Debates of March 11th, 1998

Canada-Yukon Oil And Gas Accord Implementation Act

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-8, the Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas Accord Implementation Act.

The bill represents the first bill I have had the opportunity to work on both at the parliamentary level and the committee level in the Indian affairs and northern development portfolio. I feel it represents a step in the right direction. It is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction.

The bill transfers authority to the Yukon territorial government regarding exploration, development, conservation and management of onshore oil and gas resources, oil and gas pipelines, the raising of money in respect of oil and gas in the territory and the export of oil and gas.

At the same time the bill allows the federal government to regain control and administration of oil and gas on Yukon lands in order to settle or implement land claims for aboriginal groups.

The bill was formerly known as Bill C-50 but died on the order paper with the call for the election in April 1997. It incorporates some changes to the original Bill C-50 in order to address concerns raised by aboriginal groups, specifically the effect of the bill on their land claims agreements and self-government. I will speak in more detail on this matter later.

Bill C-8 is the implementation process for the Canada-Yukon oil and gas accord. The accord was the product of a process begun in 1987 under the minister at that time, William Hunter McKnight. It was a beginning of a process to devolve responsibility from the federal government to the government of Yukon with the intention of conferring powers analogous to those held by provinces.

Currently all oil and gas management authority in Yukon is controlled by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in its energy policy area for the territories. With Bill C-8 control over oil and gas passes to the Yukon government with the application for onshore resources and an area adjacent to the northern coast, including Shoalwater Bay and Philips Bay.

The area referred to as the north slope was of special concern to the aboriginal peoples, and in particular the Inuvialuit Regional Council. The council representing the signatories to the Inuvialuit final agreement in the Northwest Territories expresses reservations about the extent of protection for this area in the bill.

Shoalwater Bay is an area of significant importance to the Inuvialuit for the harvesting of beluga whales. As such it wanted reassurance from the federal government that this area should be protected from development so the traditional hunt would not be jeopardized.

The Inuvialuit was assured by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that the area would be protected with part of the area being a national park. This is explicitly removed from the development in Bill C-8.

At the same time the federal government informed the Inuvialuit that Shoalwater Bay would not be developed but did not include this area specifically in the legislation. Instead it is protected by implicit understanding outside the bill. It will be imperative for the federal government to honour this commitment to the Inuvialuit.

Of the 14 aboriginal groups in the Yukon area eight have yet to settle land claim agreements with the federal government but are presently involved in negotiations. This was another area of concern for first nations, specifically how the bill would affect land claim negotiations.

These concerns were expressed during consultation with Yukon first nations, especially the eight bands who are signatories to the Inuvialuit final agreement but have not yet settled land claims.

To alleviate uncertainty clause 8 was added to the legislation allowing for the administration and control of oil and gas to revert to the governor in council for the settlement of land claims. With this addition, the rights of aboriginal groups are preserved while ensuring that future land claims will be resolved and implemented properly. Nothing in the legislation is to abrogate or derogate existing aboriginal and treaty rights. This is to protect aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

While the transfer of authority is to the Yukon government, the federal government will disperse an amount equivalent to revenues from all onshore resources since April 1, 1993. With the oil and gas revenues in Yukon currently valued at $2 million, this represents a significant amount of money that would be accruing to the territorial government. Following the transfer, onshore resources will be collected by the Yukon government with offshore resource revenues divided according to a formula for revenue sharing.

Under the royalty sharing formula Yukon first nations will receive 50% of the first $2 million collected by Yukon. For any amounts greater than $2 million the reparation falls to 10%. The average per capita amount received by the first nations cannot exceed the average Canadian per capita income.

This is a bill the Progressive Conservatives started and we continue to support it. The one weakness or complaint that should be raised in this House is the inadequate job the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development did in involving public participation in this process.

When I visited Whitehorse after this bill had received first reading in the House and after we had already had a video conference with Yukon region representatives, I met with many groups who would have appeared before the committee but were not given an opportunity by the present government.

With that said I will still support this bill because in the end it helps Yukon. It recognizes aboriginal rights and moves the Yukon government closer to self-sufficiency and hopefully one day to provincial status.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Sable Island Natural Gas; the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Halifax West, Self-Government; the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Bankruptcies.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this bill which is an important piece of legislation particularly to the development of the Yukon Territory and its people. It is also a pleasure to have a piece of legislation before the House that we can support and not have to amend greatly.

I will explain why the Reform Party is supporting this bill and the few flaws we see with it. Although we support the general direction of this bill, it remains far from what really needs to be done in the territories.

As we know, northern Canada and Yukon are areas of our land where there is high unemployment and poverty which is a big problem not only there but to Canada as a whole. For these regions control over oil and gas exploration is the key to economic well-being. Therefore Bill C-8 is important for the economic future of the Yukon Territory.

Bill C-8 gives the Yukon Territory administrative and legislative control over oil and gas in the Yukon Territory. In other words, this is a devolution of powers from the federal government to the Yukon government, and that is a good thing.

The Reform Party believes those powers are best exercised in the hands of the government nearest to the people instead of in the hands of some bureaucrats in Ottawa who are far removed from the consequences of the decisions they make.

We can generally say that the Reform Party believes that any move toward devolution of powers from the federal government to the provinces or territories is a positive development.

We are opposed to big, heavy bureaucratic central government and would eventually like to see the territories as full participants in Confederation with province like status.

The Reform Party also believes that the territories should have the same powers as the provinces and that all provinces should have equal powers with no special status for any.

We all know this is clearly not the case at this time, but we are committed to this important and fundamental principle of equality.

Therefore on the grounds of devolution of power which brings the government closer to the people and moving toward giving Yukon the right to achieve full province status, we are supporting this bill.

We also support Bill C-8 because it has the support of the people of Yukon. Consultation on the bill was done and Yukoners stated they wanted control of their oil and gas.

Because of those consultations and the universal support for devolution of powers expressed we are in support. The people of the Yukon Territory have made an important step forward in the development into a province with this bill. The Reform Party supports them in this effort.

While we are supportive of this legislation, there are a few provisions in the bill that we remain concerned with. First of all, in this bill the government has the right to take back administrative and legislative powers that it gives to Yukon in the event of a national emergency or in the case of an aboriginal land claim settlement.

This House hardly needs to be reminded of what occurred in the west the last time there was a so-called national emergency with respect to natural gas and petroleum. We had the national energy program and the petroleum gas and revenue tax.

These types of things should not happen again in this country where one part of the country is expected to subsidize the rest of the nation over some situation like that. That seems somewhat counterproductive. Needless to say, it seems really counterproductive to have that in there.

There are still many first nations in Yukon that have not settled their land claim agreements yet, even though the government has been promising rapid conclusion of these land claims for years.

An investor planning to set up shop in Yukon knows that from one day to the next they could suffer a loss because this federal government might have to settle a land claim or take back resources, or that type of thing. How anxious would they be to make an investment there? I doubt whether they would be willing to put very much money in, certainly not the millions of dollars it takes to begin oil and gas exploration. They want guarantees of stability when they make investments.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge the government to resolve land claims as quickly as possible and to obtain the full and meaningful participation by the Yukon government. Do not exclude it. Get this done with so that there will be stability in Yukon.

In recognition of the unique situation in the north, I agree that it is important that this legislation respect aboriginal land claims and settlement rights. It is also important that the legislation does not diminish aboriginal treaty rights or conflict with existing wildlife, environmental and land management legislation under the Constitution Act, 1982.

The issue, however, is not so much the protection of aboriginal rights as it is an issue of heavy handed control by the federal government. If the government were to settle a land claim in any of the 10 provinces, the provincial government would certainly take an active role in the negotiating process.

If the government is committed to giving Yukon province like powers, as it seems to be attempting in this bill, it should also give the territory the same negotiating powers in the settlement of aboriginal land claims as the provinces have.

Why would the government withhold the same negotiating power from the Yukon government? It is a question to be considered by the government and by all members of this House.

While the federal government protects the interests of aboriginal people in Yukon, the territorial government would have the opportunity to protect the interests of all residents in the Yukon Territory, regardless of whether they were native or non-native.

On that note I would like to reiterate the Reform Party's commitment to equality. In order for Canada to function as a nation, the territories should have similar powers to the provinces and the provinces should have access to powers available to all others.

This Liberal government should be decreasing federal powers not only over Yukon oil and gas but also in other areas to work toward empowering territories.

[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]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I rise to address the House on third and final reading on Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley resource management act.

I want to say again how pleased I am to be sponsoring this proposed legislation.

Bill C-6 will have important ramifications for the people and the environment of the Mackenzie Valley and I am delighted to have played a role in bringing it before the House.

I am also delighted that we have finally come to this point in the legislative process.

Although Bill C-6 was tabled in the House only a month ago, this legislation has been five years in the making. It previously died on the order paper as Bill C-80 when the election was called.

It has been the subject of one of the most extensive consultation processes I have ever witnessed in government, with 35 drafts of the bill developed and distributed for comments and review.

An information package on the proposed resource management regime was widely distributed across the Mackenzie Valley.

Federal officials have held literally dozens of meetings with aboriginal leaders, the territorial government, the resource industries and the public.

As a result of this exhaustive process we have before us today a better bill. This is a lengthy, complex and technical piece of legislation but it is also a solid bill that will withstand the test of time.

I would like to take a few minutes to acknowledge the many groups and individuals who have contributed to Bill C-6 which, as hon. members know, will establish an integrated resource co-management regime and environmental assessment process for the Mackenzie Valley.

I want to begin with the leaders of the Gwich'in, and the Sahtu Denes and Metis of Northern Mackenzie Valley. Bill C-6 is the logical step following the land claim settlements signed by these native groups in 1992 and 1994.

Despite a three year delay in the adoption of this legislation, the leaders of these communities showed remarkable patience. They understood the need to proceed with wide consultations, to accommodate various interests and to make sure the legislation is fair.

The Northwest Territories administration also deserves special recognition for its role in establishing a resource management system which allows for a decision-making process involving both regional and valley-wide levels. The territorial administration helped make sure that the new system reflects today's realities and needs while respecting the close relationships the native peoples have with the lands and the waters of the Mackenzie Valley as a whole.

Resource industries also made a big contribution to the proposed bill. They recognize that it is necessary to evolve with time in the Mackenzie Valley, and to adapt to new ways of doing business and managing the environment. Bill C-6 will provide them with the certainty and coherence they need to realize their investments in the valley, investments that will create jobs, increase government revenues and make Northerners economically more independent.

I also wish to commend the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Affairs and her predecessor for having developed a bill which will provide a just balance between the numerous different interests in the Mackenzie Valley. Thanks to their perseverance, Bill C-6 will reach its main goal, which is to protect the fragile environment of the Mackenzie Valley, while at the same time allowing the government to fulfil its constitutional obligation towards the Gwich'in, the Metis and the Sahtu Dene.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not commend my colleagues of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for the important work they carried out. As my distinguished colleagues know, the committee undertook a comprehensive study of Bill C-6 before Christmas recess. Several witnesses offered convincing testimony and the committee was able to benefit from different point of views and discussions between its members.

Again, we have before us a better bill than the initial version. Thanks to the amendments proposed by the government and the standing committee, and to the support of the territorial government, the mining industry and some native groups, Bill C-6 has been improved and made more precise.

These amendments have improved the clauses of the bill dealing with consultations, bringing greater openness and transparency.

These amendments will increase the participation of natives, including the first nations which have not already signed territorial land agreements, in the joint resource management regime.

The amendments will facilitate the transition process to the new regime by providing an additional protection to the present users of lands and water.

The amendments have also allowed us to include in the bill some guarantees that its implementation will cause no prejudice to future negotiations on land claims and self government.

I would like to quickly recap the key elements of Bill C-6 so that hon. members can appreciate the importance of this legislation to the people and the environment of the Mackenzie Valley.

Hon. members will recall that Bill C-6 will establish six boards of public government to administer the new resource management and environmental assessment regime. Two of these boards, the Mackenzie Valley land and water board and the environmental impact review board, will have jurisdiction throughout the valley. The other four will be regional institutions responsible for land use planning and land and water issues in the two settlement areas.

Bill C-6 also provides for the establishment of additional regional boards by order in council as land claims agreements are finalized with other aboriginal groups in the Mackenzie Valley.

The need for a co-ordinated and integrated approach is an underlying principle of Bill C-6. The Mackenzie Valley must be viewed as a single ecosystem, not just a collection of political or demographic regions. Activities that take place upstream can and do affect communities downstream. Decision making processes must take into account what is right for the entire ecosystem and all its communities and residents.

Even First Nations that stand in opposition to Bill C-6 have not disputed the need for a single valley wide system. There is essentially unanimous agreement that we cannot have several different resource management systems in place in the valley. It simply will not work.

The question is not whether to proceed with an integrated approach, but when. Some First Nations that have not yet signed land claims agreements would like us to wait. The government's view is that further delays are not only unwarranted but could put Mackenzie Valley's environment at undue risk. Clearly the time to act is now.

A single integrated system is also the best way to proceed in terms of cost and efficiency. Bill C-6 will ensure regulatory consistency between the settlement areas and adjacent lands. Virtually all lands in the Mackenzie Valley will be subject to the same environmental review requirements in keeping with this government's commitment to streamline environmental processes, avoid duplication of effort and reduce costs to industry and others.

One of the main features of the new system is that native peoples are assured they will have a role to play. The first nations get to designate half the members of the new resource management boards, with the federal and provincial governments designating the other half.

Therefore, the various native groups living in the Mackenzie Valley area have the assurance that their traditional activities and lifestyles will be able to coexist with other forms of economic development. At the same time, non-native valley residents will have the opportunity to voice their concerns through the management boards and the hearing and public consultation process provided for in Bill C-6.

I am also glad to point out that the legislation follows up on a recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, promoting the implementation of a co-management system in the Mackenzie Valley. Such an approach would be impossible without high levels of respect, recognition and mutual responsibility, all principles on which is based Gathering Strength , a native action plan the government announced recently.

From a different perspective, Bill C-6 is another step towards the transfer of federal responsibilities and programs to the territorial government. The Northwest Territories Water Board, which is currently administered by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, will be integrated into the new Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board.

As for the new Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, it will take over from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs in co-ordinating and conducting environmental assessments. Once Bill C-6 is passed, the department will no longer be involved in issuing land use permits.

In other words, Bill C-6 will put in the hands of northerners the decision making process for issues directly affecting the Mackenzie Valley lands and waters. The new system shows a high degree of sensitivity and accountability to northerners and reflects both good planning and sound public management.

In spite of the major changes that will result from Bill C-6, the proposed legislation will not cause any disruption in the valley. It is based on existing regulations, with which industry is familiar.

It neither extinguishes nor overrides any right that aboriginal people of the Mackenzie Valley have. It will not take precedence over constitutionally protected land claims settlements or the Indian Act.

Under the new system, aboriginal people will have a much greater say in the decision making process than they do now.

In addition, it provides for land and water use applications to be processed quickly and fairly. It will also ensure that clearly defined procedures are used for the purposes of environmental assessment and protection throughout the Mackenzie Valley.

In closing, I would ask hon. members to consider the words of Richard Nerysoo, president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council. When he gave evidence before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Nerysoo said “Bill C-6 sets up a state of the art framework for land and water management in the north that is second to none in the Canadian north and for that matter in the world”. A state of the art framework that is second to none in the world. These are not the words of a government spokesperson. They are the words of a respected aboriginal leader whose people will live with Bill C-6 on a day to day basis. They are words of pride, hope and confidence.

I urge hon. members on all sides of the House to recognize that Bill C-6 is a necessary, practical and responsible approach to resource management in the Mackenzie Valley. It has widespread support in the valley because it is a balanced and workable regime and because it will achieve its stated goal. It deserves the same level of support from this House.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to once again speak on Bill C-6 which is of course the Mackenzie Valley land and water management act.

I would like to give a little illustration about how things are sometimes seen. A farmer observed two trains coming down one track and they ran head on into one another. It was a mighty train wreck. The investigator came out and asked him what he did about it. The farmer said that he could not do a thing about it but that he had thought about it. The investigator asked him what he had thought about. The farmer said he thought that it was a heck of a way to run a railroad.

It seems to me we have had this bill here before from the Tories and from the Liberals. It died on the Order Paper both times because it just did not seem to get the support it needed.

To state that the bill is called for everywhere and by everyone is to overstate the case. In committee we heard a lot of objections to this bill particularly from aboriginal groups who have not yet settled their land claims. The concern of the people I spoke with in the Yellowknife area was not one of water management but one of land claims negotiations. Therefore it really is not all that it seems to be.

We are opposed to the bill and have been since the beginning, even going back to its Mulroney Tory roots when it took the form of Bill C-16. We were concerned then about a growing and unaccountable bureaucracy which it creates and the set of regulations that would have arisen under it. We also planned to oppose it as Bill C-80 in the last Parliament. It was basically the same bill but it died on the Order Paper before the election.

Today more than any other reason, and there are a lot of reasons, there is one thing we disagree with. More than the big bureaucracy, which is making business developers in the north wary of investing there; more than the duplication of services that this bill would create; more than the possibility for interjurisdictional confusion; more than the opposition by the aboriginals who are still in the process of negotiating their land claims; more than the increase in the cost of compliance; more than the referral loop which many businesses are concerned they are going to get into, where it will be sent from the left side to the right side of the building, to across the street, to Ottawa, to everywhere else for referral, there is one thing we fundamentally disagree with.

What really gives us grounds to oppose the bill is that the simple amendments that were moved in committee to bring democracy into the bill were defeated by the government. We were not really asking for a great deal. We wanted to see a little democracy and accountability in the bill rather than the same old patronage system of which the old line parties are so fond.

The amendments we proposed were to provide for an election system to be put in place based on current election models to determine who would sit on the boards. In our view this was preferable to the board members being determined by the minister of Indian affairs based on criteria that are unknown and unspecified in the bill. It is interesting that many believe the unspoken criteria are linked to one's contribution, whether financial or other, to the government party.

Bill C-6 creates three new board levels: a five-member land use planning board in the Gwich'in and Sahtu settlement areas; a Mackenzie Valley land and water board, subject to the creation of additional panels which will have up to 17 members, including a five-member permanent regional panel in each of the settlement areas; and an eleven-member environmental impact review board for the entire Mackenzie Valley. Could it be any more simple and could it be any more bureaucratic?

The problem with these boards is that although the bill clearly establishes them, it fails to spell out criteria to be used in determining who actually sits on the boards. The whole process is closed to the people of the Mackenzie Valley which creates a big problem. When we tried to solve this problem with the democratic amendments put forward to the committee by the Reform Party they were defeated. This is unbelievable. This is a democracy. How can anybody stand up in this House and speak against any form of democracy?

Consider that time and time again we have seen problems that come out of such a system. I am not talking about democracy. I am talking about its antithesis, one person making appointments. We do not need to look very far from this Chamber to find a great example of how flawed this patronage system is. Everyone here knows what I am referring to. A supreme example of patronage in this country is the Senate.

Last June the people of Canada went to the polls after they heard what the candidates for Parliament had to say. They went to the polls and elected members to this House, which constitutes half of the Government of Canada, just half. Millions of Canadians exercise their democratic right to elect just half of Parliament. In contrast, there is one man, the Prime Minister, who appoints the entire other half. We just saw that happen.

Who gets there and what has been the result? With respect to those senators who do serve with good motives and intentions, how well have Canadians been represented by our non-elected friends such as Andrew Thompson? These people vote the party line because they are appointed by one man, the head of the governing party. How dedicated to the people do you have to be when you are not accountable to the electorate but are only accountable to the person who appointed you? It must be quite something. I do not think any of us here could imagine such a thing, since we are not accountable to one person, we are accountable to our constituents.

Why do we allow it to go on? Why do we implement new ways of promoting this old and ineffective way of doing things as we are doing with Bill C-6? That is what I would like to know. I am sure that is what Canadians would like to know and I am sure that is what many people in the Northwest Territories still want to know. The way I see it, the boards being created under Bill C-6 are nothing but mini senates, except that these boards are appointed by the minister of Indian affairs instead of the Prime Minister.

The other negative effect that comes out of this system is that it may create racial tensions in the Mackenzie Valley. Will the members the minister appoints to the board fit into specific categories of people? It seems they would either have to be natives or government officials.

What about the other residents of the Mackenzie Valley? Will they not have a say? We think this is wrong and that it could have been solved through free elections for these boards.

We are not opposed to the goals of this legislation. On the contrary, we think the intentions of Bill C-6 are good. We do need to protect the environment. It is just that this is such an awkward way to try to achieve it. Bill C-6 was originally supposed to simplify a land claim settlement agreement. It was not a land and water management act. That is why there is such a concern.

In light of what I have said here today and in light of the understanding of myself and the Reform Party of democratic accountability, I am opposed to this legislation.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the aboriginal question is a very popular one among the Bloc Quebecois, and I must thank my two colleagues here who always make it their duty to support me in caucus when an aboriginal project, or one with an aboriginal dimension, comes up. My colleagues from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Lévis are always first in line to support aboriginal issues and I congratulate them for it.

I am pleased, therefore, to speak today on Bill C-6. It is not often that bills concerning aboriginal people come before the House, but today we have had two in succession and dealing with adjoining regions. As I have already pointed out, the previous bill, Bill C-8, concerned the Yukon, while this one has to do with the Northwest Territories, the region right next to it. I will be pleased to offer a brief geographical overview of the part of the territory at issue today, the Mackenzie Valley.

The bill before us is aimed at creating boards. We know there were agreements prior to this bill. There was an agreement with the Gwich'in, signed April 22, 1992, and another with the Sahtu Dene and Metis, signed September 6, 1993.

I also recall that one of the first bills in the last Parliament concerned the Sahtu Dene and Metis. That bill concerned comprehensive land claims. I recall that at that time I was a bit muddled about the Sahtu, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, the Gwich'in and so on. Now, with four years of experience under my belt, I think I could dare claim a little more knowledge, even though I know that a person could spend years getting to know everything about it, even if he or she had studied the aboriginal question thoroughly.

Today we have a bill that arises out of those agreements. I will permit myself a little aside, as I did a bit earlier, concerning our Reform Party friends, because I have made a promise to myself that I would take every opportunity to point this out. The other day, I heard one of them claiming that the Bloc Quebecois is concerned only with Quebec, that the Bloc Quebecois has no interest whatsoever in what goes on east or west of Quebec.

Members should remember what I said earlier, when speaking on Bill C-8, about the aboriginal issue. We feel very concerned about this issue, and Bloc Quebecois members—as seen today, spoke about the Yukon less than an hour ago and are now discussing the Northwest Territories. The aboriginal issue is important to Quebeckers, and we are aware that it could have consequences.

The federal acts passed in this House and then by the Senate can have an impact on aboriginal people in Quebec, and we are looking after their interests. This is why we always take part in discussions dealing with aboriginal people, even if they are not from Quebec. I say to Reformers that we do not only defend Quebec's interests, particularly when it comes to aboriginal issues.

Let me say a few words about how the boards will operate. There are three boards: the land use planning board, the Mackenzie Valley land and water board and the environmental impact review board. As members know, the bill before us is the result of two agreements for the entire District of Mackenzie. These agreements provided that implementing legislation would be passed here, precisely to implement the accords, and this is what we are doing today.

I will briefly describe the board memberships, but first I want to tell the House that these boards will essentially function like government organizations. They will have their own staff and budgets, in accordance with government approval and funding procedures. Therefore, discussions will take place with the government to determine the funding of these boards.

However, as my colleague mentioned earlier, some provisions will no longer come under federal jurisdiction. This means that, under Bill C-6, some budgets which, until now, were controlled by certain departments under certain acts of Parliament, are being transferred to these boards.

As was the case earlier with the bill on the Yukon, we agree with this decentralization measure. Indeed, we can only agree with the transfer of money or tax points to regions of the country.

I think that my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot totally agrees. Any decentralization exercise must involve federal tax points. Decentralization must not be done only on paper. It must involve funding, because money is really important. I thought it was worth mentioning.

The first agency I want to talk about is the land use planning boards. There will be two of them, one in each region, namely the one where there is an agreement with the Gwich'in and the one where there is an agreement with the Sahtu Dene and Metis. Both regions are part of the District of Mackenzie. These two boards will consist of five members, including two members designated by the first nations, one by the federal government and one by the provincial or territorial government, and these four members will appoint a chairperson.

If we look at the bills currently before us and those that will come before us, there is always a certain parity between the first nations and the government. We can see a decentralization that gives more power to the first nations. That is reflected in the membership of the various boards. This is reflected here, and it will also be reflected in other bills that we will consider later on regarding Nunavut or other regions.

This parity is important, and I think it is time to start sharing, not only powers and jurisdictions, but the related tax points and funds. That is an expression of trust in the first nations. There will be certain problems in the bill. I will of explain it later, but, as a preamble, I thought I should describe the composition of the boards and their mandate.

There are therefore two boards, as I said earlier, one for the Gwich'in and one for the Sahtu Dene and the Metis. They will be able to develop, consider and propose changes to the plan for the use of all lands in the District of Mackenzie. So when a land use plan is approved by a first nation and by the government, it will be used as a reference to develop of the region.

There is a problem I can describe right away. The problem is that a number of nations and several regions of the Mackenzie have yet to sign an agreement, as we saw earlier on the claims and the establishment of a system to manage lands and water. With the two agreements discussed earlier, we are finally applying it to the entire Mackenzie region. That is where the problem lies. The first nations that have not yet signed an agreement will have their approach to managing the land and water within their territory dictated by the bill. This is a rather odd approach, which we oppose.

I will describe later the way we tried in committee to correct the situation. Unfortunately, the government majority did not support us. And this is why the Bloc will oppose the bill. I just wanted to describe the dynamics of the problem.

I will now deal with the issue of boards. Earlier, I mentioned the Land Use Planning Board. I will now talk about the Land and Water Board. It will consist of 17 members. Five members will come from each of the Gwitch'in and Sahtu Dene and Metis settlement areas. In addition, seven members will be appointed by the government and by the first nations of the three areas located outside these settlement areas.

Here is the problem. Seven persons not covered by a settlement agreement are to be appointed in order to include the whole area, all the way to the Beaufort Sea, under a single management system, even though some First Nations in the Mackenzie Valley have not signed a land claim agreement yet. This is a problem, and several aboriginals said so to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The Land and Water Board has the authority to grant land and water use licences, thus fostering development in the Mackenzie Valley.

It will issue licences involving some aboriginal peoples or some areas in the Mackenzie Valley not yet covered by an agreement. As I said, it is rather strange. In fact, this is the main reason why the Bloc Quebecois will not support this bill.

There is another board, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. When this issue was discussed in committee it was agreed, for practical reasons, to reduce its membership from 11 to 7; but its composition is similar to that of the other boards I mentioned earlier. One will represent the Gwich'in, who have already signed an agreement, another will represent the Sahtu Dene and Metis, who signed an agreement, two will represent the appropriate department within the Government of the Northwest Territories, and two will represent those who do not have an agreement yet.

Once again, this board is not, I would say, taking hostages, but going over the heads of people who have not yet signed an agreement and it is applying to the five Mackenzie regions a decision that affects two regions, and this is somewhat deplorable.

With the scope of the valley environmental impact review board, all development activities on the lands and waters of the valley, including proposals affecting Indian reserves or lands governed by a settlement with a first nation, will be subject to the environmental impact review and assessment process.

I mentioned earlier the huge environmental problems experienced by the Yukon Territory. The same is true for the Northwest Territories. I have been to Yellowknife often and there has been shameless exploitation of the environment in these areas. Once again, the wealth created from these lands has not benefited the natives. Often, the only legacy snatives got was a devastated landscape, a landscape that has been exploited and left to natives in a dismal condition.

This has harmed natives not only economically, but also culturally. I remind the House that their culture is based on hunting, fishing, trapping and fruit gathering. These are all things that were disrupted. Therefore, it is important to have a board that will properly examine any projects submitted, to ensure that the environment will be preserved and to avoid repeating past errors.

Unfortunately, there are some regions not covered by agreements on which this will now be imposed. I repeat that this is one of the reasons the Bloc will vote against the bill.

The boards will replace land and water settlements by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. People often say to us: “Why is the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs responsible for oil, gas and natural resources in the far north? That should not be its mandate”.

I remind the House that the name of the department is the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, meaning that anything north of 60 falls squarely within its jurisdiction, including several aboriginal nations. So it makes some sense that it comes under the department's jurisdiction.

The legislation provides for a method of overseeing the cumulative effect of land and water use on the environment. Earlier, I mentioned devastated landscapes. When companies need river water or use land, it will be important to look not just at the short-term impact, but also at the cumulative repercussions.

Sometimes, on the face of it, this might sound reasonable. The activity goes on for one or two years. But, in the long run, it can have a dramatic impact on the environment and these boards will allow oversight.

Periodic, independent environmental assessments will be done and made public. Increasingly, the departments involved will have to pull out, in accordance with the bill before us.

There is also another board, the Northwest Territories Water Board. This board was created under the present legislation. It will gradually be phased out in favour of the boards I have just described.

Also, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will gradually lose some of its impact, and let the boards take on a greater role.

After the short geographic description of the Yukon I have just given, I think it would be important for me to do the same for the District of Mackenzie.

The Mackenzie River originates in the Great Slave Lake and flows into the Beaufort Sea. It is a major system in the Northwest Territories. Everybody talks about the Mackenzie Valley. Everybody knows the great contribution this river makes to the district, and that is why it deserves a great deal of attention.

What are the geographical borders of this area? To the west, we have the Yukon, where the native peoples have a very rich culture, as I said earlier. The Northwest Territories are no different. They also have a very rich native culture. Natives were undoubtedly the first inhabitants of that area. Exploration, the gold rush, natural resource development all came after the Gwich'in, the Metis and the Denes were already there.

These peoples have been living there since time immemorial. It is important not to ignore them in our discussions.

To the west, we have the Yukon, with its rich native culture. The immediate neighbours are the Gwich'in and all those peoples I have just mentioned.

To the north is Inuvialuit, a Canadian territory where a self-government agreement has been concluded with the Inuit. There are four regions: Inuvialuit is located completely on the west coast and is right next to the territory we are talking about today; there is also Nunavut, a region located a little more to the east where the Inuit from the northern part of central Canada will have complete jurisdiction starting in 1999.

Discussions are under way in Quebec as well because there is an Inuit part of Quebec called Nunavik. Discussions are going well in Nunavik with the Quebec government which, as we all know, is very open minded with regard to aboriginal nations. As a matter of fact, statistics provide tangible proof of what I just said, whether it be for language retention, social and economic advantages, and so on. Quebec is in a much better position than the rest of Canada in this regard. I can personally vouch for that, having made frequent visits to aboriginal communities both in Quebec and in Canada.

Quebeckers are very proud of their record with regard to aboriginal nations. I must tell you that I will seize every opportunity to say so. I am a Quebecker, I am proud of being a Quebecker, I am a sovereignist and we are happy with the way we treat aboriginal nations in Quebec.

I will now get back to my description of the Mackenzie. To the east is Nunavut, which I talked about earlier. It is one of the four regions that will become self-governing on April 1, 1999. Its population is 90% Inuit.

To the south is the 60th parallel, south of which are the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.

As is the case with all major waterways, we find various settlements along the Mackenzie. On the shores of the Mackenzie River are the towns of Fort Norman, Fort Franklin, Norman Wells, which is extremely rich in oil, Fort Wrigley, and Fort Simpson.

All these towns are former trading posts. Back then, oil was not what it has become today. During the 18th century, oil was not the reason people went up there, because nobody knew what oil was. In order to move from place to another, sheer physical effort was more important than oil. People used snowshoes and canoes.

The fur trade was the reason people went up there. All these towns developed because of the fur trade. Later on, their development was spurred by gas and oil exploration, and also, lately, by diamond exploration.

This is a history rich region. The Hudson's Bay Company had a trading post at Fort Franklin between 1945 and 1950. That is not so long ago.

During the sixties, the Dene settled permanently in Fort Franklin, which they called Deline.

Fort Norman was also called Slavey Tulit's by the natives. There are many native connotations. Slavey Tulit's means mouth of two rivers. We have 50 native languages in Canada, and aboriginal names often refer to natural features, as in this case. At the mouth of two rivers, there was probably an abundance of fish and game. Explorers and traders set up a trading post there in 1810. There is a lot of history there.

As I have already said, several other bills concern Norman Wells oil. In 1919 Imperial Oil made a very big oil strike in this oil-rich area. During the second world war, Norman Wells gained a great deal of importance because the allied war machine required this essential fuel.

So, unfortunately, the war machine's demand for fuel was profitable for those involved with this black gold. Norman Wells thus became a major centre at that time, but unfortunately declined in 1947 with the post-war slump in demand.

The demand for oil has continued to grow since then. The city, with its economy centred on oil, is gaining in importance.

Norman Wells is located on the Canol pipeline. This pipeline was built during World War II so that the community could ship its top quality light crude to the Alaska highway and to centres a little further south for the war industry.

I hardly need point out that Northern Wells is also at the northern end of an oil pipeline from the Northwest Territories to Zama, Alberta.

This is a region which is rich in natural resources: oil, gas, diamonds, gold. It is an extremely rich region, and one which has made many oil companies rich as well. I also remind people every time of the social contract between the natives and the white people. The white people said at the time they would take over the territories, develop them and confine the natives to reserves.

It is not the natives who came out as winners in this economic war. It is Canadians who accumulated some fortunes and who left the natives faced with devastated landscapes and deplorable social and economic conditions. In the end, they did not benefit from this wealth.

One of the sources of conflict between the white people and the natives is how they perceive the land. When we, the white people, go into business, when we want to build a house, when we want to acquire some real estate, we go to our lawyer, we do a lot a measuring and we try to stake out our land as accurately as possible. We do some surveying. In our opinion, the land belongs to us. It must be staked out, and it belongs to us.

The native philosophy is quite different. For the natives, the land belongs to everyone. This was the philosophy that they had and that guided them when the white people came. For them, it was quite normal to share the territory. But, as we will see, the issue and the approach were quite different for the white people. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, this was not done quite to the benefit of the natives.

We also have very little information about their culture. Anthropologists have not examined these issues very much. However, we got some data from merchants and explorers, who divided the natives into three groups. The eastern group, which includes some bands such as the Yellow Knives, the Dog Ribs—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please. It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Broadcasting Act

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

moved that Bill C-288, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcasting policy), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to be the first person to speak in support of this piece of private member's legislation, Bill C-288, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. In my allotted time I would like to speak to three basic points or principles.

I should point out this is not a new piece of legislation either to this House or to the Senate. In fact, this is the same piece of legislation which in the last Parliament was called Bill C-216 and which passed this House as amended by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and passed the Senate as amended there and is now back before us as Bill C-288 in the same words. But there is one slight shift. This has not been deemed votable by the committee charged with making such determinations.

To those members of other parties and to new members I have to point out that this bill has been studied by a House committee, it has been studied by a Senate committee and it passed the House, passed the Senate and came back here as amended.

This bill received more press coverage in the last Parliament than any other private member's bill by far. It received editorial endorsements and it taught the Senate of Canada that it cannot sit idly by and ignore private members' legislation passed by this House.

Some members may recall the call a senator campaign which was launched last winter and should know that the Senate of Canada was forced to hire extra telephone operators to deal with the thousands of calls made into that place telling the senators to get on with their business and to pass this bill.

Clearly if thousands of Canadians would pick up the phone to call the toll free line at the Senate, one must conclude that this bill had and continues to have wide scale public support. It is equally important to note that the bill has also been endorsed by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Consumers Association of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and was endorsed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on April 9, 1997 in this House.

Finally, because there were concerns expressed in the other place about the effect of this bill on French language services, when it cleared the other place it was noted in debates there that even the French language specialty service approved of this bill.

Furthermore, the Toronto Star , the Globe and Mail , the Montreal Gazette , the Financial Post and other papers carried editorials calling for the passage of this bill. The Financial Post in an editorial said that despite the cable industry's promise not to employ negative option billing again, it was time to drive a stake through the heart of it so that marketers within the cable industry did not find a new variation.

This evening is perhaps the last chance the House will have to deal with this issue.

The second point I want to make deals with the substance of this bill. What this legislation does for the first time is give Canadian consumers a modicum of control over what they will pay for services offered by cable, telephone and satellite companies on to television screens. It is not a radical idea. It is a pretty simple concept that Canadian consumers should agree to the provision of services and that in agreeing they should know what they are receiving and what the cost will be.

Of course this is the normal practice in most marketplaces save and except, and I say this sadly, in matters of Canadian telecommunication. In this realm we have said that Canadians should not have the right to select what they receive and how much they will pay for it.

This is a pathetic commentary on how specialty television services are provided in this country and goes a long way to say how we as legislators have allowed the exploitation of the Canadian public by large corporate interests all in the name of culture.

Yet this bill affects only specialty channels. It in no way impairs or impedes the ability of the government to declare certain channels to be mandatory and therefore to be carried on basic cable.

This bill simply deals with specialty channels, those specific interest channels that to some are entertaining and to others are of no interest. These channels are simply diversionary entertainment. They are of no consequence to anyone, cultural or otherwise.

The present chair of the CRTC, Madam Bertrand, stated before a Senate committee last spring that this bill really was not necessary because of competition in the marketplace, and additionally that cable companies would not employ deceptive marketing techniques again.

We all remember the declarations of the Canadian Cable Television Association which assured us of its new found, straight up marketing techniques in dealing with Canadian consumers.

Yet is it not interesting that these born again straight shooters of last spring and January 1998 again used manipulative marketing practices to try to trap subscribers to taking additional channels?

We saw a month and a half ago that the public statements of Mr. Richard Stursberg, the spokesperson for that organization, were made with a number of qualifiers which he failed to mention originally, that is that negative option marketing continues to exist across this country. This was noted by the Toronto Star in an editorial on January 30, 1998: “It is time for consumers to raise their voices again”.

The only way consumers can raise their voices is through us in this place who can legislate to give them the protection they want and deserve.

I have asked members present to think about it, to think back to the consumer revolts of 1995 on this subject, to think back to the sanctimonious statements by the industry that it had learned a lesson and would not use manipulative marketing practice, to think about it, to look to the practices of recent weeks.

It is clear that only one conclusion can be drawn, that no lesson was learned by the industry. Once again the consumer is forced to pay. Again the Canadian consumer is the loser while we in this place refuse to do anything. What a pathetic commentary on our ability to help those we allegedly serve here.

The third point deals with the role of the CRTC in all this. As I noted earlier, the CRTC appeared before the House committee on Canadian heritage when this bill was before this House and five months later before the committee in the other place when it was there.

When it was here before the committee Mr. Keith Spicer, the then chair of that commission, stated to members present they ought to go ahead and pass this bill.

Five months later his successor, the present chairman, Madam Bertrand, said it is not necessary. Eight months later the cable industry is back to its old tricks.

There is one party that is extremely culpable in all of this besides the cable industry, the CRTC. It has turned its back on Canadian consumers and has co-operated every step of the way with the industry to the gross detriment of our constituents, Canadian consumers.

How it could, in a period of five months, flip-flop from endorsing and calling for the passage of legislation to a point where it could conclude that it was not necessary is beyond me.

It is evident the CRTC has no policy on this. It is fine for it to tell people to go back to basic cable, but it fails to realize that 90 per cent of Canadian consumers have something greater than basic cable. Telling people to go back to basic cable is really destroying the specialty channels that it says it is there to encourage in growth. What does the CRTC do in this instance? What does it do for Canadians? The answer is still nothing.

In a letter I forwarded to the chair of that commission on January 22, 1998, I asked what action in the name of consumers will the CRTC take to review unacceptable steps taken by Rogers Cable. I should point out that subsequently virtually all cable companies in this country took the same step.

In a reply I received from the chair one month and five days later I was told: “A competitive broadcasting marketplace offering Canadians a greater array of program and cost options is beginning to appear”.

This is the justification apparently for Madam Bertrand and her commissioners to allow their industry to run over consumers. She went on to further note that she is sending a copy of my letter to Rogers and asking that it respond to me directly about my concerns within three weeks and to send a copy of its response to her.

This is clearly ridiculous. The CRTC has become a post office box for people with complaints, Canadian consumers, the people it allegedly serves. We have set up this body to protect Canadians.

I must say I am very comforted by Madam Bertrand's assurance that the commission is now following this issue and that I along with many other Canadians have brought this to her attention. I have to wonder somewhat facetiously if one must bring this issue to the attention of Madam Bertrand with a ball peen hammer to get some action.

While the CRTC hides behind this wall that all is well and the marketplace will take care of any problems, she writes letters talking about how the CRTC works to establish fair and affordable basic monthly rates and programming options for cable subscribers. Clearly she is out of her realm. Clearly she is out of touch. Even the television reporter for the Toronto Star , the person who works full time covering the television and communications beat for the largest newspaper in Canada, on January 23 of this year, less than two months ago, wrote that he hated the monopoly and hated having no choice.

If a person who works and is imbued in this industry is unaware of the competition then where does the chair of the CRTC get off in believing there is competition in the marketplace? It is no wonder or surprise to us here that we continually hear from constituents who have no use for that body known as the CRTC, that the time has arrived for us to seriously look at its continued existence, that the time is now to take action and put an end to this silly charade where Canadians, our constituents, are always ending up being the people who pay. They are the victims in this case.

The time is now. It is the last chance for members in this place to do something for Canadian consumers in the face of an indifferent regulatory body which has no interest in them.

I would therefore seek the unanimous consent of this House for the following motion. I move:

That Bill C-288, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, be deemed to have been chosen a votable item.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent in the House to put this bill to a vote?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill, seconded by me, is a learning experience in Parliament and parliamentary procedure. This bill is one that passed this House of Commons, went to the Senate and after a rocky ride arrived back in the House of Commons. Indeed it was the Bloc Quebecois at the time that also took parliamentary procedure to make sure that the prior bill did not ever get through the House of Commons.

It is really regrettable because I have in my hand a news release from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa dated Wednesday, March 11, today. I would like to read the news release:

MPs urged to support negative option bill.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre today urged MPs to support Bill C-288, which will outlaw negative option marketing by the cable industry. This bill is, word for word, identical to Bill C-216 which was introduced in the last Parliament, but killed after being passed by the Senate.

“Contrary to promises by the industry, consumers are not only still faced with negative option billing, but, in addition, negative reaction marketing”, said Michael Janigan, Executive Director of PIAC. “Now they're using a variation of this same old trick for the introduction of new services”, he continued. The practice of negative option marketing occurs when a subscriber automatically receives a service for which they are billed, unless the cable company is notified to the contrary. Negative reaction marketing has developed with the introduction of new specialty channels. Consumers who subscribe to existing packages (beyond basic cable) face a massive rate hike unless they agree to take the new specialty package.

The news release goes on.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre is interested in this as an advocate for the ordinary consumer. The position I am taking as the Reform Party heritage critic and the reason I seconded this bill is that I too have the interest of the Canadian consumer at heart. It is not just the Bloc Quebecois members who for reasons best known to themselves, and perhaps they will describe to us later, have refused to give unanimous consent that this bill be votable. It is the heritage minister in particular and the CRTC that have come out against this and have been working against it underground in the background behind the scenes. The Canadian public should really understand this.

I said that this was a learning experience and it truly was. In the last Parliament when the sponsoring member brought this bill forward, it went through the House with only 25 members voting against it at second reading. The heritage minister at that point said that she was in favour of this bill and its passage. Someone over at the CRTC took the time to read the bill and came to the false conclusion that this would limit specialty channels in the French language. It is a totally false conclusion. It has been proven to be a false conclusion in the Senate hearings that took place.

All sorts of things took place between the first and second reading stages. The bill went to committee. It was examined in committee. It was refined in committee. When it came back to the House for third reading, some very interesting things took place. By then the heritage minister became aware of the fact that her officials at the CRTC had arrived at this false conclusion and therefore was bending arms behind the scenes with the Liberal backbenchers.

We know the Prime Minister has said that Liberal backbenchers may vote how they wish on a private member's bill. Therefore the heritage minister was faced with a problem. She started some arm twisting. We have actual documentation still on file of her recommendations to the members aggressively recommending that they vote against it.

On Monday, the day of the vote, the minister chose to absent herself from the House of Commons when the vote would be taking place. My office followed the procedure. The minister actually chose to go to a public event that was taking place at the convention centre in Toronto. She thereby had an excuse not to come to the House. She previously said that she was going to vote in favour of the bill but all of a sudden—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I believe my hon. colleague may not refer to a division in the House or to the absence or presence of someone here. I do not think that is proper.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I would ask the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia to try to stay within the framework of the debate before us.

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

Madam Speaker, the bottom line to the exercise is that this bill has gone through a very convoluted process.

In spite of the aggressive arm twisting of the heritage minister, the heritage ministry and the officials at the CRTC, not only with the members in the House of Commons but also with the members of the Senate, it did arrive back. It was through action by the Bloc Quebecois that the bill ended up being rejected.

This is my thesis. At exactly the same time this was taking place, there was the copyright bill which the heritage minister wanted to get through. She ended up with the full co-operation of the Bloc Quebecois in certain procedures that took place in committee. It is my thesis that the payback the Bloc Quebecois gave to the minister for achieving certain objectives for Quebec artists in the copyright bill was that it would thwart this very necessary piece of legislation.

Why is it a necessary piece of legislation? It is necessary because there is a monopoly under the existing broadcast rules and communications rules. There is a monopoly for cable. It is opening up, but it is opening up very slowly. Right at this moment if there was full competition with the cable companies by telephone and telecommunications companies, if there was not the significant price differential in getting a dish, or not being able to put a dish in certain areas of certain cities or on apartment buildings, cable companies would not get away with either negative option billing or negative marketing, the new variation they are presently into.

The Reform Party is noted for saying let us be free of government rules and regulations, particularly unnecessary rules and regulations. Therefore one might ask why the Reform Party heritage critic would have seconded this bill coming to the House of Commons.

We do not live in a perfect world. I have already described that the cable companies do not have true competition. Until such time as they have true competition, to protect the Canadian consumer we must have this kind of legislation.

I therefore find it exceptionally regrettable that the Bloc Quebecois would have voiced its rejection of this becoming a votable item in the House tonight. I note that this rejection had it not come from the Bloc without a doubt would have come from the Liberal side of the House. I just do not understand what is going on here. Why do we have a government—

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

It has already been drawn to the Chair's attention that the hon. member has commented on the voting of a particular member and the member's presence or absence in the House which is entirely contrary to the rules of Parliament. He is now choosing to speculate on how a member might, would or could have voted or several members might, would or could have voted with absolutely no basis on which to make such a statement. I would ask that you call him to order, please, Madam Speaker.