Julian Reed

[Natural Gas, June 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Churchill River is proposing that the federal government should subsidize natural gas expansion projects for remote communities as a way of reducing the cost of living of residents and achieving environmental benefits.

I thank the hon. member for his interest in this very valuable natural resource. Natural gas is a cleaner burning, efficient, cost effective fuel which is why it has become one of Canada's number one natural resources. Canada also has an abundant supply with an estimated available total of between 504 and 617 trillion cubic feet.

It is the stated objective of the Minister of Natural Resources to make Canada into the world's smartest natural resources steward, developer, user and exporter. To become the world's smartest resource developer means in part adopting a considered, practical market oriented approach that balances the needs of all interests. It is this type of approach that is behind the natural gas success story. It is a thriving competitive industry that has followed a course of continuous and sustainable growth.

To understand the present, it is important to look at the past to see how the natural gas industry developed in Canada. Members in the House may remember the energy crisis of the 1970s and the concern for Canadian energy security that followed. In response, a group of off oil programs were designed to expand the use of domestic natural gas in Canada. These programs were phased out in the early 1980s when world crude oil markets stabilized and crude oil prices fell.

In the mid-1980s the crude oil and natural gas markets in Canada were deregulated. For the Canadian natural gas industry this resulted in lower natural gas prices and a surge in natural gas activity. Since then natural gas production, along with associated transmission and distribution infrastructure. has increased at a healthy and in some cases dramatic pace. Expansions to Canada's natural gas infrastructure whether of a local or international dimension have been governed by a combination of economic opportunity, economic viability and technology development.

It is the government's current energy policy not to fund energy megaprojects but to leave it to the competitive market to decide what goes forward and what does not. This is one reason we have difficulty in supporting the hon. member's motion. This policy has not resulted in a stalled natural gas industry, far from it. The result has been some very exciting private sector driven developments, including the expansion of natural gas distribution and production into new previously unserviced regions.

Let us consider the Sable offshore energy project. In late 1999 natural gas resources from off the coast of Nova Scotia will be coming ashore. The onshore maritimes and northeast pipeline will make natural gas available in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for the first time. Natural gas was first discovered at Sable Island in the 1960s, but it had never been economically viable for production until now, thanks to new drilling technology and new alliances between oil companies and engineering and construction contractors.

I must emphasize that the building of laterals within a province such as the hon. member is suggesting falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces as my hon. friend from Athabasca said. In the member for Churchill River's case it is the province of Saskatchewan.

In these cases expanding the distribution system is the responsibility of provincially regulated local distribution utilities. Provincial regulators set financial tests for new projects. Where a project cannot generate enough revenue to justify its capital cost, the local distribution company will ask potential gas consumers to make financial contributions, as my friend from Athabasca so ably pointed out. They are known as grants in aid of construction to bring the project to the point of economic viability.

If converting to natural gas offers an opportunity for reduced fuel bills, consumers can use a portion of their savings to finance the cost of conversion. From 1995 to 1997 there was an average of 125,000 new residential hookups per year. Of these customer additions, 70,000 were new constructions and 55,000 were conversions from other energy sources. What this means is that 48% of Canadian homes are now gas heated on a normal commercial market driven supply system.

From an energy policy point of view it would not be sensible to depart from the principle of the market must decide where laterals are built. However, for other non-energy policy reasons there may be programs in other departments which seek to achieve economic development or environmental or other goals through the subsidization of laterals. I invite hon. member to investigate those.

In the hon. member's home province of Saskatchewan, for example, the western economic partnership agreement between federal and provincial governments allowed for such funding. Indeed the federal government approached the provincial NDP government to explore whether a portion of the economic partnership agreement funding could be reserved to build laterals in remote areas. The provincial NDP government said no, not the federal government.

Another example of federal funding that was available to help with laterals was the Canada infrastructure works program which the government introduced some five years ago. In the province of Manitoba natural gas laterals to rural communities were identified as a priority and a portion of Manitoba's infrastructure funding was set aside to help build these laterals, not for energy policy reasons but for local economic and community development purposes.

Let me assure the House that the Government of Canada is also very sensitive to the fact that many remote rural areas face high cost energy and general environmental sensitivity. That is why the department has specifically designed alternative and renewable energy programs, as well as energy efficiency in conservation programs, that will help these communities meet their energy needs, lower their cost of living and receive environmental benefits.

Pursuing these initiatives is the most workable, economically viable and environmentally friendly way of meeting the needs of rural and remote areas. Adapting these new technologies could bring these communities savings of $200 million per year, not to mention significant environmental benefits.

For example, some communities are totally dependent upon fuel oil that is shipped at great expense. There are new technology programs in the energy section of NRCan that focus on developing alternative and renewable sources of supply, including bio-energy, small hydro, wind, photovoltaics and active solar energy.

In addition to these technology initiatives the department has developed tools to help communities analyse what kind of supply source would be reasonable and what they would need to pursue it.

Another initiative is the development of community energy systems to improve energy efficiency and allow the better use of waste heat. Under this approach energy use is reduced by integrating conventional energy supply, renewable energy sources, the energy demands of the building, transportation and industrial sectors, and the use of waste heat. The department is also working toward increasing the energy efficiency of buildings. Consider the following example: This year's federal budget allocated $1.6 million over three years for Natural Resources Canada to establish a program with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to identify opportunities for energy efficiency retrofits in municipal buildings. Under this initiative, municipalities expect to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% to 40% and save $108 million to $175 million.

Initiatives like this are the best options for delivering a lower cost of living and environmental benefits to rural and remote communities. They are the wave of the future for rural and remote areas. I urge the hon. member for Churchill River to investigate all of them thoroughly.

[Kosovo, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, since this agreement was ratified by the Government of Yugoslavia it has initiated a flurry of political activity and meetings that are ongoing at the present time.

I say to the hon. member that it is rather premature to look at exactly what will come out of these meetings. There are meetings being held today, tomorrow, Sunday and into next week to put together the details of how this whole agreement will be worked out.

[Kosovo, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government of Mr. Milosevic knows very well that NATO's position was that it would not stop military engagement while ethnic cleansing was ongoing and until the troops began to withdraw from Kosovo.

That has to be verifiable. Mr. Milosevic has gone back on his word a number of times before. We are definitely prepared to make the move when those things are verified.

[Preclearance Act, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the preclearance act is a key element in Canada's efforts to modernize our border with the United States, while at the same time maintaining Canada's sovereignty and protecting the rights and freedoms of travellers in Canada.

The world we live in is increasingly interdependent, a world in which capital, goods and people move ever more freely. To remain competitive we must look outward and think globally. New technologies and modes of transportation increasingly allow us to transcend national boundaries. In this era of just-in-time production we must find new and innovative ways of moving people and goods while ensuring the safety and security of our border.

Today over $1.35 billion in trade crosses the Canada-U.S. border each day. There are over 200 million border crossings each year. The success of our bilateral relationship with the United States hinges on our ability to move people and goods efficiently. I would like to elaborate on how this act will help to modernize the management of our border.

Preclearance is not a new concept. It was introduced in Toronto in 1952 and is currently operating at the Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal airports. It allows U.S. border control officers working in Canadian airports to determine whether people and goods can enter the United States. In 1974 Canada and the U.S. formalized this arrangement under the air transport preclearance agreement.

Bill S-22 will provide structure for the existing preclearance regime and direct its enforcement. The bill represents roughly two years of negotiations with the United States government. The preclearance scheme is a hybrid which maintains the supremacy of Canadian law but also allows the U.S. to administer certain civil and administrative matters in designated areas that pertain to the entry of persons and goods to the United States.

One of our primary objectives has been to safeguard Canadian sovereignty. This has been accomplished by ensuring reciprocity, by making clear that the charter of rights and freedoms and all Canadian laws will apply and by ensuring that only Canada enforces criminal matters in the preclearance area.

Since the signing of the open skies agreement in 1995 there has been a 39% increase in air traffic between Canada and the United States. Many destinations do not have customs and immigration inspection.

When this legislation comes into force, intransit preclearance operations will be extended in Vancouver and will be implemented in Toronto and in Montreal's Dorval airport. Other Canadian airports with current U.S. preclearance programs will subsequently become eligible for intransit preclearance.

Intransit preclearance will improve service to international transiting passengers, encourage the use of Canadian air carriers and airports for travel from Asia and Europe to the United States via Canadian airports and foster economic development in airport communities.

The preclearance act is intended to be the basis for agreements between Canada and the United States for other modes of transport which may include air cargo, road, rail, marine and ferry. This will further revolutionize the way we manage the border by creating a virtual border, a border that allows travellers and commerce to be processed at their point of departure rather than at the physical border. It will significantly reduce costs and increase convenience.

Canada and the United States have a long history of co-operation along the world's longest undefended border. Beyond facilitating travel and trade, the preclearance act is a symbol of how we can manage the border as a joint asset in the next century.

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to once again reinforce some of the aspects of these amendments that we believe will enhance the justice system in the country.

Bill C-79 amendments will enhance and expand the opportunities for victims of crime to make a victim impact statement and will address the manner in which the statement can be made.

When determining the appropriate sentence to impose on an offender, the judge takes into account a range of considerations related to both the particular offender and to the offence, and is guided by the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in the code and the penalties set out in the code, including any applicable mandatory minimum.

The victim impact statement must be considered by the sentencing judge along with all other relevant information. The statement is a description of the harm done or the loss suffered by the victim. In other words, the impact from their personal point of view.

Bill C-79 makes several important changes to the impact statement provisions. For example, the amendments will make it clear that it is the victim's choice whether to read his or her victim impact statement. Note that the current code provisions require the judge to consider the written victim impact statement which has been prepared and filed.

This will continue to be the case. In other words, when a victim does not choose to present the statement orally, the judge will still be required to consider the written statement. It is always the victim's choice whether to prepare a victim impact statement and some may not wish to do so.

There may be situations where the victim seeks to present his or her statement in another manner, for example by video or audio tape or through a third person. In these situations the judge will determine if that type of presentation is appropriate.

The amendments will also require that a judge make inquiries after a determination of guilt and before sentencing as to whether a victim has been informed of the opportunity to prepare a victim impact statement. In most cases the judge will direct the inquiry to the crown attorney, who should be aware of the prevailing policy in the jurisdiction for advising victims about victim impact statements. For example, in some jurisdictions the police may provide a card to all victims they come into contact with which refers victims to victim witness services and/or which refers to the victim impact statement program, or the crown may have a notation in the file that the victim has indeed been advised.

The amendment is intended to provide one last check on the information a victim should have received. The ability to prepare and submit a victim impact statement is of little benefit to a victim if the victim is not aware of these provisions. We note that it is always the victim's choice whether to prepare an impact statement. Some victims will be advised of the opportunity and may choose not to prepare such a statement. However, the choice cannot be made without adequate information. In some cases an adjournment may be necessary to permit the victim to be notified and a statement prepared. The amendments will specifically authorize such adjournments.

Victim impact statements will also be available to victims where the offender is found not criminally responsible for the offence committed. Currently, when an accused person is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, there is no opportunity for the victim to describe the impact of the offence. This is because a mentally disordered accused is not sentenced because they are not criminally responsible.

The current victim impact provisions only apply at sentencing proceedings. The reality, though, is that victims of mentally disordered offenders are victims of crime and should have a similar opportunity to describe the impact. The amendments will therefore provide that, following a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder, a victim may prepare and file a statement. The statement will be considered by the court or by the Criminal Code Review Board when making the initial disposition regarding the mentally disordered accused.

The Criminal Code includes a complete part dealing with mentally disordered offenders and sets out criteria for making dispositions. The victim impact statement shall be considered in the context of those criteria and, in the case where a conditional discharge is appropriate, the statement shall be considered in determining the appropriate conditions.

Another significant development that has emerged from the growing acceptance of the principle that offenders should acknowledge the harm done to victims and the community is the emergence of community impact statements. Community impact statements, although not legislated, are gaining acceptance as a means by which the community has a voice in the criminal justice system. This concept grew out of the increasing acceptance of victim impact statements as a valid and worthwhile role for victims to play at sentencing proceedings.

The amendments to enhance victim involvement at sentencing through the victim impact statement recognize that crime has an impact on real people. Community involvement in crime prevention, victim advocacy and, as mentioned, community impact statements demonstrate that the people of Canada are committed to improving the justice system. Bill C-79 demonstrates that the government shares that commitment.

[International Treaties, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to table, in both official languages, international treaties that entered into force for Canada in 1995, a list of which is also tabled.

As was done with the 1997 and 1996 treaties, I am also tabling two CD-ROMs that contain electronic versions of these 39 treaties.

[Kosovo, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canada could put in place the appropriate regulations if an appropriate international organization or association of states, most likely NATO in the current context, decides that such a measure should be taken.

[Kosovo, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has enacted a number of sanctions against the former republic of Yugoslavia including a freeze of the assets in Canada of the former republic and Serbian governments. Should multilateral sanctions be adopted in this respect, Canada could impose measures to freeze the assets of government officials under the Special Economic Measures Act.

[Kosovo, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that Canada has taken unilateral action in terms of the embargo against the Yugoslav republic. Now all shipments have to be approved by permit. Oil and military equipment are forbidden in any respect. The member can be reassured that Canada has already made a move in that direction.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would point to the response I gave to the Bloc critic. Historically, successive Canadian governments have maintained that it is best to present unanimity from all sides of the House on a decision of this gravity and magnitude.

I appreciate the hon. member's position. It is another point of view, but it is not the point of view that has been held historically by the governments of this country.