Dick Proctor

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the elaboration that the member opposite has made on immigration particularly, but I wonder if he would give us his thoughts, as a veteran member of the House, on a couple of other points that are in our 12 point program, specifically on strengthening the role of aboriginal, Metis and Inuit people in the Canadian family. I would like some elaboration on that because some of us are quite concerned that there has been so little apparent action since the report of the royal commission, Gathering Strength , was released a few years back.

The other point on which I would be interested in hearing from the member would be point number 11, which talks about strengthening pluralistic and democratic discourse by means of appropriate regulation to limit media concentration. Earlier a member from the Alliance had a different spin on that, but we are kind of coming at it from the old Tom Kent notion that there should be a royal commission to deal with media concentration. We are seeing more of it, not less, in the country.

I would be interested in hearing what the hon. member opposite has to say on those two points.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to allow the member an opportunity to elaborate on his point on health care regarding decentralization. I will not argue about Quebec's position on this. I put it to him that we are a large diverse country where there are some very poor provinces, relatively speaking, compared with others that are economically better off, more self-sufficient and more resourceful.

The point I am making is, by taking his approach about greater decentralization, how can we ever avoid becoming a checkerboard nation where we have a hodgepodge of arrangements in terms of our health care system? Our health care system is something that Canadians believe in overwhelmingly and want to see continue to the best of our abilities. How can we do that if everybody is allowed to do their own thing, as it were, in terms of administering the health care system if there is not sufficient resources and if there is not somebody with a stick? We can debate about how heavy that piece of lumber should be. How do we do it and still maintain something that we can call universal, equal and egalitarian and not really a two tier or perhaps a ten tier system of health care?

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to elaborate on a couple of points.

As recently as this afternoon in question period our House leader spoke out on the fact that this federal-provincial taxation matter affects the province of Quebec as well as the province of Manitoba and others. He also pointed to the need for the federal government to correct that. This matter of decentralization needs to be placed in some context.

I think the member is factually wrong. My colleague from Burnaby--Douglas was indeed in Porto Alegre earlier this month at the people's summit. I do not know if any representatives from the government party were there.

Given my colleague's knowledge on the subject, I was surprised that he did not deal with the item about fair taxes and sound monetary policy and in particular the matter of U.S. dollarization. I wonder if we could hear the wisdom of his comments on those points.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member from the Bloc Quebecois on his speech.

The member spent a lot of time talking about Kyoto and the situation in Canada at the moment. We recognize that the province of Quebec has moved to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants in our atmosphere. If I heard the member correctly, and I listened as attentively as I could, I thought I heard him say that we had to solve these problems regionally, that Alberta, to use his example, was not going to agree with the rest of Canada. To extrapolate from his speech, it seemed to me that the member was saying that we should throw it over to an international body to administer.

I question whether that is the right approach to take. Should we not be trying very hard to sort out our problems here at home before we throw them to an international body to resolve them for us?

[Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one month ago cabinet ministers opposite learned of a serious imbalance regarding the treatment of Canadian and American professional musicians wishing to work in the other's country.

Border changes in the U.S. now require a payment of more than $1,800 which effectively shuts out most Canadian musical artists from performing in the American market. The situation, however, facing U.S. musicians wishing to perform in Canada is entirely different.

Until recently Canada customs charged about $450 total for an American band of up to 14 in number to obtain a work permit. Now even this modest fee has been removed, meaning that many more U.S. musicians and performing artists can now work in this country without first obtaining any work permit.

That American musicians can cross into this country at will with no reciprocal treatment for Canadian musicians wishing to work in the U.S. is totally unacceptable. It has struck a sour note and one the government must take steps to rectify immediately.

[Agriculture, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today is Food Freedom Day in Canada, the day when Canadians have earned enough money in this calendar year to pay their groceries for the entire 12 months. This year it took 38 days for the average Canadian family to earn enough money to buy food for the year. Two years ago it took 42 days.

Today farm leaders on Parliament Hill pointed out that Canadians spend but 10% of their income on food and they want a lot more Canadian consumers to be aware of it. In many other parts of the world the cost of food is significantly higher.

Thanks to our farmers Canadians enjoy one of the safest, high quality and most affordable food supplies in the world. Although Canadian consumers benefit from the tremendous effort made by farmers, the share of the consumer dollar that actually reaches the farm gate has shrunk to levels no longer sustainable.

On behalf of farmers everywhere in Canada the government must begin to provide significantly more financial support to address the farm income crisis across the country.

[Broadcasting Act, January 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I, too, am pleased to speak to Bill S-7. I will be quite brief in my remarks.

I realize it is a private member's bill but I think that members of our party and caucus will support Bill S-7. The bill amends the Broadcasting Act to permit the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or the CRTC as it is better known, to make regulations to establish criteria for the awarding of costs to interveners in broadcasting proceedings as it currently has the power to award costs in telecommunications cases.

I acknowledge the work of former Senator Sheila Finestone and the hon. member for Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia for ensuring the bill is here.

The bill would change the Broadcasting Act so that the CRTC could award costs to third party interveners in broadcasting proceedings. That is of significance. The idea is not radical. It is done all the time in CRTC proceedings under the Telecommunications Act and the world has not ended for the telephone companies. Passing the bill would not be a significant threat to our private broadcasters.

The bill is about balance. The public hearing process currently used by the commission has been problematic in the past. The public interest has been lost in the process or at least partially lost in the process. Those with deeper pockets seem to get preferential access to the system, which makes it impossible for the public to have as much meaningful input as it should have.

For example, in television last year the CRTC awarded CanWest Global a seven year licence renewal and policy approval for cross-media ownership, even though the commission's own decision stated:

Global confirmed that CIII-TV, a station that serves an audience across Ontario, was broadcasting an average of 13 hours per week of regional news. This level is below the 17.5 hours per week of regional news to which the licensee committed for the current term of licence.

Was CanWest Global punished? No, it was rewarded. If one is Global, a big company, one can break the rules and get a seven year renewal.

Vision TV on the other hand recently applied for a similar seven year licence. I happen to know the CEO. Vision TV is a small, non-profit, multi-faith broadcaster. It does not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on the process. It has no banks of lawyers and it has admitted that its record keeping could be better regarding Canadian content logs. While Global got what it desired, the CRTC came down very hard on Vision TV, granting it only a 33 month renewal with harsh restrictions.

Just on the convergence of media, perhaps Murdoch Davis at Southam News would be interested in that and would want to write a national editorial discussing that in a future publication.

Sections 56 and 57 of the Telecommunications Act have the power to compensate the organizations or individuals appearing before the commission during proceedings on telecommunications. The act also authorizes the CRTC to establish refund criteria and to determine to whom costs will be paid and by whom.

The Broadcasting Act does not have such provisions. Consequently, the CRTC has no power to award costs or establish the criteria for awards. This is an imbalance that causes concern and requires immediate rectification. That is why we are debating the bill today.

I looked at the list of consumer groups across Canada that strongly support this initiative. Among them are the British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre; the Public Interest Law Centre; the National Anti-Poverty Organization; the Canadian Labour Congress; Action Réseau Consommateur; the Canadian Library Association; the Manitoba chapter of the Consumers' Association of Canada; Communication Workers Union; Rural Dignity of Canada; Association coopérative d'économie familiale; and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

This is a very good cross-section of interested groups in communities across the country. They support this. The New Democratic Party supports it. We know it is going to committee and we hope it will quickly pass into law.

[Member for Calgary Southwest, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of our leader, the member for Halifax and our New Democratic Party caucus, to represent the caucus in paying tribute to the member for Calgary Southwest.

I have to confess at the outset that offering best wishes to someone who led another political party so effectively, one with which we have had so many fundamental disagreements, is not a particularly easy task. The fact that the political party that the member founded and led for 13 years has enjoyed so much more recent success at the expense of our political formation makes it even more difficult.

It must be acknowledged today, as it certainly will be when the history books are written, that the member for Calgary Southwest did indeed change the face of Canadian politics. For example, observers of the political scene were incredulous that a western-based party with a primary appeal to rural Canada would openly advocate a cheap food policy. Yet that is exactly what was offered by the Reform Party and the rural electorate in western Canada, with a few exceptions, have largely returned as Reform Party members and subsequently as Canadian Alliance members to this House.

I was briefly a reporter at the Edmonton Journal in the mid-1960s when the member's father was winding down his very successful career as the premier of Alberta for 25 years. Political reporters would gather over tea and crumpets at the Yale Hotel and even then were intrigued with what the premier's son was up to and wondered not if but when he would directly enter the political fray. The fact that it took more than two decades for that to happen would have astonished those reporters at that time.

Although I never had the opportunity to serve with the hon. member on committee, my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre, who is here today, said that she was always appreciative of the member's commitment to the democratic process which he continually demonstrated in committee.

There was also a genuine interest by the member, who is retiring today, in other members with whom he served, regardless of political affiliation, their daily struggles and the personal hurdles that they may have had to scramble over to be here contributing to parliament.

I noticed the article in today's paper as well as the picture. I noted that the member for Calgary Southwest was expressing regret that the changes he sought did not go further faster.

I would say to him that the changes we have witnessed in Canada since the Reform Party arrived in impressive numbers in 1993, perhaps in part because of the profound and undue influence his party has had on three consecutive Liberal majority governments, have for the most part been too far and too fast for some Canadians and certainly for those in our caucus.

Margaret Mead once said:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

Although Ms. Mead is undoubtedly not referring to the hon. member for Calgary Southwest and the Reform Party, her remarks are most apt.

Without hesitation, on behalf of our caucus, I congratulate the member for Calgary Southwest and wish him the very best in his future endeavours.

[Minister of National Defence, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister admitted a few minutes ago that he had misled the House, albeit inadvertently. Let us listen to what he said on October 17 in his farewell speech to the Canadian naval task force. He said to the troops:

--you are the silent and unseen partners of this campaign against terrorism.

They are not unseen and certainly not unidentified any longer, thanks to this minister. He has violated his oath of office. For the sake and safety of our troops abroad, will the minister now do the right thing and resign?

[Minister of National Defence, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, earlier both in committee and the House the defence minister consistently refused to answer questions about troop deployment on the grounds that joint task force 2 is a top secret, covert force. Once under political pressure covert becomes overt, as the minister says. Yes, indeed, those are members of JTF2 splashed on the front pages of the Globe and Mail .

Could the minister explain the contradiction about hiding behind total security when it suits him and then his willingness to reveal confidential information once his political career is at stake?