John Maloney

[Broadcasting Act, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on private member's Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act with respect to broadcasting policy, put forward by my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton.

In the week between Christmas and New Years in 1994, my office, like those of my colleagues, received a deluge of calls from Erie constituents who were concerned with their cable package and the billing option that was to take effect on January 1, 1995. They were angry and they had had enough. I certainly did not fault them. They were right. Negative option billing is unacceptable.

I am in favour of Bill C-216 because it would ban negative option billing. It would apply not only to cable companies but to any other company that provided a distribution undertaking which is defined under the Broadcasting Act as "an undertaking for the reception of broadcasting and the retransmission thereof by radio waves or other means of telecommunications to more than one permanent or temporary residence or dwelling unit or to another such undertaking".

Today we are looking at more players entering the market for broadcasting services such as telephone and satellite companies which will soon provide competition to cable companies. By passing Bill C-216 we can ban negative option billing for new programming services no matter who provides them.

My constituents were calling me because the cable companies are federally regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, commonly referred to as the CRTC.

In 1994 the CRTC licensed six new English language and two new French language specialty services. The commission's two primary objectives in doing this were to strengthen the Canadian presence in the Canadian broadcasting system, especially in anticipation of an invasion by American direct to home satellite services and to ensure that the widest possible selection of new Canadian services would be available at a reasonable cost.

I support these objectives. I support strong Canadian content and a strong Canadian presence in the entertainment industry. However, this cannot be achieved by taking advantage of the Canadian consumer. My constituents were not upset there were eight new channels on January 1, 1995. They were angry because they would automatically be billed for a service they did not request. They felt manipulated through higher fees and the repackaging and repositioning of channels-

[Cuba, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are outraged by the controversial and unjustified trade sanctions of the Helms-Burton bill which targets third country investments in Cuba.

Canadians deplore and condemn the excessive and inappropriate use of force by the Cuban government in downing civilian aircraft, action which coalesced Congressional support for this unacceptable legislation.

Equally, we deplore and condemn the excessive and inappropriate use of trade sanctions by the U.S. government which violates the spirit and text of NAFTA and WTO agreements.

The U.S. is an ally, our largest trading partner and a friend. Friends do not do this to friends. I urge the U.S. government to repeal this ill conceived legislation.

I strongly urge this government to vigorously support and protect the rights of Canadian businesses and investment. Above all, let us send a strong message that the United States of America does not dictate Canadian trade policies.

[Child Care, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

Last week in his budget the Minister of Finance announced changes to the country's child care expense provisions. Would the Minister of National Revenue please explain to the House how the child care expense provisions have been modified?

[Terrorism, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are deeply disturbed by the pernicious effects of terrorism. We are outraged by recent incidents of terrorism such as the subway poison gas attack in Tokyo, the Oklahoma bombing, the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin and the four recent Hamas suicide bombings in Israel.

Terrorism knows no borders. Canadians recognize that terrorism constitutes a flagrant violation of human rights, that terrorism undermines societal structures and institutions, that there is absolutely no justification for terrorism under any circumstances.

We have passed the time for rhetoric. It is now time for action. Terrorist organizations must be targeted. We call on all countries of the world to establish an effective mechanism for the exchange of information, assistance, technology and training to combat terrorism in all its aspects.

We call on all countries to establish programs of counter-terrorism and to immediately conclude terrorist extradition treaties. We must eradicate these merchants of hate for the good of all mankind.

[National Farm Safety Week, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today is the last day of National Farm Safety Week.

Farming can be a hazardous occupation. The farm is not only a home but an industrial work site. It has been estimated that 200 people die every year in farm related accidents. Children are especially at risk, with reports indicating that approximately 20 per cent of farm fatalities are youth under the age of 14.

There is no other occupation in Canada where children live on an industrial work site. This makes farm safety a very important issue and something every farm family must work to improve. Farm safety is an important issue that warrants more attention.

I applaud the efforts of the Canadian Coalition for Agricultural Safety and Rural Health, which includes organizations such as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, to educate the public and to address the serious problems of accidental death and injuries suffered by farmers and their families.

I encourage our farming sector to make a determined effort to eradicate dangerous environments on their lands. Let us all work together to eliminate farm tragedies in 1996 and into the future.

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate on the renewal of the North American Aerospace Defence Command, commonly known as NORAD. Canadians are frequently reminded that we have differences with the United States and indeed we do.

The media tells us of the disputes with the U.S. over the inside passage between the Canadian mainland and Vancouver Island. They tell us that we differ over the export of grain, eggs, pork products and softwood lumber under our trade agreements and we differ over how we should deal with Cuba. We differ as friends and participation in NORAD has done much to foster this friendship.

The list of things that Canadians and Americans have in common is much longer and this list begins with NORAD. Created in 1958 the first agreement covered 10 years and has been renewed seven times since. Each time the Parliament of Canada has fulfilled its responsibility in debating the merits of a further extension. Indeed with the debate today we are once again exercising these responsibilities.

NORAD has evolved over the years from its original purposes for a binational command structure for fighter defence against long range Soviet bombers to attack warning in the mid-sixties in response to intercontinental ballistic missiles. In the mid-1970s the current objectives of NORAD were defined which included assistance in safeguarding sovereignty of airspace which now includes counter drug initiatives, contributing to deterrence of attack by surveillance and warning and if deterrence fail to ensure an appropriate response to attack.

These agreements have never been static. They changed to meet the changing needs of Canada. The House will note that the first NORAD agreement was for 10 years. This was too long between reviews. We needed to look over the forms of our continental defence effort in the context of changing times and times changed rapidly in the sixties, seventies and eighties and even faster in the nineties.

Each renewal has taken place in an atmosphere created by the times. During the Vietnam war some Canadians believed that we should not renew NORAD at all. Overall our differences have stood the fact of our common North American home, the fact of our shared history and the rock bottom inescapable fact of our generally similar values.

Our overriding interest since 1958 has been in preserving our heritage from attack by a system with which we shared little. However, with the end of the Russian empire we have discovered that we have more in common than we knew with the peoples of that region. We have discovered that we do have some things in common with the Russian people. With the disappearance of their repressive and expansionist system of government times have changed.

This time consideration of NORAD renewal takes place in an atmosphere underlined by a greater degree of international calm than at any time in the past. At a time when vicious little wars and the mass murder of prisoners and civilians have brought terrible suffering to the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda we in Canada face our own insecurities. We are safer now from attack from abroad than at any time since the second world war. This security is founded to a large extent on NORAD. Developments only this decade are helping to foster greater confidence that the world will not end in a nuclear holocaust.

This system is led by the UN and includes some important regional groupings such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of American States and many others.

The system that defends North America, European security and defence interests is that led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. On this side of the Atlantic the two NATO partners, Canada and the United States, are allied bilaterally under NORAD. NORAD defends the aerospace of the North American region of NATO. Canada is co-operating with a military and economic superpower in the defence of this continent.

It would be foolish to pretend we bring equal resources to this task. The U.S. is the senior partner. This is reflected by the fact that the NORAD commander in chief is always an American and a four-star U.S. air force general. His deputy is always a Canadian, a three-star general.

The U.S. is the one remaining military super power. As I indicated earlier, despite our differences of view on some important matters we have relatively few important differences on the defence of this continent.

We all know the cold war is over but we should remember there are still thousands of nuclear weapons in the world and thousands more people who would like to detonate them in this part of the world.

There is also a need to remain vigilant against terrorists and drug smugglers. NORAD continues to do this. We must continue to protect this continent from threats. There is no question that Canadians and Americans share the view that drug smuggling and terrorism are threats serious enough to warrant the use of NORAD's resources.

NORAD continues to symbolize the things Canada and the United States share. Consideration of NORAD renewal in 1996 takes place in circumstances quite different from previous renewals. This time there is a residual threat from nuclear weapons in addition to drug smuggling and terrorism, and there is a nuclear, biological and chemical threat combined with terrorism that flows from the existence of states that inhabit a place outside the intercourse of the civilized world.

These are the countries that work to gain control of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and at the same time striving to increase the capabilities of their rockets. Some of these weapons can now reach parts of North America.

Let us not forget China's continued testing of nuclear weapons and its present bellicose activities mere kilometres off the coast of Taiwan. These are countries that show no sign of changing their outlaw ways and there will continue to be a threat from them. NORAD will continue to scan North American aerospace as a defence against attack from this kind of threat.

Canada has benefited from its participation in NORAD and will continue to do so. There are practical benefits to be considered. In intelligence sharing with the United States, the leading nation of the free world, we are the first among equals when linked with this nation. We also have shared access to leading edge technology which alone we cannot even dream of being able to afford.

The operational value of Canadian forces interacting with U.S. forces in complex situations is most beneficial for our military. NORAD is simply a good deal for Canada when one realizes the cost to our country is a mere 10 per cent of the total budget while we receive a shared 100 per cent of the benefits attributable to this agreement. It is good value for our Canadian dollar.

NORAD also provides Canada an opportunity to develop space power. The exploitation of space for military purposes is inevitable. There is a new objective in the proposed agreement, one that is most welcome, enhanced environmental protection. NORAD activities will now be undertaken with the protection of environmental interests of both nations.

We have learned from the difficulties of the clean-up of the environmental harms done by the DEW line, whose clean-up will

be started this year. This is a step forward, as the previous agreement did not address the issue of environmental protection.

All these things serve to remind us of how much we have in common with the United States. There are times to celebrate differences and times to recognize shared values. It is a time to renew NORAD and to acknowledge our good fortune in having good neighbours.

Since 1958 NORAD has served the citizens of Canada and the United States as the first line of defence against an aerospace attack on our homeland. It has provided through its warning capabilities a clear deterrent to any aggressor. Through outstanding co-operation and cohesiveness this organization has proven itself in strengthening the security and sovereignty of Canada and the United States through its role of watching, warning and responding.

By adapting to a changing world and positioning itself to anticipate future challenges NORAD will continue to play a critical role in the defence of Canada and the United States. I urge all members of the House to support continued participation in NORAD.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canada-Japan interparliamentary group to the fourth annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Cha-am, Thailand, January 15-19 of this year.

In four years the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum has grown from 15 to 25 member states in the Asia-Pacific region, many of them also members of APEC. Through regular dialogue this assembly has established itself as an important platform to enhance confidence, consultation and co-operation among its member countries.

As one of the founding members of this forum, Canada is a well established and active player in this assembly. Through this meaningful vehicle, Canada has the opportunity to build goodwill with Asia and to establish important contacts for future dealings.

[Petitions, March 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the third and fourth petitions are on the issue of a potential taxation of health and dental benefits.

The petitioners state that our dental and health care has contributed to Canadians enjoying one of the highest standards of health care in the world. The petitioners call upon Parliament to refrain from implementing a tax on health and dental benefits and to put on hold any future considerations of such a tax until a complete review of the tax system and how it impacts on the health of Canadians has been undertaken.

[Petitions, March 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have four petitions to present to the House.

The first two petitions state that the availability of a low cost energy source is a natural advantage Canadians have to oil. Over the past 10 years, the excise tax on gasoline has risen by 466 per cent. They request that Parliament not increase the federal sales tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate on the debate on Bill C-110.

I will outline some of the salient features of what I consider a sound, innovative piece of legislation. The bill on the regional veto will require the consent of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and the Atlantic and the prairie regions before any constitutional amendments can be proposed in Parliament by the Government of Canada. Currently only the House of Commons has an absolute veto over any constitutional amendment.

The bill guarantees Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, the Atlantic region and the prairie region a general veto over any constitutional amendment in areas where they do not already have an absolute veto or right of withdrawl. This veto will apply to changes to national institutions such as the Senate, the creation of new provinces and any amendments regarding the distribution of powers.

Under the bill a constitutional amendment will have to receive the consent of at least six provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, two provinces from the Atlantic region representing more than 50 per cent of the region's population, and two provinces in the prairie region representing more than 50 per cent of the prairie's population, before it can proceed to Parliament.

The federal government could not proceed to table an amendment if one of the regions refused to give its consent, even if seven provinces or more representing 50 per cent of Canada's population passed resolutions in favour of the amendment. The consent of the provinces and the regions will be expressed in various forms: by direct notice, a vote in the legislative assemblies or by a referendum.

The bill does not amend the Canadian Constitution. Nevertheless, an act of the federal Parliament is a serious measure. This law will become part of Canada's consolidated statutes and will be binding on the current government and on succeeding governments.

In tabling the bill, the Government of Canada is keeping its commitment to Quebecers and ensuring them increased protection within the Canadian federation in a way that should not offend its sister provinces. Moreover, the Government of Canada has recognized that the constitutional amendment process is of interest to all parts of the country. That is why the federal government is lending its veto to the five regions of the country, treating all regions fairly and equitably.

Now is not the time to hold a series of constitutional discussions. The Government of Quebec and its premier in waiting are unequivocally devoted to their secessionist option. If future conditions were to change where Quebec and the other regions were to agree the veto proposed by the bill could be incorporated into the Constitution. This will be for future discussion and future debate; this after due consideration and with the contribution and input from our constituents, the citizens of Canada.

In the past attempts to accommodate Quebec within the Constitution have failed. When the citizens of the country voted against the Charlottetown accord in 1992 they rejected a complex package of changes to the Constitution, including an elected Senate, which I agree with, aboriginal self-government, a veto for each province on changes to the composition of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Supreme Court, and the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.

The Prime Minister's new, much simpler proposal is easily understood and should be judged on its merits.

In the past in attempts to accommodate Quebec within the Constitution Canadians outside of Quebec were united on one key point, and I agree wholeheartedly with them, that Quebec not be given powers which would make Quebecers more equal than their fellow Canadians. A veto for Quebec alone, even if it applied only

to language, culture and civil law, would have meant very special status, which the majority of Canadians oppose. My constituents would oppose special status for any region.

On the other hand, a veto for all 10 provinces would have enabled situations to exist; for example, the claim that Prince Edward Island, with a population 130,000, could thwart Ontario's democratically expressed aspirations. A provincial veto would be easier to champion if every provinces had the same number of citizens. They obviously do not.

Some are not thrilled with having their province lumped in with others in a geographical region. If they are honest with themselves they will realize the regional veto recognizes the reality of the country and its population.

The government's regional veto is a logical attempt to balance fairly equal blocs of population so that aspirations of several million people are not thwarted by several hundred thousand. Is this not fair and equitable?

If every province had a veto a national compromise would prove more difficult to negotiate than all of our combined frustrating constitutional negotiations of the recent past.

It is important to point out that until 1982 Quebec had a de facto veto, if not a constitutionally entrenched one, over fundamental constitutional change. The proposed change restores the principle which was done away with by René Levesque in the final negotiations of the 1982 Canada Act.

Despite difficulties, Canada grew and prospered for 125 years with a Quebec veto. We should ask ourselves now how long it could last without one. Canadians now realize that we cannot continue to build a strong, unified federation by trying to force Quebecers to accept a Constitution that is definitely not acceptable to them.

Canadians from all parts of the country began the crusade for Canada at the Montreal rally. We have a responsibility to take up the mantle and seek the final victory. I further point out that we are dealing with an act of Parliament which can be amended and repealed, rather than a binding constitutional change. Let us give it a try. We should think of what we might lose if we do not.

The legislation is a welcome attempt to wrest debate on Canada's future out of the hands of separatists. All Canadians want and are entitled to a say on the issue. It is an offer of a tangible, substantial change that even the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts have found difficult to discredit. It is one with which the rest of Canada can live, albeit with some reservations.

It was interesting to see how the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts explained to Quebecers why they were not interested in accepting an offer that Quebec felt it required. The Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts say that no federal offer to Quebec would ever be acceptable. Their sights and their egos are set on an independent country. They fail to appreciate that in the most recent referendum Quebecers again rejected sovereignty. Yet these separatists continue to contradict the people who elected them and strive for the goal the majority of Quebecers have rejected. They are democratic when the people agree with them and autocratic when they do not.

The proposals send a clear message to Quebecers that the Reform Party's shrill cries do not reflect the views of the rest of Canada. There is a willingness in the nation to make some reasonable accommodation for Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois does not have the appropriate answer. I remind Reform members that western Canadians wish for Canada to stay in one piece. Life will not end if Alberta loses the provincial veto it never had. There is no dishonour in losing a minor disagreement to keep a wonderful treasure: Canada. It is a small price to pay for a united country. The obligation to compromise is not really that difficult or that horrible.

Canada is weary of the Quebec issue, but at the same time it is very concerned about the Quebec issue. Many Canadians will admit to nights of fitful sleep leading to the referendum on October 30 and a collective sigh of relief when the majority of Quebecers rejected separation.

Bill C-110 is a welcome step forward. It is not the end or even the beginning of the end of our constitutional malaise. The separatists who deem it unacceptable should ask their constituents for their opinion and then be honest with themselves and with us, as it gives much of what Quebecers want. At the same time the constitutional veto powers to Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic provinces, the prairie provinces and British Columbia should alleviate concerns that Quebec would have regional powers the rest of the country would not. Have we not struck a reasonable compromise, a compromise with which we can all truly live?

The government has acted in good faith. Although these proposals lack constitutional clout, they could very well represent the best and perhaps the only hope to keep our country strong and united. I urge members of the House to put aside petty regional jealousies and partisan politics. These proposals deserve the support of all who would keep this great country together.

Give unity a chance. Give Canada a chance.