May 6, 1993

ROYAL ASSENT


A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows: Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Senate Chamber. Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber. And being returned:


PC

Andrée Champagne (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Madam Deputy Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:

Bill S-17, an act to amend the Copyright Act, the Industrial Design Act, the Integrated Circuit Topography Act, the Patent Act, the Trade-marks Act and other acts in consequence thereof- Chapter No. 15.

Adjournment Debate

Bill S-8, an act to regulate the manufacture and importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to reduce the risk of death, injury and damage to property and the environment-Chapter No. 16.

Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act-Chapter No. 17.

Bill C-371, an act respecting a national child day-Chapter No. 18.

Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act-Chapter No. 19.

Bill C-l 17, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1993-Chapter No. 20.

Bill C-83, an act respecting the transportation of goods by water-Chapter No. 21.

Bill C-97, an act respecting marine insurance-Chapter No. 22. Bill C-88, an act to amend the Copyright Act -Chapter No. 23.

Topic:   ROYAL ASSENT
Permalink
PC

Andrée Champagne (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Madam Deputy Speaker:

We will resume debate.

Topic:   ROYAL ASSENT
Permalink

PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

NATIONAL DEFENCE

LIB

Fred J. Mifflin

Liberal

Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):

Madam Speaker, I talked about the manifestations of concern, which is being expressed in many ways. I talked about doctors in uniforms speaking out in the last couple of weeks.

The chief of the defence staff at the time, who is an expert peacekeeper and is now our ambassador to the United States, last November expressed grave concern about our continuing commitment, about more soldiers. The Secretary of State for External Affairs in her testimony in mid-February to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade expressed concern about overloading the system.

There has been concern expressed by experts to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on the quality and the kind of equipment, the method of deployment, the method of deciding who to send. The litany goes on. Red flags are being thrown up which tell us and which should tell the government that we are having less than a smooth passage in our peacekeeping operations.

Little wonder. Last year at this time we had less than 2,000 troops in peacekeeping. Now we have 4,700, at a time when the Canadian forces are reducing 4,000 soldiers. We heard from testimony yesterday that it is going to be another 2,000.

May 6, 1993

Adjournment Debate

The red flags are up and the trends are going in the wrong direction. We have to be the only country in the world that would commit our troops to a line of fire in foreign territory without so much as a word of formal debate in Parliament. We now have perhaps one of the most crucial peace operations-I would not want to grace it with the term peacekeeping-taking place in Bosnia. We all know that last night it looked as if the peace agreement, such as it was, was not even going to be approved in whatever form, which was better than nothing.

It is my thesis we have now reached a very critical point in this operation. I find it very upsetting as an individual, and I believe I speak for my colleagues on this side of the House, that there does not appear to be one person on the government side who is running the show.

At a time when we have our troops at risk in Somalia and particularly and in Srebrenica, as expressed by the commander there, and at a time when negotiations are being done by the most powerful country in the world for air strikes, the Prime Minister is off on foreign visits. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence are not running the show. Questions are being fielded by the government House leader. It is not good enough.

The Canadian public needs to know: what is the mandate of our Canadian forces in Bosnia? They want to know what the rules of engagement are and they want to know what contingency plan the government has in the event that western air strikes take place. These are all legitimate questions. We should have had our first debate when we dispatched our first peacekeeping troops.

Before I wrap up I want to make the point that we must have a debate, whether it is an emergency debate or a debate on the initiative of the government, to consider all the factors that were brought before the House this evening. I would tell members that this is long-term concern. It is not going to go away tomorrow, the next day or the next day.

As you know, Madam Speaker, the House will be shutting down for the summer soon. We do not have a date on it yet. I would implore the House and the government to have in place some institutionalized standing effort so that Parliament can monitor the

peacekeeping operations throughout the summer and the fall depending on what happens after the House recesses for the summer.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
PC

Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence; Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):

Madam Speaker, as we have said on several occasions, the Canadian Armed Forces are still able to carry out their specific tasks, but with nearly 4,500 members deployed on various missions throughout the world, the resources of our ground forces are somewhat stretched.

The situation, however, is not more critical than we expected, nor does it defy the limits of our defence policy.

Before making any new commitments, the Department of National Defence evaluates each proposal for peacekeeping operations in terms of personnel and equipment requirements and the expected duration of the operation.

Furthermore, the department makes no commitments before considering the repercussions on other Canadian Armed Forces' activities and operations.

At the present time, Canada is able to meet its current peacekeeping commitments. However, considering the rising number of peacekeeping missions and the decision to cut Canadian forces personnel, from now on Canada will have to be very careful in selecting future tasks to avoid compromising existing peacekeeping missions or other Canadian Armed Forces operations.

Consequently, Canada's response to future requests for participation in peacekeeping missions will largely depend on the amounts Canadians are prepared to spend on defence and peacekeeping activities.

These are important questions, and Canadians will have to consider how much they are prepared to contribute to peacekeeping missions. Last fall, Canada, with 1 per cent of the world's population, contributed 10 per cent of UN peacekeepers posted throughout the world.

I think we should also remember that, although the regular forces are now being cut, a corresponding increase in the number of reservists and their integration

May 6, 1993

in the regular forces will help the Canadian Armed Forces maintain their contribution to current operations.

I realize the hon. member is also concerned about the number of reservists currently assigned to peacekeeping missions. Not long ago, one of his colleagues said in the House that 50 per cent of replacement troops in Yugoslavia would consist of reservists. In fact, once the rotation process is complete, only about one-quarter, and not 50 per cent, of our troops in the Balkans will consist of reservists.

The ratio of regular forces to reserves may vary, depending on local conditions and the reaction time available for training.

Every member of the Canadian Armed Forces assigned to a peacekeeping mission is given the training and level of preparation required before departure. In addition to training, information sessions are provided on the culture and political system of the region to which the individual will be assigned.

The hon. member should find these comments reassuring but, as I said earlier, Canadians will have to consider the extent of our future commitment to UN peacekeeping missions. The government is anxious to have this kind of discussion so that we can clearly establish our future involvement in peacekeeping missions.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink

SOFTWOOD LUMBER


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley): Madam Speaker, last February 22 I had the chance to ask a question in the House of the Minister of Forestry at that time about an expected decision on softwood lumber. As timing would have it, today we received a decision from the panel that has been studying the whole question as to whether we in Canada subsidize our softwood lumber exports to the United States. Therefore the discussion tonight is very timely. The decision, and it relates to the question I have presented, was the review by the panel to determine whether we in fact subsidize our softwood exports to the United States. We have had a mixed decision that on a number of points recognizes many of the arguments all Adjournment Debate members have made in this House in terms of the way we manage our forest and in terms of the challenge that has been raised by officials and politicians in the United States and the U.S. lumber lobby. However today's decision is also a disappointing one on two points. The first one is that it really points to the failure of the free trade agreement on this case because all this panel does is review and determine whether the decision of the commerce department in levying the 6.5 per cent tariff on Canadian softwood lumber was made properly. The ruling today does find that in some cases it did not. In another case it was also determined that our stumpage systems are proper and in place. There are two points that I would also like to raise which are the disappointing parts of the decision today, and one is a very odious decision. The first is that this refers the decision again for another 90 days and puts off resolving this dispute. Most people in the forest sector are interested in seeing it happen, if I am not mistaken. It has been two years since our country rightfully cancelled the memorandum of understanding, and the issue has yet to be resolved. We have another 90 days which brings us to another panel decision on injury. That, if it follows the same precedent this committee has set, will give another 90 days. At the very least it may not be until the end of this year when a final decision is made. The odious part of the ruling today is it determined that the raw log export restrictions, and particularly in British Columbia, confer a subsidy on softwood lumber exports to the United States. Clearly nothing could be less correct. The people in British Columbia today are very upset by this decision. It shows that more work is going to have to be done as the commerce department has ordered to review this detail more. People are very upset about this part of the decision. We have also learned the U.S. lumber lobby which earlier said that it would challenge any part of any decision might move in the favour of Canada to launch an extraordinary challenge under the free trade agreement. We have reached the point now where I implore and call upon our government to call upon the Clinton administration to drop the tariff now. It is hurting



May 6, 1993 Adjournment Debate American home builders and it is hurting Canadian forestry workers.


PC

Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International TYade):

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend will be aware, Canada, the provinces and the Canadian industry appealed the final determination of subsidy and injury and the U.S. countervailing duty investigation of softwood lumber products from Canada to binding binational panel review under chapter nineteen of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The two binational panels have been constituted and are reviewing the U.S. determinations.

Earlier today the FTA binational panel reviewing the final subsidy determination of the Department of Commerce in the countervailing duty investigation issued its findings. The panel unanimously instructed the Department of Commerce to re-examine its determinations on each of the key issues in the case. The panel's findings reflected in large part the arguments made by the Canadian parties. This is a positive result for the Canadian lumber industry and demonstrates that the FTA dispute settlement mechanism is working.

The federal government, the industry and the provincial governments mounted a strong defence before this panel. A second FTA panel reviewing the United States international trade commission's injury determination will report its findings by July 27, 1993. Under article 1904 of the FTA, Canada or the United States can request an extraordinary challenge committee to review a binational panel ruling on any of the following grounds:

(i) a member of the panel was guilty of gross misconduct, bias, a serious conflict of interest, or otherwise materially violated the rules of conduct,

(ii) the panel seriously departed from a fundamental rule of procedure, or

(iii) the panel manifestly exceeded its powers, authority or jurisdiction -

It must also be determined that any one of these grounds:

- has materially affected the panel's decision and threatens the integrity of the binational panel review process,

These criteria must be met before an extraordinary challenge committee can be established to review the

results of a binational panel. The government has neither sought nor received assurances from the Clinton administration that the United States will not seek the establishment of an extraordinary challenge committee.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Permalink

FISHERIES

NDP

David Stupich

New Democratic Party

Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):

Madam Speaker, the question I asked last February was with respect to the aboriginal fishing strategy introduced on the west coast just in time for last year's salmon season.

It was perhaps well enough conceived but the implementation of it was all wrong. The department did not take the time to get it operating properly. It was not ready for it from the point of view of supervising or of having people on the scene who were ready to deal with transgressions of regulations. There were a lot of expectations raised in the minds of many aboriginals that this was going to be a new policy that would open the door to them having the right they feel they already have.

Nevertheless it would give them the opportunity to harvest as many of the salmon as they chose to harvest. It is entirely up to them to set their own limits.

There was the fear in the minds of the white fishermen that the allocation of the resource that had been very carefully considered up to that point in time and divided among the various users was now going to be left to the aboriginals in part to determine what they wanted. Then if there was anything left the whites would perhaps have access to it.

That is not the way it was meant to be. It was not the way it was supposed to be but there were these fears in the minds of people that in practice it was going to work that way.

The experience of that season did nothing to allay those fears. The first announcements to the effect came from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials that 1.2 million sockeye had gone missing in the Fraser River alone. From the time they were counted in going through the gates at Mission until the time they got to the spawning grounds, 1.2 million went missing. That did nothing to allay the fears that the department did not really know what it was doing and that it was allowing the

May 6, 1993

salmon industry on the west coast to be destroyed as was the cod industry on the Atlantic side.

I have been asking the minister questions about this from time to time as I had the opportunity to find out what is happening this year. Following the Pearse-Larkin report the minister said that he would not proceed with the aboriginal fishing strategy in any of the watersheds on the west coast unless there was a watershed agreement with all the users as to what was going to happen in the season coming up.

I have asked from time to time what progress was being made. Has he been able to sign any of these watershed agreements up to this point in time? As of February, when I asked him, he had not. However, word soon came out that he hoped to have watershed agreements in place by the middle of March.

I have tried from time to time to get on Question Period to see what progress has been made but have not been successful. Today I learned when the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries that a watershed agreement with respect to the Skeena has been negotiated. I am not sure whether it is signed but a watershed agreement with respect to the Fraser is very near completion. There are a few hold-outs among the bands but there is hope that a watershed agreement with the Fraser will be signed as well.

The minister reassured committee members and me- I was the one asking these questions-that the implementation of it would be at a totally different time. Anyone breaking any regulations, whether aboriginal or white, would be dealt with in a very decisive manner but the resource was going to be protected. There was no question about that.

I left that meeting feeling reasonably confident that the minister was assuring and reassuring the fishing people on the west coast that the aboriginal fisheries strategy will go ahead again this year but it will be a totally different strategy. The implementation of it will be totally different and it should be much more successful than it was last year.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Permalink
PC

Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence; Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague will know that considerable progress has been made in arriving at a Fraser River watershedwide agreement on salmon allocation to native groups.

Adjournment Debate

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans met on February 4, 1993 with Fraser River chiefs to explain the need for a comprehensive, integrated approach to the management of native fishing on the Fraser River in 1993.

Native organizations on the Fraser have taken the minister's lead and have been meeting among themselves to arrive at a consensual approach to in-river fisheries management that reflects their diversity of needs and priorities.

The department was invited to attend an information session for chiefs of the Middle Fraser River Band on May 4, 1993. The Fraser River Watershed Agreement has been prepared and signed by a large number of native groups in the Fraser River watershed.

The agreement sets out a process for arriving at a satisfactory and equitable allocation. The agreement also provides for an integrated approach to the management of fishing efforts.

A signing ceremony has been arranged for May 12, 1993 at which the remaining native groups in the Fraser watershed are expected to sign the Fraser River Watershed Agreement. The negotiation of bilateral management agreements consistent with the watershed agreement will be concluded quickly afterward.

To provide for rigorous monitoring of fishing efforts and enforcement of regulations the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has recently provided a class-room guardian training program and will operate joint patrols throughout the fishing season to provide on the job training.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his senior departmental officials have met with representatives of the commercial and sport fishing industry on a regular basis. Meetings were held on February 23 and March 25 and 26 in Vancouver between the minister, representatives of the native community, representatives of the commercial and sport fishing sector and most recently the government of the province of British Columbia. A future meeting is scheduled to be held in early mid-May.

The purpose of these meetings is to take into account the concerns of all stakeholders and to develop consensual approaches to native involvement in the management of fishery resources which will be equitable to all interests.

May 6, 1993

Adjournment Debate

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Permalink
PC

Andrée Champagne (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Madam Deputy Speaker:

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. The House

therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at ten a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Permalink

The House adjourned at 7.16 p.m.



Friday, May 7,1993


May 6, 1993