Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2002

Nuclear Safety and Control Act

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to ask a question of the hon. member from the Alliance who has spoken often in this debate. The subject is nuclear energy, but there are also energy alternatives.

I would like to know if he understands the difference when wind power is discussed, for example. Does he understand that it is the wind that turns the turbines and not the turbines that create the wind? I do not think that he truly grasps the meaning of this bill, which takes the responsibility away from lenders with regard to the nuclear industry.

This bill is saying to lenders, “You can support nuclear energy. No matter what happens, you are not responsible. You will not be responsible if there is an accident or if a site becomes contaminated”.

By doing this, we are telling lenders to the nuclear industry, who refuse to invest in this energy because they think it is too risky and too dangerous, “No problem, you can invest with no problems; we guarantee that, from now on, you are not responsible”. So we are taking responsibility away from the private sector.

My hon. colleague from the Alliance claimed earlier that the private sector was currently being granted privileges because in comparison to the public sector, the government invested $6 billion in the atomic energy program alone. It is like saying that the private sector does not want to invest because the risks are too great and, therefore the government has to invest.

In my opinion, neither the private sector nor the government should invest in nuclear energy. It is a form of energy that should disappear. There should perhaps be investment in an area that aims at finding a way to get rid of nuclear energy, to eliminate it and replace it as soon as possible. It is especially important to find ways to dispose of nuclear waste and to treat it in such a way that this type of waste will not have to be dealt with for centuries to come, so that our children and grandchildren, and their grandchildren, will not be forced to solve this problem.

You will understand that we are completely opposed to the bill before us today. I would like to remind the hon. members that this bill was called Bill C-57 prior to prorogation of the House and that it is now called Bill C-4. Nonetheless, it is exactly the same bill and it conveys the exact same intention by the government.

The government's intention is simple, as I mentioned earlier. In fact, it is giving the green light to backers by saying, “Henceforth, you will no longer be responsible”. This is unacceptable to me.

The government has a very bad record in terms of investment in fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Why did it invest—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but he will have 17 minutes remaining to finish his speech when Bill C-4 comes back to the House.

It being 5:40 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce legislation to grant the Inuit of Nunavik a federal electoral constituency within the province of Quebec.

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me this evening to speak on behalf of our Inuit friends in Nunavik, and I say to them:

I thank the Liberal member for Lac-Saint-Louis for supporting my motion. I will not name him, but I know that he is remotely related to Abraham Lincoln.

The Makivik Corporation was created in 1978, following the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The Makivik Corporation represents the Inuit under the agreement.

Its primary mandate is to protect the integrity of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It emphasizes the political, social and economic development of the Nunavik region. Its president is Pita Aatami.

Similarly, in 1978, under the Act respecting Northern Villages and the Kativik Regional Government, and following the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Kativik regional government was created. This is a non-ethnic public organization whose jurisdiction extends over practically the whole part of Quebec that is located north of the 55th parallel. Its president is Johnny Adams.

Currently, the 14 municipalities inhabited by Nunavik people, and the vast arctic region off which they live, are part of the federal riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, and the majority of voters live south of the 55th parallel. Nunavummiut differ from other voters in the riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik living south of the 55th parallel, because of their history and because of the environment of these regions.

Some of them, who know little about the issues discussed during election campaigns, do not even know all the political parties and the candidates who represent them. A large number of voters are unilingual. They only speak Inuktitut, and they only read the Inuit alphabet, which is syllabic.

The land is clearly defined under the Act respecting Northern Villages and the Kativik Regional Government. Nunavik is primarily located north of the tree line. Because of its geography, climate, culture and the language spoken, it is considered an arctic region, the only one in Quebec. From south to north, it extends from the 55th parallel, to the most northerly tip of the province, Ivujivik, at a latitude of 62

o

25’37” north, and from east to west, from Labrador to Hudson Bay.

There is no road linking the 14 villages of Nunavik to one another or to the southern part of the province. Nunavik is isolated from the rest of Quebec. The distance that separates those villages from Montreal ranges from 1,500 to 2,500 kilometres. Nunavik's coast extends over 2,500 kilometres and this territory will soon have control over more than 250,000 km

2

of coastal lands.

There are some 11,000 permanent residents in Nunavik. As of April 1, 2001, Nunavik had 9,398 Inuit who were beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The Inuit account for 90% of the population in the following 14 municipalities: Akulivik, Aupaluk, Inukjuak, Ivujivik, Kangiqsualujjuaq, Kangiqsujuaq, Kangirsuk, Kuujjuaq, Kuujjuarapik, Puvirnituq, Quaqtaq, Salluit, Tasiujaq and Umiujaq, which are located along the coast of Ungava Bay, Hudson Strait and Hudson Bay.

The population growth rate is 2.6% a year. The population is very young, with 41% under 15 years of age, 60% under 25 and 75% under 35. A family is made up of 4.6 people on average in Nunavik, compared to 2.6 elsewhere in Quebec. Inuktitut is the native language that is most used in Quebec and in Nunavik, and 99% of Inuit use it as their first language.

The Inuit of Nunavik never transferred their aboriginal rights over the territories of Labrador and the coastal islands around Nunavik. For several years, the Inuit have been negotiating with the Inuit from Nunavut and the Government of Canada to share the coastal islands that are near the coast of Quebec and that are used for sustenance purposes. An agreement in principle was signed recently, in October 2002, between the Makivik Corporation and the Government of Canada.

Similar negotiations will probably be undertaken in the near future between the Inuit of Labrador and the Newfoundland and Canadian governments regarding the territory of Labrador.

Over and above the visible physical characteristics that distinguish Nunavik from other regions of Quebec, there is one still more basic characteristic that directly affects law and order as experienced in Nunavik. Although all Quebec statutes apply in principle to the territory, they need to be analyzed in light of the legislative interpretation arising out of the signature of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. On November 11, 1975, the governments of Canada and of Quebec, as well as the Inuit of northern Quebec agreed to modify the Quebec legal system and to make a treaty the pivotal point of interpretation for all legislation addressing certain specific areas of jurisdiction.

Nowhere else in Quebec is a convention between several peoples, or a treaty through which such issues as ethnicity and cohabitation are administered, applied so specifically.

This distinction is probably what explains a number of the differences observed in this region compared to the rest of Quebec. We feel that this is an important point for reflection by the elected representatives of Canada when it comes to reorganizing electoral districts in Quebec for 2004.

The Inuit are subject to the legal, administrative and taxation systems of Quebec and of Canada. Unlike all other aboriginal groups living in Quebec, the Inuit of Nunavik pay all income and sales taxes that are paid by other citizens in Quebec and in Canada, and indeed all the members of this House. We are therefore entitled to call upon governments for the same services as those provided to citizens of other regions of Quebec and of Canada.

Despite their proximity to major hydroelectric generating stations, no community is connected to the Hydro-Québec power distribution grid. Northern electricity is supplied by diesel powered generators, which places limits on the development of business and on homeowners, who may not use electricity to heat their residence or their water. Municipal operating costs are extremely high.

There is no piped-in water supply in Nunavik. Water from the municipal water treatment plant is delivered door to door every day by tanker trunk. Waste water is also trucked away.

There is no public transit system.

There is no Internet service provider in Nunavuk. Residents have to pay long distance charges to use a service provider in Montreal or Quebec City. Banking services are non-existent in 13 of the 14 Nunavik municipalities as well.

The cost of living in Nunavik can in no way be compared to the cost elsewhere in Quebec and Canada. A recent study carried out by the Groupe d'études inuit et circumpolaire at Laval University showed that food costs 69% more in Nunavik than elsewhere in Canada. Household cleaning products cost 78% more and personal care products, 79% more. In fact, households in Nunavik spend 44% of their income on groceries--not unlike households in developing countries--compared to 12% by other people in Quebec.

Gasoline, which costs 60% more in Nunavik, is a major impediment to the Inuit traditional activities in terms of subsistence fishing and hunting, to the economic development of the region and to everyday life in northern communities. Fuel oil and diesel also cost a lot more than anywhere else in Quebec.

Building a 1,500 square foot house costs on average $195,000 because of the high transportation costs and also the cost of building a service room with a fuel oil heating system, a fuel oil water heater, a waste tank and a potable water tank. It costs between $17,000 and $25,000 to transport building material and furniture. Electrical heating systems are prohibited.

Let us come back to the decision made by the Quebec Toponymy Commission on April 24, 1988, that the New Quebec territory located north of the 55

th

parallel be designated from now on by the name of “Nunavik”.

The commission's decision described Nunavik as follows:

Covering an area of approximately 500,000 square kilometres, Nunavik is located in northern Quebec and designates a social and cultural region inhabited primarily by Inuit living in 14 villages along the coastline. Nunavik is a little larger than the administrative region of Kativik, which was created in 1975 by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and lies north of the 55th parallel. It is situated on the bare or partially shrub-covered Canadian Shield and is crossed, in the Ungava Peninsula, by the northern treeline and the permafrost line. It has an abundance of lakes and rivers that flow either into Ungava Bay or Hudson Bay—. Made up of the words “nuna” and “vik”, it means “a place to live”.

These are briefly some characteristics that explain why I believe Canada should recognize Nunavik as a distinct natural community that has the right to be represented in the House of Commons.

In every respect, whether we talk about people, culture, climate, geography, vegetation, transportation, social life, economic activities or the cost of living, constituents who live south of the 55th parallel and those of Nunavik have little in common. With regard to distance, transportation costs from Val-d'Or to Kuujjuaq, the main administrative centre of Nunavik, are about $2,800 for a round trip. If someone must then travel to one of the communities of Ungava and Hudson Bay, he or she will have to spend several hundreds of dollars more. Air transportation—which is very expensive—for perishable food and Canada Post delivery is provided by the Inuit airline First Air, from regional airports in Val-d'Or, Kuujjuaq and Iqualuit.

The Inuit of Nunavik do not have an electoral riding nor representation in the House of Commons even though they have been working for this since 1973. They have appeared before the federal electoral boundaries commission on numerous occasions. Each time, the Inuit pointed out that the agreement in principle signed in the context of the James Bay Agreement negotiations stipulated that Quebec and Canada would undertake to study the need to review the federal and provincial electoral boundaries north of the 55th parallel.

The Inuit want to participate fully in Canada's political life. However, in the current context, it is unlikely that an Inuk from Nunavik could be elected to the House of Commons, and this is not likely to change.

With the exception of myself, candidates do not visit Nunavik, perhaps because of the prohibitive costs of transportation and lodging, the distances involved, the time needed to tour communities, the problems communicating because of the widespread use of Inuktitut and perhaps mostly because of the small number of voters. The proposal to increase the number of voters will certainly not encourage candidates from political parties to change their habits.

The Inuit of Nunavut do have a representative in the House of Commons even though, relatively speaking, they represent a smaller proportion of voters as a proportion of Canadian voters than the residents of Nunavik as a proportion of Quebec voters. Indeed, out of Canada's 30 million residents, the 22,000 Inuit in Nunavut elect one member while out of a total of 7.4 million residents of Quebec, the 11,000 residents of Nunavik have no riding in which to run for the House of Commons.

Knowing that members everywhere else spend at least one day a week in their ridings, that members sit on standing committees, take part in conferences, represent the interests of their voters, it seems reasonable that the residents of Nunavik, who are Inuit, francophone and anglophone, have this same right to representation.

In its report entitled “Let Us Share”, the Nunavik Commission, formed through an initiative of the Makivik Corporation, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec, recommends that the Nunavimmiut be able to elect their own member to the House of Commons in Ottawa and the National Assembly of Quebec. The report adds that such representation would allow the Nunavimmiut to better participate in the political life of Quebec and Canada.

Today, Nunavik it the most underdeveloped region in Quebec in terms of infrastructure and economic development. With its rich culture, its tradition of hospitality and its potential for hydroelectricity, mining and tourism, it should be at the centre of Canada's and Quebec's economic development over the next decades.

The Inuit want to be represented in the House of Commons by one of their own and take part in Canada's political life.

In 1975, by signing the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement, the Nunavik Inuit agreed to create institutions that existed elsewhere in Canada and in Quebec, including Makivik Corporation, northern villages, the Nunavik Health and Social Services Board, the Kativik School Board, the Kativik Regional Government, the Northern Quebec Regional Development Council, the Nunavik mining fund, the Fédération des coopératives du Nouveau-Québec, airlines like Air Inuit and First Air, and others.

In 1974, the Inuit insisted that the agreement in principle of November 15, which led to the James Bay Agreement, contain a chapter on commitments on the part of the Quebec and Canadian governments with regard to electoral boundaries. Quebec decided to go ahead. But here, we have to go ahead to obtain a riding for our Inuit friends in the next redistribution of seats.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion brought forward by the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, that the government should introduce legislation granting a separate federal electoral constituency within the province of Quebec.

I read the member's brief with interest and listened to his speech. He has enumerated many of the unique difficulties people living in that area have in accessing facilities and services that we in the area nearer the 49th parallel take for granted. I can only imagine the difficulties they face in everything from getting around in their communities to the expense of living day by day. He has portrayed the issue well and has made it better understood by members here in the House and people across the country.

I am sure the member also understands the difficulty we face in a system that is based on representation by population to carve out individual ridings based on the uniqueness or the difficulty of getting around in those ridings or at least making a decision based on that alone. I must point out to him that although this is obviously a serious problem as far as accessing voting booths and for political parties accessing things that they need to do to get their message out, I do not think there is a case to create a new riding.

There are other examples of this problem in Canada. The member for Cariboo--Chilcotin has a riding that spans 120,000 square kilometres. That is a problem for him. The member for Prince George--Peace River has 217,000 square kilometres in his riding. The member for Skeena has 250,000 square kilometres. In Manitoba, the riding of Churchill is 460,000 square kilometres. There are some huge ridings. Every one of them has unique problems and unique opportunities. It is also a unique privilege to represent them.

We cannot solve this issue in a representation by population system by simply carving out a new riding whenever people feel that they do not have good enough representation here in the House of Commons. There are things that can and should be done to increase the feeling of inclusion by the Inuit of that region. I hope that many of the suggestions made by the member will be listened to by Elections Canada and that it will take into account ways to increase communication so the people there can feel more fully involved in Canada's political mosaic.

I do not think the House of Commons is the place to go about drafting those boundaries. There are other things that we can do, such as education programs and access via the Internet which is something I have encouraged Mr. Kingsley to consider in times past. There has to be a way to get the message out into the riding that a person's vote is important and that every person's vote counts. I can only imagine that people in many of those towns wonder what is the point and why bother because they are just part of a small town in the overall scheme of things.

There are 11,000 people of Inuit descent there. In any election that is a lot of votes. If they directed their votes in a certain way to ensure they had good representation, as I am sure they have from the member already, they could influence the next election. That is a lot of votes, and in a close election they could turn the tide.

As has happened in many other ridings, I hope the Inuit people themselves will feel free to stand as candidates. I hope they will be encouraged by all political parties to run as candidates in the region and will be given support from whatever party to give them a good shot at winning in an election.

We have several examples of people of aboriginal and Inuit descent that are able to bring a unique perspective in the House. They bring a lot of value to those discussions. They would do the same if we could get that kind of influence either as elected members, members of political boards, policy advisors to members or parties, and so on. All of them are ways to influence the political process. We encourage that, and hope Elections Canada and all political parties would take advantage of that.

I want to close with a quote from Mr. Kingsley who said:

Our representative democracy and the guarantees it offers citizens are the envy of many peoples. No system is perfect, however, and ours is no exception. The under-representation of women and minorities in the federal Parliament is a gap that we all want to fill.

Mr. Kingsley was right. There are gaps that we need to fill. There are people that we wish were here in bigger numbers. I hope all political parties, because that is where a lot of this emphasis would come, would ensure that the welcome mat is not only out, but that people understand that their influence is welcome, their words would be listened to, and their unique perspectives would have weight within the party and eventually here in the House of Commons.

I understand why the member wants this special riding. I do not believe it is the proper role of the House of Commons to carve that out. We cannot start heading down that road. It would be politicized in short order. I do not believe we can do that.

I would hope that Elections Canada would come back to the member and perhaps to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to talk about ways to increase the presence of Canada in those regions and towns, and eventually come up with ideas on how to increase the participation rate and inclusiveness in the political process in those isolated areas. I would ask Mr. Kingsley and Elections Canada to do that.

I thank the member for his concern. I think his heart is in the right place, however our role in the House of Commons is not to designate electoral boundaries, but to talk about the bigger principles of how we guide Elections Canada, which in turn must do a non-partisan job.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion of the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, asking for a federal electoral constituency for northern Quebec.

The hon. member described in some detail what those who live on this territory go through. Theirs is a rather special way of life that is difficult for us to imagine, because we do not live on this huge territory. The conditions there are rather unusual, and the way of life is very different from the one we know.

I am well aware of this whole situation. However, we must take into consideration what the creation of an electoral constituency for northern Quebec implies. When I say northern, I mean far north. This region is north of the Abitibi, even further north of the Abitibi than the Abitibi is from Montreal. This is a very remote region and there is a domino effect.

The establishment of constituencies is a process based on vested rights and the Constitution. There is a mathematical formula and, currently, it provides that there must be 75 ridings in Quebec. Generally speaking, there is a principle to the effect that ridings must have a similar number of voters, give or take 25%. However, it is possible to make exceptions for certain territories.

In the case of Quebec, it seems rather obvious to me that the whole region located further north, from east to west, is a special case, just like a region such as the Magdalen Islands, where they also have a very distinctive population that is concentrated on a territory with its own specific realities. I am not saying that other regions do not have specific realities. We all have some in our various ridings.

Making an exception for this region would create a domino effect; there are 74 ridings left in the rest of Quebec. This raises questions, such as how to strike a balance.

For the Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik region, there are currently two ridings. I represent part of the Abitibi and the whole Témiscamingue region, while the hon. member opposite represents another part of the Abitibi and northern Quebec. Would this mean that we would have one riding for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and another one for northern Quebec? That is a possibility.

Otherwise, this creates a domino effect that would, and this is something I do not wish for, create rather arbitrary electoral boundaries, such as merging the Témiscamingue with the Outaouais. I would have a problem with that.

This may result in us having the Abitibi—Témiscamingue in one riding and northern Quebec in another, given the current number of ridings. Perhaps the debate must begin with a prior discussion on the number of ridings allocated to Quebec. This is a possibility that must not be ignored either, if we want to consider a number of characteristics.

Let us see the average number of constituents in Quebec. It is obvious that there are provinces where the number of constituents is higher; I am thinking of Ontario, for instance. But there are provinces where the average number of constituents is much lower than ours, such as Prince Edward Island, where the population is approximately the same as the RCM of Témiscamingue alone, which represents 20 to 25% of my riding.

I think that we have to be open-minded about such a proposal, while being aware of the domino effect. Within the current parameters, it would imply many changes elsewhere. Commissions were created to establish the new electoral map and are holding consultations; they will be in the Abitibi—Témiscamingue soon.

Unfortunately, I do not think that these commissions will go further north. I do not know if the member mentioned this in his speech, but I know that he talked about it to the chief electoral officer personally and even publicly, in committee. This has given rise to some questions in the rest of the Abitibi—Témiscamingue, that is whether we will have only one member of Parliament instead of two with such a proposal.

Personally, at first glance, I have nothing against it, but it deserves to be looked at more thoroughly, and I am convinced that he will present his arguments to the commission. However, I cannot help but criticize him a bit.

As we are debating this motion, he is publicly proposing to create four ridings in the area; I am now told it is three ridings. I do not know how we will bring all this together later on. We now are in the last straightaway and we will not be able to change position very often. The region will have to reach a consensus before the commission; failing that, the commission will impose its own. If there is no consensus, the commission will impose a new map. So there is a challenge to be met here.

I agree with the idea that the commissionaires may make exceptions for certain areas instead of them having to justify their exceptional character every time.

In Quebec, where are these areas? I am not sufficiently aware of the reality in other places in Canada to be able to engage in an exercise. However in Quebec, at first glance, the area that comes to mind is Bas-Saint-Laurent—Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine where there is a particular dynamic; it is a riding which deserves to be categorized as exceptional. The same goes for northern Quebec, and we should look into this.

Maybe we should build on this exercise, namely take two or three places that need to develop their specific characteristics and then we could work at creating ridings with the best possible average, taking into account regional realities, areas bounded by a traditional sense of community, areas defined by the boundaries of MRCs.

True enough, exercises are never perfect and we must take into account our political system since, for citizens to be equal, their votes must be more or less equivalent. So there should not be too many exceptions, but in some areas it is necessary.

Where more internal debate is needed, when there are territorial realities such as may be seen in large ridings, is when what is involved is the means at our disposal to do our jobs as MPs. For the voters, this is what counts, the services he or she gets from the MP's office in real life. And those services are many, in our area.

For those who may not know this, in the real world, passport services are provided through the MPs' constituency offices, in regions such as ours. In the peak periods from now through January, there is one person in each office who deals almost full time with passport applications and issuing passports.

Someone may point out that immigration business is done in Montreal. That may be true, but a lot of services are provided by the constituency office when there is no departmental office in the region. We are therefore the federal presence to many citizens.

For us, then, this is a more administrative, internal debate on the means available to us for doing our job. I remain convinced that the way budgets are distributed at this time does not reflect that reality properly.

In my case, for example, I should have had three constituency offices to start with. This was a campaign promise, but unfortunately I came face to face with reality once I got to Ottawa. I was unable to keep them operating that way, which caused a problem. I did, of course, manage to reach agreement with the municipalities to have their cooperation in providing services, but this is not sufficient to provide proper service.

At the same time, if funding cannot be allocated as we would like, we must at least have the means to do our jobs properly. There is no perfect indicator for that, but I am convinced that there is not such a great gap between MPs' current operating budgets, at any rate not as wide a gap as there is between citizens' expectations of us and what we can actually provide.

These are the aspects that I wanted to raise at this stage of the debate. It is not really in this House that this matter will be pursued, but rather before the electoral commission. That is where the decision will be made. Members of this commission will make their recommendations, which will then be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Ultimately, the commissioners will determine what the new electoral map will look like.

When the commission comes to my area, I will certainly appear before it. I will also raise the matter that is before us today. I will also have the opportunity to appear on behalf of my party by submitting a national brief to the commission in which I will talk about the special ridings that could be created throughout Quebec.

That is where we are at now. I hope that this new map will be drawn in a way that reflects everyone's needs and everyone's reality. We must show some openness with regard to those people whose living conditions are very unique. I think that we have heard about that earlier. Northern Quebec deserves special attention, as do certain other regions to which I referred.

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

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on this motion.

The motion addresses issues that are very important in our system of representative government, that is, fair and reasonable boundaries for the federal ridings; the distribution of ridings in each region, province and territory in such a way that all Canadians can be sure that their opinions will be carefully considered in the House of Commons.

We must recognize, first, that the current system is working well. There may be disagreements from time to time about the exact size of some ridings, but Canadians generally agree that the system is fair and does an excellent job, given the size and diversity of our country.

The distribution of ridings in Canada is governed by the Constitution and laws established by Parliament. For example, section 51 of the Constitution Act of 1867 is used to calculate the number of House of Commons seats to be allocated to each province. Another example is the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which establishes the process and principles to be followed by electoral commissions in defining the boundaries of federal electoral districts in each province.

From the very beginning, this system has sought to provide equitable representation while guaranteeing that each region has a say in the government of this country. Of course this has not always been easy, for while successive parliaments have recognized the importance of representation by population, they also have recognized the need to reflect the geographic, cultural and demographic diversity of our country and give voice to both urban and rural Canadians.

To address this we have a compromise that provides representation by population while avoiding the tyranny of the majority, but as we know, democratic government is a work in progress and so this compromise has changed from time to time to keep pace with economic, social and demographic changes in our very dynamic country. The most recent example of this involved the adoption in 1985 of the Representation Act, which simplified the formula contained in section 51 of the Constitution and provided clear and simple procedures for calculating the seats for each province and territory.

Under this act, each territory gets one seat. The total population of the provinces is then divided by the remaining number of seats to obtain an electoral quotient used in determining the theoretical number of seats for each province. This number is then adjusted using the senatorial clause, under which provinces cannot have fewer seats in the House of Commons than they do in the Senate of Canada, and a grandfather clause which guarantees that the provinces will not have fewer seats than they did in 1986.

This provides the number of seats for each province, but this is just the start of it, for each province must also create a commission every 10 years to determine the size, shape and composition of each riding to reflect changes and movements in the population. Each commission is chaired by a judge appointed by the chief justice of that province or by a resident of the province appointed by the Chief Justice of Canada, with two other members being appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Using input from public hearings and members of Parliament, these commissions prepare and forward reports to the Speaker of the House of Commons that form the basis of an order specifying the number and character of ridings in each province. The most recent review began March 12 and is well under way, as members of the House will know.

This, then, is our current system, one which has served us well and continues to do so.

Given that it is working well, we need to think carefully before undertaking ad hoc changes such as that contained in today's motion, for making such an exceptional change might well create a precedent that would make it difficult to resist future calls for ad hoc changes. Should this happen, the result might eventually be a large number of special situations, which would lead to an electoral map that more closely resembles a crazy quilt than a carefully thought out master plan.

Supporters of the motion will no doubt point to the large land mass of the region, not unlike that of the existing three territories, which are assigned one seat each. In response, I want to remind members that Nunavik differs from the territories in one very important respect. It is not a separate jurisdiction but is rather an integral part of the Province of Quebec, and as such must abide by the rules that govern every other region of that province. Then, too, establishing an exception to the way we assign seats would conflict with the principle of proportional representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and could require a total rethinking of our system.

Finally, such a change would not be a trivial matter, for it would require a modification of article 51 of the Constitution Act, an exercise few of us, I would say, would relish.

In conclusion, the motion involves important constitutional questions that would have to be resolved before we could consider such a change. Approving it could create a precedent for other ad hoc changes to our electoral system that could damage or distort our system of representative government.

I do want to commend the member for his commitment to strengthening democratic government in his province, a commitment the government shares.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 10, moved by our colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.

First, in terms of the problem raised by the member, I can understand. Being a member of Parliament is not always an easy job. For example, if a member says that a certain group of people should not be a part of the riding, it is interpreted as though the member really does not want them. Obviously, this is not what the member means here. He wants to focus on the services for people in the north. We could even call it the far north. This is north north. This is not northern New Brunswick we are talking about. This is really far north. It is far.

In fact, the people there lack services not because of the member, but as a result of the way the system works and because of the riding boundaries. That is the problem. I would like to congratulate the member for having brought this to the attention of the House of Commons.

After giving the matter some thought and after listening to the member, I learned that the commission itself refused to visit the region. One has to wonder if it is because it was too far. Is the commission not able to do its work? Is that the problem? It is shameful that the commission did not travel to the region. If the problem was that it is too far, then the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik is right, this is a major problem for these regions.

I understand the member, because I have a problem with the commissions. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the member for Halifax West, said that we have a good system in Canada. If we had a good system in Canada, we would not be having all of the hearings that we are, and we would not have asked the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, to appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so that we could explain how dissatisfied people are with the process used by the commission. We are told that it is the Speaker of the House of Commons that names the two other members of the commission.

However, for New Brunswick, it is the minister in charge of New Brunswick who suggested the names of people to be appointed to the commission, and they were chosen. For Saskatchewan, it is the minister in charge of Saskatchewan who suggested names to the Speaker, and they were picked too. We could name others. We are not happy about this.

I can say loud and clear that I am not happy with the way the members of commission are chosen. Moreover, I am not happy to know that the minister in charge of a given province can suggest names to the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House was elected by all the members of this house in a secret ballot. He must be totally independent. This is why he was chosen, to appoint people to the commission.

I can understand the member and the people in that area. They want to send someone to Ottawa—and this takes nothing away from the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, who not only is aware of their problems, but who is experiencing the same problems as they are. They want to send someone who is able to articulate these very real problems in the House of Commons and take part in the debates in the House as a Canadian.

It is the same back home. I was disappointed when the commission decided a number of francophones in our area were to be included in the Miramichi area. As far as I know, the riding of Miramichi has never elected a bilingual member, with all due respect. Even people in the Miramichi do not understand why people from Acadie—Bathurst should be part of the riding of Miramichi.

This is when one must think about common interest. This is what is important. We cannot just look at numbers. Numbers are not human, but humans are humans. They are the ones we are representing here, in the House of Commons. We have been elected to represent people, not numbers.

In every system and in everything, there are exceptions to the rule, and this is a case in point.

The hon. member himself says that he has a hard time doing his job, representing the people from that region. Evidence of that is the fact that the commission has refused to visit the people in that region. This is a disgrace.

I am saying in the House of Commons that it is a disgrace that a commission, which the hon. member himself asked to pay a visit to these people in the far north to discuss the issue, would refuse to go. It may cost these people in excess of $2,400, out of their own pocket, to come before the commission, and this is supposed to be a democratic country. In this democratic country, we prevent our own people from appearing before the commission to explain their problems.

The commission came to Caraquet, in northeastern New Brunswick; it travelled to northwestern New Brunswick, to Fredericton and Saint-John. It held hearings everywhere. People only had to make a short trip to appear before the commission.

We are talking about people who do not even have the option of travelling by car; they must fly. This represents extraordinary and unacceptable costs. I say that the commission has demonstrated that there is a problem in that region. This is unacceptable.

I will give an example. The commissions that were established in each province came back saying that an average of 10% should be used as a basis. We can be off the mark by 10%, because the act says 25%.

I wonder. Frankly, they know my opinion. I am rather insulted by this and I myself asked for the resignation of the commission. It is not doing its job. The act is clear. The commission should use a 25% margin to protect the common interests of people. This is what the act provides. We cannot let the commission make its own rules and say that this will be brought back to 5% or 10%.

The commission is telling us, “This does not bother us. We will decide what is good for them”. This is not what the act provides. The act says that we must take into account the public interest and allow a 25% margin to protect the best interests of our fellow citizens, of Canadians. I deplore what the commission is doing, and I have said so publicly.

When I appeared before the commission at Caraquet, New Brunswick, I pointed out to it that it was a bit odd for me to be appearing before a commission at a time when the newspapers were reporting I was calling upon that same commission to step down. To me, it did not reflect the content of the law.

My complaint has been registered, and they know what it is. It is not because I do not respect the people on the commission, not that at all. It is simply that they have got it into their heads that they are going to be the ones to decide how Elections Canada ought to operate throughout the country, and that is how it will be. In my opinion, this is not in keeping with the legislation.

If one starts by looking at the figures, then automatically all other criteria fall by the wayside. The common interest no longer counts. Nothing counts but the numbers. Numbers are not what ought to come first. Looking after people must come first. That is what matters. The 25% figure needs to be looked at.

To go even further, as the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik does, he says that specific cases must be recognized, that there must be exceptions to the rule. In this case, I think that there must be exceptions. These people must have a chance to be represented by those who want to represent them. I do not fault the member who introduced the motion in any way. He is, I believe, sincere, and it is not a simple matter.

Elections Canada is one big machine. However, if one believes in democracy, believes in something, one must put that belief into words. Otherwise, we no longer have a democracy, no longer have the country we thought we had, the country we want to live in. That is why I have decided to speak my mind.

I find this totally unfair. I find it worth repeating. When the member says he is unable to do his job, that he cannot represent these Canadians, when he says he cannot and the commission itself says it cannot even go there to meet with them, that is proof that there is a problem. There must be an exception to the rule.

If the commission members are listening, or read the blues afterward, I am recommending that they rethink their decision.

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member who spoke before me said a lot things that I wanted to say. I have read the hon. member's brief about the creation of this new constituency. Politicians always look at this as votes and more votes. It is important that we look at the people and their needs and if we did so, I think we would agree 100% with the hon. member from across the floor.

If we take a serious look, we would see that we have groups of people in society today that are not represented because of the geographics and the limitations of people to represent them in the way they would like to be represented. As a result, creating a new constituency would do justice for these groups of people.

I have heard it said that electoral boundaries are impartial and that the government does has no say. I would suggest that the government always has a say in the constituencies it creates. I firmly believe that by not making changes that are beneficial for the people of the north, we are doing an injustice to the hon. member from across the House. People in the north would like to have a person in the House to tell their stories of how they live.

I could not tell the story of an hon. member from somewhere in Quebec because I do not live there. Only that person can tell that story. It is the same for those persons living in the north. Only a representative from that area could tell us of their struggles, of their problems of going back and forth and of trying to live as the rest of Canadians live.

We have to recognize that these individuals need our support. They need a representative in the House to express their views, and we are not giving this to them. The governing Liberals have the power to make the change now. We must do it correctly and bring these groups to the House of Commons. By doing that, we will have a better Canada. They can make a difference for all of us. They can help us understand.

We talk about spending all kinds of money on different groups of people to take care of them. The care they require is to have their voices heard in the House of Commons. That is the way it must be done.

I support the efforts of the hon. member and more members should support him as well. We have to forget about party politics and votes. These are people. We are here to represent the people. We must give them the best representation we can. Let us not make it difficult. At times, the boundary commission makes it difficult to represent people. It is all right when we live in big cities, but we have to look at the remote areas such as my area.

Let us support this private member's bill. Let us do it right and do it for the people in the north. Let us do what is right for the people of Canada.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. members from the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party, who took part in this debate. I listened carefully to what they had to say.

The government argues that the problem is being addressed by the system, but I want to show you why this is not so.

First, the commission refused to go to Nunavik to listen to the Inuit who live 2,500 kilometres from Montreal. The worst thing about the attitude of the commission and Elections Canada is that in the Canada Gazette for the current year, on the issue of electoral boundaries, it says on page 27, with respect to Nunavik and James Bay, in section ( e ) concerning the territory and the regional government of Kativik that the Kativik regional government represents no one. It is only a government. There is no resident.

What Elections Canada forgot to include in the Canada Gazette is the northern communities of Nunavik where 9,632 people live. It means that they are not recognized in the Canada Gazette . They only exist virtually on the Internet. It is a disgrace.

Today I would like to say something to the commission and to the public. Listen carefully to what I have to say. I won one of the strongest majorities as the member for Nunavik. I received more than 90% of the votes. But I want those votes to belong to the people of Nunavik. I want it to be an Inuk who represents them in the House of Commons, who comes here on behalf of the entire population. It is not that I do not like them. I hold them near and dear to me, but when I go to Nunavik, I am just visiting. I come from the south, 2,000 kilometres away. I stay for two or three days. There should be a member from Nunavik. It needs to be said. The commission can, as an exception and as a special measure, decide to make a riding for Nunavik. It is able to do the right thing.

We know that there are two ways of approaching the matter. The commission could do the right thing. One approach involves refers to the domino effect, and the other approach would have ridings based on the MRCs. What is most important is the people of Nunavik, our Inuit friends.

What is important is friends. Everything comes from the south. Everything that is bought comes from the south. They take part in the economy. They are involved in a number of issues with the Province of Quebec, with Canada and with the other provinces.

Nunavut covers three million square kilometres and has a population of 25,000. The populations of the other territories, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories is no more than 26,000 residents. The riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik covers 802,000 square kilometres and includes 94,000 residents. There are 63 mayors, including Inuit, Cree and Algonquin leaders. There are four members at the provincial level for same territory. In Parliament, there is one single member.

I am asking the government to intervene with the commission and to make an exception to help our Inuit friends, so that they can have a federal riding for Nunavik for the next federal election. That is my wish before I retire in a few years.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

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.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my November 4 question was about establishing standards and policies for federally regulated crown corporations, and more particularly about the decision by the management of the Société Radio-Canada to sell a part of its south central parking lot to a private developer for the construction of 140 condominiums at an average cost of $150,000, which is a disgrace.

The crown corporation leaders did not even see fit to offer local community organizations an opportunity to acquire this surplus land to build social housing.

Instead of investing in social housing, they preferred to plough their net profits back into programming. Yet, almost 800 units were demolished when the federal government decided to build the Maison de Radio-Canada. The sale of the Radio-Canada land to the private sector shows once again the lack of consistency in the government's own policies.

Affordable housing at 5% lower than the average market rate is unavailable to people who must pay between 30% and 90% of their income for housing. With percentages like these, it is obvious that putting a roof over their heads means that these people can no longer eat properly, they experience anxiety and they can no longer buy essential items, and the negative effects on health and pocketbook are serious.

According to the human rights commission, discrimination against very low income tenants increased by 61% in two years and this type of discrimination affects mainly single-parent families, young adults under 25 years of age and families with young children.

With their ability to pay diminishing, several of these families find themselves in a situation that is unacceptable for a country such as ours. The insolvency of the poorest households adds to the difficulty of finding decent housing. And one can add to that the extra obstacles involved in gaining access to what would be considered standard housing.

Experience has shown that the creation of new rental housing units by private developers had repercussions that were totally opposite to the creation of social housing units. Contrary to the private market, social housing developers have the advantage of responding to specific social needs, to favour empowerment and independence, thus enabling very low income tenants to have greater control over their living conditions, and to play a vital role in neighbourhood revitalization.

Quebec has 29% of Canadian households in dire need of housing and receives only 19% of federal transfers for housing. The fact that the federal government has backed out of its involvement in Quebec's social development has made children and families even poorer and has excluded the disadvantaged.

I asked the minister this question. In light of this situation and in light of the fact that the federal government is well aware of the operation Solidarité 5 000 logements since it is a partner in this operation, could it not establish standards for crown corporations that come under its jurisdiction, such as the CBC, so that these corporations can take into account government policies, including in the area of housing, when they divest themselves of land that they no longer need?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to have the opportunity to talk a little bit about the Government of Canada's affordable housing program.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, our national housing agency, is responsible for carrying out the government's housing policy and national housing strategy which involves improving housing affordability, accessibility and choice in housing for all Canadians.

The Government of Canada works in close collaboration with the Government of Quebec on housing issues. In fact, contrary to statements that have been made, last December an agreement on affordable housing was reached between CMHC and the Société d'habitation du Québec. The agreement foresees a total contribution of $323.3 million in order to increase the availability of affordable housing in the province of Quebec; $161.65 million from the Government of Canada, $104 million from the Government of Quebec, and $57 million from the municipalities that will benefit. Obviously it is a true partnership. The program was officially launched in March and means that 6,500 new affordable rental housing units will be produced in Quebec.

Furthermore, to improve service to clients and make more efficient use of resources, the government has offered to transfer its remaining responsibilities in social housing administration to the province of Quebec with financial compensation. This also means that Quebec would then be allowed to retain the $30 million a year, estimated to be the amount in annual savings for investment in existing social housing stock, or, if it chooses, in new housing stock.

This is part of the Government of Canada's overall commitment to the affordable housing initiative. We are offering a total of $680 million to help Canadians across the country with affordable housing and, with matching contributions from provinces and territories, the total investment exceeds $1.36 billion in affordable housing. The recent Speech from the Throne committed to expanding on that initiative.

I would like to highlight a few other existing initiatives. For example, our government provides $1.9 billion in housing assistance to support some 640,000 community based housing units for seniors, people with disabilities and lower income households across the country. This includes supports for non-profit and co-op housing projects in every community as well as support for low income aboriginal people in cities and on reserve. The member is probably familiar with some of that in his own riding.

Our government also accommodates provincial program designs that address particular needs. In Quebec we provide over $26 million per year in housing renovation, including several existing provincial programs which are compatible with the national program.

Furthermore, the mortgage loan insurance from CMHC helps Canadian homebuyers gain access to affordable financing choices and facilitates low cost financing for rental investors.

Through its research activities, CMHC has reached out and encourages innovation in housing design and technology, community planning, housing choice and finance to improve the quality, affordability and choice of housing availability throughout Canada.

Madam Speaker, I want to assure you and the member opposite, the government and CMHC, as the crown agency involved, have a very strong working relationship with the province of Quebec and will continue to work with them to deliver affordable housing to the people of that province.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it odd this evening that the current government does not know what social housing means. When I asked my question, on November 4, the Minister of Transport talked about affordable housing. Tonight, they are again talking about affordable housing.

Affordable housing is a concept the former infrastructure minister, Mr. Gagliano, came up with to build housing for the middle class. Tonight, I am talking about social housing. Real social housing is for people with a very low income. I do not want to hear about the $680 million spent on affordable housing; that is not what I am talking about.

Every time I mention this, they do not know what it means. Will they go to the streets to meet the real people who have fallen into deep poverty and find out what they truly want in terms of social housing?

The current federal contribution is far from enough to reduce the social imbalance created by the huge housing crisis. Two million dollars are needed to build real social housing. I do not mean affordable housing for middle income taxpayers or apartment buildings for developers. I am talking about housing for those who are dirt poor.

Last summer, cities in cooperation with the Quebec government had to set up an emergency assistance program to provide temporary housing for hundreds of families left out on the street. Radio-Canada should be ashamed of selling land it took away from the poor a few years ago back to real estate developers.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary who is speaking on behalf of the minister the following: will the government introduce policies to ensure that such things do not recur? Since the federal government is a partner in operation Solidarité 5 000 logements—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member appears to be mixing apples and oranges. I heard reference to people who do not have homes, who generally are referred to as the homeless in this country, and that is a different issue than building affordable housing in partnership with the province.

In the homeless file, our Minister of Labour has been designated as the minister responsible for homelessness and, frankly, has done a marvellous job across the country in working with local communities to identify areas where shelters need to be developed and transitional housing needs to be built so that the people I believe the member is referring to, the people on the street and the homeless, have somewhere to go for shelter, such as on a terribly cold night like tonight.

However, if we are talking about affordable housing, it must be recognized, in spite of the constant chirping that is going on over on the other side of the House, that CMHC and the Government of Canada have invested $680 million, and it goes up to $1.36 million. In the province of Quebec alone it will generate 6,500 affordable housing units.

I recommend that the member talk to her counterparts, her colleagues in the province of Quebec. If indeed it is necessary for the province to provide shelter allowances to help the people she is talking about, then I think that perhaps the province of Quebec would entertain such a request, and it is appropriate that it does.

To say that the government has done nothing for either homelessness or affordable housing is a misrepresentation of the facts. The facts are clear. CMHC and this government are committed to a long term national strategy in the province of Quebec as well as across the entire nation.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to take part in the debate on the adjournment motion. Following the question that I asked on November 26, concerning the future of the wharf for the Trois-Pistoles—Les Escoumins ferry service, the minister said, and I quote:

There will be improvements made to the Trois-Pistoles harbour and the service will resume next summer.

The minister was mistaken. It is at Les Escoumins. Still, the intention is there, and I am very pleased that he confirmed that the service would resume next summer.

Following multiple questions and letters addressed not only to the Minister of Transport, but also to the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for Quebec, December 15 was the deadline to ensure that there would be a tourism season next summer, to ensure that tourists would be able to get services from stakeholders and wholesalers in the tourism industry.

We received confirmation that a ferry service will be provided next summer, after the 2002 season was lost, which resulted in significant losses for the tourism industry and for the Compagnie de navigation Les Basques, which operates the ferry.

Indeed, this ferry service provides $5 million in economic spinoffs for the region, every year. It goes without saying that early in the season, in May and June, and at the end of the season, when things are quieter, there is a significant loss of revenues if there is no ferry. This is why, I am taking the minister's word, following his confirmation that the ferry service would be in operation next summer.

Of course, we will follow up on this issue, because Transport Canada has not been really effective on this issue. They were rather negligent. For months, we did not know whether there would be a ferry service next year. We found out at the very last minute that the 2002 season was cancelled. Now, at least we have some good news.

Today what I want the minister's representative to tell me is whether there will indeed be compensation for the losses sustained by Navigation des Basques, the ferry owners, and whether there will be compensation for the tourism operators who lost money during that time.

A class action has been launched and is before the courts. It would be far preferable, however, for the tourism operators, and for the ferry company, if Transport Canada assumed its responsibilities and compensated them for their losses, so that the costs of this unacceptable situation are, in the end, borne by the party responsible for it, which is Transport Canada.

Can I have confirmation today that, in addition to the work being done as confirmed by the minister, there will indeed be compensation for those who have been the victims of this situation?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, the minister has asked me to inform my hon. colleague that the transport department is indeed continuing to work closely with the ferry's representatives. At the meeting in Les Escoumins on June 19 all the stakeholders unanimously agreed that all options for resumption of this service for the 2002 season had been explored by the engineers and there was no short term solution applicable to control the risks and ensure the safety of operations.

The status of the wharf has always been precarious, and the local stakeholders were regularly informed of this fact. Indeed, since 1998 some $1.5 million has been invested at each of these locations to keep the service running.

In the middle of November, the department's engineers met again with the representatives of the Trois-Pistoles--Les Escoumins ferry to outline the work done to date on analyzing the options for allowing short term operations at the wharf.

One of the priorities of the department obviously is safety and I am sure that my hon. colleague will agree with me that there can be no compromising on the safety of the public.

The minister and I are aware that the cessation of the operations of the ferry in 2002 has had impacts on the communities concerned and that users, mostly tourists, will among other things have to use the alternative ferries at Rivière-du-Loup--Saint-Siméon and Rimouski--Forestville, respectively about 50 kilometres west and east of the Trois-Pistoles--Les Escoumins route.

We have to assess the alternatives available to us in this case from the point of view of Transport Canada's port management policies. We are continuing to work closely with the representatives of the ferry. The department's engineers are meeting with the stakeholders on December 5 to obtain their comments on final designs for the temporary facilities.

The House and the member will understand that seeking options for such an exposed environment is very complicated and requires many analyses and checks by professionals in this field.

In conclusion, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, I want to thank the local stakeholders for their outstanding cooperation in this matter.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that the minister's representative is confirming that the Department of Transport was negligent. We know that there has been a policy of divestiture of ports since 1996. Since that time, the federal government has been a bad owner. It has left the sites to deteriorate.

A year and a half ago, a notice was signed by 50 municipalities in my riding in support of the people of Trois-Pistoles. They were calling on the federal government to invest. It did not do so and this led to the situation that we have experienced.

We are very pleased today that the wharves can be repaired, but there must also be compensation for tourism operators. As my colleague has acknowledged, there were major financial losses. It is true that tourists could use other ferries. However, then they did not stay in bed and breakfasts in the region, they did not stay in hotels or motels in the region and they did not eat in restaurants in the region. Some tourist sites lost many clients.

Can my colleague confirm whether wharves will be completely repaired? This is a $7 million project that is important. There are economic spin-offs of $5 million for the region.

Indeed, on top of wharf repairs, will there be compensation for those who lost money because of Transport Canada's negligence?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the department officials are looking very closely at this issue.

I think the member would agree that the key principle of safety is one which cannot be put at risk and must not be ignored. Considering the conditions around the site of the wharf, the engineers cannot guarantee at this stage how long the temporary works can be kept in place. Carrying out work near these structures might also cause some sections of the wharf to collapse. One can appreciate that for every action, there is a potential reaction.

All the stakeholders in the area, as I said earlier, are cooperating with our officials and our representatives. We very much appreciate the attitude that they are taking in trying to work out a solution with the engineers.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to a question I asked on October 11. I asked the Minister of the Environment a question about pollution in the bay of Lamèque, where the smell of gas is making children sick and people feel unwell. It is a serious problem. The Conservation Council of New Brunswick has called on the federal government to investigate.

I asked the Minister of the Environment what he would do. I would like to read his answer:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Acadie-Bathurst for his question.

Last December, we sent out a letter advising the company in question that it was violating the law. Since then, we have been working together with provincial authorities, the other federal departments and the company to remedy the situation. But, as the hon. member pointed out, the problem is continuing, and it is clear that we must intensify our efforts.

Today, one month later, my question is the following. How has the federal Liberal government intensified its efforts? What has it done since then to change the situation?

Today is December 3. We know that after the winter, comes spring. What is the government planning on doing this winter?

It is important to look at the situation at Lamèque. In that area, 20% of people are on employment insurance. They do not have a job. The company in question employees 600 people. Clearly, we do not want them to lose their job.

Pollution in the bay of Lamèque is not caused solely by this company. I believe it is a by-product of the fisheries and it did not start yesterday. It has been going on for 20 years and is the result of work habits in this area. I talked to officials in the fisheries department and I was told that this occurs everywhere in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, where there is dumping into the sea.

What is the government planning to do to deal with the situation? Is it willing to cooperate with the province to establish a program to improve the environmental protection system and clean up the environment in that area? This is unacceptable. I can guarantee that anyone in that area in the summer who got a whiff of the odour there, compared to that produced by hog farms, would say as I do that it is one heck of a problem.

But this is not all; it makes people sick. It is recognized that gases make people sick. There is a responsibility and the minister recognized it. The minister said he recognized there was a problem.

Since the company employees 600 people, the whole community will be affected. I do not believe that closing the plant would be a solution. Rather, we should look at how the environment in that area can be cleaned up, how to help improve the system so as not to pollute the bay and the sea that have provided a livelihood for people for years and years. People have worked in the fishing industry for many many years.

The municipality of Lamèque is also in trouble. It had given the order to dump earth at the water's edge. Now it might be charged. Pressure from citizens is strong and the municipality must act.

I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment what the department is doing and what it is planning to do.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, many questions have arisen regarding odours in the town of Lamèque, New Brunswick. Environment Canada is aware of these concerns and takes them very seriously.

The odours in Lamèque appear to be the indirect result of nutrient and organic matter being discharged into the Bay of Lamèque from a variety of sources over a period of many years. Furthermore, these nutrients, acting like a fertilizer, promote the growth of algae and other marine plants. Eventually, bacteria and organisms responsible for decomposing sediment and organic matter cause a reduction in the oxygen in the receiving waters and create odorous gases. This process is further enhanced when tides and currents are not strong enough to promote adequate flushing.

This problem appears to have intensified over the past few years due in part to warm temperatures and a lack of precipitation during the summers. Algae blooms and odours intensify with the increasing ambient temperature.

In the late 1980s it was believed that the odours were being generated by two main sources: odours from the decaying algae and exposed mud flats as described above; and odours resulting from the operation of a local fish meal plant, known as l'Association Coopérative des Pêcheurs de l'Île.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the fish meal plant installed new scrubbing equipment. Shortly after that, concerns from the public about the odours decreased significantly.

However, there was a complaint in the summer of 2001 and it was followed up by Environment Canada along with the New Brunswick department of environment as well as the local government. There was a joint survey in late September of that year. The survey confirmed a high level of organic matter and nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, in the bay along with low dissolved oxygen levels in the receiving waters. This indicated a stressed ecosystem.

The fish plant effluent analysis, although in compliance with federal guidelines insofar as screening criteria, was found to be acutely lethal to fish. Based on that information, Environment Canada took action by issuing a Fisheries Act warning letter to the company on December 7, 2001. The company was put on notice that it was in violation of the Fisheries Act.

L'Association Coopérative des Pêcheurs de l'Île acknowledged that it was discharging effluent from its fishing processing operations. The company acknowledged that it may be a contributor to the nutrient and organic loading to the bay but pointed out that other local sources were also responsible.

Nevertheless the company took steps in cooperation with our department and provincial authorities to reduce its discharge into the bay. To date, the company has carried out some in plant process changes. These pollution prevention measures include reducing water consumption, recycling water within the plant, separating solids and wastes in the processing tables rather than flushing them down the drains, and installing new screens and removal systems for fish wastes.

In the interim, the town of Lamèque is working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on proposed projects to help minimize the odour problem. A working group with members from Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the New Brunswick environment, agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture departments and local government has been formed to assess the issues of effluent quality, odour control and algae growth in Lamèque Bay. It is normal procedure to follow up and monitor actions taken to correct a problem that has been identified.

Even though Environment Canada is working with the company to encourage a solution, this does not preclude enforcement action. Environment Canada will continue to work diligently with the province of New Brunswick to secure improved conditions in Lamèque Bay in compliance with the Fisheries Act.

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

Madam Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary stated on behalf of the government, they recognize that a problem exists, that there is pollution, and that there is a gas which could affect the people of Lamèque.

Therefore, my question is quite clear. Will they do something about it? It is all very nice to observe and monitor, but I think we are past that. They now recognize that there is a problem and that there is some equipment that could be used.

I am told, for instance, that new equipment is being used in a fish plant in Prince Edward Island to help with the cleanup and that it will not pollute the bay. But what else will the government do to clean up this mess?

Right now, nature does not seem to be doing the job. There is a problem which I think the parliamentary secretary also explained. The bay is not promoting adequate flushing. It is not flushing the waste away. Gases are created, matter has decomposed and is not being carried away.

What is the government going to do to help the residents of this municipality and, at the same time, solve this problem? The onus is not only on the Coopérative de Lamèque, but on all fish plants, and that is a well known fact.

What is the government going to do to clean up the bay so that the fishermen and everyone can enjoy a better environment?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, Environment Canada recently received a formal complaint about the fish plant from the Conservation Council of New Brunswick. Environment Canada's policy is to follow up automatically when a formal complaint is received. A re-inspection has already been carried out.

A range of options is available to enforce subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act. The goal is to solve the problem. In this case a decision was made to warn the company and then work with the company and the provincial government to find a solution, but this is a first step and does not preclude other action.

[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 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:08 p.m.)