Debates of Nov. 19th, 2001

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, the comment I want to make is that, in establishing a marine conservation area, one of the basic conditions is that the federal government should own the land.

Over and above the fact that it is mentioned in section 92.5 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which says that the province of Quebec and the legislature of every other province may exclusively make laws in relation to the management and sale of the public lands, we also have a law to that effect in Quebec. The member, who was once the Quebec environment minister, must know that that province has an act respecting the lands in the public domain, which applies to all public lands in the province, including the bed of waterways and lakes.

I would like to put a question to the member for Jonquière concerning a comment heard earlier, according to which nothing in the bill says that we can ask if an area is needed and if we are encroaching on a Quebec jurisdiction. Could she give more explanation on those facts and on the Constitution and Quebec laws?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Châteauguay and again wish him a happy birthday.

It is true that within this bill one definitely has to yield some ground. I think that my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, whom I hold in great esteem, has not read the bill properly.

Let us get back into committee, where we will all be on the same wavelength to read it.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Resuming debate. There are three minutes left.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, three minutes is very little time, given the fact that this debate is exciting and that it is obviously dividing everybody in the House.

Considering that when people come back in the House they get applause, I ask for unanimous consent to be able to speak for ten minutes.

That is extraordinary. I do not hear anyone saying no; this has to be put on the record. Therefore I will begin.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I should be allowed to put the question. Is there unanimous consent of the House for the hon. member to be allowed to use the 10 minutes allotted to her?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time unanimous consent has been denied to me. If the bill is important, I think it is important to listen to people who have to speak to it. On a logical level, it could be decided that it is 6.58 p.m. or 7 p.m., given the fact that there is very little time left. Would that be agreeable to my hon. colleagues?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I still wish to indicate to the hon. member that she will have some time left when we resume debate on this matter next time. I have already asked for consent, but I will ask for it again.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

I could perhaps read a poem. It would be interesting.

I am rising today at third reading of Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. This bill is sponsored, surprisingly, by Canadian heritage — which already has many other subjects of interest. With this bill, Canadian heritage wants to regulate the creation of 28 marine conservation areas that are representative of each of Canada's ecosystems.

In 1987, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park became the 29th marine conservation area. Interestingly enough, this park is not covered by the bill before us because it is the subject of its own legislation.

As this is all the time I have, I will leave off until the next time the House considers this issue.

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

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

Madam Speaker, on October 26, in the House, I asked a question to the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. My question was as follows:

The government decided to ignore the recommendations made by the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which were supported by the Liberals, outlined in a report entitled “Beyond Bill C-2”, regarding changes to the employment insurance program.

Given this decision, what steps does ACOA intend to take in order to help people who will have to deal with the gap next January?

The minister answered:

Mr. Speaker, ACOA continues to work together with the communities and provinces of Atlantic Canada to create jobs, which are long term, not short term and to promote sustainable economic development

The question here is a short term one. What happens to young people who do not receive any employment insurance benefits between January and May? What happens to these people? It is as if the Liberal government simply thought that problems could be sorted out in the long term, but that, in the short term, regions should be left to manage on their own.

I am not jealous. I am pleased that the government announced last week that it would put $1 million in northwestern New Brunswick to deal with the gap problem. It recognizes that the gap causes a problem in that region, with an unemployment rate of about 4.5%. But we also have a gap problem in the northeastern part of the province. The unemployment rate there is about 18%; in fact, it is 18%.

In his second answer, the minister responsible for ACOA said that he wished the member for Acadie—Bathurst would work with the government for the economic development of the region. Each time the Liberals visit the region to make announcements, they do not even have the courtesy to invite me, and then they want me to work with them for the economic development of the region.

Yes, I support economic development. I agree that infrastructures must be put in place. I am sure my colleague opposite, who is from Newfoundland, understands what I am talking about. They have the same problems in Newfoundland.

When the report entitled “Beyond Bill C-2” was tabled and changes to employment insurance were requested, a member from Newfoundland presented a petition asking the minister to amend the employment insurance program. I am sure that the members from the Atlantic regions understand that, even the Liberal members. There was a reason Liberals had unanimously said they wanted to see changes in the employment insurance program.

It is really a shame. It is sickening and disgusting to see that there is an $8 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund for the present year alone. How can the government so easily ignore those problems that people are faced with? The suicide rate in my area is totally unacceptable. It is the government's fault, because of the changes it made, and because it is totally unable to show leadership and to change the employment insurance program, which belongs to the workers.

I have said it before and I will say it again, the government is stealing money from the workers and Canadians are paying for that. I am talking about whole families. That is part of the reason 1.4 million children are hungry in this country. There are 800,000 Canadians who do not qualify for employment insurance. It is the Liberal government's fault.

I am looking forward to what the parliamentary secretary to the minister of state responsible for ACOA will have to say to help these people.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I will follow up on the comments made by the member for Acadie--Bathurst recently and again tonight as they pertain to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the creation of jobs for Atlantic Canadians. I begin by reiterating what the minister said initially at the time.

ACOA has invested in some 4,100 commercial projects over the past five years alone helping to create and maintain over 62,000 jobs in the region. The unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada is 2.8% lower as a result of ACOA programming. A 2.8% result is not insignificant. It is a significant result and yes, there is no doubt we would like to see better.

ACOA clients accounted for over 30% of the total net growth in business employment in Atlantic Canada. Net employment in ACOA assisted firms increased by 15% compared to 18% for all of Atlantic Canada firms. As well exports from Atlantic Canada firms have increased very substantially, some 119% since 1993, going from $8 billion to $17.1 billion. A lot of the increase is largely as a result of the ACOA programs in place to help Atlantic Canada businesses.

Each dollar invested in federal-provincial tourism promotion activities has generated almost $9 in tourism spending in Atlantic Canada. That is a tremendous return, $9 for every dollar that governments have put forward.

Since 1997 ACOA has provided over 1,800 low interest loans to young entrepreneurs. These loans have helped create more than 2,400 new jobs in businesses that are run by young entrepreneurs in Atlantic Canada.

What is even more exciting is what is happening right now in Atlantic Canada as a direct result of the Government of Canada's investment in the region. The Atlantic Canada investment partnership will invest $700 million over the next five years to help Atlantic Canadians innovate and compete in the global knowledge based economy.

We have had a tremendous response to our first request for proposals under the innovation fund. ACOA has received 195 proposals, very much proving that businesses and our research community are more than willing to work together to increase and invest in the R and D capacity of the region.

ACOA investments are directed at economic capacity building. They go into the start up and expansion of Atlantic businesses and into providing Atlantic Canadians with entrepreneurial skills. All of these activities are beginning to work. Not only are new jobs being created in significant numbers but a fundamental change is taking place in the attitudes of Atlantic Canadians. The region is becoming more entrepreneurial, more forward looking and more innovative. Atlantic Canada is becoming more confident in its ability to compete globally.

Addressing unemployment in the Atlantic region requires taking a long term view. The Government of Canada is committed to a long term view and it will stay the course.

In conclusion, I share the member's concerns for unemployment in Atlantic Canada. The government intends to work to try to deal with the problem.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, because he says that he understands our problem, since he had the same one. In the parliamentary committee, Liberals promoted changes and made recommendations.

But today, when he talks about ACOA programs, he says that this has allowed for a reduction of 2.8% in the unemployment rate, that this has created 62,000 jobs in the Atlantic region. But this does not change the problem in the short term. This does not change the problem: starting January or February, people will have to go on welfare. This is where they are going now. This is what I want to point out to the parliamentary secretary. What happens in that case?

What happens to Newfoundland which has the problems we do in Atlantic Canada? We come from an area where there are seasonal jobs. I understand that we have to work on economic development. I understand that we have to put infrastructure in place. I understand, that we have to create business where people will be able to get jobs.

In the meantime employment insurance belongs to the working people of the country. It belongs to them when they lose their jobs. It is not acceptable that they are not allowed to have employment insurance. It is there for that purpose. We should work together for the infrastructure and put people back to work. That is what I believe.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern for the unemployed in his riding and in the Atlantic Canada region.

Initially when the member raised this question with the minister responsible for ACOA, the minister outlined to him the initiatives that had been taken by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to try and increase employment and to further develop business opportunities in Atlantic Canada to make it globally competitive. In that regard, through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, we have made great strides in Atlantic Canada.

We realize full well that we have a way to go but we have to become globally competitive and we have to be innovative. We have to encourage and promote business opportunities and strive to create long term employment. We fully realize that many people in Atlantic Canada are employed in seasonal industries. We have to strive to create long term employment through business promotion in Atlantic Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to follow up on my question of June 7 directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in which I asked if the Government of Canada was going to ask Moscow to pay for the police investigation resulting from the accident by a Russian diplomat Mr. Knyazev. The minister did not answer my question. He said that the government would make every effort to resolve the issue, but we still do not know whether Canada did ask Russia to pay for this investigation.

Canada paid to bring the Russian police to Canada to do the investigation and that should have been the responsibility of Moscow.

We have learned that charges have been laid, although the defendant has pleaded not guilty. We also have word that the Russians came back again for a further investigation.

Did Canada ask the Russians to pay the first bill? Did Canada pay for the Russians to come back a second time to talk to the relatives of the victims? It is appropriate to ask these questions today because earlier we talked about Bill C-35 which would expand immunity to include foreign diplomats and foreign representatives from other countries who were never subject to immunity before.

Has Moscow paid the Canadian government for the first trip, as I asked back in June? Has the government asked Moscow to pay for the second trip to complete the police investigation?

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester. The member is right in that the person has been charged and now within the Russian judicial system will proceed to indictment. At that point evidence will be laid to argue as to whether he should proceed to trial. This was as we anticipated.

Explanations have been given as to the assistance Canada lent to Russia initially in bringing police officers to Canada to allow the investigation to ensue. While there was some discussion of that, we have met the bar in responding. Obviously the concern of my hon. colleague in the opposition is that justice be rendered. If on this occasion, as on other occasions, there had to be a fiscal dimension to that, then for the greater good of justice of the matter it appeared to be a lesser cost and certainly one that we could undertake, and which we did do.

The horror of the incident was such that justice was what was utmost in all of our minds. Following the justice issue, which was foremost, procedures within the department were a priority for the minister. A zero tolerance policy, which is new and which is clearly laid out within the Department of Foreign Affairs, has been another result of this dreadful accident.

I believe that my answer might assist the hon. member with his inquiry.

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

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate what the department has tried to do and what the minister has tried to do. I have always felt it was not appropriate for the Russian diplomat to take advantage of his immunity under the diplomatic rules we have and flee to Russia, and then we had to pay for the Russian police to come to Canada. If the Russians really felt that justice should be done, they should have at least paid for the police to come to Canada.

I have two questions for the parliamentary secretary. She said that they have estimated the cost of this investigation to Canada. What was that cost? Second, did Canada fund the cost of the second trip made recently?

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member that figure, but I can undertake to do so at a later date since I have heard ministers undertake to do just that during question period.

Whether or not a second financial arrangement ensued, that too I do not have, but again I will do my utmost to deliver that information to my hon. colleague.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.)