Debates of May 2nd, 2000

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.

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

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on February 21, I asked a question on gasoline prices and I would like to read this question to be sure that those who are listening understand why I am speaking in the House today.

At the time, I said:

—gasoline now costs 71.9 cents a litre in Bathurst, while diesel is at 79.4 cents a litre in Yarmouth, the highest level in ten years.

Canadians are discouraged and now truckers from Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are protesting at the New Brunswick border against this drastic increase in the price of gasoline. Some of them even think they may have to hand over their trucks to the banks.

Will the federal government finally act, or will it wait until the situation becomes a national crisis?

This was the answer of the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions:

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the price of oil has actually doubled since last year. Taxes went up by only 1 cent.

This is not the problem for people buying gasoline. The problem is not taxes, but the fact the price of oil has doubled.

I never mentioned taxes in my question. What I asked was if the government intended to act. I asked the government to take action because, as we all know, it has responsibilities.

We know the cost to truckers, not only those of New Brunswick but everywhere else in Canada, to drive their truck and work day after day. For instance, they had to go to the New Brunswick border. How many truckers in Quebec were forced to organize protests because of oil prices?

I asked why the federal government did not take action like, for instance, the Government of Prince Edward Island. The federal government is going to say that it is not its responsibility, that it is the provinces' responsibility.

My question dealt with the fact that the federal government could have co-ordinated national meetings. It was unacceptable, in our country, to see how oil companies reacted when the price increased. On weekends, the price of gas was high, on weekdays, it was lower. It changed every day. In my book, that is almost like stealing.

But, speaking of taxes, I will give an example. In the Atlantic provinces, the government brought in the harmonized tax. Before that tax, people in New Brunswick did not pay tax on heating oil. After that tax was introduced, even the poorest people had to pay tax on heating oil.

The federal government can work with the provinces and reach agreements to help people. It did not do that. In fact, it did the opposite.

The answer I got to my question was that it was just a one cent increase. In my question, I did not talk about taxes. But since we are on that subject, I will tell the government that it can do better than that, that it can remove the GST on heating oil, that it can help Canadians, that it can do something and also that it can join with the provinces in telling oil companies that this is unacceptable in our country.

It is unfortunate that I do not have more time. I just wanted to raise this issue and show how the government is out of touch with the people. Again, it missed a golden opportunity. But, what can one say, it is a Liberal government after all.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond today to the arguments presented by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst on the effects of the gas and diesel oil price increases on consumers and on the Canada trucking industry.

First I want to point out that recent gas and diesel oil price increases in Canada are directly due to the fact that international crude oil prices have almost tripled since the end of 1998.

Although the federal government does not control crude oil prices, under an agreement signed in 1995 with Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, it closely monitors the conditions and competition practices on the oil markets under the Competition Act.

The increase in oil prices is probably temporary. OPEP ministers will meet to discuss the possibility of increasing supply, which would reduce prices.

Nevertheless, I can assure hon. members that the Canadian government, as one of the 24 members of the International Energy Agency, will co-operate with its international partners to ensure stable international oil markets.

As for Canadians truckers, they will benefit from the tax relief measures provided for individuals as well as businesses in the February 2000 budget.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canada must not in any way be party to nuclear arms buildups or to actions which may lead to a cold war environment. Canada must loudly and proudly say no to the U.S. proposed national missile defence system. On behalf of the federal NDP I urge the government to take a stand sooner rather than later.

I raised the question of our participation in the system on March 16. The Minister of National Defence stated:

We cannot yet take a position. There are too many unknowns.

I could not believe my ears. Of course we can take a stand. We should take a stand and we must take a stand.

The minister is also fully aware that DND started work on a $637 million project to provide Canada with a foothold in the arms buildup strategy of the U.S. This expenditure involves putting military surveillance sensors in space. The U.S. treats Canada like the 51st state and the Liberal government reacts like a whipped dog.

The U.S. threw down its gauntlet in comments from U.S. deputy defence secretary in a speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce when he said:

We are at an important pivot point in our relationship with each other. Unfortunately I think that pivot point is going to revolve around the issue of national missile defence. Canada needs to take the lead.

This is an explicit threat from where I sit: either do what the U.S. says or we will suffer. I am shocked that the government did not respond to this thinly veiled threat. The foreign affairs minister said on March 22:

Unilateral efforts to build defences against these dangers are unlikely to provide lasting security, and might quite possibly increase insecurity.

The impulse to build walls should be resisted. The answer instead lies in creating a multilateral approach to stop missile proliferation in the first place.

On the other hand we have the minister of defence meekly stating:

We cannot yet take a position. There are too many unknowns.

Now, however, it seems as if the big defence corporations and the U.S. brass have given our minister of defence marching orders. More recently he is making statements which seem very much to suggest that NORAD is anything but a joint Canada-U.S. defence command and is in reality an easy way for the U.S. to tell us to heel and to roll over.

This is a serious matter. Canada's role in international affairs hangs in the balance. I ask the Liberal government for an answer to my question. Whose words rule the Liberal roost? Is it those of the defence minister or the foreign affairs minister? I ask the Prime Minister to make a public statement on Canada's opposition to the U.S. government's plans to crank up the arms race with this national missile system.

The defence minister says there are too many unknowns. Allow me to clarify the picture for him a little. The defence minister of France, Alain Richard, has said the threat of ballistic missile attack is sometimes hyped or exaggerated. Military affairs analyst John Clearwater said of the proposed system:

It is money down the toilet...any rogue country shooting a missile at the U.S. knows it will be wiped out.

This insane missile plan will destabilize the current state of arms control. Even the conservative Globe and Mail stated that Canada should deny U.S. support on this measure.

There is no question the U.S. is consciously heading on a collision course with Russia, despite Russia's most recent positive efforts at ratifying the START II, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The NMD totally contradicts the 1972 ABM Treaty with Russia. The U.S. would have to withdraw from or violate the treaty.

Canada has the duty and the responsibility of playing a leadership role. The U.S. plans to fuel the arms race and to destabilize international relations must be actively opposed.

The government has a choice. It can continue to invest in this U.S. missile system and act like the 51st state or it can take a clear and strong stand against something that is fundamentally wrong and do so with pride.

The Liberals are perched on a very high and narrow fence and Canadians are waiting to see on which side of the fence they will fall. If the government falls on the side of complicity with the U.S. NMD system through silence on the matter or through open support, then all of Canada will be hurt in this fall. The pain will also be felt by those in other countries looking to Canada to play a leadership role.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the most fundamental point about the national missile defence program is that it is a U.S. program. The United States has not yet decided to deploy it and the U.S. government has not officially invited Canada to participate.

Work has continued in the U.S. on ballistic missile defence since the start of the star wars program in the mid-eighties. A national missile defence system, NMD, would be based on Earth and not in space although space sensors would be used to detect and track missile launches. An NMD system would launch from the ground an unarmed projectile called a kill vehicle that would intercept an incoming missile and destroy it by the sheer force of impact. As currently planned, NMD would counter an attack by a limited number of missiles and warheads.

The proponents of NMD in the U.S. argue that the emerging threat caused by the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction technology is a new factor, that the old bipolar world no longer exists and that U.S. security is being undermined. A rogue state with an ICBM, an intercontinental ballistic missile, could limit American foreign policy options by blackmailing future American governments. Its intelligence estimates indicate that states of concern could develop such a capability within the next five to 10 years.

On July 23, 1999 President Clinton signed the National Missile Defence Act which states that an NMD system will be deployed when technologically feasible. The deployment decision has not yet been taken and might not be taken by this or even a succeeding administration.

When he signed the National Missile Defence Act into law, President Clinton stressed that a final decision to deploy a NMD system would take place only after a deployment readiness review had been completed. He also set out the following criteria that would govern a deployment decision: whether the threat is materializing; the status of the technology; whether the system is affordable; and national security considerations, including arms control and disarmament regimes, relations with Russia and the impact of the decision on allies.

The target date for this review is now July. While a decision to deploy could be taken as early as August this year, it would be some years before any—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt but the member's time has expired. The hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

[Dennis Gruending, NDP, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in March a panel on Canada's national parks released a landmark report which called for the re-establishment of ecological integrity as the guiding principle for parks management in the future. Rightly so.

National parks were originally created out of a desire to preserve some of our natural beauty for people to enjoy. In fact it was in 1885 when Canada established one of the first national parks in the world, Rocky Mountain National Park or Banff as we call it today.

The vision and the commitment of countless Canadians to preserve some small part of our natural heritage is best put to words appropriately enough by the authors of the first National Parks Act which was passed by the House of Commons in 1930:

Parks are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education, and enjoyment....Such parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

Sadly, this vision has become clouded. The value of our parks and their natural heritage has been reduced to a matter of dollars and cents by the government in particular. Our parks have suffered as a result.

The drive to generate revenue from park services puts an emphasis on the development of things like golf courses, hotels and even movie sets. At the same time services like park guides, wardens and the upkeep of camping facilities have been cut to the bone.

I want to use the example of Prince Albert National Park. In Prince Albert National Park the Narrows campground is a popular spot where many people take their families to camp each summer. Liberal government cuts have diverted resources away from the campground to the point where it is now in a shambles. The park has struggled to keep up the campground but last winter people were told that this summer they might have no modern toilets or fresh water.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage embraced the blue ribbon panel on parks. She told me that we have to get our ecological house in order before we go to the Minister of Finance for more money. She told me that in the House earlier this year. That is fine and good but I sincerely hope the minister is not simply using this report as an excuse to delay reinvestment in services. Services consistent with the spirit of ecological integrity should have their funding restored and restored right away.

The expert panel's report acknowledges that the concept of human use and enjoyment is fundamentally linked with national parks, but this human use and enjoyment is under attack. As I have mentioned it is under attack in the Narrows campground where people are not going to get even the basic services which they really deserve and have used for years. This is not an attack on the integrity of the park. This use has coexisted with the integrity of the park for many years. Why should people who are prepared to make responsible use of the park have to wait for basic maintenance?

The minister has not issued an edict to stop the use of pesticides on golf greens or hotel lawns within the borders of the parks, nor should she allow Liberal cutbacks and neglect to shut down simple campground services.

One wonders what the minister might be waiting for. I certainly hope it is not another federal election and more red book promises to provide funding required to begin the process of preserving our parks for future generations.

Responsible use without abuse and experience in the parks are goals we all share. Ecological integrity must be our long term goal and it must come before profit, before greed and before politics.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, basically, we agree with a great deal of what the hon. member has just said.

The government has introduced Bill C-27, the purpose of which is to establish ecological integrity as a basic and priority principle, and to proclaim loud and clear that this is a basic principle we consider of the utmost importance.

I hope members of all parties opposite will support this very important bill now before the House, because it shows that the government is committed to implementing the report of the panel on ecological integrity and to create eight new parks. This is in contradiction with some of the remarks of the hon. member opposite, to the effect that the government does not intend to keep its word and complete the national parks network.

We hope hon. members will support this bill, as the NDP critic seemed to indicate, because it meets the legitimate aspirations of Canadians, who want to preserve our national parks for future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to once again rise in the House to discuss a very serious matter on the Atlantic coast with regard to the fishing industry and the recent case of R. v. Marshall.

I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a couple of weeks ago basically what the government was doing to ensure common peace in our waters as the May 1 lobster season opens in Atlantic Canada. The minister said that the government is looking at all avenues and almost half out of 34 bands in the area have reached either agreements or agreements in principle after the Marshall decision and that was a positive sign in that regard.

The question which still needs to be asked is what about the other half of the other bands which have not yet come to an agreement? It has caused discord between the non-aboriginal communities and the aboriginal communities throughout Atlantic Canada on exactly who is fishing what, when, where, how and who is actually mandated to regulate the industry to ensure that precautionary principles and conservation principles apply in each and every single term.

I have great respect for the hon. member for Labrador, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I would ask him in his rebuttal to this query to put the bureaucratic notes down that he received from the DFO office and speak to the House as the member for Labrador, which I know he is very good and capable of doing.

I know that in the end he stands up for the fishing communities of his riding. That is why he has been elected and why there is a good chance he will be re-elected. However, I can assure him if he continues to speak from bureaucratic notes from a department that has destroyed the stocks throughout Atlantic Canada and western Canada, his prospects of being re-elected will get slimmer every time. That is my bit of election 101 advice for the parliamentary secretary.

The fact is what the communities need to know and what the five provinces and even Nunavut need to know is does the government have a long term strategy in place to integrate the aboriginal communities on a long term basis? Right now the agreements are short term only. Negotiations will be ongoing in the future.

We all know that elections happen. Ministers go through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans like it has a revolving door. Who is to say that certain strategies may not change as we go along? This uncertainty is scaring a lot of fishermen, especially a lot of independent fishermen in Atlantic Canada.

The lobster fishery is the last independent fishery in Atlantic Canada. The groundfish stocks are gone or have been corporatized. The crab stocks are more or less into area management zones now. The larger crab dealers in the Gaspé for example have control of the crabs. Lobsters are the last independent resource for an independent living for lobster fishermen.

Does the government have a long term plan to protect the resource and the livelihood of all fishermen in Atlantic Canada?

[Lawrence O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed quite gratifying to hear the comments from my colleague and great friend. I salute his mom once again for a great breakfast in Richmond, B.C.

I will say this much to the hon. member. While I did come fully prepared to speak with notes today, I will make him a promise that the next time I make an adjournment debate speech, I will speak without prepared notes. That is a fact. I will make my points and I will make them the way he did which was in a most compelling way. However, I have the pleasure right now to speak from notes.

It is my pleasure to speak about the progress that has been made to accommodate aboriginal peoples in Atlantic Canada pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada's Marshall decision of November 1999.

The conditions are coming into place for a successful, orderly and regulated fishery in the maritimes and Quebec. We have now made interim fishing agreements or agreements in principle with over half of the aboriginal communities. We expect that most of these will be in place by June.

We listened to the voices of the fishing industry who asked that a voluntary licence retirement program be used to make room for aboriginal fishers in the commercial fishery. We initiated such a program over three months ago and have received some 1,400 applications and have acquired over 350 licences so far.

The approach is working well and we are matching supply and demand. The overall number of aboriginal entrants remains low relative to the total of 23,000 vessels and 44,000 fishermen—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. The hon. member has too many notes.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been four months since Canadians first learned that the Liberal government bungled $1 billion of their tax dollars. That is a disturbing thought for the millions of hardworking Canadians who just filed their tax returns.

Since then there has not been a single resignation, there has not been a cabinet shuffle, and there has not even been an admission of guilt. Instead Canadians have been subjected to a steady stream of arrogant abuse from the government.

The Prime Minister tells us he is only doing a good job as an MP, despite numerous RCMP investigations into HRDC grants in his riding.

We have discovered that one Liberal member after another benefited from well timed government grants. In a glaring conflict of interest the HRDC minister approved three grants totalling over $700,000 in her own riding which went against the rules of the transitional jobs fund. Even more shocking was the news that she had approved an additional $840,000 in grants the day after her officials told her about the bungled funds.

Every week new details surface about more improprieties in how the HRDC grant money was doled out. Just this week we heard how the Deputy Prime Minister took advantage of Canadian taxpayers by directing $1.6 million into his riding and skirting the rules by spending only a paltry 20% of the funds on wages for employees.

The government fails to understand that the money it so callously threw around is not its money. It enrages Canadians when they realize that the government has yet to understand this concept, continuing to bungle billions of tax dollars on boondoggle spending while hardworking Canadians suffer because of deteriorating health care systems.

Instead of treating this health care emergency the Liberals patted themselves on the back, increasing the 2000 budget for federal grants and contributions by a further $1.5 billion.

The Canadian Alliance believes that Canadians would rather see money spent on improving the quality of health care than see it lining the pockets of the Prime Minister's friends. We believe that this funding is better spent upgrading the quality of health care. We are deeply concerned about the future of our health care system. No one wants to see people suffer when they fall ill. No one wants an American style health care system in Canada. We believe that health care should not be based on financial status and that all Canadians should have timely access to essential health care services.

When we form government we will provide greater freedom of choice when it comes to ensuring well-being and access to medical care and medical facilities. We believe that the needs of patients must come first in the delivery of health services. We will work together with the provinces so that they have the resources and flexibility to find more effective approaches to the financing, management and delivery of health care, thereby ensuring that patient choice and quality of care are maximized.

It is time for the government to go. It becomes clearer every day that the government is incapable of offering solutions to these problems. It has become detached from the concerns of Canadians and cares only about feeding its own inflated ego.

Canadians can be assured that the Canadian Alliance is ready and willing to tackle the ongoing problems of high taxes and substandard health care. We can no longer afford to become complaisant as our country falls to pieces under the Liberal government.

How much longer will long suffering, overtaxed Canadians have to put up with this Liberal arrogance instead of getting reasonable value for their tax dollars?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member first asked his question in the House he referred to a specific grant. At that time the minister invited him to provide us with the details of the story he was telling. She promised to look into the matter and provide him with an adequate response. However he did not bring it forward.

I was not surprised because he is continuing on with the style of the party he represents. That involves presenting incomplete information and leaving innuendoes, giving Canadians the impression of wrongdoing on the part of the government.

One thing that is consistent is that members of that party never have any proof. When invited to bring forward information in order that an investigation can be launched, they never bring their information forward. This suggests to me that they want their accusations and their innuendoes to hang in the air, poisoning the trust of Canadians in their government, eroding the traditional bond of trust that has existed between Canadians and their government and is the basis of civilized behaviour in this country. This is irresponsible. If taken to the extreme, if Canadians believed these innuendoes, it could lead to social chaos.

Why would they be doing this? The reason is that they want Canadians not to have faith in sending their tax dollars to Ottawa. Why is that? It is because their rich friends want their taxes reduced. They want the government to have less money to provide the kinds of programs that HRDC provides so well to Canadians who do not have so much, Canadians who do not have jobs, Canadians with disabilities, unemployed Canadians.

We need tax dollars to provide those programs to give all Canadians the dignity of work and the dignity of a life that is as comfortable as most other Canadians have.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.35 p.m.)