Debates of May 14th, 2003

Budget Implementation Act, 2003

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question because it is an excellent question. It is a question that needs serious consideration. I hear the same things in my own riding. I know the kind of costs that people are talking about. It is an important issue. We see in New Brunswick how insurance has gone up significantly, sometimes three or four times, and people are trying to get their companies insured. The kind of issues that the member has raised are very important.

The member does acknowledge the fact that, as far as the federal government is concerned, there is a shared responsibility, a shared jurisdiction, with the provinces regarding insurance companies.

The role of the federal government, primarily, is to be responsible for incorporating federally chartered insurance companies and ensuring their proper governance and fiscal soundness. The provinces regulate the day-to-day business activities of insurance companies, including licensing and the marketing of insurance company products, standards of competence, behaviour of insurance agents, et cetera. Therefore much of the issue with regard to the cost of property and casualty insurance would normally then fall under each provincial government.

However, I would like to point out to the hon. member that there is a role for the federal government. The federal government has put measures to aid consumers in dealing with insurers.

First, the federally incorporated insurers are required to have an internal complaints handling process and belong to a third party dispute resolution mechanism. Indeed, the centre for financial services ombudsnetwork, CFSON, provides customers of both provincially and federally incorporated insurance companies with a single window to access the dispute resolution process. Consumers with complaints, and the member referred to consumer complaints, including those regarding premium increases, can seek redress through the ombudsman. This is a very important point that the member raised.

Furthermore, insurers with over $1 billion in equity are required to publish a public accountability statement describing their contributions to the Canadian economy and society.

To enhance the oversight of federally incorporated institutions, the government established the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to monitor compliance of federally incorporated financial institutions with the federal consumer provisions.

We know that some provinces are taking the initiative on some of the issues that the member has raised. However, the member is asking about the overall picture and as I said, the ombudsman role is very important. That is something that consumers must look at, particularly with premium increases. The main responsibility of the provinces is certainly to do that but, again, we have a role.

I have tried to outline to the member some of the important roles that we play as the federal government, particularly in terms of this issue. However, when individuals come to the member on these issues, they do not ask whether this is a federal or a provincial issue. They are looking for leadership from the member. I hope that some of the information I provided the member will be useful. However it raises the question: if some of the provinces are not doing the job, can the federal government take a leadership role? That, I think, is what the member was asking for.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, government members receive few opportunities to ask questions and no chance for supplementary questions. Unlike opposition members, we give notice of our questions. I submit that we are entitled to answers that are at least helpful. Even a junior minister can use the opportunity to show Canadians that he has some empathy for their concerns, some knowledge of the topic, and some grasp of its contents. Among other things, this gives people confidence in our system.

If a minister does not have an answer, he should say so and offer to get back to the member and his constituents. In our complex, modern Confederation, simply hiding behind jurisdiction, as in this case, is a sign of ignorance, immaturity and lack of respect for our citizens and for the House of Commons.

I strongly urge that there be a constructive, national inquiry into the insurance industry in Canada spearheaded by the federal government. This will benefit the industry and all Canadians.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I realize that the member's comments were not directed at me but at the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.

He was right in what he said about the jurisdictional issue. I have tried to assist the member. I have talked about some of the ways the federal government plays a very positive role, particularly with regard to premium increases and the ombudsman role.

With regard to the financial service sector, the member knows we have an ombudsman for the various chartered banks as well. It is important that this mechanism be used, that members have that kind of information, and I would undertake this evening to look at how we can disseminate more of that information to members throughout the House in order to ensure that they can inform their constituents of that material.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on February 28 of this year in reply to my question about the need of setting rules banning the bad practice of net-cage salmon farming, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that before taking any action it had to be fully understood whether the sea lice problem was caused by aquaculture. I wish to point out that the root cause of the sea lice outbreak is the practice of net-cage salmon farming. On that occasion the minister said:

It is our belief that we can have both an aquaculture industry and at the same time protect the wild salmon resource.

The minister's reply was surprising because there is ample evidence of the negative impact of net-cage salmon farming on wild salmon. It has been clearly documented by several authorities, including the Auditor General in 2000. In addition, the Pacific Fisheries Resources Conservation Council confirmed this fact in March.

According to several scientific reviews, the aquaculture industry has frequently violated the Fisheries Act since its expansion on the British Columbia coast in the early nineties. This has included: the escape of hundreds of thousands of fish, including Atlantic salmon; the harmful alteration of habitat, including the smothering of the benthos under the net pens with fish waste; the construction of unapproved facilities that interfere with navigation; and the illegal deposit of deleterious substances.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the authority to protect wild species under the Fisheries Act, yet it has not exercised that authority. Recent studies by the Pacific Fisheries Resources Conservation Council in Vancouver, an independent body appointed by the federal government, confirmed that the government had strongly promoted the aquaculture industry, but it had not adequately seen to it that salmon farmers adopt environmentally sustainable practices and procedures.

As to sea lice, the British Columbia provincial government disagreed with the fisheries council's findings that sea lice were a threat to the wild fishery. The provincial fisheries minister indicated that the aquaculture industry would continue to operate as in the past. As recently stated by former Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist and aquaculture specialist Otto Langer:

The Fisheries Act bestows on the Federal Minister of Fisheries all the powers he needs to protect wild fish and their habitat while allowing for the proper development of a viable aquaculture industry

Against this background, namely Dr. Langer's authoritative statement, plus the findings of the Auditor General, the findings of the Pacific Fisheries Resources Conservation Council, can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans explain today why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not acted under the Fisheries Act and removed the net-cage salmon farming operations in light of the irreparable damage they cause to wild stocks?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address the issue that the hon. member for Davenport has raised, that is, the sustainable use and development of aquaculture and its relationship with and the manner in which it implicates the natural fish habitat. In this case, it is pink salmon that the hon. member has indicated is at risk, a fact that has been established by the diminution of the pink salmon fish stocks on the west coast.

While I cannot answer in depth with respect to whether it is aquaculture that has been implicated to the largest extent and the general style of aquaculture, I can provide the hon. member with some responses to the questions he has raised. I would invite the member to follow up additionally where the information that has been provided to me has not adequately addressed the questions he has raised.

I say that because the questions that the hon. member for Davenport has raised are very legitimate questions. Against the background of what is happening with respect to the cod stocks on the east coast, certainly these are issues that we have to take very seriously.

Over the last 10 years, Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, has put in place a number of initiatives to promote sustainable development of the aquaculture industry and minimize its potential impacts on the environment and on wild fish stocks. Since launching the program for sustainable aquaculture, the department has stepped up its efforts to reach this objective.

The program for sustainable aquaculture, announced in 2000, is an investment that will enable the aquaculture industry to grow and become one of the jewels of the Canadian economy while allowing the government to ensure that this growth is not achieved to the detriment of our aquatic ecosystems. Aquaculture is an increasingly important activity in Canada and in the rest of the world and offers numerous social and economic opportunities, but I stress that it must not and cannot be at the risk of the natural habitat.

Announced recently was the action plan for pink salmon. I would like to give the details. We have implemented a freshwater monitoring program, conducted in parallel with DFO's traditional pink Pacific salmon stock assessment program. A marine monitoring program has been established, aimed at assessing the frequency and severity of sea lice infection rates among young salmon in the Broughton Archipelago area and gathering data with respect to taking action based on that research.

A strategic management approach for aquaculture sites in particular has been worked out with the British Columbia government. This program is being monitored in detail. There is also a long term research plan leading to the establishment of the department's research priorities on approaches to sea lice management in that area.

These are just the basic components of the plan. It is my hope that the plan will result in alleviating the kinds of concerns the hon. member has raised.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his encouraging words and his well presented examination of the situation as provided to him by the department.

Nevertheless, I must say from his response that here we have a classical case of the so-called sustainable aquatic industry of aquaculture being in collision with the aquatic ecosystem. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is reluctant to perform its duty in removing certain operations, the one which I referred to in my earlier intervention, the net-cage salmon farming, from the water ecosystem. Therefore, the question I asked earlier still remains unanswered, that is, why is the department not performing its duties in relation to this problem?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, among the various points that the hon. member has put forward, the response in my notes indicates that although current data does not establish any direct link between the presence of salmon culture sites and low pink salmon returns in British Columbia's Broughton archipelago, the issue is of concern to the department. That is part of the response that is too dismissive of the point raised by the hon. member.

I have been assured that actions are being taken and if those aquaculture initiatives, which are under scrutiny, are not bearing up to the conditions that have been established under the relevant legislation, actions should and will be taken against them.

I will endeavour to obtain the information that the member has requested in order to allay his concern that we are not being as serious as he is about this issue, as it reflects on the natural habitat on the west coast. I will endeavour to get that information.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place as a consequence of the question I asked the defence minister on February 11 regarding the location of the joint task force 2, JTF2, facility on Dwyer Hill Road in the City of Ottawa, and the mistreatment of adjacent landowners by the federal government.

First, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence for his comments last week regarding my interest in JTF2. It is in the spirit of those comments that I asked the minister my original question back in February.

It is very clear that a number of problems exist with the Dwyer Hill base. The question the minister needs to answer is whether those problems can be fixed. If that is the case, decisions should be made and we should get on with it. If, on the other hand, the evidence supports moving the commando base, and I believe the evidence exists to support that option, the federal government needs to immediately take the appropriate steps for the benefit of all parties involved.

I am on record as supporting the move of the JTF2 base from Dwyer Hill to CFB Petawawa, which I readily acknowledge is located in my riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke. However it was when I had the opportunity to personally walk the fields of the adjacent landowners and see the environmental damage caused by the Department of National Defence, and hear firsthand the stories of harassment and bargaining in bad faith, that I came to the conclusion that the type of operation run by JTF2 did not belong in a populated area.

The defence department is in public self-denial when it suggests it has good relations with its neighbours. CFB Petawawa, on the other hand, enjoys good community relations.

I am pleased to confirm that the local municipal councils of Pembroke, Petawawa, Deep River, Laurentian Hills, Whitewater Region, Laurentian Valley and the county of Renfrew have all passed motions supporting the JTF2 moving to CFB Petawawa.

Base Petawawa has a space to conduct training in secrecy and the base has the necessary infrastructure support for the families and their dependants. Most important, CFB Petawawa is home to the 427 helicopter squadron that provides the air transport for JTF2. Response times in the nation's capital would be improved since the helicopters could fly from Petawawa directly to where they are needed, rather than wasting valuable response time flying from Petawawa to Dwyer Hill to pick up the JTF2 soldiers, then flying on to their mission.

Currently, JTF2 does extensive training at CFB Petawawa. Stationing the JTF2 soldiers on base rather than putting them in hotels, which is just what went on these last few weeks, would save the taxpayers money.

The unfair treatment of the local landowner, Mr. Ron Mayhew, has been recognized in an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen as being unfair and an injustice. It goes on to say that Mr. Mayhew's property has become a bad dream because of the base, and not because of anything he has done. It is time for Mr. Mayhew's nightmare for to end.

As of today, no fair offer has been made to Mr. Mayhew, and apart from the threat to expropriate Mr. Mayhew's farm, nothing continues to happen. Government lawyers defer, defer, defer, and now, as a consequence of refusing to deal reasonably with Mr. Mayhew, the Department of National Defence has exposed the public purse to potentially millions of dollars in lawsuits. Mr. Mayhew has been forced to go to court to get action.

This is really the story of David and Goliath. Mr. Mayhew fights the taxpayers' purse for his basic rights.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for her comments with respect to JTF2. I know she shares my view that this very elite unit of the Canadian Forces has done remarkable work, both in Canada and abroad. As members know, last summer I had the chance, along with the Minister of National Defence, to visit Afghanistan and to see firsthand the remarkable work our forces are doing.

In budget 2001, the Government of Canada invested more than $1.2 billion in the defence portfolio. In this budget we also called for an increase in the capacity of JTF2 to better respond to Canada's security needs, both at home and abroad. This was, in particular, to respond to the new terrorist threat.

As the member knows, the enhancement plan for JTF2 requires additional infrastructure at the current Dwyer Hill training centre in order to accommodate and train more personnel. The Dwyer Hill facility is a unique facility with a unique and sensitive mandate where JTF2 forces, as well as members of other police forces, conduct various training exercises.

At present, as the minister has indicated, there are no plans to relocate the facility as there continues to be, in the view of the department, a very significant operational advantage to be derived from the current location. Indeed, the department has identified two adjacent properties to the current centre that would be appropriate to support additional infrastructure requirements. One of these properties has been purchased and the department has expressed an interest in purchasing the second property.

The department is well aware that the plans to expand the facility at Dwyer Hill have caused concern among local residents. Indeed, the member for Nepean—Carleton, on a number of occasions, has made the government aware of the concerns of local residents. The department has taken those concerns seriously and a team of departmental officials, led by a senior officer of the forces, has been established to better the communications with local residents by listening to and responding to their very legitimate concerns.

However we do not share the member's opinion that a plan to relocate JTF2 at this point would be warranted or appropriate. We believe it is more important to work on the existing facility by improving the relations with the local residents, and we acknowledge that this will require some work.

For that reason, the minister has instructed his group of people to begin a consultation with the local residents. I can report that they are making good progress. However to say that there are plans at the current time to relocate this facility to Petawawa is simply not an accurate representation of what we believe the operational requirements of that facility to be.

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

Mr. Speaker, attempts by the defence department apologists to discredit Mr. Mayhew have failed miserably and are only serving to discredit the military. That is truly the sorry aspect of this affair.

JTF2 represents one of the few bright spots in a military that has been demoralized by years of cutbacks. The minister has even spoken about a higher degree of openness in the activities of the JTF2, the way the British, the Americans and the Australians operate their special forces.

The minister should realize that this campaign of harassment against a poor farmer is doing extensive damage to the image of the Canadian Forces among the public. Residents of the Heron Lake Community Association, who have watched their property values plummet, will be the next ones seeking monetary compensation from the federal government.

There are real concerns of an environmental disaster due to lead contamination and oil spills that have adversely affected the health of local residents and put incredible stress on individuals already in a stressful situation.

The Dwyer Hill base was originally a horse breeding farm intended for 72 members of a domestic team.

It is time for some answers to resolve the situation.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that in no way would the government or the Department of Defence seek to harass local residents, permit local residents to be harassed or in fact compromise the health or safety of local residents.

Mr. Speaker, you and I understand that the role of a local member of Parliament is to do what one can to help his or her constituency. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has done a good job of making a case to relocate this facility to her constituency.

I am from Atlantic Canada. We hope very much that we can find reasons to have large federal infrastructure in our constituencies, but a case has to be made on the merits. The arguments to relocate a facility have to hold water. I hope that in this case there would be no indication of gross patronage or an attempt to relocate a facility from a current location, where it is doing a wonderful job, simply for crass partisan purposes. We on this side would certainly never support such an effort.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)