Debates of April 30th, 1998

Privilege

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during Oral Question Period, the leader of the official opposition referred to comments I had made a month ago on the Radio-Canada program Enjeux . He put my remarks of a month ago in a completely different context and inferred that they were made with respect to the hepatitis C controversy.

I would like the leader of the official opposition to recognize, for the record, that his comments were out of context and therefore inappropriate under the circumstances.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, this is not a question of privilege, but it is certainly a point of clarification, if you will.

For us this is in a context of how we interpret different things being said. Although the hon. member has put it on the record as to exactly what was made, there is no question of privilege in this case.

The Late Bill Scott

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving in this House with the hon. Bill Scott, when we were both in government.

For over 28 years the former member for Victoria—Haliburton was wise in the defence of the interests of his constituents, and in recognition of his many years of service Prime Minister Mulroney elevated him to the rank of member of Her Majesty's privy council.

It is with enormous regret that we learned of his passing. On behalf of the caucus and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I wish to express my deepest sympathy to those he leaves in mourning, especially his wife Betty and his children Guy and Laurie.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I rise today to remember the late William C. “Bill” Scott, a dedicated constituency politician from my riding of Victoria—Haliburton.

I had the privilege to serve as member of parliament after Mr. Scott retired, before the 1993 federal election. Mr. Scott was a kind man who placed an emphasis on his duty to constituents. He was very approachable and his good will attracted people to him.

Before entering federal politics, Bill played important roles as director of Agricultural Societies of Ontario, past president of the Lions Club, hockey referee with the Ontario Hockey Association and the Ontario Minor Hockey Association and as an associate member of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 441, Kinmount.

He started his political journey as reeve of the township of Snowdon. Mr. Scott won the Progressive Conservative riding nomination over seven other candidates in 1965. He was never challenged for that nomination after that.

Mr. Scott was first elected a member of parliament in 1965 and he served an astonishing eight terms representing Victoria—Haliburton.

Mr. Bill Scott was born and raised in Kinmount, a small friendly community in the riding. He always remembered where he was from first and foremost. Bill Scott dedicated his spare time to the Kinmount fair, one of the most successful rural fairs in Ontario. His involvement began as a youngster and led to president of the Kinmount fall fair board. His involvement in the fair was very important to the community and to all those who attended the fair year after year.

Bill Scott had an active beef farm which enabled him to be very aware that agriculture was an important industry in the riding. He was a strong supporter of volunteers. Wherever he had the opportunity to praise volunteers and the work they did he took full advantage to do so.

In Ottawa Bill served many years as a member of parliament. On July 1, 1992 he was elevated to the Queen's privy council. He also served as Assistant Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons in 1979 and was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in 1989.

Bill Scott used both Ottawa and his riding to effectively serve for 27 years in this House as a politician.

I will always admire Bill Scott for what he did for Victoria—Haliburton. Bill's family gave this country a hardworking politician committed to improving his hometown, his riding and his country.

My sincere condolences go to his wife Betty, daughter Laurie, son Guy and all the family. We thank Bill for a job well done.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the official opposition to acknowledge the passing of and pay tribute to a former colleague, the hon. Bill Scott.

Few MPs can match Bill's tenure in the House of Commons. He served this institution and the riding of Victoria—Haliburton with distinction and honour for 28 years, from 1965 to 1993. That means Bill was re-elected in seven general elections, certainly a statement of the trust his constituents placed in him.

When people speak of Bill Scott they speak with warmth and affection. They speak of him as an icon among grassroots politicians. They refer to Bill as having served his constituents in a selfless manner and say he was a gentleman. I knew Bill and served in two parliaments with him. I concur with their sentiments.

Constituents will say that Bill went beyond the call of duty as an MP. No problem or person was too small. Expediency was not in his vocabulary when it came to helping people. No matter how you voted, you could count on Bill for help. Despite his success, it never went to his head. This was truly a statement to Bill's dignity and sense of duty.

Bill served two terms as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He was appointed to the Privy Council in 1992 in recognition of his work in parliament, his community and his country.

Bill will also be remembered for his work at the municipal level, first as a reeve in the township of Snowdon, and for his long term commitment and work as president of the Kinmount Fair and the Agricultural Society. Both of these were passions for Bill.

On behalf of my Reform colleagues, I extend to his wife Betty, daughter Laurie, son Guy, his sister Margaret, their families and his grandchildren our sincere and deepest sympathy. Bill will be missed by those who knew him. His indomitable spirit lives on in this hallowed precinct and in the community he served and loved.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join other members of parliament in paying tribute to Bill Scott.

I had the pleasure of sitting here with him from 1984 to 1993. When I arrived here in 1984 as a Conservative member, I noticed on the list of elected members that Bill Scott had been here since 1965. I wanted to know how he had managed to survive for so long in politics. Indeed, in 1984 it was said that the average political life of a member of parliament was four and a half years, taking into account the fact that a number of byelections had been held. What had Bill Scott done to survive all these changes?

I went to meet him in his office, and he spoke about his riding with love and passion. He told me all that he was doing in his riding and said that debates in the House were not necessarily his priority. Even though he was a man of culture and a good speaker, and even though he knew the issues very well, he preferred to work in his riding.

I remember that the year we both got elected he was once reprimanded by his whip, because he had not shown up here when he was supposed to be on duty. Instead, he had attended what he felt was an important meeting in his riding.

He had a passion for his people. Some say that he could name almost everyone who lived in that beautiful riding of Ontario.

He could name every vote getter—important members of the Optimist Club or of any other association—and would see them often, consult them and ensure re-election with a strong majority.

Another of his passions was agriculture. He spoke of it often. He often attended meetings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, of which I was also a member.

I would like to mention that he was an effective member, with high regard for colleagues in his party and in the entire House. He was flexible, but he was very firm about his deep convictions when debating in the House or in committee.

When we wanted him to do something in the House and he had something to do in his riding he would smile and say “I take orders only from the people in my riding”. He set an example and I thank him for it, because it is no doubt partly due to his good advice to me in 1984 on the need to work in one's riding and to care for one's fellow citizens that I have managed to keep my seat in this House for the past 14 years.

I would like to offer my condolences and those of the Bloc Quebecois to his family, his wife, his children and to his friends and party colleagues.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I served in this House with Bill Scott for 14 years. I did not know him particularly well. I do not know what kind of a sense of humour he had but he might have seen some irony in the fact that for someone who served here for 28 years, he had at that moment more colleagues in other parties, Reform, Bloc and the NDP than he had in his own party as a result of the election that he chose not to run in.

I remember him as a humble man who did his constituency work extremely well. I think his constituents attested to that time after time after time. He is a lesson to all of us who think that the bravado, the rhetoric and the theatre of this place has something essential to do with the job of a member of parliament. It is certainly a part of what makes parliament tick but we know there are good members of parliament who are not part of the daily theatre of this place and who are content to do a good job on behalf of their constituents, to work behind the scenes and to render a service to their constituents and to their country.

All of us are very honoured to pay tribute today in particular to the memory and to the work of Mr. Scott. On behalf of my colleagues in the NDP, I extend our condolences to Mr. Scott's family and pay tribute to his long career of service to parliament and to his constituents.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, four of the five interveners today referred to the fact that they served with Bill Scott. I did too. Bill was a quiet gentleman.

I recall a story after I had been elected in 1974. The Liberals—I was one way back when—were in the lobby and Bill Scott was there. I was brand new and I did not know anybody. I drifted over to him and said “What did you think of caucus this morning?” He said to me “We are not allowed to talk about what goes on in caucus”. I said “It is okay, we are in the same caucus”. He said “No, we are not”. He was the kind of guy who you took for granted was one of you, whoever you were.

Bill Scott's family was very important to him. I met his wife on a number of occasions. He served this House well. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona said that he did his work quietly, and he did.

I do not know if you would use the word “effectively”, but I would use that word when it comes to the work Bill Scott did for his constituents. He was also a good party member. He understood many of the problems parliamentarians have when they are brand new.

I for one very much respected him. I always sought him out when I could. He had a good sense of humour. He was a jovial man and a good parliamentarian.

Points Of Order

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to raise a matter with respect to tributes. I did not raise it the other day but I noticed that today you began the tributes to Mr. Scott by going to a person from the party that Mr. Scott belonged to. I think that is proper and I understood that to be the procedure.

The other day I was, to say the very least, not very pleased when we were doing tributes to Father Bob Ogle and you recognized the secretary of state first instead of me who was rising to speak on behalf of my party.

I did not raise it that day because I did not think Father Bob would want me to, but I raise it now for future consideration. We need to get straight what the procedure is. I would hope it is as I understand it and that simply a mistake was made the other day.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member has every right to feel a little sad about the way it was handled. It was my fault. What happened, very simply, was that sometimes I am given a list of people who are going to intervene and sometimes we have the member who is sitting from that riding. I thought this was one of those times and that is what we decided to do. It was not.

As a general rule, the hon. member is absolutely correct in that we usually go to the party that the person served. I apologize to him directly. I take full responsibility for it. It will not happen again.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and other international fisheries treaties or arrangements, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

This bill amends Canadian legislation to enable Canada to ratify the United Nations fisheries agreement on the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. The United Nations agreement relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks was adopted by consensus on August 5, 1995 by a UN conference in New York City.

Straddling fish stocks do exactly that. They straddle or migrate across the outer limit of national fisheries waters of a coastal state and the adjacent high seas. Examples are flounder and turbot. Highly migratory fish stocks, such as tuna and swordfish, migrate through the high seas and in some cases through the exclusive economic zone of coastal states. Both categories of fish stocks have been subject to unregulated overfishing on the high seas. The problem exists in several parts of the world, including the Grand Banks of Newfoundland outside Canada's 200 mile zone.

Overfishing by foreign vessels outside and inside the 200 miles has been a factor in declines in northwest Atlantic straddling groundfish stocks of cod, flounder and turbot. These declines have devastated many Canadian coastal communities economically, leaving thousands of fish harvesters and fish plant workers unemployed.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which came into force in November 1994 clearly allows coastal states, that is, states which border on oceans, exclusive rights to control fisheries within 200 nautical miles or 370.4 kilometres of their shores. What is not clear are the legal rights and obligations of states regarding highly migratory fish stocks and straddling fish stocks on the high seas. The UN agreement helps to fill this gap in the law of the sea convention.

The bill we are discussing, Bill C-27, contains provisions for enforcement against unauthorized fishing in Canadian fisheries waters.

The UN agreement regarding straddling and highly migratory fish stocks will come into effect following 30 ratifications or accessions. Fifty-nine states thus far have signed the agreement and 15, including the United States, Russia and Norway, have ratified so far. Canada will be in a position to ratify this agreement after this legislation is passed. Therefore, it is very important that we pass this legislation.

It is hoped that a new legal system for high seas fisheries will provide for effective control and enforcement to protect straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks from the overfishing which is taking place on the high seas.

Proper conservation and management of these stocks could make a significant contribution to ensuring the sustainability of this important food source for our future generations. I think the key that is very important here is the question of sustainability.

The east coast report which was recently tabled by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has a quotation on its cover “Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea”. The key word is dominion, not destruction.

Today what has really happened with our fisheries is that rather than man exercising dominion and wise ruling over this resource, there has been a gradual mismanagement and destruction of it. We only have to look at the fact that cod has now been placed on the endangered list.

We can also look at the lobster fishery. Unfortunately today if we go to the east shore in my province of Nova Scotia we can see one fishing village fighting with another fishing village over lobsters. There are not enough lobsters in one area to satisfy the fishers and the license requirement there. Yet there seems to be an overabundance in another area. We have this inequality.

As we know, when resources become tight, when there seems to be an unfair distribution, then conflict often develops. Unfortunately we have community being pitted against community because of the mismanagement of the fisheries to the point where there are insufficient resources to satisfy the requirements of the villages. This is a very sad state.

On top of that, when we have a program such as the Atlantic groundfish strategy coming to an end, and we do not see any real program or alternatives being presented by the government to face up to this crisis which is developing in our communities, again it becomes very sad. We know there are people in these communities who rely on that program to carry them through to the point where they can earn and look after their families. Without something to replace it in a meaningful way, or without some very positive efforts being made to deal with the issue, we are going to see a lot of frustration as we are already seeing in the communities affected as this program comes to an end.

What this is saying to all of us is that we have to move away from that bottom line which government far too often looks at. That is the economic situation. Far too often governments focus only on the dollar as opposed to what the dollar is intended to do, which is to serve and help people. Far too often people do not look beyond the dollar. They want to balance the budget. They want to define programs in terms of an economic value, forgetting about the social hardships being caused and what has to be done to alleviate them.

We see this with the current proposals with respect to the hepatitis C victims where government can narrowly define the number of people it feels should be helped based on a dollar line rather than on compassion, fairness and what is right. The argument is that if we compensate everybody we are not going to have enough money to go around. We know that is not true. When government wants to it can find the money to do other things. It can find money to assist large businesses. On provincial levels quite often corporations are forgiven loans and outstanding money. Yet there are programs that are needed to help people. These are not receiving the attention or the dollars required. This excuse of not having the money is simply that, an excuse.

When it comes to the TAGS program we have to look realistically at our priorities. Are we concerned really about helping people who are in need, exercising some compassion, some fairness or are we solely concerned with keeping those books balanced? Even then it is questionable what balancing the books really means.

It is important that we look at that. As I read in the quote when God said let us make man in our image, certainly the image of God was not an economic image where the bottom line would be dollars and cents. The image of God is an image of people sharing and having respect for one another, helping each other when they are in need. We need to move away from that bottom line of the dollar being the sole determinant of whether we are going to move ahead to help people. We need to move toward fairness and compassion.

Earlier today I attended a committee meeting. We were looking at the question of economic development in aboriginal communities. We were speaking specifically about the northern communities in this great country. It saddens me every time we look at Canada's great north where there are very valuable mineral resources and lots of riches. Quite often non-aboriginal people have come in and have utilized those resources. They have not enabled the aboriginal people who are living on that land, who have prior claim to that land, to benefit in any substantial or sustainable way from those resources. When mining operations are developed sometimes the argument is we give jobs to the aboriginal people and they can work on these mines but we do not see any real sharing of the royalties and the riches that come from the lands which were inhabited by these people.

Again, it comes down to the bottom line. As governments and as private companies and corporations are we solely interested in our own gain financially to the point that we forget about sharing with other people and we forget about loving one another, respecting one another and making sure that the resources are for the good of all as opposed to only a few?

These are some of the issues that we have to look at when we are dealing seriously with the many problems facing our country.

With this bill when we think about the fishing industry, when we think about the resource there and how we are going to deal with it for the future for our children and our children's children, I think we have to look at the priority that we are going to put forth as we tackle this issue.

Is the bottom line going to be the dollar for us or is it going to be sharing equitably in the resources that the creator has given to us to manage and have dominion over? It is high time governments stop treating people simply as statistics, stop defining how we are going to handle the problem in terms of x number of people fitting within x category or within a certain time frame, and remember that the person who got sick before 1986 is just as important as the person who got sick after 1986. There is no distinction in terms of the suffering these people will feel.

Governments have to realize they cannot make those kinds of arbitrary distinctions and live in good conscience with those decisions.

I know many times when I have to make a tough decision and people ask me how I am going to wrestle with that, I say that what is going to really count for me is at the end of the day if I put my head down and go to sleep feeling that I have done what is right, I have done what my heart has dictated as opposed to what my pocket book may dictate, then I can rest with an easy conscience. We have to exercise that kind of feeling, that kind of attitude when we are dealing with these issues.

It saddens me sometimes when I come to this House and I sit in this very important Chamber as we are doing the nation's business to see the manner in which question period conducts itself. I have said it before and I will say it again. I feel it is wrong when we are dealing with serious issues which affect the lives of people that we are screaming back and forth at one another. We are not listening to each other. We are not hearing what people are saying. We are not showing proper respect. That goes to the core of this entire issue of how governments respond to people.

We have to listen. We have to hear what people are saying. We have to understand each other. This cannot be done if we are trying to have one-upmanship, one on the other, trying to outsmart the other person with some wise remark which has no real meaning or relevance for the people who are suffering and the people who are looking to us to address their problems.

I say to the members of the House, if we want to be serious about the issues which confront our nation, national unity, the issues dealing with aboriginal peoples, the TAGS program and the fishers who are suffering as a result of the end of that program, all these things, we must truly deal with these issues from the heart and not from the pocketbook, not from the budget book.

I am sure if we do that we will certainly find answers and move things forward in a real way which is going to be effective, meaningful and help the citizens of this country.

I think this legislation will give us some control over our shores and over the fishing industry and will hopefully will bring some order to the way in which the fishery conducts itself so that the end result of helping people in our communities will be accomplished.

It is with great pride that I say that we support this bill and I would certainly be pleased to answer any questions.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, by looking around the Chamber I notice we do not have enough members to represent a quorum in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member is asking for a quorum.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have a quorum. Is the house ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The division stands deferred until Monday, May 4, 1998, at the end of Government Orders.