Debates of Nov. 4th, 1997

Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak this morning on Bill C-7, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act.

I would like to remind the House that this bill was first introduced by Mr. Bouchard when he was Minister of the Environment in this House in 1990, at the time of the “beau risque”.

I would also remind honourable members that it is the premier of Quebec who sponsored the bill and the recent agreement between the federal and the provincial governments.

I would like to focus on our parks, particularly those in Quebec and especially this one. Quebeckers, like all other Canadians, love the outdoors. This park will be an important tool for tourism development in our region and an essential facility for learning about marine life in our province and especially in the beautiful Saguenay River, which is almost comparable in terms of size and water flow to the great St. Lawrence.

One interesting feature of this bill is that it was initiated by ordinary people. Local people consulted each other in order to develop this provincial asset. Local people, with the help of the provincial and federal governments, came together to create an essential facility.

Most interestingly, even today the agreement signed provides that the marine park will be administered by local people. Naturally, the committee will also be composed of a federal representative, a provincial representative, as well as representatives of the surrounding municipalities and RCMs.

This new marine park—which I invite you to visit—will be not only a tourist attraction but also a protected area for fish from our ocean and our river.

Like all my Bloc colleagues, I support Bill C-7.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out—I think I mentioned it—that several provincial and federal ministers worked on this project in succession and that they all did a very good job.

From 1985 to 1988, federal minister McMillan worked very hard on this project in cooperation with Mr. Lincoln, who was then Quebec's Minister of the Environment. Out of this came out the St. Lawrence action plan and the first millions of dollars to be invested in the national marine park project. Mr. Bouchard worked on the project in 1990, followed by Mr. Charest.

I think that today, we must pay homage to our Minister of Canadian Heritage. At the risk of infringing on our rules, I will use her name, Sheila Copps. She put the final touches on the bill. Those are the words she used this morning to officially confirm that the project is now official.

Many people worked very hard on that project and I am glad to be back in the House, if only to vote in favor of this great bill.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, immediately after my appointment as Quebec's Minister of the Environment in 1985, I was visited by two young people, a young woman named Léone Pippard and a young man named Bruce MacKay of Greenpeace. This was the first time anyone spoke to me of the idea of having a Saguenay Marine Park. Léone Pippard had been monitoring and researching the beluga in the St. Lawrence from a base on Île-aux-Coudres. These two represented a broad range of people in the community, scientists and politicians who wanted a marine park in the Saguenay.

In 1988, when the federal-provincial agreement was signed between the Conservative government of the time and the Government of Quebec, the preliminary St. Lawrence plan for 1988-93 earmarked $10 million for the establishment of the Saguenay Marine Park.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate those who have been involved over the years in this undertaking of such importance, above and beyond political lines: the member for Chicoutimi, who gave it its first impetus in many ways, certainly in the political arena; Minister Tom McMillan, of the Conservatives, who joined in and who signed the 1988 agreement with Quebec.

What is interesting about this undertaking is that it started with the signing of an agreement between a Conservative federal government and a Liberal provincial government in Quebec, and now it being finalized by a Liberal government in Ottawa and a Parti Quebecois government in Quebec. This is, therefore, an undertaking that goes beyond party lines, that rises far above the political bickering we see, unfortunately, all too often.

It took a year for this project to come to fruition, to make the thing a reality soon with Bill C-7.

The Saguenay marine park is an exceptional achievement. It is one of the first marine parks in Canada, many would say the biggest to date. It is the result of a unique form of co-operation between two levels of government—those of Quebec and Canada—which managed to align and complement their respective, complex jurisdictions. It took a lot of negotiations to achieve an agreement that reflects both the integrity of the jurisdictions and the idea of working together to make them complementary.

This park stands for environmental protection, conservation and most importantly education and scientific research. The extraordinary thing, as many of my colleagues have mentioned, is that this park is the product of co-operation and perhaps the most extensive consultation done on a project in Canada for a very long time.

It was a long drawn-out process, a federal-provincial agreement that established the interdepartmental groups that pulled the project together.

In 1993, consultation was expanded. All the groups involved were given the basic ideas to work on in order to improve the original project, to define the context of the Saguenay marine park as well as the guidelines, the regulations and the final legislation.

In addition to the two governments involved, there was a master plan for the marine park, expressing people's desire to work together to develop the Saguenay fjord and the St. Lawrence estuary.

As I said, this park stands for environmental protection, public education, scientific research, and sustainable and harmonious land use.

As well the management plan defines the physical boundaries of the park. Within these boundaries not only are the two levels of government working together but the aboriginal communities as well. They have been consulted and have been very much a part of the project and will continue to be along with the local communities.

One of the defining elements of the park is the constitution of a co-ordinating committee. It is the first time in Canada that two governments have worked very closely together with their community organizations to form a co-ordinating committee which will be entrusted with the management of the park. This in itself represents a tremendous departure from the usual stereotype where governments decide and run everything. This will truly be a community project where the government is a partner willing to share, listen and help when necessary.

The selection of a site is not an accident. As my colleague from Chicoutimi knows far better than I do, this is one of the most beautiful and breathtaking sites in Canada or anywhere for that matter. It is the harbour of 54 species of vertebrates and 248 species of invertebrates.

When consultations were extended in 1993 we decided to look at the use of that park.

It is much more complicated to draw up a zoning plan for a marine park than one for land environments. Today, the management plan will include this zoning plan as well as a tourist route crossing three marine ecosystems. This in itself is quite a challenge and shows great promise for the future of a kind of sustainable development that will make the use of this exceptional marine environment possible, to develop a tourist attraction that will greatly benefit the local economy, while at the same time incorporating a fairly strong element of public education.

This park is a model for the future.

It is a wonderful model for the future because of its composition and because of the way various community groups and interveners of all types have joined in the work in this regard.

In fact, it is in line with the recommendations made by the auditor general in his report on Canadian parks.

It follows the thrust of the famous Bow Valley study and the recommendation of the auditor general's report that the first requirement for any park is to ensure its ecological integrity. The ecological integrity is the very essence, the very heart of a park. Without ecological integrity all the rest dies.

We need education and that depends on the ecological integrity of a park. We need tourism and that depends on the proper ecological use of a park.

On June 5, 1997, the Government of Quebec passed Bill 86, which legislated the establishment of this marine park. We needed to do the same on our side. Unfortunately, the election delayed things, but today Bill C-7 is finally before us.

I think a number of conclusions should be drawn from this project. First, successful co-operation among all stakeholders, starting with a Conservative federal government and a Liberal government in Quebec, followed by a Liberal federal government and a PQ government in Quebec. This instance of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments certainly was successful, positive and harmonious, with broader consultation of the public at large, including the first nations, the local population of course, as well as all sorts of other stakeholders with various qualifications, academics and scientists.

In conclusion, if we believe that in order to create a lasting society, a society that the native peoples would describe as a society composed of seven generations, which will live on long after we are gone, which will be able to preserve its natural heritage, its natural resources for more than one generation, for seven generations and more, then we must change our attitudes, our behaviours, look at things in a new way, and find new ways of preserving this natural heritage. What could be better than a marine park to bring this about, to rally people around a constructive project, an outstanding ecological project, to add a dimension of public education, environmental awareness, particularly for future generations? It is an exceptional tool for promoting public awareness.

In conclusion, in a House where more often than not, whether during debate or oral question period, we listen to contradictory and conflicting arguments on an almost daily basis, how many bills are there that we all agree on? They can be counted on the fingers of one hand. In fact, that might be more fingers than we need.

Today we see a bill that goes beyond political disagreements, that goes beyond social conflict, and that truly unites us. Whatever our party, whatever our walk of life, we all rejoice in the creation of this outstanding ecological and tourist project.

It is therefore a unifying bill above all. I myself have felt for many years now, well before I was even in politics and became environment minister, that the ecology was one of the most unifying elements of our society. Along with health, the ecology is something that affects us all. When it comes to health and the environment, political partisanship, and religious and philosophical differences are laid aside. We find our common ground through the extraordinary medium of the environment.

The bill before us today gives concrete expression to this coming together of ideas and the desire to do something together that will benefit the public, and our young people, that will serve as a example, that will contribute to sustainable development for the future, not just for ourselves, but for future generations.

Indeed the environment is one of the greatest binding threads among us. This is a concrete example of what it should be.

I rejoice in the support of all the parties in the House that have spoken warmly about this project. I welcome their support. I thank them for it.

I congratulate all the parties for their spirit in trying to bring about Bill C-7. It is a gesture of joining together to create something which will be unique for Canada, whether we live in Quebec or beyond. I hope all Canadians and people from around the world will come to the marine park in the Saguenay to see the wonderful ecological heritage.

I hope we will all join together to pass Bill C-7 soon. All the very best for the marine park in the Saguenay.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the words of my colleague, who is the chairman of the heritage committee, by the way. He can count on our full co-operation for the speedy passage of Bill C-7.

I also heard messages that are quite self-explanatory. He spoke of successful co-operation between all stakeholders. He stated that this co-operation, and I noted the three words, was “successful, positive, harmonious”. I think that what is interesting in this bill is the basic lesson it is teaching us.

I remember, several years ago, the Government of Quebec wanted to acquire the Mingan Islands, which belonged to a private firm. At that time, Mr. Trudeau, who was Prime Minister of Canada and for whom politics was always “The sky is the limit”, had put $5 million on the table et we lost our bid. On our side, we had the impression that the federal government had just robbed us of a part of our territory that was dear to us, the Mingan Islands.

Quebec is one of the provinces with the least number of national parks managed by Parks Canada, although we do have many things that are managed by Parks Canada, because we are rather protective of our territory. I think that the lesson to be learned from this joint project that we are about to implement is that from the very beginning, the federal government and the Quebec government have respected one another and have also respected each other's jurisdictions under the Constitution.

At no time did the Canadian government attempt to expropriate land, and at no time did the Quebec government attempt to take over an area that is the responsibility of the Canadian government. I believe that this is the basic lesson that we should draw from this project. When there is mutual respect for areas of responsibility, Quebec is capable of working within the framework of existing arrangements.

But if we look back on history, each time that Quebec is rejected for what it is, as a founding nation, that it is rejected for its identity and its culture, or that an attempt is made to invade its areas of responsibility, each time that the federal government goes beyond that limit, that there is a lack of basic respect for areas of responsibility, whatever the reasons for the federal government wanting to take over a provincial area of responsibility, it is always in such a situation that Quebec reels back, jumps on the defensive and adopts a rather adversarial approach.

I would like to ask a question to my colleague. Does he not find important that the lesson we are learning here, or the experiment we are trying with Bill C-7, could be applied also to every area of responsibility, and that the federal government could learn to keep within its own jurisdiction?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can only agree that each level of government must stick to its own areas of jurisdiction and that we must co-operate in the greatest possible mutual respect.

I have always believed that, in any federal-provincial project, in any policy change, the two sides, that is the federal government and the Quebec government, must respect each other.

I too find that Bill C-7 is a unifying initiative. It should serve as a model and I hope it will for all the bills that will come before us in the future. I fully agree with the hon. member.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question or, rather, a comment for the Liberal member.

We are willing to work together to achieve such results. We want the federal and provincial governments, for example the Quebec government, to work together. If we are to co-operate, as you pointed out, a feeling of mutual respect must prevail between the two governments. It seems to me that seeking separation is not the way of showing we want to work together. It is by co-operating, not by walking away, that we will achieve something.

You are welcome to comment if you wish.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is by working together that we realize that we can succeed. This bill shows that Canada is a country where people can work together, where we can have a successful partnership and where federalism can be constructive, positive and harmonious. Therefore, in this regard, I believe that Bill C-7 is an striking example of what Canada must be, and I believe that whatever side one is on, this shows that when there is co-operation, it can work very well.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parks)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity as the Secretary of State for Parks to address this important piece of legislation.

This is my first opportunity as secretary to have legislation in this House. I believe that when this is passed it will form an important step, an important part of what we are trying to do in this country to protect our special places.

Bill C-7, the establishment of this park, represents some important initiatives, some important achievements. This is the first time ever that we will have a federal-provincial marine park established in legislation and I think that is a good milestone. It is a good accomplishment and it is something excellent that this House is moving toward.

It is moving on a broader sense to completing and working on what we hope to have one day, a national group or national plan of marine conservation areas. We recently published some material. We indicated there are some 29 specific marine ecosystems, marine environments that we want to protect and this represents one of the steps along that way.

I think it is an important step in protecting a very critical ecosystem in that part of the country where the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay meet and in particular, as some other members have mentioned, the protection of the beluga whale.

As was mentioned by the previous speaker, it is a good example of this government's working with its provincial counterparts to achieve some important objectives in this country.

As I said, this represents our achieving some very broad principles which we are dedicated to as a government. We believe it is important that we work toward protecting our built and natural heritage, that we ensure that we can pass on, unimpaired, to future generations these special places we have in Canada. This legislation is one step toward that important objective.

What we will be doing is honouring what happened over 100 years ago when people had the foresight to establish the first national park in Banff. We look back to that over 100 years ago and we see how much foresight those people had when they undertook that.

I hope with the actions we are taking in this House today that 100 years from now generations will be able to look back to us and say that we shared the same foresight as the people did over 100 years ago who first began the national parks in western Canada.

It is important to note as well that we are doing this, we are providing this protection as a public trust in this country under a public mandate and to be answerable for all Canadians from coast to coast.

Bill C-7, which establishes this marine park, is one part of an overall strategy that we are undertaking as a government, that we are undertaking as a nation, to protect our special places. We undertake that in a large number of ways.

As I alluded, we have an extensive national park system. Indeed today we have 38 national parks. We also protect our national historic sites. Through the Historic Sites and Monuments Board we have designated over 700 important areas in Canada as national historic sites. Parks Canada operates directly almost 130 of them. We are able to protect and to ensure our heritage for future generations.

In addition, a number of important canals and waterways are recognized as historic and come under the mandate of Parks Canada, waterways such as the Chambly Canal in Quebec, the Rideau Canada in Ontario and the Trent-Severn Waterway near my own home riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka.

We have talked about the legislation in terms of co-operation with the provinces. We also operate with the provinces the Canadian heritage river system. We have an opportunity to work with our provincial counterparts on important waterways within Canada that have been nominated by the provinces that have come forward to the federal government. Between those nominated and those designated we have almost 30 such waterways in Canada.

We also work to protect our national heritage railways stations so that a very important part of our Canadian heritage, our Canadian history, will be maintained for future generations. Parks Canada works with other government departments to protect the built heritage already contained within the federal government.

I am pleased as the Secretary of State for Parks to have the opportunity to pursue a number of policies that will help us continue to do those types of things in the future and continue to protect those special places.

One commitment we have made is one that I believe is shared as a good objective by most Canadians. I am referring to the expansion of our national parks system. As I mentioned earlier we have 38 national parks. We have designated 39 specific geographic areas in Canada that we would like to see a park represented within. We have 38 parks and we are represented in 24 of them.

We are working actively in co-operation with provincial government, with territorial governments, with first nations, with other aboriginal groups and with stakeholders to expand the park system so that early in the next century we will be able to say we are represented with a national park in all 39 regions.

Good progress has been made. Within the last two years we have set aside close to 60,000 square kilometres for protection. That is important progress. I am pleased we have been able to accomplish it.

Later in this session I hope to be able to table amendments to the National Parks Act which will provide a legislative framework to achieve these accomplishments even more efficiently and with a streamlined process that will allow us to provide protection in an orderly fashion.

In terms of the work we are doing in protecting our special places, we are committed to undertake an ecological review of existing parks. We will be proceeding with that objective in the near future. It is important not only to look at expanding the parks system but to make sure those parks within the framework right now, the ones that exist today, are being correctly managed and correctly protected.

In terms of protecting our special places we announced in the 1996 budget the movement to a Parks Canada agency. This will be a public body reporting directly to the minister and accountable to parliament. It will help to provide new organizational, financial and human resources tools to the employees of Parks Canada. It will allow us to apply our resources such that we can go even further in protecting our special places.

We hope to build on Bill C-7, on the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. We have held extensive consultations with Canadians to move forward with comprehensive legislation within which other marine conservation areas can be established.

Our government has aggressive objectives that we hope to put in place over the next several months so that we as a nation, as Canadians, can recognize the specialness, the uniqueness of what we have. When we had the opportunity to travel around the country we learned very quickly that we have some of the most beautiful places in the world right here in Canada. Part of our parks system is to ensure those special places are not only for the enjoyment of this generation of Canadians. The responsibility we intend to live up to is to ensure those special places are there unimpaired for future generations to enjoy.

That is our dual mandate. That is what we wish to accomplish and that is why we are bringing forward this type of legislation and the other tools I mentioned that will give us the ability to protect those areas for today as well as for the future.

Some important principles in establishing this park with Bill C-7 can be applied as we move forward in the future. This is the product of an agreement between different levels of government. It is important to see that kind of co-operation. We in Parks Canada ensure that we work with our partners, with the provincial and territorial governments, with the first nations, aboriginal groups and stakeholders, to make sure we have a consensus and an understanding of where we want to go.

In my time as a secretary of state and in talking to Canadians from coast to coast to coast I have noticed a deep desire among Canadians to see us move forward with these programs, to see us move forward with the protection of our special places.

The establishment of this park and the establishment of other parks and other historic sites should represent an expression of public will and not government working in isolation. That is why we took so much time, and I think appropriately so, on the consultative process. We wanted to make sure various components within the community, such as the public at large, the commercial components or the business components, understood, appreciated and bought into the types of objectives we were trying to achieve.

The bill helps to protect a very important and fragile marine ecosystem in that part of the country. That is the genesis of the bill. That is why we have moved forward. That is why we have co-operation between governments and the buy in of the public. They see the importance of protecting the ecosystem for conservation purposes and for the benefit of future and present Canadians.

As we operate our existing parks and historic sites, and as we move forward to create more, it is important to ensure that we have an opportunity through these facilities to educate Canadians; that we have an opportunity to provide them with recreational opportunities; and that we an opportunity to allow Canadians to celebrate the specialness of our unique land and to celebrate the specialness of what we are. That is important and that is part of what we do.

In conclusion, I urge the House to support the legislation, to allow it to move forward, to be passed and to come into law so we will have accomplished one more important step in protecting the nation's special places.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of the Secretary of State for Parks about this issue. He will know it is the Reform Party position to support the bill in principle at second reading, although we have some serious concerns we want to have addressed at committee.

I wonder if it might be instructive to take a look at the current practices of Parks Canada with respect to existing parks to try to get a feeling of how this park will be treated.

If we take a look at Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba, we have a situation where people entered into leases with Parks Canada. The leases very clearly and specifically say they are renewable and will go on forever. Now Parks Canada is suddenly coming along and saying “No, I do not think so”. They are trying to force negotiation when there is no place for negotiation.

Let us take a look at the situation in Field, British Columbia, where there has been a decision to remove the trailer park which is very important as low income housing to people delivering services as parks employees or working in the parks. On one side of the coin we have Parks Canada saying “We will leave you alone, but if you want to move out of the park and you want to sell your trailer to someone else, we will not give you an occupancy permit. We will not stop you. We will not dismantle the trailer park. We just will not give an occupancy permit should you decide to opt out”.

There is the whole situation of the Trans-Canada Highway through the Yoho area and the movement of the maintenance facility there. I have repeatedly asked for a cost justification from Parks Canada not only as the parks critic but also as the member of Parliament for the area. The department has not responded to me.

Probably the most flagrant one—and there are hundreds of examples—has to be the issue of the landing strip in Banff where there is a court injunction that clearly and specifically states there shall be no action on the part of Parks Canada, its employees or agents which in any way would equate to shutting down the strip.

In answer to a question from my colleague from Yellowhead the other day the secretary of state had the audacity to say that they are not really shutting it down, but he did admit that they are ticketing pilots when they land there.

This is an issue of safety. This strip happens to be at the confluence of three valleys. When they fly in from Calgary past the airstrip and head up toward Lake Louise, there is another valley and very frequently a wall of weather comes down there. I have flown to that airstrip with a pilot from Invermere who has had to land on that airstrip twice in his career because of weather conditions. He had gone as far as Lake Louise and had to turn back rather than being able to reach Springbank, the closest airport, because the weather had closed in behind him.

Would the secretary of state tell Canadians how in the world he can countenance his employees flagrantly going against a court injunction and taking action by way of ticketing and overly aggressive inspections, the equivalent of shutting down that airstrip, when the court in fact has said no?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across, the critic responsible for heritage and Parks Canada. From discussions with him I know he has a deep commitment to our national parks system and to the various other things I have talked about in terms of protecting our special places.

I am going to get to the specific point on the airstrip in a second. However, speaking in general on the original comments made, it goes back to what I said in my speech about the fact that there are two major components that the national parks system is trying to accomplish.

Yes, parks are established for the use of Canadians and we encourage that use. Over the past 100 years we have seen the traditional use built up, but there is another very important component to our mandate. That is our obligation to pass those special places on to future generations unimpaired. That is an important mandate and stewardship which we must ensure is fulfilled. It means that we need to find a balance between the uses that are allowed today and the uses which will ensure those facilities will be there in the future. Many of the situations the member brought forward have to do with that balance.

He mentioned cost justification and wanting to get the information. I will undertake to get that information to the member as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at second reading of Bill C-7, an act to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.

The Saguenay region, the Charlevoix region is undoubtedly the loveliest region of Quebec, but personally I would say the second loveliest region after the Mauricie region. A great number of Quebeckers are familiar with that region, which is known in Quebec as Little Switzerland, with its majestic landscapes, its remarkable vistas, and also as the area where salt water reaches up to the Saguenay, where the St. Lawrence's freshwater ends.

It is also a region that shares many characteristics with the Mauricie, because of its river, the Saguenay River, which is a bit bigger, a bit more imposing than the Saint-Maurice River. The Saint-Maurice River, which today is free from the logs that once cluttered it, has also become very majestic.

Recently, I heard the member from Saint-Maurice in the National Assembly, who is the Deputy Speaker there, speak proudly of the attributes of the Saint-Maurice River, which can be compared to a certain extent to the wonders of the Saguenay River.

I have a question for our colleague. We know that because of its beauty, the site that will be included in the marine park should attract numerous international visitors. I would like to know what the input from the federal government will be.

There is one small point I would like to make, however. All this may have been done in harmony, but the federal government's financial co-operation should not be referred to today as a gift. Quebeckers will be paying $30 billion in taxes to Ottawa, to be redistributed, and this is part of good management.

I would like to know what part the federal government will play in attracting international visitors to enjoy this lovely site that will be developed by the whole community.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows from the work we have done together in the House, tourism as an economic generator is important for the area from which I come. In my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka almost 50% of the jobs depend on tourism.

Obviously the establishment of the marine park in and by itself will help to attract individuals to that part of the country. In so doing it will create economic activity which will assist the population as a whole. It will help with job creation. It will help the small business community and it will help to build tourism.

This federal government has made tourism one of its priorities. We have established the Canadian Tourism Commission which works with partners such as provincial governments and tourism associations to help develop and market particular areas. I am sure there will be opportunities through that. There is also a regional development agency which operates in the province of Quebec which looks for partners from the local community and from the provincial government.

I am sure that with the establishment of this park we will see that type of activity take place, while always remembering the other side of that balance which is to ensure we do it in a way which protects the ecosystem and makes sure it will be there for future generations of Canadians.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-7.

This morning the Minister of Canadian Heritage talked about her experience with the wonders of nature in Newfoundland. My colleague from British Columbia talked about his experience in the Rockies. I want to add that I grew up close to national parks in east Africa. As such I am a very strong supporter of preserving our environment and its unique habitants. One can proudly call them national treasures. These treasures also belong to the citizens of the world. Nations fortunate enough to be custodians of these treasures must fulfill their obligations to preserve this heritage for present and future generations.

The purpose of Bill C-7 is to create a marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay fjord and the St. Lawrence estuary, and to conserve and manage its marine resources.

This bill represents the culmination of an agreement which was signed by the federal government and the Quebec provincial government in April 1990. The Quebec national assembly ratified its commitment to the establishment and maintenance of this park earlier this year in June. Its bill will come into force once the federal legislation has been enacted.

This bill is a first. Not only is this the first federal-provincial salt water marine park, it also represents the first time these two governments jointly agreed to establish a park and to co-ordinate their park activities. Under the agreement made in 1990, the Quebec government retains the ownership over the seabed and the sub-soil resources. The federal government maintains responsibility over matters such as navigation and fisheries.

Since the agreement was signed in 1990, the two governments have worked together on legislative mandates respecting the park, compliance strategies, emergency plans and on research and education programs to ensure the protection of the area designated for the marine park.

The level of involvement by the regional and local organizations in this whole process has shown the general support for the creation of such a park. There has been no transfer of land in creating this park as both governments are responsible for their own jurisdiction in creating and protecting this park.

This park comprises a marine environment exclusively and measures 1,138 square kilometres. The boundaries may be changed if both governments agree on such changes and only after the public has been consulted.

A park management plan must be tabled in Parliament within one year of the park being established. The plan is to be reviewed every seven years and must be tabled in Parliament. I will speak on these points later.

Funding for the park was provided for in the 1995 federal budget. The federal contribution toward the development and operating costs is to total $20.7 million over five years. Additional funding from the federal government over 1989-93 was in the range of $6 million. Between 1993-95 an additional $4 million had been set aside from the green plan for the funding of this park.

Parliament must approve all new parks and any changes to existing parks. Although the auditor general feels that this is a cumbersome process, we welcome the fact that we have to debate such changes.

Our national parks system is a great source of pride for all of us. I do not think there are too many people who have yet to visit our magnificent parks. They provide us with a connection to nature and also give us a glimpse of our past and even our future.

National parks are owned by all Canadians and are supposedly managed on their behalf. By debating changes to the national parks system in Parliament, the government is held more accountable for how these parks are managed. The official opposition welcomes this debate and the opportunity to see that the government is held accountable for its actions dealing with our national parks.

That being said, there is some concern about the way in which this bill came before Parliament. By the time we as parliamentarians were given the opportunity to debate this bill, the agreement to establish the park had already been in place for several years. Should there not have been some consultation with Parliament before such an agreement was entered into?

I know that this is somewhat of a special case and that there were extensive consultations with local and regional groups in the area in which the park is to be established, but I wonder about future cases. Will the government do the same thing the next time? Are we nothing more than a rubber stamp?

This is the first of many future national marine conservation areas which the government set out in 1995 with its sea to sea strategy. At present studies are under way to judge the feasibility of establishing 15 more NMCAs and another six within the next two years. To date four areas have already been established. What guidelines are in place to ensure that there is adequate consultation with Parliament and with the areas involved?

Even though I have some concerns with this legislation, most of them dealing with the manner in which the government approached Parliament, I wholeheartedly support this bill. I believe it is important to live up to the agreement made at the beginning of the decade to conserve our environment, in this case our marine environment.

I would like to take a few moments to go over some of the specifics of the bill and deal with the concerns which I have.

This bill outlines four zones for managing parks resources. Zone one deals with the rare, unique, natural and cultural features that are sensitive to any type of land use. Zone two is similar to the previous zone, however some form of use can occur. Zone three deals with recreational activities. Zone four deals with land which will be accessible to many human use activities, such as commercial shipping and fishing, and natural resource harvesting.

There are no specific levels of protection described in this bill. They are more clearly outlined in the 1995 management plan. Fortunately this plan goes into much greater detail concerning how these regions will be protected and available for use. However as it is only a plan, it is subject to change quite easily.

As I alluded to earlier, a new management plan is to be tabled in Parliament a year after the park is established and is subject to review every seven years by the respective provincial and federal ministers responsible. My concern is that the government of the day, either due to pressures from certain groups on either side of the issue or from economic pressures, may decide to make changes in the plan which may be detrimental to the park and to the organisms that the act is to protect.

Another concern relates to governor in council appointments concerning the administration of federal activities within the marine park. The minister can under the powers outlined in Bill C-7 conduct activities to advance ecosystem knowledge and to enter into intergovernmental agreements. The minister would have to allow for public participation and could cancel and issue permits. If it is not the minister currently responsible, namely the Minister of Canadian Heritage, then it will be up to the cabinet to choose who is in control of this park.

On a related note, some concern also exists with respect to the regulations.

Currently the two governments are working to harmonize the activities of both levels of government in this park. This harmonization committee currently is comprised of representatives from the federal, provincial and four regional governments, the affected band council, the scientific community and a conservation group.

At present they are ensuring the goals of the management plan established in 1995 are put into place and are serving as a consultant to the respective federal and provincial minister responsible for ensuring that the strategies and methods outlined in the plan are attained.

The main concern here comes with the minister's power to determine the composition of this committee. Although the 1995 management plan has already established the composition, it is at the minister's discretion to change this composition.

My main concern deals with the accountability of the minister. Will such changes be announced or will there be some consultation with Parliament before any changes are made?

A good portion of the bill deals with compliance issues and enforcement officers powers to control unsanctioned activities in the park, including their authority to conduct searches with and without warrants and to make arrests.

Fines for individuals range from an undetermined amount for minor fines and anywhere from $10,000 and/or and six month jail sentence for summary convictions to $20,000 and/or a maximum five year jail term for indictable offences.

For corporations, the fines range from $100,000 to $500,000 for more serious infractions. Courts are also given the authority to order compensation for any remedial action necessary.

I support the general principle of this bill. Both the federal and provincial governments over the past several years have indicated that there is at the time a strong commitment to conserving this unique area.

The regulations and management plan that have been put in place appear to give this bill its teeth. While I can understand why these two governments have proceeded this way, as it is much easier to amend management plans and regulations when not legislated into law, I do hope this practice is maintained by future governments and that adequate public consultation takes place before any changes are made.

As I said already, national parks such as the one proposed here are national treasures for all Canadians to enjoy. It would be a shame if actions were taken which would not reflect the sense of immense pride we take in our national parks.

I therefore join my colleagues on both sides of the House in supporting this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, once again I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-7, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act.

As I have already said, this is one of the most beautiful regions of Quebec, and what is more, this bill is the result of a special collaborative effort by the community concerned. In other words, the people themselves decided to do something, and have very ably moved this bill along for several years, so that today we find ourselves considering it with a view to enabling the federal government to move into this fine project which, as I have said, encompasses both shores of the St. Lawrence.

We need to realize that this bill involves three regional municipalities, two on the north shore and the other on the south. It also concerns a very particular part of the St. Lawrence, as I have said, the point at the mouth of the Saguenay where the fresh water stops and the salt water starts. This project is even more valuable because its intent is to protect the ecosystem in place there, particularly the beluga, the focus of world wide attention, and the whales, which attract thousands upon thousands of tourists: Quebeckers, Canadians, Europeans, and increasing numbers of Asians.

It is a region set apart by its beauty, offering some very attractive places. There is, for example, the Manoir Richelieu, which has had a casino for a few years now. There is also the Manoir Tadoussac, in Tadoussac, which is really beautiful. In terms of nature itself, all along the Saguenay there are mountains, known as the Trois Soeurs, with La Trinité, L'Éternité and another whose name I forget.

It is worth a visit, and I invite those of our viewers who have yet to visit this beautiful part of Quebec to do so, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. It is, without bragging, an area of international calibre. For this reason, I was questioning the secretary of state earlier on the government's efforts to encourage international tourism, since its responsibility is to draw foreign visitors to Canada and hopefully to Quebec.

I do not consider the answer particularly clear, but we are counting on the past activities of Canada's embassies and consulates to promote the merits of Quebec abroad. Everyone knows that 80% of the diplomatic corps coming from Canada and not Quebec—as I heard it put recently by an industrial commissioner—does not speak French. I think we must insist that the Canadian government, with the money that comes from Quebec pockets, make a creditable and basic effort to promote this unique location as a site for international tourism.

As previously mentioned, one should point to the collective effort implied in such a project, which found its genesis locally, was the subject of public hearings, is already largely supported by the Quebec government and can now count on the co-operation of the federal government to go ahead even more efficiently.

This naturally beautiful area deserves to be encouraged. It marks the beginning of the St. Lawrence estuary. There is now a road along the North Shore, which goes all the way up to Natashquan, the birth place of Gilles Vigneault, who composed “Gens du pays”, the closest thing we have to a national anthem. From Tadoussac a very pleasant road leads to Chicoutimi along the Saguenay river, through very picturesque villages—I went there over 10 years ago—like the very nice village of Sacré-Coeur. The village of Tableau also comes to mind; you come to this place where the mountain looks like a blackboard and you almost feel like writing something on it.

This area is well worth a visit. I hope this will entice people who are listening today. It is one of the very beautiful areas in Quebec and, for the time being in Canada; it is aptly dubbed the Quebec Switzerland.

I would like to ask my colleague who spoke before me, if he is not gone yet—if he is not here, one must conclude he is gone—what his idea of the Canadian government's effort was.

We know how hard the Canadian government tries to promote the Rockies, and rightly so, it is one of the most spectacular areas in Canada, if not the world. I would have liked to ask my colleague what efforts if any, in his view, according to the information he has, if he has more than us, the Canadian government intends to make to promote internationally this gorgeous site called the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I encourage the government to really promote this unique national park around the world. I agree with the hon. member, as I mentioned in my speech, that national parks are a treasure for Canada but they are also a treasure for all human races.

We should promote this national park all across the world, through all the means that we have from our Canadian embassies, brochures and tourism listings to promote this unique heritage. We are the custodians of this great national park for all the world.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-7, an act to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. This bill holds a special interest for me as I represent the 70,000 people of the riding of Jonquière, which is adjacent to this unique park.

As my colleague for Rimouski—Mitis said, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill. Indeed, more than seven years after the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec signed an agreement to establish a marine park where the Saguenay river enters the St. Lawrence estuary, the time has finally come to pass legislation establishing that park.

I remind you that this park will include a unique feature of Quebec geography, the Saguenay fjord, where a mighty river flows. As you know, this fjord opens onto the largest estuary in the world. This is a place blessed with a large variety of living organisms. There are several species of plankton and many species of fish, both fresh and salt water fish. This area offers excellent conditions for breeding and feeding, and it is also a staging and wintering area for a number of water fowls.

As you can see, this is a special environment that should be protected. This is the most beautiful site in our country to be.

The time to pass the marine park legislation has finally arrived. I say “finally” because the agreement was signed on April 6, 1990 and the local and regional communities, the environmental groups, the native peoples and the scientific community, who are all committed to improving the management and protection of the rich and varied marine resources of the area, had to wait seven years, I repeat seven years, before that agreement finally translated into something concrete.

We will recall that under this agreement both governments are committed, within their constitutional jurisdictions, to passing legislative or regulatory measures for the purpose of, and I quote:

(a) the creation of a marine park called “Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park” and located at the confluence of the Saguenay River and the northern half of the St. Lawrence Estuary;

(b) the conservation of the marine fauna and flora, as well as maintaining the integrity of ecosystems on this territory;

(c) the protection of the territory and its other resources;

(d) the development of these resources for present and future generations; and

(e) the appreciation of these resources by the public.

And I am not talking about the strong pressures exerted since the 1970s by local people—despite those in this House who would like to take the credit—for action to be taken in order to preserve the rich and diverse marine life in the Saguenay region. It did take the Canadian government some time to respond to the will that had been unanimously expressed for a long time by the local people.

The least we can say is that this project, which required several years of discussions and negotiations between Ottawa and Quebec City before coming to a successful conclusion, is hardly the best example of an efficient federalist system because of the long negotiations, even though the local people have agreed on this since the 1970s.

That being said, I would like to elaborate a little bit on some features of Bill C-7 which give it a unique character and which should be used as a model by the Canadian government in its future relations with the Government of Quebec.

So, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park will be the first salt water federal-provincial park, the first park created jointly by the two levels of government and for which Ottawa and Quebec agreed on their respective management roles. This is a unique agreement between the two governments and it was made possible because the federal government agreed to recognize the rights and jurisdiction of each level of government—and I insist on those words “agreed to recognize the rights and jurisdiction of each level of government”—without trying to make its own rights prevail over those of the Government of Quebec and the people it represents, which rights are just as legitimate.

This is an example the present government, its Prime Minister and its ministers would be well advised to follow in many other sensitive matters concerning the future of Quebec and Canada.

I have to stress another feature of Bill C-7 that reinforces its uniqueness: for the first time, the Government of Canada has agreed to participate in the establishment of a marine park without claiming in return the ownership on the seabed and the sub-soil and ground resources. Indeed, the Government of Quebec keeps its property right, but this right does not prevent the federal government from continuing to exercise its jurisdiction over navigation and fishing.

This is another fine example from which the Liberal government should draw inspiration in its relations with Quebec, and a model of respect for Quebec's territorial integrity that should guide the federal government in other discussions.

The federal government would have been really ill-advised to claim a greater jurisdiction than that recognized in the bill establishing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. Indeed, is it necessary to recall that, for 61 years, up until 1983, Quebec had assumed responsibility for the administration of the whole fishing sector?

That is a jurisdiction the federal government has encroached upon under the pretext that it would be easier to protect the resources of the Atlantic region from Ottawa. In the last 10 years, there has been little evidence to support the federal government's claim to be in a better position than Quebec to protect resources. Besides, the general collapse of the groundfish stocks is a direct consequence of the federal government's inability to assume its mandate to protect resources.

Another important part of this bill that is worth mentioning is the involvement of local representatives in the management of this new marine park. This bill confirms the mandate of the existing joint Canada-Quebec management committee and gives an important role to local stakeholders who, as members of the coordinating committee, will be in a position to monitor the implementation of the management plan.

The composition of the coordinating committee will be as follows: one representative from each of the three RCMs concerned on the north shore, namely Charlevoix-Est, the Saguenay Fjord and Haute-Côte-Nord; only one representative for the three RCMs concerned on the south shore, namely Kamouraska, Les Basques and Rivière-du-Loup; one representative from the scientific community; one for the groups dedicated to the conservation and preservation of resources, environmental education and nature interpretation; one from the Canadian heritage department; and one from the Quebec ministry of environment and wildlife.

These local representatives will have a very important role to play, for this bill is admittedly rather sketchy concerning the conservation ethics to be observed in managing the park. We have to refer to the management plan to learn more about the protection strategies that will be implemented.

Unfortunately, we must admit this is a flaw because it is always much easier to amend a management master plan than a law. So this master plan could be changed at any time in order to increase or reduce the protection of marine resources, in spite of all the good will expressed here today.

Moreover, clause 17 of this bill authorizes the governor in council to make regulations for the protection of marine resources, for the control of activities, for the issuance of permits and for prescribing the fines for offences.

As a consequence, I believe that the stakeholders will have to be very vigilant—I repeat, very vigilant—to ensure that the application of the management master plan is consistent with the spirit of Bill C-7, which we are about to pass.

There is one last point I wish to highlight, once again, as a source of inspiration for the federal government. It is the accord concluded by Quebec and Ottawa on how to finance the creation of the marine park and its annual operating costs.

The Sagueney-St. Lawrence Marine Park is already an internationally renowned tourist destination with an enormous tourist development potential that, if properly exploited, will contribute to the establishment of a sustainable tourist industry in our region, the Saguenay. I am pleased to see that, in this matter, the federal government is getting involved in regional development in Quebec without bypassing the provincial government, which is very much to its credit.

It is indeed worth mentioning since, during its first term, this Liberal government had shown us another kind of approach which was a lot less respectful of the Quebec governement's jurisdiction in the area of regional development.

When the Liberals took office in 1993, 62% of federal funding for regional development came under various agreements with the Quebec government. Now, four years later, that percentage has gone down to 33%.

This means that in more than two thirds of regional development matters in which the federal government is involved, it bypasses the Quebec government, often duplicating what is already being done.

Need I remind the members that, since the creation of the Federal Office of Regional Development, the Liberal government has been using this agency almost exclusively as a propaganda tool to increase its visibility in Quebec, hiding behind that agency to get directly involved in regional development in that province. And, unfortunately, it has been doing so without giving any consideration to the effectiveness of its interventions.

As a matter of fact, 90% of the Federal Office of Regional Development activities duplicate the Quebec government's activities and, according to some estimates, this duplication is costing taxpayers $20.7 million.

The fact that for once the government respected Quebec's jurisdiction over regional development, by signing an agreement with the province, can only be cause for rejoicing. But let us also hope that this approach will become the rule in future federal interventions in regional development in Quebec.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to cooperate so that Bill C-7, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, can be adopted as soon as possible.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I declare the motion carried.

This bill is therefore referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

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

Telecommunications Act

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

moved that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, the government's agenda as outlined in the speech from the throne sets out the course it intends to take to ensure that Canada succeeds in the global knowledge economy of the 21st century.

The agenda sets out clearly the actions to be taken and the partnerships to be forged to ensure that Canada realizes its potential in this new economy.

One of the first priorities is to connect Canadians. The goal is to make Canada the most connected nation in the world, making sure that all Canadians can have access to the electronic highway and the information economy by the year 2000. This is perhaps the single most important action that government can take to ensure success in the knowledge based economy.

A national strategy designed to give access to the information and knowledge infrastructure will enable individuals, rural communities, and small and medium size businesses to find new opportunities to learn, communicate, trade and develop their economic and social potential.

Bill C-17 marks a major step in our strategy to connect Canadians to the information highway.

It is also a milestone in this government's strategy to encourage competition, innovation and growth in Canada's telecommunications industry, which plays a vital role in the knowledge economy and greatly contributes to the information infrastructure.

Today, the telecommunications industry accounts for 115,000 quality jobs and 3.36% of GDP. We believe it will be one of the key growth areas in the 21th century economy.

The purpose of Bill C-17 is to pursue the liberalization of Canadian telecommunications, which started more than 10 years ago and has already greatly benefited Canadians and Canadian telecommunications companies.

That liberalization began with the licensing of competitive cellular telephone service and moved forward with the privatization of Teleglobe and Telesat, the introduction of competition to long distance telephone service and the passage of the new Telecommunications Act.

Over the last two years, this process has been continued with the licensing of suppliers of new services, including personal communications services and local multi-point communication services. We have also been pursuing this liberalization agenda at the international level to promote global competition and new opportunities for Canada's telecommunications sector.

The bill before us today paves the way to implement an international agreement that Canada concluded last February. Members may remember that the Uruguay round of the GATT trade negotiations developed new trade rules for the services sector. These are known as the general agreements for trade and services, GATS.

Last February agreement was reached to extend the GATS to cover basic telecommunications. Following successful negotiations under the auspices of the World Trade Organization, 69 countries including Canada concluded an agreement to liberalize basic telecommunications services. These countries account for more than 90% of the world's $880 billion telecommunications market.

The GATS agreement on basic telecommunications covers basic telecommunication services, including voice and data but not broadcasting.

One of our key objectives during the negotiations was to gain access to foreign markets for Canadian telecommunications companies. This we have achieved. As a result, our telecommunications companies will have more secure access to major markets such as the United States, the European Union and Japan, as well as the developing markets of Asia and Latin America. The agreement also establishes a clear set of multilateral rules in a sector that previously had no rules. The dispute settlement process provides the necessary safeguards to ensure that countries respect their commitments.

Under the agreement, we will be making a few changes here, in Canada.

First of all, we will lift all restrictions on mobile services provided to Canadians worldwide using satellites belonging to foreign concerns.

We will put an end to Telesat's monopoly on fixed satellite services.

Our transparent and independent regulatory and competition regimes will be maintained.

We will also put an end to Teleglobe Canada's monopoly on international traffic and eliminate the special ownership restrictions imposed on this company, which prohibit any investment by foreign telecommunications companies.

We will authorize foreign concerns to have full ownership of international submarine cable landing facilities in Canada.

We will, however, maintain our general foreign investment regulations to ensure that the industry remain in the hands of Canadian interests.

Many of the changes we promised can be implemented by administrative means, while others require that legislation be passed. This bill provides the legislative framework required to make these changes.

Perhaps more important than these details is the overall objective to foster competition both domestically and internationally. Competition fosters innovation and innovation sparks the development of new products and services, more choice for consumers, job creation and economic growth.

Over the last 10 years Canada has made major strides in liberalizing its telecommunications industry, and the benefits to consumers and businesses have been impressive. For example, a study by the international consulting firm KPMG estimates that long distance telephone rates today are 55% below and traffic is 67% above what they would have been in the absence of competition in that market. Savings to consumers are in the billions of dollars. And the benefit is not just in services. Investment in switches and related hardware is estimated to be more than $2 billion higher than it would have been under monopoly conditions.

Our objective is to free Canada's telecommunications and information technology sectors to be more competitive and dynamic both at home and abroad. It was to further this objective that we became parties to the information technology agreement last year. About 40 economies with 90% of the world's trade in information technology have endorsed that agreement.

They have agreed to eliminate tariffs on some 300 information technology products by the turn of the century. Together these two agreements have significantly opened up the global marketplace in telecommunications services and equipment, creating new opportunities for all countries. As a result, Canadian telecommunications companies will be able to capture a larger share of the global market in telecommunications services and equipment.

The bill we are considering today will also strengthen our ability to keep pace with a rapidly changing telecommunications environment. We will be empowering the CRTC to introduce a licensing regime to ensure that all providers of international services play by the same rules. We are also strengthening our ability to enforce standards for telecommunications equipment.

We must pass this bill as rapidly as possible. The agreement on basic telecommunications services takes effect January 1, 1998. A good number of the amendments to our regulations do not take effect before October 1, 1998, but the new regime must be in place before then.

One of the amendments proposed in this bill will enable the CRTC to establish a licensing regime for telecommunications service providers. The CRTC will ensure that Canadian and foreign telecommunications providers hold licences consistent with WTO rules and Canadian regulations.

The CRTC has held public hearings on licensing and the whole issue of international services. If the CRTC is to be able to wrap up this process and introduce the new regulations by October 1, 1998, the bill must be passed without delay.

The bill also amends the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act so as to repeal the provisions concerning the special ownership and other regimes related to ending Teleglobe's monopoly. I wish to point out that Teleglobe approves of this initiative.

Changes to the Telecommunications Act are necessary for us to meet our commitments in the area of satellites, undersea cables and international services, and also to ensure observance of other Canadian telecommunications policies.

The benefits flowing from the GATS agreement are significant. We anticipate that Canadian businesses and consumers will gain access to a wide variety of world class telecommunications services at competitive prices. Canadian telecom service providers will be able to penetrate new markets on an equal footing with local companies and foreign competitors. Canadian telecom manufacturers will find a huge new demand for their state of the art products as telecom operators around the world prepare for a new global environment of open markets and competition.

Canadians want us to move quickly to realize the economic, social and cultural benefits of the knowledge based society. International agreements like the GATS agreement lay the groundwork for us to construct this society.

We are working on a number of fronts to build. For example, I have invited my OECD counterparts to come to Canada in the fall of 1998 for discussions to develop a global framework for electronic commerce. Electronic commerce means using advanced communications and computer technologies to do business. Its uses range from selling consumer products and services electronically to managing investments over computer networks, to transactions between major banks that involve large amounts of money and other assets.

Electronic commerce is not only central to a modern knowledge based economy, it is also the foundation for future growth and job creation. Given our small domestic market and dependence on foreign trade, we must foster a domestic and international environment that is friendly to electronic commerce if we are to reap the significant trade and investment benefits it offers to Canadian firms and citizens.

The OECD Canada conference is an important step in this direction. It ensures that we can support, participate in and influence the creation of an open, transparent, multilateral electronic commerce regime.

Our hope is that this conference will set out the policy framework and implementation timetable needed to establish a stable, open and transparent environment favourable to the development of worldwide electronic commerce. An integrated approach would allow all countries and regions to enjoy the benefits of electronic commerce while avoiding duplication of effort and the creation of new international trade barriers.

We need to do more if Canada is to be a leader in electronic commerce. That is why the government is also working toward using electronic commerce when doing business with its own clients. By being a model user we can encourage the private sector and other levels of government to adopt the new technologies.

Advances in information technologies are transforming industrial economies such as our own. Canada has the opportunity to be among the first rank of the new knowledge based economies.

As these new technologies eliminate distance they are taking us ever closer to the global village envisioned by Marshall McLuhan. They are also creating a world in which knowledge is our most important commodity and the key to our economic performance.

By overcoming the barriers of distance these technologies are creating great opportunities for people, communities and countries that were once on the periphery, from the developing nations of Asia, Latin America and Africa to Canada's own rural and remote communities.

Over the last four years, we have defined and implemented a information highway strategy, so that Canada can take full advantage of these technologies and so that all Canadians can have access to the information based economy.

This information highway will be Canadian and will offer Canadian products and services, but it will be open to the entire world. It will encourage innovation, economic growth, job creation and communication throughout Canada.

Our government's priority is to create the conditions necessary to encourage the private sector to build this information highway. Hardware and software suppliers, and designers of related contents and services are now among the fastest growing sectors in Canada.

Opening up competition in the telecommunications services sector represents an important component of the Canadian strategy. We know that the best, as well as the fastest, way to build an information based economy infrastructure is to institute an open competition policy.

We have the best overall communications infrastructure among the G-7 nations. We are among the leaders in terms of penetration, quality, market development and rates. For example, Canada tops the G-7 in proportion of households with personal computers. We have the lowest residential telephone and Internet access charges in the G-7. We have the highest rate of cable television subscribers in the G-7.

As we build the world's best communications infrastructure we have also built industries that sell knowledge based goods and services around the world. Our information and communications technology industries export to more than 90 countries. The sector is a leader in research and development, accounting for one-third of total industrial R and D in Canada.

These industries hold enormous potential for jobs and growth. Now that we have cleared the way for them to compete internationally that potential is growing even greater.

This legislation is a necessary step toward the continuing process of liberalizing telecommunications trade worldwide. I urge the House to act on it quickly and to secure for Canadians their entry into the global telecommunications marketplace.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be speaking today to Bill C-17 which amends two acts, the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act.

I will preface my remarks with the encouragement I personally take that the minister recognizes the importance of this sector and has continually put it forward as a priority for Canada. I and my party may differ with the process to take us there but we certainly concur with the priority he places on it.

Prior to my time in this House I served and worked in the telecommunications sector for many years. I do concur that we have one of the finest communications infrastructures that we will find anywhere in the world. I take personal pride in being a part of having shaped that in Canada today.

Our telecommunications policy in Canada and that infrastructure has largely been born out of an inward looking approach to our telecommunications industry. We have to some degree limited ownership in the past to Canadian players and Canadian content. We have had a monopolistic approach to the development of the industry. In the past it has served Canadians and did the job and allowed for the creation of some infrastructure, but the day we are in today is certainly different from what has been in the past.

Today we are facing a greater degree of globalization and competitiveness as we have never seen before. To continue with an approach of inward looking, restrictive type policies will only serve to restrict Canadians' full participation in the global marketplace.

We have much to gain as Canadians. We have equipment and competencies in Canada that are second to none. We are well equipped right now to compete in the global marketplace, a marketplace which offers an $880 billion industry in which Canadians are eager to participate.

The global network that is evolving around the world today has changed the way we relate. Time and distance no longer are the factors they were in the past. Our world is changing.

New agreements need to be put in place to reduce the restrictions on trade and to promote investment in this critical industry if we are to capitalize on the benefits that are available for Canadians.

Speaking to this particular bill, there are some encouraging points to this bill that we have long awaited. The reduction in foreign ownership and control requirements and the lifting of some of these requirements on submarine cables, earth stations and technologies that carry long distance telecommunications services outside of Canada are good and positive signs and things we personally endorse.

The Teleglobe monopoly wind down and the Telesat monopoly divestiture are good signs. They are things that have been called for for some time. As the minister has alluded to, even the entities themselves, such as Teleglobe, embrace the opportunity to participate in the global telecommunications industry.

There are some changes required if we are to meet our trade commitments and adapt to these new realities and move away from the restrictive approach of the past. We need stronger legislative controls which are inherent in this bill around technical standards for telecommunications equipment, both that which leaves Canada and that which comes into Canada, provided those controls are applied to telecommunications equipment and not to other equipment that may not be pertinent to the telecommunications industry.

Generally we are supportive of the components within this bill that call for the elimination of the monopolies, the relaxation of foreign ownership restrictions and greater access to international markets. However we have some concerns with this bill and I would like to speak to three of those concerns. Unfortunately these concerns are of such a grave nature that the positive aspects of the bill, which the industry and this party have been calling for for some time, are almost negated by these more detrimental aspects of the bill.

The first concern is the expansive new authority which has been given to the CRTC under this legislation, brand new licensing powers over telecommunications service providers. The process around this licensing and how it is applied is undefined in the legislation. There is no mention of costs or fees which may be involved in obtaining a licence. This is another opportunity to potentially extract new revenues for the government and to further diminish the success of entrepreneurial interests in this area.

Is the process impartial? We have no way of knowing from this legislation. There is a clear indication that entities which exist in Canada today but do not require a licence will require one once this legislation is in place. There is no criteria outlined for granting of licences.

Some may think this is an over concern, but when we look at the CRTC's track record in other industries and in other areas, there is justification for concern. It has a track record of picking winners and losers. Often those picks are justified by a nebulous public interest statement rather than clear guidelines.

This significantly greater power given to the CRTC seems to be in exactly the opposite direction of what we see in the divestiture of the monopolies and the wind down of the monopolies of Teleglobe and Telesat. It is a trade off which is very unfortunate in the packaging of this particular bill.

We prefer a more clearly defined process if in fact licensing is even necessary, protecting impartiality in free market forces with less potential for abuse and political interference. It may be that none of this is intended, but define the process. Build in the safeguards so that accusations cannot be made. If that is there, it stimulates investor confidence and business development.

The second point which gives us concern about this legislation is the brand new administrative powers granted to the CRTC. In the short term the justification for these powers is targeted at the administration of the North American numbering sequence for long distance calling. On the surface it might seem reasonable but I suggest that in the past this work was actually done by industry. Does the CRTC have the skills to manage and administer an operational process such as this?

I know there is a clause in the legislation for the CRTC to be able to appoint a third party to administer this activity. Our concern is that this is an operational type of administrative duty which is new to the CRTC. I would suggest the skill sets are not there to effectively manage this and it may not be the best place to carry this on.

Even beyond that, a greater concern on this same theme is the open ended administrative power on a go forward basis granted to the CRTC by this legislation which it can impose or as the legislation itself says, prescribe for any activity related to the provision of telecommunications services by Canadian carriers.

The CRTC can further delegate powers to a chosen third party, including one created by the commission itself. This means that any area of the industry that the CRTC feels needs to have its administrative oversight can be subject to a third party management that the CRTC puts in place.

These two areas of undefined and extensive administrative power go far beyond what is required for increased participation by Canadians in the global communications marketplace.

Our concern is that what Canadians have gained in the removal of the monopolies and greater access to international markets is more than offset by the much greater controlling powers given to the regulator here at home. These are very serious precedents in the wrong direction, especially given the CRTC's track record of an expensive application process and weakly defendable subjective public interest arguments for the chosen winners and losers in the industry.

My third and final concern relates to what we believe to be the very short term nature and short sightedness of this bill. We see within this bill the continued attempt to separate broadcasting from telecommunications but the reality is that these two technologies are undergoing a convergence at a very rapid rate.

In Canada today, broadcast information through digitization is being carried by telecom carriers. As voice data and broadcast material is increasingly carried by telecom infrastructures, the attempt to partition broadcasting from telecommunications regulation will become increasingly cumbersome and increasingly difficult.

I believe that this attempt to continue to embrace the Broadcasting Act is really driven more by a desire to regulate what Canadians watch rather than any efficiencies in the actual distribution. It is again CRTC censorship regarding what Canadians will have exposure to.

However because of convergence and the attempt to strip out broadcast from telecommunications within the industry, I would suggest to the minister and to the government that is going to be effectively impossible in the days ahead as these technologies move together. There is a better approach.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, of course you have quite a bit of time left in your speech but it is almost 2 o'clock and I thought perhaps we could start with statements by members. You will have the floor when we return to the debate.

Councillor Frank McKechnie

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past summer the city of Mississauga lost a good friend and a former colleague of mine, councillor Frank McKechnie.

Frank immigrated to Canada from Glasgow, Scotland in 1950. First elected in 1958 to the former Toronto township council, he served as a Peel county councillor, town of Mississauga councillor and a member of the city of Mississauga council and region of Peel council. Widely known as the mayor of Malton, Frank was Mississauga's longest serving councillor and one of Canada's longest serving municipal politicians. In addition to politics he was extremely active in the community, volunteering his time with a large number of organizations.

Frank was a kind and gentle man whose vision helped Mississauga grow into this country's ninth largest city and whose years of dedicated service to his constituents serve as inspiration to all of us.

The municipal election on November 10 will be the first time in 39 years without Frank McKechnie's name on the ballot. He will truly be missed.