2002-02-22

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-30, an act to establish a body that provides administrative services to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada, to amend the Federal Court Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Judges Act, and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (for the Minister of Justice): 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ralph Goodale: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to lead off the debate on third reading of Bill C-30, an act to establish a body that provides administrative services to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada.
The principal objective of Bill C-30 is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the Federal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada through certain structural modifications to these courts. At the same time, these amendments are intended to fully respect the courts' independence and to ensure the continued provision of the high quality of justice that Canadians have a right to expect from these courts.
The bill contains three important structural modifications to the courts. First, the consolidation of the current administrative services of the two, the federal court and the tax court, into a single courts administration service. Second, the creation of a separate Federal Court of Appeal. Third, a change in the status of the tax court to that of a superior court.
The most significant structural modification to the bill is the consolidation of the administrative services of the courts and the establishment of the courts administration service. The service would provide the administrative needs of the federal court, the tax court and the court martial appeal court. This would entail common management of all aspects of administration, including court facilities, registries and related real property and common corporate services.
As hon. members know, our constitution establishes that responsibility and power for courts administration be shared between the judiciary and the government. The government is responsible for providing and is publicly accountable for the necessary resources required to support the courts' functions while chief justices are responsible and accountable for the effective administration of the courts as it relates to the judicial function.
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that to ensure the courts' institutional independence the judiciary must control all matters bearing directly on the adjudicative function.
However, delineating the respective authority and accountability of the government and the judiciary is not always a simple task. There is a large operational and policy area in which both government and the judiciary have an interest and a role.
Thus, in addition to the constitutional imperative that any model developed must respect the role of the judiciary and the government in the administration of the courts, the practical realities of this shared responsibility necessitated collaboration between the government and the judiciary in the development of the proposed structure of the courts administrative service.
The bill would establish a structure that would permit both the government and the judiciary, through the office of the courts administration service, with the chief administrator at the head, to collaborate in such a way as to maximize public accountability and judicial independence.
In addition to being supported by the courts affected by the reforms, these reforms will be welcomed by those served by the courts. The establishment of a single administrative structure will enable administrative improvements and efficiencies to be effectively realized while maintaining the high quality of service that Canadians expect from our national institutions.
I am very pleased to report that during the second reading debate, all parties indicated their support for Bill C-30. I would ask all hon. members of the House for their continued support.
The bill represents an unprecedented opportunity to put in place a model for court administration that will balance judicial independence and public accountability as well as create opportunities for realizing economies and efficiencies.
As hon. members are aware, the bill was introduced by the former minister of justice. I am very pleased to carry forward legislation that in my view creates an innovative structure.
I believe that with its appropriate balance between public accountability and the requisite institutional independence of the courts the service will become a model for other jurisdictions.
I thank the hon. members of the House for their attention today and ask for their support in the passage of Bill C-30.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, the Canadian Alliance supports the aims of the bill which are efficiency, presumably cost savings, which the Canadian Alliance would certainly agree with, and improved quality. However, we are not so sure about judicial independence.
I want to comment on some of these points because the government has a habit of putting some good aims into its legislation and then forgetting about them after the legislation comes into effect. The government does not review or monitor its legislation. We then become frustrated to learn that the aims were never achieved.
I will begin with efficiency and cost savings. How will there be efficiency and cost savings through these consolidation procedures? I presume duplication will be eliminated and positions will be eliminated. Obviously if all the personnel are being brought under one roof, with one chief clerk of the court, positions will be eliminated.
I have not seen anything from the government as to how many people will lose their jobs through redundancy. I am not exactly sure what kind of standardized procedures will be brought in to bring about greater efficiency.
I suspect that in five years we might see a report from the auditor general saying that in the administration of the court system there are more employees than there are today and the costs are higher than they are today. I expect to hear that but the aim is good. The government has problems executing the legislation to get the results that are talked about.
The government is also talking about the need for improved quality. For most Canadians access to our court system is next to impossible. Unless people are very wealthy, unless it is a government or unless it is a group that is funded by the government, they do not have access to the court system. It is beyond their reach. From a cost standpoint, most people would have to mortgage their house in order to use the system.
The court system is extremely complex and the procedures are very lengthy. The federal court system is even Greek to most lawyers. It is still a great mystery how this thing, which was created in the early 1970s, fits in with the rest of the court system.
I do not see any specific plan or quality objectives enunciated by the government. The government says that there will be improved quality but I do not see a plan or a process to improve quality. I am rather dubious about it.
The Liberals seem to assume that if a process is centralized and consolidated, and if more power is concentrated in the centre of Ottawa then that automatically translates into quality improvements, despite the fact that almost every public administration academic person or public management person would say that is a false assumption.
In the private sector good organizations use ISO standards to measure quality. This is a very objective way of determining quality and standard and making sure that services and products meet standard quality services.
I surmise that if the government started using ISO standards, the court system would fail miserably and not meet the standards. If ISO standards were applied to the department of Indian affairs it would certainly fail miserably. We only have to look at the results of programs in that area. It is a disaster and there is no quality in that department.
If ISO standards were applied to immigration, I wonder what would be said about the 27,000 refugee claimants who were subject to deportation orders by a government that does not even know where they are any more or what has become of them.
What about the military? How in the world could any person apply objective standards of quality, in terms of materials, resources and equipment, and say that the military meets ISO standards for quality?
What about Correctional Service Canada and the parole system? It is a dismal disaster in terms of providing quality there.
What about the fisheries department? There are probably more people working in the fisheries department than there are actual fishermen and fisher ladies.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Maybe even more than there are cod.
Brian Fitzpatrick: Yes, may even more than there are cod. Some people feel we should give the federal government more power because we will somehow get better quality. Well I do not share those comments.
A third area that I am not exactly excited about is the talk about judicial independence. The problem we have with judicial independence is the appointment process we have for judges. There are no committees to review this matter and the public has no say in it. Our friendly dictator picks up his phone, gets someone's agreement to be a judge and bingo, someone is a judge. That is our system and there is a problem in terms of judicial independence.
In my view I can hardly think of a court system that has more power than in this country. Prime Minister Trudeau, back in the early 1980s, created something called the charter of rights which gave our courts so much power that most of those people sitting in the other house have become quite irrelevant in terms of power and in exercising that power. The Supreme Court of Canada has far more power than anybody on that side of the house.
I want to go through a few things that the Supreme Court has decided in its wisdom. It decided that prisoners should have the right to vote in federal elections. It made the decision to give people like Bernardo and Olson the right to vote, a decision on which it overruled the Parliament of Canada. It decided that anybody who lands on Canadian soil shall be entitled to the full rights under the charter in our judicial system. We have made it virtually impossible to extradite some of the most dangerous criminals in the world who land on our soil. Through its wisdom, it created absolute chaos in the lobster fishery and in the relations between native and non-native people. The list goes on and on.
The Supreme Court has a lot of independence and this is a bogus claim. What in the world does the staffing of the court system have to do with judicial independence? It is way beyond my imagination. The judicial independence issue is a creative argument in the labour management area. Judges must get paid, they must have staff and so on, but please bear in mind that they are employees of the government and they are in a bit of a conflict. If we look at it from a labour management standpoint, we are giving up a lot when we tell the courts that they have free run at hiring their administration staff and in determining their own salaries.
I have noticed a disturbing trend at the provincial level where we have actually had labour management disputes between the judges and the government over salary and benefits. Because these disputes cannot be resolved, the judges go off to the courts to have these matters resolved. Guess who the courts side with? Invariably they side with the judges on these disputes on the premise that the government is interfering with judicial independence. What labour union would not mind having that relationship? If there is a dispute, people could just apply to their labour union brothers who sit on some tribunal and they would make the decision.
I really do not understand this argument that we need to have this restructuring because it is in the interest of judicial independence.
I want to emphasize one final point for the government. It has embarked upon a piece of legislation with certain aims. I do not see one single tool or mechanism in place to monitor it to see if any of the aims will be achieved.
The government is very good at passing legislation that has negative and bad results. It is because it does not have a plan in place. It gets some bureaucrat to create the legislation. It brings the legislation to the House, rubber stamps it and then rams it through with the hope that it will work out in the final end.
When legislation is created in the House it is high time we put monitoring mechanisms in place to make sure the legislation does what it was intended to do and, if it does not, we get rid of it.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-30, an act to establish a body that provides administrative services to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada. It consolidates the administrative services already in place under a chief administrator. This bill also creates a Court Martial Appeal Court and makes justices of the Federal Tax Court into justices of the Superior Court .
The first amendment had been needed for some years, and in fact reflects the organization chart already in place for the other courts, both federal and provincial, that is a court of first instance, or trial court, and an appeal court. The third is a matter of terminology only, not changing the powers and duties of these judges in any way.
I wish to point out to begin with that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of protecting the principles of impartiality and independence of the judiciary from any interference by the executive and legislative branches of government. We are, however, forced to admit that the Minister of Justice, a Quebecer to boot, has not seen fit to extend this protection to the mechanisms for selecting the chief administrator, by having a call for nominations from which the final selection would be made by the House and not by appointment by the governor in council.
When we see that a bill states that appointments are to be made by the governor in council, this is just a roundabout way of saying, “We want to continue the system of patronage we have at present”. The governor in council is in fact a body composed of none other than the Prime Minister and the PMO, which decides on certain appointments. This takes us back to the standard demand by the Bloc Quebecois that these appointments need to be submitted to democratic screening the House and its committees.
If the government, which often makes the claim of transparency, has nothing to hide, why does it allow this power to be left in the hands of the Prime Minister, his cabinet and the Privy Council, which is really nothing but the Prime Minister's department?
This bill could be more effective if it respected the concept of appearance of justice by giving preference to the selection of candidates, rather than a governor in council appointment. The Bloc Québécois presented an amendment in committee to call for nominations in order to select the chief administrator. As members can imagine, given the Liberal majority sitting on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, this amendment was rejected. We believe that the suggestion made by the Bloc Québécois could have preserved the independence of the bench and protected it from government interference.
While an independent administrative body is created, its administrator remains under the authority of the executive branch, namely the Prime Minister's Office, because of the appointment process itself. Why did the government not also want to preserve the independence of the chief administrator?
There is a contradiction here and, as parliamentarians, we are greatly disappointed by that. We were hoping for more. Given the government's intention to undertake a reform in this area, it would have been desirable to extend its scope to the fullest.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois feels that the objectives mentioned in the preamble of the bill, which include co-ordinating activities between the various federal courts an increasing judicial independence and responsibilities regarding the use of public moneys, must be supported.
In spite of the flaw relating to the appointment process of the chief administrator, the Bloc Québécois feels that the protection of the principle of judicial independence must prevail. This being said, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-30 at third reading.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, PC/DR): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate.
This bill is one which I think has already been described as technical in nature, but certainly is a very important bill and one that has laudable aims and goals. On behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative coalition, we are supportive of the bill, the efforts it entails in making the courts more effective and efficient and, to use the vernacular, keeping the wheels of justice turning in what is increasingly a very complex system throughout this country.
It has salary components and elements of consolidation. The salary components perhaps are those which could be described as the most sexy parts of this bill. In essence, their aim is to ensure that judges remain independent and free of influence. The bill touches upon some of the very tenets of law in that it is meant to ensure there is greater access and efficiency in the administration of justice.
The bill itself touches upon a number of elements that I hope to discuss in my brief remarks, but there is an important component behind all bills that relate to justice.
If I can digress for just a moment, one of the cornerstones of justice is the importance of truth, the importance of the evidence itself being presented in a truthful fashion. All efforts that are made to ensure that this is implicit in the administration of justice are very important. We could learn from this in the Chamber in the process we engage in as members of parliament; the importance of truth, the importance of ministers and of all members to be truthful in their relating of evidence, information and their exchanges within the Chamber.
The bill touches on a large number of other areas of the law. It touches on things such as the Federal Court of Appeal, the Court Martial Appeal Court, the Tax Court of Canada. It amends the Federal Court Act, the Judges Act and other consequential acts.
It can be described best as an omnibus bill. We have seen numerous omnibus legislation in this government's tenure. Some of that has been a very poison and partisan process which often has been used to try to scuttle opposition criticisms of certain elements of legislation. I do not believe that is the case with the bill before the House.
What the bill tries to do is consolidate the current administrative services of the Federal Court of Canada, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada into a single courts administration service. It is aimed at streamlining the delivery of court services.
Often when we hear members of the government use this word, it is fair to say that we expect the opposite because streamlining has really not been this government's forte. In fact, we have seen expansion of bureaucracy under this particular government. However, at least in its intent the bill is certainly trying to streamline the current system. It amends the Federal Court Act and related legislation to create a separate Federal Court of Appeal and it amends the Tax Court of Canada and related legislation that changes the status of the tax court to that of a superior court.
It also goes about amending other federal statutes such as the Judges Act and the Access to Information Act, which we know has been thwarted in some instances very recently by this government, particularly as it relates to the disclosure of charge accounts of senior bureaucrats and ministers. That is unfortunate and is inconsistent with the government's earlier promises to be more transparent and more open in its administration. That certainly has not been the case.
The bill also touches upon the Canada Elections Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Employment Insurance Act, Extradiction Act, Immigration Act, Income Tax Act, National Defence Act and Privacy Act to name a few. This is not the complete list.
I want to talk just for a moment about some of the substantive elements of the bill.
Bill C-30 proposes to change the Federal Court Act so that:

The Court shall consist of two divisions, called the Federal Court—Appeal Division (which may be referred to as the Court of Appeal or Federal Court of Appeal) and the Federal Court—Trial Division.

Under clause 19, section 10(1) of the act would read:

--any judge of a superior, county or district court in Canada, and any person who has held office as a judge of a superior, county or district court in Canada, may, at the request of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal made with the approval of the Governor in Council, act as a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal, and while so acting has all the powers of a judge of that court and shall be referred to as a deputy judge of that court.

This would expand the diversity of the actions of judges in that capacity.
This can happen under current legislation but judges need the permission of the chief justice or chief judge of the court on which they currently serve as members, or they would need the permission of the attorney general of the province. It creates a new process to be followed.
Under the bill, section 11 of the act would read:

(1) Every person who is a barrister or an advocate in a province may practise as a barrister or an advocate in the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court.
(2) Every person who is an attorney or a solicitor in a superior court of a province may practise as an attorney or a solicitor in the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court.

It goes on to talk about the attorney, advocate or solicitor being an officer of the court.
Clause 21 of the bill with respect to sheriffs and their actions within the court is of importance and deserves highlighting. Under it, section 13 of the act would state:

(1) The Governor in Council may appoint a sheriff of the Federal Court of Appeal and of the Federal Court for any geographical area.
(2) If no sheriff is appointed under subsection (1) for a court for a geographical area, the sheriff and deputy sheriffs of the county or other judicial division or part of the county within that geographical area who are appointed under provincial law are ex officio sheriffs and deputy sheriffs--

In the constituency I represent in Nova Scotia, Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, we have an efficient and effective sheriff system due in great part to men like Jim MacDonald who is the high sheriff for Pictou county. The men and women acting in that capacity are custodians of justice in a very real sense. They are called on daily in their duties to help administer. They are the front line deliverers of many services and in some cases are the enforcers of the law.
They work closely with other elements in the administration system like the prothonotary. We are fortunate in Pictou county to have a woman as capable and competent as Doris Scanlan. She and others in the area I represent are doing an extremely good job for the people of Pictou county and surrounding areas.
One of the changes in Bill C-30 that relates to sheriffs would give every sheriff or deputy sheriff of the court ex officio status. A marshal as an ex officio would become a deputy marshall of the court.
There are elements of the bill that speak to the jurisdiction of the trial division. Under subclause 25(3) of Bill C-30, section 17 of the Federal Court Act would be modified as follows:

(3) The Federal Court has exclusive originaljurisdiction to hear and determine thefollowing matters:
(a) the amount to be paid if the Crown andany person have agreed in writing that the Crown or that person shall pay an amount to be determined by the Federal Court, the Federal Court—Trial Division or the Exchequer Court of Canada; and
(b) any question of law, fact or mixed lawand fact that the Crown and any person haveagreed in writing shall be determined by the Federal Court, the Federal Court--Trial Division or the Exchequer Court of Canada.
(4) The Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction to hear and determine proceedings to determine disputes in which the Crown is or may be under an obligationand in respect of which there are or may be conflicting claims.

The bill is technical in nature but deals with the nuts and bolts of the administration of justice, be it in civil matters or matters involving the criminal administration of justice.
A number of clauses deal with payment and the affixing or assigning of debt. I am referring to judgments of the court. Clause 50 of the bill deals with section 52 of the existing act which states:

The Federal Court of Appeal may
(a) quash proceedings in cases brought before it in which it has no jurisdiction or whenever those proceedings are not taken in good faith--

That is in essence the power to quash proceedings.
In the case of an appeal from the trial division it would have the power to dismiss the appeal or give judgment and awards the trial division should have given or awarded.
Again, the bill deals with making decisions based on fact, assignment of debt, and declarations or conclusions the trial division may have made that are subject to appeal.
The sections dealing with the tax court can be viewed as quite complicated but are of great importance. My colleague in the Alliance Party from Saskatchewan spoke quite eloquently in suggesting the administration of justice and civil court actions have become extremely cumbersome and convoluted and are beyond the pale of most average citizens. The ability to access justice and court administration has become cumbersome and almost unattainable in some instances because of the cost. It is cost prohibitive in many instances to take an action to court.
I mention this to underscore the importance of speeding up the way we react to conflicts in the law and the time it takes to get matters to the courts and the judges. We are finding time and again that the Department of Justice is in many instances complicit in efforts to delay justice because it is used as a tactic. It is used as a tactic in all levels of court to the advantage of individuals who have the ability to pay. The government is in a much stronger position if it can drag matters out to the point where people simply give up and go away because they cannot afford a lawyer or filing costs and in many instances cannot afford to wait and put their lives on hold.
This is an extremely important problem throughout the country. I hope the bill will have an impact on it. I am not completely confident it is the solution the government holds it out to be, but I see some merit in its efforts to streamline administration and make the courts more effective.
My hon. friend from Cumberland--Colchester would agree that it depends very much on the professionals and the proficiency of people working in the system. Whether in government, law, business or professional sports, a certain standard and level of efficiency must be applied. It cannot always be imposed by legislation. It must be fostered. It must be encouraged. It must be rewarded in some instances.
I hope the personnel who carry out the administration of justice will take seriously the intent of the bill. This is not in any way to cast aspersions on those who work in the system. I made a statement yesterday in the House about legal aid lawyers in Canada who do a tremendous job with a lack of resources. They go far beyond the pale in terms of the preparation time they require and the extraordinary effort they make to ensure access to justice on behalf of their clients.
It truly is a crisis. I do not use the word lightly because the phrase is often over-used in this place. Prosecutors and legal aid lawyers are labouring under a system that has become bogged down. The wheels of justice have not been turning in an effective way. I am hopeful that Bill C-30 is a starting point. It is an opportunity to revisit and re-examine areas in which we can become more efficient.
I alluded earlier to the Judges Act. One of the upshots of the bill would be to address increasing concerns about judges being susceptible to influence. I will be blunt. I am talking about organized crime, biker gangs or terrorists, either within our country or globally, attempting to influence judges through intimidation or bribes.
As the subcommittee on organized crime made a brief foray into the problem of organized crime in Canada it became clear that the scourge of organized criminal activity had far reaching influence in both criminal and legitimate sectors of Canadian society. We cannot in any way, shape or form allow such influence to permeate the halls of justice.
Thus the issue of judges and justices' salaries becomes increasingly important. We must find a way to ensure judicial independence is always maintained and that judges are not tempted by any outside influence that could compromise their rulings from the bench. This is an element of the bill we in the coalition feel is extremely important and one we embrace and support.
The salaries of federal court judges in recent years have by Canadian standards been seen as quite high. However let us consider the importance of the job they do, the pristine nature of the law, the need for it to be administered correctly and the need to attract the best, brightest, and most ethical. I strongly urge Canadians to think about the issue in that context.
The margin of error for people who administer justice is very small. Sadly, in recent days and years we have seen examples where people who should not have been entrusted with the responsibility have made improper rulings and commentary that have done considerable damage to communities and to the public image of their profession.
The bill would set out the levels of salaries, fix rates of compensation and deal with the duties judges are expected to perform. It would deal with how long they are required or permitted to stay in their positions and how they might be removed for indiscretions. It would deal with designation and salary adjustments if they choose to step down or are removed involuntarily from their positions of responsibility.
The bill is quite voluminous. It touches on important administrative departments and legislation in the current context.
The Access to Information Act is another bill which deserves our attention. There is a change afoot within section 52 of that act. It states:

(1) Any application under section 41 or 42 relating to a record or a part of a record that the head of a government institution has refused to disclose by reason of paragraph 13(1)(a) or (b) or section 15 shall be heard and determined by the Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court or by such other judge of the Court as the Associate Chief Justice may designate to hear such applications.

This is very apropos to a current situation. The information commissioner, John Reid, has commenced an action because of the refusal of the PMO to turn over certain documents pertaining to the Prime Minister's schedule. Sadly, the issue of whether the documents should be made public is sometimes blurred. The information commissioner is not suggesting the documents simply be made public. He is suggesting he has the right to look at them and determine whether they should be made public.
Mr. Reid is a former member of parliament and distinguished member of the House. It is ludicrous and beyond perverse that the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for appointing the information commissioner and entrusting those responsibilities to him, is in essence saying he does not trust him to make the call. It is somewhat disturbing and inconsistent with any suggestion of transparency in government.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on the motion for third reading of Bill C-30. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from December 14, 2001 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House again on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to take part in the third reading debate on Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclear fuel waste. Members of the House no doubt recall the provisions of the bill from previous stages, therefore I will keep my comments about the bill's contents very brief.
The bill requires the creation of a long term management strategy to make sure that the disposal of nuclear fuel waste is done in a complete, integrated and cost effective manner. To do this, it directs the major owners of nuclear waste, which are Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Ontario Power Generation Inc., Hydro-Québec and New Brunswick Power Corporation, to create waste management organizations to implement these long term strategies.
It also directs these organizations to establish trust funds and make regular payments into them to finance efforts toward long term waste management. These nuclear waste management organizations have a responsibility to come up with a number of fiscally responsible and realistic options for managing these byproducts. Once these options are identified, it becomes the responsibility of the governor in council to choose which one will be used.
It would not be fair to treat the nuclear waste issue as only a domestic one. As a member of the foreign affairs committee studying nuclear proliferation a few years ago, I heard many harrowing tales of how nuclear material was stolen in many of the former Soviet republics and exported by criminal elements. For example, we heard how in Russia the raw material for thousands of Hiroshima bombs was in lightly guarded stockpiles. One observer gave the chilling commentary that “unless something is done or something changes, the next truck bomb could be a nuclear bomb”.
Obviously it is quite important to look at these incidents. There are many. I have examples of 73 different incidents of smuggling of nuclear material from 1993 to 1996. For example, Romanian police had in their possession 82 kilograms of radioactive material, enriched uranium. In another incident, Lithuanian officials seized 100 kilograms of radioactive material, uranium 238. In another incident, the Belarus committee for state security seized five kilograms of cesium 133.
The list goes on. The German parliament discussed how three smugglers offered it 11 kilograms of Russian weapons grade plutonium. Similarly, Greenpeace was offered 800 kilograms of scarred warheads for public display in Berlin. The Czech police seized 2.72 kilograms of this material. Hungarian border guards seized 1.7 kilograms of uranium. The list goes on. As I said, there were 73 different incidents just from 1993 to 1996.
Obviously if Canada is not to become the weak link in nuclear proliferation, Canada's waste management organizations will need to examine security procedures, particularly when we are fighting the war against terrorism.
I also heard that nuclear material and technology is transferred from certain rogue states to countries around the globe that have nuclear ambitions. Both Iran and North Korea are examples of countries that are believed to have transferred nuclear technology and materials to the highest bidder.
Obviously the issue of security and the storage of nuclear waste is not just a Canadian issue. The lesson from these examples is that the Canadian waste management organizations established under Bill C-27 need to have full security procedures in place to ensure that this material does not fall into the wrong hands. This is essential if we are to protect the safety of Canadians.
I have a good example in my constituency. The residents of Surrey Central know a great deal about dealing with radioactive waste. In my constituency of Surrey Central, radioactive material was in temporary storage for 25 years. That 4,000 tonnes of radioactive waste was lying in the open until the federal government realized its carelessness. A company was given a licence in 1972 to import radioactive ore that contained thorium, then the federal government forgot about it. In 1989 the government woke up and created a volunteer based organization called the Surrey sitting task force to look into the disposal and storage of that radioactive material.
When I was on the foreign affairs committee I accidentally found out about that radioactive material being stored in Surrey under unsafe conditions. When I came across this--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Surrey Central, but the Chair now would like to proceed to statements by members. I will recognize the hon. member for Malpeque.

Statements By Members
Daniel PearlMr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I ask the House to join me today to pay tribute to Daniel Pearl, who we have learned was murdered by his abductors in Pakistan.
Mr. Pearl was an accomplished reporter with the Wall Street Journal . For 12 years he reported from the U.S., Europe and Asia and most recently from Bombay, India. He was on assignment investigating links between a British terrorist and al-Qaeda when he was taken hostage and so brutally killed.
Many overseas journalists put themselves at risk every day to bring to light events and atrocities that would otherwise continue with impunity. Daniel Pearl and others like him are true heroes.
We condemn this kind of brutality and misguided extremism that led to Mr. Pearl's death. It is incidents such as this that put a human face on the fight against terrorism.
Daniel Pearl was only 38 years old. I am sure that all Canadians are sickened by what happened to him. I would like to extend our deepest sympathies to Mr. Pearl's wife, Mariane, and to his unborn son, who will never know his father.
2002 Winter OlympicsMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the pride of Canada today is the women's Olympic hockey team.
To Salt Lake City from hockey town Canada in the heart of the Ottawa Valley and from across our nation, we send congratulations to Canada's Olympic gold medal women's hockey team.
Overcoming incredible odds, playing short handed for most of the game against the hometown favourite, our women demonstrated they have the right stuff to be Olympic champions. They are the best in the world.
As a member of the official opposition I know what it is like to be counted as the underdog in what seems like a contest of Olympian proportions.
Against seemingly overwhelming odds and with spirit and determination our women demonstrated the winning attitude that is the first step to being a champion.
I know that all of Canada joins me in sharing the victory and saying well done.
Guide and Scout WeekMrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week Girl Guides and Boy Scouts from around the world celebrate guide and scout week. February 22 is Thinking Day, when scouts and guides celebrate international friendship. It is also the birthday of the founder of the movement, Robert Baden-Powell. During this week Girl Guides and Boy Scouts across Canada have celebrated joint events.
Girl Guides is the largest international organization for girls and women. Both guides and scouts celebrate the education of young people by helping them achieve self-fulfilment and build a better world.
Many Canadians, and indeed members of the House, have fond memories of a childhood in guides or scouts. I am sure they will join me in paying tribute to both organizations. Guides and scouts play an integral role in improving the lives of many children and youth across the world.
HeritageMs. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Sunday I was honoured to represent the Government of Canada at the unveiling of the Vancouver Chinatown Heritage Alley: Allan Yap Circle.
This special heritage alley illustrates the experiences of Canada's early Chinese immigrants. It also celebrates how their pioneering spirit and sacrifices helped to build our nation in its formative years. Truly, it is an inspiration for all Canadians and an effective tool to build bridges between cultures.
This project is supported by our department of multiculturalism and the Chinese community. It is the result of the hard work of the members of the Chinese Benevolent Association and the Block 17 Commemorative Committee. Their efforts will help us to preserve and revitalize the heritage and culture of Vancouver's Chinatown. I wish to congratulate them on their efforts.
EstoniaMr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague from Parkdale--High Park, I wish to advise the House that on Sunday, February 24, 2002, Estonians and Canadians of Estonian heritage will mark the 84th anniversary of the declaration of Estonian independence.
This is not only a day of celebration, but also a day for remembering those who fought the battle for freedom and lost their lives in doing so. For centuries, the Estonian people had dreamed of establishing a state free of foreign domination and in 1991 Estonia reclaimed its independence from the Soviet Union while keeping its language, its culture and its vision of freedom.
Estonians have played an important role in sharing their unique cultural attributes with our larger community in Canada. On this special day Canadians of Estonian heritage look forward to the future with hope and optimism for both Canada and Estonia and for even closer economic, cultural, political and diplomatic ties between these two countries.
I extend on behalf of all Canadians our warmest greetings and best wishes on the 84th anniversary of the declaration of Estonian independence.
Artiste pour la Paix 2001Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on February 14, Jean-Claude Côté, artistic director and founder of the Théâtre de la Récidive, was honoured with the Artiste pour la Paix 2001 award.
This honour is bestowed annually by Artistes pour la Paix, a group founded by Gilles Vigneault and Dolorès Duquette some 20 years ago.
Mr. Côté joins a group of artists from Quebec who have been honoured for their humanistic values and their sense of peace, artists such as Marcelle Ferron, Marquise Lepage, Marie-Claire Séguin, Armand Vaillancourt and Simone Monet-Chartrand.
The fall of 2001 brutally reminded us of the fragility of democracy and the difficult struggle for peace, yet this recognition underscores the fundamental contribution that artists make to our raising our collective conscience.
Jean-Claude Côté's proposal for the 2001-02 season “Voix du monde, un théâtre pour la paix” was visionary. By providing a forum for ten playwrights from ten countries on five continents, Jean-Claude Côté has allowed us to experience the universality of peace.
The Bloc Québécois is proud to applaud his commitment.
SportsMs. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I join with all Canadians in congratulating Kirk Johnson of North Preston on his upcoming match for the world boxing heavyweight championship.
Kirk Johnson, 29, is the son of Violet and Gary Johnson of North Preston and the first heavyweight boxing champion from his community. He attended Nelson Wynder and Ross Road schools, Cole Harbour High and St. Mary's University. Kirk was introduced to boxing by his father, a long time boxing coach, who believed the sport was a way to keep young people out of trouble. His dad said of him “Kirk has a big imagination. He would watch Ali on TV and do the Ali shuffle. He was always a good imitator of the best. He is a true leader”.
Kirk's dedication, hard work and integrity to the sport of boxing provides a role model for all young people. Undefeated after 33 professional fights Johnson has an outstanding record in boxing at an international level.
On behalf of the House I want to tell Kirk that we are proud of him and thank him in advance for his performance on behalf of the people of North Preston and Canada. We wish him good luck and Godspeed.
2002 Winter OlympicsMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to tell you about the accomplishments of some great Canadian athletes. Some of them won medals and others placed among the top eight finalists on February 20 in Salt Lake City.
I am referring to Marc Gagnon of Chicoutimi, Quebec, members of the Canadian women's relay team, Isabelle Charest of Rimouski, Marie-Ève Drolet of Laterrière, Amélie Goulet-Nadon and Tania Vincent of Laval, of whom I am obviously very proud, Alanna Kraus of Abbotsford, British Columbia, Cindy Klassen of Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Jeff Pain and Lindsay Alcock, both of Calgary, Alberta.
Marc Gagnon won the bronze medal in the 1,500 metre short track event. These are his third Olympic Games; he won a gold medal in 1998 and a bronze in 1994.
Our women's relay team won a bronze medal in the 3,000 metre short track speed skating event.
After—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Fundy--Royal.
The EnvironmentMr. John Herron (Fundy--Royal, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, the environment minister is gutting out key improvements made to Bill C-5 by the environment committee that were supported by landowners and provinces. Worse still, the Government of Canada shamelessly ignored a consensus reached in advance by environmentalists and industry.
It is unbelievable that the bill does not provide for mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands, in the government's own backyard. Yet the bill permits the minister to arbitrarily intervene on private and provincial lands. The reality is that the environment minister never did his homework. The provinces were never on side on clauses 34, 35 and 61 before Bill C-5 was tabled. Now the minister is gutting committee amendments that the provinces support.
For example, Minister John Snobelen of Ontario said, “I appreciate the standing committee's suggestions for criteria regarding the application of the federal safety net.”
Why is it that we had to wait eight years for a bill that is so weak and void of mandatory protection of critical habitat, scientific listing, clear compensation and provisions to--
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt but hon. members' statements are getting longer and longer.
2002 Winter OlympicsMr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, just over six months ago I came to know a group of athletes who moved to my riding to try out for the Canadian Olympic women's hockey team. These athletes and their teammates trained almost every day and every night to win in Salt Lake City and yesterday it paid off.
Canada won its first gold medal in hockey since 1952 when we prevailed over the Americans 3-2. Cherie Piper, Charline Labonté and Thérèse Brisson and the rest of the team showed true courage and determination in taking on an American team that was bigger and had home ice advantage.
After seeing these athletes do training sessions twice a day I have a whole new appreciation for the words: work ethic, discipline and commitment. Each and every one of those players deserves a heartfelt congratulations from this House and from all Canadians.
Great work ladies.
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last night, the women's ice hockey team showed that hockey is truly a Canadian sport. In a fast-paced game against the United States, the Canadian team emerged victorious, winning the gold with a score of 3-2 over our neighbours to the south.
Having lost eight consecutive games to the Americans, the Canadians finally took their revenge for the defeat they suffered in the game for the gold medal at the 1998 winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan.
It is athletes like Danielle Goyette, a veteran of this sport, Kim St-Pierre, and many others, who encourage our daughters to dream of the day when they will play on the Canadian Olympic team.
I hope that the men's hockey team will be inspired by the example of their female counterparts and will capture another gold in ice hockey at the game on Sunday.
Congratulations to the women's hockey team and to all our Canadian athletes.
GlobalizationMr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the second world social forum was held in Pôrto Alegre, Brazil, this past January 31 to February 5. With a view to counterbalancing the traditional Davos economic forum, some 55,000 people from all over the world met at Pôrto Alegre with the common objective of humanizing globalization.
In addition to being an ideal forum for the exchange of views and for contacts between the members of civil society, this forum provided more than one thousand parliamentarians with the opportunity to address potential solutions for certain problems, such as the controversial chapter 11 of the FTAA.
For me, this was an opportunity to speak of virtual parliamentarism, and to defend the inherent concepts of corporate social responsibility. Quebec was strongly represented, with a contingent of close to one hundred from civil society, labour unions, and representatives of government and of parliamentarians. It demonstrated that it is more than ever before one of the nations that supports a more human face for globalization.
2002 Winter OlympicsMr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last night the Canadian Olympic women's hockey team set new standards for class, dignity and character.
Our congratulations to these great Olympic champions, head coach Danielle Sauvageau, all of the coaching staff, and above all the players.
They are: Dana Antal, Kelly Béchard, Jennifer Botterill, Thérèse Brisson, Cassie Campbell, Isabelle Chartrand, Lori Dupuis, Danielle Goyette, Geraldine Heaney, Jayna Hefford, Becky Kellar, Charline Labonté, Caroline Ouellette, Cherie Piper, Cheryl Pounder, Tammy Lee Shewchuk, Kim St-Pierre, Sami Jo Small, Colleen Sostorics, Vicky Sunohara, and tournament MVP, Hayley Wickenheiser.
They have won more than gold. They have won the hearts of a very proud nation.
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is well understood that the family is the basic building unit of society. From the family comes all the resource of humanity that contributes to the expertise, dedication and propagation of a nation. The family unit is essential to the well-being of individuals and communities. The family is where we first learn and practice values and responsibility. It is there that we learn respect, consideration and love for others.
Legislation and programs designed to strengthen and protect the family should first be directed to individuals related by blood, adoption or marriage. Parliament has recognized that marriage is the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state. Our Olympic gold medal women's hockey team provide a great example of individuals who have obviously received a great deal of family support.
I extend congratulations to the team and especially to the four members from Saskatchewan. I also congratulate their respective families who have earned the right to be very proud of their win and of their families' involvement.
Political PartiesMr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, I see that the interim leader of the Alliance is pleased because Izzy Asper has “taken a personal interest in the Alliance leadership race”. He goes on to say that the last thing Mr. Asper wants is for the Alliance and the Tories to work together.
Stop the presses. This is the same Mr. Asper who insists that his newspaper chain print only editorials that agree with his Liberal political views, who tried to shut down the Shawinigate investigation and who sparked protests among journalists about the freedom of the press with his blatant pro-Liberal bias.
Let me offer an opinion to those Alliance supporters who think that taking strategic advice from Izzy Asper is designed to help the Canadian Alliance. Wake up, folks. He does not want Alliance members to talk to the Conservatives because he has only one goal, which is to keep the Liberals in power. He could not care less about the Alliance, about the Tories or any efforts to bring people together, because as long as the opposition stays divided the Liberals have a clear path to electoral victory.
Let us be clear, Mr. Asper's ambition is to re-elect Liberals. His sudden interest in the Alliance leadership race should cause concern. It is hardly cause for celebration.
Carnaval-Souvenir de ChicoutimiMr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the House that her Excellency the Governor General of Canada will be visiting Chicoutimi this weekend. Madame Clarkson will be taking part in the Carnaval-Souvenir activities. I wish her a hearty welcome.
Since 1961, Chicoutimi has been taking this trip back in time, revisiting our past through the dress, activities and food of times gone by.
This year, we are commemorating the year 1902, with the theme “Fréquentons-nous, c'est Carnaval”, by going on a date with Laeticia and Hector, two characters typical of people living at the turn of the last century.
I invite everyone to come enjoy the Carnaval with the other merrymakers and Madame Clarkson.
Member for Calgary EastMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate my friend and colleague from Calgary East on his recovery from surgery this week.
It is ironic that we are just at the end of heart and stroke week, a time in which health professionals remind us all that research money is needed to improve our knowledge of the cardio-vascular system and how to keep it functioning properly.
Our friend has had quite an experience. The surgery was successful but complications gave us all a most worrisome time. Using sedation doctors gave our friend a rest and a chance for his lungs to clear fluids. He has survived this, much to the relief of his family and many friends here in parliament.
The member is now resting at home and I know he would like to express his gratitude for the sincere outpouring of good wishes. To the doctors and nurses who performed their miracle on our colleague we say job well done
We offer our prayers to the member and his family. On behalf of the House we say Godspeed friend. We are looking for Deepak on CPAC. We miss him and hope to see him back soon.

Oral Question Period
The EnvironmentMr. John Reynolds (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources, who is the Prime Minister's close confidante and political minister of British Columbia, said:

Some important details have to be worked out before Canada ratifies the Kyoto protocol...It makes no sense to sign a contract before we understand its full impacts.

He said that he would not sign a contract in business unless he knew exactly what it meant.
Does the Minister of the Environment believe that we should ratify Kyoto without understanding its full impact, or does he expect Canadians to buy a pig in a poke?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member simply misrepresents the situation.
The government has consistently said that it intends to have full consultation with provinces, territories, interested organizations such as companies and NGOs, and the Canadian public so that it can in fact have full knowledge of the situation. That will be done before the ratification decision is made.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I did not misrepresent anything. I quoted a minister of the government who is responsible for British Columbia.
The Alberta government estimates that Kyoto would cost the Canadian economy $25 billion to $40 billion per year, disproportionately hurting Alberta and the west. The federal government still has not tabled its figures and yesterday Canada's top business groups, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, demanded that the government give its cost estimates.
Will the government table the full costs of Kyoto and a detailed implementation plan before the deal is ratified?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the second question demonstrates an even greater misunderstanding of the situation than the first.
The fact is, if the hon. member had listened to the response, we are having discussions with the provinces, the territories, interested groups and the Canadian public so we can bring together all the information necessary. There are provincial officials working with federal and territorial officials on the issue of costing, among other aspects. This will happen. The process is working.
His demands for figures that have constantly been put forward, which as has been indicated are not yet fully available because the work is not yet fully done, just does not make a lot of sense.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, we quote the minister's own colleagues in cabinet and he tries to say we misrepresent them. However, he still has not answered the question we asked him. The question is very simple. Will he as the minister and will the government table in the House the full costs of Kyoto and the detailed implementation plan before it is ratified?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the misrepresentation was on my position, not the quote from my colleague and he knows that.
John Reynolds: Answer the question.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I feel I have the right to correct inaccurate information the hon. member put forward about the position of myself and other government ministers.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, is it not ironic that Bloc Québécois and Liberal members are getting together to ask the federal government to take unilateral action and sign the Kyoto accord against the will of the provinces?
Will the federal government do as it should, that is, respect and consult the provinces before ratifying this agreement?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there is a wall of glass and those members cannot hear what is said on this side of the room. The fact is, as I have said to the Leader of the Opposition, we intend to have a full discussion with the provinces, a full discussion with the territories, a full discussion with companies that are interested in the energy field and other areas. We are going to have full discussions with the Canadian public before we come to the final decision.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, Quebec's environment minister has outrageously said “Quebecers will not finance the economic development of western Canada”. Westerners have been financing the economic development of Quebec for 40 years, from equalization payments, to the CF-18 contract, to slush funds in Quebec. If Alberta is forced to pay for Kyoto, there will not be any money for Ottawa to extract from us.
Will the federal government commit that it will not ratify Kyoto to buy Quebec votes with western tax dollars?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the question of the hon. member misrepresents the position of the government. Again let me repeat it. I want it to be very clear so that he fully understands.
The government has said consistently, myself, the Minister of Natural Resources, the previous Minister of Natural Resources, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, that we will have full consultation with all sectors involved, the provinces, the territories, industry, interested Canadians, and we will do that before making the final decision of ratification.
That said, our aim is to ratify, and we wish to ratify.
Economic DevelopmentMs. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 31, the former Minister of National Revenue told the House that an independent study had recommended to carry on with the South Shore Technobase, as if there were no problem.
However, Price Waterhouse is much less optimistic than the minister and, in October 2000, it recommended a six month exemption period to develop a recovery plan for Technobase.
Now, one and a half years later, will the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec admit that Technobase still does not have a recovery plan and that no loans to create jobs have been granted since April 2001?
Hon. Claude Drouin (Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with its two funds of $7 million, Technobase has created over 600 jobs and there is $3 million still available.
CED, Canada Economic Development, will continue to do the necessary work to help the region's economic development.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, in addition to not having helped any new business since April 2001,the CEO of Technobase, Clément Joly, admitted on Wednesday that the corporation no longer has analysts to assess the viability of projects, something which does not bode well for the future.
Will the parliamentary secretary recognize that Technobase has no plan and that it does not have the expertise to ensure that new job creating projects are launched on the former St. Hubert military base?
Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, Canada Economic Development is now working with Technobase to review the projects that will be proposed. There are $3 million left in the envelope and we will continue to support economic development.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères--Les-Patriotes, BQ): Indeed, Mr. Speaker, regarding this $3 million, the chief executive officer of the Technobase, Clément Joly, also announced on Wednesday that this $3 million left over from the $6 million allocated to the organization for technological development was transferred to Canada Economic Development, which will analyze the files from now on.
What this means is that the Technobase has no business plan, no analysts, and no funds for job creation.
Will the secretary of state finally admit that instead of relying on an empty shell run by a notorious Liberal, it would be better to let stakeholders from the area take over the Saint-Hubert base development project?
Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, Canada Economic Development will now be managing the fund and you have proof of all of the work that is being done in Quebec to continue to support economic development in the region.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, will the secretary of state finally admit that the only reason the Liberal government is bothering to keep the Technobase alive artificially, is because its CEO is Clément Joly, a former Liberal Party of Canada fundraiser, a hack who receives $300 an hour to direct an agency that no longer does anything to create jobs on the south shore of Montreal?
Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, Canada Economic Development has already decided to end its contribution to the Technobase's operations and will continue to work with the fund.
The EnvironmentHon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina--Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The Alberta minister of the environment said it will cost between $23 billion and $40 billion to deal with the fallout from Kyoto. These are exaggerated numbers. They are way out of line and the minister knows that.
Why does the minister not repudiate those numbers? Why has he not stood up for the farmers of western Canada and for other people affected and put the real facts on the table?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, as is the case with so many opposition questions, the hon. member has essentially answered his own question with respect to the comments of the hon. minister from Alberta.
Let me simply say that we are having an ongoing process with the provinces, the territories and other interested people such as business people and ordinary Canadians to make sure we do have the figures that are clear. Therefore when a decision on ratification is taken, Canadians will know what the burden might be. We will make sure at that time that the burden is spread equally and is not unfair to any one region of the country.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the minister has had five years to put the facts on the table. He has been sitting there wringing his hands for five years. He is the minister. I am not the minister. Let us have the facts on the table. I want to know the specifics today.
There was a drought on the prairies last year. The agriculture committee is in Saskatchewan this week. They are predicting a drought next year in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta.
What will the cost be to the prairie farmers? How many billions of dollars will global warming cost the prairie farmers and other people affected? Please answer that specific question.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, surprisingly perhaps the hon. member did not hear but I answered that question with reference to the drought earlier this week in answer to a question from the Alliance.
I pointed out that there are serious costs to prairie farmers. There are serious costs to northerners. There are serious costs to Canadians who had an ice storm here and floods in Manitoba and in the Saguenay region. There are serious costs resulting from those extreme weather situations arising out of the global warming problem.
I answered the question earlier. I urge the hon. member to wait until--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester.
Softwood LumberMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland--Colchester, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade broke one of the basic rules of negotiating and that is, united we stand, divided we fall.
The last meeting of all softwood lumber stakeholders was on May 20 last year. Despite repeated requests by the opposition and the stakeholders, the minister has refused to arrange a meeting for almost a year. Meanwhile our case, our jobs and our industry are all going down the drain.
When will the minister finally call a meeting of all the stakeholders and establish a truly united Canadian position?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where my colleague has been but the Minister for International Trade is in daily contact with the provinces and the industry. There have been extensive briefings right across the country. Even when he is away doing his job with team Canada he is in daily contact on this important file.
I do not know where my colleague comes up with the idea that there has not been extensive consultation. I would have thought he would have been aware of that given the number of briefings we have offered to the opposition critics.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey--White Rock--Langley, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, the last meeting was in May last year so I do not know where this guy is coming from.
Canadians know that the only winners in the softwood lumber dispute are a coalition of wealthy American timber owners, inefficient lumber companies and their lawyers who all benefit from the high lumber prices. However, most Americans are still unaware that they as consumers are being gouged by artificially high lumber prices for the benefit of the coalition.
Now that the American coalition has lost its largest financial contributor, will the government take the--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade.
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, there was so much the member did not say but I think where she was trying to go was to ask if we are trying to educate the American public.
The hon. member is nodding in the affirmative. She ought to know that our embassy has been very active for several years in lobbying members of congress.
There is a most impressive advocacy campaign in softwood lumber going on south of the border to educate American consumers that they are being ripped off to subsidize the uncompetitive American softwood lumber industry.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Brian Pallister (Portage--Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to know that the Immigration and Refugee Board is not allowing more terrorists like Ahmed Ressam to operate in this country. Yesterday the immigration minister arrogantly refused to answer questions about this serious matter calling them stupid. Since the minister responsible is obviously not, can the Deputy Prime Minister offer Canadians some assurances that their security will not be put at risk by IRB corruption?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously we take the issue of security for Canadians very seriously. We also take very seriously the allegations of inappropriate behaviour on the part of members of the board. These in fact are under investigation.
Brian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that answer.
Yesterday the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration contended that Liberal IRB appointments are made on the basis of merit and competence, yet we know that department has been a dumping ground for Liberals.
Yves Bourbonnais, who is at the centre of this corruption investigation and a Liberal appointment, was a disbarred lawyer convicted of committing fraud against the government.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us, is that the sort of confidence Canadians can expect from the government's appointments?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under investigation. I will not say any more about it.
Kyoto ProtocolMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has learned that at his ministerial meeting last Wednesday night, the Minister of the Environment saw preliminary studies with respect to the options available to him for meeting the Kyoto objectives.
In the interests of transparency, does the Minister of the Environment intend to share the results of these preliminary studies with the members of this House, and table a copy of them at the earliest opportunity?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, there are several studies. There are the ones saying that it will cost the Canadian economy nothing to attain the goal of 6% less than the 1990 level. There are others, such as the one the minister from Alberta proposed yesterday, which say that the cost will be very high. There are many differing views on these two positions.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, what we are asking the minister to do is share with the House the studies he saw on Wednesday. That is what we would like.
With the federal-provincial conference in Victoria coming up on February 25 and 26, if the minister is serious about wanting to ensure a broad debate on the Kyoto issues, will he agree that one of the ways he could do that would be to immediately table in the House the analyses he now has in his possession?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, naturally, that is what we will be doing, but the House will have to wait until they are ready.
In the meantime, we have dozens of experts working on this. Some of them are from the provinces and others work for the federal government. Three private companies are working on this. As soon as they have completed their work, we will present the details to the House.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question about refugee policy but the minister refused to answer. Therefore, let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister.
Is it the policy of the government to accept refugee claims from convicted criminals who are being held in police custody?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, of course that is not the government's policy.
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting because that is exactly what the government has done.
The minister has said it is not the policy but on the other hand his government is doing that in the case of Tafari Rennock, the convicted sexual offender from the United States who has now come into Canada. Will the minister make the commitment right now that the policy will change?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, first, it is not the government's policy.
Second, I cannot of course comment on a specific case.
Third, the member should know that even where a person may be granted refugee status by an independent tribunal, where that person poses a risk to Canadians there is still a process by which he or she could be removed from Canada.
Kyoto ProtocolMr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment will shortly be meeting with his provincial counterparts at a conference in Victoria, where the minister will be presenting various options for give effect to the Kyoto agreements on greenhouse gas reduction.
Can the minister tell us whether, among these scenarios, there is one which includes compensation for the costs to the provinces of acting on the Kyoto agreements, since they, unlike Quebec, have not assumed their environmental responsibilities in recent years?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, this Monday and Tuesday's meeting in Victoria is one of a series. Others were held in Manitoba in September and in Ontario in October.
It is not a forum for debate but rather for the parties to exchange views. Everyone shares the same objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Thus, the meeting to be held on Monday and Tuesday is not a matter of provincial-federal negotiations.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he wants to ratify and achieve the objectives of greenhouse gas emission reduction set out in the Kyoto protocol. We trust this is the case and we too wish to see that happen.
Will the minister acknowledge that he is heading for Victoria with a weak position, given the recent statements by his colleague at natural resources to the effect that the Canadian commitment to the Kyoto protocol is wavering?
David Anderson: Not in the least, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that what those of us on this side of the House want to see is assessment of the potential cost and benefits of ratification of the agreement as well as reduction of emissions to 6% below the 1990 level.
Government LoansMr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Technology Partnerships Canada approved an $87 million loan to Cascade Data Service on March 9, 2001. That is all the information we have on this project because TPC has yet to announce it to the Canadian public. Industry Canada's online corporation database tells us that the company was incorporated a mere three months before its TPC grant was approved.
If the minister is so proud of TPC, why is one of its largest projects shrouded in secrecy?
Mr. Serge Marcil (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am taking note of the hon. member's question and I will give him an answer next week.
Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, since they will be answering it next week, perhaps they could consider the following. This is the more systemic problem.
TPC has been criticized nationally and internationally for being secretive and has promised to be more transparent. Just look at TPC for a moment. It is three years behind in its annual reports. It has never been subject to an internal audit. The required program evaluation on the first four years of operation is two years late. They had better review that while they are at it.
What kind of transparency is this? Is it the kind of transparency we have on the GST style promise that we have come to expect from the Liberal government?
Serge Marcil: Mr. Speaker, Technology Partnerships Canada is one of Canada's best programs to promote research and development and to allow Canadian businesses to develop and thrive.
All sorts of allegations are being made, but I want to say that a report is being drafted and it should be tabled soon.
International Co-operationMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given the increasing focus on living in a global economy, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation tell the House and Canadians what specifically the government is doing to assist Canadian youth so they can gain further knowledge into the challenge that is facing developing countries?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just today the Minister for International Cooperation launched the Butterfly 208 essay and art contest, which is sponsored in part by the Canadian International Development Agency. This contest is aimed at raising awareness among Canadian youth about fighting global poverty and will allow the participants to learn more about CIDA's social development priorities like child protection, basic education, HIV-AIDS and health and nutrition.
What a wonderful way for our Canadian youth to learn more about what we share in common with--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Dartmouth.
Canada Customs and Revenue AgencyWendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, between 1986 and 1995 Revenue Canada was lax in documenting people claiming the disability tax credit. Because of its screw-ups, 106,000 vulnerable Canadians received a form letter telling them to reapply for their credit or be cut off, and 65,000 more letters still have to go out.
Why is the government picking on the most vulnerable? Will the government now tell these people the review is on hold and compensate them for costs accrued to reapply for the DTC? Will it commit to real consultations with disability groups before conducting a new review of the DTC?
Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, the agency has a regulation to have periodical reassessments of the different departments. This has occurred for the disability group. The government has special consideration and compassion for people with disabilities.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with all the greatest respect, I have never heard such nonsense in the House of Commons in my entire life. The fact is 106,000 insults went to the most vulnerable in our society. What is even worse, the environment minister has said we have to consult, yet the CMA, which represents all doctors from coast to coast to coast, was not even advised about this new disability tax credit form that doctors were forced to sign in some cases to help their patients.
My question again is: why did the government not even consult with the CMA and why is it still picking on the most vulnerable in our society?
Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, we hold regular consultations with different organizations.
Peter Stoffer: No you don't. You did not. The CMA did not--
Sophia Leung: You do not have to shout. That is very rude.
The Deputy Speaker: Order please, does the hon. parliamentary secretary have anything to add? If not I am ready to proceed. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that we do have consultation with different groups regularly. In the meantime, it is our regulation to have periodical assessments with different groups. There is no exception with the disability group. It is our regulations. We are doing our best job for this country.
Fisheries and OceansPeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is looking for solutions for the town of Canso, and we thank him for that. However he is aware of another proposal and another problem at ACS Trading which is a fish processing plant in Mulgrave, Nova Scotia. In full operation, this plant employs over 100 people, but it has been forced to close its doors recently. The plant has been successful without any government money or subsidies. What it needs and deserves is equal access to a resource to enable it to compete in the fisheries industry.
Will the minister please give his assurances that he will sincerely consider the proposal he has received from ACS and help save an important industry in Mulgrave, Nova Scotia?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for informing me of the proposal and ensuring that I understood it well. He brings to light a very important problem, a fundamental problem. We have limited resources and a lot of capacity and a desire for that resource, to produce it, process it and maintain those communities.
I can assure the member that I will give full consideration to the proposal that he has brought forward as well as the proposals brought forward by the people of Canso.
Airline IndustryMr. Jay Hill (Prince George--Peace River, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, during last week's break I consulted with the communities of Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Chetwynd and Hudson's Hope in my riding. They all expressed concern over how the new Liberal airport security tax discriminates against small, northern communities with low passenger volumes.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Why is the tax a flat fee regardless of ticket cost, distance travelled or level of security screening provided and why was the recommendation of the standing committee for transportation that any increased cost be shared between the industry, the taxpayers and the travelling public ignored by this government?
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the hon. member that anything having to do with the security tax is part of the comprehensive measures in which the government has invested billions of dollars. The imposition of this very marginal tax is, of course, part of the government project for the Department of Finance.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in less than six weeks the federal government is supposed to assume responsibility for airline security, but the government is not going to make the deadline.
Yesterday, outside of the House, the transport minister said that it was going to take a number of months, either November or December, until the new regime was put in place. He said “No one is going to click their fingers on April and see everybody in new uniforms with new standards and new procedures”.
Why should Canadians pay the airline tax when they will not get new airline security for another eight months?
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the new agency will be operational in April. The transition period will begin in April and all the measures will be implemented gradually.
Therefore, it is totally wrong to say that measures will be taken without providing services.
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions said that this tax was revenue neutral. I want to draw his attention to table 5.1 where it says that the government will bring in $430 million in tax revenue from this tax. Section 37 of the Budget Implementation Act says that the amount of $340 million will go to the authority in the fiscal year 2002-03. In year one there is a $90 million surplus.
With the service not provided for eight months and a $90 million surplus, will the government reconsider the tax? What will the government do with that extra $90 million?
Hon. John McCallum (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have explained several times to the hon. member, over the five year period this is revenue neutral according to the law. We will review it and in the event that it appears the revenue will exceed expenses there is a provision to lower it.
Contrary to what the hon. member says, in the first year, because of the equipment purchases, expenditures will in fact exceed revenue.
Highway InfrastructureMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the federal Minister of Transport recognized only one priority, highway 30, whereas Quebec is confirming that the money is already on the table to complete all of the projects.
During the last election campaign, however, other promises were made, including the one in connection with highway 75, made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
What does the parliamentary secretary have to say to the people of Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean who are listening today and who are waiting to hear that he will deliver on his election promises?
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I will say what the Government of Canada is now saying here in the House: there will be a $2 billion infrastructure program, which is an initial payment. This fund will provide a steady stream of revenue in the years to come.
In addition, there is no interprovincial cost-sharing. Each project will be judged on its merits.
The member for Jonquière is free to keep sending us postcards, but she might perhaps warn her PQ friends in Quebec City that they should start getting their environmental studies ready.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was in quite a hurry to make announcements during the last election campaign. Now he is unable to deliver the goods.
The public has only one question for the parliamentary secretary: when will they see the money for highway 175, and for all the other Liberal promises?
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the public has been waiting 25 years for the PQ and the BQ to get their act together. Before I was elected on November 27, not one member of the PQ or the BQ was talking about this issue. It took our victory in Chicoutimi--Le Fjord and the defeat of the PQ in Jonquière to get things moving.
The EnvironmentGurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, 8,600 tonnes of dioxin laced toxic waste from the U.S. is moving into Richmond, British Columbia. Dioxins are known to cause cancer. British Columbians are outraged.
The Minister of Natural Resources, who happens to be the political minister for British Columbia, is supposed to guard the interests of British Columbians. Could he tell us why waste that is considered too toxic for the state of Oregon is considered safe for British Columbians?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is aware that the regulation of this particular landfill site is under the responsibility of the province of British Columbia. The province of British Columbia has indicated that the waste in question meets all British Columbia requirements for safety in terms of toxicity.
Health CareMr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in November the former health minister promised that 1,500 trainers would be instructing personnel at a local level to respond to bioterrorist attacks. At the beginning of this week, I asked the current minister how many are being trained. It is now the end of the week and I still do not have an answer.
Our sources tell us that the promise of a network of 1,500 trainees is not achievable and it has not even started. How many doctors are being trained?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, there are many programs for training doctors in many universities and facilities across Canada. I will provide the hon. member with a list just as soon as we can assemble it. We will have the details for him in writing, province by province, as best as we can make it available.
JusticeMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Despite recent declines in the crime rate, Canadians remain concerned about the issues of crime and victimization, but Canadians also are aware that we cannot simply react to crimes after they occur. We need to stop crimes before they ever happen. What is the government doing in the area of crime prevention?
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for this very important question, for crime prevention is of great concern to all Canadians. The Government of Canada is addressing this with our national strategy on community safety and crime prevention.
Since the launch of this program, we have supported over 2,000 crime prevention projects throughout Canada. We have added just recently, $145 million over four years to the program. By investing in crime prevention, we are ensuring that our homes, streets and communities are better places to live.
ZimbabweMr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe has prevented EU monitors from doing their jobs. They have had to leave the country.
On February 4 the Minister of Foreign Affairs said:

...unless observers are accepted, our group will recommend that action be taken against Zimbabwe at the leaders' meeting in Australia at the beginning of March which would probably be mean removal of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs live up to his word and call for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I responded to the member when he last asked this question, we are working through the Commonwealth to ensure that we have observers present in Zimbabwe. We are interested in the Zimbabwean people and in giving them the best opportunity they have for elections.
We have Commonwealth observers there. I spoke to the foreign minister of Botswana the other day. I spoke to the secretary general at the Commonwealth. We continue to urge our observers to be there to guarantee free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. When the process is over we will examine what actions we should take against Mugabe and his regime, but let us give the--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Québec.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to a study done by the Communications Union, the CBC distributes more than $8 million annually to its employees on a completely discretionary basis. This fund, outside of the collective agreement, puts women at a particular disadvantage. The most shocking example is probably that of female announcers, who, even with more seniority, earn $16,000 less than their male counterparts.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us if she would go along with being paid a lot less than her male colleagues and what she intends to do rectify this unfortunate situation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the decision of the CBC's union to put this issue on the table, the matter should be settled. This is the first time it has been raised. I agree completely that it must be solved. I hope that through negotiations it will be settled.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Grant McNally (Dewdney--Alouette, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, the district of Kent, Seabird Island and all the communities along the Fraser River are threatened by potential flooding every year, yet the minister of fisheries refuses to allow enough gravel to be removed from the Fraser to lessen the chance of potential flooding.
We all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Will the minister commit today to allow for immediate gravel removal from the Fraser River, or will he allow his inaction to threaten thousands of people in my riding and surrounding communities?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member and his colleagues for bringing this matter to my attention. They brought it to my attention as early as this morning for the first time. I can assure them that I will take immediate action to make sure this is resolved as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately, before seeing my responsibilities in the act and the details of this matter, I cannot prejudge which way I will decide, but I can assure them that I will be expeditious.
Veterans AffairsMr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the government's ongoing recognition of the invaluable role made by Canada's armed forces personnel, will the Minister of Veterans Affairs tell the House what Veterans Affairs Canada has done to address the needs of its Canadian forces' clients and their families, particularly those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as outlined in the military ombudsman's report on PTSD?
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Niagara Centre for his question reflecting his interest for the well-being of the members of our Canadian forces.
Acknowledging the magnitude of the problem, Veterans Affairs Canada has dedicated a team of staff to process claims for disability pensions resulting in over 80% approval. Acknowledging the effect of this disorder on the members and their families, Veterans Affairs Canada has instituted an approach that will provide not only for the veterans but also for their families. Acknowledging the real intensity of this issue we--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast.
The EnvironmentJohn Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has had questions today and over the past few weeks from all parties in the House about Kyoto but we do not get any answers. Let us try to make it a very simple question to see if we can get an answer of yes or no.
Will the government table in the House the full cost of Kyoto, a detailed implementation plan and have a vote in the House before the deal is ratified, yes or no?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to explain to the hon. member that we are at the present time working with the provinces and some private sector firms on the scenarios for cost. The cost of implementing Kyoto depends very much on where we choose to place the burden of reducing emissions. For some industries the burden will be high for very small decreases in emissions. In other industries we could have fairly large increases in emissions at a very low cost.
In addition, there is the opportunity of using overseas joint implementation or clean development mechanisms as negotiated at Marrakesh. It is a complex issue--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans.
Softwood LumberMichel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber dispute has now reached an impasse. The Americans have not come up with any counter-proposal and are offering no guarantees regarding the return to free trade. In the meantime, it is companies in Quebec and Canada, and their workers, who are paying the price for this government's inability to settle the matter. Yesterday, the parliamentary secretary referred to assistance that some companies might receive from Export Development Canada.
Will the parliamentary secretary assure us that in addition to large companies, small and medium sized businesses will also be able to rely on such assistance?
Pat O'Brien: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this Export Development Canada program has been in existence for some time. It is available to all Canadian companies that export. It is reviewing a number of applications right now.
Yes, all size companies that export can avail themselves of this opportunity. Some applications are under review now. We are very hopeful that there will be approvals shortly.
Canadian HeritageWendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and it concerns the ownership of media in Canada.
Canadians are increasingly alarmed about the silencing of diverse viewpoints in the media. Of particular concern are the actions of CanWest Global which has reduced local expressions in its editorials at Southam and is using its TV news to advertise its newspaper holdings.
The Canadian Association of Journalists has asked the government for journalistic safeguards and for a fully inquiry into the matter.
What is the government doing to protect Canadians' access to diverse viewpoints in the Canadian print and Internet media?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, the first thing we have to do is analyze whether in fact there is diversity of voices. If we look at the number of different perspectives that are available in print, in television, on radio, we are probably at a time in history when we have more diversity in points of view than at any other time in our country.
Perhaps that is because of the great opposition that we have, but I do not think there is a threat to diversity. I think we have a multiplicity of voices. That is what the Standing Committee on Broadcasting will be looking to ensure will continue.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The wild Atlantic salmon runs of 14 of Nova Scotia's southern upland rivers have been killed by acid rain and another 50 have been seriously impacted.
Over 8,000 letters sponsored by the Atlantic Salmon Federation have been written to the Prime Minister on this issue alone. He has not even given these people the courtesy of a single response. The Prime Minister has ignored 8,000 Canadians and the Atlantic salmon still need saving.
What commitment will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans give to save Atlantic salmon from extinction?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member, just as I did in my previous portfolio, I will continue to work with the Atlantic Salmon Federation. In my current portfolio I will work with the ministers of fisheries and the premiers of all the Atlantic provinces to try to find solutions that include both the federal government and the provincial governments, as well as local governments, community organizations and the private sector to come out with a long term sustainable solution.
The EnvironmentBrian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment continues to speak about consulting with the provinces and Canadians on the Kyoto accord. When will the minister start consulting with the House of Commons?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering all these weeks when the members of the official opposition would get off their other issues and on to the issue of Kyoto and the environment.
This week they have suddenly come to life with a series of generally inappropriate questions but at least I congratulate them for the first time paying some attention to the issue.
Presence in GalleryThe Deputy Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dr. Jorge G. Castaneda, Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the United Mexican States.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsGeoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.
Committees of the HouseGeoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 46th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of some standing committees.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in the 46th report later this day.
Immigration and Refugee Protection ActMr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-431, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (refugee claimants or immigration applicants convicted of an offence on indictment).

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal government had been smart enough to pass this bill when I introduced it in the previous parliament, we would not be facing some of the criminal refugee problems that we are facing today.
What the bill will do when it gets passed this time, hopefully, is it will give the crown the ability to deport in lieu of sentence for indictable crimes where they are committed by refugee claimants and the refugee claimant then has no claim to bail or to parole and can be deported from the country immediately. It is a good measure.
I know the government argues, although I do not know where it gets this from, that Canadians want people to serve their time in Canada, that is not true. The polls show people want these criminals out of the country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees of the HouseGeoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 46th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsBill Casey: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by almost 300 residents of a community called Valley, Nova Scotia. This is a growing area which has been denied proper postal service. They call on the government to provide the appropriate postal service for their community. It is an area of high traffic and high growth and they require a much better service than they have now.
It is my pleasure to present this petition on their behalf.
Judi Longfield: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure, on behalf of the member for Waterloo--Wellington, to present a petition signed by members of the Anglican Church of Canada resident in the Anglican Diocese of Huron who call upon the government to immediately act to resolve the issue of the residential school litigation, and I have signed it.
Questions on the Order PaperGeoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 63 will be answered today.
Question No. 63—Mr. John Cummins: With regard to the Treaties of Peace and Friendship of 1760-61 entered into between the Crown and aboriginal groups in the Maritimes, can the government: ( a ) name each of the agreements; ( b ) indicate what is the specific geographic area and aboriginal community covered by each of these agreements; and ( c ) what is the amount of expenditure under each of the agreements for 1999-2000, 2000-01 and planned expenditure in 2001-02?
Geoff Regan: I am informed as follows:
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: (a) In the 1999 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Marshall, the court cited the provisions of the March 10, 1760 treaty with the Laheve Mi'kmaq. However, there are a number of other historical documents that have been identified from various archival sources and that are commonly referred to as Peace and Friendship Treaties. All of these documents are virtually identical to the Laheve Treaty of 1760 with the exception of the February 23, 1760 agreement with the Saint John, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy Indians, which contained similar promises but also renewed previous Peace end Friendship Treaties with the crown.
The then minister of fisheries and oceans, the hon. Herb Dhaliwal, provided copies of these documents to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, SCOFO, of which the hon. member is a member. The following is a list of these 1760-61 documents: renewal of 1725 articles and 1749 articles, with the delegates of the Saint John and Passamaquoddy, at Chebucto, Halifax, Harbour, 23 February 1760; treaty dated 10 March 1760 with Chief Michael Augustine of the Richebuctou Tribe; treaty with Chief Paul of LaHeve Tribe at Halifax, 10 March 1760; treaty with Chief Claude René, chief of Chibennacadie and Muscadoboit, concluded at Halifax, 10 March 1760; treaty with the Merimichi Tribe, concluded 25 June 1761; treaty with Chief Claude Atouash of the Jedaick Tribe, concluded at Halifax, 25 June 1761; treaty with Etiene Apshobon of the Pogmouch Tribe, Halifax, 25 June 1761; treaty with Joseph Argimaut, chief of Mesiguash Indians, Halifax, 8 July 1761; treaty with Chief Jeannot Picklougawash on behalf of the Pictouk and Malegomich Tribes, 12 October 1761; treaty with Chief Francis Mius of the LaHeve Tribe, concluded at Halifax, 9 November 1761.
Geographic Area: (b) Each of the documents listed above relates to a specific, named aboriginal community. As these documents were not land cession treaty, the geographic area occupied by each of these groups, including their traditional hunting and fishing territory, is not specified.
However, contemporary records indicate that the 1760-61 treaties represented a successful effort by the British to conclude agreements with all of the Indian groups in the Maritimes. The British intended to consolidate these agreements into one common treaty, although this plan was never carried through.
Through the common language of the 1760-61 treaties, the terms of the LaHeve Treaty considered by the SCC in the Marshall decision potentially apply to the territory of colonial Nova Scotia, i.e. modern-day Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Aboriginal Community: There is considerable difficulty in connecting the original signatories of the treaty to specific, contemporary first nation communities. This is the result of the passage of time, the effects of migration and of intermarriage between communities, and the voluntary or forced movement at various times of Indian communities.
In general, the federal government is of the view that the beneficiaries of the 1760-61 treaties are communities that are the "modern manifestations" of the collectivities that signed the original Peace and Friendship Treaties. The core "modern manifestations" of the historic communities are likely represented today by the Indian Act bands.
Currently, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, provides programs and services to first nations in the maritimes and Quebec on a policy basis.
In February 2001, the Minister of INAC and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, F&amp;O, announced a two part process to address the implications and pressures arising out of the Marshall decision in the Maritimes and the Gaspé region of Quebec.
Under this process, the Minister of INAC appointed Mr. Tom W. Molloy as chief federal negotiator to enter into long term processes to consider issues of aboriginal and treaty rights. In parallel, the Minister of F&amp;O re-appointed Mr. James MacKenzie as federal fisheries negotiator to continue negotiating short term practical fisheries agreements with the 34 bands affected by the Marshall decision.
Long term processes led by INAC are currently in the preliminary stages and therefore no funds have been spent on any agreements yet. It is not expected that final agreements on issues of aboriginal and treaty rights will be reached by the end of 2002. It is also premature to predict future expenditures related to final settlements of these issues due to the early stage in the discussions and the number of parties with varying interests.
It is also important to note that the proposed long term processes to consider issues of aboriginal and treaty rights may not specifically address the individual treaties or historic documents listed in part (a) of this response. As indicated in response (b), there are many difficulties associated with connecting signatories of historic treaties to contemporary first nation communities. Canada is, therefore, engaging the Indian Act bands as the “modern manifestations/ of the original collectives which signed the 1760-61 treaties.
Fisheries and Oceans (c) Funding for the responses to the Marshall decision: 1999-2000 expenditures were $15,533,005; 2000-01 expenditures were $144,466.995.
For the reasons identified in part (b), funding cannot be linked back to specific agreements.
The main estimates for 2001-02 list $14,000,000 for contributions under the fisheries access program.
In the supplementary estimates (A) for 2001-02, Fisheries and Oceans Canada received $85,500,082 for the fisheries access program, vote 10, and $29,296,000 for its operations, vote 1.
At this time, disclosure of specific expenditures for 2001-02 would prejudice future negotiations and could be materially injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Canada.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsGeoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 64 and 99 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 64—John M. Cummins: On the Skeena River system in in-river fisheries, excluding the recreational and lower river public commercial fishery, for each calendar year from 1990 to 2000 inclusive: ( a ) how many fish of what species were caught under the authority of Excess to Salmon Spawning Requirement licences; ( b ) how many fish of what species were caught under the authority of other licences on a per licence basis; ( c ) what groups or organizations harvested the fish caught under each licence; ( d ) how much of any catch was sold; ( e ) what was the value of the sales; ( f ) who purchased any fish caught; ( g ) who processed any fish sold; ( h ) what quantity was sold in fresh, canned, fresh frozen, pouch and other packaging; ( i ) what quantity of the fish was eventually sold in domestic retail Canadian markets; ( j ) what quantity of the fish was exported from Canada and into what markets; and ( k ) with respect to the funds generated from the sale of the fish, for what purposes were the funds used on a project-by-project basis?
Question No. 99—Mrs. Carol Skelton: How many persons are working on a contract basis rather than a term or indeterminate basis for each department, agency, and government business enterprise (including crown corporations, the RCMP, and the Armed Forces)?
(Returns tabled)
Questions on the Order PaperGeoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from December 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclear fuel waste, be read the third time and passed; and of the motion that the question be now put.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, before question period in my debate on Bill C-27, I mentioned a local experience in the constituency of Surrey Central where radioactive material had been stored in the heart of the city of Surrey for 25 years. The government called it temporary storage. That was one local example. Another example in British Columbia is the 8,600 tonnes of dioxin laced hazardous toxic material which is moving into British Columbia from Oregon in the United States.
Those examples show that the government does not care how radioactive hazardous material is stored or that it is moving into Canada.
I asked a question about this situation of the Minister of Natural Resources during question period. He is the political minister responsible for British Columbia and even the environment minister was the former political minister for British Columbia. I asked the minister why hazardous material which is too toxic for the people of Oregon would be safe for British Columbia. I could not understand the answer.
It is important that nuclear waste, which has a lot of radioactive material, or hazardous waste is taken care of properly and stored in a way which is efficient, cost effective and safe.
In conclusion, Canadians are very sensitive when it comes to the nuclear industry. The safety, health and welfare of Canadians are of utmost importance. I stress that the Minister of Natural Resources must take every possible measure to ensure that the waste management organizations focus on results, not just on the process, the bureaucracy part of it or patronage when committees are set up. Focus on the results.
While I register my support for the trust funds created under the bill, I do so with some warnings to the government. Waste management organizations are long overdue. We must ensure that the waste management organizations act responsibly in the disposal of nuclear waste as it could be a potential threat to our security and could lead to terrorism in the future. To do this, they need to keep in mind the security lessons afforded by Russia's experience.
While I support the bill, I give fair warning to the government to act efficiently and effectively.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill before us today.
This is my last opportunity to deal with this very serious bill in the House. Obviously, the Bloc Quebecois cannot object to the management of nuclear waste that is stored on the site of nuclear plants in Ontario. It would be foolish. My colleague from Sherbrooke and I have asked for an appointment with the new natural resources minister to explain to him our party's objections to this bill.
The bill does no go far enough in setting guidelines to deal with the immediate problem and make further progress later on. The bill is lacking in that respect. Originally, it was based on the Seaborn report, which recommended extensive public consultations. I do not think the government travelled throughout Canada to ask Canadians for their input on this bill dealing with nuclear waste management.
It is in no way consistent with the priorities highlighted by the Seaborn report. We can say and do all we want, we cannot haul nuclear waste all over Canada while saying we are going to do this or that.
In 1991, the cost of such a facility was estimated at roughly between $9 and $13 billion for the permanent storage of nuclear waste. This was in 1991. Today, it would probably cost $20 billion to bury this kind of waste. Let us not forget that nuclear fuel waste has a half-life after being buried. Hundreds of millions of years of half-life will follow.
Nuclear fuel waste is highly radioactive and 90% of it is located in Ontario. The province opted for nuclear energy and is currently stockpiling waste on its nuclear plant sites. It is looking at burying it deep in the Canadian Shield. Let us not forget that the Canadian Shield covers 90% of Quebec.
All week long, we have been asking the Minister of the Environment to live up to his commitments under the Kyoto protocol. Does this mean he no longer wants to abide by the polluters pay principle? Should we Quebecers, who opted for hydro power, take in waste from Ontario and bury it in our province?
We account for one-quarter of the Canadian population. I am willing to manage one-quarter of Canada's waste on our territory, but not all of it. I would have liked to hear from the new Minister of Natural Resources what his stand is on this bill. Unfortunately, he has not answered my request to meet him.
This is very important. I took part in the committee work, together with my colleague the member for Sherbrooke. I want to take this opportunity to recognize him and congratulate him on his hard work and the amendments he put forward. Liberal members always attend committee in numbers for the clause-by-clause review of bills and, when we put forward amendments, all they say is no, no, no.
They do not even listen, but they say “no, no”, because that is what the parliamentary secretary, who is the spokesperson for the minister, has told them to say. We are willing to rise above political considerations on this issue, but not under just any conditions.
We asked for a real board of directors to be set up and to submit an action plan to the government, who would then consult parliamentarians, so that the governor in council would not be the only deciding authority. We asked for parliamentarians to be consulted, because we wanted a real board of directors with real responsibilities. We wanted some of the powers to be taken away from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, because that agency is overseen by the Minister of Natural Resources. We believe there is a conflict of interest, because the minister is caught on both sides of the issue.
We also agree that we have to manage our own waste in our province, but we wanted an amendment to ensure that we would stop bringing in waste from other countries. The House remembers the uproar in my area surrounding the movement of MOX from Russia and the United States. This highly radioactive waste was supposed to be burned in our area. We said, “Why should we become the dump site of the whole world?” Let us manage our own waste and then, if we develop a new waste management technique, we will be more than glad to share it with other countries.
However, the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources said no, once again. It had strict orders to follow. Let us not forget that, in 1998, the Prime Minister of Canada had agreed to help Russia get rid of its nuclear waste. He had made an offer, but I do not think he had consulted with Canadians beforehand.
I think of our children and grandchildren. I do not wish to see Canada, let alone Quebec—one has to be a bit chauvinistic in life; after all, I am defending the interests of Quebec in this House—become the dump of the world. Yet, the Liberals would not listen to people with common sense who said they wanted to deal with their own waste and find a solution together. This is not, however, the way Liberals intend to go. They prefer to use the back door approach.
I am fed up with this government, which always slips major issues in through the back door instead of dealing with them in the open, in particular in the case of environment and our future. The actions we take today will have repercussions on our future. In 10 or 15 years from now, our children and grandchildren will say to us “You could have raised the issue, you could have done something then, but you only went half-way”.
We had a great opportunity to do so, to go the whole nine yards and to say that Canada as a country assumes its responsibilities but does not have to assume other countries' responsibilities. But they chose to ignore the good arguments of the opposition, those from the Alliance, the NDP as well as the Coalition. We were all gagged, which is unfortunate. The Bloc Quebecois will never support such a bill.
I do not like half-measures, half- bills, half-consequences or half-alternatives. We must take clear means, choose a clear way and drastic solutions to eliminate waste, though we should avoid doing so at the expense of future generations. This is the last opportunity I have to call upon the Minister of Natural Resources. It is still time to stop and say, “We will once more look at the bill and listen to the opposition”.
I wish to thank the people from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean who listened when I appealed to them about MOX. They all got involved with me. They stood behind their member of parliament and said, “We refuse to have that in our area.” And we did not.
He would have had the support of people, had he asked them what they wanted. Unfortunately, he continues to do what this government does, that is act as if he is the only one to know the truth. I do not believe we can expect anything from them, but we will watch them and follow closely what they are doing.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, today, we have come to the end of the third reading debate on Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.
We cannot address this topic without being concerned, since this reality bluntly raises the issue of our collective responsibility toward the safety of our environment and our planet. Indeed, we are talking about our planet, about the future of life on this planet, and about the health of generations to come.
If, for a while, nuclear research held out the hope of a wonderful source of energy for humanity, this false hope has faded since, and the problem of waste management that it has created illustrates in a concrete way the difficulty of maintaining security and development and of respecting and protecting the environment. Developed countries are among those largely responsible for political decisions in connection with the proliferation of this waste. People who are listening to us will agree with me when I say that Canada cannot evade its responsibilities or underestimate the consequences of its decisions. Yet, the very essence of Bill C-27 suggests that this government is ignoring willingly this worldwide problem.
In good faith and no doubt very naively, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-27 at second reading. At that time, we were hopeful that it could be improved at committee stage, ensuring some damage control. But the Liberals rejected all our amendments. Therefore, we will vote against Bill C-27 and we are not reluctant in describing the government's attitude as anti-environment.
I will not be able to list all the objections we raised, to which the government did not listen. But the House will no doubt allow me to outline important amendments that were rejected indifferently.
Everyone recognizes that Bill C-27 is far from responding to the recommendations of the Seaborn panel. For nine years, this independent panel held consultations, carried out environmental impact studies and asked the public for input. The report findings particularly emphasized the fact that Canadians and Quebecers' support is essential for accepting the principle of nuclear fuel waste management, and that the safety of the management system is only one of the essential criteria for acceptability.
One of the suggestions made in the Seaborn report was to develop a comprehensive public consultation plan and to establish a reliable nuclear waste management agency. Another one was that the federal regulatory control with respect to the scientific-technical work and the adequacy of the financial guarantees be subject to regular public review.
Pursuant to clause 6(1), the Minister of Natural Resources will be solely responsible for establishing the waste management organization that will be asked to propose to the Government of Canada approaches for the management of nuclear fuel waste. The problem is that the energy corporations who produce the waste, like Atomic Energy Canada, will be part of the waste management organization.
Everyone knows that Atomic Energy Canada is a crown corporation reporting to the natural resources minister. So, obviously, the minister and the waste management organization will not be having an arms' length relationship. The Minister of Natural Resources will be judge and jury in the decision making process. If that is not a conflict of interest, what is?
To make the decision process more transparent and independent, the Bloc Québécois suggested that clause 2 be amended so that the environment minister be responsible for the act, instead of the natural resources minister. We do not accept the lack of transparency in this bill nor the chummy relationship between the minister and the energy corporations.
The Bloc Québécois believes that the members of the waste management organization should be designated by the governor in council on the recommendation of the House of Commons standing committee. Under Bill C-27, it would be up to the energy corporations to establish the waste management organization that will have to propose to the minister a long term management approach.
We condemn this decision and the Bloc Québécois supports the recommendations of the Seaborn panel that energy companies be excluded from the management organization.
How can we have any confidence in a management system with no new body independent from current producers and owners of waste, and one whose overall mandate is geared toward safety?
By refusing to amend clause 6(2) to ensure that no nuclear energy corporation can be part of the waste management organization, the government is clearly saying that public safety is not its primary concern.
Real public consultations are needed; in fact, they are essential. We deeply deplore the fact that the decision to use the Canadian Shield as a long term burial site for waste was not the discussed through any public consultation, and that the federal government decided to bulldoze any public consultation by limiting impact studies to three years for the future management organization.
We think that our amendment, to the effect that this organization should have ten years instead of just three, would indeed have allowed for an intelligent and thorough consultation. As members surely know, our proposal was ignored. The government is not only acting irresponsibly, it is also showing contempt for the public.
Moreover, Bill C-27 does not guarantee that the public will be consulted. Indeed, the bill provides that the minister may consult the public, the provinces and the aboriginals. The minister has the right, but not the obligation, to do so. Again, this contradicts the Seaborn report. The Bloc Quebecois, and the public, will not settle for bogus consultations like those that lasted 28 days on MOX.
In fact, the Bloc Québécois vainly tried to have Bill C-27 amended to ban imports of nuclear waste or MOX in Canada. Our amendment was defeated. The Liberals rejected our proposal. Bill C-27 ignores the indispensable support of Canadians and Quebecers in the whole issue of nuclear fuel waste management.
The amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois regarding clause 15 was also ignored. We firmly believe that the House of Commons should imperatively be consulted on the management method chosen.
To whom does clause 15 give the final say in the selection of the nuclear waste management approach? How surprising: the winner is the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Natural Resources. Clause 15 of the bill should have been amended, so that the management approach would be chosen on the recommendation of the standing committee of the House of Commons.
The impact of Bill C-27 is all the more a cause for concern, since the management organization provided for in the bill will not come under the Access to Information Act. Openness was an essential condition clearly recommended in the Seaborn report. The Bloc Quebecois thinks all the documents created by the management organization, including environmental impact assessments, should be made publicly available if need be.
This is the reason why we have asked that the Access to Information Act apply to the management organization. But the Liberals rejected our amendment. Do they have something else to hide, besides their Canada Deuterium Uranium containers, also called CANDUs?
Quebec could very well be the first victim here. The geological formation chosen for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is the Canadian Shield. As my colleague from Jonquière indicated, the Canadian Shield includes 90% of the Quebec territory.
I would like to conclude by saying that Bill C-27 is proof that for the federal government, a Liberal government to boot, the environment is a very low priority.
The Bloc Québécois thinks that the environmental challenge concerns all mankind. We will vote against Bill C-27 because of our concern for quality of life. We will continue to fight for and on behalf of future generations.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the division stands deferred until Monday, February 25 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties. There is agreement pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) to further defer the recorded division requested on the motion proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning third reading of Bill C-27 until the end of government orders on Tuesday, February 26.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Copyright ActSheila Copps: 
moved that Bill C-48, an act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, in technical terms Bill C-48 is about setting modern rules for the retransmission of broadcast signals. In real terms however, the bill is much more than that.
It is about empowering our Canadian artists and children, and telling Canadian stories. It is about keeping Canada on the cutting edge of communications technology. It is about a strong Canadian economy and good Canadian jobs. The bill would strengthen our already vibrant broadcast system and protect the rights of Canadian content creators.
More than 640,000 Canadians make their living from culture. That sector contributes $22 billion to Canada's gross domestic product. We are very proud of 26,000 actors, 3,600 directors, and 2,000 screenwriters. There are more than 14,000 films and videos made in Canada each year. The film and television industry alone generates 134,000 jobs for Canadians: knowledge based jobs, high paying jobs, creative jobs, fun jobs, union jobs, and people jobs.
Canadian film and television production has grown at a staggering rate of 12% per year and represents $4.4 billion annually. The legislation is about ensuring that those jobs and production numbers keep growing. It is about ensuring that royalties are paid to creators whenever their films or song videos are broadcast, no matter what the medium.
For the most part Canadians rely upon television and radio for access to culture, information and entertainment. Thanks to recent developments Canadians are now able to communicate more easily with each other and with the world. We have high speed cable, direct to home satellite television, digital radio and multi-point wireless. Every year new communications technologies are breaking through the world, including my BlackBerry. That is Canadian technology at its finest of which we are very proud.
Of course there is the Internet. The Internet provides an ideal place to tell the world about our country, people and cultures. The Internet allows our children new opportunities to gain access to Canadian stories and voices. It opens up new worlds for Canadian talent and culture.
I am proud that Canada is the first country to have a virtual museums link that will include all of Canada's museums by 2005. During the virtual museum's first eight months, it had 20 million hits from visitors in more than 100 different countries. Thus, it is not only connecting Canadians; it is also our voice to the world.
We should relish those new technologies because they can help us to share our stories. They provide for the kind of cultural diversity and access to Canadian culture that has alluded too many minorities in the country for too long. They help connect Canadians to their heritage and their future.
What is important in this new environment is that we have rules to ensure our artists, singers, filmmakers, creators, playwrights and young video geniuses receive fair payment when their work is used. It is only fair that an Internet service that retransmits broadcast signals should be required to operate on the same basis as the cable provider.
This is an important public policy issue. If our filmmakers do not get paid for their work it is very hard for them to keep telling their stories. If our musicians are not paid for their creations, in the short term we would have cheap music and in the long term we would have few artists.
Royalties are exceptionally important in encouraging the creation and marketing of the widest possible range of Canadian voices. We need rules that are fair, clear and transparent. We need rules that encourage the creation of Canadian culture and access to that culture.
I am proud that Canada has always been on the cutting edge of new technologies. We need only think of the first great communicator of the 20th century, Marshall McLuhan, who predicted back in the 1960s that “the medium is the message”. Living as he did in a country spanning six time zones, with two official languages and over 100 languages from every corner of the globe, he understood that the ability to tell stories, to make connections, to truly respect cultural diversity in telling our stories, is what will put individuals and the country on the leading edge in the 21st century.
For generations we have put in place policies that maximize the benefits of technology to tell our stories.
We were one of the first to have a public broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation—Radio Canada, which started with radio some 60 years ago and added television some 50 years ago. Its creation truly filled a void for the telling of our stories.
We broke new ground with the CRTC and Canadian content rules that allowed artists to have a trampoline for the expression of their music.
From the days of Alexander Graham Bell Canadians have always been leaders in finding new ways to help people communicate with one another. In a country that passes six time zones we owe that to our citizens, not only for them to talk, grow and appreciate their own unique regions but that they can also interconnect with each other.
This legislation would be one more step along the path of support for the creation of stories and interconnection of those stories. It would be one more step in putting Canada at the forefront of the knowledge based economy, and would promote the work of our creators, artists, cultural professionals and technicians.
Another step forward has captivated all the human and economic potential of our culture. I would like to mention that the audiovisual field accounts for more than 134,000 direct jobs in Canada. This represents the largest growth in all employment fields over the last five years. These are jobs in Canada that get people to stay in Canada.
When I visited the riding of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, he showed me what impact the movie Black Robe had on the local economy and how the kingdom of Saguenay was the jewel that allowed people in his region to express their culture. But is not only a matter of being able to be heard and to express ourselves, it also has economic benefits.
In the past few years we have doubled the annual number of Canadian television productions thanks to the Canada television fund and a government with a vision that does not create the stories but gives artists the means of expression.
We have undertaken the most important revision in copyright law of the last seven decades. I have to say to those members who will be joining us in Newfoundland for the Junos next April that there are hundreds of musicians across the country who are now receiving direct royalties because of a vision of a revised copyright law.
We have introduced new initiatives in support of book publishing, sound recording, multimedia, cultural exports, periodicals, cultural tourism, the performing arts and our training programs for young artists. We have just created the new Canada feature film fund which would reward success and encourage the creation of new Canadian films for mass audiences. Bill C-48 is one more piece in that puzzle.
The bill would provide clarity and predictability to the retransmission marketplace. It would remove the uncertainty that plagued rights holders and retransmitters over the last number of years. It would maintain and strengthen the protection afforded rights holders, protections which would be undermined without the legislation.
This forward looking law would modernize Canadian copyright law by ensuring that the licence could be rapidly and flexibly adapted to unforeseeable technological change. It would ensure that never again would a change in the method of transmission put rights holders at risk. That is the key to a sound public policy, not to create the art but to support the stories.
We must celebrate and promote the diversity of our cultures, our opinions and our perspectives, which make Canada a rich country on every front, a great country in which to live.
More than ever, Canadians must have a broadcasting system that is a true reflection of who they are and what they feel.
Now, more than ever, it is important to deepen connections between Canadians and each other, between Canadians and our communities and between Canadians and the world. We do that through our creative people and our culture, telling our stories, preserving our heritage, reminding us of our values and reflecting our hopes and aspirations.
I am very pro-Canadian. I underscore the fact that being pro-Canadian does not make me anti-American. I made a statement earlier this week which was interpreted by certain individuals to assume that I was speaking against our neighbour to the south. I was not speaking against our neighbour to the south. I was speaking in favour of a system where a country reflects its diversity in respect of differences.
We have a constitutional monarchy that is unique and cherished, linked to our past, and it is also a way of connecting with more than 40 countries around the globe.
We are part of the Francophonie. We have a direct connection with over 50 countries. That is what makes Canada's diversity. It is not that we want to be against anyone. We want to be in favour of a country that, right from the start—there were difficult periods and easier ones—was built on a revolutionary principle, the principle that two peoples, two languages and two religions can join together to create a nation.
Canada's strength is that we are not afraid of respecting diversity. We have confidence. We are pro-Canadian and proud of it.
What we are doing today is ensuring that this pride that comes from our history is maintained throughout the 21st century, with the technologies that allow our cultural sector to continue to grow.
Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the opportunity to hear the minister. I wonder if, in the spirit of co-operation, one member of each party could ask a brief question of the minister? We appreciate that she is here today. We would like to follow up on the important issue of support and the arguments which she made. Could we have consent?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The Chair is at the will of the House. Is there unanimous consent to ask questions of the minister?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the Copyright Act, Bill C-48, at second reading. Since we will be supporting the bill at second reading, I will keep my comments brief and to the bill.
First let me say that I do have a bit of personal interest in copyright because, as some may know, in my younger years I wandered around the country with a guitar making my living writing and playing music so it is something that is dear to me.
Before commenting on Bill C-48 I would like to read into the record the summary provided as part of the package announcing the bill, which states:

This enactment amends the Copyright Act to provide that retransmitters who currently benefit from the compulsory licence regime provided for by section 31 (such as cable distribution undertakings and direct-to-home satellite distribution undertakings) will continue to do so, while allowing other retransmitters who meet the conditions prescribed by regulation to also benefit from that regime.

On December 12, 2001, in a Government of Canada news release, the heritage minister is quoted as saying that:

--this bill will strengthen Canada's already vibrant broadcasting system and protect the rights of Canadian content creators. It will provide much needed clarity.

There is an expression, “there is more to this than meets the eye”. Unfortunately in this case there is far less to this than meets the eye.
The purpose of Bill C-48 is to amend the Copyright Act, which was originally amended under Bill C-32 in 1996. At that time, due to pressure exerted on the committee by the current heritage minister, there were at least two significant deficiencies in the resulting legislation. Furthermore, due to interdepartmental rivalry between the two responsible ministries, heritage and industry, and to a certain extent the personal rivalry between the ministers of the day, the revisions to the Copyright Act in 1996 yielded some questionable results. Those rivalries between ministries and ministers continued into December 2001 and the lack of agreement is reflected in the bill.
Canadian content creators and the broadcast industry deserve better. It is their property and their intellectual property that is being stolen by certain distribution systems and cable and satellite providers. Creators should be covered by copyright provisions. In addition, the industry should have the property for which they have paid good money protected.
It is for this reason that the official opposition will be voting in favour of Bill C-48. We believe in the principle of protection of property rights. However, the heritage minister's statement that the bill will provide clarity could most charitably be described as an exaggeration.
Clause 2, or proposed subsection 31(1) of the Copyright Act, defines retransmitter. In this clause it was anticipated that we would have a specific definition of a retransmitter but let us read the clause:
Paragraph 2(1) (b) states that a retransmitter is:

a person who retransmits a signal and meets the qualifying conditions referred in to in paragraph (3)(b)--

Let us look at paragraph (3)(b), which states:

The Governor in Council may make regulations
(b) prescribing qualifying conditions for the purpose of paragraph (b) of the definition “retransmitter” in subsection (1);--

Before everybody's eyes begin to roll, let me describe the net effect of these two clauses. The effect is to set up the governor in council, which is the cabinet working to the recommendations of the heritage and industry departments, to come out with regulations at some time in the future. The problem is that the Liberal government consistently falls back to creating simple enabling legislation in parliament so that the cabinet, armed with recommendations from the bureaucracy, can enact whatever the bureaucracy thinks is best at some future date.
This creates a situation of removing the decision making process from parliament. We are elected as members of parliament to come here to make decisions, not to create enabling legislation so that bureaucrats can do what they want when they want.
It can be argued that creating precise legislation means that as the technology changes the bureaucrats will have to regularly return to parliament. Therefore, with Bill C-48 functioning as enabling legislation rather than precise legislation, the bureaucrats can be flexible.
While this has a certain intellectual appeal, the result is nonetheless the same. The government is dealing duly elected members of parliament out of the process. A classic example of this situation exists in the previous copyright legislation, Bill C-32. A provision was made for a levy on blank tapes. The levy came into effect on blank tapes with the passing of the legislation. However, regulations were then put forward to the copyright review board.
Since the passing of the original legislation, the board has determined that this levy will apply not only to blank tapes but to blank CD recording medium and it likely eventually will apply to blank DVDs. Furthermore, the original levy has increased considerably based on the submissions to the copyright board by the creators, so the effect is that the parliamentary process and the representatives duly elected by the people have been sidelined by the government. Furthermore, the board is at liberty to continue expanding the mediums to which this levy will apply as well as being free to increase the levy itself.
While the creators, using the revenue base collected from these provisions, can prepare representations to the Copyright Board, directly influencing their decisions, the individual consumer who is impacted by these extra charges could not possibly afford either the time or the money required to develop proper presentation.
In order for the official opposition to vote in favour of Bill C-48 when it leaves committee, we will require one of two things: an amendment that adds to the specific definition of retransmitter, one that will act in a way to protect the property and the intellectual property rights of the creators and the broadcast industry, or at a minimum, the tabling of detailed regulatory information by the heritage and industry departments.
We want to support the bill because we believe in property rights protection. We look forward to either of those two avenues being undertaken by either the government or the departments concerned. Parliamentarians must be returned to their rightful place in the legislative process.
Christiane Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this somewhat technical bill. I note that the Minister of Canadian Heritage went a bit beyond merely technical considerations. She gave a lovely speech, which was all about Canadian culture.
At the end of my speech, I hope to have the time to remind her about some of the historic memories of the nations which make up this Canada and this Canadian culture which the government is so interested in supporting, to the detriment of another culture, that of Quebec. I know that the Minister of Canadian Heritage cherishes this notion of Canadian nation building, but it is not for Quebecers. What it means is denying the existence of the other culture. I will come back to this later in my speech. I am going to focus on more technical aspects of the bill.
The purpose of the bill before us today is to create new regulatory powers so that new distribution undertakings, particularly the Internet, can retransmit broadcasts if they respect the terms and conditions of the Copyright Act.
The purpose of the Copyright Act is to provide a legal framework entitling the creators of works and other copyright holders to paternity, control, and remuneration for the use of their works. These works can be films, computer programs, information products, novels or songs. This is what the Copyright Act seeks to preserve.
Copyright therefore establishes an economic and moral right for creators and other copyright holders to control the publication and marketing of their works, to protect the integrity of their undertakings, and to receive adequate remuneration.
The protection of copyright is valid for a limited time, that being the lifetime of the author, plus a period of 50 years after their death. This legislation therefore forms the basis for creative undertakings. There must therefore be a balance between the creation and the distribution of works.
Creation must be protected, but access to works continues to be an equally important challenge in an increasingly connected world. We know that the boundaries between markets are blurring. We must therefore make protected works available, with due regard for their level of protection.
With the amendments to the Copyright Act, Internet based retransmitters will have to prove that they do not broadcast beyond the borders of Canada. The survival of creation in Quebec and Canada is at stake. More on this later.
A second point in the bill is that satellite and cable systems will still be allowed to retransmit radio and television programs if they pay royalties to the Copyright Board and comply with the conditions set out in the Copyright Act. Penalties for offenses are already provided for in the act.
To start with, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois will support the principle of Bill C-48.
For the time being, we cannot give our full and unconditional endorsement to the bill, though we are supportive of the principle of the bill. The Bloc Québécois would first like to see the content of the regulations, which the government will table in committee.
Witnesses who are interested in the issue of copyright protection could certainly give a useful input. They will appear before the committee. This caveat has also been expressed by various stakeholders and witnesses who are involved with the issue of copyright. Witnesses will give us useful information on the type of regulations put forward by the government, which will be examined in the coming weeks.
For this reason, the Bloc Quebecois will be giving its opinion on the bill in general, while we await for the regulations to be clarified in committee.
At first glance, the introduction of this bill is good news, but we will have to wait to see all of the regulations that will be proposed.
Over the months leading up to the introduction of this bill, consultations were held with interested parties, based on a working document on the enforcement of the Copyright Act, with respect to compulsory licensing for Internet rebroadcasting. This public consultation process lasted four months at most. The committee received 40 briefs explaining the issue of rebroadcasting a commercial product in violation of copyright.
This legislation was based on this, as I said, a number of stakeholders pointed out the urgency of this issue.
I would like to briefly highlight about ten of the presentations that were made, in order to shed some light on the issue of why such a bill is studied by the House today.
A number of interest groups came to make clarifications about the problem of rebroadcasting certain programs on the internet, including BCE, CBC, the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec, the Society for Reproduction Rights for Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada, the Canadian Cable Television Association, the Société des auteurs de radio télévision et cinéma (SARTEC), the Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada and the Fédération nationale des communications .
Representatives of the BCE family illustrated the rifts within the industry:

As a broadband Internet provider through Bell, ExpressVu and Bell-Nexxia, BCE is interested in the expansion of television via Internet. However, the increase in demand for broadband services has broadened its market. Furthermore, it is in the interests of BCE that the federal government adopt a technologically-neutral policy, so that its broadcast subsidiaries may distribute television signals over the Internet. Yet, as owner of CTV, it is also in the interests of BCE that the legislation also protect copyright.

The CBC is not opposed to the expansion of the mandatory licensing system set up under section 31, which I will explain later, to cover rebroadcasting over the Internet.
For its part, CBC demands that:

—any Internet-based retransmitter that wishes to benefit from the advantages of the regime should first submit convincing evidence to the effect that it has the technology required to ensure that its retransmission operation do not go beyond the limits of Canadian territory.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation also demands:

—that a monitoring mechanism be instituted with regard to the above requirements.
—that Internet-based retransmitters be subject to the same requirements as any other CRTC licensee.
—that Section 31 be amended so that advertising banners be considered as affecting the integrity of the signal.

The Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec, the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada all agree in favour of compulsory licensing of Internet-based retransmission. Full copyright must be maintained. This is all the more important as the CRTC has not regulated Internet.
For its part the Canadian Cable Television Association believes that Bill C-48 was not necessary. We know that it has a very different impact on its members. They are keeping their options open when they say we do not need Bill C-48.
According to them, the Copyright Act is meant to be technologically neutral and must remain neutral in its implementation. We can see the kind of interest the Association des câblodistributeurs has for this issue. The government must not pass legislation that might limit the opportunities for cable companies to benefit from the many possibilities offered by convergence.
As for the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, SARTEC, it has a different opinion. It is against compulsory licensing of Internet-based retransmission.

Exempting Internet-based retransmitters from compulsory licensing does not amount to rejecting a new technology in favour of older ones. It is taking into account everybody's contribution to our broadcasting system.
Requiring compulsory licensing for Internet-based retransmission would unduly benefit third parties who do not contribute to the broadcasting system, do not fund TV production and are not subject to the CRTC regulatory framework, and therefore have no obligation to retransmit a given signal.

As we can see, there are diverging interests. The Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec is of the opinion that a compulsory copyright licensing regime for the retransmission of works through Internet should not be considered within the current Canadian regulatory framework.
In their view, a review of the current regulations was necessary.
As for the Society of Composers and Authors, several holders of copyrights suggested an amendment which would clearly indicate that local or distant signals may not be legally retransmitted over the Internet according to section 31 of the Copyright Act which deals with retransmission. This again supports the argument that Bill C-48 protects creators.
The Fédération nationale des communications said the following:

Radio and TV stations which have acquired broadcast rights and a broadcast licence must be the only ones able to decide whether their broadcasts are to be retransmitted on the internet or by means other than hertzian waves, cable or satellite.
The recent creation of Jump TV, moreover, raises major concerns in the broadcast industry, and does not allow us to conclude with any certainty that we will, once again, be able to block this retransmission of TV programming on the Internet, particularly because of the provisions of the Copyright Act.

Obviously, there are several interests, perhaps opposing interests, but we can see why the Association des câblodistributeurs has certain reservations concerning application of a regulation concerning retransmission of signals on the internet, and why protecting the rights of artists is more or less their primary objective.
Initially, and this is self-evident, it is important for the new copyright legislation to be adapted to the reality of new technologies. This is justified. For the past ten years there has been total upheaval in the field of communications, with the advent of the internet and digital broadcasting.
Second, I would like to point out how vital it is for us to legislate to protect outside markets. We know what goes on within Canada, but our creators also have to be protected elsewhere.
As hon. members are no doubt aware, the income of program producers is based on the logic of geographical markets. If a program such as La Petite vie could be retransmitted, and redistributed over the net, to anywhere in the world, the people involved with the program would lose significant revenue, without the ability to market their products in other countries.
This is reason enough for us to be concerned about the survival of artistic creation in Quebec and Canada. We know our market is already very limited. Therefore, if Internet broadcasts programs without any royalties being paid to authors or owners of copyrights, the survival of the cultural market will be at risk.
This is an important issue for the industry in Quebec and Canada because that industry relies on foreign markets to recoup the costs of large productions which cannot be profitable with only our limited local market. This is why I say that, in Quebec, protecting creation is synonym of protecting the francophone content.
Most of the artistic creation in Quebec is in French, and it must also be protected. Some markets are looking for French language productions. Our market is even smaller than the English speaking market because of sheer figures. It is all a question of balance and percentages.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: French language productions are not restricted to Quebec.
Christiane Gagnon: No, they are not. There is also a French language market outside Quebec, but it is even more limited; I am speaking about French language productions as compared to all productions globally. If we increase the number of productions, with the related costs, it has an impact when we want to export in order to recoup the costs. We all know how the Americans do it. When they sell a product outside their own market, their costs have already been absorbed because of the size of their market.
Also, we must strike a balance between protecting artistic creations and encouraging the development of a new type of economic activity which is very important, especially since the opening of borders. Therefore, it is important for that type of economic activity to be better supervised so that we can improve profits and recoup the costs of our artistic productions.
The development of broadcasting on Internet hinges on a clarifying legislation. Internet technologies can enhance the efficiency of businesses and make it possible to develop new value-added services for consumers.
The development of such technologies and services should be fostered but also be very strictly supervised. While supporting the principle of this bill, it is very important to stress that Internet rebroadcasters should have the same obligations as traditional ones.
Actually, it would be unfair to create competition for cable operators while freeing them from the duties imposed to traditional rebroadcasters.
However, questions ought to be raised and I think that we will be able to look into this in committee. In the short and medium term, will Internet rebroadcasters be subject to the same obligations as cable operators and satellite broadcasters? We cannot answer this question. Presently, these questions remain unanswered. Will the new Internet rebroadcasters be forced to provide access to a majority of Canadian stations? Will they contribute to Canadian television development funds? Pursuant to the various regulations that will be tabled and examined in committee, we will be able to see what the scope of the overall bill is.
It should also remind hon. members that section 31 of the Copyright Act was a request from the industry. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Canadian Film and Television Production Association as well as the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association have formed the Media Content Coalition to oversee the use of Canadian television industry by Internet broadcasters.
In order to understand what is in section 31, which will be amended to establish the conditions of licences for the retransmission of works protected from television and radio, it must be said that before 1989, cable networks were not subject to copyright for the retransmission of live signals. Consequently, it was legal for cable companies to retransmit television programs without paying royalties. During the following years, many reports and studies argued that the retransmission of such programs should be subject to copyright. Finally, in 1989, a neutral communication right was created; in other words, the copyright rules would apply to cable operators as well as to Hertzian wave broadcasters.
Section 31 of the Copyright Act was included to comply with section 2006 of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Section 31 provides for a mandatory copyright licence, which allows the retransmission of protected television and radio works live without the consent of the holder of the affected rights, as long as the conditions are met, including the payment of all royalties set in accordance with a schedule established by the Copyright Board. In principle, a copyright confers its holder the exclusive right, among other things, concerning the public broadcasting of his work.
A compulsory licensing system deprives the licensee of this right. In other words, it is a system that functions by exception. It is useful, since it ensures equal treatment of program content for licensees, while preventing broadcasters from having to undertake separate negotiations with individual copyright holders.
The change proposed by Bill C-48, under consideration today, would allow cable, satellite and other broadcasters, including Internet broadcasters, without needing to obtain permission from the copyright holders, to retransmit programs that have already been broadcast. However, they would be required to pay the royalties set out by the Copyright Board and respect the other regulatory conditions.
The crux of the matter is that the regulatory provisions will not be known until the parliamentary committee holds its hearings. A number of issues raised by pressure groups will have to be dealt with in the regulations in order to rally the industry. We will outline the challenges during our speeches in the House when the bill is at third reading.
The interest groups that we met with outlined three clear principles that must be kept in mind and with which we agree. First, broadcasting must be limited to within Canada. Second, we must ensure the integrity of the signal by limiting the use of banner advertising, which would be counter-productive in many respects. Finally, measures must be put in place in order to ensure that the technologies being used will allow for the full protection of the integrity of the signal.
However, changes to the Copyright Act will not solve the entire issue. The problem will not be completely settled. Much more will need to be done in the way the Internet deals with copyright.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has told us that this bill is ahead of its time, that it responds to the era of new technologies, that it is a modern bill. We know that Australia and the United States already have regulations in place that govern the retransmission of programs using new technologies. In Canada, the CRTC excluded the Internet highway from its jurisdiction in 1999, so that only the Copyright Board can set royalties.
Internet pirating must not occur at the expense of owners and creators. We know that creators are artists, those who speak of the soul of a people, those who stir us. Artists, singers, movie and video makers and playwrights, those are the ones that we are thinking about when we want to protect copyright. We want to do it so they have more decent salaries and their creations are better protected.
Hopefully the government will act with diligence on such an important issue as the survival and protection of our creations.
I think that we have our work cut out for us. The bill before us does not cast the kind of light that we were expecting to be able to support it. Over the next few weeks, we will be studying the regulations related to this bill.
In Quebec, this takes on a particular meaning. The minister paid tribute to the Canadian nation and the Canadian soul. For creators from Quebec, the Quebec soul is just as important to preserve and broadcast to the world. Our creations must be reproduced and rebroadcast in the spirit of the people of Quebec, a spirit of openness.
It has been said that Canadian society was open to the world and accepted diversity. The same goes for Quebec society. The phrase “a Quebec that is open to the world” was used in various ad campaigns aimed at expressing the soul of Quebec.
There are also many cultural communities. They add to Quebec society, which also needs the diversity of these cultural communities to grow richer. We are not at odds with this openness. I wanted to include this thought about the soul of the Quebec people in my speech today to pay tribute to our creators.
Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-48. I want to make some comments on the notion of copyright and intellectual property in general, and Internet retransmission in particular.
I will start off by admitting that I have a personal bias to this topic because I write plays. I receive copyright royalties for my plays. Do not get me wrong; my royalties do not make me rich or in any way compensate me for the hundreds and thousands of hours that it actually takes to create a play. However I do know something about the reality of a royalty.
Therefore I ask my parliamentary colleagues to always remember who we are really talking about when we talk about copyright. We are talking about creators, the Canadians who write, paint, compose and choreograph and who tend to be quite frankly very poor.
The Canada Council says that most make a lot less than $20,000 a year and this includes royalty payments. I feel it is safe to say that the money given to creators for their work is almost always inadequate, but the point I want to make is that our approach to copyright should not be simply a question of money. It really is about much more than money. It should be about recognizing creation.
I know that some will not see it this way. I know for example that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters believes strongly that we must have strict copyright laws to protect the property of its members because to them the copyright is intellectual property, like an electronic mortgage that they should have a lien on or a televised mineral right that they are waiting to strip mine.
I know that many believe and have graphs and numbers to show that the western economies excel because of our recognition of intellectual property. However the so-called knowledge economy seems to fail to recognize that knowledge is simply borrowed creation. Without the creator there is no intellectual property.
If we simply follow the definitions provided by intellectual property treaties, they believe that our patent and copyright laws should always equate the act of writing poetry with the act of protecting the international patent for prozac.
I hope that groups like the Media Content Coalition will understand that strict copyright approaches to copyright reform will not always work. Our current law understands this. We already have exemptions for copyright, law relating to churches, educational institutions and persons with disabilities, but the exceptions are very small and restrictive. Churches can use music without paying royalties as long as there is no gain involved.
An individual can use any copyrighted work for research, private study, criticism, news reporting or reviewing as a fair dealing but the source must always be mentioned.
An educational institution can use a mechanical copy of a copyrighted work for display for testing, examination or translation on its premises for instructional purposes.
Creators are compensated through a government program to allow their works to be freely available through our library system. These flexible approaches are ones that creators want, and I hope the corporate copyright community will agree with the flexible approach to the law.
One unique thing about copyright is what is called the moral right. This is one place established in law where the power of the creator still shines and it shows how different a copyright is from a patent, the physical kind of intellectual property.
While the copyright can be assigned or sold by the creator, the moral right is the creator's right to be associated with the creation and the right to the integrity of the work. This right is always kept by the author or creator or his or her estate. Maintaining integrity means keeping their work from being distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified or used in association with a product, service, cause or institution. Otherwise, no one can use their creation for profit with or without their permission.
In a real way, Bill C-48 tries to address the same principle. The Internet provides a new way to communicate, to research, to entertain and to conduct business, but the technology has also created the ability to take, in effect steal, someone's creation and show it on the Internet without permission, without paying a royalty and without paying any attention to the creators. In fact they are stealing the creation and devaluing the creator.
After all, the television program was written by someone, acted out by someone and the set was designed by someone. By simply taking the creation and using a technological loophole, sending it out over the Internet and using it to sell advertising it is quite offensive to my creative sensibilities.
Bill C-48 changes section 31 of the Copyright Act to allow this loophole to be plugged.The bill would do this while still recognizing some of the more progressive collective approaches taken in our copyright law.
Despite the efforts of some in the corporate world, we have a collective approach to a lot of our copyright law. We do not track down every teenager and sue them every time they tape a CD or burn a copy of their favourite song. Instead, we have a very small charge on blank tapes and CDs which makes its way back to the creator. Frankly, as the parent of two teenagers, I know that this pragmatic approach is all for the better.
When a cable company captures a television signal and replays it to its subscribers, a compulsory licence is created and the equivalent of a royalty is paid. This is a good, pragmatic alternative to having every small cable carrier negotiate with every broadcaster to send its signal.
What Bill C-48 does is extend this system to the wide open spaces of the Internet. Some have proposed that this not be allowed or have suggested that retransmission only be allowed through a secure channel. However, we have to start down the road of dealing with the legal aspects of content on the worldwide web.
We have a responsibility to deal with the inaccurate impression that the Internet is a lawless place. We know in our hearts that laws do apply to cyberspace. We arrest and prosecute child pornographers who lurk online. We prosecute hatemongers and holocaust deniers who try and hide behind web servers.
The CRTC has backed off on regulating the net, but it is patently obvious that the government now has to deal with the details of regulating the net. If it fails in this challenge, then our cultural sovereignty will eventually disappear.
In conclusion, I believe that it is time we also applied the basic dignity of recognition for creation, which we do through copyright, to the Internet. I eagerly await the next bill in this area from the government as it proceeds with copyright reform.
Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to also join in the debate on this important bill. I want to commend my colleagues for their speeches as well.
We know that our colleague who just spoke is a well known playwright in Canada and we applaud her contributions in that area. She brings a unique perspective to the heritage committee and always has a lot of valuable comments to make on these topics.
In fact, Bill C-48, an act to amend the Copyright Act, in many ways would have applications to the producers and the writers of Canadian content. It is important that we close the loophole that allows rebroadcasting, through Internet technologies, of Canadian content in a way that was never designed to happen. That is why those of us in the coalition are generally supportive of Bill C-48 because it addresses a problem that has come about mainly because of the development of technology in this area.
We also share some of the concerns that have been addressed by colleagues from the Alliance and from the Bloc in terms of regulations. We see quite often that--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. government House whip on a point of order.
Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is close to the end of this debate. My understanding is that the member currently speaking is the last member who wishes to speak on this bill. I wonder if there might be unanimous consent of the House to allow him a maximum of 10 minutes to complete his remarks and then proceed to private members' business. That would mean the bill would be disposed of for now and could be referred to the committee immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous consent to allow the member to have 10 minutes?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I do not have a problem with wrapping up the debate on this issue.
As I was saying, we do have some concerns with the bill in terms of regulations. Time and time again we see the notion of regulations that will be developed after the fact and we do not always get a chance to see them at committee.
My colleague from Fundy--Royal pointed out to me that it is similar to the situation that has gone on with the species at risk bill and many other bills in this place. This actually came up in private members' business yesterday with the motion we debated in terms of parliamentary reform. We need to look at and streamline our procedures. One of them has to do with the whole area of regulations. The government takes this route to define after the fact through regulations what will actually be the intent of the legislation. I and, I believe, my colleagues in the coalition share those concerns as well.
The legislation continues to protect the interests of those who are currently defined as retransmitters under section 31, including cable and satellite providers in Canada and the United States. The bill will amend that definition so that new entrants, such as Internet based retransmitters and any other currently unforeseen technology based retransmitters, will be able to qualify for the compulsory redistribution licence. As I said earlier, the bill does not define the qualifying conditions that the Internet based distribution systems will need to meet in order to receive the compulsory licence. These conditions will be required in order to rebroadcast programs but will be defined at a later date through regulations which I addressed earlier.
I want to talk about some of the comments the minister made. I appreciate that the minister was here to deliver a speech. I did have some questions for her which I did not get a chance to ask openly in the House, but I think they are questions she would be more than willing to answer perhaps in another format. I will put them on the record for her.
One of them is that the bill has been designed to address a loophole in the Copyright Act. Another loophole currently exists in terms of broadcasting. It has to do with what is called the grey market and the black market in satellite transmissions that originate in the United States and which are received here in Canada by individuals, many of them living close to the United States. A vast number of our people live close to the Canada-U.S. border. Individuals are able to buy satellite technology here in Canada to receive the beams being sent from the United States.
The same bypassing that the bill addresses in terms of Internet rebroadcasting is happening with Canadian content over foreign signals received in Canada that are basically unauthorized. Our playwrights, our producers and the people who work in the industry, and as the minister outlined, I think she said that there are 130,000 or so, are not getting their due.
I would ask the minister if she would endeavour, in the same way that she has moved forward on the bill, to move forward quickly to close this other loophole as well. All the arguments that she made in her speech, and I agree with most of them, are arguments that can be made in terms of this other loophole having to do with the satellite transmissions that originate from the United States and which are received in an unauthorized manner here in Canada.
I might add that individuals in Canada who have this technology are mainly doing so under the assumption that it is legal and proper because of the way these products are being distributed. We need to address that and see if we can get a similar resolution to that as this bill attempts to address.
I asked the minister this question once in committee and she did respond to it. This has more to do with the Broadcasting Act and it is the issue of foreign ownership. I asked her whether the government would be willing to consider a review at least of our foreign ownership policy so that our Canadian broadcasters could compete, not only head to head with each other here in Canada but also internationally. I think we have seen more and more competition arising, but they are not only competing with broadcasters in Canada but with a very large market south of us in the United States. In order to compete globally they need access to capital. They need the ability to compete. It is certainly something that needs to be addressed.
The heritage committee has been studying the Broadcasting Act and many individuals have provided us with briefs and opinions. This has been a worthwhile process. All parties are working co-operatively in committee, as often happens. However, the disappointing part of working co-operatively in committee is that over and over again at the end when the report is finished, the government either changes the recommendations or puts them on the shelf. Members of the heritage committee hope that will not happen with the Broadcasting Act review which we are undertaking. We hope the government will seriously consider the proposals being made.
I have wavered a bit from Bill C-48, but we are generally supportive of the bill. We urge the minister to move forward in a similar fashion to address the grey market and black market areas of satellite broadcasting as well. We look forward to seeing the regulations. We look forward to dealing with the bill when it gets to committee and to solve the problem hopefully sooner rather than later.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 1.40 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Parliamentary TelecommunicationsStéphan Tremblay: moved:

That this House do install an accessible and functional telecommunications infrastructure so that virtual meetings between parliamentarians from here and around the world may be held for the purpose of participating in regular debates on matters of mutual concern.

Madam Speaker, as you may have noticed, this motion may look somewhat futuristic and appear to be coming straight out of Star Trek . I wish to explain why I have moved this motion, which unfortunately is not a votable item.
I believe that most of my colleagues are aware of my interest in issues relating to the globalization of economies and its consequences.
It is important to understand the globalization process and I have been trying to do just that since 1998. I call upon my colleagues to continue to ponder on this, examine the consequences—and there are several of them, especially when we deal with global economy. At the same time, the nature of the power of governments remains national.
We need to have some international organizations capable, to a certain extent, of overseeing globalization. At present, many international organizations have left themselves open to criticism on several fronts. One of those is their lack of democracy. Let us take for example the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank or the World Trade Organization. There is no perfect organization, but we must recognize that international organizations are playing an increasingly important role and that they are bound to do so increasingly in the future.
Over the past few years, international economic agreements, like the free trade area of the Americas that affects us so much, have taken on a new importance.
For several years now, negotiations on this very important agreement have been going on. All those international organizations and international agreements have one thing in common: the negligible role parliamentarians are allowed to play.
Of course, there are here and there some committees and parliamentarians are being invited to take part in some international meetings. However, the question we must ask ourselves is the following: we only talk and do not act, but as we are debating parliamentary reform and the role of parliamentarians, should we also turn our attention to globalization?
Twenty years from now, with the increasing globalization of the economies, what would it mean to be a parliamentarian? How would the world be governed? A number of questions could be raised.
I believe there is a consensus among parliamentarians, at least I hope so. I have heard several parliamentarians complain about their very limited involvement in international agreements. At the first forum of the parliamentarians of the Americas, held in Quebec City, the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Americas, participants expressed their concern about the fact that too few parliamentarians take part in these debates. Business organizations are involved, but unfortunately civil society is mostly absent and parliamentarians do not have enough say.
In the current system, parliamentarians are still in the best position to bridge the gap between the people and the decision makers or the executive branch of the governments. There are a lot of parliamentarians' associations throughout the world, and the Conference of Parliamentarians is growing. I could talk about the Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas, even if I have many criticisms regarding this even. My hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and I attended the first meeting of the forum held in this House. Even if parliamentarians from all over the world are eager to work together, there is still a problem. I think that, more than ever, parliamentarians from each and every country need to work together on issues that go far beyond their national borders.
I am thinking about economic agreements, environmental agreements, financial markets and world democracy. We would like to deal with these issues in this parliament, but a lot of questions go well beyond our borders. Should the ministers be the only ones to try to solve these issues? I think we should all be involved.
For all the reasons, I think parliamentarians should work together to balance and monitor everything that is going on. In this House, we have members constantly putting questions to the government and government members being held accountable.
There is no system of checks and balances at the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank or the World Trade Organization to review all the decisions being made. Of course, these are huge institutions, but at some point in time, we will have to establish some kind of opposition to make these agencies more transparent.
I think the role of parliamentarians has to evolve and all parliamentarians should co-operate with their counterparts from other countries and, in our case, the Americas. Of course, it is easier said than done because of one major obstacle, the distance.
I have just returned from Porto Alegre, where 55,000 participants from the civil society and approximately 1,000 parliamentarians met with goodwill. However, the problem is that we cannot continue this work before next year, in another forum of parliamentarians. Imagine, when one meets once a year, one cannot make much progress.
This explains my motion. Of course, this is a proposal and I do think that we have the telecommunications infrastructure needed. We were beginning to consider implementing the technology infrastructures that would allow parliamentary committees from all over the Americas to communicate.
Take for example the issue of genetically modified organisms. This issue must be resolved not only within a country, but all over the world. This issue involves all human beings.
It would be possible to have debates involving parliamentarians from every country, maybe 50 countries to start with. If we allowed a parliamentarian from each country to take part in a debate with the best experts in the world, and if that debate were on Internet, for example, thus easily accessible, I think that this would be one step toward the process of democratizing the whole debate. I am not saying that this will solve everything overnight. Of course, that is not what I think, but we would have the means to do much more serious work with the parliamentarians in the rest of the Americas.
I sit on one parliamentary committee a week, but perhaps I could sit on a second one that would be international. Of course, I would stay here in Ottawa and my colleagues from other countries would all be in their parliament. Through televirtuality, we could, once a week, go deeper into issues, make recommendations, promote some issues and serve as a counterbalance to this government. I believe this would help democracy a little.
Some people will ask me “Yes, but how do you want to implement this system?” This is not the issue today. The issue is not to ask what kind of instruments or technological infrastructure we will get. The question to ask ourselves, as parliamentarians, if we want our work to evolve with globalization, is this: if we were able to communicate, to share information regularly through video and audio means, what would be the result? Would we be able to do more work?
I believe so. All I say today is, let us get some new kind of telephone and then we will be able to talk to one another. When we are able to do so, then we will see the result.
If the economy is globalizing, parliamentarians' work and democracy must also globalize. This is what I am proposing today. My objective is to get a consensus from parliamentarians so we can say “Yes, we have the political will to give ourselves such an instrument”. Then, it will be up to computer engineers, or whoever.
They will be the ones to propose possible solutions. It has to be understood that attending a continental or international forum is very costly, takes time and reduces the effectiveness of parliamentarians. Stress added to jet lag reduces everyone's performance level.
We must invest to some extent in such a system. Maybe the telecommunications infrastructure does not permit such virtual communications right now. However, in four or five years, I think it will be possible. Technology evolves at light speed. We must prepare for that. This is why I submit this motion today.
What will the future be? It is clear that such a system will exist in the future. It is only a question of time. Some members might smile today when they hear my proposal, but it has happened before that people have laughed at what I have said to the House, for example when I proposed that we speak more extensively about globalization. Now we are doing it. I am not saying that I am responsible for that, but I think I was part of a trend. We must maintain the momentum. We must look ahead. We should not wait for others, but we should be proactive. This is why I am moving this motion today.
However, I am disappointed to see that it is not votable. It would certainly have been appropriate to have the members look into this matter and give their opinion on the subject. I cannot imagine that members would not want tools to make the communications with their foreign counterparts easier.
What form will this ultimately take? Does it mean that the work of the parliamentarians on this virtual committee would be formal? It is a little early to suggest any advance solution. In the beginning, it could all be done very informally. But with time, this informal work could become more formal, just like what happened in the European Union.
The European Union was not created in one day. Lots of preliminary meetings and exchanges took place. At one point, it all flowed together and we finally saw the establishment of a European parliament.
Could we not imagine a virtual or global parliament? I am not talking about a global government, but rather a global parliament, in which all parliamentarians in the world could have regular contacts? I believe we could.
Therefore, I am floating this balloon, so to speak, and I really look forward to seeing my colleagues reaction, particularly since I have already proposed this publicly by sending a letter to the 300 parliamentarians in the House. The very next day, during the Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas, the idea was presented again and supported by the Mexicans.
Let us see now where the support will come from. The idea is now public knowledge and we now have to debate how to make it feasible.
Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 365. It states:

That this House do install an accessible and functional telecommunication infrastructure so that virtual meetings between parliamentarians from here and around the world may be held for the purpose of participating in regular debates on matters of mutual concern.

I wholeheartedly agree with the direction of the motion. There is a high level of cynicism among Canadians about how we run the country. Certainly one of the main reasons for this is the imperial approach taken by the cabinet and the archaic electoral system we have which allows a minority of voters to control the majority of seats in the Chamber.
These problems require fundamental solutions which the motion does not address. There is no doubt that better communication between parliamentarians and Canadians would help to reduce the cynicism that permeates the country. It would also improve the way the country is run.
Parliamentarians from all sides of this place know that a lot of the real nation building that takes place in parliament is not in the scripted showplace of question period. Far too often the Chamber has become a place of posturing and political one-upmanship, not a place of thoughtful debate on the issues before the nation. There is a quiet desire among MPs from all sides of the House to have more real debates on issues, to explore and challenge opinions and to genuinely represent the diverse opinions of constituents.
Much of this happens in committees. Most Canadians know little or nothing about what happens in parliamentary committees. We have some great examples of MPs from all parties working together in small groups in committees to greatly improve policy and legislation. I was involved in a cultural policy review a few years back and lately we have seen how a committee worked well to explore options to help children at risk and people with disabilities.
There is no doubt in my mind that these important explorations of issues facing Canadians have improved government policy. There is also no doubt in my mind that using technology increases the access of parliamentarians to Canadians, of Canadians to parliamentarians and of parliamentarians to experts on issues from across Canada and around the world. All of this would improve our communication.
I should note that some of this work is already underway. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently conducting a study of broadcasting in Canada. We are already using teleconferencing on a limited basis to discuss matters with experts. We have also seen the immense technological infrastructure available to us in our recent site visits to broadcasters in Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City. I am looking forward to learning more about how this technology is being used in Canada when the standing committee visits Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg next week.
I am a member of the HRDC Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities and I know that the chair of the subcommittee, the member for St. Paul's, wants to actively pursue new technology options to allow more Canadians with disabilities to participate and follow in the committee's work.
While I do not pretend to understand the intricacies of the workings of the new technologies, I would not know a Hertzian wave if it hit me, I do believe that as tools for democracy the new technology is something we need to be using more and more. I congratulate the member on his motion and give it my support.
Geoff Regan: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the motion moved by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, who is asking that the House install telecommunication equipment so that committees can organize virtual meetings with witnesses that are in Canada or in other countries.
There is no doubt that the upgrading of the information infrastructure on the Hill is of great interest to every parliamentarian. Teleconferencing technology is already available to committees.
In brief, the use of teleconferencing technology could greatly help parliamentarians in carrying out their daily duties, and also facilitate the direct participation of Canadians in the democratic process.
This technology would greatly enhance the parliamentarians' working environment as well as their effectiveness.
By allowing witnesses to appear before a committee through teleconferencing, the government would show Canadians how easily it is making use of the technological advances in our parliamentary system.
All members are aware that the House is a forum for debate and scrutiny of the most important issues facing Canadians. We should ensure we do not limit debate and scrutiny even unwittingly by not having the best technologies available to us. Parliament should ensure cost efficient technologies enable us to fulfill our responsibilities to our constituents.
Teleconferencing could do so in several ways. First, it would provide flexibility in scheduling for committee members and witnesses.
Second, it could save on transportation costs for outside witnesses.
Third, it could bring the public closer to the democratic process. Constituents across the vast expanse of the country could simultaneously meet face to face with their political representatives in Ottawa to participate directly in the law-making process. This would be particularly useful for witnesses from other countries.
The Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons tabled a report on June 1, 2001 which was adopted on October 4, 2001, my son's birthday. The report recommended that the House proceed with plans for increased use of communications technologies for the House, its members and its committees. In doing so it made reference to the need to adapt parliamentary practices and procedures to take advantage of new technologies while being mindful and respectful of parliamentary traditions.
Teleconferencing would respect this balance. It would increase flexibility for witnesses to appear before committees while ensuring direct consultation in the committee process.
Taking advantage of the benefits of increased use of communications technologies is one part of the government's long term vision and plan for the parliamentary precinct in June 2001. Under the renovation plan a new building is envisioned which would house committee rooms equipped with the most modern information infrastructure. The intended Bank Street building would allow for professional audio-video presentations, teleconferences, recordings and broadcast television productions. Television production rooms would also support committee rooms, the Chamber and the Senate.
The government has already recognized the virtues of bringing parliamentarians closer to constituents through the use of information and multimedia technology. As I mentioned earlier, members already have access to teleconferencing technologies for use in committee meetings.
In March 2001, the House bought two video teleconferencing systems and made them available to members of parliament and committees. The La Promenade Building is now equipped with one of these systems and, so far, those who have used it have reacted positively.
Finally, on November 27, 2001, the budget sub-committee, under the liaison committee, agreed to encourage committees to use the video teleconferencing system where feasible to speed up the process.
In conclusion, I am in favour of the motion, whose purpose is to highlight the need to integrate an advanced communication infrastructure into the Parliamentary Precinct. The government does want to ensure that the Parliamentary Precinct remains the symbol of Canadian innovation and democratic integrity for the coming century.
Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank and commend my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay. He is a very progressive and modern member and he has put forward an exceptional motion.
The concept is one that is overdue. Given the pace of technology it comes at a time when we should be examining methods to save the administrative costs of sending committees of parliament around the country although there are times when it is necessary to visit communities and hear first-hand from witnesses and individuals. However there are other examples we can point to where the use of technology would have been sufficient, would have been of benefit to parliament and would have allowed individuals to participate in the process who might otherwise have been unable to.
The overall computer technology and infrastructure of parliament must be examined. As the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has indicated, this has already been undertaken to a degree.
Sadly, this is not a votable motion as the member for Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay has mentioned. Far too often we see good ideas on the opposition side squashed and cast aside for reasons of poisoned partisanship. The hon. member's idea is completely beyond the pale. It was not brought forward with malice, aforethought or any attempt to garner credit. It is an idea that spans all parties. It is purely about benefiting parliament, modernizing it, making it more relevant and bringing it into a new age.
I agree that the initiative has a great deal of merit. However some of the existing infrastructure such as the ability of members and Canadians to access the minutes of committee hearings in a timely fashion is something we should look at as a priority. The House staff does a tremendous job in this regard. I am in no way casting aspersions on the House staff. However not to attribute motives I fear there are times when the minutes are not made available to members for reasons that are best explained by the government.
I will return to the motion moved by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay. The initiative is all about utilizing and making the communications efforts of the House of Commons more available throughout the country.
It is clear the world will continue to shrink in terms of technology. The initiative is very much in that spirit. It is about making the House available to communicate its ideas and to interact directly and in a modern fashion with Canadians in a computer generated age.
It is also fair to say it is an important service parliamentarians need to provide. Technology could assist us in communicating ideas and hearing directly from members of the general public. It is important to ensure young Canadians in particular are encouraged to develop skills.
I would welcome the opportunity to hear further from the mover of the motion. The initiative would enhance innovation and the desire of Canadians to explore the bounds of technology in this area. Canadians have been very much at the forefront. Quebecers in particular have been active in developing new and innovative uses of technology.
We all know the former industry minister's broadband initiative received a rather cool reception from his cabinet colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance. However that is a whole other story. Efforts must be made to assist our young people to continue to develop skills. This motion is a positive, forward thinking, modern idea we should be quick to embrace.
I offer the hon. member sincere congratulations and the support of members of the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative Caucus in his efforts. We have seen the benefits of promoting dialogue. We have seen people span the miles across Canada and across the world. It encourages understanding, goodwill and the use of good ideas. I again congratulate the member.
It is a good idea. It provides an opportunity for all to be involved in this debate, which is very important.
It exhibits the very best of what we should be doing in this place: looking for new ideas and looking for areas where we can expand and make better use of technology.
Stéphan Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to enjoy such support; I did not expect that.
Everyone agrees that it is important to have such infrastructures. But I remind the House that my initiative must be seen in an international context, not just a national one. Be that as it may, my colleagues supported my motion in their speeches.
I also note that all parties agree. Apparently, according to my colleagues, this is a good idea, except that it cannot be made a votable item. Given this situation, allow me to say that our parliamentary system is a little odd.
I explained to my constituents the process that applies to a private member's bill, how the member's name is randomly selected and must appear before a committee. I should point out that none of the motions proposed by the parliamentarians who have appeared before a committee to see if their motions could be made a votable item was selected for that purpose. This parliamentary system is somewhat obsolete.
It is strange to talk about the future and about technology when we are stuck—and we are stuck indeed—with an archaic and obsolete parliamentary system. The result of this is that my fellow parliamentarians, whose job it is to vote and give their opinions, will not be able to do so.
This is why I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to have that motion adopted.
John Herron: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to inform the House that the score is one-nil for Canada in the semi-final game--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): We will leave that message for after. Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business is now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being 2.10 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.10 p.m.)