Lynn Myers

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate today on this very important topic. I want to emphasize a federal presence in one of our regions, that being the west.

Frankly, I am a little astounded at any insinuation that the federal government is alienating itself from the regions. It is really all quite silly on the part of the Reform Party but I suppose in that sense it is not surprising.

I wonder if my hon. colleague from the Reform Party who is proposing the motion has had an opportunity recently to look in the phone book. The presence of federal departments and agencies is quite astounding and remarkable. We are in all the places people would expect us to be, for example in the metropolitan centres like Winnipeg and Vancouver, but we are also as a federal government in communities like Bruno, Saskatchewan and Bonnyville, Alberta. All key federal departments have offices throughout western Canada.

It is much more than just that. Using our own department, Western Economic Diversification Canada as a primary example let me highlight how wide reaching this government's efforts are in this area.

First of all, with respect to western Canada business service network, I note that western diversification and its partners have over 100 points of service across western Canada serving urban and rural communities from Lac du Bonnet to the Queen Charlotte Islands. In that sense we are still growing and that is important to note. The headquarters are in Edmonton and there are offices, four of them actually, in Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg, and satellite offices in Calgary and Regina.

Western diversification plays a unique role in helping the western economy to grow. That is its purpose. It works closely with the people of western Canada. This includes aboriginal peoples, youth, communities and industry leaders throughout that part of Canada.

We advance the interests of the west. We advocate on behalf of businesses in the west. Our government provides integrated services to small business in that area, for example, advice on financing options, help with business planning, exporting, and selling to government. All of these are important things and aspects to western Canadians.

We work with financial institutions to provide loans to new economy sectors. Western diversification contributes to loan loss reserves to lever small business loan capital. We also provide up to $57 million toward a lever for a total of $439 million in small business loan capital. This represents a leverage ratio of nearly 8:1 which is important to note.

The international trade personnel program and first jobs program match small businesses with recent graduates, all in the effort to help our young people. We provide small businesses with the cash flow to hire young people and provide young people with a first job opportunity. It is also important to note that since 1995 our government has provided over 900 jobs to young people in western Canada.

It is also important to highlight at this point the existence of four women's enterprise centres, one in each of the western provinces. There are five satellite offices. This meets the needs of women in business. It offers financing, counselling and advice. Over the course of time, 17,000 women have trained and 1,600 loans worth over $10 million in the last four years have been made evident. This supports and shows the difference we make to the lives of western Canadians.

There are also 90-plus community future development corporations across the west. Seven are aboriginal exclusive. This program provides focal points for the delivery of western diversification services outside the major cities covering all non-metropolitan areas in western Canada. I also want to point out that between 1995 and 1998, 8,100 loans worth $171 million and over 28,000 jobs were created as a result of this. That too underscores our commitment.

There also are four Canada business service centres, one in each of the western provinces, which provide one-stop shopping for business services. Thousands of entrepreneurs have made this their focal point of contact for business services each year. Expansion of services to rural areas are part of this with 97 regional access sites being established.

Over 1,000 volunteers are part of the western Canada business service network. This month in Jasper, Alberta western diversification is participating in the first ever pan-western conference which will bring together international and other partners in this area and volunteers. That too is important to note.

Let me turn now to the role of regional agencies in western Canada. Western diversification and its counterparts represent the interests of all regions in the west. Through regional partners they develop an in-depth understanding of the needs and requirements of their region. They deliver national and regional programs on behalf of the federal government. For example, it administers infrastructure works programs in western Canada and it partners with provinces and municipalities to upgrade transportation and local services.

We have noted over the past while $747 million in funding with over 5,300 projects and over 35,000 jobs. They are agents of economic development and job creation. All of this says that we are flexible, responsible and accessible in this very important region of Canada.

In the process, there is a focus on client needs and local people responding to local concerns. Our government has also shown the importance of responding to communities in need, for example the Manitoba flood. Total federal funding of $224 million in assistance was provided for flood relief and flood protection.

The response of western diversification was immediate and creative. Our government put teams of personnel on the road to search out affected small businesses and provide them with start-up money to resume their operations.

I would now like to talk a bit about aboriginal initiatives. As the federal government in this important region we provide integrated services to our aboriginal people. I should note that 63% of Canada's aboriginal population resides in the west. Last week our colleague, the Minister of Industry, announced a $21 million package to improve business development opportunities for aboriginal peoples with western diversification contributing one-third of that funding.

The aboriginal business development initiative is expected to result in 900 new businesses and 2,000 new jobs, and many of them will in fact be in western Canada.

I should also point out that an aboriginal business services network was built on existing infrastructure and will provide enhanced business services to aboriginal entrepreneurs. This initiative will also see increased access to capital for aboriginal businesses.

We have over the course of time made a $950,000 contribution to the Aboriginal Business Development Centre in Winnipeg to encourage entrepreneurship among urban aboriginal people. For example, $5 million recently was set aside to establish the Saskatchewan Indian Federation College, the only native controlled college in Canada.

I also want to point to technology and innovation in this very important region in Canada. First of all let me say that knowledge and innovation is a revolutionizing industry. Even traditional resource industries of the west have become high tech. We are marking a new era of scientific research and technological innovation in Canada as we move into the 21st century, and much of this is in fact taking place in the west.

I want to turn for a minute to the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Through the Canada Foundation for Innovation the federal government is modernizing research infrastructure at universities and research hospitals. Two weeks ago, for example, the foundation approved a $56 million contribution to the Canadian light source project at the University of Saskatchewan. It will become one of the largest scientific projects ever built in Canada. It will enable Canadian scientists to conduct world class research at home. It will enhance the reputation of Saskatoon and the country as a whole, I should point out. It will create an expected 500 jobs and millions of dollars in economic activity.

With respect to connecting Canadians, I want to point out that the government has made connecting Canadians one of its primary goals. The aim is to make Canada the most connected country in the year 2000. We are establishing public Internet sites in rural and remote communities across the west. We have connected 183 community access sites in Saskatchewan alone.

Finally I would point out the National Research Council and the industrial research assistance program, IRAP, need some discussion. Under the National Research Council we have $31 million in additional investment earmarked for the next three years. An extensive network of IRAP contributors and research institutes across the west is also in place.

All these things provide an overview of what we are doing in western Canada. They are important initiatives.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, human security is the key in all of this and is part of the objective of not only Canada but the NATO partners. It is important that we move in that direction to ensure security and stability in a part of the world that has not seen it for many years throughout the century.

If we can do our part in that area we will have served well not only our country but the world in that area.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we as the Government of Canada along with our NATO partners tried very hard to get a negotiated settlement. We worked diligently to that end for that objective. At the end of the day when we saw the kinds of atrocities that were taking place and the kind of humanitarian upheaval, it was important that we act in the way we are now doing to ensure that we bring peace in that area. It seems to me that we have gone to great lengths to ensure that.

We are not in a time of instant gratification and instant war starting and stopping. We have to take our time to ensure the right thing and ensure that people and families in that part of the world are protected.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset that United Nations Secretary General Annan said recently that diplomacy sometimes cannot work without the threat of force. Unfortunately we are now in the position where having started this course of action we need to follow it through.

As the hon. member correctly and eloquently points out, terrible things are happening as a result. Unfortunately in the name of humanitarianism and in the name of what we think is right, we need to do these kinds of things to ensure that security ultimately is brought to that part of Europe and to the world in general. I support that and I think most Canadians do.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

I think it is fair to say that Canadians everywhere are concerned about the crisis in Kosovo. The people in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington share grave concerns about what is happening in that part of the world and are watching closely as events unfold.

How did we get to the point where we now find ourselves? The international community has gone to great lengths to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Kosovo. It is clear that Canada and NATO would prefer to resolve the problems in that part of the world through a negotiated settlement based on the Rambouillet agreement, but as United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said recently, diplomacy sometimes cannot work without the threat of force.

Unfortunately we had no choice but to resort to force to halt what had developed into an intolerable situation. We had run out of peaceful options when Slobodan Milosevic rejected every peace proposal submitted to him. Meanwhile he stepped up a campaign of terror by Yugoslav authorities that has been going on for several months and it is continuing right now as we speak tonight. We have seen well documented evidence of forced expulsions, the destruction of whole villages and the massacre of civilians by Yugoslav security forces.

At one point last October we thought we were making progress toward peace. NATO's threat to use force led to the acceptance of a ceasefire at that time and limitations in the deployment of security forces in Kosovo and the creation of a Kosovo verification mission which consisted of hundreds of international verifiers, including 65 Canadians. Unfortunately this only helped diminish for a short time the acts of violence being perpetrated by the Yugoslav army and police against the people of Kosovo.

Earlier this year the situation started to deteriorate again. Security forces harassed the international verifiers. There was clear evidence that they were preparing for a massive spring offensive. By March 20 the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE, was forced to evacuate the Kosovo verification mission, the KVM, because of the collapse of the ceasefire and the unacceptable threat to the safety of mission members. With the departure of the verification mission, Yugoslav forces dramatically stepped up their brutal offensive.

The Yugoslav government is in clear and flagrant violation of the commitments it agreed to in October. It has violated the ceasefire and responded disproportionately to the actions of the Kosovo Liberation Army, the KLA. In addition to not respecting several UN security council resolutions, Yugoslavia has systematically violated the most basic rights under international humanitarian law. It has unleashed a savage and calculated campaign of hatred and violence not only against members of the KLA, but against the civilians of Kosovo, against families. This is offensive, this is wrong and this must be stopped.

Canada and its allies simply could not stand by and do nothing while women and children, men and the elderly in Kosovo were being killed, tortured, detained, persecuted and banished from their homes and stripped of their very identities because of their ethnic background, because of who they are. In the name of humanity we cannot and we should not and we will not stand by while this takes place.

Last September this house unanimously supported a resolution calling on the government of the federal republic of Yugoslavia and the parties involved in this inhumane confrontation to lay down their arms and to negotiate a solution with help from international organizations. In addition, in October all parties took part in a take note debate and expressed their support for Canada's involvement in Kosovo. Members of parliament have also been kept up to date on the developments in Kosovo via standing committee briefings.

Since then we have been closely following developments in that part of the world. Now many fellow Canadians and the country as a whole are engaged in the debate on what Canada should or should not do and on NATO's role in this crisis. Since the start of NATO's military action there has been considerable public debate and media coverage examining the very issues from every conceivable angle. Unlike any time in the past, Canadians have access to a wealth of information that they can sift through to form their own opinions at this time.

From all indications I have seen, most Canadians support the action taken by their government and by NATO. I think the majority of Canadians appreciate that peaceful negotiations failed to produce a diplomatic resolution to the crisis because of the intransigence of Milosevic and his government. Faced with this stalemate and the dramatically stepped up ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, I think Canadians see that military action was the only option.

The week before last, I read with great interest an article in the Ottawa Citizen by Christina Spencer which I believe sums up the thinking of a great many Canadians about this crisis:

Here's why Canada is right to take military action against Yugoslavia: Because the only legitimate role of any government is to protect the basic rights of its citizens. When a regime abrogates political rights, stirs hatred, shuts down the press, burns villages, herds civilians into becoming hostages... it is difficult to defend its legitimacy. Over many years, Milosevic has done all of this. Yet human-rights-respecting countries are debating whether they have the moral right to intervene. Get serious.

As a government we still favour a diplomatic solution that ensures sustainable results and long term security in the region. I know that Canadians want this to happen. This diplomatic solution can be achieved if, as NATO has suggested, Belgrade authorities cease the savage repression of their own people and sign a peace agreement giving significant autonomy to Kosovo.

I think most Canadians would rather not have to resort to military force, but they believe Canada and NATO are nevertheless on the right track given the current grim circumstances. We must not lose our resolve to make tough choices to ensure an effective and lasting resolution to the situation in Kosovo and the humanitarian catastrophe in that region.

Having made our commitment, I believe that Canada must now follow through to ensure a lasting peace in that part of the world. It is important given all that has happened that we now stay the course to bring about stability in that part of Europe. We will do so knowing this is not an easy position nor a lightly taken decision. We do so knowing that at the end of the day it will be judged as the right thing to do on behalf of the people of Kosovo. In the name of humanity, it is the right thing to do.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, prior to question period I noted and I reiterate that the first proposed amendment as outlined by the hon. member opposite is not necessary insofar as the implementation of the principles contained in the UNFA do not require specific authority in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

With respect to the second motion proposed by the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, the scope of the proposed amendment is much broader than the scope of Bill C-27.

As stated in its title, the purpose of Bill C-27 is solely to deal with the implementation of UNFA and other international fisheries agreements to which Canada is a party. Furthermore, this amendment is unnecessary. This is in effect supported by the fact that the government and governor in council's authority to make regulations in Bill C-27 related to UNFA is restricted to making regulations “for the implementation of UNFA”. Adopting this amendment then would open the whole of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to interpretation in accordance with UNFA, whereas this act covers situations falling outside the scope of UNFA.

The proposed amendment also refers to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Canada participated actively in the negotiation of the law of the sea convention and members will recall the member for Vancouver Quadra spoke about that and noted that aspect.

Similarly, Canada participated actively in the negotiation of the two treaties concluded in 1994 and 1995 to implement the convention, an agreement dealing with sea bed mining and an agreement dealing with straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.

Canada has also participated actively in the development and work of the institutions contemplated by the convention. I mention in particular the International Marine Organization, the International Sea Bed Authority and the Continental Shelf Commission. I think that is important to note.

The Canadian government is committed to ratifying the convention, I think rightfully so, something all Canadians want. However, the timing of this ratification must be placed in the context of Canada's broader policy regarding high seas fishing.

UNCLOS does not effectively address concerns over high seas fisheries management and therefore we must have an effective international high seas enforcement regime to protect fish stocks which straddle Canada's 200 mile fishing zone in adjacent high seas.

The UNFA was negotiated to fill the gaps left in the convention relating to high seas fisheries management. Canada's immediate priority then is to ratify UNFA, and Bill C-27 will enable us to do so. I think in that sense we need to hurry and move on this expeditiously.

The effective functioning of the high seas enforcement regime under UNFA will pave the way then for Canada to ratify the convention, and while Canada is committed to the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the timing of this ratification has yet to be decided. It would therefore be improper in the meantime to bind ourselves to the convention as a whole in such a broad way.

Therefore the government cannot agree to the second proposed amendment as it stands to add an interpretation clause to Bill C-27 and therefore I urge the House to reject it.

Finally and by way of conclusion I want to add my voice to those who have urged the House to move quickly to adopt Bill C-27.

Canada has learned the hard way that unregulated fishing has disastrous consequences wherever it takes place. Overfishing outside our 200 mile limit contributed to the collapse of our groundfish stocks. Collapse of that fishery has damaged many Canadian coastal communities. It is something we all regret happened.

It is time we took the steps needed to ensure this kind of destruction will never happen again off the coast of Atlantic Canada or anywhere in the world. Therefore we need to move expeditiously in this very important area. I urge all members to vote for the bill accordingly.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the first two amendments to Bill C-27 which were proposed by the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.

The first proposed amendment is to include in Bill C-27 the general principles of article 5 of the United Nations fisheries agreement. The second, as members know, is to add an interpretation clause to the bill.

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate on a sound piece of legislation that clears the way for the ratification of an essential international agreement. The bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement certain provisions of the UN fisheries agreement.

Ratification of this agreement and, more importantly, its full implementation are crucial to the conservation of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. The agreement will not come into force until 30 nations have ratified it. So far 19 nations have done so, but Canada's name is not yet among them.

It is important that we move forward with the passage of Bill C-27. Once Canada has ratified the agreement we will be in a much stronger position to urge others to do the same.

Canadians across the country, and certainly people in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington, want to see the resources of the sea protected. No one wants to see a repetition of the devastation caused by the collapse of the Atlantic groundfish stocks.

As important as this bill is, the democratic process cannot be hurried. The government has, accordingly, given full consideration to the concerns raised by members of the opposition parties in committee. However, in the case of the first two amendments proposed by the hon. member the government cannot agree.

The first would include in Bill C-27 the general principles of article 5 of the UN fisheries agreement and I would like to first speak to this proposed amendment.

When Canada ratifies the UNFA, which will happen as soon as Bill C-27 is passed and the requisite regulations are made, Canada will be bound by the obligations and the responsibilities provided by that, including the general principles found in article 5 of the UNFA.

Canada pushed for the inclusion of these principles in that agreement during negotiation of the agreement. We used, as a basis for these principles, our Canadian fisheries management policies and practices, and I think that is important to note. Canada, therefore, already has in place scientific and fisheries management policies and practices which implement these principles.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has, for instance, adopted a precautionary approach as a policy objective. I would like to note at this time the obligations for UNFA parties, which include that we adopt measures to ensure long term sustainability of fish stocks, that we ensure the use of best scientific evidence, that we assess the impacts of fishing, that we adopt conservation and management measures, that we minimize pollution, that we take measures to prevent or eliminate overfishing, that we take into account the interests of subsistence fishers, that we collect and share data concerning fishing, that we conduct scientific research and, finally, that we implement and enforce conservation and management measures. Many of these obligations are met through DFO's process of developing integrated fisheries management plans for individual fisheries in our land.

Canada will continue to co-operate with other fishing nations and coastal states, as UNFA provides, in order to implement all those principles through decisions taken within regional fisheries organizations to which Canada is a party, such as NAFO and ICCAT.

As hon. members can see, the first proposed amendment is not necessary as the amendment of the principles contained in the UNFA does not require specific authority in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Canada has been and continues to apply these principles through the application of existing and revised fisheries management policies and practices, and we would on this basis urge the House to vote against this first motion.

I understand that I am out of time. I wonder if I would be allowed to come back later to deal with the second amendment.

[Elmira Maple Syrup Festival, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to highlight to all Canadians the upcoming 35th Annual Elmira Maple Syrup Festival which will be taking place in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington on Saturday, March 27.

Each year people from across the country and around the world flock to the picturesque town of Elmira to taste the delicious Waterloo county maple syrup and to watch the renowned pancake flippers.

The festival is a wonderful event in the Waterloo—Wellington area.

Welcoming between 50,000 and 60,000 people, the festival has raised over $600,000 over the years for local non-profit organizations.

Definitely a worthwhile experience, the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival provides a variety of activities for people of all ages. The more than 2,000 volunteers helping the festival committee will surely show everyone and their taste buds a good time.

I encourage my constituents and all Canadians who may be in the area during the next few weeks to make the trip down to the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival. I am very proud of all those involved in this festival for organizing such a rich and enjoyable event year after year.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that we on the government side gave careful consideration to all those factors. At the end of the day it was determined that we should proceed in the manner that has been outlined, knowing that it is the best way in which to proceed in the interest of safety and security for all Canadians.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

Certainly in terms of young offenders and the fact that we have a number of people in jail right now, there are other ways to treat them and deal with them in a more effective manner. I think it is certainly a strong point and one that needs to be recognized.

I am aware of the private member's bill to which the hon. member refers. We as a government with our recent legislation have acted in a very meaningful way in this whole area with the youth criminal justice act.

It underscores the ability of the government to recognize a strong movement in this area. It underscores the commitment of the government to move in a way that is consistent with the thinking of Canadians in this all important youth justice area. It underscores our commitment on this side of the House to do something that we know is in the best interest of Canadians wherever they live.

The government has moved in very meaningful and very purposeful ways that will in fact correct these problems and will assist in making communities safe and secure for all Canadians and by extension for the country as a whole.