John Duncan

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague deals with the way in which the bill changes how we look at split runs as opposed to the previous legislation.

The crux of the way the bill is different from the previous one in many respects is the changing of a definition by legislation. Indeed this is a very weak way to redefine something and ultimately very challengeable.

The bill has the effect of changing advertising from a service to a good. It is very construed and artificial. Would the member like to comment on that in an intellectual spirit?

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, very quickly, Canadians value freedom of contract. This bill authorizes the Minister of Canadian Heritage to make trade law without going through regulation.

I am looking at this from the standpoint of an advertiser. An advertiser wants certainty in terms of planning their advertising dollars. There is no certainty when we have a ministerial prerogative such as that. Besides not liking it as a parliamentarian, I am thinking of it as an advertiser.

I would like my colleague to comment on that aspect of the bill.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, my question for my colleague relates to the fact that if this legislation is found wanting as the previous legislation was found wanting, and the member may correct me if I am mistaken, but I understand that if the legislation is found in the international arena to be lacking, if it is challenged and if Canada loses, retaliatory measures may be sought under the auspices of the international organization to go after another Canadian industry. That potentially puts any other Canadian industry at risk.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 21st, 1998]

In the last five years, on the west coast of Canada, how many licences have been applied for, have been issued, have been denied, and have been revoked by the minister under the regulations to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act allowing foreign fishing boats into Canadian waters, broken down by year and by foreign country and by reasons that the licences were applied for and by reasons that the licences were issued?

[Greenpeace, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Greenpeace activists boarded a freighter in California carrying newsprint from British Columbia, chained themselves to the cranes and prevented the freighter from docking and unloading.

Last week we had a very similar incident in Connecticut. It was handled with dispatch by U.S. authorities without much fanfare. But this is all part of the Greenpeace $1 million boycott campaign aimed at British Columbia forest products.

How is the government going to ensure that Canadian ships have continued access to U.S. ports with these activities going on?

[Competition Act, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to this bill today. The stated purpose of Bill C-235 is to establish fair pricing for products at the wholesale level. It is also to prevent anti-competitive acts such as predatory pricing and price discounting in industries where suppliers compete with their own customers.

As some of the other speakers to this bill have commented, the existing Competition Act already deals directly with the subject matter of this bill. If members read sections 78 and 50 of the Competition Act they will see that suppliers are already prevented from doing the things denounced by Bill C-235.

One of the problems with this government is that wherever it perceives a problem it thinks that the solution is to pass more legislation to fix the problem. Bill C-235 is a perfect example of this kind of behaviour. It seems that there was a perceived problem with vertically integrated suppliers fixing the price of a commodity. In other words, there is a feeling that big petroleum companies are driving small suppliers of gasoline out of business.

Because predatory pricing, price fixing and anti-competitive practices are seen to be negative activities, and indeed they are, Bill C-235 was drafted to overcome these problems. Unfortunately, in attempting to expand on sections 78 and 50 of the existing Competition Act, Bill C-235 muddies the water and complicates the issues.

The Independent Retail Gasoline Marketers Association of Canada supports the bill, saying it will be the first step in re-establishing retail competition in the oil industry. The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute does not support the bill. It says that the effect of this bill is to create a price premium for consumers to protect them from the benefits of open competition.

Which of these positions is correct? IRGMA also says that once competition is reduced through lack of public policy initiatives by any level of government the consumer will pay in the final analysis.

Reform believes that competition is essential in the operation of a free market system. However, we do not believe that competition should be artificially created and promoted. It should merely be enforced.

CPPI makes a good point when it asks: Is the proposed legislation of benefit to consumers, and by what tests has this been determined? It is not a good idea to draft, promote and pass legislation just because someone thinks it is a good idea. There must be facts and reality behind any attempt to govern what people do in business.

It seems that everyone, whether for or against the bill, is for fair competition. What we have to determine is whether this bill stands in the way of fair competition.

There is considerable concern in the business community about the way this bill is worded. Although we understand that the bill was drafted with vertically integrated petroleum companies in mind, it is not worded with those specifics. The telecommunications industry has expressed concern that there have been no studies done on the economic impact of this bill on markets and industries in Canada. Since we already have a similarly worded section existing in the Competition Act, why are we taking risks in fiddling with the wording of these sections and perhaps undermining the intent of that act, which is to promote proper competition in the marketplace?

The bill could possibly result in wholesalers and retailers communicating and agreeing on prices in order to comply with the provisions of the bill. If this occurs, the bill could actually encourage illegal price maintenance between wholesalers and retailers, exactly the opposite of its intent. It is also possible that if companies have to go to court to determine whether the provisions of this bill are being complied with, then the courts, and not competitive markets, would be used to determine fair prices. Do we really want to see this happen?

Another possible effect of this bill might be that efficiencies resulting from vertical integration could be ignored. If efficiencies in business are ignored or discounted or discouraged, consumers fail to benefit from the savings that those companies might experience.

A summary of the bill says that it would provide for the enforcement of fair pricing. We have to look long and hard whenever a government gets involved in enforcing fairness. Who decides what is fair? How do they do this? Invariably this becomes government rewarding friends and being subject to all kinds of things, such as favouritism and influence peddling.

What is true competition? How many businesses does it take to make true competition? If the point of competition is to provide price benefits to consumers, how do we determine when this has occurred? Under current provisions of the Competition Act suppliers are already prevented from price fixing, abuse of dominant position and unfair market practices.

The petroleum industry has been investigated several times by the Competition Bureau. Currently the cost to the consumer and the retailer's profits are affected by the high level of tax that exists as part of the gas price. The consumer would be much happier to see the price of gasoline drop. We all would. Naturally, the retailer would be happier to see an increase in profits.

Realistically, these things will only happen if taxes on gasoline are reduced. The resulting positive effect on industry, business and the consumer would be a more competitive marketplace.

[Petitions, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my riding of Vancouver Island North.

The petitioners are asking parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and to redirect the hundreds of millions of tax dollars being spent on the licensing of responsible firearms owners and registration of legally owned guns to more cost effective measures to improve public safety, such as having more police on the streets, providing more crime prevention programs and anti-smuggling campaigns, and to more resources for fighting organized crime and street gangs.

[Committees Of The House, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, presented to the House on Thursday, April 2, be concurred in.

It is an interim report on the west coast of Canada concerning fisheries management issues which was tabled in the House on April 2, 1998. The government's response was tabled in the House on September 16.

The government, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is letting down the west coast big time. Earlier this week I spoke about how the issue of foreign fishing on the east coast has totally compromised the ability of fisheries managers to properly look after Canadian interests and the environment.

On the west coast the introduction of the aboriginal fisheries strategy pilot sales program in 1992 has compromised the ability of DFO to manage the fisheries resource in order to optimize social and economic benefits of the resource and to balance necessary conservation measures.

I will talk more on this subject later.

The first five recommendations of the interim report deal with transition programs for displaced fishermen, salmon licences and gear buyback. Since the tabling of this document in April we have seen a $400 million promise announced on June 19 by the minister with regard to those types of programs. None of this money has shown up to date. The minister claims that $20 million has been expended. But if so, where?

The salmon fishing community had a terrible season. Many people are in desperate straits and still they wait. Successful programs such as the North Island fisheries initiative are waiting for funding. Human Resources Development Canada program managers are concerned because anticipated funds from the $400 million program have not arrived and still they wait.

The minister has already announced the details of the east coast buyback program while no announcement has been made on the west coast. Still they wait.

The fisheries committee travelled to 11 coastal communities in British Columbia. The committee held hearings and tabled a set of practical recommendations. The minister accepted two. He maintains staffing at British Columbia light stations that had not already been destaffed three days before the Port Moody-Coquitlam byelection, knowing the committee recommendation was the people's choice and knowing the byelection race was close. The other they bought into was the implementation of a voluntary salmon licence holiday for 1998.

In virtually every other aspect of the report the bureaucratic response to the report essentially maintains the status quo or pays lip service to the recommendations.

New fishery opportunities are stonewalled by DFO. The west coast is loosing new fisheries jobs because of the lack of biological and advocacy staff at DFO and a prevailing attitude that it is much easier to say no than to say yes.

DFO is costing British Columbia thousands of jobs by choking the acquaculture industry in red tape and inertia. Although it is the lead agency, DFO has allowed competing jurisdictions and bureaucracies in the Department of the Environment and the Canada Food Inspection Agency with its policies to inhibit existing growers and it has stymied significant new investment through red tape and lack of advocacy.

The creation of a big budget acquaculture commission in Ottawa is not the answer. What is needed is a clear progressive mandate and a budget for more biologists to vet project proposals.

The committee heard from private investors who either had already or were prepared to invest their money in labour intensive aquaculture only to see their hopes and dreams dashed on the bureaucratic rocks.

I read into the record a portion of a letter I received from one of the people who appeared before the committee as an aquaculture proponent:

In my view you could raise up Jesus Christ himself and put Him in charge of making abalone farming a reality in Canada, and He wouldn't get any further than us mortals. The civil service runs this country to a much greater extent than they should; even the courts have more to say about the direction things will head than our elected representatives in the capital. Don't waste any time on this issue, John. It's a non-starter.

That is how great the cynicism has gone. This is from someone who has spent years trying to deal with the bureaucracy and invested a lot of time and a lot of money. The jury is still out on whether DFO is serious about some of the other recommendations such as the crushingly expensive and excessive at sea observer requirement for the groundfish trawl industry on the west coast.

There has been no movement at all on the beam trawl monitoring program which is also crushing that industry. In the hake fishery the department failed the community of Ucluelet which invested $7 million to upgrade its water system. This tiny community of 1,800 people was able to attract private investment for onshore hake processing only to be excluded from meaningful consultation when DFO changed the rules to reduce the portion of the catch which would be directed to the community at great cost and with lost jobs. The government makes no apologies, pays lip service and carries on as before. The callousness is insidious.

The same can be said regarding recommendation 12 of the report. It deals with maintenance of drainage ditches in agricultural lands in the Fraser Valley and other B.C. jurisdictions. Once again the department initiated major changes in 1997 without consultation. That added red tape and bureaucracy. It ignored successful protocols that had been developed over decades between farmers, municipalities, the provincial government and DFO. It added immensely to costs and derailed normal ditch maintenance. It imposed burdens on private lands, the equivalent of expropriation without compensation, and it totally frustrated municipal and provincial jurisdictions. The government's response ignored our recommendation to revert to pre-1997 protocol and to develop a dispute resolution mechanism.

While DFO is expending huge resources on this counterproductive program, it can find no new resources to fill the shortfall in field supervision of major projects affecting fish habitat in a major way. I will give the example of the Vancouver Island highway project.

What does this all mean? I will go back to the aboriginal fisheries strategy, the AFS. DFO, the minister and the government continue to defend AFS pilot sales program despite continued and growing opposition. It is no surprise that the latest initiative opposed to the AFS comes from band members themselves. Natives from Campbell River, Port Alberni and Alert Bay gathered in Victoria a few weeks ago to protest what they called damaging pilot sales under this program.

Commercial fishermen both native and non-native are against this program. They want the minister to stop reallocating their livelihood. They claim that illegal sales of salmon resulting from unmanageable pilot sales are completely out of control. But the minister does not want to hear this.

For the benefit of viewers I should explain that there are two aboriginal fisheries. There is a fishery for food, ceremonial and social purposes which no one objects to. This is based on aboriginal rights. It is constitutionally protected and no one has a problem with it. It is basically designed in most cases as a food fishery. The department has set up a racially segregated, separate commercial fishery based on racial lines under the AFS pilot sales program. That is where we have the problem.

I will talk about a case in point. At the start of the season DFO indicated that it would allow a catch of 300 sockeye salmon in the Sto:lo area on the Fraser River. These are fish to be used by the Sto:lo people for food, social and ceremonial purposes. What actually occurred, according to DFO statistics, is that the actual Sto:lo harvest up to September 18 of this year equalled 324,000 fish.

With a Sto:lo population of 6,000, this equals 341 pounds of salmon for every man, woman and child. This is far in excess of legitimate requirements for food, social and ceremonial purposes and is an encouragement, an enticement, for illegal sales, in particular when we think that half of the Sto:lo population does not live anywhere near the Sto:lo communities.

DFO also states that it is concerned about any illegal activity, meaning the selling of fish not being used for food or ceremonial purposes. However it proposes to merely consult about this activity and so far consultation means “do nothing”.

DFO also states that it cannot assume that food levels have been achieved as a result of the action of some individuals. This means that in spite of allowing more than 300,000 food fish to be caught, DFO is not confident that there are enough of these fish being used for food. In other words, DFO is assuming that most of these fish are going to be sold illegally by a few people.

The lack of control by DFO over the AFS pilot sales program is appalling. The all-Canadian commercial sector, which consists of native and non-native fishermen, has since implementation of the AFS pilot sales program in 1992 seen its share of the catch shrink. It has gone from what averaged more than 90% of the Fraser sockeye harvest to as low as 50%. More boats are on the river and DFO conservation goals have become impossible to manage effectively.

This racially segregated fishery is beginning to be exposed for what it is. What did native commercial fisher Gerald Roberts from the Campbell River Band say in Victoria last month? “We cannot survive with pilot sales programs continuing to destroy our lives. This aspect of the AFS is wrong, divisive and destructive. Minister Anderson must take a serious look at the industrial solution”. I could not have said it better myself.

He went on to say: “Not only do the pilot sales programs threaten the management of the salmon resource, they are also crippling the businesses and families who cannot access available harvest”. That says it all.

The minister must end the illegal and divisive aboriginal-only commercial fishery on the west coast to bring order out of chaos. If the minister wants to encourage aboriginal fishing, DFO can increase the 30% current aboriginal participation rate in the all-Canadian commercial fishing industry by providing grants and loans to aboriginal people to buy existing commercial fishing boats and licences.

The committee opposes allowing the minister to have discretionary powers such as those proposed in the new fisheries act which died before passage in the last parliament, which, by the way, would enable the minister to do what he wanted on this aboriginal file.

The minister should not be given wide discretionary power on grants to the fisheries. The principle of public right of access to the fishery must be maintained.

I have finished on that subject. I am now going to talk about the Canadian coast guard on the west coast.

The minister is presiding over a disaster.

There are four major coast guard radio stations on the west coast to monitor and control large traffic, to respond to distress calls and to provide weather information.

Comox station is currently two staff members short of the minimum required, Tofino is four or five short, Prince Rupert is four short and Vancouver is ten short. It is a disgrace. There does not appear to be any commitment to replace workers as they leave. Since there is a high attrition level, the situation will only get worse until something is done to remedy it.

British Columbia has the largest coastline of Canada, the most shipping and it is operational year-round. While the federal government has designated the workers at the communication stations as essential workers, DFO has been unwilling to maintain staffing at essential levels.

Budgetary shortfalls are compromising the safety of marine traffic. Operational minimum standards are not being met. When serious conditions have been brought to the attention of DFO, some band-aid money is found for temporary solutions. However, there are no long term, systemic changes being implemented and they are required for marine safety.

In a letter to the minister written just two weeks ago the chairman of the Campbell River Local Marine Advisory Council advised that the reduction or elimination of the 24-hour weather service which is being proposed “could pose a serious safety hazard to all mariners on the B.C. coast”. This advisory council has worked for the past three years to assist the coast guard. The chairman says “To my knowledge, none of these suggestions has been acted upon”.

This very board was encouraged and set up by the coast guard in order to make it more responsive to community needs. Three years later the proof is in the pudding and cynicism grows. DFO pays lip service to the public.

The only thing that will change the current situation is political leadership. That is what we need.

The amalgamation of the coast guard with DFO has been, on the west coast, a major hardship to the coast guard. Coast guard interests have been submerged by DFO interests. The west coast is much worse off now. The Reform solution is to put the coast guard and the Department of National Defence together. This concept is gaining much currency.

I was pleased to be a member of the standing committee that produced this report. I believe that the committee filled a very important role among fishermen since DFO is extremely poor at dispute resolution.

Low level disagreements get elevated to a political level almost immediately because no simple protocol exists. This leads to simmering and unresolved disputes. DFO must implement systemic change in its organization. It must have an organization capable of delegating authority so that it does not become a political exercise.

It is extremely disappointing that the government is not paying more credence to the committee report. DFO needs all the help it can get.

Fisheries are forever, while ministers and even bureaucrats are temporary. The department needs a minister who has vision and is not captive of the bureaucracy. The current minister may have some vision, but he is completely captured by his bureaucracy on most of the major issues and it is getting very late in the day to break this mould.

We will not achieve the changes we need until we move most of the entrenched senior bureaucracy out of Ottawa, end the command and control management style and create accountability for results within the bureaucracy.

[Forestry, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, B.C. forest practices are among the best in the world. Forest products are Canada's largest export. A million Canadian jobs depend on the forest industry.

Meanwhile Greenpeace is organizing pressure tactics on major buyers in Europe and in the U.S. for B.C. forest products. It is spending $1 million to put B.C. forest workers and their families on welfare. The government has to take sides.

Whose side is the government on, Greenpeace or a million Canadian workers?

[Forestry, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, seven Reform MPs spent the weekend on B.C.'s central coast visiting logging operations and talking with forest workers and community leaders. We were impressed with progressive attitudes and careful forest practices. They are determined to practise and promote sustainable forestry to ensure the viability of their communities.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace is launching a million dollar campaign to promote an international boycott of B.C. forest products. This misinformation campaign is trying to put B.C. forest workers, their families and their communities on the welfare rolls.

The great irony is that Greenpeace is at the same time asking for charitable status. The federal government must say no to this request, counter this campaign and send a strong statement to the international community defending and promoting B.C. and Canadian forest practices.