Debates of May 25th, 1999

Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. Albert concerning the procedural acceptability of Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

The hon. member contends that Bill C-78 imposes a “charge upon the people” in that it proposes to make any of these pension plan surpluses payable to the consolidated revenue fund. This, he argues, constitutes a form of tax which would require the bill to be preceded by a ways and means motion.

In the time available to me I have carefully reviewed the remarks made by the hon. member and I have noted that he makes no mention of the fact that any shortfalls in these plans accrue as a liability to the Government of Canada.

Under the heading of “Matters requiring authorization by Ways and Means”, May in the 22nd edition at page 777 states in part:

If—money raised by statutory imposition—is—to be used for the benefit of the public at large or for purposes which might otherwise have required to be financed from the Consolidated Fund, that imposition is likely to need authorization by a Ways and Means resolution.

However, as the hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services has pointed out, the legislation affects not the Canadian public in general but “a defined and limited group of people” who, as co-contributors, will be entitled to a defined benefit.

Consequently I cannot agree with the hon. member for St. Albert. I rule that Bill C-78 is properly before the House and we will proceed with the vote on third reading.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 450

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-260, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Young Offenders Act

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier today the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-260 under Private Members' Business.

As this is a private member's bill, the mover sitting on the opposition side will have the first vote. All those who are in favour of the motion on my left from the back row forward will vote. Then all those who are in favour from the back row on my right and forward will vote.

Before the taking of the vote:

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for taking up the time of the House, but I would like, if possible, to have my vote recorded in favour of this motion.

[The Speaker]

It will be recorded.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to be recorded as being in favour of this motion.

[The Speaker]

It will be recorded.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 451

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 381 under Private Members' Business. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

We will take this vote the same way we did for the previous private member's bill. The first one to vote will be on my left and we will follow the regular procedure.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 452

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the amendment.

Before the taking of the vote:

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleagues think I am going on the theory that we should vote early, vote often but I want to vote in support of the motion. I stood up twice.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 453

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment carried.

The next question is on the main motion, as amended.

Before the taking of the vote:

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It appears I inadvertently voted twice and I want the record to show that I support the motion.

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just wondering if the hon. member for Medicine Hat is the finance critic.

[The Speaker]

The Member is out of order.

(The House divided on the motion, as amended, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 454

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion, as amended, carried.

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

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to raise the issue of the desperate shape of our Canadian forces helicopters.

Let us listen to this litany of shame: February 1993, Sea King ditched in Gulf of Mexico due to electrical systems failure; April 1994, Sea King crashed in New Brunswick killing two crew and injuring others; August 1994, Sea King fleet grounded following emergency landing; May 1995, Labrador had emergency landing due to mechanical problems; September 1995, Sea King had emergency landing due to mechanical problems; August 1996, three Sea Kings grounded due to cracks in tail section; January 1997, Labrador crashed in Georgia Strait; October 1998, Labrador crash killed six; February 1999, Sea King in trouble due to bad main rotorhead; March 1999, Labrador adrift on lake due to losing both engines; March 1999, Sea King had emergency landing due to electrical systems; May 1999, Sea King makes forced landing due to leak in hydraulic system.

There is one more date of note. On June 26, 1986 the Treasury Board began the process of replacing the Sea Kings. Almost 13 years have passed since then, 13 years.

The Liberal government turned our forces helicopters into hell-copters when in June or July of 1995 the cabinet chose to delay the purchase of the replacement helicopters. It was a cheap political decision at the time but has become costly and poses serious issues in terms of the safety of Canadian lives.

These mechanical albatrosses may have led to the unnecessary deaths of Canadians and continue to present safety hazards and risk to life. I say unnecessary because the Liberal government made a very specific decision to delay the purchase of the helicopters.

It is not as if the minister and his government did not know of the problems. Headlines have screamed out the following news to Canadians for some time: Labradors unable to join rescue; helicopters grounded again; aging helicopters risk lives; faulty chopper delays recovery of 11-year old; helicopter malfunctioned days before crash; helicopter kills two veteran firefighters; the Liberals' chopper whopper; Sea Kings a threat; Sea King makes emergency landing.

The government may respond with platitudes about taking time to make sure the right choice is made, care for fiscal responsibility, that plans are proceeding well and the need to ensure the finished product is safe. Canadians are sick and tired of excuses.

The government must answer three questions. First, what specific short term alternatives has the government explored, including short term leases until the new helicopters are operational? Second, what specific efforts has the government made to speed up the procurement process and why exactly have these efforts failed? Third, what month will the replacement helicopters be operational?

A failure on behalf of the Liberal government to openly, honestly and completely answer these three questions is a gross betrayal not of me but of the families and communities who have lost loved ones, a betrayal of Canadian forces personnel who have no alternative but to continue to use these aging helicopters, a betrayal of all Canadians and a betrayal of good government.

I express my gratitude for all Canadian forces personnel who will bear the brunt of the Liberal government's mismanagement of the issue. They are the heroes in this tragedy of errors wrought by the government.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, maritime helicopters are essential to the mission of the Canadian forces.

It is our duty to ensure that the Canadian forces possess the equipment they require to accomplish their mission, both in Canada and abroad.

In his 1994 white paper, the minister made a commitment to replace the Sea Kings, and this is an essential project for the Minister of National Defence. On numerous occasions, the minister has expressed his desire to implement a strategy involving the acquisition of maritime helicopters in the near future. In fact, the minister has said he hoped to make an announcement on this issue in the current year.

Department officials are currently reviewing a draft of the requirements established for maritime helicopters. The statement of operational requirements, which is more or less the basis of the project, is undergoing several revisions and rewriting, and is the object of a close review at several levels within the department.

It is on the basis of that document that we will buy several millions of dollars worth of very complex military equipment. Therefore, it is critical that we do what is necessary to ensure the process is implemented properly from the beginning.

It is also important that the industry, Canadians and any other person interested in this issue can read and understand the statement of requirements that will be released. However, more importantly, the new maritime helicopter must meet Canadians forces' policy requirements and operational requirements. This is a must, and there will be no compromise on this point.

We will do our utmost to ensure the Sea Kings remain in service until the arrival of the new maritime helicopter.

The recent minor problems were dealt with, and we will do what it takes to make sure our aircraft are safe to fly.

The Sea Kings will be upgraded if need be, and I have no doubt we will be able to carry out our mission with the equipment currently available to the Canadian armed forces. pluriel

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise today again on a question I asked regarding the exploratory seismic licences that were given to the company Corridor Resources from the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

I raise this concern because those seismic drilling exploration leases, which we have now found out are six months delayed so they could be done in the wintertime, are right in the heart of the lobster spawning grounds off the coast of Cape Breton, on the inside coast in the gulf and around P.E.I. where the member for Malpeque is from, as well as in the New Brunswick area.

If this company is allowed to have the exploratory licence to do its seismic drilling, it will expand the drilling throughout the entire gulf. This means that the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be incorporated in this concern as well.

The reason I am speaking on this today is that over 2,000 lobster fishermen in Cape Breton, New Brunswick and P.E.I. have very serious concerns about their livelihood.

Since the downturn of the groundfish fishery a lot of fishermen have turned to lobster or shellfish as their main livelihood in order to live in their coastal communities and look after their families. They do not make very much money doing this.

If we allow this to go forward we are risking the possible long term environmental damage of a very sustainable stock. In Newfoundland, in fact in all Atlantic Canada and Quebec it is an over half a billion dollar industry. The government only spends about $330,000 a year on experiments and the science and study of the lobster itself.

I would ask the government to be very cautious and prudent in its environmental assessment of the project to ensure that there will be no damage in the short term or the long term to the lobster stocks, scallop stocks, crab stocks or whatever shellfish is out there.

There are indications that the groundfish breed out there as well. We must be very cautious to protect those species so that in turn we can protect the livelihood of thousands of people and their families in coastal communities in Atlantic Canada.

This begs another question. Why did the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council along with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans not immediately put a halt to this lease before all environmental assessments were done in the long term? We cannot do a proper assessment in six months. It is 1999 and we are still in the embryonic stage of wondering if seismic oil and gas drilling definitely affects the lobsters. There are a lot of indications from the fishermen that indeed they do. The DFO spends very little money on science in this regard.

I ask the government again that the FRCC, the DFO's advisory board and the DFO itself, the department responsible for management of the habitat area and the fish stocks as well, be extremely prudent and cautious in their efforts in order to protect the livelihood of thousands of people in Atlantic Canada.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, as I answered previously, we are pleased to see that the member opposite shares our concerns and the minister's concerns over fish habitat.

He mentioned about being cautious. If there is one thing the minister has clearly shown, it is that he has made some tough decisions in terms of protecting fish and fish habitat. He will continue to do that.

In terms of the specifics of this case, the recent issuance of an exploratory licence for the Cape Breton block, it is important to recognize that this is not a blanket approval for future oil and gas activities. The licence only confers the right to explore the lands covered by the licence, drill and test for petroleum and obtain a production licence in respect of those lands.

Each exploration project proposal under this licence will have to undergo an environmental assessment and will have to be approved by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

Due to the concerns that have been identified in the Cape Breton block, the board has decided to put a six months hold on any exploration activities so that additional discussions and environmental analyses can be carried out.

A strategic environmental assessment is currently being done for the Cape Breton block in order to identify and provide an initial evaluation of the issues on which future project specific assessments completed by the industry should focus.

During 1999 research will be carried out on the effects of seismic exploration on the east coast fishery through support from the environmental sciences research fund. In addition, the role of Canada-Nova Scotia Petroleum Board in regulating the petroleum industry in—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid I must interrupt the parliamentary secretary as his time has run out.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise again today to raise the subject of an unsafe condition in Kelowna, British Columbia, identified by the Department of Transport over 11 years ago.

My question is brought on by a puzzling situation where Nav Canada within the last few weeks announced a $90 million reduction in fees voluntarily. I do not understand why it has reduced its fees by $90 million and still refuses to replace the air traffic control tower in Kelowna.

Allow me to read into the record the operational condition report dated November 4, 1987:

Due to the location and/or the height of the control tower a portion of the runway and taxiways is not visible. A runway incursion going unnoticed is now a major safety concern. The margin of safety has been jeopardized. A restricted line of sight visibility has been identified as a major safety concern by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.

This report lists only two possible solutions to the problem. First, raise the present control tower two or three stories to a height that would ensure line of sight for all manoeuvring areas or, second, build a brand new control tower in a location which would ensure line of sight for all manoeuvring areas.

The manager in reply to this report by the inspector said line of sight difficulties had been recognized as a problem in Kelowna. The inspector identified it and the manager confirmed it.

How can this situation be safe now and how can Nav Canada refuse to replace the air traffic control tower or raise the present one? How can it be safe now when it was not safe in 1987? Why was the tower required to be replaced in 1987 but is not required to be now?

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport please reply to that question and explain why Nav Canada is reducing its charges by $90 million and still refusing to replace the condemned tower in Kelowna?

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the issue raised by the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester this evening on the air traffic control tower at Kelowna airport.

I begin by assuring the member that Nav Canada applies air traffic control procedures to address visibility limitations such as those at Kelowna airport. Transport Canada is satisfied with the corporation's actions to mitigate any potential safety risk until a more permanent solution is available.

I emphasize that Transport Canada no longer has an operational role with respect to the provision of air traffic control services in Canada. Nav Canada is responsible for these services including the operation, location and construction of air traffic control towers.

I reiterate that the airport operator is expanding the apron parking area and construction has already begun. This will contribute to alleviating the obstruction of views caused by the parking of large aircraft. In the longer term Nav Canada is continuing its efforts to install an effective video system and is commencing feasibility studies for the location of a new tower.

As we know, safety is Transport Canada's top priority and the Minister of Transport continues to be responsible for safety oversight. The member may be assured that Transport Canada will continue to monitor the Kelowna airport as part of the department's ongoing airport inspection program.