Debates of Nov. 21st, 2001

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area who are concerned about kidney disease. They believe that a change in the name of our national institute devoted to kidney disease would be valuable in the furthering of their cause.

They know that the Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes does wonderful research in relation to diet, digestion, excretion and metabolism. They know that it works on a wide variety of conditions and problems associated with hormone, digestive system, kidney and liver functions. They believe it would be valuable if the word kidney were included in the title of this institution.

The petitioners call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include kidney research as one of the institutes in its system, to be named the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from citizens of Peterborough who are concerned about the war in Afghanistan.

The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to put on hold any military action and urgently request the U.S. and Great Britain to place a moratorium on military action against Afghanistan and ask the United Nations to enter into negotiations to allow emergency UN relief aid to be distributed to the suffering people of Afghanistan.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 74, 76 and 77.

Question No. 74

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

For each of the following items listed on pages 10.7 and 10.8 of volume II, part II of the Public Accounts of Canada 2000-2001, under the rubric “Miscellaneous disbursements” under Payments of Claims Against the Crown—Department of National Defence, namely, (1) Centennial College, $55,272, (2) Mistik Management, $180,000, (3) Shanwick Air, $227,582, (4) TSL Aerospace Technologies, $4,150: ( a ) what occurred that resulted in a claim against the crown; ( b ) how many people were involved; ( c ) when did the activities take place that led to the disbursement; ( d ) where did the activities take place that led to the disbursement; and ( e ) were charges laid that led to the disbursement?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Centennial College, $55,272.00: (a) This claim was initiated to recover the additional expenses incurred by Centennial College for wages as a result of a breach of agreement between Centennial College and DND; (b) approximately 12 people; (c) September 1999; (d) Canadian Forces Base Borden and Barrie, Ontario; (e) no.

Mistik Management, $180,000.30: (a) Mistik Management alleges that Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake was negligent and, as a result, a fire at the Primrose Lake weapons range destroyed $221,150.50 worth of wood; (b) unknown; (c) 13 May 1993; (d) Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake, Alberta; (e) no.

Shanwick Air ($227,582.00): Litigation was initiated by Civil Aviation Authority, United Kingdom, seeking financial compensation for En Route navigation service charges for the period 22 January 1992 to 4 December 2000 inclusive. Consistent with section 13(1) of the Access to Information Act, details cannot be released as they are the result of a negotiated settlement that contains a confidentiality clause, international relations.

TSL Aerospace Technologies, $4,150.00: (a) cancellation of contract for the provision of T-33 (T-Bird) Nose Wheel Assemblies; (b) unknown; (c) a notice of termination of the contract was issued on 8 June 1998; (d) Public Works and Government Services, Hull, Quebec; (e) no.

Question No. 76

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

For each of the following items listed on page 10.7 of the Public Accounts of Canada 2000-2001, under the rubric “Department of National Defence, Damage to Personal Property” under Payments of Claims Against the Crown, namely, (1) Bell Canada, $8,193, (2) Birch Hill Construction Ltd., $24,842, (3) Corp. of the Township of Atikak, $25,000, (4) Discount Car and Truck Rentals, $21,057, (5) Enterprise Rent-A-Car, $3,972, (6) Fisheries and Oceans Canada, $594,727, (7) Linketter Hotel, $10,000, (8) National Car Rental, $1,105, (9) TD Bank, $3,528, (10) Thrifty Car Rental, $4,911, (11) Thrifty Locations Auto, $12,607, (12) Township of the Front of Escott, $89,000: ( a ) when did the events happen; ( b ) what was generally damaged or destroyed; ( c ) which damaged and/or destroyed items were replaced; ( d ) how many people were involved; ( e ) were those involved reprimanded and/or terminated; and ( f ) was the incident reported to any police force, including military police?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Bell Canada, $8,193: (a) 30 July 1999 and 7 September 1999; (b) Bell Canada equipment, note: This payment represents two different incidents, one at Canadian Forces Base Trenton and the other at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier. Total cost of repairs for both incidents has been lowered and is now estimated at $5,216.22; (c) DND paid for the cost of repairs to the damaged equipment; (d) unknown; (e) no; (f) yes, to the military police.

Birch Hill Construction Ltd., ($24,842): (a) During fiscal year 2000-01, over training season; (b) heavy duty equipment, i.e. excavator, large dump trucks, et cetera; (c) $24,842.00 represents the total amount paid on behalf of Canadian Forces Base Gagetown for the repairs of the heavy duty equipment rented from Birch Hill Construction; (d) unknown; (e) no; (f) no.

Corp. of the Township of Atikak, $25,000: (a) 13 May 1999; (b) the airstrip was damaged by a Canadian forces aircraft, CC130 Hercules performing practice landings and take offs; (c) the cost of necessary repairs, including resurfacing of damage area, was submitted for payment; (d) unknown; (e) no; (f) no.

Discount Car and Truck Rentals, $21,057;

Enterprise Rent-a-Car, $3,972;

National Car Rental, $1,105;

Thrifty Car Rental, $4,911;

Thrifty Locations Auto, $12,607.

The above list represents a summary of various claims for damage to vehicles rented by National Defence at different locations across the country during the 2000-01 fiscal year. Since DND is self-insured, the department is liable to pay for damage to vehicles rented under a Public Works and Government Services standard offer agreement. The larger amounts represent a roll up of a number of smaller claims. As the department is subject to the regulatory regimes in place for vehicles in the provinces, any incidents requiring police involvement would have been reported accordingly.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, $594,727: (a) March 1985; (b) breach of contract. This case had to do with contractual relations between Navimex and Her Majesty the Queen, through Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The contract pertained to the transportation of goods to Thule in Greenland; (c) company sued the crown for loss of profit and transportation costs for the movement of goods from Montreal to Thule and loss of profit generated by possible transportation of additional goods to Thule and from Thule back to Montreal; (d) unknown; (e) not applicable; (f) no.

Linketter Hotel, $10,000: (a) 27-31 August 2000; (b) loss of income, accommodation and meal due to last minute change in the number of participants at the Atlantic Region Cadet Tattoo 2000; (c) financial compensation was negotiated to address part of the Linketter Hotel’s lost revenues; (d) approximately 200 cadets who were to participate in the Atlantic Region Cadet Tattoo 2000; (e) yes. Regional Cadet Organizations were advised to exercise increased prudence in activities involving contracts of this nature; (f) no.

TD Bank, $3,528: (a) 5 June 2000; (b) damage to overhanging roof by unauthorized DND driver; (c) the TD Bank arranged for the repairs to the roof. Invoice submitted to DND; (d) one; (e) yes. Member had to reimburse the payment made by the department; (f) yes. CFB Petawawa military police investigated and filed a report.

Township of the Front of Escott, $89,000: (a) 2 November 1999; (b) various secondary roads damaged during a military exercise using heavy military vehicles; (c) local contractors were hired to repair the damaged roads; (d) approximately 50 military members; (e) a summary investigation, lessons learned, was conducted to prevent future incidents; (f) no.

Question No. 77

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Concerning the breakwater at the mouth of the Red River: ( a ) what is the government's position as to the role that the retaining walls of the breakwater play with respect to dredging activities on the river; ( b ) does the government have any plans to demolish them; and ( c ) if so, will the government delay any such plans until the International Coalition for Land and Water Stewardship has completed its review of the physical and economic implications of dredging on the Red River?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

(a) In the mid-1990’s the federal government’s program review exercise concluded that the Canadian Coast Guard’s CCG dredging program in commercial channels was a non-core activity. The government’s decision to withdraw from dredging was also based in part on the 1995 recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport. This decision was made on a national level and applies to waterways across the country. Accordingly, the CCG is not funded to provide maintenance dredging in commercial channels except in the international waterways of the Great Lakes where Canada has a commitment to the United States. As part of the withdrawal of dredging services on the Red River, the CCG is reviewing the options regarding the two river retaining walls at the mouth of the river.

(b) The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for the two river retaining walls at the mouth of the Red River. These structures were built to help reduce the rate of sedimentation in the shipping channel. The retaining walls are in a deteriorated condition and are at risk of becoming a hazard to navigation. The department is examining the possibility of removing the structures or part of the structures in the interest of safety. An environmental assessment of this proposal is underway. The department has also undertaken a study to identify the impact that removing the walls would have on the habitat of fish species living in the vicinity of the wall. The study will also identify mitigation measures.

(c) The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is considering divesting a number of its marine structures where interested parties can be identified. Divestiture of the retaining walls in the Red River could be an option to their removal, if there is interest. This possibility will be examined before a decision is made to remove the walls.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 34 and 75 could be made orders for return, the returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 34

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

For the following categories of items purchased either by Public Works and Government Services Canada for departments, agencies and crown corporations, or by the individual department, agency or crown corporation in fiscal years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, namely, (1) teapots, (2) televisions, (3) briefcases, (4) umbrellas, (5) sewing machines, (6) microwaves, (7) flatware, (8) clothes hangers, (9) wine glasses, (10) cameras, both regular and digital, (11) golf balls, (12) golf tees, (13) beverages, alcoholic, (14) jams, jellies and preserves, (15) land mines, (16) games, toys and wheeled goods, (17) phonograph records, (18) perfumes, toilet preparations and powders, (19) nuclear bombs, (20) nuclear components, (21) nuclear demolition and depth charges, (22) nuclear projectiles, (23) nuclear reactors, (24) nuclear rockets, warheads and warhead sections: ( a ) by department, agency or crown corporation, how many in each category were purchased; ( b ) what was the total cost spent by either Public Works and Government Services Canada or another department, agency or crown corporation on each category?

Return tabled.

Question No. 75

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

For each of the following items listed on page 3.25 of volume II, part II, of the Public Accounts of Canada 2000-2001, under the rubric “Losses of Public Property Due to an Offence or Other Illegal Act” for the Department of National Defence, namely, (1) 384 cases of “theft of military kit” totalling $117,596, (2) 15 cases of "theft of transportation equipment" totalling $34,373, (3) 5 cases of “theft of construction engineering equipment” totalling $11,386, (4) 15 cases of “theft of military specific equipment” totalling $1,822, (5) 26 cases of “theft of non-military specific equipment” totalling $5,342: (a) what was stolen; (b) what was the value of each individual item; (c) where was the location of the theft; and (d) were there any charges laid?

Return tabled.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed that the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions government orders will be extended by 11 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, be read the third time and passed.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the third reading stage of Bill C-10. I am sure members will admit that it has taken a long time for us to finally get to this stage. In fact, we started third reading stage of Bill C-10 a week before the recess and unfortunately we were unable to conclude it at that time. An amendment was proposed to the motion, along with a subamendment.

I would like to thank all members of the committee for their participation at report stage and for their amendments, because I think members should realize that by the time the House got to third reading of Bill C-10 substantial amendments had been made. There were 25 amendments proposed by the government and only one of those was ruled out of order. The rest of the amendments echoed the concerns of members from all parties and also of witnesses because they were working together to make this legislation the best legislation possible.

It is important for everyone to realize what the history of Bill C-10 is. If we look at its legislative history, we find that the first marine policy was established way back in 1986. That was the first time the thought of where we are today actually came about. It was not until 1994 that the national marine conservation areas policy was established, in consultation with Parks Canada, which would take a role in ensuring that the marine conservation areas actually would come about and would manage them.

In 1995 the marine system plan, “Sea to Sea to Sea”, was released. This document described the 29 natural marine regions of Canada and the status of planning work to identify potential national marine conservation areas. It is very important to understand that these 29 regions are representative by the fact of science itself. This was work done with scientists to establish these 29--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but I have been advised by the Table that she has already spoken on the bill. Unfortunately she cannot do it twice.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I wish to indicate that we will vote against this bill because it encroaches on provincial jurisdictions since it would require that provinces transfer their submerged lands to the federal government for the establishment of marine conservation areas.

It is one of the main irritants, and the Bloc Quebecois had proposed an amendment to correct it. Quebec already has legislation establishing a marine conservation area, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. Everything was in place for the establishment of marine conservation areas in Quebec, with legislation that did not require the transfer of provincial submerged lands, but rather called for a true partnership with Canada.

Under the Constitution, submerged lands belong to the provinces. The government was perfectly aware that this was a major irritant for the Bloc Quebecois.

We are here to defend Quebec's interests. Why should Quebec transfer its submerged lands to the federal government for the establishment of marine conservation areas? The Government of Quebec passed legislation on this, in co-operation with the federal government. We do not see why Quebec should transfer its submerged lands.

I still wanted to make it clear that the Bloc Quebecois is very sensitive to environmental issues. The environment is a shared jurisdiction with the federal government. We are against this bill not because we are not in favour of protecting our ecosystems and our environment, but because we have a way of doing things in Quebec and the federal government could simply have said “Okay, Quebec already has legislation, we respect that; you will not have to comply with the legislation currently before Parliament”.