Debates of Nov. 16th, 2004

Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

[David Smith, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my colleague on the other side. If we import wood from Peru in the Gatineau valley, it is not because we do not want to use our local lumber. We use it and we develop it. Recently, $19 million was invested in the construction of a new sawmill in Maniwaki. We develop softwood lumber. We have Louisiana-Pacific, in Bois-Franc, which is a nice big plant in our region. We have new projects underway. Our contractors are very dynamic.

It is exciting for a region to see that people want to take charge of their own lives and they see that the different levels of government want to cooperate. Indeed, we are two Liberal members and we get on well. We have the same objectives: the development of our region and other regions.

If I understand well what my colleague is saying, we do not need Canada. I think that the real problem, or the reality today, is that people on the other side, on my right, want to separate from Canada. They do not want Canada, they do not see it. They want their own identity.

The reality is that Quebec is a partner in the development of this great Canada that includes the people in the riding of Pontiac. They are part of the belle province of Quebec. They believe in Quebec and in a strong and structured Canada and they want its development.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts , as reported by the committee with an amendment, and of Motion No. 1.

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at the report stage of Bill C-6.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting in favour.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent in the House to support the present motion. In any event, the Conservative members present will be supporting the motion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Québécois support this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members vote yes on this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

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

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in October I asked a question of the minister responsible for public security concerning the case of Maher Arar and matters before the inquiry but primarily related to the ongoing cloud of suspicion that hangs over the head of Mr. Arar and his young family.

Related to that, I was interested to note that last week the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the ruling of the previous court sealing certain information in the related case of Juliet O'Neill and the Ottawa Citizen against the Government of Canada violated the constitutional guarantees of, among other things, the public's right to an open court system. In this case, an inferior court had ruled that the reasons for the search of Juliet O'Neill's home and the seizure of certain property of hers would remain secret. That ruling has now been overruled by the Ontario Superior Court, but it raises some interesting questions related to the Arar inquiry and to Mr. Arar's case because one of the documents seized was Canada's security dossier on Maher Arar.

If these documents are now to be released to Juliet O'Neill and to the Ottawa Citizen's lawyers, I want to know if they will also be released to the subject of the documents, Mr. Arar himself.

I want to review a bit about this case because after more than two years Mr. Arar and his family continue to suffer the consequences of his seizure by American officials and his deportation to Syria without any notice to the Canadian government.

In my question in October I referred to the fact that as the inquiry progresses and as documents come out there are still innuendoes, insinuations of some criminal connection by this man. After two years, no charges have been laid and there is no way this man can clear his name. Given that my own views on certain matters in this case were misrepresented in a report provided to the government by a government official, I have to wonder whether we will provide Mr. Arar with his file so he can determine whether the contents of that file are accurate.

I believe the minister needs to act and needs to make sure that charges are laid so that Mr. Arar has the opportunity to clear his name or make an admission that there are no grounds to lay charges.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the question put to the House by my hon. colleague, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean, regarding the case of Mr. Maher Arar.

As my colleague knows, on January 28, 2004, the Government of Canada announced that Judge Dennis O'Connor would conduct a public inquiry into the way Canadian officials acted in the deportation and detention of Mr. Maher Arar.

In accordance with the inquiry's terms of reference, which were announced on February 5, 2004, Mr. Justice O'Connor is to investigate and report on the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Mr. Arar, including the detention of Mr. Arar in the United States, the deportation of Mr. Arar to Syria via Jordan, the imprisonment and treatment of Mr. Arar in Syria, the return of Mr. Arar to Canada, and any other circumstances directly related to Mr. Arar that Mr. Justice O'Connor considers relevant to fulfilling this mandate.

The commission is also mandated to recommend an arm's length review mechanism for the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to national security.

Regarding the factual inquiry, Mr. Justice O'Connor continues to hear from witnesses and to review evidence in this case. Once Mr. Justice O'Connor has completed his investigation he will report on the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Mr. Arar.

In summary, the government has called this inquiry to provide assurances to all Canadians that an independent and respected jurist has examined all of the relevant evidence about the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Mr. Arar's arrest, detention, treatment in Syria and return to Canada, through both public and in camera proceedings. Now we must allow the inquiry to complete this important task.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, equality before the inquiry and Mr. Arar's right to protect his interests depend upon an open process. As I said, just last week the Ontario Superior Court ruling stressed the constitutional right to an open court process that can be violated by secrecy.

I am asking the government to again re-examine the way in which documents have been kept secret in this matter and which have limited the ability of the inquiry to hear from Mr. Arar himself on some of the information before it. This is because he and his lawyer have no access to those documents.

I ask the government to examine the decision of the Ontario Superior Court and to re-examine its position. I do not think the fact that an inquiry is underway exonerates the government from exercising its responsibility for the actions of its officials.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government made a commitment to get to the bottom of this issue by launching an independent public inquiry.

The government believes that the established terms of reference provide Mr. Justice O'Connor with the mandate required to determine the role of Canadian officials with respect to Mr. Arar's case. We must now allow the inquiry to fulfil its mandate without the government prejudging the findings.

My hon. colleague herself has previously stated in this House that she has “every confidence in Mr. Justice O'Connor to conduct a thorough and expeditious inquiry”. I think we can all agree that it is imperative that the inquiry be allowed to complete its work. Let the inquiry do its job.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I asked a question of the Minister of Finance relating to the present dispute between Ottawa and Newfoundland as it relates to offshore revenues.

In June during the election campaign the Prime Minister came to our province. Having been forced by the other two major parties, ours and the NDP, to take a stand on revenues, the Prime Minister accepted an offer put forth by the province of Newfoundland and Labrador through the premier, Mr. Williams. The Prime Minister said several times, and it is in writing, that he accepted the proposal put forth by Mr. Williams. However, when the election was over and the dust had settled, no one wanted to deliver on the promise.

After all kinds of meetings and pressure, the Minister of Finance finally gave in writing some indication of the government's offer. They talked about caps and timeframes. They talked about the fiscal capacity of other provinces, particularly Ontario. There were several things tied into the deal that had not been mentioned before and were not part of Mr. Williams' request to the Prime Minister, which the Prime Minister said he had accepted.

When people became upset with this process and this approach, the Minister of Natural Resources was summoned behind closed doors and briefed on the issue somewhat. He should have been there from day one because not only is he the minister responsible for that portfolio, but he is also the minister responsible for representing the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, he was called in and briefed briefly, pardon the pun, and sent to Newfoundland to sell the deal.

I quoted him in my question as saying that there is no cap, that there is no concern about tying it in with the fiscal capacity of Ontario, that if oil goes to $1,000 a barrel, we will get all the revenues, that it does not matter about any other province or the fiscal capacity of anybody.

I asked the minister at the time if this was the government's position. The minister did not answer my question. Tonight I know the question will be answered by the parliamentary secretary. I ask him to forget about the prepared text he has been given to try to talk his way out of this.

I want to ask him, is it the government's position that the Minister of Natural Resources has been enunciating in Newfoundland and Labrador? If not, what is the government's position and why is it taking so long to get to a point where the Prime Minister delivers on his promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, just last week when the House was not sitting, some considerable progress was made on the treatment of the offshore resources issue.

Last Wednesday the Prime Minister met with the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. That was followed by a meeting of the federal and provincial ministers responsible for the file. These were very productive meetings. We want to continue with those discussions in a spirit of goodwill so that all governments can say that progress has been made. That has been reflected in the public comments by both premiers and the Prime Minister.

Let me go back to the offer that was made on October 24. We should be very clear that the offer made would effectively provide additional offsetting funds equivalent to 100% of offshore revenues to compensate for equalization declines associated with increased offshore revenues.

Furthermore, the approach fully meets federal commitments made to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Under the offer the Government of Canada said it would introduce legislation to provide additional annual payments offsetting equalization declines through an eight year period from 2004-05 through to 2011-12.

A provision in the offer, however, states that no such additional payments could result in a fiscal capacity of either province exceeding that of Ontario. If we think about it, that is a fair caveat. Ontario, which has the second highest fiscal capacity in the country and does not receive equalization payments, is used to provide an appropriate benchmark for the enhanced fiscal capacity that could be achieved under these agreements. Existing fiscal arrangements between the Government of Canada and the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia already ensure that the provinces retain 100% of the respective offshore resource revenues. Equalization payments come on top of that.

Last June the Prime Minister committed to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Nova Scotians that he would ensure that they remained the principal beneficiaries of offshore development by giving them 100% of effective protection against future equalization reductions caused by resource royalty increases. However, the 100% has to have within it limits to ensure fairness to all Canadians and all the provinces. The eight year arrangement which the Prime Minister has offered to Premiers Williams and Hamm fully meets that commitment.

I will now turn to the contentious issue of limit on revenue which has perhaps been the most widely misunderstood aspect of the agreement. The new special arrangements will not be allowed to cause Newfoundland and Labrador's fiscal capacity overall, including federal subsidies, to exceed that of Canada's second most prosperous province, Ontario.

I want to make the next point very clear. That is that the arrangement does not say that Newfoundland's own resources are being limited to the level of Ontario's. In fact, there is absolutely nothing to prevent Newfoundland's own revenues from surpassing those of Ontario, indeed those of Alberta for that matter. The limit simply means that taxpayers elsewhere in Canada should not be asked to subsidize Newfoundland and Labrador to a higher level than Ontario.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for reading what was given to him, but let me say to him that he should have checked it out beforehand because what he said is certainly not the facts.

Toward the end he talked about the province looking for equalization after it goes above and beyond the fiscal capacity of Ontario. That is not the case. We have always said that when we reach the five province standard, when we are looked upon as being equal, we do not want equalization, thank you. We want to be a contributing partner in Confederation, but we do not want the federal government taking back our share of our money.

We are not looking for 100% of all the revenues from the development, as some people think. We are looking for 100% of our share which is less than 50% of the total revenue. When we reach the average capacity, we do not want equalization. We are saying, do to us what the government did to Alberta. Give us the opportunity to use our own revenues until we reach that fiscal capacity. Equalization would disappear and the revenues would continue to flow.

Progress has been made, the parliamentary secretary said. The premiers from both provinces met with the Prime Minister. It was a cozy meeting. They turned it over to the finance ministers and they had a meeting. Everyone thought that everyone understood each other. Then they did the unpardonable thing by turning it over to the officials. From what I know, we are no further ahead. Hopefully things will work out because if not, the war has just begun.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about meeting Ontario's standard, or the five province standard, that all he wants is to meet the five province standard. Actually, if he meets Ontario's standard, it is higher than the five province standard because Ontario generally is the second most prosperous province in the country. In fact, it is already an enhanced treatment for Newfoundland over possibly other provinces, and the other provinces may well object to that.

The hon. member talked about making progress. When I hear the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia say that they have made good progress in their productive meetings between themselves and the Prime Minister, then I take them at their word. I think in fact that is true.

This was an offer that was made in good faith by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Government of Canada. It directly addresses the concerns about the additional payments to offset equalization declines associated with oil and gas revenues.

As I said, these arrangements are much more generous than those in place for other provinces that receive equalization. That is because in some respects we are recognizing the special circumstances with which the hon. member is concerned.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on October 22, I asked a question of the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I queried at that time why the Liberal government had failed in its duty to streamline the northern regulatory process. The question was addressed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who declined to answer. Today's question represents a follow-up to that exchange.

In mid-October of this year the Senate and the Congress of the United States of America enacted legislation to streamline the American regulatory process which governs the American stretch of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. The comparison between the Canadian and the American regulatory environment is germane, because there are two competing pipelines at issue. The early approval and construction of either will have a direct bearing upon the economics, the timing and perhaps even the feasibility of the other. This interrelationship has been styled by some as the great pipeline race.

Most respected commentators agree that Canada has more to lose in this particular contest. The proven Canadian gas reserves are smaller than those in Alaska and some fear that the delays in the approval of Canada's Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline could imperil the very feasibility of the Canadian pipeline itself. If that happens, all Canadians will lose the benefits of this project, but the northern community, especially the aboriginal consortium which owns one-third of the proposed Canadian pipeline, will lose an opportunity of immense proportions.

By contrast to the Americans, the Canadian government has created a regulatory framework in northern Canada which has proven so complex, so unwieldy, so fraught with uncertainty and delay that it actually imperils the Mackenzie Valley pipeline project.

The authority for that statement is the government's own external advisory committee on smart regulation which released its report in September 2004. That report criticizes the northern regulatory framework. It describes it as a complex and unpredictable cobweb of regulations involving multiple federal government departments and territorial and aboriginal authorities.

The report highlights the fact that what the government has done in the north has been to create complexity rather than remove complexity. By comparison, the Americans search for an environment of uncertainty. Our government offers confusion, delay, opacity and bureaucracy, all of which jeopardize both the economic and the environmental objectives of northern Canadians.

The report leaves little to the imagination. It puts forward four very specific recommendations. It calls upon the government to create a regulatory framework which is timely, transparent, predictable, clear and certain; to create a single window approach to coordinated regulation with mandatory response timelines; to appoint a federal coordinator with clear decision making authority to get the process moving; and to provide training to build capacity among the 13 regulatory organizations with overlapping jurisdiction.

I therefore ask the minister to respond today and tell Canadians what the government is doing to implement the recommendations of the external advisory committee in relation to the northern pipeline. What is the government doing to clear up the regulatory confusion which imperils the economic future of the north?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for providing the government with an opportunity to further inform the House in respect to progress being made in the area of northern development.

There can be no mistaking that the government's commitment to the effective and sustainable development of Canada's north is very important. The 2004 federal budget provided $75 million over three years to help ensure that all the federal departments and agencies involved in northern development, as well as the northern boards, have the capacity needed to support sound environmental and regulatory review, science in the public interest, and community engagement. This was a strong and public signal to the interested parties of the government's commitment.

With regard to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, let me assure the House that this initiative is not at risk. The Government of Canada's participation in the environmental assessment and regulatory review of the Mackenzie gas project is being undertaken on behalf of every individual in Canada. Our funding of this project continues to see that our endeavours focus upon activities such as proper environmental assessment, scientific research and consultation.

In 2001 the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development created the Pipeline Readiness Office to prepare the proposed Mackenzie gas project. This group's mandate includes assisting both the aboriginal and the northern communities in the areas of capacity, partnerships and environmental review, together with research. Through this office, the department provides funding to regional aboriginal organizations in the Northwest Territories so they can effectively prepare for the environmental assessment and the regulatory review of the proposed pipeline.

Additional funding is also provided for their involvement in research, negotiating land, access and benefits agreements and socio-economic issues related to the pipeline's development. Investments in this regard totalled $1.5 million in the last fiscal year and are expected to exceed that in 2004-05.

Let me assure the House that the government, through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and its Pipeline Readiness Office, continues to meet its commitments as outlined in the cooperation plan. The cooperation plan calls for a coordinated and effective environmental assessment and regulatory review process that reduces duplication and meets the legislative needs of all parties.

I will touch quickly on negotiations with the Deh Cho First Nations. The lawyers have finalized a framework agreement which commits the two parties to conduct, without prejudice, discussions aimed at exploring common ground on the Mackenzie gas project. I am sure that the hon. member does understand that as the matter remains before the courts it would be inappropriate for the government to offer further comment at this time.

In short, I applaud the hon. member for his commitment to sustainable development of the vast potential of Canada's north. I think we all want what is good for the whole country. I wish to assure him and all members of the House that we are working with vigour to address any issues that arise and to forge ahead to the benefit of all Canadians. I know this answer went a little broader than the member's questions, but I thought the information was important to lay before the House.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the capacity building exercises that my friend has spoken of, but I did not hear any specific response to the recommendations of the external adviser, which are very detailed in nature. In particular, the cooperation plan which my friend has referred to predates the external adviser's report. The external adviser's report is a specific response to the failure of the government to follow up on that cooperation plan.

The Government of Canada has failed in its basic obligation to this point to staff the regulatory authorities of which we are speaking. The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board has no chairman at this point in time. The Inuvialuit environmental review board will have no chair as of February of this year and none of the government's appointees have been named to the board. The consequence of this is that the regulatory authorities in question are not able to proceed in the manner contemplated in the cooperation plan.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Mackenzie gas producers filed their environmental impact statement on October 7. As such, the environmental assessment and regulatory review processes for the Mackenzie gas project are proceeding as outlined in the cooperation plan.

Further, the Mackenzie Valley regulatory boards continue to receive additional financial and human resources to carry out the regulatory review of the Mackenzie gas project. This incremental board funding began in 2001 to help northern boards prepare for and participate in the cooperation plan.

The environmental assessment and regulatory regime in the Mackenzie Valley is the result of aboriginal land claims agreements negotiated and legislated between these parties and the Government of Canada. Working together, we want to ensure that the spirit and intent of these successfully settled land claims are met, and we will continue to work in cooperation.