Debates of May 2nd, 1994

Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and thank our colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for his speech. One can see how sensitive and knowledgeable he is about the subject.

I have a technical question to ask him. He mentioned a measure suggested which would allow farmers who suffer damages to kill one animal per season. I fail to see how this could possibly change or improve the situation, and I fail to see what impact this could have.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an easy question to answer. When the program was in place, it had a very positive impact since birds which flew over the area and saw one of their own, dead and turned on its back to afford them a better view, would get scared. It is as simple as that.

That approach was so efficient that, according to departmental experts, birds would not go within about one kilometre of the site where they saw a dead bird.

When you study these birds, and I had the opportunity to do so since these birds are a problem in my riding, you understand how intelligent they are. In fact, they are so bright that, at the risk of repeating myself, they would only need a couple of days

to tell the difference between a real rifle and one that is used only to make noise without hurting them.

However, it is interesting to observe such a phenomenon and to see that these birds will do everything possible to avoid an area where they feel threatened.

I would like to say that this problem is different every year. Apparently, it has something to do with the heat of the earth. For example, birds base the speed at which they head for the north on the degree of thawing. If the earth does not thaw fast enough, they will stay in my riding for maybe three weeks. Can you imagine the damage they can make during that time. Sometimes, like last year, they only stay for about five or six days, because the earth warms up more rapidly. Maybe the frost was not so bad, or things were warming up more rapidly, or something like that.

After a short stay in our area, they resumed their journey to the north. Needless to say that, with the very cold weather we had this winter, I suspect these birds will stay a little longer in my riding this year, unfortunately for our farmers, but fortunately for bird watchers.

That is probably why they will stay with us for a few more days, even though they have been in this area now for two or three weeks.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent to suspend the sitting until such time as the House is ready to deal with the adjournment debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The deputy whip may not be aware but I believe the House is ready to deal with the matters on the late show.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I was not aware the members were already present in the House. That being said, I amend that to move that we proceed immediately to the adjournment debate and that Mr. Speaker see it as the time of adjournment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 25 last, I put a question to the Minister of Industry asking him to

explain the absence of representatives of the cultural community on the committee in charge of defining the government's strategy for the information highway.

I also conveyed to him my concern over the fact that the provinces were not involved in the process. Today I would like further clarification to be provided with respect to these two questions.

I represent the riding of Chicoutimi. The Saguenay region was the first in Quebec to welcome a multimedia centre, an investment of $80 million which will result in 250 jobs. I feel concerned by the electronic highway.

In the Throne Speech and again in the budget speech, the government announced it had the intention of putting forward a Canadian strategy for developing the information highway.

As we all know, the government has appointed an electronic highway advisory board. This board has 29 members, including one from my riding in the person of Mr. Charles Sirois, and I am very pleased with that.

Among these 29 members are representatives from the cable broadcasting, broadcasting and telecommunications industries, but none from the cultural industry. But there are living strengths, creative forces and expertise only waiting for an invitation to share their vision.

The cultural community is structured. It has its own structures and experienced representatives. Why are they excluded from this process? In the name of what? The artisans of the cultural industry cannot be ignored when dealing with this issue.

Besides the establishment of an infrastructure per se, there is the content of the information travelling on this electronic highway. One of the objectives of the board is to strengthen the French and English cultural identities; yet the board has no representatives from the cultural community. There is a glaring contradiction in there. How can this operation be credible when the committee does not include any representatives of the cultural community, despite the extra dimension and the extremely important expertise they could bring? This is not a whim but a matter of representation. Culture will not be affected only indirectly; it is at the heart of the electronic highway.

Although the committee includes 29 members, the Minister of Industry did not appoint any representative of the cultural community. Industry, however, is well represented. They apparently preferred to leave out players who could have made a necessary, useful contribution.

Under its mandate, the council is being asked to deal with copyright and intellectual property issues and to come up with results. Is this not an admission that workers in cultural industries make a considerable contribution? Why are these players absent from the process defined by the government, then?

The Ostry report recommended creating a ministerial committee and provincial participation as well. The government ignored that. Instead, the electronic highway will be developed behind closed doors, with only one player and in the federal arena. Excluding the provinces and the cultural community is a bad start in designing the electronic highway.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the concerns raised by the hon. member for Chicoutimi regarding the government's strategy on the electronic highway.

The government has already stated clearly that it has three main objectives in that regard: to promote job creation; to give every Canadian access to that highway; and to reinforce Canadian sovereignty and cultural identity.

I wish to assure the hon. member that the government was and continues to be very aware of the information highway's cultural dimension.

The advisory council will contribute to the dialogue on this subject. I believe we should all be appreciative that so many prominent men and women have accepted to donate their time and effort in this vital cause. By its very mandate the council will reach out to Canadians. In so doing it will help to identify key policy issues as well as to involve a wide range of stakeholders.

The hon. member for Chicoutimi said that the cultural community was not represented on the advisory council.

In selecting the advisory council members, the government tried to appoint the most qualified people, those who can best put their knowledge and experience to the service of all Canadians.

In that perspective, I believe that the government should be congratulated for appointing such remarkable Canadians to the advisory council on the electronic highway.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5) the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5.38 p.m.)