Debates of Nov. 28th, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned science and agriculture. Anyone who lives in the west and has seen for example the way the Athabasca glacier has behaved over the last 100 years knows that the climate is warmer now than it used to be. I do not think anyone denies that.

There is some discussion about what will happen in the future, but there is no discussion about the cause of that heating. The cause is that our atmosphere is different than it was 100 years ago. One change is CO

2

, which is the one that everyone mentions simply because it is easy to measure and has been measured since the 1850s. However there are other greenhouse gases and most of them are poisonous. My colleague mentioned nitrogen oxides and other acid bases.

With respect to farming and the member's experience of science in farming, one of those gases is ground level ozone. Ground level ozone is produced. It is there on smog days. Peterborough, which is a rural area, is the most polluted place in Ontario on smog days. Ground level ozone reduces agricultural production. I regret that my figures are 10 years old because I am sure these figures are much larger now. However ground level ozone, at a conservative estimate, and conservative is not a work I use lightly, costs farmers in Ontario $14 million a year in production. Ground level ozone poisons human beings and slows crop production.

Let us address the changes in atmosphere which are irrefutable. We do not have to debate--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I do not know if there was a question in that, but the hon. member's time is up. I will permit the hon. member to answer.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member continues to engage in this exercise of confusing pollution and greenhouse gases involved in that. That is simply not right. When it comes to CO

2

levels in the atmosphere, there have been times in recorded history where CO

2

in the atmosphere was 1,000 times higher than it is today--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please. It is very hard for the Chair to hear over the screaming of the hon. members, and I use that word deliberately. Resuming debate.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, it seems to me the previous speaker did not want to get confused by the facts. That is a lot of what this debate is all about.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Halton.

I have heard constantly throughout this debate questions about why we should be doing this before Christmas and so forth. I have an analogy. This is a time of year when we think about Charles Dickens, who of course wrote about the industrial revolution in Britain. When we think about that, we think of child labour, of kids pulling coal carts and throwing coal for the blast furnaces of the industrial revolution. We have come so far from that. We think that is a ludicrous thing to do. We all accept that there should not be such a thing as child labour.

The seeds of an exuberant industrialization are the kinds of gases that we are forced to breathe on a daily basis. I would like to use my riding in Durham as an example, obviously because it is my riding but because it is an area where the urban area breaks into the rural area. It is an area of agricultural production. It is an area where people commute to and from the greater Toronto area. The biggest employer is General Motors. There is a great dependency on energy and there is great concern over this file about Kyoto.

I will give some statistics. I know that we keep talking about pollution and about CO

2

emissions, but the reality on CO

2

is that the conditions of climate change actually promote smog. There is definite scientific evidence that shows that these two things are related: that the smog warnings in Toronto are definitely related to CO

2

emissions. There was only one smog advisory day in south-central Ontario in 1993. In 1994 there were six, in 1996 there were five, in 1999 there were nine, in 2000 there were four, and in 2001 there were 24. Up to October of this year there have been 28 smog advisory days.

Health Canada tells us that over 5,000 people died prematurely last year due to respiratory ailments brought on by pollution. This is the air that we are asking people to breathe.

In my former life, I was a practising accountant, a financial adviser and a successful business person and I can tell members that business runs on one basic philosophy: profit maximization. There is nothing wrong with that. That is the game, that is how it is played and if people are efficient and good at it, they will have good profits, and if they are not competitive, they go out of business. That gives us very efficient industries.

There is one big problem with that equation today, that is, there is no cost to business for polluting the air we breathe. There is no cost to business for those respiratory ailments that I just talked about. There is no add-up in dollars and cents of people who are living with the medical impacts of pollution and the effects of climate change. That is a big disconnect when we actually start looking at this whole issue.

We hear spokespeople for various business lobbies who come forward and ask why we do not slow down, why do we not resist this and who say that maybe we could wait until some other day. Really, they are not different from those people back in the 1800s in industrial Britain who said that maybe there was a good reason why they had child labour and it would really upset the whole industrial system to change it. That is nonsense. The simple fact of the matter is that it is nonsense and we have to get beyond that. We have to find a way to leave a better world, not only for people who are living today but for children and for Canadians who are as yet unborn.

I have come by this file somewhat honestly in the sense that I experienced this off the coast of Labrador in late August. It was wonderful seeing the icebergs go by. It was an unexpected experience. It was unexpected because iceberg season is in June. Icebergs are floating back and forth because climate change is going on. The reality is that climate change is for real and so are its impacts on our health.

We constantly hear that we need Canadian solutions for this problem. Passing the Kyoto protocol is simply signing us on to reducing our emissions 6% below 1990 levels. I heard the member for Calgary Centre say that we should wait until all the provinces are on side, but we have been debating this issue in Canada since 1990 and still the provinces are not on side. There will always be people kicking and screaming all the way down to the point at which they have to realize that they are hurting people's basic health.

From 1990 until now emissions have increased. We are now talking about having to reduce them by almost 20% below 1990 levels in order to meet the conditions of the Kyoto accord. Every time we say we will wait, we will do another study, or we will do something else, the fact of the matter is that we are going in reverse. We are not coming to a solution for this basic fundamental problem.

The people of Durham have made it very clear to me. People have sent me e-mails and letters. They have told me they want me to support the Kyoto protocol. They say they know there is something wrong with the environment. They know there is something wrong when they see the smog every day when they go to work in Toronto. One individual told me his wife is coughing more than she ever did before. People know that there are some fundamental problems with our environment. They know we have to take some significant responsibility for making changes to that.

I would like to get back to the business envelope. What are we actually asking businesses and indeed all Canadians to do? We are asking businesses to reduce their consumption of energy. Getting back to the business model, we are asking businesses to reduce their consumption of energy, which in fact will save them money. The reduction of the use of fossil fuels in their businesses, if they can do it more efficiently, will simply reduce their cost of production. Ultimately we are asking businesses to make more profits. What better solution can we have?

Some will say yes, but we do not have the technology to achieve that. The renaissance period in history produced the cuckoo clock. The two major wars probably produced more innovation in our society than was produced at any other time in our history. Necessity, that is, a law, an agreement, will undoubtedly create a necessity among business and open the innovation thought process that goes on in the heads of all of us to find better ways to do business once we realize there is a significant cost to dumping our garbage in the air and having people breathe it. It is a good policy position to take.

I will talk about General Motors in particular. I have talked to that company and it has told me it is concerned about this issue. It is concerned, not because of itself, as it has done great things by reducing car emissions and reducing its plants' emissions, but it is afraid of what it calls a cascading effect. In other words, it is afraid that the parts it buys, the people who transport things to it, the steel industry, will all have higher costs and those higher costs will impact on General Motors and its products will become less competitive when shipped south of the border.

Irrespective of the fact that I understand the General Motors concern, I can tell members that a simple rise in the Canadian dollar from 63¢ to 70¢ would have a greater devastating impact on the automotive industry in this country than anything that Kyoto could do, and I think General Motors realizes that.

Finally, the important aspect of this is that we have to be first. I think we owe it to our industries to tell them that we want them there first, first with innovation and technology, because it will make them more competitive in the future. I think even General Motors recognizes that.

I look forward to passing this protocol. I think the people of Durham are very supportive and want us to move forward on this issue.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to avail myself of my right to ask questions and make comments about my colleague's speech, in order to make a certain number of points.

The hon. member is right when he says that the issue of climate change has been talked about since 1995. He is entirely right. However, where I disagree is when he says that the provinces have refused to fight climate change. I believe we have to establish a certain number of facts since it is not all provinces that have refused to face up to the challenge of climate change. For example, Manitoba and Quebec have agreed to put together action plans to reduce climate change. It is an important and historical mistake to lump all provinces together. That is the first point.

As for the second point, when the hon. member says that businesses and industry must do their part, I agree with that, but this approach relies on a national vision, a coast-to-coast vision.

Depending on whether one is in Quebec, in the west, or elsewhere in the rest of Canada, it becomes clear that the performance of certain businesses and industries is different. For example, in Quebec, the manufacturing industry has succeeded in lowering its greenhouse gas emissions by 2%, whereas in the transportation industry, emissions have increased. This is completely different from what is happening in western Canada, where it has become clear that emissions will increase by close to 131% in the fossil fuel sector alone.

Will the member not acknowledge that, in the end, the best strategy for reaching the objectives is to set different objectives for each province, which would lead to each strategy being adapted based on efforts that have already been made?

For example, Quebec could implement measures in the transportation sector, because that is the sector that requires major improvements, whereas western Canada could choose not to implement measures in transportation, but in the oil industry instead. Would it not be better to adopt a territorial strategy instead of a sectoral one, as the member appears to be advocating?

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. First, yes, very definitely, a number of provinces have taken very concerted actions in recognition of climate change. In my own province in the recent summer months, we have seen a hike in energy rates. We have now been able to determine that one of the major reasons why we had a hike in those rates has to do with the fact that coal fired generating plants had to be curtailed in the Toronto area because of smog alerts. Actually Quebec was the net benefactor of that. The Province of Ontario had to buy energy, and at high rates, I might add, from the Province of Quebec.

The fact of the matter is that we have a province saying it is not so sure about Kyoto while at the same time it has significant problems and it had better start getting on side for the benefit of its own people. Ontario has been dragging its feet on the investment in new coal fired plants for so long that it is way behind the eight ball.

On the question of the industrial sectors, I disagree. I do not think that we can develop a territorial orientation to this. In fact, the whole concept of the Kyoto accord is that we are part of a global environment and we are part of a global problem. I do not think we can start regionalizing how we are going to deal with the matter of Kyoto. In fact, I am one of those who believes that we should have a covenant approach, covenants on an individual industrial approach. It would solve some of the very problems that the member has talked about.

He said that some of the manufacturing industries in Quebec are on side and have done good things. Under a covenant approach we would recognize that. The commitment to reducing greenhouse gases would probably be less in the transportation industry, let us say, which historically has not been as forthcoming. Using a covenants approach that has a sectoral approach, which is what Britain has done to some extent, I think would be more successful than a territorial approach in any case.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, in 1939 this Parliament debated for three days about going to war in Europe. There was no plan but we went to war. We have been debating for four days this new challenge, this new quest we have, and we will do it partly with a plan and by taking up the challenge as we did in 1939.

I am excited about the prospects but I am concerned about the motivation. There have been various times in our history when we have been motivated to act, the last one being in the seventies with the oil price crisis. That prompted the largest single conservation effort that had ever been seen in North America, and it was all voluntary. People gave up their large automobiles and moved into compact cars. The speed limit in the United States was reduced to 55 mph on its major highways and so on. It was done because of the perception of a crisis.

Today our crises are more in number but more remote. The disappearance of permafrost in the Mackenzie Valley does not seem to affect us directly. The thinning of the ice cap in the Arctic does not seem to affect us because we are here. The polar bears that are starving in Hudson Bay, because they do not have enough ice to go out and hunt their traditional food, does not seem to affect us. If it is childhood asthma, it is the neighbour's son or daughter down the street and it is not our problem. If it is the 1,800 premature deaths in Ontario, as recorded by the Ontario Medical Association, it is not our problem because old Fred lived a good life anyway and although he died of respiratory causes he was on his way out.

That kind of avoidance of reality is what I see in the flat earth society across the way. I do not want to single out the oil industry because many elements of the oil industry have done wonderful things to move into the new era. It recognizes Kyoto. Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and Suncor recognize Kyoto. They are all headed in that direction.

Here is the kind of thinking that governments were faced with in the past. It was related by retired Senator Nick Taylor. He remembers that salt water was a byproduct of extracting oil. That salt water was spread on the gravel roads in the oil field to keep down the dust. However, when the contamination of the water tables raised complaints from ranchers and farmers in the area, the government went to the offenders in the oil industry and said that they had to put that stuff back in the ground. The oil industry said that was outrageous and that it would be the end of profit. But they did and they repressurized the reservoirs and were able to extract more oil.

Then the government began bothering industry about burning all that useless natural gas. The byproducts were drifting downwards and making people sick. The government went to the offenders in the industry and said that they had to capture that gas and save it. They said that was outrageous, that it would be the end of profit. But they stored the natural gas and by golly found a use for it.

Then there was the sulphur escaping from the wells. The government said to capture it. The industry said that was outrageous but they captured it and many made more money from selling sulphur than selling gas.

Today in Saskatchewan the industry is importing 95 million cubic feet of carbon dioxide a day to pump into and pressurize the oil fields. Texas is sequestering 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. It has learned how to do it and do it well. I am always intrigued by the kind of denial that I hear across the way, almost in every area of this quest on which we find ourselves.

I would like to refer my Alberta friends to a discussion paper that was commissioned by the Alberta government in 1988. It was on the potential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in that province. I have the executive here. It is rather intriguing because it outlines in detail every investment that could be made and the amount of time it would take to get a payback. It includes the tar sands. It shows, for instance, that with an investment in retrofit energy conservation of $6.7 billion alone would result in first year savings of $2.2 billion per year. The average payback of the investment would be 3.1 years.

This was done for the Alberta government. I am not sure where the Premier of Alberta hid it when he began to rail against Kyoto and its possibilities, but here it is in black and white. It is probably available somewhere on a dust covered shelf in Alberta in throbbing colour. To accomplish what we want to accomplish with Kyoto requires willingness, recognition of the problem, innovation, creativity and vision. We are going into this quest with both a plan and the opportunity to apply our vision, ingenuity, creativity and so on.

The reason why we must do both is because technology changes continually. What was valid information in 1978 or 1979 is no longer valid in 2002. I recall the first work we did on ethanol in Ontario. The product was studied and deemed energy negative. In other words more energy was needed to manufacture the ethanol than we got back. Today, because we did it, we now have a technology that produces 34% more energy than is required to manufacture ethanol. That is improving all the time and will continue to improve as the years go by.

Members across the way should remember the old Chinese proverb “The journey of a 1000 miles begins with the first step.” Unless we are willing to take the first step, nothing will happen. If the flat earth society were ever in power, nothing would happen at all. People would rail that it was the end of profit, the world was going to hell in a handbasket and all the rest of it.

The truth is we are faced with one of the greatest opportunities that we have ever had in this country. We are determined to shoulder it and get on with the job. It will result in a cleaner environment, in health--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Athabasca.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was an interesting and patriotic speech, but the speaker missed the mark substantially because he used the oil industry as such an example. I would hold the oil industry in western Canada as one of the most innovative and entrepreneurial sectors in the entire Canadian economy. We can meet the challenge. We are doing it now without Kyoto. The problem is, and the member does not seem to realize it, the costs of production would rise in the oil industry, and in every other industrial sector, as a result of Kyoto because of the increased costs of production.

The United States, where we send 80% of our product, operates on a world market. If our costs were higher and we were unable to serve that market at world prices, that oil would simply come from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or the Middle East somewhere instead of Canada. Our industry would shut down. When it comes to the Middle East, part of the profits of that production are supporting terrorism in the world. Does that make any sense to the member?

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I tried to point out to the hon. member that the oil industry did take up the challenge. When it started the industry said that it was outrageous. They could not do it and it was the end of profit. However the industry did it and made a profit. Every time the oil industry has been challenged, it has risen to the occasion and has done it. It resisted at first, then did it because it had to, and then learned to make a profit.

International Nickel in Ontario was faced with the same challenge. It said that it had to close its doors and move away from Sudbury. Then it learned how to utilize the sulphur in the smelting process and not emit it into the atmosphere, and it made money.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, concerning the speech of my colleague, who is a member from a riding in Ontario, I understand the great virtuous principles that he tried to convey to us just now in his speech, but the fact is that the federal government is far from being consistent with the virtuous approach that the member is advocating.

From 1990 to 1999 alone, the government subsidized the oil industry to the tune of $2.5 billion, as opposed to $76 million for green energies. This is a lack of consistency.

Today, it tells us about the shift that we must make. I understand, as the member does, that what was true 40 years ago is not always true today. But when we look at the last 10 years alone, their speeches of today are not consistent at all with what they did in the last 10 years, even during the mandate of the Liberals opposite.

Is making a firm commitment to green energies not what we should really be doing? Should Canada not be committing itself to producing at least 15% of its energy through green energies and thus ensuring that it practices what it preaches? If not, we have before us a government that is totally inconsistent.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, with great respect to my friend, it seems to me that we are producing a fair percentage of our energy as green energy at the present time. He should know because he comes from the province of Quebec, which has the largest percentage of green energy production in the country. However, what was valid 20 years ago is not valid today. The government is taking the bull by the horns and it is beginning to move in the right direction.

It was deemed valid to support tar sand development when that happened and that commitment was made. It was deemed valid to support nuclear development when that commitment was made. We are changing direction now and taking a new track. We will be moving in the direction of green energy, not as fast as we would all like, but we are--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt but it is time for statements by members.

Magna for Canada Scholarship Awards

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate 11 remarkable young Canadians, finalists in the 2002 Magna for Canada Scholarship Awards.

These annual awards are presented to students who best expressed their ideas to the question, “If I were Prime Minister, I would...”, and filled in the gaps.

More than $70,000 in scholarships and internships were awarded to this year's finalists. They are: Paul Braczek, Andrew Carson, Benoit Champoux, Andrew Deonarine, Sean Martin, Steve McIlvenna, Robin Rix, Carl Shulman, Alex Sloat, Anne Swift and Alyssa Tomkins.

In their winning essays the students presented a refreshing and innovative vision of Canada, ideas that reflect hope and diversity.

I ask members to join with me in congratulating such outstanding young people. We look forward to--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

Grain Farmers

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

Madam Speaker, three farmers, Ron Duffy, John Turcato and Bill Moore, still sit in an Alberta jail for the crime of taking their own wheat across the border.

More cases involving persecution of grain farmers in Saskatchewan are pending and the fate of these farmers will be decided in court in January. These are ordinary Canadians who simply want the fundamental right to sell their wheat to the highest bidder.

The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board refuses to take any responsibility for forcing these farmers into jail and does not seem prepared to take any action to prevent more farmers from going to jail.

Canada prides itself on being a country that guarantees its citizens the right to freedom of choice. It is what our soldiers fought and died for in both world wars.

With the refusal of the minister to recognize this fundamental right and to remove the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board, do we really have the right to claim to be a country based upon equality of citizens and free enterprise principles?

World AIDS Day

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this Sunday is World AIDS Day, a day to celebrate the volunteers who assist those afflicted by this tragic disease, the professionals who work tirelessly to find new treatments and, I hope soon, a vaccine.

Because many Canadians with AIDS live longer, we have become complacent. In Canada the prevalence of HIV has increased 66% in 10 years, with 4,000 new infections each year. HIV-AIDS now affects youth, women in poverty, aboriginals and children born with the syndrome. Each patient's care costs $150,000 a year. Worldwide 40 million people have AIDS, 50% of which are women, 3.2 million children and 13.2 million orphans. Eight thousand people die each day. We cannot be complacent.

Our Prime Minister promised last year increased efforts toward HIV-AIDS at home and internationally. Canada's AIDS strategy still stands at $42 million a year for research, treatment and services. Canadian research has increased world understanding of what triggers HIV, with hope for a cure. It is time to increase funding for the Canadian--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

Science and Engineering

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Dr. Tito Scaiano, a chemist at the University of Ottawa, on being named winner of the 2002 Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal for Science and Engineering.

For the past 30 years Dr. Scaiano has been at the forefront of research into the interactions of light and molecules, which has contributed to the development of free radicals, antioxidants, photo-activated pharmaceuticals and better sunscreens.

With more than 500 journal articles to his name, Dr. Scaiano is Canada's most widely cited chemist.

The 2002 Herzberg award guarantees that Dr. Scaiano will receive $250,000 over the next five years to supplement his existing research funding of $1 million for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.

I also congratulate NSERC which, over the last 10 years, has contributed over $5 billion into basic research, university-industry projects and the training of Canada's next generation of scientists and engineers.

Fédération des caisses populaires du Manitoba

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announced that today is the 50th birthday of the Fédération des caisses populaires du Manitoba. Founded in 1952, the federation today serves in excess of 34,000 members through its 9 branches and 31 service points in Saint-Boniface, Saint-Vital and numerous rural communities.

WIth assets of $560 million, the Caisses du Manitoba are actively involved in the francophone community, facilitating numerous economic, social, educational and cultural projects. This cooperative movement makes a direct contribution to the vitality and development of Manitoba's francophone community.

I would like to pay tribute to all the early pioneers who had the tenacity to succeed in creating this prosperous financial structure for the benefit of franco-Manitobans. The Caisses du Manitoba have constantly provided their members with highly competitive services while keeping abreast of the latest technology.

Congratulations to the Fédération des caisses populaires du Manitoba, a great francophone institution.

Canadian Emergency Preparedness College

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be interested to learn that the move to Heron Road in Ottawa by the Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior is now being described by the defence minister's department as a temporary location as the Prime Minister seeks to reward one of his backbench MPs with a permanent relocation of the college to his riding.

The minister insists on playing politics when the safety of Canadians is at stake.

Canadians are being told to avoid crowds and to stay off planes by the Liberal government this holiday season, yet more than a year and $396 million later, still no new safety training programs.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has confirmed that since 9/11 the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness has no training programs in the event of nuclear sabotage.

The ministers must quit playing politics with the safety of Canadians, direct the Arnprior college to get on with the role for which it was intended, spend its precious resources on programs that will allow Canadians to feel secure in their own country, and drop the plans to move the college.

Health Care

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here is another example of the erosion of health care in rural Canada.

Two doctors, serving 8,000 patients, have retired in the village of Lakefield, Ontario. This is part of a trend that has seen Peterborough county steadily depleted of physicians. One township, Havelock--Belmont--Methuen, after a great struggle, has been able to establish a nurse practitioner program, but not even this is in sight for Lakefield.

Therefore I am pleased to see that the Romanow report recommends that $1.5 billion be allocated to create the rural and remote access fund. Recommendation 30 of the report states:

The Rural and Remote Access Fund should be used to attract and retain health care providers.

On behalf of the people of Peterborough riding and Canadians in all parts of rural Canada, I strongly urge that this recommendation be implemented immediately.

Telephone Service

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, while the federal government is proposing initiatives to connect certain regions to the Internet, hundreds of people still do not have basic phone service. This is the case with the residents of Saint-Michel-des-Saints in the riding of Berthier-Montcalm.

Yet back in 1999 the CRTC announced its intention to provide better service to areas where costs were high. Three years later, however, the CRTC is still busy negotiating service improvement plans.

In reply to a question I asked last week, the Minister of Industry admitted that he had no authority over the CRTC. This is a very serious matter. He is the one really responsible for the CRTC. Before promising new technologies to people in the regions, the minister ought to have made sure he had the CRTC fully on side. Before promising the moon to people in the Quebec regions, the minister needs to think twice before opening his mouth.