inaccurate. The Speaker ruled as indicated in Hansard on page 1857: ``I find therefore a prima facie case of contempt against the House of Commons''.

I maintain that the same thing has happened again. If it was contempt against the House of Commons to provide a member with erroneous information, then surely to provide the House itself with erroneous information through a written reply to a question on the Order Paper would also be a prima facie case of privilege.

Should you rule-

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

Order. Colleagues, I think at least at this point from what I have heard we are in the process of debate.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is here now as is the member for Kingston and the Islands. I am going to permit an intervention. After the interventions are over, I will hear what you have to say first and then I will decide where I am going to go from there. The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of privilege. It is not even a matter of being a good point of order. What we have here is the beginning of a debate.

The debate being proposed by the member opposite is a debate about the impact or the capacity of enforcement officers both departmental and aboriginal officers to conduct their responsibilities.

This is very technical that there is a late signing of an aboriginal fisheries agreement. The agreement in question this year has been the subject of a lot of discussion, questions in the House, a great deal of media. It is now the subject of a review by a former Speaker and a public panel. There has been some acknowledgement of some problems. The agreement in question primarily is on the lower Fraser. The group in question is the Sto:Lo. But this is one of 47 agreements. There are 47 agreements.

If the member chooses to focus on some areas of difficulty and draw from them the conclusion that the entire program, the planet as we know it, the fishery as it has been conducted, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and every last fish are all subject to a totally uncontrolled situation, that is his right as a member of this House. But to extrapolate from it that the answer given is misleading when there are 47 agreements and not just one is improper. It is wrong and is an abuse of the whole principle of a question of privilege.

What we have here is a debate. Mr. Speaker, if you would like to provide for a debate, you well know in the years we have shared together in this place that I am always tempted to engage in such.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw your attention to words used by the hon. member in expressing his question of privilege.

I will quote only two examples. For example, he said that the minister's answer implied something. Different people may draw different implications from words that are used, whether in the question or in the answer. I think it is entirely proper for a minister to provide an answer to a written inquiry which may be an answer that is not agreed to by the member receiving the answer.

Sometimes that may provoke the member to ask more specific questions. If the hon. member had asked what was the result of the non-signing of an agreement in area x he might have received a different answer to the question he asked on the Order Paper for which a much more general answer was provided.

I note that the minister, in answer to the hon. member's point the other day, tabled a supplementary response. This is unusual but it is perfectly proper for the minister to do that. He did it in order to satisfy the anxieties the hon. member raised the other day when he suggested that somehow the answer was misleading.

I want to suggest when the government prepares answers to questions in this House it prepares them as of the date the question is asked. Occasionally when the answer comes to me a month, two months or four months later-and sometimes they are late, we have had that experience recently-the answer is wrong because events have changed in a notorious way so that even I know they are wrong. Then I say I think we should update

the answer and give an answer that is correct as of the date we are tabling the reply.

I suspect that part of the problem the hon. member encountered in this case is that the information available to the department on the date the question was put was different from the information when the answer was tabled some two months later. Additional or supplementary information was provided by the minister this morning. I tabled that on the minister's behalf.

In light of all that I do not understand how the hon. member can argue that his ability to perform his functions as a member of Parliament have been impaired by this answer. That is the nub of the issue on a question of privilege. If his ability to perform his functions are impaired, I suggest to him the thing for him to do is put more questions on the Order Paper and ask more detailed questions so he gets more detailed answers.

I am sure if he does that he will get the answers he wants. But reading from selective reports and then suggesting that because those reports are different from the answer when, as the minister has pointed out there are many reports, is not correct. It is not fair.

It is not impairing the hon. member's ability to carry on his functions. He is obviously able to carry them on because he has all the reports in his possession and is able to read and quote from them in this House. If that is the case how are his abilities impaired, and if they are not, there is no question of privilege.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Colleagues, I think that for my purposes at least at this point what I would like to do is review the answer which was tabled today. I would like to review the information the member put before us on another day and has brought back with more information today. I will have a look at the information. At this point at least, subject of course to my looking at it and reflecting on it, I am not convinced that there is a question of privilege.

However, if the House will give me the time to review the documents that have been placed before me, I will come back to the House if necessary.

I move now to the second question of privilege of the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was denied access to press gallery room 130-S on two occasions. I understand a similar occurrence took place a few days ago with respect to another member; I was informed of it by the member. Although I am prepared to move a motion, I state for the record that the essence of the privilege matter is the denial of access of a member or members to rooms on the parliamentary precincts.

In view of the season, our agenda this afternoon, and the fact that I would like to think it was a simple misunderstanding with the press gallery, perhaps I could suggest that Your Honour take the matter up with the press gallery to ensure that there are no misunderstandings about the rights of all members to have access to all open rooms in the parliamentary precincts, barring of course the other place beyond the bar, washrooms of the opposite gender and common sense things. If you would do that, Your Honour, I think it might clear up the matter.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

It is a point of information; I am not sure it is a question of privilege. I will undertake to get more information on what precisely has been happening in the last few days especially with respect to room 130-S. I will give the information to the hon. member or indeed share it with the House if I feel it is necessary.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage, be read the third time and passed.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

Hugh Hanrahan Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, once again it gives me great pleasure to discuss Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

It would be useful to state unequivocally that the Reform Party does not support the bill. The reasons for this are numerous. Since I have spoken on the bill during first and second readings and have participated in committee and report stages, I feel most of what I have to offer has already been stated. Therefore I will not deliberate at great length on the issue.

However I would like to summarize the key aspects of the bill. First let us look at multiculturalism. As I mentioned yesterday in the House, as a member of the Standing Committee on Heritage I had the opportunity to listen to witnesses describe multicultural federal funded programs as divisive and that they focus on our differences rather than on our similarities. This is ultimately the opposite outcome to that which the government had intended for the program.

I truly believe the intention was noble enough when the multiculturalism legislation was passed by the Trudeau government. However it was an experimental program that has failed its goals. The program does little to unify and seemingly everything to separate. The government must stop the waste.

Multiculturalism is creating an entire generation of hyphenated Canadians by focusing on differences, not on similarities. The majority of Canadians believe there is nothing wrong with multiculturalism. Yet they believe it should not be funded by the government but by multicultural organizations. This is the position of the Reform Party we have been defending since the late 1980s. According to Neil Bissoondath, author of Selling Illusions-The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada :

Anyone critical of the multicultural policy-is immediately branded a racist.

Moreover it is my perception that this type of attitude is present today and is carried by the media, as anyone who speaks critically of funding for multiculturalism programs are labelled meanspirited or ignorant and intolerant. This is not an answer to the problem we are encountering today in Canada. I can unequivocally say that the Reform Party is not racist nor is it intolerant. However it is fiscally responsible.

Multiculturalism programs cost Canadians over $30 million annually. This funding could be better spent on health or education. I am sure everyone knows that education and not cash is the true way to break down barriers between cultures and individuals. Therefore I think it would be wise for the government to rethink its multicultural policy.

Next, overlap and duplication is a theme in which this Parliament will hopefully be remembered for decreasing, although for this to happen the Liberals must re-evaluate Bill C-53 as it is riddled with inconsistencies and duplications between departments, such as overlap and duplication between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the departments of industry, environment and transportation. Yet the Liberals seem quite content to allow the overlap to continue, which will only lead to confusion of responsibility and mismanagement.

To illustrate the point I will use national parks. They were in environment but have since moved to heritage. I am still wondering why. Recently one witness, David Day, managing director of the Association for Mountain Parks Protection and Enjoyment, was before the standing committee discussing this issue. It is important to illustrate what he said because he made a great deal of sense.

He spoke of the difficulty governments face in administering and managing our national parks because of the diversity of expectations. I could not agree more.

What is it that we as a society would like to see from our national parks? Specifically talking about national parks, Mr. Day said:

Many Canadians have questioned why the government moved Parks Canada from the Department of the Environment to a new and seemingly unfocused Department of Heritage. Over the previous 14 years Parks Canada has established a firm position within the Department of the Environment as a leader and innovator in matters affecting the environment.

With the increase in tourism in Canada national parks are more closely linked to industry and environment than they are to heritage. The question remains: Why are parks in heritage? Streamlining government activities not only makes financial sense but also creates accountability. Government should be held accountable for department mismanagement and project failures.

Bill C-53 simply reinforces the perception of the process of government that needs reform as well as Reformers more so now than at any time before. Perhaps one of the most important changes or reforms the House needs is true free votes, free from party discipline. The Reform Party suggests changes to parliamentary rules to allow for more free votes and to ensure that the defeat of a government does not automatically mean the government must resign.

Bill C-53 is a prime example of a bill that should be defeated because it is fundamentally flawed. However its passage is a foregone conclusion as we will see later this afternoon. What we are doing here is nothing more than an illusion. We have been constructively criticizing and proposing positive changes, yet our suggestions fall on deaf ears.

What the Liberals have to understand is that less government will ultimately mean more freedom and more prosperity, not just for a certain few or a certain region but all Canadians. We as parliamentarians have an obligation not only to our constituents but to Canadians as a whole. We must start to make decisions that will enable the country to lower our deficit and ultimately our debt. Since the beginning of my speech Canada's national debt has increased $1,443 per second which equates to approximately $1,776,000.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

An hon. member

Then you had better sit down.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Reform

Hugh Hanrahan Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Whether I am standing or not does not matter; they are still wasting the money.

It is for these reasons I am opposed to Bill C-53. It does nothing to reduce government spending or waste, government mismanagement or incompetence, government overlap or duplication. Bill C-53 does not set an example for other ministries. Nor does it have the direction needed to lead the country out of the financial crisis we are presently facing.

It is for these reasons that we as parliamentarians should reject Bill C-53. We should send a message to Canadians that we are truly serious about parliamentary reform, deficit reduction, government streamlining and government efficiency.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about heritage, most people believe that we are dealing with ancient things, old things. However, this afternoon, I would like to show that heritage also means modern things, even highly advanced technology. I would like to do it from a cultural perspective, from the perspective of Canadian and Quebec culture.

At the present time, right above the Equator, there are two American satellites beaming down to South and North America. They were sent into orbit by the Hughes Corporation, a subsidiary of General Motors in the United States. These two satellites have been nicknamed "Death Stars". What does this mean?

These satellites can transmit TV signals nearly to every home from the North Pole to the South Pole. They can broadcast up to 200 channels simultaneously.

I must warn you that this is not science fiction; not only can these satellites do what I have just mentioned, they have been doing it for several weeks already. They now have customers mainly in the U.S., but also in Canada.

These American satellites belong to the Direct TV Corporation and can be used by a Canadian corporation called Power Direct TV, itself a subsidiary of Hughes and Power Corporation.

What does this have to do with culture? Think about it for a moment. These satellites broadcasts are, for the time being, totally foreign to what is happening on the cultural scene in Canada. Programs are produced in the US and the content is American, naturally.

In fact, just about anyone in Canada can obtain the necessary equipment to receive these channels, and I will explain how to illustrate how real a danger it is for Quebec and Canadian culture.

In the United States, right now, you can buy a dish the size of large pizza and a descrambler, and get the signal coming from a satellite on your television set. Now Direct TV is a business concern and the signal is not free; however the company has to know that you are receiving their signal to be able to bill you for it.

How does it work? You go to the United States and you buy the box and the small dish for about C$900. I should add that as soon as the market picks up, the prices will fall to about half that much. You bring all this back to Canada, to Quebec, or any other province or to the Northwest Territories and you install your small dish outside, or even inside if you have a south-facing window. Next you connect your box to the phone line and you dial the 1-800 number.

You automatically reach the U.S. company and register as a new customer willing to use their services. The company then sends a signal to one of their geostationary satellites above the Equator telling it to talk to your box. These satellites always stay above the same spot on the Equator. This is not science fiction, this is happening now. Your box has a number, and when the satellite sends it the right signal, it comes to life. From then on, it gives you access to about 200 channels.

You can now view all the regular programming of the major American television networks and you can order up movies on a pay-per-view basis, which is like going to a video store, except that you do not have to get out of the house. You push a button indicating that you want to watch such and such a movie and, automatically, the box records the films that you ordered and your viewing time. At the end of the month, the parent company in the U.S. phones your box and reads the meter, so to speak. And the box provides the information. The company in the U.S. then issues a bill and sends it to you.

However, since you are in Canada, you will not receive the bill at your home. It will be sent to an American address that you were provided with, and you will get the bill from there. No GST, no provincial sales tax. I think that the Department of Revenue should realize that services are being provided to Canada without any international agreement.

I will quote officials from the American company working on the Canadian side. Mr. Kruyt, who works for Power Direct TV, appeared before the heritage committee on November 16.

What was the question I asked? I had asked him why the company tolerated that Canadian consumers receive the signal, knowing that it was not complying with Canadian consumer law. He answered: "We have no financial incentive to prevent these people from receiving the signals, but do have a financial incentive to charge them for doing so".

I then asked him what made him think that eventually, in providing the service legally to Canadians, signals could be screened to ensure that they receive Canadian rather than American signals. And the answer I got was that the American company would give them control over what they call the on-off switch if they could start business in this country. This is of course a situation where profitability is the only rule.

Culture in Canada and Quebec is now at risk. What can and must be done about it? First, we need our heritage minister to be properly equipped, to have the proper legislative tools to act. Instead, we have the Minister of Industry saying: "Communications. That belongs to me".

At this rate, telephone comes under communications, television comes under communications, banking transactions, specially those made at an automatic banking machine, come under communications. What about education then? Will it also come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Industry, when it is televised?

When the medical profession will make use of telecommunication media, will it become one more thing under industry jurisdiction? Telecommunication can be such an area of responsibility, but only insofar as the equipment is concerned and at the exclusion of content, which much be the responsibility of other appropriate departments. My point it that there is nothing in the legislation before us, absolutely nothing, that gives the Minister of Canadian Heritage authority to act.

I would even go further. With this chunk of the electronic highway -and we know that this highway is coming and that it will take many forms- how can we prevent goods and services from crossing our borders electronically, when we know full well that we have legislation in place to prevent them from entering in material form?

Take hate propaganda, for example. In electronic form, we cannot do a thing about it. Terrorist instructions are already circulating on Internet, here in Canada and Quebec. This would never be allowed if it had to go through a border point. What will we do to stop this? Our heritage department must be able to negotiate GATT-type agreements with our global partners, so that all countries with approved electronic data links will agree to protect their mutual interests. Therefore, the Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage should enable our heritage minister to tell the countries with which we will have electronic links: "If we receive a signal that should not be received, we expect you to take those responsible to task, and we will do the same for you".

We will thus be able to protect our cultural interests, first by avoiding invasion as we will have control over what is coming in. It is not a matter of hindering the free flow of information, but of seeing that what would not be allowed through a border point cannot get through electronically either. We can also agree to export our own cultural wealth overseas and not let barriers be put in place over there.

In conclusion, the bill as it stands should not be approved by this House nor by the other place, as it does not meet the requirements Canadians and Quebecers are entitled to.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is the House ready for the question?

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.