36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 113
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 2, 1998
1005
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMONWEALTH SPEAKERS AND PRESIDING OFFICERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Heritage
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL SYMBOL OF CANADIAN UNITY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-413. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1010
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-414. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-415. Introduction and First Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-416. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1015
1020
1030
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1035
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1120
(Division 188)
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1125
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARKS CANADA ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-29. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1150
1155
1200
1205
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1220
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1235
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1240
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1245
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1250
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1255
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARKS CANADA ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-29. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1310
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1315
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1340
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1345
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DIOCESE OF PEMBROKE
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UKRAINE
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1400
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SONIER CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LIGHTHOUSE PROJECT
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHIAPAS
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TED MCCAIN
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1405
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | A YEAR IN REVIEW
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITY OF TERREBONNE
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ISRAEL
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
1410
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN NATIONAL
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALAIN BÉLANGER
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JEAN THÉBERGE
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1415
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CLASS OF 1997
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1420
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1425
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1435
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1445
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1450
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1455
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAROLE
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1500
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE ROBERT LORNE MCCUISH
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1505
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1510
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1515
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1520
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARKS CANADA ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-29. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1525
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1540
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-39. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1545
1550
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
1605
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1610
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
1615
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-39. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1620
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1635
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
1640
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
1645
1650
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1705
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1710
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
1715
1720
1805
(Division 189)
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIEUTENANT COLONEL WILLIAM BARKER
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1810
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
1825
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Godin |
1830
1835
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1840
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1845
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1850
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1855
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1900
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Banking
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1905
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Immigration
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1910
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Poverty
|
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1915
![V](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 113
![](/web/20061116190227im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 2, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
COMMONWEALTH SPEAKERS AND PRESIDING OFFICERS
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have the honour to lay
upon the table the report of the 14th Conference of Commonwealth
Speakers and Presiding Officers which took place at Port of
Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, January 2 to 8, 1998.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
present to the House a report from the Canadian Branch of the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the 47th
Commonwealth parliamentary seminar which took place March 3 to
14, 1998 in the United Kingdom.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, it was attended by a very able
opposition member of the Reform Party who is sitting in the
Chair.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Thank you very much.
I was most honoured to attend that conference representing our
parliament.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage.
[Translation]
Pursuant to its order of reference of Friday, April 3, 1998, the
committee has considered Bill C-38, an act to amend the National
Parks Act, and has agreed to report it without amendment.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL SYMBOL OF CANADIAN UNITY ACT
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-413, an act to provide for the
recognition of a national symbol for the promotion of Canadian
unity.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private
member's bill, which is an act to provide for the recognition of
a national symbol for the promotion of Canadian unity.
The purpose of this bill is to promote Canadian unity and to
provide a symbol which assists in this very important endeavour.
I look forward to debating this bill in the House and I look
forward to the support of my colleagues.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-414, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(wages of apprentices).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private
member's bill, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.
The purpose of the bill is to allow an employer a tax credit
equal to the wages paid by the employer to a person hired as an
apprentice. This deduction could only be made upon completion of
the full term of the apprenticeship with the employer.
I look forward to debating the bill in the House and I look
forward to the support of my colleagues.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-415, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(gaming and betting).
He said: I wish to inform this House, and you in particular, Mr.
Speaker, that if passed this bill would allow international
cruise ships to continue operating casinos on board while in
Canadian waters.
I am reintroducing this bill because it is essential to the
Quebec tourist industry, particularly in the greater Quebec City
region, as this region could then undergo an incredible
expansion as a destination and stopover for international cruise
ships.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-416, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole reviews).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill, the
purpose of which is to prevent high-profile criminals from
getting paroled after serving one-sixth of their sentence, even
if the crimes for which they have been sentenced were not of a
violent nature.
The latest example of this is Mr. Lagana, a notorious drug
trafficker specializing in money laundering who, unfortunately,
was granted parole after serving one-sixth of his sentence.
The purpose of this bill is to prevent such decisions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
move that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, presented on Thursday, May 7,
1998, be concurred in.
1015
I rise today representing the constituents of Edmonton East to
move concurrence in this motion. As the sands of time run out on
the 20th century they do too for Canada's World War II veterans
who were captured and enslaved by Japan 57 years ago.
On Christmas Day in 1941, 2,000 soldiers surrendered to Japan
beginning a 44 month tenure of a hell of inhumanity at the hands
of the Japanese and at the feet of Emperor Hirohito. Many barely
survived, only to suffer lifelong misery from the effects of
Japan's engineered slave labour camps. These men were sentenced
to pay with their lives and health by a Canadian government eager
for a war posting and by an enemy, Japan, indifferent to
humanitarian treatment and the Geneva convention.
Japan went on to recover from its war injuries to prosper as an
industrial giant, somewhat due to our veterans' efforts. Canada's
Hong Kong enslavement veterans deserve an apology and some
recompense. It is fair. It is right and the Liberals agree.
Some of these very modern industries then employed slave labour
treating the workers with brutality beyond contempt. On the eve
of the new millennium as we face the globalization of the
international marketplace, Canada must take a leadership role in
insisting that we Canadians are not simply purveyors of timber
and oilfield technology. Canadians also export our Constitution
and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When the outside world sees
our flag, the symbol of our nation, it feels warm in the solace
that it stands for freedom and rights of all Canadians.
Our government could do well and reflect on this to act to
redress wrongs committed years ago to our brave veterans. By
example Canada could lead the way to show to other nations as
Japan that their shame is our shame if we do not act.
Japan's shame is well documented in all the nations of the world
except Japan itself. Revisionists and extinguishment of history
may well suit the Japanese population as a whole but Canada
should not participate. Canada must not wait for Japan to act.
Canada must reference Japan's shame, lead by example and act
alone.
To acquiesce and support Hong Kong veterans in spirit but not in
recompense as the Minister of Veterans Affairs wishes is to be an
accomplice to the same and to share Emperor Akihito's
bewilderment in the veterans' disdain and to share Hirohito's
shame. To be mute to the outrageous honouring of Hirohito's son
Akihito for chivalry when our Hong Kong veterans still suffer
from the ravages of enslavement is unconscionable and displays a
government callousness that cries out for question.
Certainly the Government of Canada must achieve fiscal
responsibility by a balanced budget and reduced taxes, but we
have a duty to show Canadians that we care and will support their
legitimate concerns. We also have a duty to show to the world
that we are not followers but rather a leader when recognition
and recompense are appropriate.
We can and must act now to do right and provide compensation to
our war veterans who were forced to endure slave labour at the
hands of the Japanese and Hirohito. We must not hesitate or skip
one heartbeat in the conduct of our duty to Canada's veterans.
Certainly we should claim costs from Japan but at a later date.
Today I will read a list of survivors' names to put a human face
to this request and hopefully to add a sense of urgency as well.
This list contains 361 names. It is shorter than it was a week
ago. It will be shorter again a week from now. I ask in the
name of decency that I will not be in the House on this matter to
read again a much shorter list next year and the year after. I
ask that you pick up the torch. I ask that you not fail in the
task lest we all forget.
1020
Hong Kong veterans Robert Acton, Leslie Adams, Borge Agerbak,
Knud Agerkak, Peter Allain, William Allister, Arthur Ambrose,
Francis Andrews, Alexander Archibald, Harold Atkinson, Alfred
Babin, James Badger, Harold Baker, Stanley Banfill, George
Barron, Robert Barter, Thomas Barton, Eric Batley, John Beaton,
George Belcourt, James Bell, William Bell, Jack Bennett, Duncan
Benton, Leo Berard, Donat Bernier, Walter Billson, Leonard
Birchall, Gerard Bisson, August Bitzer, Clement Blacquière,
Joseph Blacquière, Phillip Bliss, Sydney Blow, Eugene Bond,
Graham Boudreau, Armand Bourrbonnière, Robert Bowman, William
Bradley, Charles Brady, Ray Bronson, Charles Broome, Frank Brown,
Lucine Brunet, Ernest Buck, Ludovic Bujold, Clarence Burgess,
Bruce Cadoret, Wallace Cake, Kenneth Cambon, Charles Campbell,
Railton Campbell, Edward Campbellton, Leslie Canivet, Charles
Cardinal, Arnold Carrière, Lloyd Carter, Bernard Castonguay,
Robert Chamberlain, George Chanell, Frederick Chapman, Leslie
Chater, Charles Chesser, Glyn Chipping, Kathleen Christie, Ronald
Claricoates, Oswald Clark, Robert John Clayton, Bliss Cole, Lloyd
Cole, Fred Cooper, Claude Corbett, Renaud Côté, Leonard Cotton,
Kenneth Court, George Coutts, Albert Cox, Bryce Craig, Winston
Cunningham, Adolphe Cyr, Roger Cyr, Theophil Cyr, Wilmer Cyr,
Donald Dainard, Charles Dallain, Jean-Paul Dallain, Paul
Dancause, John Danielson, James Darrah, John Davies, Morgan
Davies, Frederick Dawe, John Dearden, Pierre-Lionel Delarosbil,
Albert Delbridge, Elmer Denison, William Derhak, Thomas Dewar,
Ralph Dewby, Arthur Diehl, Samuel Disensi, Phillip Doddridge,
John Doiron, Leonard Doiron, Rosaire Doiron, Gerald Doucette, Lts
Doull, Lloyd Doull, Robert Dunlop, Gordon Dunn, Daniel Dunseath,
Gordon Durrant,
George Edgecombe, Harold Englehart, Arley Enright, Roderick
Everson, Kenneth Ewing, John Fair, John Fertal, Cecil Fines,
Horace Fitchett, Audrey Flegg, John Fleming, Robert Fleming,
Thomas Forsyth, Earl Francis, Homidas Fredette, Isaac Friesen,
Frederick Gard, John Gauthier, Donald Geraghty, Horace Gerrard,
David Golden, Jack Goodey, Edward Granham, Walter Gray, Glenford
Gregoire, Richard Grieves, Anthony Grimston, Gerald Gunson, James
Guthrie, Harry Gyselman, Michael Haddad, George Hallada, Lloyd
Hanna, George Harbour, Allan Harper, Wallace Harrington, Harry
Hawryshok, John Hay, Harold Heath, Norman Henderson, Walter
Henderson, Elwin Herring, Joseph Hickey, William Hickie, Henry
Hladych, Kenneth Hogarth, James Houston, Alfred Hunt, Clarence
Hunt, Hector Hunt, Joseph Hunt, Edmond Hurd, Thomas Hutchinson,
Kenneth Inche, Walter Inglis, Gilbert Jacquard, John James, James
Jessop, Alton Jewers, Richard Johnson, Thomas Jones, Wilfred
Jones, Richard Keays, Lloyd Keene, Frederick Kelly, Reginald
Kerr, John Kinahan, Michael Kudlovich, Thodore Kurluk, Ernest
Ladde, Thomas Laflamme, William Laidlaw, Regis Lajeunesse, Jean
Pierre Lalime, Frederick Lanyon, Eugene Lapointe, Maurice
Lapointe, John Lavoie, Reginald Law, Philip Lawlis, John Lebelle,
Jean-Paul Leblanc, Joseph Leblanc, Leandre Leblanc, Leopold
Leblanc, Lionel Lecouffe, Lesly Leggo, Richard Leir, Wilbert
Lester, John Levitt, Stanley Lloyd, William Lockwood, Arthur
Lousier, John Lowe, Oswald Luce, Wilbert Lynch, Henry Lyons,
Robert Lytle,
Gerald Marley, Allison MacDonald, Edward MacDonald,
George MacDonell, Laurie MacKay, Ralph MacLean, James MacMillan,
Donald MacPherson, Eldon MacWhirter, William MacWhirter, Eric
Maloney, William Maltman, Williams Marks, Geoffrey Marston, Allen
Martin, David Martin, Douglas Martin, John Maruschak, Frederick
Mason, Eugene Matchett, Alfred Matthews, Clifford Matthews,
William Mayne, Richard Maze, William McAuley, Clifford McDavid,
Milton McDonald, Roy McDonald, Lewis McFawn, John McGee, John
McGreevy, Gordon McLellan, William McNaughton, Angus McRitichie,
George Merritt, Joe Michalkow, Joseph Miller, James Mitchell,
James Moar, William Muir, Leon Murphy, Raymond Murray, Howard
Naylor, Donald Nelson, Frank Neufeld, William Nicholson,
Cornelius Nickel, Wallace Normand,
Walter O'Hara, Lloyd O'Leary, Albert Oakford, Robert Olscamp,
Carl Olsson, Grenville Onyette, Douglas Orr, Marcel Ouellet,
William Overton, Gordon Palin, Parker Robert, Soren Paulson,
Raymond Pellor, Gerard Pentland, Abraham Peters, George Peterson,
Arthur Pifher, Leo Pitre, Joseph Poirier, Ferdinand Poitras,
Allison Pollock, Coleman Pollock, John Pollock, William Pople,
Arnold Porter, Ross Purse, Edward Query, Raymond Quirion, Charles
Rame, Lawrence Rattie, Douglas Rees, Douglas Reid, James Riddoch,
Arthur Roberts, Austin Roberts, Ernest Roberts, Roy Robinson,
William Rodgers, Edwin Rodrigues, Peter Rollick, Jacob Rose,
Arnold Ross, Lancelot Ross, Lawrence Ross, John Roussel, Ronald
Routledge, Berthrand Roy, Albert Russell, Fred Ryman,
Mattew Sandford, William Sarginson, Oliver Sauson, Adam Schnell,
Theodore Schultz, Arthur Schwartz, Leonard Seaborn, Lloyd
Seaward, Edward Shayler, John Simcoe, Harold Smith, Jack Smith,
John Smith, Raymond Smith, John Snively, Donald Southworth,
Lionel Speller, Arthur Squires, Robert Stager, Lawrence Stebbe,
Clarence, Leslie Stickles, John Stroud, Gerald Sunstrum, Royce
Sweet, Dempsey Syvret, John Tayler, George Taylor, Joseph
Tennier, Elved Thomas, Bernard Thompson, Daniel Thompson, Percy
Thompson, Wendell Thompson, Raoul Tremblay, Sidney Vale, Johannes
Van Baalen, Emile Van Raes, Alfred Wagner, Howard Ward, Robert
Warren, Lenoard Watson, John Webb, Harry White, Allan Whitman,
Richard Wilson, Cecil Windsor, Peter Wing, Leonard Wood, Arthur
Wright, Frederick Wright, John Yanota, Lavin Zaharychuk and Nick
Zytaruk.
1030
This tribute is to Canada's forgotten war veterans to remind the
all party committee of its unanimous agreement to compensate
Canada's Hong Kong war veterans for enslavement. I want to
recognize the human element of a well documented statistical
history.
I wish now to conclude my tribute to the surviving veterans of
Japan's evil enslavement with a call for support for compensation
for Canada's Hong Kong veterans.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone in the House can support
this issue. I hope the Liberal government will take those steps
to ensure that our veterans who were enslaved in camps in Hong
Kong during the war will be adequately recognized and
compensated. That compensation will be claimed from the country
of Japan.
I ask the member if he could give us an explanation as to why
Canada has not acted on this issue prior to now. Why does it take
until 1998 for a government, whether current or previous, to act
on this very important issue?
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
the question.
The history of this relates back to 1953 when there was a
settlement made with a Japan that was broke. With Japan's
economy after the war it was felt that there was no money
available for compensation. The Canadian government on behalf of
the Hong Kong veterans accepted a $1 a day settlement for
enslaved labour by Japan, a buck a day settlement.
What the Hong Kong veterans are asking for is something that was
a reasonable return for labour at that time, let alone slave
labour. They would like $18 a day, which would be reasonable.
The $1 a day was totally unacceptable. It was inappropriate.
Japan, now the richest country on earth, uses that buck a day
settlement as an excuse not to approach it again. That is wrong.
Canada now has an opportunity now to correct this wrong.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
a brief comment to make, which is that the Bloc Quebecois would
be totally in favour of this motion, particularly since, during
the previous Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois introduced two
motions in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs in response
to this request by the Hong Kong combatants and veterans for
fair compensation.
The government opposed those two motions, or at least the first.
Those motions afforded the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
the opportunity to hear some very moving testimony from the POWs
themselves, or their survivors, who revealed all the details of
the dreadful treatment accorded these prisoners, who were used
as forced labour, and worked on airports and other things from
which the Japanese and the Japanese government benefited.
What our party finds most distressing is the government's total
lack of compassion and sympathy for these prisoners and their
survivors. The government is hiding behind an international
treaty, a peace agreement and legal opinions on this matter,
which have never been presented to the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs, despite demands from opposition parties
including our own.
It is hard to understand why the Government of Canada is
unwilling to demonstrate the requisite generosity toward these
prisoners, as it did toward other prisoners and veterans.
1035
We feel that the government should follow up on the
recommendation in the report by the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade to pay each Hong Kong
veteran fair compensation, particularly as this fair
compensation has been estimated at about $23,000 per veteran and
as there are only 200 to 400 of them left to receive it.
In conclusion, my question for my colleague in the Reform Party
is this: Does he not think that this claim is justified and
should be recognized, particularly as many other prisoners and
veterans have had their right to fair compensation recognized?
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind
comments from my colleague.
I do believe it is essential for Canada to step forward and give
recognition to these honourable veterans. It has been far too
long. Christmas day 1941 was the first day of their internment.
It is now 58 years later and there are still questions.
In this day of revising and changing history, we should step
forward, do the right thing and provide compensation for these
veterans. We should give them this sign of respect.
I phoned Mr. Wilbert Lynch in Edmonton yesterday. He is now in
the hospital and I wish to give him my regards right now. There
is a sense of urgency to give this sign of respect.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, will we not be given
an opportunity to present our petitions this morning?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On the assumption
that the motion passes, we will go to orders of the day. We will
not be doing petitions.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite
prepared, once this motion is dealt with, to ask for the consent
of the House to return to petitions for a few moments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion to proceed to orders of the day. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1120
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Redman
| Reed
| Robillard
|
Saada
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
– 127
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver) – 105
|
PAIRED
Members
Crête
| de Savoye
| Duceppe
| Fournier
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Allan Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Would it be possible for the Chair to seek unanimous
consent that those members who wish to present petitions would
get that opportunity as it was omitted earlier this morning.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Blackstrap has requested the unanimous consent of the House to
revert to petitions. Is there unanimous consent?
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent. We will now go to orders of the day.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1125
[Translation]
PARKS CANADA ACT
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage) moved that
Bill C-29, an act to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to
amend other Acts as a consequence, be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take
this opportunity to provide details on a bit of a debate that
arose in connection with the deliberations of the committee on
Bill C-29, an act to establish the Parks Canada agency.
As I sit on this committee, I had an opportunity to be in on
discussions and even, at one point, to introduce an amendment.
I would like to speak about this amendment today.
The aim of the amendment was to have the Official Languages Act,
a cornerstone of public policy in this country on respect for
linguistic duality, apply in its entirety to the bill
establishing the Parks Canada agency. I would first like to
repeat the remarks I made in introducing the amendment in
committee.
First off, I have to say I am no expert, that my area of
expertise is not legislative drafting. So, if changes are
required to clarify thinking or the scope the committee wishes
to give this amendment, if it agrees to it, naturally, I have no
problem.
I have to say here that the intent of this amendment was to make
it clear the Official Languages Act applied to the bill before
us at the time.
As I said, since I am no expert in drafting bills, I asked the
government to simply follow the discussions and, if the proposed
amendment were passed, ensure that it was improved, if
necessary, to really define the scope of debate and accurately
represent the committee's intent in the debate that preceded the
vote on the amendment. This was done. That said, the debate
took place May 12.
What was said in the debate is important. Discussions in
committee even raised the question of whether the person
painting a fence, cutting the grass or collecting garbage had to
do so in both official languages. Absolutely not. That was
clear during the debate.
We were referring to services to the public and a majority of
committee members felt that, if the agency were created, it
could not be exempted from the obligation to provide services to
the public in both official languages, even if it called on a
third party or subcontractor to provide services that it would
normally perform itself. These third parties or subcontractors
would also, in the case of services to the public, provide these
services in both official languages, in every province of the
country. The issue was discussed and clearly understood. The
amendment was passed by a majority of committee members.
A little later, on May 20, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt
issued a press release which stated, and I quote:
[English]
On May 12 the Liberal dominated House of Commons heritage
committee voted in favour of including specific reference to the
Official Languages Act in the new bill establishing the Parks
Canada Agency.
[Translation]
The member for Saskatoon-Humboldt goes on in this vein, leading
people to believe that the said amendment would have the exact
opposite effect of what was sought, that is to demand that any
subcontractor performing any type of work, including painting a
fence—which is the example used by the member—do so in both
official languages.
1130
That was absolutely not the committee's intention, and it does
not in any way reflect the outcome of the debate. I cannot see
how the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt could arrive at such a
conclusion.
[English]
I felt disappointed that he did not praise the committee. The
party that he represents has always criticized the hegemony of
government. He used the term Liberal dominated House of Commons
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. It is interesting that
in this case the amendment carried and was supported by the Bloc
Quebecois, the NDP, the Tories and two of five Liberals. It was
not a Liberal dominated vote, yet he chose to present it that
way.
He chose to ignore the fact that members of the committee sat
down, did some serious work and had a very thorough discussion on
the concept of services to the public being offered in both
official languages, whether by Parks Canada as a department or by
Parks Canada as an agency. That was the debate. That was the
intent. That is what the committee wanted, yet he chose to say
otherwise. He chose to say that the committee was insisting that
anybody who paints a fence must do it in both languages. It is
very disappointing to see such misrepresentation of the intent of
the committee.
I said at the start that when the amendment was tabled there
was an invitation given to the government to redraft it to
reflect accurately the intent and the desire of the committee
that services to the public be offered in both official
languages. That is what the government did. That is the
amendment that was tabled in this House, which I had the honour
of supporting along with one of my colleagues, and that was the
amendment that was carried.
The system worked. The will of the committee eventually won the
day and the government rallied, despite an opinion to the
contrary. It saw the advantages of putting in the bill a direct
reference that the agency and subcontractors who offer services
to the public would be subject to the Official Languages Act.
This very much reflects a concern expressed to this House by the
official languages commissioner in his most recent report.
Over the last few years there has been a devolution in the
general way of handling things. They go to third parties,
special agencies and so forth. The official languages
commissioner has rightfully demonstrated that there has been,
without it being the objective necessarily, a fraying of the
application of the Official Languages Act. There has been some
sort of an erosion of its application through this devolution. A
majority of members of the committee wanted to make sure that was
not the case with the Parks Canada agency. That is what was
intended. That is what the reformulated amendment does.
I would hope that instead of fearmongering, if not
French-mongering, we would realize what the objective was. It
was strictly to make sure that Canadians from coast to coast
could visit their national parks and expect to be served in
either official language.
[Translation]
I would like to congratulate the government for showing such
flexibility. Various and even opposite views were expressed
regarding the need for and appropriateness of such an amendment.
It is because we debated these various views that we came up
with a solution.
The government endorsed the notion that we had to clearly
indicate that we must not shirk one of our main responsibilities
as a government, which is to provide services in the language of
their choice to all Canadians who visit their national parks. It
is as simple as that.
We must not resort to fearmongering with this issue, as some
tried to do.
This is very bad for everything we stand for in this country:
respect for Canada's linguistic duality and the possibility for
Quebeckers to visit parks in Alberta and get served in their
language and, conversely, for Albertans to go to Quebec and get
served in English, if it is their language. Such was the purpose
of the amendment, and I am very disappointed by the attitude of
some members opposite who tried to make a big deal out of this.
I wanted to take a few minutes to assure all those who contacted
me that there was no intention other than to respect a
fundamental principle in our country, that of our linguistic
duality and the implementation of the Official Languages Act
when a Canadian visits a national park in a province other than
the one in which he or she lives.
1135
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
At this particular stage, are we not at third reading and,
therefore, would there not be questions and comments?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are at third
reading and we are on the first three speakers, and the first
three speakers have 40 minutes.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I was wondering if I could get unanimous consent to present a
number of petitions, which should take one minute or so.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member has
requested unanimous consent to present petitions. Does the hon.
member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member does
not have unanimous consent.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think that maybe it would be appropriate for the member for
Yorkton—Melville to tell us the substance of his petitions in
order that we can make—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Nice try, but it is
not a point of order. We will resume the debate.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today
to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-29. This
bill seeks to establish a new parks agency responsible for the
administration and protection of our national parks, national
historic sites and other heritage areas.
As the House knows, the responsibility for national parks
presently lies with the Department of Canadian Heritage. Bill
C-29 would transfer that responsibility from the heritage
department to a new body that would operate at arm's length from
the government.
The new agency will still be accountable to parliament through
the appropriate minister. As well, accountability will be
ensured since the new agency will be subject to the Access to
Information Act and the auditor general will be able to report on
the agency's activities.
The bill, as it was originally drafted, ensured that the chief
executive officer of the agency would undertake consultations at
least every two years. It committed the CEO to hold public
forums and to invite interested parties to participate. However,
the Liberal government has removed that provision and placed
those consultations at the discretion of the minister.
As well, reference to public forums has been removed from the
bill and in its place the minister will convene a round table of
persons. There is no commitment to making these discussions
public nor to making the minister's responses to the round table
public. This is a step backwards in the bill since it leaves the
public on the sidelines and consolidates more power in the hands
of cabinet. That is something that we should be moving away
from, not entrenching further.
There seems to be a movement within this government to diminish
the role of parliament and to move decision making into cabinet
and rule by regulation. I think this is a disturbing trend. It
leaves many members of the House feeling powerless and
ineffective.
Nevertheless, I am pleased to note that members of the heritage
committee did at times work well together on this bill and some
sensible amendments were the result. First of all, the name of
the agency was changed to the Parks Canada Agency. Many
witnesses who appeared before the committee expressed a concern
that the Parks Canada brand name was going to be lost. It is a
name that has international recognition. There was also a
concern about costs if Parks Canada signage needed to be changed.
Accordingly, I introduced an amendment at committee stage to
have the new agency renamed the Parks Canada Agency. Other
members of the committee could see the sense in that, so the
amendment carried. It was unusual, but the Secretary of State
for Parks testified against the name change, saying that it was
unnecessary.
I was pleased that the committee members were not swayed by his
arguments and opted to maintain the Parks Canada name. Indeed, a
great many amendments were moved at committee stage which I
believe reflected the keen interest each member had in producing
a good bill.
Unfortunately, one part of the bill is drafted very poorly. It
is in fact redundant. I refer to clause 36 which refers to the
application of the Official Languages Act.
1140
To paraphrase, clause 36 now states that the Official Languages
Act will apply to the new agency, since the agency is a federal
institution.
What is wrong with that? The Official Languages Act applies to
all federal institutions anyway, so there is no need to spell it
out in the bill. Why is it there? It is a smoke and mirrors
clause to cover the tracks of the justice minister and the member
for Ottawa—Vanier.
At committee stage the member proposed an amendment, which
passed, that would force the application of the Official
Languages Act on subcontractors working in national parks. Make
no mistake about it, despite his denials to the contrary, the
intent and the objective of his amendment was obvious. He
completely went against the advice and instructions not only of
his own justice minister, but of justice officials who were
present at the committee meeting. They told him in no uncertain
terms that the Official Languages Act would apply because it is a
federal agency and that by writing it specifically into the bill
with specific reference to subcontractors was unprecedented and
would result in the criticism that followed, that being that
people who were never before subjected to the requirement of
being fluently bilingual would be. Painters and garbage
collectors were the examples that were used in committee that
day.
He was also discussing whether it was a Liberal dominated
committee. In fact it is. I invite anyone to look back at the
record to see how the voting went. As far as I know, I am the
only person who voted against the amendment.
Furthermore, if what he was saying was so benign and innocent,
why did the Liberal officials take him behind closed doors, force
him to withdraw the amendment and replace it with this new
amendment? They were obviously admitting that they were making a
mistake.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The hon. member opposite has just said that I was forced
to do something and that is totally inaccurate and misleading.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is a point of
debate.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is
that if the intent of his motion was not as it obviously was,
then there would have been no need for him to have risen in the
House today to say that he was standing to reassure members that
that was not his intention, when in fact it was, and that should
be obvious to everybody.
At committee stage the amendment passed. It would have resulted
in the requirement that fence painters and garbage collectors,
which were the examples used in committee, would have to be
fluently bilingual.
As we know, the justice minister told the member for
Ottawa—Vanier not to do it and justice officials told the member
not to do it. What happened? He did it. As a result the
justice minister looks bad and it is the fault of the member for
Ottawa—Vanier.
To get out of this jam and to avoid a major political
embarrassment for the justice minister and for the member for
Ottawa—Vanier, the government brought in this vacuous political
amendment, which is clause 36.1. The wording of this clause is
lifted straight out of the Official Languages Act. The clause
does nothing to the bill except clutter it. It is trite law. It
brings redundant and unnecessary language into the bill. It is
poor legislative draftsmanship.
The Liberals do not seem to mind. They would rather pass a
poorly drafted bill than simply admit that they made a mistake
and delete the offensive clause.
My amendment to delete that clause was voted down by the
government last night at report stage. Hopefully when Bill C-29
is reviewed by the Senate it will recognize that clause 36.1 is
unnecessary and delete it.
However, I think we can all acknowledge that the chance of that
happening is remote indeed because, as we know, the Senate is
ineffective and useless. This is a prime example of why we
should have an effective and elected Senate because, in cases
where a Liberal dominated government puts forward redundant,
meaningless legislation, it could be corrected.
1145
Aside from the bill itself which simply establishes the
framework for the new organization, I have some concerns about
how Parks Canada is currently being run.
We have reports printed by the Globe and Mail that memos
within Parks Canada instructed staff to mislead the public with
respect to developments at Lake Louise. The same article says
Parks Canada will undertake public consultations only after final
decisions have been made.
I asked the secretary of state about these memos at committee
but he did not really answer my questions. I asked him to table
these memos but he suggested I get them from the media.
I find the contents of these memos, if described accurately by
the Globe and Mail, to be quite disturbing. My concern is
that no Canadian would want Parks Canada to operate in a manner
suggested by these leaked memos. I am concerned that this method
of operation may be standard practice at Parks Canada but that
this time it was caught.
Will the new agency operate differently or is this method of
operation too deeply ingrained and impossible to root out? Only
time will tell, but I certainly hope these leaked documents are
not indicative of how the new agency will deal with the public.
The agency will also have its plate full with respect to parks
issues. There is of course the development at Lake Louise and
the contents of these memos. As well, near Jasper a debate is
raging concerning the Cheviot coal mine.
The federal government has found itself in court over this
project as environmental groups argue that the full impact the
mine will have on the environment has not been completely
examined.
Also, the agency will have to deal with the ramifications
surrounding the boundaries of Tuktut Nogait national park. There
has been some debate over a mineral find that extends across the
western boundary of the proposed park. While the Inuvialuit want
the boundary changed to permit exploration of the minerals the
federal government refuses to review the matter.
Considering the government's stubborn position, the new agency
will definitely have trouble improving relations between itself
and the Inuvialuit in the Northwest Territories.
The agency will be working toward the creation of 15 new
national parks by the year 2000. This is a monumental task
considering the cutbacks that Parks Canada has had to face. I
hope this goal does not make it revenue hungry and force it to
hike fees and service charges unnecessarily.
Aside from the concerns I have mentioned I believe the creation
of a parks agency is a good idea. It should allow national parks
to operate more efficiently since the agency will be able to
raise and keep its own revenues. As well, it will allow the use
of third parties to administer certain facilities and the agency
will have access to a new $10 million parks and heritage sites
account. This account will provide funds for the agency in times
when particular opportunities arise to purchase land, expand a
park, et cetera. Furthermore, funds from this account are
repayable to the crown with interest.
The new agency structure provides much needed flexibility. I
believe the new agency will ensure our national parks and
heritage sites are administered in an accountable, efficient and
cost effective manner.
Policy issues concerning our national parks are another matter
which I know we all take an interest in. However, this bill
simply creates a framework for the new parks agency and I support
that framework. I hope other members can also see their way to
supporting this new organizational structure.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. A short time ago I asked for unanimous consent to present
my repeal of Bill C-68 petitions. I am wondering if I could
present them at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
debating today at third reading Bill C-29 introduced by the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, the short title of which was
National Parks Act.
I say “was” because, faced with the unanimity of those who
testified before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and
of the committee members themselves, the secretary of state
responsible for Parks Canada finally bowed to the evidence and
accepted the amendment passed by the committee suggesting that
the title of the bill be changed to an “act to establish the
Parks Canada Agency and to amend other acts as a consequence”.
1150
Clause 1 of this bill sets out the short title of the act as
follows: “Parks Canada Act”.
After holding public hearings in which a number of witnesses
raised objections to this bill, questioning Heritage Canada and
justice officials to get a different perspective on how to
interpret certain clauses and to address the objections raised,
and asking the secretary of state responsible for Parks Canada
about the government's objectives in establishing this agency,
the committee proceeded to the clause by clause study of the
bill.
In order to take into account all the work done by committee
members, we then set out to examine the merits of several
amendments proposed by the various parties.
To this end, at report stage, we used a working paper made
available to the House of Commons. This was an updated version
of Bill C-29, reprinted as amended by the standing committee.
With few exceptions, the amendments in question are mainly
changes of a technical nature or designed to ensure the text
said the same thing in both official languages.
As for the additions, they fit for the most part into three
categories. First, additions to clarify a clause to facilitate
the interpretation of the act. A fine example of this type of
addition can be found at clause 5.1, which clarifies the status
of the direction referred to in clauses 4 and 5 of the original
bill.
It reads as follows “A direction by the Minister referred to in
sections 4 and 5 is not a statutory instrument for the purposes
of the Statutory Instruments Act”.
A second type of addition is for the purpose of improving the
bill. There are several examples of these, including clause 21,
which calls for the creation of a new parks and historic sites
account. There was an addition to subsection 3(c), the
possibility that this account could be used, not only to
maintain and develop, but also to “restore any national park,
national historic site or other protected heritage area that has
not yet attained full operational status”.
In clause 32, ecological integrity has been added.
A significant addition was made to clause 33, to enhance the
transparency of the agency's administration. It calls for the
chief executive officer to submit a corporate plan for the
agency before March 31 of each year, and that 30 days after its
approval by Treasury Board, the Minister must table a summary of
the plan in each house of parliament.
To this was added, and I quote “at which time the plan shall be
made available to the public on request”. This phrase was added
to the bill at the request of a number of witnesses who wished
to have access to this type of document.
Another significant addition was to clause 36.1, which reflects
an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage, and reads as follows “The Official Languages Act
applies to the Agency and to its subcontractors”.
This addition was to initiate lengthy discussions between
representatives of the Department of Justice and the committee
members. We also debated it here at the report stage, when a
member of the government, the hon. member for Brossard—La
Prairie, asked for withdrawal of the amendment to clause 36.1
passed by the committee, and its replacement with another
amendment.
The new clause 36.1 ought therefore to read as follows “For
greater certainty, the Official Languages Act applies to the
agency and the agency has the duty, under section 25 of that
Act, to ensure that, where services are provided or made
available by another person or organization on its behalf, any
member of the public in Canada or elsewhere can communicate with
and obtain those services from that person or organization in
either official language, in any case where those services, if
provided by the agency, would be required under part IV of the
Official Languages Act to be provided in either official
language”.
1155
I followed with interest the presentation made earlier by my
colleague from Ottawa—Vanier. I remember the remarks made by
Reform members, including the chief opposition whip, who,
offended, rose in this House to accuse the Bloc Quebecois of
having only French on the doors of its offices to indicate the
offices of its party leader, its House leader and so on.
As I walked through the corridors, I realized that those living
in glass houses should not throw stones, because they risk
having them thrown back. Members should know that, if they go
to hallway C on the sixth floor of the Centre Block, they will
find a sign saying “Deputy Whip of the Official Opposition” in
English only on the whip's door.
A third way to change the law and add details to it is to amend
the laws affected by the passage of a bill. In the case in
point, Bill C-29 amends the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act,
among others, by amending the definitions of “park warden” and
“superintendent” to align them with those in this bill.
Some of the amendments we introduced were rejected either by the
committee or by the government majority. Although creation of
the agency offers certain benefits, it also raises concerns.
The federal government has shown us for the past five years its
strong tendency to pass its problems on to others. Sometimes it
sends them to the provinces. Sometimes it gets around them by
creating new agencies and requiring them to be more
cost effective.
This is why we wanted to make sure that the Parks Canada Agency
struck a balance between its priority mission and its concern to
be cost effective. Our amendment read as follows, and I quote:
When implementing policies of the Government of Canada, the
Agency's priority shall be the conservation and the ecological,
historic and cultural integrity of national parks, national
historic sites and other protected heritage areas, and it shall
reconcile this priority with the development of tourism and
commercial activities.
I have to say we have a real concern. We all know about the
lure of money.
If the government does not maintain parliamentary appropriations
at an adequate level so the agency has the means to fulfil its
mandate, the agency will have to find a way to do so at any
cost.
That is why an amendment such as the one we proposed could have
been useful for the agency. Indeed, it could have used it to
present its case to the Treasury Board and get the funds it
needs to meet the challenge it is faced with. Unfortunately, our
amendment was rejected.
We also proposed another amendment which made a lot of sense.
Generally speaking, local communities lose part of their
environment when parks or historic sites are created.
That is why we asked the government to show some compassion
towards these communities by giving them access to these parks
and sites at a reduced fee.
Unfortunately, this government is obsessed with money. It
rejected our amendment, even though the arguments used to
justify its decision did not convince me at all.
Rather, they made me realize that the government is aware that,
in most cases, visits are made primarily by local people. It is
with these local people, who make more frequent visits than
tourists from outside the region, the province or even the
country, that Parks Canada will make money, through entry fees.
So, in this case as in others, the government is opting for the
status quo.
The result is that we have a slightly better bill instead of one
that could have been greatly improved, if the government had not
used its majority to impose on us decisions that were made not
by those elected to represent the people of this country and
look after their interests, but by bureaucrats and public
servants who are too close to their own reality to have the
proper perspective to make the best decisions.
1200
The aim of the bill is to turn Parks Canada, one of the three
programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage, into an agency
separate from the department, to be known as the Parks Canada
Agency.
At the moment, Parks Canada has 5,000 employees, more than a
third of whom work seasonally. It administers 38 national parks
and national park reserves, three marine conservation areas, 131
national historic sites, seven historic canals, 165 heritage
train stations and 31 heritage rivers. In addition, Parks Canada
works with 661 national historic sites it does not own.
It administers policy on some 1,000 heritage federal buildings
and shares responsibility for eight world heritage sites with
UNESCO.
Briefly, the three reasons the government gives for the creation
of a new agency to replace Parks Canada are as follows: to
simplify structures, to improve administrative efficiency and to
establish more flexible staffing and financial procedures.
In order to achieve these objectives, the agency will have new
or revised financial, administrative and human resource
management powers.
To this end, the agency will become a separate entity, a public
corporation as defined in schedule II to the Financial
Administration Act and will become subject to part II of
schedule I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
In terms of responsibilities, the agency will report directly to
the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who will be accountable for
the agency's activities to Parliament. The agency will report to
parliament by tabling the following five documents: an annual
report on the agency's operations; a summary of the five year
corporate plan; management plans for the national parks,
national historic sites and other protected areas; a report
every five years on the human resources management regime; and a
biennial report on the state of protected heritage areas.
In addition, the financial statements of the agency are to be
examined by the auditor general, who will report to the
government and will also provide an assessment of the agency's
mandate, objectives and business plan. The parks Canada agency
will remain subject to the legislation governing official
languages, employment equity and human rights, access to
information and privacy.
As for the agency's funding, the legislation will give it a
number of new financial powers, particularly: a budget spread
over two years, which is better suited to investing in the
development of parks and historic sites; the power to retain and
reinvest all proceeds with the exception of fines; the creation
of a dedicated permanent fund from parliamentary appropriations
and the sale of surplus property. This account will be used to
finance new national parks and historic sites.
Finally, the agency may advance funds for the unplanned purchase
of land when favourable conditions present themselves. These
advances must be repaid with interest.
As for human resources management, the agency will be a separate
employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The
director will be empowered to appoint employees and to define
the conditions of employment of agency staff, particularly
negotiation of a collective agreement and the creation of a
classification and staffing system.
Hopefully, these changes will give the agency the necessary
flexibility to develop a human resources management system
better suited to its operational context. The parks and
historic sites system is spread across the entire country,
operates year round and around the clock in a number of different
time zones, and employs many seasonal, permanent and part time
workers.
All employees whose duties are transferred to the Parks Canada
agency will receive an offer of employment. Their present jobs
are guaranteed for two years by Treasury Board.
According to the federal government, the creation of an agency
responsible for Canada's parks will fulfil the present mission
of the Parks Canada program of Canadian Heritage with greater
efficiency and cost-effectiveness. This strikes us as an
important commitment: enhanced efficiency for less money.
1205
Let us not forget that, in the last four years, the government
reduced Parks Canada's budget by $100 million. That budget is
used, among other things, to develop the network of national
parks and marine conservation areas, and to maintain and promote
national historic sites and monuments.
The financial constraints imposed on Parks Canada led the
government to consider a restructuring of the program's
operations. The bill we are debating today at third reading is
the result of that exercise.
The government reached the conclusion that the best way to
ensure the objectives of Parks Canada were met was to create the
Parks Canada agency.
The Bloc Quebecois has long been asking the federal government
to streamline its operations wherever possible, and to fight
waste, instead of cutting in social programs and education. This
is why we support the bill, since it will truly improve the
effectiveness of the parks' management, without jeopardizing the
mandate to preserve, protect and develop Canada's national parks
and historic sites for future generations and for all Canadians
and Quebeckers.
The government has assured us that this bill is not the first
step toward the privatization of parks. We were very concerned
that the Parks Canada agency might be the first step toward the
privatization of parks.
I want to say it here in the House so it will be officially
recorded in Hansard. The government has assured us that it has
absolutely no intention of privatizing Parks Canada.
When he appeared before the Canadian heritage committee, on
November 20, the secretary of state responsible for Parks Canada
said, and I quote:
There's something I have said over and over again, and I will
take an opportunity to say it here when we are talking about
finance. It is not the intention of this government to either
privatize or commercialize Parks Canada. We believe the
maintenance of our special places in Canada is an important
trust given to us by Canadians. That stewardship Canadians want
to see exercised publicly, and we will continue to do that
through our agency and through the oversight of Parliament.
One of the Bloc Quebecois' main concerns about this bill is to
ensure that, once in operation, the agency will maintain access
to parks for everyone. This bill shows the unequivocal will of
the government to increase user fees in parks, even though
taxpayers already contribute through taxes. There has to be a
reasonable limit to the fee increases imposed on visitors.
We put forward the idea that people living close to these parks
should enjoy a preferential rate, but the government rejected
our amendment.
The agency should use its increased revenues from user fees,
royalties or the sale of assets to provide more services, better
fulfil its mandate, or develop its activities.
The anticipated increase in revenues should not be used by the
government to justify a further reduction of parliamentary
appropriations for the agency.
A fair balance must be maintained between the revenues from
taxes paid by taxpayers, and those from the fees they have to
pay when they visit these parks and sites. If we continually
increase fees, soon there will not be enough visitors and Parks
Canada will have a hard time keeping these parks, sites and
historic monuments in good shape.
We also want to ensure that the agency's financial objectives
and the obvious desire of the federal government to increase the
number of visitors to ensure greater economic benefits do not
lead to overuse of our parks and historic sites.
1210
We know how difficult it sometimes is to keep sites in decent
shape because too many people have been allowed in all at once
and there is not enough time for proper maintenance. We would
like to be sure that the agency balances the need to preserve
and maintain natural or historic sites against the increase in
the number of visitors and the related expansion of tourism and
commercial activities.
The Bloc Quebecois is not alone in expressing the concerns I
have just mentioned. In November 1996, the auditor general
presented a meaty report to parliament on the protection of
Canada's national heritage.
The auditor general had examined the systems established by
Parks Canada to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of
national parks. I am delighted that the government has agreed
to add a provision to one of the bill's clauses to the effect
that the Parks Canada Agency will have the mandate of preserving
the ecological integrity of national parks.
In 1996 the auditor general pointed out that park management
plans place more emphasis on economic and social factors than on
ecological factors. He noted also that Parks Canada should
upgrade its knowledge of the condition of natural resources in
national parks in order to adopt a sensible management approach,
based on the ecosystems.
In this regard, a number of witnesses appeared before the
committee to express their concerns. I hope that the Parks
Canada agency, which can obtain the minutes of our meetings,
will read them carefully, analyze them and take them into
consideration when developing its policies.
Since the auditor general's report, Parks Canada has taken a
number of corrective measures and, last fall, when the secretary
of state forwarded to us Parks Canada's response to some of the
auditor general's criticisms, it was clear that it had truly
made an effort.
The bill calls for measures relating to the creation and
implementation of park management plans. Much still remains to
be done, however, before all the auditor general's
recommendations can be implemented. The data on park conditions
still need to be updated, and the policies on ecological
conditions need to be implemented on an ongoing basis as well.
The environmental objectives set in the act must result in
concrete measures if they are to be achieved, regardless of
budget constraints. I do hope that the Parks Canada Agency can
really fulfil that part of its mandate.
Parks Canada designed ambitious development plans to complete
the network of national parks, expand the number of national
historic sites, and create marine conservation areas. Currently,
24 of the 39 natural regions defined by Parks Canada are
represented in the network, and the objective is to develop the
15 remaining regions by the year 2000.
That objective seems quite ambitious, considering the pace at
which Parks Canada operates. Still, even though its pace may
seem slow, Parks Canada should not act precipitously but take
the time to meet the needs of the communities, instead of trying
to please bureaucrats and technocrats.
There is a case in point, which we will soon discuss, when we
deal with another bill on a park in the Northwest Territories
that sets boundaries which do not at all reflect what is good
for the community. But this is another issue which will be
debated at another time.
The federal government claims that these objectives are
attainable, thanks to the improved efficiency resulting from a
restructuring exercise that will allow Parks Canada to do more
with fewer resources. Developing the 15 remaining regions in two
years sounds like sheer utopia.
We hope that the government and the minister will not ask the
Parks Canada agency to achieve this goal in less than two years,
since we are almost half way through 1998.
1215
The year 2000 will soon be here, and I think the Parks Canada
agency must have the time it needs to develop these 15 regions
at its own pace and to carry out the consultations necessary to
involve the people concerned in their development.
Nevertheless, we question the new agency's ability to
consolidate and fully develop the existing sites, while
maintaining its objectives of expansion in today's context of
budgetary restraint. What we do not want to see happen is for
there to be a very vast but badly maintained system, with
insufficient services and no ecological integrity.
We wish to ensure that the development of the system of national
parks and historic sites is durable and sustainable.
We let the government know that, when this bill was studied by
the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we wanted the
committee to call as witnesses representatives of all groups of
employees, including seasonal and part time workers, whose
status might be changed as a result of the bill's planned
changes. We were very satisfied on this point, since the
representatives of these employees from all categories testified
before the committee.
It would appear, from what we heard, that relations are
excellent and that everything seems to be progressing in the
best way possible, under the best conditions. We were assured
that the tendering process for all Parks Canada agency contracts
would be impartial and transparent in accordance with
regulations. The new structure and wide-ranging authority of the
agency's CEO in the management of human resources must not pave
the way for arbitrary decisions and patronage appointments. It
would appear we have guarantees here too.
We will support Bill C-29, which creates the Parks Canada agency.
We will carefully monitor the establishment of this agency to
ensure that everyone may work there and carry out the mandate
given the Parks Canada agency in peace, friendship, solidarity
and prosperity.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me to rise today and speak to this
particular piece of legislation which has come before the House.
I am not the New Democratic Party's critic in this area but I do
come from an island that has not one but two national parks
located within its boundaries. This is of particular importance
to the people of Cape Breton.
The Cape Breton Highlands National Park is contained in my
riding. It contains some of the most spectacular scenery in the
country and some of the most important plant growth and
ecological—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you. I acknowledge the applause
from my colleagues from Nova Scotia.
On the island of Cape Breton in the riding of my colleague from
Bras d'Or is the national historic park the Fortress of
Louisbourg which is of great importance to the heritage and
history of this country.
When I stand to speak on this bill, I do so from the perspective
of a resident who sees the importance of these parks to their own
areas in many ways.
I start by addressing some of the concerns that have been raised
by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis and the concerns of
constituents in my riding and I think across the country on a fee
structure for using national historic parks.
There has been some mention made that people who once resided in
these parks gave up their land. It was a concern of the Bloc
Quebecois member that those people be given reduced rates. I
would go further and say that they be given free rates to the
parks.
I can speak as one who represents people whose property was
expropriated by the national government to ensure that there was
a national park in Cape Breton to be used for the benefit of all
Canadians. Indeed many people from all over the world visit that
park.
1220
Those people were farmers and fishermen, families who had lived
on particular pieces of land for generations. The land
represented their livelihood. They were prosperous farmers. They
were prosperous fishermen. Their land bordered the coastline.
They were self-sufficient. They farmed and fished all summer.
They dried the fish in the winter and they preserved the goods
from their farms.
That land was expropriated. It was expropriated for a good
reason. It is important to preserve that area. Those
individuals were relocated. They pay taxes to the Canadian
government for the preservation of the parks. To ask them now to
also pay a fee to enter land that was once their own is unfair. I
know it will raise the hackles of the constituents in my riding.
I have already received complaints about that very process.
As well I want to talk a little bit about the advisory council.
We are creating an agency to manage the parks. We have heard that
this is not a step. The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis quoted
the secretary of state as saying that this was not a step to
privatization. We have not gone far enough to include the public
in the debate about the management of the parks and what role the
community should have in that area.
I am concerned when we delegate authority to an agency in that
we lose some accountability. I say that having just had some
experience with Nav Canada corporation. Members in this House
will remember that was a private corporation, admittedly
different from an agency, set up to deal with the flight service
stations in various airports. When I asked it for a report
dealing with the safety of individuals in my community, I was
told it is not the corporation's policy to make that report
public and I could not see it even though I am a member of
parliament.
I have some concerns when we say that we are going to move Parks
Canada from the full administrative role that the government has
in administering Parks Canada to an agency that may or may not be
answerable. I recognize that the minister will have some
authority. At the same time we need to make sure that every
individual member in this House who has a request for information
for that agency is entitled to receive the information
immediately or as soon as possible.
This party has other concerns with regard to amendments that we
put forward, some of which were accepted. I still have great
concerns when it comes to the personnel in Parks Canada. As I
read the act and what the government intends to do, it gives no
great comfort to the employees of Parks Canada. They have
already been cut back in terms of numbers, leaving those who are
left to pick up the additional workload. They have had their
wages frozen and rolled back. They have had their work increased
for less money. I know from speaking to people who work for
Parks Canada in my riding that there are serious morale concerns.
Now we are telling the individuals who work for Parks Canada
that they are going to be answerable to a new agency. That agency
we are told would simplify organizational structures, improve
administrative efficiency and allow more flexible staffing and
financial procedures. Given what these individuals have been
through in the last six to eight years, it seems that they have
legitimate concerns about what those phrases mean.
I think we can read into those phrases, contracting out of
services, layoffs and seasonal work with reduced benefits. I
think we can also read into them less money in the hands of the
individuals who work in those parks and who are the citizens who
have given up the development of that land for commercial
enterprises in order to ensure that all Canadians can benefit
from it. That causes concern for me as a representative of the
people who work in Parks Canada and who live in the surrounding
areas.
I have concerns about the increasing fees at Parks Canada. Let
us not forget that we have a number of parks across this country.
If we increase the fees, I would hope that we do not see the
parks getting into some kind of competition with each other
whereby certain incentives will have to be offered at the Cape
Breton Highlands national park to entice tourists from the new
park located in Prince Edward Island or from Banff National Park.
I hope that we do not begin a race to the bottom whereby the
parks get more and more Disney-like in an effort to attract
visitors.
1225
As we move away from federal government financing of the parks,
and I appreciate that we are looking at an 80-20 split here, 80%
from the federal government and 20% from private revenue, we are
on a very slippery slope where we may begin to increase the
dependency of the parks on private financing. That then
increases competition between the parks to attract the limited
tourist dollars that come into this country. Once we do that, we
move away from the ecological concerns and the preservation
concerns of the mandate for having these national historic parks
to creating a carnival-like atmosphere whereby the parks will
cater to the lowest common denominator. I take the government at
its word when it says we are not moving in this direction.
At the same time I am concerned that we are moving toward a more
American style of parks system. As I speak to the House today I
am not sure that members know this but it has been reported in
“Environmental Dimensions” that on May 20 the minister of state
for parks entered into an agreement with the United States
regarding national parks along the border states. A
co-management or a co-operation agreement has been entered into
between Canada and the United States on managing the border area
parks. There will be co-operation in management, research,
protection, conservation and the presentation of national parks
and national historic sites.
I do not know if members of the committee have been made aware
of this but this country's national parks are something Canadians
hold dear. They determine our identity. When people in other
countries think of Canada they think of our national parks. They
think of Banff in Alberta. They think of the new park in Prince
Edward Island. The pristine waters. Those are the things that
define us. Now we see that the minister of state has entered
into an agreement to co-manage Canada's national parks that fall
along the border between Canada and the United States.
Why in heaven's name would the minister do this? Why are we
handing over the authority to manage those parks to another
country? What does that mean in terms of Bill C-29?
It may well mean that personnel for border area parks could be
American. It means that the new chief executive officer who will
head the Canada parks agency will have to deal with the U.S.
parks service. I am not sure the committee was aware of this at
the time the bill was introduced. As I indicated, I do not sit
on that committee, but I think it is worth questioning the
minister in this regard.
The minister of course says for his part that he is delighted to
have made the commitment to create a framework for future
co-operation and co-ordination in conserving and presenting the
national and cultural heritage sites. But these are our national
and cultural heritage sites.
We see that kind of movement by the minister at the same time
that we are introducing this piece of legislation to take some
responsibility away from the government and to create an agency.
At the same time we are talking about increasing user fees for
the parks. At the same time we are not providing special
incentives, if you will, for those who live in the areas so that
they do not have to pay the same price to use the parks. It
causes me concern as to where we are going with the national
parks.
With those comments I indicate that the New Democratic Party has
always been in favour of Canada's national historic parks and
preserving them for the people of Canada and for the people in
whose regions they exist.
1230
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I was very interested in the comments by the NDP member with
respect to this piece of legislation. It is one of the few
pieces of legislation that the Reform Party feels relatively
comfortable with that has been proposed by the government with
one or two exceptions that I will be outlining in a speech later
today.
I really have to wonder where the head space of the NDP is with
respect to this issue of making something more efficient. It
would seem as though as long as national parks are under some
kind of public service, some kind of overlayering of bureaucracy,
that is going to make the parks more protected. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
The biggest single problem that Parks Canada has had in recent
history has been that there has been an overlayering and an
overcomplication of the administration of the parks. What this
act will do in terms of creating efficiency is set up the most
creative and efficient way to deliver services to Canadians and
visitors to the parks and to give the greatest protection to
parks in Canada.
I think the NDP unfortunately is setting up a bogeyman by saying
if we do not have all of this overlayering somehow the parks are
going to be in peril. I do not know whether the NDP is coming
from the 1950s, 1940s or the 1920s, but it certainly is not
coming from the level of today's way of delivering services to
people. I cannot imagine where this member has come from with his
comments.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reply
to that comment from the member who says he does not know where
the head space is of the NDP. It is with the Canadian public and
in the preservation of the things that the Canadian public from
one end of the country to the other holds dear.
I understand the Reform Party will support this piece of
legislation. Perhaps it is the beginning of unite the right or
the merger the hon. member's leader speaks about. There is not
that great a difference I guess between some Liberal thinking and
Reform thinking.
The member says this is the most creative and efficient way to
manage the parks. He asks if we are in the 1950s or the 1920s.
We are moving well into the millennium when the preservation of
the things Canadians hold dear will never be more important. We
know where the Reform Party would like to go with Parks Canada.
It would like to have a Disneyland and McDonald's on every
corner. That is its mechanism for making money and becoming cost
efficient in Canada's parks.
I am happy to respond to his comments and let Canadians know the
difference between the NDP which has always fought to protect and
preserve traditions of Canada and the Reform Party which has
adopted the thinking of Ronald Reagan and the United States.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, apparently this member is
not aware that I and my family have proudly lived in the region
of East Kootenay since 1974. We live there because there are
four mountain parks within my constituency in addition to another
three mountain parks on the Alberta side of the border.
I am very aware of and have a personal commitment to parks. I
find his myopic sense of righteousness as put forward by the NDP
that somehow it is the only protectors of the environment to be
exceptionally unfortunate.
It is my commitment and it is the commitment of the Reform Party
that national parks be accessible to Canadians while at the same
time reflecting that these parks represent a national treasure
that must be protected.
It is really scandalous that he would be making these kinds of
allegations which are absolutely, totally and factually
inaccurate.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am glad it took my
comments to wring out of the hon. member that he sees these as
historic treasures even in his own riding. I suggest that the
people of his riding, if they have concerns about the protection
of those very parks that he has so eloquently mentioned, question
him on this bill and what it means. I wonder if those
individuals will have to pay the same price for access to their
own land that the tourists will have to pay.
I wonder if those people understand there may be a downgrading in
the privatization of the parks to the lowest common denominator.
I am sure, given his comments today and the members of his
constituency who are watching him, that he will have to answer
those questions for them.
1235
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the member may not have been
in the House last night. He must have missed the fact that the
Reform Party voted in favour of the lower rates for the local
residents. He obviously missed that.
With respect to the delivery of services, Kootenay National Park
is in my constituency within the geography of my constituency
office. The park did the initial trial for delivery of services
by painting road signs of all things. The park created an
efficiency after due process by giving an individual who was only
half employed a commercial contract. On the basis of that
commercial contract, the individual who had become an ex-park
employee was able to start his own commercial sign business. With
that base he could go ahead to develop his own private business
in the Invermere area outside of Radium, the Kootenay National
Park boundary.
Now delivery of the sign painting service to Kootenay National
Park is at a significantly lower cost, a new commercial
enterprise is now paying taxes and there is somebody who is very
happy to deliver the commercial services as well as the services
he is delivering to the park. It is a win-win-win. It is this
kind of creativeness and inventiveness we would bring to deliver
services to the Canadian public and to protect parks for future
generations. It is not under the rubric or the umbrella of this
overlaying of bureaucracy that the NDP seems to feel is the only
way to protect the ecology of the parks. There are new ways.
Maybe this member should start to learn that the NDP ideas of the
1950s do not fit anymore.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I find that an
interesting analogy. The hon. member has given us what he
believes to be a success story of contracting out. I wonder if
the individuals who live along the border states, where the
minister of state has just entered into an agreement for
co-management of Canada's parks, will feel happy if the
contracting out of services goes to the Americans or if we go to
some other nation to paint the signs, to mow the lawns, to bring
in the machinery. I wonder how happy the constituents in this
member's riding would be if the contracting out went to a nation
with no minimum wage. I know that is his position. The workers
in that riding would be forced to the lowest possible wage in
order to maintain what was once their own land.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if you
ask, I believe you would find unanimous consent to withdraw my
private member's bill on Louis Riel, given that tomorrow another
precedent will be set in this House with the introduction of a
private member's bill on Louis Riel prepared by two government
members and four opposition members.
If you ask, I believe you would find unanimous consent of the
House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Rimouski—Mitis seeks the unanimous consent of the House to
withdraw her bill on Louis Riel.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is no consent.
1240
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-29.
This act calls for the establishment of an agency to administer
laws that apply to national parks, national historic sites,
national marine conservation areas and other heritage areas and
places. It would also amend related acts.
A number of amendments have been made to Bill C-29 which include
changing the name of the agency. It was very important to us
that the agency be known as the Parks Canada agency since Parks
Canada has become a highly recognized tourism and cultural icon.
While not all our amendments were adopted in committee we support
the bill. It reflects the changes that need to take place be it
by simplifying organizational structures, improving
administrative efficiency and allowing more flexible staffing and
financial procedures.
The bill establishes the Parks Canada agency as a distinct legal
entity. The agency will report directly to the minister of
heritage who will be accountable for its activities before
parliament.
Bill C-29 also outlines the roles and responsibilities of the
minister with respect to reporting and submission requirements to
parliament, cabinet, Treasury Board and the public. This
accountability regime includes responsibility for corporate
reports, annual reports, state of Canadian protected area
reports, management plans for both national parks and national
historic sites and the holding of biannual public forums to
solicit public feedback.
The legislation specifies the roles and responsibilities of the
deputy minister of heritage with respect to policy advice, policy
development and legislative development, as well as the roles and
responsibilities of the chief executive officer of the Canada
parks agency.
Bill C-29 also outlines the roles and responsibilities of
Treasury Board as they relate to a broad array of administrative
interactions between Treasury Board and the Canada parks agency.
It also specifies the auditor general's audit function over the
parks agency's financial statements and performance.
Bill C-29 also contains provisions for the maintenance of other
government services and administrative functions as they relate
to the functioning of the Canada parks agency. These include the
Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Official
Languages Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act, the
Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.
This bill would give the agency a number of financial powers,
including a two year operational budget, retention and
reinvestment power for all revenues, the establishment of an
account to fund new national parks and historic sites from
appropriations, the sale and surplus of properties and general
donations, and the authority to advance funds for various
reasons, including unfunded land acquisition opportunities.
Bill C-29 was not and is not a perfect a bill. A number of
opposition members proposed amendments to Bill C-29 to strengthen
it. Some of those amendments were adopted but other amendments
that would have given the bill more teeth were rejected. We were
told that such amendments should be brought to other related acts
such as the Parks Canada Act. During our hearings on Bill C-29
many of the witnesses, including representatives of the Canadian
Nature Federation and CPAWS, shared their concern that the
government must do more to protect the ecological integrity of
our parks.
The auditor general in his 1996 report criticized Parks Canada
for not doing enough to protect the ecological integrity of
Canada's national parks. He also stated the government is in
danger of not meeting its objective of completing the national
park system by the year 2000. Even the minister of state for
parks acknowledges that the national park system cannot be
completed in the next two years.
1245
My party looks forward to dealing with the Canada Parks Act when
it comes before the House. Although Canada's parks service has
been in existence since 1911 it has never been legislatively
recognized as the manager of the park system.
For instance, Parks Canada is not even mentioned in the National
Parks Act and does not have a significant legislative mandate.
The PC Party has always recognized the importance of our national
parks and national historic sites as contributors to our Canadian
cultural identity.
In 1988 the former Progressive Conservative government
modernized the National Parks Act which had not been updated
since 1930. I look forward to remodernizing the National Parks
Act and other acts that have a consequence on our parks, historic
sites and waterways. My party will continue to work hard to
promote, protect and enhance our rich legacy of accomplishments.
In closing, I thank all those groups and individuals who brought
their concerns to me and assure them today that we will continue
to work on their behalf to bring forward amendments to
legislation as it comes before the House. As parliamentarians it
is very important that we work together to ensure that Canada's
natural heritage and resources are conserved for future
generations. I urge all hon. members to support the bill.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to point out that I am sharing my time with the member for
Oak Ridges.
Throughout the House I have heard some very positive comments
about the forming of this parks agency. There is no question
that it is a very positive step forward. When we think about the
national parks system and national historic sites we think about
the canals and the conservation areas. We think about all that
will fall under this agency. It is a fantastic opportunity to
show Canadians and people around the world what Canadians really
stand for.
There is absolutely no question that as we look at our parks
system it encompasses some of the most imaginative and most
characteristic sections of Canada. There is no question that our
heritage sites represent very important historic references to
Canada. There is no question that we have within our parks
system, our heritage system, our conservation areas, a really
great story to tell.
That story can be told to young people throughout the land by
taking them to those areas. That story can be told to all
Canadians. In fact it can be told to visitors around the world
to show what a great country we are, what great background we
have and what great historical significance there is to this
great country.
It is with a great deal of pride that I am able to talk to this
issue today. I think it is in essence what Canada is about. The
Canadian parks system has been significant over the past. It has
grown tremendously in the last several years. There is no
question that it must expanded. It must be moved forward as
well.
We have some very significant national sites that we must
incorporate into the 39 different areas we designate as
significant areas. We must make certain that the message to
Canadians is that we respect this great country with its land and
historic sites, with all this put together.
If we travel through the north we see some amazing river
valleys, gorges and mountain sites. We can look at the
grasslands in Saskatchewan and realize it is the land of the
prairie dog. This is the area where Sitting Bull rested after a
traumatic event in the United States.
We can look at Prince Edward Island National Park and realize it
is among the finest areas of Canada with the best salt water
beaches in the country. Anne of Green Gables, a tremendous
significant issue in Canada, is one of our national historic
sites.
1250
In my riding we have Point Pelee, one of the best birding
locations in the world. People from Europe, Asia and the United
States, in fact people from all over the world, come to visit
that area to see the significance and celebrate this land itself.
We can look back at our heritage and understand some significant
adventures in history. I think of Josiah Henson and the fabulous
story of Uncle Tom's Cabin, the black culture coming
together in our sites, or I think of other opportunities for
Canadians to participate and enjoy what is happening.
Certainly with the agency coming to bear we can see some
tremendous changes coming about. We will now have opportunity to
move into parks that will have great significance for Canada's
Great Lakes and Atlantic and Pacific areas.
Fathom Five National Marine Park protects Niagara escarpment
history and work on the Georgian Bay waters. We have conservation
marine parks on the Atlantic coast and on the Pacific coast which
point out the significance of our flora and fauna, our rich
culture and our Indian heritage.
The Saguenay River marine park on the St. Lawrence protects
beluga whales, seals, plant and bird life of all kinds. Our
national marine conservation area program is new and will remain
an ongoing part of the national parks system. The evolution of
our national parks system is very significant to our heritage and
our understanding of the country.
Historic sites and monuments are another alternative area of
education and support that we must make sure is expanded in a
wide range of areas. Recently the board undertook initiatives to
consider the history of aboriginal people in the country, the
history and culture of women and the communities that have
brought a great deal to our nation.
We could talk about the Grizzly Bear Mountain area and Scented
Grass Hills that have been designated historic sites by our
minister. We could talk about our great culture and Portia White,
a Nova Scotian with a very rich, vibrant voice, a great concert
personality in the area. We are designating sites to recognize
great accomplishments of Canadians.
We will move forward with a cultural site for the black cultural
centre in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. We certainly need to recognize
the races. We need to recognize the cultures that have made the
nation come together and great. We need to move forward on the
issue of significant Canadians to ensure recognition of such
events.
There is no question that the legislation will allow the parks
agency to focus upon permanent, forward moving areas which will
make the country very rich in national pride and very rich in
national culture, one that we can display to the world, that we
can exhibit to our visitors, and show our internal pride.
Because we have such good support in the House for the
legislation it shows that all Canadians, regardless of political
stripe, are extremely proud of the accomplishments of people and
of the physical terrain of the country. We look forward to
making certain the legislation moves along as quickly as
possible.
I am pleased with many of the comments I have heard from the
opposition. I am pleased with the comments I have heard from my
own colleagues. I have to say for all Canadians that we are
looking at something that is truly great for our land.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I was interested as a point of information from the member who
just spoke particularly about Point Pelee. As he mentioned
somebody involved in birding would love this park.
It is a very special place as are all national parks. However,
it is in the middle of one of the Great Lakes where shipping is
going back and forth. Unfortunately, as we know by some of the
crustaceans that have ended up in water intakes and so on, very
frequently ships from offshore will actually end up pumping bilge
or from time to time dropping oil and that kind of thing.
1255
As a point of interest and information, could the member
enlighten us from a local perspective whether, in taking a look
at the ecological integrity of that area, we should be looking at
any further restrictions or any further controls particularly
with respect to shipping and the potential of pollution around
Point Pelee?
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question because it is an extremely significant one.
The freshwater system in Canada, particularly the Great Lakes,
is one that has over the last five or ten years suffered a fair
amount of change because of the zebra mussel being brought into
Canada in the bilge water dumpings from foreign vessels.
There are questions about other significant changes that can
occur from boats entering the Great Lakes system, dumping bilge
water and causing ecological change which in many cases could be
very negative and problematic in the future.
I have made very clear in the past that I would certainly
support and endorse this issue. I had opportunity to meet with
several fishing communities and ecologists in our area two weeks
ago to discuss it. We talked about legislation that may be
significant.
I think legislation should be put into force that the dumping of
bilge water from ships has to be stopped in our Great Lakes and
in other waterways where it what may cause significant change in
our systems. I have no question about that.
The member is pointing out a very clear ecological problem not
just for the Great Lakes, by the way. All freshwater systems
throughout the country must have some type of protection. I
would strongly endorse working at international levels to make
sure that other countries with similar pristine areas to Canada's
are protected as well as they possibly can be.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am wondering if the government has changed its mind and
if I may now present my repeal of Bill C-68 petitions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville has asked for unanimous consent to revert to
presenting petitions. Is there unanimous consent?
An hon. member: No.
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think
that, if you ask, you will probably find unanimous consent of
the House for the following motion:
That the order for second reading and
reference to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of Bill
C-213, An Act respecting the designation of a Louis Riel Day and
revoking his conviction of August 1, 1885, be discharged, the
bill withdrawn, and the item removed from the items outside the
order of precedence.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill withdrawn)
* * *
[English]
PARKS CANADA ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, an
act to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to amend other acts
as a consequence, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address the House on Bill C-29. The rationale for
establishing the proposed parks agency is that it would simplify
organizational structures, improve administrative efficiency and
allow more flexible staffing and financial procedures.
The bill does not seek to privatize Canada's parks, but the
administration would become a separate employer or departmental
corporation to be known as the Canadian parks agency.
1300
Bill C-29 is intended to assist Parks Canada in its role of
preserving, protecting and expanding Canada's national parks,
historic sites and related protected areas.
From Cape Spear, Newfoundland to Pacific Rim National Park, more
than 38 national parks and 786 historic sites visited annually by
24 million Canadians are among the most important aspects of
Canadian identity and are cherished symbols of Canada's land and
history. Of these, 12 Canadian locations have such outstanding
universal value that they have been designated as UNESCO world
heritage sites.
The creation of the new parks agency will result in three key
benefits, benefits which will ensure continued excellence of
stewardship for the precious heritage now entrusted to Parks
Canada.
The Parks Canada agency will be an autonomous organization
accountable to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and in turn to
parliament, an organization able to make needed decisions in a
more timely fashion at less cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
The new agency will be able to deliver continued cost effective
and efficient services to visitors to the national parks,
historic sites and other related protected heritage areas.
The Parks Canada agency will have new financial authorities and
flexibilities to retain and reinvest revenues. These will allow
appropriations to be used to create new national parks, national
historic sites and related protected heritage areas throughout
the country.
The mandate of the program will not change after the new entity
comes into existence. The legislation creating the new agency
will support and will possibly strengthen the existing mandate.
The Parks Canada agency will be in a better position to continue
to maintain the current systems of national parks, national
historic sites and other related protected heritage areas.
It will continue to provide a high level of service to park and
site visitors and will work toward the completion of the national
parks system and toward the expansion of a system of national
historic sites and national marine conservation areas, and
continue to preserve and maintain the natural ecosystem of the
parks which is constantly renewing itself in order to survive.
This is why we are bringing in the new Parks Canada agency into
existence. Canada's parks service is the oldest in the world
with a distinguished history and a promising future. The
creation of this agency is an important step forward, one which
will ensure that we satisfy our obligations to Canadians and to
the world to protect and to conserve our most enduring and
cherished symbols.
As the past president of the Canadian Parks and Recreation
Association, I am a strong advocate of the need to preserve our
national parks and the important role they play in the lives of
Canadians. They provide an oasis for vacationing families as
well as provide unlimited outdoor recreation for the avid campers
and nature lovers in Canada. From mountain climbing in Banff and
Jasper to bird watching at Point Pelee, Canadians are enjoying
all the benefits our parks have to offer.
In turn, Canadians gain a greater appreciation of our country
and its natural beauty. Our national parks are indeed a national
treasure. They link us to our history, our heritage and the
Canadian landscape.
In 1885, about 25 years before the Americans, Canada's first
prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, created North America's
first national park, Banff National Park in the Rocky Mountains
of Alberta. Banff remains one of Canada's premier and most loved
national treasures. Its natural beauty and resources must be
preserved for generations to come.
By passing Bill C-29, we in the House of Commons can ensure the
renewal of the organization that Canadians have entrusted with
their cherished national parks, national historic sites and other
protected heritage areas.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I think now is
probably an appropriate time to get unanimous consent to submit
the petitions that have been given to me by gun owners and other
concerned Canadians on the repeal of Bill C-68.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
1305
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca.
It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of this
legislation. Some things I will be discussing shortly that are
of concern to me within the legislation but let me be perfectly
clear. As the heritage critic for the Reform Party and with my
colleague, the Reform Party parks critic, we recognize fully the
value of the national parks system to Canadians and to Canada.
The Reform Party is committed to ensuring that we have national
parks today and into the future for our children and for our
children's children, that there be proper protection for the
environment and the ecology around all our national parks. Our
party is very committed to the entire concept of environmental
responsibility for generations to come.
This is a good piece of legislation in that it simplifies and
makes more efficient the delivery of services. I quote from the
Montreal Gazette today, an article entitled “MPs vote to
keep parks bilingual”. The article states: “Several MPs feared
that the new agency which will contract work out rather than use
public servants will jack up entrance fees to make national parks
into a money making operation”.
I have four national parks in my constituency. I work with the
superintendents and I work with the people who are delivering the
services to Canadians from top to bottom in those park
organizations. I know that is an absolutely false concern. The
concern is to continue to deliver a high level of service and
protection of parks at reasonable cost.
I outlined in debate between me and an NDP member an actual case
in my constituency creating a contract with a person who is now a
former park employee. Painting and maintaining signs in our
parks, in Kootenay National Park, is now delivered in a far more
cost effective way while this individual is much more involved in
his own life. This individual has his own business, he is
delivering a commercial service. Now rather than being a park
employee drawing wages from Parks Canada, he is delivering
services to Parks Canada as a contractor.
This is a far more efficient way of working. This former
employee now being in his own business is now in a situation
where he becomes a taxpayer generating more work and more wealth
in commerce. He has just delivered a couple of massive signs,
excellent work, to my community of Wasa Lake, British Columbia.
This concern the NDP has is really unfortunate because having
had the great opportunity to work with supervisors, management
and hourly workers in our parks, I have discovered a core of
Canadians committed to our parks. Because of the bungling by
this and the former government, there has been a very serious
downloading of concern and responsibility to people who were
committed to the parks on one hand but on the other hand parks
did not seem to be committed to them.
I look forward to this new agency as being a way of being able
to straighten this out, and we are going to be able to bring some
order to the management of parks. I think that is excellent.
However, I would be remiss if I did not mention the bit of
silliness that was brought to this act by the member for
Ottawa—Vanier and his colleague from Brossard—La Prairie.
There is a concept of law that it is bad law to put into law
something that already exists.
It is not only redundant, it is bad law.
1310
By these two members' bringing forward this motion in committee
that was accepted, what fundamentally happened was they brought
forward something that already existed. If it did not exist what
would have happened? Contrary to what the member said earlier in
debate, people delivering services in the new Saguenay park, for
example, who might be working on wharfs, I do not care in what
language they speak to each other on the job or at home, there is
no requirement for those people to be able to speak English.
Conversely, when one goes out west there is no necessity for
somebody collecting garbage and cleaning up the campsites to be
able to speak French. They put a piece of mischief into this
legislation, albeit with every good intention. It was totally
and absolutely unnecessary.
To prove the point that it was unnecessary, the top law maker in
Canada, the justice minister, said this amendment was not only
unnecessary but dangerous. Their colleague, the justice minister
of Canada, the top law maker, said that what they did with this
legislation was unfortunately a bit of a buffoonery.
It is all very well and good to stand on their bilingual high
horse and try and lob salvoes at us in the Reform Party. I guess
that is part of the political game the Liberals like to play.
The reality is there is absolutely no necessity for this. What
did the Liberals do? Last night the Reform Party came forward
with an amendment. The amendment said strike this unnecessary
amendment created in committee. But in order to save face they
asked all their sheep to line up and vote in favour of saying
that the Official Languages Act applies to this piece of
legislation. Guess what? It already applies to this piece of
legislation. It was simply a piece of face saving. The justice
minister saw that these people had put this piece buffoonery into
the legislation. Unfortunately once again the Liberal sheep
lined up on the side of trying to save face.
The reality of the situation is this. This piece of
legislation, notwithstanding that one silliness, has the very
real potential to create efficiencies in the delivery of service
and in the protection of our national parks. That is what the
Reform Party is about. I believe that is what all members of
this House are about, to create an environment of protection of
the parks.
Let me add one caveat. The concern I have is that if we are not
very careful in the way we apply protection to these parks, we
have the potential to end up with a situation of making them the
exclusive playground of rich people. That would be an absolute
shame. I hope one of the first things Parks Canada would be
taking a look at, before or after this legislation, is the whole
issue of entry fees, the way the entry fees are applied to not
only local residents but to individuals and automobiles.
We must be very careful while being fiscally prudent, which is
what the Reform Party is all about, at the same time making sure
we do not make our national parks a playground that only the rich
can afford to come to.
On balance, clearly this is a good piece of legislation. My
party will be supporting it with great enthusiasm.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend brought up a number of excellent points.
He brought up bilingualism.
There is something called an opportunity cost. If we remove
funds from one place and put them into another, we had better
make sure we are getting more bang for our buck in the place we
put them in than in the place we took them out of.
1315
The government's proposal is to force subcontractors to become
bilingual and ensure money is being put into something. One
questions as to whether or not it is going to get the returns
necessary. This is in view of the fact that today our parks are
under siege and many species are being threatened or becoming
extinct.
Does my hon. colleague feel that the money the government is
planning to use to force subcontractors to become officially
bilingual could be better utilized in another area for preserving
our parks?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, clearly the answer to that
question is yes.
The situation is even more confused than what the hon. member
has outlined. It is confused because of this face-saving attempt
the Liberals made last night.
It is unclear what this redundant clause will actually mean in
enforcement. The legislation was originally set up to come under
the Official Languages Act which means that the delivery of
services to individuals must be in both official languages. That
is the way this bill was created. It is the intention of this
bill. That is what the members of my caucus are in favour of
which is fine.
The problem came when the members went overboard and brought in
this piece of puffery. The problem is that it then appeared as
though the painters, the garbage collectors, the people working
on park benches, the people who are not actually verbally
delivering services to the visitors to the parks were going to
have to take French or English lessons depending on what their
mother tongue was. If they were recent immigrants to the country
and were still working on mastering either of the official
languages, they might even have to take time out of their
contract to become fluently bilingual, which of course is the
height of idiocy.
What we have now as a result of the face-saving exercise the
Liberals went through last night, is that we simply do not know
the answer to the member's question. It is a perfectly valid
question. We do not know what impact this is going to have. It
just shows that there are times when it is good to bring forward
amendments and there are other times like this when those
amendments are problematic, troublesome and just create
confusion.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I am finding it almost unbelievable that people from across
Canada and from almost every province are giving me petitions to
present and I am not allowed to properly present them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville does not have to go any further. Does the hon.
member for Yorkton—Melville have the unanimous consent of the
House to present petitions?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member does
not have unanimous consent.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, maybe it would be helpful if
the Speaker could explain to the hon. member that he does have
the opportunity to deposit his petition at the clerk's table
without having this show.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House is forever
indebted to the hon. parliamentary secretary for his pearls of
wisdom. We will resume debate.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-29, the Parks
Canada act.
There are problems today in our parks, from endangered species
to threatened habitat to species that are becoming extinct. The
mark the World Wildlife Fund has given the Canadian government is
a D in its behaviour and activities toward protecting our
species, the flora and fauna that inhabit our wonderful country.
And today the government is pursuing a bill which deals with such
absurdities as making subcontractors in our parks become
bilingual. Is it necessary? The answer is no.
If the purpose of language is communication, if the purpose of
language is to make people understand each other, clearly
bilingual services are necessary in certain areas.
It is probably not necessary for the people who clean our parks,
who work in our parks in many areas, who fix our parks on a
contractual basis in construction. I fail to see where those
individuals need to be bilingual. The government has simply not
presented an idea of why that is so.
1320
Looking at the parks, one of the biggest problems is that of
resources as all industries and ministries have. As a result of
a lack of resources and as a result of a lack of leadership, a
major problem is that thousands of Canadian species are
threatened or will become extinct. From the Vancouver Island
marmot to the eastern cougar, to the Mississauga rattlesnake, to
the northern right whale, all of these species and many, many
others are threatened with potential extinction.
There are many solutions that we have to these problems. I will
get into those a little bit later.
The money that the government will be using to force people to
become bilingual could be put into other areas such as paying for
enforcement officers and conservation officers and better
equipment and surveillance measures for them. That would have a
much more powerful effect on our parks in ensuring that the
habitats of today will be there tomorrow. Instead, the
government wants to pour money into a useless and futile attempt
to make parks subcontractors bilingual.
There are many problems within our own areas, including the
threatened extinction of many species. A situation that many
people are not aware of is that Canada is a major conduit for
threatened species' animal parts. The Siberian tiger, the Bengal
tiger, the clouded leopard, endangered birds, animals and plant
life, Canada is a major conduit for dispersing these parts from
our country to other areas. It is contributing to the decimation
of the population of various subspecies of tiger in other parts
of the world, particularly in Asia; the decimation of the black
rhino, the Javan rhino, the Sumatran rhino, the clouded leopard,
the snow leopard and on and on it goes. Canada is partly
responsible for that, not because of our enforcement officers,
but because they do not have the resources to do their jobs.
Furthermore, there is the current situation with respect to our
law. While our law provides for some serious penalties, those
penalties are not being enforced. What kind of message does that
give to potential poachers? It says that they can knock off
those bears and send their gall bladders to other parts of the
world because they know if they get caught they will only get
their wrists slapped. That is an embarrassment to our country.
Furthermore, the reason poachers and people who sell wild animal
and endangered species' parts all over the world are using Canada
is that we have a large border, but also that our enforcement
measures are wholly inadequate. They are wholly inadequate
because of a lack of resources.
There are other issues we have to deal with. The current
legislation protects habitat. Habitat loss is the most important
aspect of why species are becoming extinct. The federal
government is not taking the leadership role to work with the
provinces to make sure that larger tracts of land are being
protected.
Animals and birds do not know provincial boundaries. They do
not know where the line is drawn between Alberta and British
Columbia. These animals need to be protected on a number of
levels. It requires federal and provincial leadership in order
to do that. The only time we have seen effective conservation
measures being put in place is when provincial leaders have taken
the bull by the horns and enacted some kind of legislation to
protect them. We have seen an utter absence of leadership in
this government and the previous government in trying to adjust
the situation.
Here are some solutions. First, stop the forced bilingualism
issue that my colleagues have spoken about before.
Second, the Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act needs
strengthening. It is absolutely weak and as a result our species
are paying the penalty.
Third, Cosewic is a group of independent scientists. It should
be used to identify the plants and animals threatened with
potential extinction which need our protection.
1325
Fourth, we can look at other programs around the world where
they have used their parks and their wild spaces to generate
funds which they then pour back into their parks for expansion
and preservation. This strengthens their ability to preserve the
flora and fauna within their boundaries.
The golden lion tamarin, a beautiful little monkey in Central
America, was becoming extinct. The Belize government made the
park in which the monkeys live pay for itself through aggressive
marketing. The park managed to save that species and many other
species within that park. It prevented the encroachment of
surrounding people and expanded the park. The moneys generated
from the park went toward funds for health care, clean water and
education of the surrounding people. The people benefited from
the park in a tangible fashion which enabled them to act as a
buffer zone to protect against poaching in the park.
We can apply that same lesson. We can use our parks in a
sensible, environmentally sound way to generate funds. Rather
than going toward general revenues and having the Minister of
Finance spend the funds who knows where, we could ensure that at
least a significant portion of those funds was poured back into
the parks department for expansion and protection of the habitat
for many species. There is a lack of funds. This would be a very
pragmatic way for the parks to generate the necessary funds for
their own preservation. It could be done in a sensible way
without destroying the parks at all. We have seen where this has
been done in places around the world.
Fifth, we have to ensure the penalties we have on the books are
severe and that they are applied to those people who commit
crimes such as poaching and trafficking in endangered species.
Sixth is the aspect of differential fees. My colleague and
others in the House have mentioned that it is a sham to charge
the same fees for all people. Other parts of the world have
differential fees for tourists and for domestic individuals.
Tourists pay more. Domestic individuals who reside in the area
pay nothing or very little to come and go from their parks. This
model works. It is absurd to have the same fee for those who
live in the park, for those who come and go from the park and for
those who reside in the area. It will hamstring the ability of
the parks to generate revenues which could be used to preserve
the parks.
There is an enormous challenge in front of us. The preservation
of wild habitats and animal species is not an esoteric
intellectual argument. The pragmatic reason for it is that many
species harbour direct benefits to human beings through medicine.
On a philosophical basis, what has been given to us we have a
right to give to others. The fact that many species are becoming
extinct, particularly amphibians, is a cold hard indicator that
our ability, our environment, our survival as a species could be
compromised. Many of the species in this world are harbingers of
things to come. What happens to them may ultimately happen to
us.
I ask that the federal government take a leadership role with
respect to the parks department. I ask that it take a leadership
role with respect to our endangered species and develop and put
forth pragmatic solutions which already exist in Canada to try to
preserve the wild animal species, the flora and fauna and the
wild spaces within Canada.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Skeena.
I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-29, the parks Canada
agency act. My Reform colleagues and I are committed to having
our national parks and heritage sites administered in an
accountable, efficient and cost effective manner. We support the
concept of cost recovery, but at the same time fees should not be
levied at such a level that would deter people from using the
parks.
The national parks, after all, belong to the people of Canada.
1330
The people of Dauphin—Swan River are fortunate to have a
national park located in the centre of their riding. It is a
beautiful park, possibly 70 miles by 30 miles, and is within an
hour's drive for all residents of the riding.
The area that I would like to concentrate on in this brief time
is the area of accountability.
Bill C-29 states that the agency will report directly to the
Minister of Canadian Heritage who, in turn, will be accountable
for its activities before parliament. Current mechanisms to
ensure responsible public dialogue and accountability will be
enhanced. I agree with that objective, but I will say that from
my experience with Parks Canada we have a long way to go before
that occurs.
A bi-annual review or forum of stakeholder groups will be
conducted to provide an opportunity for public dialogue.
What I would like to do at this time is to relate my experiences
regarding the national park located in my riding and basically
talk about the process of consultation. I hope that with a new
Parks Canada Agency Act the same mistakes will not be made.
Several years ago Parks Canada took on the task of restructuring
the organization. The first thing it did was to notify the
public and the stakeholders in my riding that it was going to
hold meetings, which it did. As a former mayor of Dauphin I
attended. Lo and behold, when the report came out, guess what
happened? It forgot about listing the town of Dauphin. In fact,
I complained about this very issue, but to no avail. It is
obvious that in the report the meeting that was held in Dauphin
was not there. Obviously we did not have a meeting. We had a
meeting, but we really did not have a meeting. Surely this type
of behaviour is unacceptable.
I hope this is not the way the new parks agency will conduct its
consultations. By the way, the final report did not completely
reflect the views of the stakeholders of the region. What it did
reflect were the views of the parks officials and the
bureaucrats.
The common point of view was that this consultation process was
exercised so that Parks Canada could cut jobs. This it certainly
did after the report was released.
Who will be the watchdog of the new Parks Canada Agency? Who
will make sure that the consultations will not be a repeat of my
own experience?
I would like to read a paragraph from a letter written by a 15
year employee of the park who resigned due to this
reorganization. This individual had experienced many wonderful
years in the employ of Parks Canada, except for his last couple
of years. He states in his letter:
However, due to many reasons, both work oriented and personal, I
feel that my services are no longer beneficial for myself or the
department. It has become very clear to me that my health has
diminished and the stress level I am experiencing is intolerable.
I have honestly persevered for approximately two years whereby
specific individuals engaged in activities that I feel are not
only legally unacceptable, but also morally unacceptable. As a
result, the working environment has suffered considerably.
Therefore I am unable to work in the conditions that now exist
within my department. The low staff morale, the high double
standards, unfair favouritism, lack of respect and authority
along with the continual individual personal attacks on myself
and others is beyond control.
It is my hope that the new parks agency will deal with its
personnel in a more rational manner. I say again, who will be
the watchdog of this new parks agency? The legislation says that
it will report to the minister. Big deal. What does that mean?
If the minister does not care to take an interest, where do we go
from there? This has already happened in my experience in
dealing with Parks Canada.
Another area I would like to talk about is cost recovery. I
agree that we need to practise this principle. Even here there
are limitations. The Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce is concerned
that at this time the concept of cost recovery is exercised
beyond what is reasonable. It is not considered reasonable for
the park to charge local residents who live nearby when they
enter the park to buy an ice cream cone.
1335
The chamber of commerce is very concerned when the town site of
Riding Mountain National Park is compared to the town site of
Banff National Park. Obviously we cannot compare those two
different places. There is probably no town site that could be
compared to Banff National Park.
Chief Dwayne Blackbird of the Keesikownan Indian Reserve has
concerns that they will not be considered as stakeholders in any
future discussions with the new parks agency. A portion of Chief
Blackbird's reservation is inside the boundary of the Riding
Mountain National Park.
The town of Dauphin is also concerned about the new agency
because of the water supply. Their water supply comes from the
park. They were there before the park came into existence.
Obviously they should have some historical rights to water.
Another concern is the decision of Parks Canada to clear cut
80,000 mature white spruce trees from inside the boundaries of
the national park. Has anyone ever heard of that, cutting down
80,000 mature white spruce trees inside a national park in this
country? I thought parks were to preserve our forests.
Once in a while we hear the threat from Parks Canada that it
will charge users of the provincial trunk highway, which travels
north and south through the national park. It is a direct access
road between Dauphin and Brandon.
The last concern that I will mention concerns the historical
rights of access to a road closed by the park during the 1960s
which connects the towns of Grandview and Rossburn. This was
done without any consultation with the local people. Currently
there are seven municipalities which have lobbied hard to have
the access road re-opened.
I will close by saying that these and other decisions made over
the last many years continue to puzzle the people in my
constituency. The people of Dauphin—Swan River want to see more
transparency in how decisions are made. People want to be
involved in the process and they want the process to be honest.
They do not want consultation and then see something totally
different written on paper.
One of the problems is that the park superintendent has too much
power. At the present time the park superintendent or the
director general has total authority within the boundaries of the
park.
I challenge the new Parks Canada Agency to put into practice its
proposal for enhancing accountability to Canadians. After all,
it is the taxpayers of Canada who own the parks.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech
and the examples which he gave about the parks in his riding and
how this bill would affect the individuals within his riding.
I would ask if he might give us a little more detail about his
support for the bill. I would also ask what his opinion is on
the interventions made earlier concerning the subcontracting
clause in terms of the requirement of all individuals having to
speak French even if they are not directly involved in providing
a service to individuals.
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, one of my biggest concerns
with respect to accountability is: Where does one go when there
is a problem with Parks Canada? Even though the process is in
place, we have all the stakeholders, the round tables are
established and the specific groups are organized, somewhere
throughout this process it can be totally sabotaged. I say
sabotaged seriously because, unfortunately, we do not control the
final documentation or the final reports that are written about
the discussions that take place at the round tables.
Sometimes I feel that it is almost like playing politics with
the people who live in the parks and the surrounding areas. It
almost appears as if they are trying to keep these people busy.
Maybe the people will not complain as much if they are given
access to the discussions, so they let them discuss the issues.
But they know what they are going to do when the consultation
process is finished.
1340
That is my biggest concern. If the process is flawed, where
does one go? Does one report to the minister or to the deputy
minister? At this time, with my experience over the last seven
year, I have felt very frustrated in terms of who I take a
problem to.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I know that the member's constituents are aware of the fact that
as mayor of Dauphin, Manitoba he worked very hard on this issue.
I am sure they are also aware that he continues to work very
hard on their behalf, particularly with respect to the
complications surrounding all the issues involving the Riding
Mountain National Park.
One of the major problems that has been relayed to us by the
member is the whole issue of how the parks are managed. They are
run almost like a fiefdom. The Riding Mountain National Park is
an absolutely classic example.
The direction of the road was changed at the town site on the
south end that intersects the park going from south to north.
The town site has basically been isolated. The commercial
ventures in that area are suffering dreadfully. The parking lots
in the area that were formerly overflowing on July 1 and on other
holidays are all but empty even on what should be the busiest
days.
The park fee structure that has been established in the area and
the way in which fees are collected has fundamentally driven
business outside the park. Yet, at the same time, Parks Canada
is saying “We are not going to allow a renewal of leases in
perpetuity”.
I am sure the member has some things to say on this subject
because it must be very frustrating for the people in his
constituency.
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out that
it is very frustrating. When someone is trying to get answers,
one of the problems, as I indicated earlier, is who to take the
problem to and will they want to deal with it.
Problems seem to go around in circles and circles. It is
difficult to track down who is supposed to make the decisions to
resolve the problems.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I truly
appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House today on this
bill. I may be coming at this from a slightly different
perspective than even some of my Reform colleagues, certainly a
different perspective from many members of this House, but I come
at it from this point of view for a very good reason.
I live in northwest British Columbia. The riding I represent,
as members know, is Skeena. As they are probably aware, there
has been a significant amount of debate in British Columbia over
the whole issue of the creation of parks and so on, to the extent
where many people, particularly in rural British Columbia, and I
would imagine that it is similar in other rural parts of Canada,
are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the whole notion of
parks.
I imagine that I am not unlike most Canadians. I grew up with a
great sense of pride in Canada's national parks system. We took
the care and the foresight to preserve parts of our country in
perpetuity. There was only going to be human activity in the
sense of viewing the wildlife, camping and so on. There was to
be no other human activity in those areas.
When I talk about human activity, I am of course referring to
mining and industrial activity. I am referring to towns being
created and so on.
The experience in British Columbia has been more and more
negative. Let me explain.
1345
The provincial government in British Columbia is committed to
turning 12% of the province into parkland. Mr. Speaker, I know
you are not from British Columbia, but I also know you have
probably had the occasion to fly over the province. On a clear
day it is readily available for anybody to see that most of the
province is a park by virtue of the fact that our geography makes
it impossible for anything to happen on about 40% of the land
base in that province. It is glaciers. It is mountain tops. It
is inaccessible areas that are rugged and difficult for human
beings to access. For all intents and purposes it will be left
alone for all times. That is almost half the province.
In its infinite wisdom the NDP government in British Columbia is
intent on turning 12% of British Columbia into parkland. Is it
talking about glaciers? Is it talking about mountain tops? Is
it talking about areas which are already inaccessible? No. To
some degree it is talking about the areas that will never be used
by human beings anyway, but for the most part it is talking about
the valley bottoms, the forest land and the land base that is
productive or potentially productive. I have a great deal of
difficulty with that.
For example, we are so wealthy as a province that we can afford
to leave $10 billion worth of copper cobalt in the ground in
Tulsequah to preserve it as a world heritage site, whatever that
means, for all times and to forgo the economic prosperity and
wealth creation that would have resulted from that mine
development.
It is estimated by the business community in British Columbia
that it would have resulted in about 2,000 full time, high paying
jobs. We are talking about $25 an hour jobs on the ground at the
mine site and with the standard multiplier effect probably
another 4,000 jobs in the province in businesses and industries
to support the mining industry. Those are gone.
CBC and CTV cannot go around with television cameras and their
microphones to interview people who lost their jobs because
nobody lost their jobs. It was not like Cassiar, a mining town
that closed down in my riding. It had been there for a long time
and the pain and suffering caused by this ridiculous decision
could actually be seen. No. Those people cannot be interviewed
because we do not know who they would have been, but we know for
sure that those jobs would have been there. They are lost for
all time.
I have another example to give, Moresby Island in the Queen
Charlotte Islands. Back in the mid-eighties there was a lot of
controversy concerning logging on South Moresby. We had the
likes of the Sierra Foundation, the Earth First people, every
environmental organization possible, along with significant parts
of the aboriginal population decrying logging on South Moresby.
David Suzuki made a film about logging on South Moresby in which
he showed his concern that the black bears may actually be forced
off Lyell Island. Then it was pointed out to him that black
bears did not live on Lyell Island and he had a difficult time
explaining how he could have taken film footage and pawned it off
on Canadians as representative of Lyell Island when in fact it
was not the case. It was a blatant lie.
That is the kind of thing the environmental movement engages in
all the time. It engages in lies and mistruths, scaremongering
tactics, trying to convince Canadians that the sky is falling. It
has been largely successful, particularly in large metropolitan
areas of the country.
In any even the environmental movement persuaded both the
provincial and federal governments to suspend all logging on
South Moresby and to create a new national park. Is this going
to be a wonderful thing? Is this going to be great? I hope
there are people in Sandspit today watching this debate on
television because I know how important the issue is for them.
1350
This small but vibrant logging community that had existed for
several decades was all but obliterated by this decision. The
politicians of the day said that the economic focus for Sandspit
and South Moresby would change from logging into tourism. What a
joke. What a laugh.
We can go to Sandspit and ask the people there how much tourism
they get. Parks Canada employees have built themselves a little
fiefdom there at taxpayers' expense. They have a beautiful
lodge. It is the only structure that is allowed within the park
because it belongs to Parks Canada. Parks Canada employees are
on what I liken to a year round vacation at taxpayers' expense.
The only thing they do is limit the people that go into this
so-called park.
They have made it difficult for anybody to access the park. They
have a waiting list. They only allow 2,000 people a year or
thereabouts into the park. One has to phone ahead to make a
reservation a year in advance as if going to some high class
hotel. I can see the parallel. One has to be a very wealthy
person to afford the terms and conditions that Parks Canada has
placed on anybody going into that park.
That is why I have a difficult time listening to the government
talking about bringing in legislation to create new parks. I
like the idea of conserving parts of our land basin for future
generations and leaving it untouched. However I do not like the
idea of creating little fiefdoms for Parks Canada bureaucrats to
go around telling Canadians what they can and cannot do and to
have my taxpayer's dollars and the hard earned taxpayers' dollars
of other Canadians spent on building grand lodges, flying around
on float planes and doing all the things most of us can only
dream of doing. We would like to be able to enjoy the wilderness
like Parks Canada people can.
That is why I have a difficult time supporting the legislation.
That is why the people in my riding, the people in my province,
have a difficult time with the whole notion of parks. It is not
because we do not want to see a part of our heritage preserved
and protected for our children and their children, for future
generations. It is just that we are becoming increasingly
sceptical and doubtful that it will happen under the guise of
Parks Canada.
We see it as another giant boondoggle of the federal government
consuming huge amounts of federal taxpayers' money and delivering
no tangible benefits to the people of Canada and, more important,
to the people in the residual communities where they are so much
affected by Parks Canada dictates of the day.
I am looking forward to any questions members on the other side
may have.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and
comments. Since there are no questions and comments we will
continue with debate.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am little bit slow today. I
wonder whether we could revert to questions and comments and I
could ask the hon. member a question or two. Would that require
unanimous consent?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
for Elk Island have the unanimous consent of the House to revert
to questions and comments?
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I could not follow the hon. member's comment. I want to
know what he said.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for Elk
Island requested unanimous consent of the House to revert to
questions and comments.
Does the member for Elk Island have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1355
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I just
assumed Liberal members opposite would have some piercing
questions for my colleague. I was waiting for them to rise but
none of them did. My apologies for not jumping up and trying to
be recognized ahead of the Liberals.
I have a national park in my own riding. One thing that is a
big issue in Elk Island, the home of Elk Island National Park, is
that local people actually started that park. They got it going,
organized it and eventually made a golf course in it. They have
had a ongoing fight with bureaucracy in Ottawa as to how the park
should operate.
Ottawa sent them a message that they had to close the road
through the park. A lot of seniors were involved in that park
from the beginning. Some of them are unable now to ride
bicycles. They are 85 years old, for heaven's sake, but they
still like to take a ride through the park and enjoy it.
There are others with limited financial abilities who want to
participate in the park they helped to build. Lo and behold in
their senior years the very park they built is closed to them
because they cannot afford to go there.
We have control. We have taxation. We have limitations on the
way these people can use their parks. In my view there is too
much control from distant Ottawa over parks that we want to
enjoy, that we have developed, that really belong to the people.
Suddenly parks have become an exclusive domain of the rich and
the mighty and government bureaucrats. I would like my colleague
to comment on that.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I tell my hon. friend that
it is worse than he thought. The reason is that I am convinced
the bureaucracy of Parks Canada is staffed and populated with
radical environmentalists.
These people in essence are anti-human. That is why they do not
want human beings in these parks. They care more about bugs and
slugs than they do about people. That is the reality of it.
David Suzuki, a leading light in the environmental movement,
posited a few months ago that in order for the world to survive
there had to be a mass die off of human beings. We invited him
to lead the way but so far he has not taken the challenge.
That is the kind of attitude that pervades the bureaucracy at
Parks Canada. It is the kind of attitude that pervades the
environmental movement. These are largely far left political
operatives who have lost the battle on the main front because
communism as we know it is pretty much dead all over the world.
They are trying to come through the back door and the
environmental movement is a very effective way for them to do
that. That is the reality of it.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
DIOCESE OF PEMBROKE
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Diocese of
Pembroke in my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke on
the occasion of its 100th anniversary.
It was on May 4, 1898 that Pope Leo XIII raised the Vicariate of
Pontiac to the status of a diocese with Bishop Narcisse Lorrain
presiding. Since Bishop Lorrain there have been five bishops
appointed to oversee the Diocese of Pembroke: Bishop Ryan, Bishop
Nelligan, Bishop Windle, Bishop Smith and the current Bishop
Brendan O'Brien.
On June 7, 1998, this Sunday, a mass of thanksgiving will be
offered at the Pembroke Memorial Centre to celebrate this very
auspicious occasion, to recognize the contributions of pioneers
such as Bishop Lorrain and to reflect on the courage and
generosity of our diocesan ancestors.
I congratulate Bishop O'Brien, Monsignor Barry and all those
connected with this centennial celebration.
[Translation]
Congratulations, my friends.
* * *
[English]
UKRAINE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as many as seven million Ukrainians were starved in Soviet
socialist dictator Josef Stalin's artificial forced famine in
Ukraine in 1932 and 1933.
1400
This is approximately the total population of Manitoba,
Newfoundland, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Nova
Scotia and P.E.I.
This month Canadians of Ukrainian descent commemorate the 65th
anniversary of this socialist inspired genocide. Soviet
socialist leaders used troops and secret police to seize every
last scrap of food and grain. Ukrainian farmers were beaten,
arrested and even shot for trying keep a few kernels on the
fields of their collectivised farms.
We must never forget the millions of innocent Ukrainians who
lost their lives. We must never allow a repeat of this terrible
tragedy.
* * *
THE SONIER CENTRE
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
recently attended the opening of the Sonier Centre, a new
partnership between Fanshawe College, the St. Leonard's Society,
the Children's Service Network and Sir George Ross Secondary
School. The centre is named after Pierre Sonier, a man who during
his life was dedicated to the well-being of his family, his
community, his friends and especially troubled youth.
In collaboration with the St. Leonard's Society, college
students will help manage justice circles involving young
offenders. The St. Leonard's Society is already co-ordinating
justice circles in the London vicinity. The centre will also
help in providing student resources to the Wrap Around Project
under the direction of the Children's Service Network.
Both are innovative programs which show how constructive
alternate solutions in the justice system can work in addressing
the needs of victims and young offenders. Restorative justice
principles are successfully incorporated into community based
solutions and crime prevention strategies.
I applaud the London partners who are leading the way in my
community to make a difference.
* * *
THE LIGHTHOUSE PROJECT
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I congratulate 20 teens and their police mentors
for a tremendous job of community co-operation. On May 25 these
young residents helped plant the seeds of crime prevention by
planting flowers and corn in their neighbourhood of Sunnydale
Place in my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo. This neighbourhood has
been plagued with unemployment, poverty and daily incidents of
violence.
The teens have had enough. The city is donating the plants. The
youth are providing the labour. Most important, these young
people have provided the initiative. Calling themselves the
Lighthouse Project, these teens are also involved in a second
project, restoring 75 bicycles donated by the Waterloo Public
Interest Research Group. The costs of the restoration are being
covered by grants from the Twin Cities Optimist Club.
Congratulations to these 20 teens and their police mentors for
all their hard work and hope for the future. They are another
great example of how people of the Waterloo region work together
through their community safety and crime prevention council.
* * *
[Translation]
CHIAPAS
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from
May 8 to 12, I had the honour of leading a parliamentary
delegation to Chiapas, Mexico. Upon our return, I denounced the
fear and destitution these people are living in on a daily
basis.
I have the pleasure today of informing the House that the
Government of Mexico has formally invited the International
Committee of the Red Cross to resume its humanitarian activities
in Chiapas. These activities include direct humanitarian relief
to affected populations and will be conducted in co-operation
with the Mexican Red Cross and the Red Crescent.
Furthermore, the Mexican government will give the international
Red Cross direct and full access to all those jailed in
connection with the events in Chiapas.
I should point out that the Mexican government's request to the
Red Cross represents a major initiative in terms of human
rights, one which will bring appeasement, peace and hope to the
region.
* * *
[English]
TED MCCAIN
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in the House today to congratulate Mr. Ted McCain, a
computer science teacher at Maple Ridge Secondary School in my
riding of Dewdney—Alouette. He has been awarded a Certificate
of Excellence from the Prime Minister's Awards for Teaching
Excellence. Mr. McCain is one of five B.C. teachers to receive
this award.
Mr. McCain is a leader in his field. He has been involved in
advocating and implementing new technology curriculum in his
school and in the province of British Columbia. Courses created
by Mr. McCain have become models for technology education across
the country.
Being a former teacher, I can appreciate the impact teachers
have on our youth. Teachers have the responsibility to prepare
their students for life. Mr. McCain obviously excels at this
aspect of teaching.
Allowing our students to be competitive in technological fields
will prove invaluable as we enter the 21st century. I know the
students of Maple Ridge Secondary are fortunate to have Mr.
McCain as a teacher.
* * *
1405
A YEAR IN REVIEW
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one
year ago I was elected the first member of Parliament for the
riding of Thornhill. My constituents in Thornhill, along with
other Canadians, honoured the Liberal Party with a second
majority mandate. What a wonderful year it has been.
We have the first balanced budget in almost 30 years. In
December we saw the creation of the one millionth new job since
October 1993. The April unemployment rate was 8.4%, still too
high but the lowest in nearly eight years. In the first quarter
of 1996 Canada's gross domestic product grew at 3.7%, surpassing
economist expectations. Canadians have recorded the largest
personal income gains this decade. As the chief economist at the
Royal Bank of Canada said, this shows a healthy, robust economy.
I take this opportunity to wish all members of the Liberal
caucus a happy anniversary. I also say a very special thank you
to the people of Thornhill for allowing me to come to Ottawa and
try to make a positive difference.
* * *
[Translation]
CITY OF TERREBONNE
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
City of Terrebonne is preparing to mark the 325th anniversary of
its foundation with grand celebrations.
A seigneury under the reign of Louis XIV, a village under the
municipal government, Terrebonne became a city in 1880. It has
been developing harmoniously ever since, and its charm was never
affected. It now has a population of more than 40,000.
As a thriving city with historic structures and vibrant people,
Terrebonne is prominent in Quebec thanks to its talented
artists, its aggressive business people and its diverse economy.
All Quebeckers are invited to experience or experience again, as
the case may be, the hospitality of this friendly city and join
in the celebrations, which will start on June 23, the day before
Quebec's national holiday, and will continue until the day
before Christmas Eve.
Happy anniversary, Terrebonne. We love you.
* * *
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the first
anniversary of the second Liberal mandate and of my election in
the riding of Laval West, I would like to present a outline of
our achievements.
Not long ago, we inherited from the previous government a
deficit that was a staggering $42 billion. This year, our
government balanced the federal budget for the first time in
close to 30 years.
In early 1994, the unemployment rate was 11.4%. Since then, it
has come down by three points. Indeed, in April of this year, it
fell to 8.4%, its lowest level in almost eight years.
Not long ago, the issue of Quebec's linguistic school boards
remained unsolved.
Thanks to our government's effective dialogue, a quick solution
was found, to the satisfaction of Quebeckers.
Not long ago, the transfer of manpower training was an issue
that could not be resolved. Now, the Liberal government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast has the
floor.
* * *
[English]
ISRAEL
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
while Jews and Gentiles around the world are celebrating the 50th
anniversary of the modern state of Israel, Liberal and New
Democrat MPs are choosing to attack this brave outpost for
democracy in the Middle East.
The NDP MPs for Vancouver East and Burnaby—Douglas and the
Liberal MP for Gatineau all gave their blessing to a recent
anti-Israel rally where the independence of Israel was maligned
as a “catastrophe”.
The New Democrat MP for Burnaby—Douglas said that Israel's
modern rebirth was not a happy occasion but was the start of 50
years of “injustice”.
Shame on these MPs. This is an outrageous affront to Israel's
thriving democracy and its willingness to dialogue with
Palestinians, some of whom still vow to destroy Israel.
These Liberal and NDP MPs claim to speak for democracy but
instead of celebrating Israel's valiant defence of democracy in
the Middle East, they have chose to malign it. What a disgrace
to this House and to this country.
* * *
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party will be kicking off its
united alternative campaign to attract new members with meetings
this Wednesday and Thursday. But these meetings will be people
who are already members of another party, Bloc Quebecois MPs.
The Leader of the Opposition would do well to remember what
happened the last time we had a party leader who was so desperate
to win government that he formed an unholy alliance with a group
of Quebec separatists.
The man was Brian Mulroney and his gift to Canada was none other
than Lucien Bouchard.
1410
The Reform Party should remember that western Canadians thanked
Mr. Mulroney for that gift by voting out of office every single
one of his Progressive Conservatives in the west.
Unless Reformers change their strategy, maybe they will get the
same treatment.
* * *
CANADIAN NATIONAL
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, one year ago today the people of Saskatchewan defeated
all but one of their Liberal MPs. It is not hard to see why.
One by one the Liberals have let the cornerstones of rural life
in Saskatchewan slip away; no more crow benefit, no more post
offices, fewer bank branches and abandoned rail lines.
When CN built its rail lines in Saskatchewan it received land,
minerals and money in return for providing a public service for
farmers. Now it has sold off the minerals, hived off the land to
a separate company, taken the money and run.
CN wants to shut down the Imperial subdivision in Saskatchewan.
The process set up by the Liberals allows it to shut down this
branch line within 30 days of announcement then call a public
meeting before that 30 day period expires.
CN will hold its public meeting tomorrow in Imperial,
Saskatchewan and I will be there fighting to keep rail service
for our farmers.
What we need from the Liberals is a commitment to farmers. I
call on the member for Wascana to join me at that meeting and to
join me in calling on CN to place a standstill on further rail
line abandonments until Justice Estey has handed—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauce.
* * *
[Translation]
REFORM PARTY
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we should take
good note of the last move made by the sovereignists, a
sovereignist-Reform strategic alliance or, if you prefer, a
Reform-sovereignist alliance.
This is some union, some alliance between a party that advocates
Quebec's separation and one that led an anti-Quebec campaign
during the last election campaign.
These two parties will now even share the same meeting rooms.
However, we still do not know which of the two leaders—the
leader of the Reform Party or the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois—will succeed in imposing his views on the Quebec
situation.
Before the union is made official, let us say, as is the custom
“If any man can show just cause why this union cannot be
solemnized, let him speak now or forever hold his peace”.
Will Lucien Bouchard rise or will he forever hold his peace?
* * *
ALAIN BÉLANGER
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, at the request
of the people in my riding of Shefford, I am calling attention
to the participation of Alain Bélanger in the world-class
competition for wine stewards, the Concours du meilleur
sommelier au monde, to be held in Vienna on June 6 and 7.
Mr. Bélanger will be there officially representing Canada and I
would like him to know how proud I, and all my constituents, are
of him.
Mr. Bélanger came second in the Concours du meilleur sommelier
du monde en vins et spiritueux de France, and holds the titles
of meilleur sommelier du Canada en vins et spiritueux de France,
and meilleur sommelier du Québec.
He is considered to be the most serious competitor for the
favorite, Éric Beaumart, of France, who has already won this
award for France.
We hope that he will be able to bring the world title of
meilleur sommelier au monde back home with him, to enhance his
career and bring honour to our country.
Good luck, Alain!
* * *
JEAN THÉBERGE
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure of welcoming to the Hill today Jean Théberge, MP for
Charlesbourg for a day. He will be here with us for 24 hours.
He won first prize in the MP for a day contest for Charlesbourg
riding, winning out over nearly 1,200 other students in
Secondaire IV.
During his time in Ottawa, Jean will have an opportunity to gain
some familiarity with what MPs do, and will get a chance to see
first hand the hectic lives we lead here on Parliament Hill.
He and his brother François will have the honour of meeting with
our leader, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, and all of
the members of the Bloc Quebecois caucus.
Our Speaker will also have the chance to speak with this young
man tomorrow morning.
Jean, on behalf of all of my colleagues in this House, welcome
to Parliament Hill.
* * *
1415
[English]
CLASS OF 1997
The Speaker: Colleagues, a year ago today, all of us
here were quite anxious. I want to underline not only the
anniversary of the last election, but I also want to salute the
100 parliamentarians who joined us. They are the class of 1997.
This is their anniversary. Happy anniversary.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the largest service contract in Canadian history has
been awarded to Bombardier without competitive bidding. The
whole thing was hammered out behind closed doors.
Last November the official opposition sought access to documents
on this deal. We filed an access to information request. We
asked again in February, in March, in April, in May, and no
response.
What is it that the Prime Minister is trying to hide by blocking
every attempt to get full disclosure on this deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there was a public announcement made by the Minister of
National Defence in 1996 when the Government of Canada was trying
to find a solution to make sure that the base at Moose Jaw would
be in operation. There was pressure put on the government by the
premier of Saskatchewan and the premier of Alberta. We made an
application to NATO to make sure that the base could be used for
training in Canada. There was a public announcement at that time.
It is only months later that the contract was awarded when there
was no interest at all by any other company. It is a consortium
of many companies, some from Edmonton, Alberta, some from
Winnipeg, Manitoba. It is a contract that will create—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, you would think when the government was awarding the
largest service contract in history and giving it to a party with
close ties to the Liberal Party and with close family ties to the
Prime Minister, that it would—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We are getting fairly close, my colleagues.
Be quite judicious in the choice of words. I ask the hon. Leader
of the Opposition to put his question.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, you would think with a
contract with these characteristics that the government would
endeavour to scrupulously follow the rules, but it did not. It
bypassed the rules on competitive bidding. It bypassed the rules
on public disclosure of sole source contracts. Now the Prime
Minister ignores access to information requests on this deal.
What is it about this deal that the Prime Minister is
endeavouring to hide?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on March 24 the department gave a briefing to the Reform
Party on this contract. It was a very important initiative of
the private sector to make sure the countries that wanted to
train in Canada had the proper services. I invite the Leader of
the Opposition to repeat his speech in Moose Jaw, Cold Lake,
Edmonton and Winnipeg where a lot of jobs would be created.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would be happy to repeat the speech in those places
where they voted more for Reform than they ever did for the
government. No wonder the private sector was anxious to get this
deal. This deal is one in which if profits are made, Bombardier
gets to keep them, but if the losses are big enough, the public
gets to pick up the tab. It is also a $2.85 billion dollar
project. That is four times the budget of Prince Edward Island.
I will ask the Prime Minister again. On a deal as sensitive and
as big as this, why would the government not scrupulously follow
all the procurement rules?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we followed all the rules. It was examined carefully and
approved by Treasury Board. It was in the best interests of
creating economic activity in western Canada. If the leader of
the Reform Party has no interest in the economy of western
Canada, that is fine. As far as enjoying himself in the dirt, I
know that he loves it and I do not expect him to change.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is another rule bender. The former commander of Canada's
air command, Lieutenant-General David Huddleston took a job at
Bombardier and brokered the multibillion dollar sweetheart deal
with the Canadian government, this Liberal government. He took
the job only seven months after leaving the air force. This is a
clear violation of the conflict of interest code and the cooling
off period, and the minister knows it.
Are there any rules the government did not break when it awarded
Bombardier—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been said time and time again that
there were no rules broken. This was handled in the proper
fashion. As for the former air chief, all of the rules with
respect to conflict of interest were followed. There was no
lobbying done by that individual anywhere within the period of
time.
Furthermore, this decision was taken about two years ago. In
fact earlier this year the Reform Party had every opportunity to
look at the records. It was offered to Reform members and they
refused to do that. Instead they want to get up today and smear
what is a very good deal that creates a lot of jobs in western
Canada and saves the base—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the facts speak for themselves. The conflict of interest code
makes it clear that there is a cooling off period of one year and
he violated it. How can the minister deny this is a conflict of
interest and that it makes this sweetheart deal to Bombardier
look worse than it already did?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to see if the
hon. member wants to repeat that outside the House because there
was no violation of the conflict of interest code. All those
things are watched very closely.
This is a good deal for Canadians. It saves $200 million over
20 years.
There was no other consortium of companies that would likely put
a project of this magnitude together. We had a time deadline in
which to get this in to NATO. A decision had to be made or we
would have lost Moose Jaw. We would have lost over 5,000 person
years of employment in western Canada.
* * *
1425
[Translation]
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one year later,
this government, which was supposed to be launching us into the
third millennium, is stagnating—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: I appeal to you, my colleagues. We are
having a tough time.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, one year later, this
government, which was supposed to be launching us into the third
millennium, is stagnating, marking time, bogged down, and has
apparently run out of ideas.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his government is so unable
to take advantage of the favourable economic context, which
makes its life easier, that even its members, when questioned by
journalists, cannot come up with anything significant this
government has done?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
after one year, I am very happy to say that this is the first
time in 30 years that Canada has had a balanced budget.
Over the past year, Canada's unemployment figures have been at
an eight-year low. Over the past year, we have invested in
research and development and helped young people prepare for the
21st century.
Over the past year, we have signed an internationally respected
land mine treaty.
Over the past year—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, rising to
boast of the fact that there are now one and a half million
children living in poverty in Canada, that 60% of unemployed
workers are now ineligible for EI, and that hepatitis C victims
are being ignored by this government, shows a lack of compassion
that is truly scandalous.
Is the Prime Minister not proving to us that not only his entire
government but he himself have run out of ideas?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have invested $850 million in the child tax benefit. Over
the past year, we have created the millennium scholarships,
which are going to help people—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, for 30 years, the
Government of Quebec was unable to sort out the problem of
Quebec's school boards, and it was we who amended the
Constitution and helped the Parti Quebecois out of a tight
corner.
1430
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
government specializes in making bad choices.
It resolved the deficit by making cuts to health care,
education, social assistance and employment insurance.
A year after his election, will the Prime Minister admit that he
is betraying the Liberal tradition and displaying an appalling
lack of compassion toward the disadvantaged when he plunges both
hands into the coffers of the social programs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
the contrary. We are going to invest $850 million on behalf of
poor families this July 1.
We have announced that, in the next two years, we will invest
another $850 million on behalf of poor families in Canada.
We have achieved the lowest interest rates in a good long while,
something those in difficulty having to borrow money will
benefit from.
We have also succeeded—According to what everyone was saying a
few years back, Canada was a candidate for the third world—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government was, in all pomp and circumstance, supposed to be
preparing Canada's entry into the third millennium.
Its only project in this regard has been the millennium
scholarships. What a joke.
Does the Prime Minister not understand that, for the past year,
the government has focused solely on crisis management and
economic tinkering to manage the everyday lives of Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have raised the ceilings of provincial transfers to $12.5
billion in order to help them deal with the present situation.
We have managed the country very well.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: We have managed the country very well,
because, when we were in London, a little while ago, the major
European dailies were saying that Canada was at the forefront of
all the G-7 countries.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the health minister failed once again to provide
leadership, failed to put resources on the table and to provide a
clear mandate to federal bureaucrats to ensure the successful
negotiation of compensation for all hepatitis C victims.
Not surprisingly the talks broke down today. The health
minister has one more chance. Will he today clearly provide the
leadership to put the resources on the table that will enable the
successful compensation package to be completed for all hepatitis
C victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as a result of federal leadership at the meeting going on in
Edmonton as we speak, the working group is examining options that
will be put before the ministers for consideration at the
appropriate time.
That is a good process. I expect the hon. member and in fact
all members of the House will wait until it is concluded and we
can judge it based on the results.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
absolutely clear that the health minister will not accept his
responsibility for the breakdown of these talks.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why can the Prime
Minister not give a clear directive to federal bureaucrats to
successfully negotiate compensation for all hepatitis C victims
in the same way that he expedited the $2.6 billion contract with
Bombardier?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member ought not to think the talks have broken down. There
are no negotiations going on in Edmonton. It is a group of
officials working to develop options for the ministers to
consider. Those talks are going very well.
Just at the end of yesterday some representatives of hepatitis C
groups said they were very satisfied with the progress being
made. I think we ought to let that process conclude and then we
will know where we go from there.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am sure
the health minister is absolutely right when he says that no
negotiations are taking place in Edmonton. Their position has
not changed. They have gone in on this negotiation process with
the idea of take no prisoners. The only casualties out there
will be the hepatitis C victims.
1435
When will the minister show leadership, stand in the House and
say that he will fund these innocent victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member does not understand the process. Ministers have asked
the working group of officials to meet as they are doing now in
Edmonton to examine all the options we put before them and to
report back to the ministers so a decision can be made.
In terms of leadership, it is as a result of the leadership of
the Prime Minister of this government that we have an offer of
assistance being made already to some 22,000 people who
contracted hepatitis C through the blood system. As for the
rest, let us await the process.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, indeed I
understand the process. My question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister understands as well because he in fact is the
one who put the health minister where he is in the front row of
those benches.
Will the Prime Minister take some leadership, stand in the House
and give the health minister the liberty to go in there with the
generosity that has to be extended to these victims, or will he
sit in his place and defend the indefensible?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a good process in place. Discussions are under way
among officials in Edmonton. They are examining and fleshing all
options which ministers will then consider. I suggest the member
await the conclusion of that very good process.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in fact in
the Edmonton working group meeting yesterday there was a specific
proposal put forward by Ontario. It asked that the do nothing
option be taken right off the table.
The federal representatives said they had to consult with the
Minister of Health. I ask the health minister if they will be
permitted to take the do nothing offer off the table.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a process going on in which a number of options are
being examined by officials. I think the member would be well
advised to let that process run its course and let governments
act responsibly in this matter.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the victims were really quite jubilant. They thought progress
was being made. Today they have had to leave the meeting
dejected because this minister will not take a stand.
How long do they have to go through the process of being one day
high and the next day low because this minister will not take a
stand?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think the member has touched upon something here. Yesterday
the representatives of certain groups left quite happy with the
process. Today they are saying something else. I do not think
we should assess this issue on the basis of an hour by hour
reaction of certain people to the meeting.
This is not a negotiation in Edmonton. It is an assessment and
examination by officials who will put facts before ministers for
decision. That is the way governments act when they act
responsibly.
I urge the member to let this process come to a conclusion. I
am confident that it will produce a result that is in the
interest of all those who got hepatitis C through the blood
system.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government made a bad choice in deciding to have the unemployed
and the workers pay off a large chunk of its budget.
Now that the EI fund is accumulating billions of dollars with
indecent speed, the Minister of Finance wants to make use of it
to lower taxes.
By giving a general tax cut precedence over raising EI benefits
or lowering contributions, is the minister not headed for
another bad choice?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is it
a bad choice to decrease the taxes of 83% of Canadians? Is it a
bad choice to decrease the taxes of the self-employed? Is it a
bad choice to lower taxes for those on fixed incomes, for
seniors? I think not.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, those
who have borne the brunt of the burden of paying off the deficit
of this heartless government are the unemployed, the workers,
and the middle class.
Does the minister not feel that, before making any general tax
cut that would be of most benefit to the rich, proportionally,
he should cut EI premiums and raise benefits to the unemployed,
60% of whom are totally excluded from the program?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a bit hard to understand how a member can rise here in this
House and speak in favour of raising seniors' taxes, raising the
taxes of self-employed workers, raising the taxes on small and
medium sized businesses.
The Bloc Quebecois position is simply ridiculous.
* * *
1440
[English]
HEALTH
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Health Canada ignored medical warnings about 25,000 women's
breast implants. In 1986 a Health Canada scientist warned the
government that the Meme implant was unsafe. The product was not
formally banned until 1993, years later.
The government had a legal obligation to protect Canadians; the
government is responsible legally. I would like to ask why it
took seven years for Health Canada to heed the scientists'
warning and do what was right.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the matter is under investigation and therefore it would
be inappropriate to comment.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will tell the House what is inappropriate. It is when a
government tries to stall and when a government puts things off
for years.
We see frightening similarities between this issue and the
hepatitis C crisis. In both cases the government was warned that
the health of innocent people was in jeopardy. We see that
happening—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey: The problem is that whatever
government it was in the 1980s or the 1990s we see the same
problem, that they are irresponsible.
Why is it that the health minister continues to behave this way
whether it is hepatitis C or breast implants? When will he admit
that they are wrong?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think what is unfathomable is why members of the
opposition do not understand due process in law. It is under
investigation. Therefore it would be inappropriate to speak to
it at this time.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Last week, the Minister of Human Resources Development said he
was open to changing the employment insurance plan, provided the
need for such changes could be established.
In light of the examples we have provided him with, the facts
presented to him and the distressing statistics showing that his
reform is a fiasco, what more does the minister need to address
the problem?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I have stated is our
government's position.
We have known all along that it would be extremely important to
assess the impact of such a fundamental reform of the employment
insurance system on all citizens, to make sure that the system
is serving them well and generating the desired type of
employment in those regions where unemployment is the highest.
However, no positive or constructive suggestions to help
unemployed Canadians re-enter the workforce have come from across
the way. All we are asked to do is to keep them on EI as long as
possible.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister not realize that, while he is refusing to use the
existing surplus in the EI fund to improve the employment
insurance plan, he is having the wool pulled over his eyes by
his colleague, the Minister of Finance, who is devising ways to
use this surplus to lower taxes?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to co-operate
with the Minister of Finance.
I was delighted when, last November, we were able to announce a
20-cent reduction in EI premiums instead of the expected 10-cent
reduction. We have reduced these premiums four years in a row.
We are cautious managers and we believe that the unemployed will
continue to be served well by the Canadian system, especially
when it comes to helping them re-enter the workforce. That is
what people expect from us.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the government said that EI premiums have been going
into consolidated revenues, which is a fancy way of saying that
it has spent it. In other words there is no surplus in the EI
fund.
The government spent the entire $15 billion on things that had
absolutely nothing to do with workers' benefits.
1445
When is the minister going to admit that the EI surplus does not
exist at all, except in his own confused mind?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I might, let me tell you what I think the question
really is.
Let me quote from the taxpayers' budget of the Reform Party:
“To ensure that savings from the reform of UI translate into
deficit elimination the Reform Party recommends the establishment
of a permanent reserve fund for UI”. It goes on to say:
“Funds from this reserve would be applied against the deficit”.
Why the flip-flop?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when there is no deficit the money should go into its own
account.
Let me speak further to the minister's confusion. Six months
ago he said that cutting premiums would create jobs. Last week
he said that cutting premiums would not create jobs. Next he
will be telling us that cutting premiums will somehow kill jobs.
What are the voices in the minister's head telling him today?
When are we going to get a straight answer from the minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will tell you what the voices are telling me, and that
is that it is all right for the member for Medicine Hat to change
his mind. After all, this was written before the marriage with
the Bloc.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it seems
easier to laugh than to address the real issues.
In order to create this surplus in the employment insurance
fund, the Minister of Finance is not only depriving the
unemployed of a decent system, but he also continues to target
small and medium size businesses that pay proportionally more
taxes on employment than major corporations do.
1450
When will the Minister of Finance finally stop targeting small
and medium size businesses, and when will he significantly lower
employment insurance contribution rates?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member must know that, in addition to enjoying a $500,000
capital gain exemption, small and medium size businesses also
have a lower level of taxation than major corporations in Canada
and their counterparts in the United States.
There is also the research and development tax credits. All
these initiatives are designed to help small and medium size
businesses create jobs.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of the Environment.
Canada's north continues to encounter problems with toxic waste.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell the House what her
department is doing to protect the health and well-being of our
northern citizens, many of whom rely on a clean environment for
their daily bread?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for this
very important question.
I am very concerned about protecting Canadians' environment and
health from the contamination created by toxic waste. The
current initiatives of my department are to prevent toxic waste
from accumulating in the first place. Our environmental
assessment legislation and our new amended environmental
protection legislation are very important to that effect.
However, we are also concerned about historic toxic waste. We
have spent millions of dollars in recent years to help
decontaminate sites in the northern territories and we will
continue to provide advice to federal departments for the
elimination of toxic waste.
* * *
TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development gave almost $350,000 to a
food processing company in Newfoundland last year. Since then it
has failed to produce any products or hire a single production
worker. The president has no experience in the industry and the
company is about to go bankrupt. It turns out that he was an
organizer for former Liberal MP Jean Payne, and defeated Liberal
candidate Rex Gibbons, and the money was approved during the 1997
election.
Why was this allowed to happen?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will look into the
particular case that the member has just raised.
The the transitional jobs fund has been very well used by this
government. There have been many consultations. Members of the
House, whether they are on the opposition benches or on the
government benches, are being consulted. Provincial
administrations are being consulted on every project. There are
objective criteria.
To create jobs in areas where unemployment is very high we will
continue to work hard.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
the minister did not tell us is that this company went bankrupt
previously. The person who was given this loan used the money to
pay off other loans he had been given by the transitional jobs
fund. It failed the first time and then he used the money to pay
off his other loans and it failed the second time, and the
minister still has no answers.
How can the minister allow this to happen?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I challenge the member to
say those words outside of the House, to repeat them. It is
absolutely extraordinary to criticize people and to put them in
the gutter.
Our government has objective criteria and we follow the process
very closely. We are very proud to have created more than 30,000
jobs with the transitional jobs fund.
* * *
1455
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is shocking that a criminal investigation into Health
Canada's approval of dangerous breast implants for Canadian women
has taken so long. NDP MP Joy Langan began calling for an
investigation nine years ago.
My question to the Minister of Health is not about the current
investigation. We want to know why it took citizens to come
forward to get the RCMP involved. Why did the minister not
launch an investigation? Why has it taken so long to get to the
bottom of this tragedy?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot speak for the administration of the RCMP under
the last government, but this government has acted on this
information. It is being investigated. That is basically all I
can say at this time.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the breast implant issue is just one example of a
dangerously long list of examples of dereliction of duty by this
government's health protection branch. We have implants. We
have blood. There is BST, nifedipine, toxic toys and the list
goes on and on. Let us face it, there is a mess in the
minister's department.
Will the minister launch an immediate public investigation into
the health protection branch?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the only mess is the mess in that member's question book. She
declines to listen to the answers we give. She ignores the facts
when we lay them out before her. We have explained each of these
issues and she pays no attention to the answers.
The member should be assured that the health protection branch
is doing its job. Public safety is a priority for this
government and it will continue to be.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Transport.
Following the conference of Canadian transport ministers,
Quebec's own inimitable transport minister, Jacques Brassard,
said that Ottawa lacked the political will to do anything about
the road system and that the federal government did not have one
cent to spend on highway 175 between Quebec City and Chicoutimi.
Could the Minister of Transport tell us whether Quebec's
transport minister is right and whether this reflects the
conclusions of last Friday's conference in Edmonton?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker, on the contrary.
What I said after the meeting with my provincial counterparts in
Edmonton is that the issue of increased funding for the national
highway system needs to be discussed with my cabinet colleagues
and is a matter of establishing priorities. I am prepared to
raise the issue with my colleagues.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, could the
minister tell us whether he is still in favour of increased
reliance on private and public sector consortiums to build and
improve the national highway system?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my simple answer to this supplementary is yes.
But I must add that I was surprised by Mr. Brassard's comment,
because he did not mention highway 175 during the meeting. If
we increase funding for the national highway system, highway 175
will be eligible for funding from the Canadian government,
subject to the agreement of the Government of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
PAROLE
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last year the solicitor general introduced
provisions permitting accelerated parole for first time
non-violent offenders. Unfortunately, some organized crime
offenders have used these provisions to get parole before serving
one-sixth of their sentence.
I would like to know what the solicitor general plans to do to
fix this.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.
First, I would point out that there is already a provision that
allows the courts to order that parole not be considered until
50% of the sentence is served. Originally it was thought that
would deal with this issue. It has not.
As a result, I have sought the support, and received it, of the
justice committee, which will be introducing legislation.
While we are conducting the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act review I would invite all members of parliament to
participate in that exercise to make sure that Canada continues
to lead the world in corrections.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1955 England and Canada conspired in a cover-up to deny Hong Kong
veterans their right to fair settlement with Japan for wartime
enslavement. This appalling act was perpetrated by the very
country the veterans fought and died for.
1500
Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs call for an investigation,
stop stalling and get on with the job of fair compensation for
Hong Kong veterans' enslavement by Japan?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, during the treaty negotiations in 1952 a
compensation package was worked out to honour the incredible
sacrifice the Hong Kong Canadian contingent made in that serious
battle. We are continuing to work on it. Once the treaty is
signed there is no other legal recourse to pursue.
For the hon. member to use the kind of exploitive language he is
using does not do proper honour to the people who gave their
lives in Hong Kong.
* * *
THE LATE ROBERT LORNE MCCUISH
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, in rising
to mark the passing of Lorne McCuish my colleagues in the
Progressive Conservative caucus extend our sympathy to Mrs.
McCuish and to her children and grandchildren.
Their loss of a husband, father and grandfather is difficult. I
hope they will draw comfort and pride from the public service
that Mr. McCuish rendered to the people of Prince George—Bulkley
Valley during his career in municipal government and his service
to the people of Canada through his election to the House of
Commons.
The measure of a member of parliament is not something easily
expressed. The consistently positive election results for Mr.
McCuish say much about him and the gratitude of his community for
his efforts.
The constituents of Prince George—Bulkley Valley from 1979 to
1988 were the beneficiaries of his feisty, tell it like it is
style of politics. I am sure Mr. Speaker remembers that. He
possessed a wonderful mischievous personality and was not the
least bit squeamish about using it on anyone from big business to
his caucus colleagues.
Some of those mischievous pranks are legend in this House and I
am sure Mr. Speaker has some memories of them.
He had a wonderful sense of humour. We recall one of the famous
incidents. I believe that Lorne at one time was a member of the
consumer affairs committee. His granddaughter and he one day
counted the raisins in the bran flakes because the company that
produced these bran flakes was talking about two scoops of
raisins. It is a famous story. Lorne said “We opened a lot of
boxes of these but we never did find two scoops”. Apparently a
few days later a truckload of Raisin Bran arrived at his
parliamentary office. That is just one of the many things he
did. Some of them I cannot mention in the House but he did have
a great sense of humour.
1505
Lorne loved his work. He realized that to love his work he had
to have fun at it. He did have fun at politics.
Lorne represented a very large riding, 322,000 square
kilometres. He was like the travelling representative. He always
visited the remote corners of his riding to make sure he was in
touch with his constituents, and in touch with them he was.
In expressing our gratitude for the public service of Lorne
McCuish we would like to say thank you to his family for its
understanding and for sharing him with the House and with the
people of Canada.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the government caucus joins with
the House in paying tribute to the memory of Mr. Lorne McCuish
who from 1979 to 1988 served as member of parliament for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley.
Like many British Columbians, Mr. McCuish was born in Winnipeg
but was certainly at heart a true British Columbian. He was
raised in Vancouver before moving to Prince George in the 1950s.
It was there that he became involved in public service to his
community. He gave almost 20 years of his life to public
service, working for the greater good of British Columbians,
particularly those in northern British Columbia, and of course
the country at large.
First as an alderman and then as a parliamentarian he served his
fellow citizens enthusiastically, energetically and certainly to
the best of his ability.
He ran for parliament for the Progressive Conservative Party in
1979 and became the first person to represent the new Prince
George—Bulkley Valley riding.
Lorne made it his personal mission to serve the people of his
riding fairly and honestly. His neighbours responded to this
deep commitment by electing him to the House three times before
his retirement in 1988.
Lorne will best be remembered for his tireless commitment to his
constituents, not an easy task considering his riding was well
over 100,000 square kilometres and at the outset did not contain
a single federal government office. The nearest federal building
was a Canada employment centre in the neighbouring riding of
Prince George—Peace River.
Lorne had a solution to that problem. He decided instead to
take the government to the people and he would spend at least one
week of every six travelling his constituency throughout northern
British Columbia holding accessibility sessions in town halls,
schools, libraries, hotels, community centres and church
basements.
His constituents both liked and respected him for his commitment
and for his feisty, tell it like it is style.
On a personal note, he will certainly be remembered for his
sense of humour and for his love of life. He was famous in this
Chamber for his practical jokes and indeed he was called one of
the most mischievous MPs ever, but that was always done with good
spirits and in a lighthearted way. His personal philosophy was
always to live life to its fullest, never to take himself or
others too seriously and to live every day to the best.
Mr. McCuish was a husband, a father of four and a grandfather of
six, a legacy which will last far longer than any accomplishment
of those of us in office.
Those of us who represent constituencies many miles from our
nation's capital know what Lorne knew, that our work would not be
possible without the support of our family and our friends at
home.
1510
As both a British Columbian and a Canadian, Lorne McCuish made
an important contribution to our society as the member of
parliament for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. I convey to the
House on behalf of the Liberal caucus and constituents our
deepest condolences to his family and to his friends.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as the member of parliament for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley, I knew Lorne McCuish. I met him in 1965 when I joined
the Kinsmen club and I feel privileged to pay tribute to our
departed former member of parliament who served Canadians from
1980 to 1988 in my riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
Lorne moved to Prince George in the early 1950s after serving
with the RCAF in World War II. From there he launched his career
as an independent insurance adjuster. Lorne was a tireless
worker in the community, having worked for many charity
organizations and service clubs, including the Kinsmen club where
we met. Lorne's volunteer efforts played a huge role in the
building of Prince George into the great city it is now, a great
place to live.
He was an alderman for the city of Prince George from 1973 to
1977. During that time he gave freely of his time and energy to
help in the planning of the emerging city of Prince George and
all the infrastructure that was to come to make it the great city
it is.
His integrity and devotion to work were an example to all.
Lorne made in his career and in his life many friends and
acquaintances. He will be missed by those friends and
acquaintances and of course by his family members.
On behalf of the riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley and the
Reform Party of Canada, I send our sincerest condolences to
his family and friends and express our gratitude to Lorne McCuish
for his many services to Canadians as he served the riding of
Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to join with my colleagues in the House of Commons in paying
tribute to Lorne.
I had the honour of serving with him from 1984 to 1988, so I got
to know him a little, at least during one term. He had been
elected in 1979.
I remember that even before his election he was known as an
excellent administrator. He joined the team of Joe Clark, whom
he greatly admired. He did an outstanding job of representing
the new riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley. In fact, he was
the first member to represent this riding.
During the term when we served together I had the opportunity
to work with him on the famous northern pipeline issue on
various standing committees such as veterans affairs, consumer
and corporate affairs as well as Indian affairs, because his was
a very large riding where a number of first nations were
established.
He used to say his sole purpose was to serve the people of his
riding. That was more than a mission; it was a passion. He did
not have national ambitions as he told us repeatedly. His sole
ambition was to serve his constituents well. In that sense he
had a rather unorthodox approach to the duties of an MP.
He could, for instance, spend one week in the House of Commons
and the next in his riding, not at his office but visiting every
village, community and organization to get a feel for what people
thought, and this for months on end.
He liked to say “There are no government offices in my riding.
I am the office for all the departments, by bringing services to
my constituents”. He was passionately fond of meeting the
people of his riding. He was, moreover, always elected by a
heavy majority because people saw him as one of them. They
recognized him as a tireless worker.
He was a fervent supporter of Joe Clark. At this very moment I
bet he is sending Mr. Clark signals from the other side about a
comeback. He was disappointed to see his leader leave but
remained faithful to his party. He stayed for the 1984 election
because he dreamed of being a government MP for at least one
mandate, and he knew that the Conservatives had a good chance of
forming the government in 1984.
He leaves his four children and their children to mourn his
passing.
I would like them to know just how proud they should be of him
and how much he taught all MPs about loving our work,
doing a good job of it and serving the public before anything
else.
1515
I am grateful for his great contribution to democracy and thank
him for it. My sincere condolences to all his friends, his
entire family, and the members of his party.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to represent the New Democratic caucus in remembering
Lorne as a member of parliament and as an alderman in the city of
Prince George.
I learned a great deal from Lorne McCuish. He was elected in
1979 and I was elected in 1980. He taught me a great deal about
how a member of parliament ought to operate, particularly in the
constituency. We shared a hallway. I spent many an evening with
Lorne McCuish. We talked about politics and work in the House of
Commons and in various committees.
He was from Prince George and I am from Kamloops which meant
that we spent many a flight together flying across Canada. I can
recall countless evenings in Vancouver. In those days we were
required to stay over because there were no same day flight
connections to our respective communities from Ottawa.
As others have indicated, I remember Lorne as a very humourous
individual. He always wanted to play a joke. The first time I
saw him play a joke was when we were flying from Ottawa to
Vancouver. I asked him how he avoided getting into conversations
with people he did not want to talk to. Sometimes you sit beside
a person who for whatever reason you would just as soon forget
having a conversation with. He told me a secret. I do not know
if he ever did it but I thought it was very funny. He said that I
should take 10 inches of cord with me and when I decided I did
not want to talk to somebody I should hang it out of my mouth.
He said that nobody would ever talk to a person with a cord
hanging out of his mouth and I suspect he was probably right. He
would say things like that continuously. He was a man of great
humour.
I was talking with him one day about doing constituency work. As
others have indicated, he would take one week out of six and go
back to his constituency, a very vast area. He held what he
called availability sessions for people to come out and meet
Lorne. He was a very approachable individual. He asked me to
come along and join him for one of these visits, which I did. We
got in a little trout fishing at the same time.
I remember walking with Lorne down the streets of Vanderhoof and
Fort St. James. He knew every single person by name. If he did
not know them he would sort of mumble and they would think he
knew their names. I thought that was a rather ingenious
approach.
He was very popular and popular for an interesting reason. He
was prepared to say no to people if he could not help them. He
did not pretend he could help them. Nor did he slough it off.
Delegations would come from our part of central British Columbia.
To be fair I would try to be kind of nice to those folks but he
would just say “No, we cannot help you. We are not able to do
anything. We are not even particularly interested in trying to
help you with that problem because we do not believe in it”. I
had not met anybody like that. It was very refreshing. It
demonstrated that you do not always have to agree with people for
them to respect you or for them to vote for you.
I can think of a great number of things I learned from Lorne
McCuish. On top of that he was a very genuine, nice person. He
often spoke of his family very warmly. I know he wanted to spend
more time with his family. When he decided not to seek
re-election it was because he had decided it was appropriate to
spend time with his family and he actually meant it. A lot of
people just say that. In the Lorne McCuish style he meant that
he wanted to spend more time with his children, his wife and his
young grandchildren.
On behalf of the New Democratic caucus, I extend sincere
condolences to Lorne's family, in particular his wife, his
children and his four grandchildren. We remember him fondly. He
added a great deal of humanity to this place and I know his
constituents loved him.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1520
[English]
PARKS CANADA ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, an
act to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to amend other acts
as a consequence, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Wild Rose.
It gives me great pleasure to speak on something that is dear to
my heart and that is parks. The last time I spoke in the House
was on the Saguenay bill. This time I am speaking on Bill C-29
the Canada parks agency act that offers to a degree a newer and
more reformed approach to maintaining our national treasures.
Canada is a nation blessed with natural wonders. I represent
the riding of Calgary East, a stone's throw away from the
humbling beauty of Banff, Jasper and Yoho national parks. I can
say confidently that Calgarians and all Canadians are proud of
the national parks. Our country's beauty is rarely paralleled in
any other nation and that can be seen in our bustling tourism
industry.
Our national parks and sites attract over 24 million visitors a
year and contribute over $2 billion annually to the economy. My
hope is that this bill will allow our national parks to flourish
while at the same time free off cumbersome government
bureaucracy.
Bill C-29 calls for the creation of a new agency, the Canada
parks agency. In this case I see some merit in the establishment
of the parks agency. Let me explain why.
Parks Canada is currently responsible for our country's 38
national parks and among other things 131 national historic
sites. It manages over 225,000 square kilometres of Canada's
natural and cultural heritage and employs roughly 5,000 people.
At present, responsibility for Parks Canada falls under the
Department of Canadian Heritage through the Secretary of State
for Parks and reports to the heritage minister. For this reason
the new agency will be held accountable through the minister to
parliament.
No doubt this will contribute to more efficiency and will
hopefully lead to a decrease in the fees Canadians pay to gain
access to our national parks. I have heard from my constituents
on numerous occasions that the costs of visiting places like
Banff and Jasper are becoming too high. These are treasures of
Canada and belong to the people of Canada. We have an obligation
to the people of Canada to make it as affordable as possible for
families to take advantage of the beauty of this nation. It
belongs to them.
It is nice to see once in a while something positive come from
the other side. A parks agency is one such proposal, although we
do have some reservations on this. The parks agency will be able
to raise and keep its own revenues. It will have access to a $10
billion parks and historic sites account which it will have to
repay to the crown with interest from revenues generated, making
the agency accountable. As well third party operators will be
permitted to administer certain facilities hopefully providing
increased revenues and efficiency.
This new financial independence will allow revenues generated to
flow back into the parks and sites. This means that new parks
will be created and those already in existence will be better
served and maintained.
The agency will be able to bargain directly with its employees
and CEO and will have the authority to appoint employees and to
establish terms and conditions of employment for agency staff.
Hopefully this will afford the agency the flexibility to develop
a human resource regime that is more responsive to the agency's
operational environment.
The auditor general will be able to audit the agency at his
discretion.
Bill C-29 also commits the agency to hold consultations on a
biennial basis. This will allow Canadians to share their views
on the agency's program and to participate in its management
direction.
1525
As well, the agency will consult directly with parties that may
be affected by any new fees. As I mentioned before, Canadians
are getting a little upset at the high cost of park entrance
fees.
The bottom line is that parliament, the auditor general and most
importantly, the Canadian people will be able to hold this new
agency accountable. What we have here is a bill asking for the
creation of an agency that will be self-sufficient, more
efficient, more flexible and fully accountable.
It is also my hope that this agency will contribute to the
maintenance and enhancement of Canada's natural environment.
I have been fortunate enough to visit many parks around the
world. As a matter of fact I was born near the foot of one of
the more famous sites in the world, the Ngorongoro crater in
Tanzania. Because of these reasons, national parks are very dear
to me. It is important to protect the environment and our
treasures not only for the Canadian people but for the world. We
are the custodian of these national treasures for the people of
the world. This is why this is very dear to me.
I would like to see the responsible management of these
resources for future generations. I would caution that I want to
see responsible management of these great treasures for the
people of the world.
I have gone across the world and have seen great parks but I
have also seen parks which have fallen in disarray. It saddens
me when I see that happening. Therefore, when something such as
this parks agency is proposed, then I feel there is merit to it
and am willing to support it.
The official opposition is committed to having our national
parks and heritage sites administered in an accountable,
efficient and cost effective manner. For the reasons outlined, I
see little reason why I should not support Bill C-29.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-29 since it will directly affect Banff
National Park which is in my riding of Wild Rose.
The purpose of this bill is to establish the parks Canada agency
to administer and protect national parks, historic sites and
other heritage areas. Ideally the rationale for a parks agency
is that it would simplify the organizational structure, improve
administrative efficiency and allow more flexible staffing and
financial procedures. At first glance there are a few positive
aspects to this bill.
First, the new agency will remain accountable through the
Minister of Canadian Heritage to parliament, as all agencies
should be accountable to someone.
Second, the new agency will fall under the Access to Information
Act. It can be audited by the auditor general, unlike agencies
in other pieces of legislation which the auditor general does not
seem to be able to touch such as the infamous and protected
Canadian Wheat Board.
Third, Bill C-29 was supposed to commit the agency to
consultations on a biennial basis and to consult directly with
parties that may be affected by any new fees. As of last night's
amendments, this will now be in the form of round tables held by
the minister. Obviously the government felt that more power must
be kept within the cabinet.
Fourth, the agency will be more efficient. It will be able to
raise and keep its own revenues, bargain directly with its
employees, permit third party operators to administer certain
facilities, and allow the CEO to set terms and conditions of
employment.
Finally, the agency will have access to a new $10 million parks
and historic sites account. Any funds drawn from this account
will be repayable to the crown with interest.
All in all, Reformers are committed to having our national parks
and heritage sites administered in an accountable, efficient and
cost effective manner.
1530
We support the agency's objective of cost recovery, while at the
same time ensuring that fees at Canada's national parks and
heritage sites do not become prohibitively expensive. This is
one amendment that should have passed. I wish it had passed.
The majority of MPs voted down a motion that would have set up a
two-tier park price whereby local area residents would pay a
lower entrance fee. The lower fee was turned down, despite
warnings that soon only the wealthy would be able to afford park
prices.
Fees have risen dramatically in Banff National Park over the
past five years. Many of the letters I receive about this
particular issue concern the increase in fees. The people of
that area are not happy. Seniors groups are extremely unhappy.
Time and time again carloads of seniors have driven to Banff
just for a nice afternoon out, but they turned around when they
reached the gate because seniors cannot afford to pay the fees.
Tourists from all over the world have noticed a big increase in
fees.
The main problem with this bill is its lack of detail regarding
how the agency will be financed and run, what the administrative
costs of operating the agency will be and what portion of that
cost might be financed by user fees. All of this detail will
not be known until the agency is set up. I believe that detail
should be taken care of prior to that happening.
As of now it has been reported that the agency is counting on
receiving $70 million from user fees in fiscal year 1997-98 and
an increased amount in subsequent years. Therefore the agency
will have to know exactly what consumers are willing to spend on
our national parks and heritage sites because any miscalculation
could hinder its functioning.
The one main catch to this bill was highlighted last evening
when the Liberal amendment designed to ensure bilingual services
in Canada's national parks was passed. I know that many of the
people in Banff will really be upset, and so they should be.
I often wonder why this Liberal government does not stop and
realize that, for example, Banff has one of the highest number of
new citizens. These immigrants come to Banff. Probably nine out
of every ten are of oriental background. There are numerous
people who want to make that area their home. They are
immigrants and they speak neither French nor English.
People from Japan, Korea, Vietnam or some other country choose
to make Banff their home. They want to work there. They went
there as immigrants, they settled there and they love it.
However, they will not even be able to get a job cutting the
grass in the park, painting a fence or building protection around
trees because they are not bilingual. How ridiculous are we
going to get in this parliament? We are constantly passing laws
that insist people must be bilingual in order to work.
This is Banff. A number of people out there do not speak
French. There are number of people who do not speak English.
There are a number of people out there who are very fluent in a
number of different languages. There are a lot of good capable
workers, however, members on that side of the House insist that
they be bilingual. It is getting just a little ridiculous.
I think of the days when I was on the farm. One of the best
milkers who came to take over the milking operation on our farm
could not speak a word of English. We could not even communicate
for a while, except by motions, but did he ever do a job for us
on that farm, and we could hardly communicate.
To pass a law that says that is the way it has to be is really
getting completely out of reach. Immigrants continually come to
this country. Many settle in the west. Many of them land in
Banff National Park. It will be very difficult for them to
understand why, when they want to make Canada their home, when
they want to contribute to the economy by working for a living
and paying taxes, they cannot work because they do not speak both
English and French.
1535
What kind of mentality would come up with that kind of
regulation? Government members do not give it any thought,
except when the time comes to vote on it and they jump up like
little puppets and vote as the whip tells them to vote.
Otherwise they will pay a healthy price for disobedience. They
continue down the same old path of not really caring what the
bill is about or how it will affect individuals. They only care
what the whip says because they are good little Liberals and will
always do what they are told.
As long as they keep doing that this country is going to keep
going down the tube. They are going to continue to chip away at
these small areas and tell individuals that if they do not speak
French and English they cannot get a job. It is ridiculous.
When is this government going to come to its senses? Banff
National Park is a beautiful place to work. It is a beautiful
place to earn a living. If these people can communicate in
Japanese and in other oriental languages they are going to be of
real benefit to the park. But they probably will not even be
able to work for the park because, the way I read it, they have
to be bilingual. Is that not so? They have to be bilingual.
Congratulations, Liberals. Congratulations to all the trained
seals on the back rows who keep approving bills when they do not
even know what they are about. They ought to open up their
brains and their minds to learn about what is going on.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. colleague is from Alberta and in his territory
there are large numbers of parks and wilderness areas. He knows
very clearly the problems that our parks have had recently and
also the problems they will face in the future.
He mentioned that the moneys that will be used to ensure that
subcontractors are bilingual will cause a major problem within
our parks. The ability of local people to earn revenues will be
hampered. In fact, the ability of the parks to function and
generate revenues will be hampered. They will not be able to
safeguard the flora and fauna, which in many cases is under
siege.
Does the member feel that the money that is going to be lost by
this ridiculous amendment the government is putting forward could
best be spent in trying to preserve our parks? If so, how would
he preserve our parks? What would he do, if he were the
minister, to make a more intelligent parks agency act?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question.
There seems to be an attitude on that side of the House. They
do not seem to understand that the national parks of this country
belong to the people of Canada. They do not belong to the
Liberal government. They do not belong to the government of the
day, they belong to the people of Canada.
Therefore, the people of Canada should be able to enjoy these
parks and that enjoyment should be affordable. But the
government squanders money on areas like bilingualism. The
government is going to make sure that the people who work in the
parks are bilingual. Those who are not bilingual will be totally
confused and very upset. They very much want to work for the
parks because they have a talent. That is why they were
attracted to the mountains and to the parks. But this
legislation will prevent that from happening.
The people of Canada should be able to enjoy their property in a
better way than they do today. Fees chase them away. Fees are
up because certain costs have to be met. Part of the cost is due
to the fact that we have ridiculous legislation which says the
workers have to be bilingual.
I hear a lot of nattering from across the floor, but I do not
think they have even been to Banff. They do not know what they
are talking about. I live in that country. I know what I am
talking about and I can guarantee that there are going to be a
lot of unhappy people in Banff National Park.
I congratulate those members on their big blunder.
1540
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask
my hon. friend, since we seem to have a lot of wildlife in the
House and certainly an endangered species on the other side, some
of which are green, and there is certainly a lot of old growth,
if maybe this could not be the next park. We already have
official bilingualism in the House. Maybe we could confine it
here, rather than have it spread to the Northwest Territories,
British Columbia and other places where there is absolutely no
sense in having it.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more.
The hon. member is right about one thing. There are some old
animals in this House.
Probably the most important thing that the member mentioned is
that there is an endangered species on that side because they
continually shove things down the throats of Canadians. Canadians
do not like it. They are getting tired of it.
I am going to continually insist that Canadians pay attention to
that mighty bunch over there who say to the farmers in the west
“You will do it with the wheat board, or else”. They are the
same ones who tell the people in Banff National Park “You want a
job with parks and you can't speak French or English? My, my
my”.
The Liberal members should shake their heads and wake up.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
really enjoy listening to my friend from Wild Rose. I just want
to know whether he has cleared his position with his new ally,
the premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that is a brilliant
question. It is about as brilliant a question as I hear coming
from the other side of the House. Why do you not pull your
little chain and see if your light will come on?
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
NUNAVUT ACT
The House resumed from June 1 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution
Act, 1867, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-39, an act to
amend the Nunavut Act. This legislation will transfer powers to
the new Nunavut assembly. It will implement measures for
territorial elections and the appointment of senators.
I am going to talk to a number of issues today, but I want to
address the long history of dealing with the aboriginal people in
a way which has created a welfare state. This dependency has
compromised the health and welfare of aboriginal people to a
great extent. They have some of the worst health care in this
country.
This bill will allow the government to appoint senators for the
Nunavut region. That concerns democracy. Should the people who
represent the people of Nunavut be appointed or elected?
1545
We have always maintained that the election of individuals
representing the people should be the way to go. An appointment
circumvents the democratic principles of the country and prevents
individual members of the community from getting the person they
want as opposed to the person a prime minister would like to
have.
If the Prime Minister would take a courageous leadership role in
ensuring that from now on senators would be elected by the people
and for the people, he would be doing an enormous service to
institute an element of democracy in the House that it so
desperately needs.
For years we in the Reform Party and others in the community
have asked for a triple E Senate, an elected, equal and effective
Senate, a Senate that would bring power to the people, not power
to the leadership of a political party. We have asked for that
repeatedly. If the Prime Minister would take that initiative he
would be demonstrating enormous courage and leadership. I
implore him to do that.
With respect to the powers of the Northwest Territories, those
powers will be transferred to Nunavut through the bill. I want
to get to the heart of my speech, the real reason I wanted to
speak on Bill C-39.
For decades we have created an institutionalized welfare state.
The institutionalized welfare state has been put forth through
the Indian Act, an act that is discriminatory. It balkanizes,
increases prejudice and keeps the boot on the neck of aboriginal
people by preventing them from having the ability and the power
to develop, to be the best they can be and to be masters of their
destiny.
We have circumvented that by creating a separate act for a
separate group of people. That attitude has compromised the
health and welfare of hundreds of thousands of aboriginal people
and will continue to do so as long as we treat aboriginal people
as separate and distinct members of the country.
It is possible and advisable to ensure that aboriginal people
are integrated into Canadian society and not assimilated.
Assimilation would destroy the incredible culture and language
they have to teach all of us. Integration will enable them to
become integrated, functional members of Canadian society.
Let us look at the situation in New Brunswick today where
aboriginal people are flaunting the law and cutting down trees.
The response from those aboriginal people is that there is no way
they will allow anybody to take away their chain saws. For the
first time in their lives they have been able to earn a living,
generate funds and provide for themselves and their families.
The result has been a dramatic decrease in substance abuse and
violence. The community is stronger. Individuals have a sense
of community. They are pursuing that course because they have
the ability to generate the revenues, the funds and the
wherewithal to be masters of their destiny and to take care of
themselves, as opposed to the situation we have today where
aboriginal communities are forced to look to the government to be
their paternal father, the one who will take care of them.
We in the House are members of different ethnic groups. If any
of us were to come under the Indian Act and be forced to ask
permission from the Government of Canada to do a number of
things, what would happen? If we were forbidden to own land or we
had to ask permission to get services, what would happen? If we
had a separate group of services and opportunities different from
the rest of the country where things were given to us instead of
our being forced to earn it, if instead of being given the
opportunity to take care of ourselves and the chance to have the
tools to take care of ourselves, and if money were given to us,
what would happen?
1550
We would suffer from alcohol abuse. We would suffer from other
substance abuse. We would suffer from sexual abuse and violence.
Our communities would be in tatters. If a system were created
where things were given freely to no matter whom, it would erode
the very soul of a person. As a result the society the person
lives in would be eroded as well.
The situation on some reserves is appalling. In my job as a
member of parliament I have investigated allegations by members
of reserves who have said that the resources their reserves are
earning are disappearing. It is alleged that those moneys are
being taken by members of the reserves.
Generally aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in leadership
positions are alleged to be taking moneys that should be going
directly to the people for education, health care and treatment
programs and to enable them to have the tools and the power to
stand on their feet.
The minister of aboriginal affairs said there was no problem and
that if I had a problem I could go to the RCMP. The result is
that the people on the ground, the average aboriginal people in
the trenches, are being hammered.
An aboriginal woman on a reserve I visited said that moneys
which were supposed to go into schools had been taken by the
leadership of her reserve. If she went to the leadership she
would be ostracized in her society. If she went to the
department of Indian affairs it would tell her to go to the
leadership.
What should that woman do? Her children will be educated in a
school that does not have the resources because the money has
potentially been stolen. Such people are caught between a rock
and a hard place.
This is not uncommon. When I investigated allegations of
misappropriation of funds on a reserve in my riding the minister
said I could go to the RCMP. Before that happened the people who
were allegedly doing it, individuals on the reserve in positions
of power, threatened to sue me to shut me up.
What happens to aboriginal people in that community who are
seeing the money disappear and do not know where it goes? There
is no accountability. There is no responsibility. There is fear
that if they complain they will be ostracized within their
community or worse.
They come to me. I go to the minister. The minister says that
it is not a problem and asks me to go to the RCMP. With the
resources going into the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development a significant amount of money is potentially
in the wrong hands. The Canadian taxpayer would be completely
appalled by that.
What are we doing? We are pursuing a course that will balkanize
our country. What will the Delgamuukw case that came down in
British Columbia do? It will drastically undermine crown
ownership of 94% of B.C.'s land mass; put almost insurmountable
hurdles in the way of the provincial government over land
resource decisions; supplant common law with a new system of law
in which equal credence is to be given to aboriginal cases, to
the aboriginal perspective; and replace the longstanding rules of
evidence in civil cases with two sets of rules, one for
aboriginal cases and one for other cases.
The aboriginal title as defined by the court may be supplanted
by other forms of land tenure only if there is rigid testament by
the government and only if compensation is paid. It failed to
confirm in constitutional terms the right to make laws where they
are fully vested in either parliament or provincial legislatures.
It turned over to the federal government the right to exclusively
legislate land management for natives on lands found to be
covered by aboriginal title.
The Delgamuukw case also prompted the first nations summit for
an immediate freeze on development of land resources anywhere in
British Columbia. What did that do for aboriginal people who
want to earn a living?
It destroyed the ability of that land to be utilized for
aboriginal people and for non-aboriginal people.
1555
The attitude in the Delgamuukw case and in the federal
government as in previous federal governments has been to divide,
which does not bring aboriginal and non-aboriginal people
together in an environment of mutual respect and tolerance, with
a vision and goal of pursuing a common and united purpose for the
betterment of the health and welfare of all people. It pursues a
course that will balkanize our country and will tear apart
aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.
What has been the outcome? As I mentioned earlier in my speech
the health care parameters are appalling. I have worked in
emergency rooms and visited aboriginal reserves. The incidence
in some reserves of fetal alcohol syndrome approaches 60 per
thousand live births. The unemployment rate can be 50% or
higher. The incidence of diabetes is three times higher than
that for non-aboriginals. The incidence of infant mortality is
much higher than for anyone else. The birth rate is nearly 3%
higher than in other communities. The tuberculosis rate
approaches third world levels. Why?
Does the federal government not understand that the pursuit of
separate developments is apartheid in Canada? Does it not
realize that will only fail? If its actions are to work we would
have seen that by now. Instead we have seen a decline in the
health and welfare of aboriginal people.
Members should walk for a few minutes through the inner city of
Vancouver and through some aboriginal communities. They will see
a scene that is reminiscent of a third world country. This is
not to say that some aboriginal communities do an outstanding job
of providing for themselves and their people. They have managed
to do it because they have the ability to work with surrounding
communities and the power to be the masters of their own destiny
as we are in our communities.
What is so wrong with giving aboriginal people the same
municipal type powers as those of other communities? What is so
wrong with ensuring that the traditional rights,
responsibilities, goals, objectives and cultural needs of
aboriginal people are to be preserved in perpetuity?
It would ensure that aboriginal people could engage in the
cultural activities they have always engaged in for the
betterment of their society. What is so wrong with that? Instead
we have a situation of separate development, balkanization of my
province of British Columbia and balkanization of our country.
Nunavut may proceed in that direction. Furthermore who will pay
for it? Will the moneys be generated there? The federal
government and the Canadian taxpayer will foot the bill for
separate development that has been demonstrated so clearly to
fail.
I cannot emphasize enough that the apartheid, the attitude of
balkanization of the country, the Indian Act and the department
of Indian affairs and its goal of creating separate development
for separate peoples will compromise everyone but particularly
aboriginal people.
My colleague from Skeena has spoken eloquently many times and
produced many different constructive solutions to the government
along the lines of aboriginal affairs under the umbrella of
mutual respect, understanding and tolerance, with an objective to
move forward to develop as individual societies linked together
with the common purpose of a united, positive and healthier
future.
The government is doing a separate development which, without
accountability, will only increase the problems of aboriginal
communities today.
If for once I could get the minister of Indian affairs to sit in
the House or to come with us to see what is happening in the
reserves, in the trenches, she might change her tune. It does
not serve her to meet the aboriginal leadership alone, because
the aboriginal leadership has a certain goal. It is forced
perhaps by circumstance to pursue an objective that is
politically correct, given the current politically correct
attitude we see today. It is this politically correct attitude
that we have toward aboriginal people, this attitude toward
separate development, that is causing enormous problems for
aboriginal people.
1600
Aboriginal people want their culture and language to be
preserved. They want to be able to work. They want to be able
to take care of their own. They want to be able to stand on
their own two feet. They want to be masters of their own destiny
and they want to interact peacefully with non-aboriginal people.
That is the objective we should have. Those are the people we
should be meeting with, because if we do not the problems we see
today will only get worse.
It breaks my heart to see the situation on some aboriginal
reserves with the situation I mentioned before of the incidence
of diabetes, tuberculosis, premature death of children, the
squalor, the destitution and the hopelessness these people have.
Furthermore, it is simply not necessary that this occurs.
We have to change our attitude. If there is to be a creation of
separate mini states within a province, say in British Columbia
through what the Delgamuukw case would provide, what is going to
happen when 110% of the land mass of British Columbia is called
for and staked out by aboriginal people?
We cannot go back in history 110 or 120 years and try to use
that to justify what is happening today. We have to move forward
and look forward. We have to repair the damage of the past, but
we can do that only by moving and looking forward.
It is imperative that we are able to use our resources to help
the aboriginal people to help themselves and move forward in a
constructive united front for all Canadians. If we do not, the
blood will be on all our hands.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
quite carefully to my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca. I am struck by a couplet of Pope: “A little learning is a
dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring”. I
am very disappointed in my colleague. I have always felt he is a
man of honour and a man of some intellect, but he has talked a
deal of nonsense this afternoon.
I am not sure how much he knows about the bill. I was in
Nunavut two weeks ago today. The weather was a little colder
than here. Eighty-five per cent are Inuit and speak Inuktitut,
which will be the official language of Nunavut. There was a
feeling of springtime, a feeling of confidence and a feeling of
looking at new things. Nunavut will be proclaimed April 1, 1999
and the Inuit have been working some 20 years toward this point.
There was a referendum and a vote in 1982 in which they
expressed their strong approval for continuing; the same again in
1992.
Does the member not realize there is a distinction or difference
between aboriginals and reserves and what the act is going to
provide in the eastern Arctic? Much of what he says is quite
true. Being a member of the aboriginal affairs and northern
development committee for the last two and a half years, I know
they are true.
I also know he does not appear to know what he is talking about
with respect to Nunavut. I do not suppose he is going to admit
that.
1605
The report of the committee on aboriginal peoples made the
comment about respect, recognition, sharing and responsibility.
It is the Inuit themselves who want this act to be proclaimed and
who want to govern themselves. They will be a public government
so they will obviously be accountable and they will obviously be
assimilated. I do not like the term, but as far as that goes
they will be assimilated about as much as the people of British
Columbia or Prince Edward Island have been assimilated into the
Canadian mosaic. That is what this act does. That is what the
department has been working toward. I would like the member to
acknowledge that.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question. The question that really has to be asked is
whether the carving up of Canada will help aboriginal people. Who
will pay for the development of Nunavut? Who will pay for its
establishment and bureaucracy? Where is the accountability?
I use Nunavut as an example of what might happen in British
Columbia with the Balkanization and the carving up of British
Columbia into mini states. That is exactly what will happen. It
is what will happen with the division of a province into separate
mini states with separate laws, rules and regulations.
Aboriginal people want to be masters of their own destiny. They
want the power to do that. But can they not do that within
Canada? Can they not be equal partners in a country in which we
are moving forward together? This government and previous
governments have taken away power from the people and put them
out separately in another field to develop by themselves, to go
through different rules and regulations for their own
development. As a result, many resources have not reached them.
As a result, we have created an institutionalized welfare state.
That is the biggest crime of all and that is what has to be
addressed today.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want
to discuss a point used during the hon. member's speech. I
consider him to be a very constructive member of parliament who
definitely wants to contribute in a very positive way to the
process.
In 1993 Reformers were first elected in substantial numbers
primarily in the western provinces. When they came to the House
they said they were interested in providing opposition politics
and in contributing to the process in the most constructive
manner possible.
Last night I found myself in a very difficult situation. Before
I voted on Reform's amendment to Bill C-39 I looked at our
rationale for voting against it. The rationale we were given
initially was that Reform wanted an elected senator for Nunavut.
As someone who fundamentally believes we need more democracy in
the politically system, I believe that senators should at the
very least be elected. I would love to have supported the Reform
amendment last night.
The amendment was that this House decline to give third reading
to Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the
Constitution Act, 1867, since the principle of the bill does not
guarantee that the government will select senators who have been
lawfully elected in a territorial Senate election. Had I
supported Reform's amendment I would not be able to support Bill
C-39. I was forced to vote against having an elected senator
because of how Reformers chose to word their amendment.
I ask the hon. member to work in a more constructive way within
his caucus. If the intent of Reformers is to be constructive,
when they make amendments of this sort they should use language
that would actually guarantee the election of senators, as was
done in Alberta. They should not decline the progress of a very
important bill. That is not constructive politics.
1610
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Fundy—Royal who has always put forth quite a number of
intelligent suggestions in this House in the past.
In the crisis taking place today among aboriginal communities
there are three things that can be done, scrap the Indian Act,
have a phasing out of the department of Indian affairs, and those
moneys can be put into developing programs for the aboriginal
people to deal with issues such as counselling, substance abuse,
economic development, giving the aboriginal people the tools to
become employable and take care of themselves.
As my hon. colleague from Fundy—Royal knows from his experience
in the maritimes, the people in New Brunswick are chopping down
trees. That is illegal and they should be dealt with accordingly
but the lesson behind that is that these people now have the
ability, albeit illegally, to take care of themselves. They have
the ability to work. They have the ability to earn money. They
have the ability to take care of themselves and their families.
As a result, we have seen a dramatic decline in some of the
social ills that are being predatory on aboriginal communities.
If we can do that it would be the greatest gift we could offer
aboriginal people in giving them the powers to work with us to
build a stronger country.
On the Senate amendment, the member knows very clearly that we
have pursued a course of a triple-E Senate for a long time. I am
encouraged that he supports that principle and I hope he will
continue to work with us to making that a reality.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party likes to talk about listening to grassroots. The
most recent polling on the Senate shows that more Canadians would
like to abolish the Senate rather than reform it.
If we elect a senator, does that not lock into place the
existing Senate, the existing powers, the existing representation
which is very unfair to our region of western Canada for example?
If we are to do that how do we persuade Ontario, for example, to
accept the idea of equality and yet leave meaningful powers with
the Senate to make it effective?
All during the constitutional process during the last decade
that was the most difficult question to answer, and there is no
answer in my opinion to that. It goes right back again as to why
I think more and more Canadians are now looking at the abolition
of the Senate.
It would take a longer dissertation to make my questions even
more clear and I think he would need more time to answer them but
I would like a brief answer.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the
NDP asks some very good questions. The first thing that has to
be done that can be done is to grandfather those members who are
senators today and nothing will change for them.
However, establish a plan right now that all new senators will
be elected and will come on the basis of regional representation.
Although the member clearly says it will be very difficult for
provinces such as Ontario and Quebec that have the lion's share
to accept that, or New Brunswick which has a disproportionate
number to British Columbia, that is where leadership comes in.
That is where doing the right thing will demonstrate to the
Canadian public that this House is not a house of elusions but a
house of leadership.
Grandfather current senators. New senators would fit into a
system of proportional representation where senators would be
elected on the basis of an equal number for each province.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order to seek consent from the House to present some petitions.
We omitted petitions this morning. These petitions deal with the
repeal of Bill C-68. I would like to get consent to take a
minute to present them. There are quite a number of petitions.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the
House that a message has been received from the Senate informing
this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to
which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-16, an act
to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic
of Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Chile for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of
fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
* * *
1615
NUNAVUT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, an
act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, be
read the third time and passed.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, following up
on the intervention of my hon. colleague and friend from
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, I was not going to talk a lot about
Senate reform, because I know that we have covered that off very
well already. But in response to the questions that my hon.
friend from the New Democratic Party asked, I would say that
scrapping the Senate is the easy way out.
The reason that polls show Canadians are in favour of abolishing
the Senate is that they feel so frustrated and so angry over a
Prime Minister who is only too willing to use the Senate for his
own political partisan purposes, much as we had previously with
other prime ministers, including the one immediately preceding
this one. Canadians are really sick to death of this. I can
understand that frustration. I can understand why the polls
would indicate that they would just as soon see it abolished as
have the ridiculous situation that we have right now which has no
legitimacy whatsoever.
I would argue with my hon. friend and I would take this to
Canadians and engage in a national debate that if we abolish the
Senate, we lose any opportunity in the future for having the
Senate provide a sense of regional balance and fairness within
this great country of ours where we have a democracy which
reflects representation by population. This is an opportunity to
have representation by region as a control mechanism or as an
overriding safety feature to ensure that the interests of the
regions are not overridden by the provinces with large
populations, particularly those in central Canada.
It is very important that we engage Canadians in this debate.
Yes, at the end of the day we will follow the wishes of the
country, but if it were laid out for them and if it were done
properly, I am convinced that Canadians would support it.
I thought that was really worth dealing with prior to getting
into the substance of my remarks.
A member of the Progressive Conservative Party made a remark
during the course of debate. I know it was not on camera and it
was not on the microphone, but he was quite right, and the member
is still sitting here. He said that this bill and the whole
creation of Nunavut is not about creating a new territory, it is
about creating a new province. The member understands that well.
I certainly understand it well. And there are certainly some
legal and constitutional experts out there across the land who
understand it.
That is one of the main concerns and one of the main objections
I have to this bill and to the bills that preceded it which gave
rise to the territory of Nunavut. In effect it does create a new
province in everything but name.
Mr. Speaker, you would know I am sure that it is not proper, it
is not right and it is not legal for the federal government to
create a new province or for this country to see a new province
created without provincial consent. That is right in the
constitution. A new province has been created in everything but
name, and it has been done in a very underhanded and deceitful
manner.
The original bill which gave rise to the creation of Nunavut
back in the early 1990s was passed through the House. Did it
take a week? Did it take three days? No. It passed first
reading, second reading, report stage, and third reading in one
day. Only one lone dissenting voice voted against this bill and
that was Reform's member for Beaver River. Other than that, it
went through the House as fast as any bill has ever gone through
the House from beginning to end.
Let us consider for a moment what this bill does. I am sure my
hon. friend from the Progressive Conservative Party would be
interested. I hope he is listening.
1620
This bill creates a new province or pseudo province as it does
not use the term province. It does so at the expense of the
Canadian taxpayer to the tune of $300 million. That is the cost
of implementation, or at least that is the budgeted or projected
cost. By the time the Liberal government gets done with it who
knows what it is really going to cost because as we all know that
is the way things work around here.
There was a tax program that was going to be the program to end
all programs. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you were in the House when
the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Tobin,
introduced it. It was a program to end all programs for the east
coast, $1.9 billion. This is it, it will never happen again.
Where are we now? We are looking at TAGS two. Just a little
aside to remind everybody that the government continues to budget
money for programs and then down the road it goes way over the
cost. It is likely to happen here as well.
There is $300 million to implement Nunavut. It is a fairly large
area but how many people are we talking about, half a million
people, or 200,000 people? No, we are talking about a population
of 25,000, including children, people below the age of majority.
There are hundreds of communities across this land and hundreds
of communities in Ontario that have more population than what
Nunavut is going to have once it is created.
Can you get any more ridiculous than that. Can you get any more
ridiculous than to spend $300 million creating a territory that
is going to have a population of 25,000? It is going to create a
legislature. It is going to have all the trappings of a
territorial government. It is going to have its own environment
building, its own fisheries department and its own department of
Indian affairs. All those buildings are going to be somewhere,
probably in Yellowknife. Who knows where it is going to be, but
for sure it is going to have all trappings of this federal
government somewhere in the new territory of Nunavut. The long
suffering Canadian taxpayer is going to enjoy the right to pay
for this politically correct nonsense in perpetuity because in
perpetuity it will last.
The amount of $300 million for 25,000 people would be a real
knee slapper if it were not so serious, if it was not creating a
new province through the back door in such a deceitful manner.
It is such an affront to the Canadian taxpayers who are going to
be asked to put out hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of
dollars over time to pay for this.
It has to be assumed that these are somewhat intelligent people
in the government, but why would they create this territory at
such a huge expense? Why have they done it?
The only conclusion I can come to is it is nothing more than a
bandage, a poorly considered politically correct response to the
massive failure of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. That is really what this is.
That department has had a demonstrated track record of failure
for over three decades. Year over year there are increases in
unemployment. Year over year there are increases in dependency.
There are increasing rates of social pathologies on reserves
across this country where the infant mortality rate is double the
national rate, where suicide is seven to eight times higher than
it is in non-aboriginal communities, where more aboriginal youth
go to jail than go to university.
The government in its politically correct scramble to try to
find a way of obfuscating and hiding its own failure is creating
Nunavut as a politically correct response. It says this is the
way of the future for people in the Northwest Territories.
1625
What we are seeing here is a bureaucracy that is in the process
of swallowing itself whole. Frankly, I think the Canadian
public, largely as a result of work that the official opposition
has done over the last few months but even before that, has
common sense and is slowly coming to the conclusion that the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is a fraud
of enormous size.
I think Canadians are understanding that more than $6.2 billion
goes into the top end of this department yet few benefits trickle
out the bottom end to grassroots people living on reserves.
I think the Canadian public is beginning to understand that the
department of Indian affairs is not much interested in
accountability within its own organization as the auditor general
has continued to point out year in and year out for decades. This
department has no interest in the truth. It is a department
which has no interest in looking at the real problems of
aboriginal people and trying to find constructive ways of dealing
with those problems.
It is the simple things. We live in a country that recognizes,
albeit with a whole long list of Liberal governments in a very
muted way, private property rights. Our Liberal forebear Mr.
Trudeau did not have the courage to put it in the constitution.
It is not in the charter of rights and freedoms although
everything else is in there. No private property rights are in
there.
We do have as a foundation to our economy the notion of private
property rights. Way, way back when Mr. Diefenbaker was prime
minister it was put into law. We do follow that in most areas of
the country.
There is not the right to private property on reserves. That is
a huge impediment for aboriginal people. They cannot mortgage
their property. They do not own their property. They do not own
their own house.
If a family breaks up, there is no process like there is in
non-aboriginal society for courts to determine who is going to
have custody of the family home and so on. That does not happen
in aboriginal communities.
A person cannot open a grocery store or a corner store. They
cannot open a gas station on an aboriginal reserve and arrange
the capital at a bank because they will be laughed at. The bank
will not lend them money against a piece of property that they do
not own. It is ridiculous.
In response to the historical and contemporary failure of the
department of Indian affairs, the government comes up with these
kinds of absolutely ridiculous ideas regarding how to deal with
the problem.
We are parliamentarians. We are supposed to be able to come
here on behalf of the constituencies we represent and we are
supposed to have access to information.
I have a simple question. How much money has the federal
government spent in the Northwest Territories over the last
decade? I would like to know the answer to that.
I would like to know how the federal government would defend
that expenditure against the population in the Northwest
Territories. I would like to see that expenditure per person
applied to all of Canada in a theoretical sense to see what kind
of expenditure the federal government would be engaged in if it
expended money on the same basis for all Canadians. I am sure it
would be a sum all the countries in the world could not afford,
let alone poor little Canada with a population of 30 million.
1630
The whole idea is crazy beyond any words I could use. It is
just ridiculous to spend $300 million to create a territory with
a territorial government, its own legislature and its own
non-elected senator for a population of 25,000 people.
It is one more opportunity for a partisan prime minister to
reward his Liberal friends as he is wont to do and as we have
seen recently with the appointment of the Liberal senator in
British Columbia who just happens to be a long time crony, former
business associate and a good Liberal recognized by everyone in
British Columbia. It is another opportunity for the Prime
Minister to do the same thing in Nunavut.
We in the Reform Party would like to see a little more sense and
a more rational approach to the expenditures of federal funds, of
taxpayers' money. We would like to see more careful husbandry of
scarce resources.
The government says it cannot find the money to compensate
hepatitis C victims. Yet it finds money to award contracts in
the amount of $2.8 billion to its friends in Bombardier. This is
the kind of nonsense that drives Canadians to distraction and has
driven the Reform Party into being. In the last election we sent
60 members to this place.
I tell those people across the way as I told them in the last
parliament that they should look out. Their day is coming.
Canadians have had enough of this nonsense. The $300 million for
25,000 people because it is politically correct and it is such a
do good, feel good kind of thing are coming from Canadian
taxpayers. They are paying attention. They are catching on and
the Liberals' days are numbered.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
want to go back to my friend in the Reform Party on the question
I was asking before. What he wants to do is to elect a senator
from Nunavut. The people right now are leaning more toward just
straight abolition of the Senate and saving $50 million a year
rather than trying to bring in a triple E Senate.
Even if he wants to bring in a triple E, I would like to ask him
how that would be done. We have been stuck with an appointed
Senate for a long time. We have a federation unlike any other in
the world with one province which has almost 40% of the people.
Another province with 25% of the people is unique and distinct in
terms of a different language and culture. How do we persuade
those two big provinces that they should have the same number of
senators as Prince Edward Island in order to get a triple E
Senate?
Even if that were to happen and the provinces agreed to it, what
kinds of powers would be given to that Senate? I suspect the
powers would be so insignificant, so ineffective and so
irrelevant as to wonder why we need a Senate first place. We are
stuck. How do we put a round post into a square hole?
This is a very real problem. We have dealt with it for many
years in parliament when constitutional issues have arisen. New
Brunswick has 10 senators and British Columbia has 6. New
Brunswick has about 600,000 people while British Columbia has
between two million and three million. New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia have between them 20 senators. We have 24 in the four
western provinces. How do we persuade them to reduce their
number of senators and have an effective Senate that makes the
Senate worth while to justify spending that $50 million per year?
If we keep going around and around in a circle like a dog
chasing his tail, in another 50 or 60 years we will still have an
appointed senator from B.C., an appointed senator from Prince
Edward Island and so on.
Are we not better off trying to abolish the Senate?
That is the way in which public opinion is moving and the Reform
Party tells us that it is a grassroots party that wants to listen
to public opinion. I would be very interested in knowing how he
would square that circle.
1635
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
The member is being honest in his question. He honestly believes
in what he is putting forward, which is unlike the Liberals. They
do not honestly believe most of what they say. We know that.
They come in the House with these canned speeches and read them
off. Half the time they do not even know what they are saying.
This member asks an honest question and I will try to give him
an honest answer. He talks about the fact that there are
different regions in the country with different representation
right now. I think we would all agree, perhaps everybody except
the Prime Minister and a handful of his closest friends over
there, that the Senate has no legitimacy whatsoever right now,
none whatsoever.
It is nothing more than patronage heaven for good little
Liberals who have done what the prime minister wanted them to do
over a long period of time. It is like going to heaven for them.
It is exactly like going to heaven. That is the only way I can
describe it. It has no legitimacy whatsoever.
However it is precisely because of the regional concerns of
Atlantic Canada, for example Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island.
It is precisely because of the concerns of provinces like British
Columbia and Alberta that do not want to be overridden. If we
could imagine a triple-E Senate being in place at the time the
Liberal government implemented the national energy program in the
late seventies, it probably would not have gone forward. We do
not know because we do not have the benefit of seeing history
repeat itself with changed circumstances. The reality is that if
there were a triple-E Senate in place when that policy of the
Liberals was put in place, it is very likely it would not have
gone anywhere.
This is the type of example I can offer of why we should not
abolish the Senate. Abolishing the Senate has an appeal to it. I
agree we should get rid of it. We are not supposed to talk about
the other place, but it represents the most despicable part of
Canadian policies and nothing more. It could be much more. How
will it get there? It will be when Canadians decide it is time.
We are coming to that point right now. Canadians are coming to
the conclusion that we need fundamental changes to our democratic
institutions. It is no accident that Reform sent 60 MPs here
after the 1997 election. It is not just because people like the
name. It is because they like the principles upon which the
party is founded. One of the four pillars is democratic
institutions being reformed.
I suggest to the member that if the NDP, the Liberal Party and
the Conservative Party are not on that wavelength, if they will
not tell Canadians that they are in the House of Commons to fight
for democratic reform, at some point sooner of later, and I
believe it is will be sooner, Canadians will give political
parties that espouse changes the authority to make them in a
general election. That is coming.
The member asks how. I ask him to stay tuned and he will see it
happen.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very puzzled by the way the hon. member talked about talking
to grassroots people and trying to do what the grassroots people
want us to do. We had a plebiscite and the people voted for
division of the Northwest Territories.
I do not know how the member could get away from saying that
this is what the grassroots people want. The Reform Party says
that we have to listen to the grassroots people. This is what
they want.
They have also stated that they want to be able to make their own
decisions. They want the people who make those decisions to be
knowledgeable of the departments and the programs they are
working with.
1640
The member talked about the department of Indian affairs in
Yellowknife. Yellowknife is not even in Nunavut. That is
exactly what we are trying to get away from in creating Nunavut.
We want to be able to make decisions because we know what the
people need.
He talked about the Senate. We already have a senator. Another
member said that we would grandfather any senators who are
already in place. Nunavut already has a senator so I gather
Reform is saying that senator will be grandfathered. I do not
see why this has to be an issue with the Nunavut government.
When I think of how the rest of Canada was created it got
assistance from the government. People from the east were given
plots of land in the west so they would move there. The country
was created by people being given help by the government to get
started.
Who knows where we will be in 20 years? However we need
assistance at the beginning as every other Canadian was given
assistance at the start of the rest of the country. I am a
little puzzled as to where the member is coming from. Perhaps he
could answer that.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my
intervention, Nunavut has a population of approximately 25,000
people. The riding I represent has approximately three and a
half times that population. If a plebiscite were held in my
riding that asked the people if they would like $900 million of
federal government assistance to create a new territory, I would
venture to say they would probably vote for it. What about the
people who have to pay the bill? That is the crux of the issue.
Going to the grassroots in terms of aboriginal people we are
talking about going to people in reserve communities and asking
how we can introduce democratic and fiscal accountability into
these communities. Lord knows we are certainly hearing from
enough grassroots people telling us that it does not exist right
now. That is the crux of the issue when it comes to plebiscites
or talking with the grassroots.
The member cannot suggest in any kind of rational way that
because she has the endorsement of 25,000 people who live in
Nunavut she has the right to reach into the wallets of taxpayers
of Halifax, Vancouver, Toronto and Prince George to take $300
million to pay for it. That does not add up. I go back to the
hon. member with that by saying it is a non-starter. She cannot
do that.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that
the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre,
the Banks; the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast,
Immigration; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Poverty.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak today to Bill C-39.
The last time Bill C-39 was under consideration was during the
week before the House recessed. Unfortunately, on the day in
question, I was busy in my riding. I felt badly missing the
beginning of the debate, but I was happy to learn on my return
that debate was not over and so today I have the opportunity to
go at it anew.
As has often been said, the bill amends the Nunavut Act and the
Constitution Act of 1867 permitting Nunavut to have a senator.
I will have something to say later on the Senate, and I will
also consider a number of what I consider gratuitous remarks by
members of the Reform Party.
I recall the speech by their leader, who was the first, at
second reading of the bill, to talk on Nunavut and who never
once used word “Inuit”. He spoke for nearly two hours on the
Senate.
I found it totally deplorable and I note that we are continuing
in the same vein today.
1645
I think that I will suggest to my colleague, the member for
Abitibi, that when we have a first meeting with the Reform
Party, we should fill them in a bit on the aboriginal and Inuit
issue. We are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this one and
later on I plan to respond to certain statements that have been
made today.
The bill provides for a harmonious transition toward the new
territory of Nunavut. In 1993, the issue of the territory of
Nunavut and self-government was worked out.
Since we also know that there are provisions in this legislation
for a legislative assembly to be in place as of April 1, 1999,
we cannot wait until the day before to say that an election may
now be held.
If the legislative assembly is to be operational effective April
1, action must be taken now, and the people of Nunavut then
allowed to decide when they will hold it, as long as they are
ready to fly on their own by April 1, 1999. I think that is
what we are looking at today. We are not necessarily looking at
Senate reform, or land claims. We are looking at allowing the
people of Nunavut to govern themselves beginning April 1, 1999.
We are also looking at transferring the administrative powers of
the federal and territorial governments to the government of
Nunavut. This legislative election will precede the installation
of the legislative assembly on April 1, 1999.
What will the purpose of this election be? Its purpose will be
to elect people to represent the Nunavut Inuit. As many have
said, 85% of Nunavut's population is Inuit. The Nunavut
parliament will therefore be largely Inuit. The purpose of the
election will be to make the legislative assembly operational.
The bill will also allow the transfer of government services,
and this is important. It is important because, for too long,
the Department of Indian Affairs has settled matters directly
from Ottawa. This is basically still the case, because the
Indian Act gives them this power. The Inuit are not covered by
the Indian Act.
This legislation does not apply to these people because, in
Inuit communities, they have municipal governments.
Nevertheless, the federal government has a responsibility since
everything above the 60th parallel falls under its jurisdiction.
It is important to ensure that, as soon as this devolution of
powers takes place, the Inuit will have their own public
service. This point was made at second reading but I want to
make it again: The government must ensure that, when the Nunavut
legislative assembly becomes operational, on April 1, 1999, the
people of Nunavut will have duly elected representatives walking
through the front door of the legislative assembly, as well as a
public service capable of assuming its new responsibilities.
Ottawa will no longer be in charge. The purpose of the bill
before us is to allow the people of Nunavut to take charge and
break away from their age-old dependency on Ottawa. This is very
important.
We already have indications of what kind of government they want
to have in Nunavut. There is much talk locally of an extremely
decentralized system. We must understand that, in such a huge
region, some communities are hundreds of kilometres away from
one another.
They are already talking about a given community assuming
certain responsibilities on behalf of all the others. That is
interesting because this goes to show that the people of Nunavut
and the Inuit are prepared to take charge. They already have a
vision of the type of government they want.
In the discussion on the composition of the legislative
assembly, there was a debate about having half the elected
members be women. Those are debates we have had here for a long
time, and ones we have great difficulty in putting into
practice. Yet they are already addressing this issue.
Bill C-39 calls for an amendment to the Constitution Act of 1867,
because one senator has to be added. I shall be stating the
clear position of the Bloc Quebecois on this. We have already
called for the abolition of the Senate.
1650
We have already had an entire opposition day on a motion to
abolish the Senate and I intend to develop the Bloc Quebecois
position a bit further on why we agree a senator for Nunavut
should be appointed.
From all the testimony we heard in the aboriginal affairs
committee, the people who appeared before the committee, whether
they represented the Government of the Northwest Territories,
the Nunavut Implementation Commission, which is currently in
charge, Nunavut Tunngavik company, which is sort of
administering the funds until the Inuit really assume power, as
well as the representatives of all the Inuit in the country, and
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, were unanimous in saying that it is
absolutely essential for this bill to be passed.
No amendments have been moved. We want our dream to become
reality quickly. These people have been negotiating an
agreement for 25 years. They have succeeded in doing so, and
now they are anxious, like any other free and democratic
society, to take charge of their own destiny and to move forward.
So a new territory is going to be created in Canada, after 25
years of work. Moreover, the bill is a bit the end result of
the land claims and of discussions on self government. The
negotiations, the agreement reached and the legislation passed
in the House of Commons in 1993 meant these people had achieved
their objective.
For the objective to be fully met, the legislative assembly must
now begin to function as of April 1. I think that will happen.
It is easy to say the Indian Act will be scrapped. Even the
aboriginals oppose the scrapping of the Indian Act, because so
long as there are no discussions on self government and land
claims or on the financial independence of this type of society,
they will be forced to rely on outdated legislation.
It is therefore our responsibility to create the conditions that
lead to self government and that help resolve land claims that
will make financial independence possible.
We have two reservations. I mentioned the first during second
reading in the House of Commons, just before the bill was
referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development. I spoke, among other things, about the
Belcher Islands, and I am happy to see colleagues here who were
with me. All the committee members went to Iqualuit not so long
ago, either last week or the week before.
We were told in Nunavik and in Nunavut of the importance of the
boundaries of Nunavut and Nunavik. Understandably, for our
viewers things are a bit confusing.
But Nunavut is the eastern part of the Northwest Territories
that will have a new legislative assembly as of April 1, 1999,
while Nunavik is the northern part of Quebec. There are boundary
waters along these two territories, which explains why
negotiations are still going on.
We were told that the issue had been settled in the case of the
Belcher Islands. The Quebec Cree and the Nunavik Inuit feel that
the Belcher Islands should be part of Nunavut. But there are
other islands around, and there are other waters around Nunavik,
and this is why people say it is important to continue
negotiating.
The Cree made it an issue when they appeared before the
committee. They told us that they have been negotiating since
1977 for the ownership of certain islands that are very close to
their territory. But the federal government did not act on their
claim.
The same goes for Nunavik. We are told that negotiations with
the federal government broke down in 1993. The people from
Nunavik say they should have ownership of certain islands which
are not part of the continent, but which should naturally be
part of Nunavik.
I urge the minister to reopen the negotiations with the Quebec
Cree and the Nunavik Inuit. I promised these groups that I would
pressure the minister to reopen negotiations as soon as
possible, so that this unresolved residual aspect of land claims
can be settled once and for all.
1655
I think that the minister must sort this out and I urge my
Liberal colleagues to speak to their minister so that an
agreement can be worked out for the islands and the pack ice
bordering the territories both of Nunavut and of Nunavik, and
the Cri territories.
I see my colleague opposite, who is responsible for the Quebec
Cree. I am glad to hear him say he is in total agreement and I
am sure he will join me in trying to persuade his minister to
see that this gets sorted out.
The Bloc Quebecois' other reservation concerns the Senate. As I
mentioned earlier, we are calling for the abolition, pure and
simple, of the Senate.
As long as this is not done, and should a new territory be
formed, however, we are not prepared to be so objectionable as
to say that, since we are opposed to the Senate, we are opposed
to adding a new senator.
In the present context, I think that people must be treated
fairly. If a new territory is created and if it is entitled to
be represented in the Senate, we should not stand in the way.
Nor should we say that, because of the Senate, we will stand in
the way of Nunavut or use a major political problem to prevent
people from attaining the fullest form of self government
possible. Our position differs radically from that taken by the
Reform Party.
Where we are in agreement, however, is when we say that, since
senators are accountable to the Prime Minister who appointed
them, it amounts to nothing more than a cosy little nest, with
people flying out during election campaigns in search of funding
here and there.
It is an institution that is costing us $50 million a year.
Not only is our position clear; it is based on
representativeness. When you mention senators to the people of
Quebec, they are not interested. When they hear that the annual
bill for the Senate is $50 million, they say they have no
further use for it. Our position is therefore clear, but we are
not going to take the Nunavut Inuit hostage and say that we will
resolve the problem of the Senate by not voting in favour of
their plan, the way the Reform Party is doing right now.
I repeat what I said earlier. I was extremely disappointed when
the leader of the Reform Party, the leader of the official
opposition, spoke for two hours about Senate reform. We all
wondered if he had the wrong bill. I is true, however, the
Standing Orders allow us to focus on a narrow aspect, even a
single word.
If the word “Senate” appears in the bill, this gives someone the
opportunity to speak about the Senate without getting to the
bottom of the problem. I criticized the leader of the official
opposition at the time, and still do, for speaking for two hours
on Senate reform without ever saying the word “Inuit” once.
Today I must also correct my two colleagues who spoke earlier.
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca told us that in
British Columbia 110% of the land is being claimed. True, but I
do not believe that the aboriginal population there, which is
incidentally very large and spread over 225 different
communities, is going to tell the people of Vancouver to vacate
their homes, to go back to Europe or the east, and then take
over those homes. That is not what it is all about.
When someone says things like this, it encourages myths and bad
attitudes toward native people and is a completely gratuitous
act.
Lets us look at how things were settled in British Columbia,
with the Nisga'a for instance. The Nisga'a were claiming a huge
territory. They settled for 7% of their claim. So, if the
Nisga'a claim becomes a precedent for British Columbia, the
people will not be getting 110% of that province, but 10%.
Then he told us that the territory will leave Canada. That is
not the case at all, either. To my knowledge, Nunavut will
still be Canadian territory. It will still belong to Canada. I
am sure it is funny to hear that coming from a sovereignist,
because everyone is aware of what our option is, but we are open
to questions of self-government.
Wanting more autonomy, that is an approach we are familiar with
in Quebec.
We have worked on that a long time, built on it, built our party
on it. It is perfectly normal, therefore, for the Bloc
Quebecois to say “So, you want more autonomy, we are agreeable
to your having more”. Our way of seeing it is Quebec
sovereignty, and their way is self government within which they
would have a legislative assembly.
1700
I think it important to correct my two colleagues, who always
seem to be trying to throw oil on the fire when it comes to the
aboriginal question. I find this particularly regrettable.
We are somewhat at odds with the Reform Party position on the
whole issue. Knowing along which lines the House usually
divides on the aboriginal issue, I think that the Reform Party
will find itself isolated, because the issue, as the Bloc
Quebecois sees it, is very clear, as I have just explained.
The Bloc Quebecois thinks that it is constructive to debate
greater self government. It is also a vote of confidence in the
aboriginal peoples.
You will never hear Bloc Quebecois members saying that they do
not want to give aboriginals or Inuit certain responsibilities
because they cannot handle them. That is not our approach. We
think that these people, who occupied these lands long before we
did, have their own approach. They had legal, political and
financial systems. They had everything they needed before the
Europeans arrived and upset their systems.
Today, when people tell us they are capable of governing
themselves, they must be given an opportunity to do so. One way
of doing this is to give them powers and responsibilities, and
ensure that they have the necessary instruments to make it on
their own.
This is why we insist they be given funding for training, to
make sure they will be ready April 1.
I have nothing against giving significant sums for Nunavut—
$300 million or $225 million—for agreements with the Micmacs or
with the Nisga'a or the Cree. This is one way of putting an end
to dependence on the federal government and to the practice of
saying “Here are millions of dollars. Next year we will
evaluate your needs and send more millions of dollars”.
Once people are given self-government and a territory
sufficiently large to permit financial independence, I am sure
they will be able to take charge.
The Bloc considers the matter of Nunavut, like the native issue,
a constructive one, a debate of confidence in the native peoples
and of the issue of greater autonomy for them. On this, the
Bloc will continue to follow them, unlike, unfortunately, our
friends in the Reform Party.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated
the remarks of the member for Saint-Jean. He is familiar with
the Inuit situation.
When we talk of Nunavut, of the Inuit of this region, of Nunavik
or Nunavut, we are always talking about economic development.
The people in the south are always questioning the financial
support they are given.
I know that my colleague has a lot of experience—he has done an
excellent job on the committee for a number of months, and I
appreciate it. Could he describe the economic situation and
talk about purchases, house construction, the sources of
vehicles, of perishable and non-perishable goods?
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague,
the hon. member for Abitibi, for giving me the chance to speak.
I believe he is familiar with my concerns about the cost of
living in the far north. He is very much aware of it because he
shares my opinion that the cost of living up there is
exorbitant. My colleague also knows some people who will be
coming to tell us how things operate there.
During the 35th Parliament, I raised the problem in order to
tell people that it made no sense at all for the cost of living
in the North, whether in Iqaluit or in Kuujjuaq, to be twice as
high as it is here. The average income up north is half what it
is here. So that means the cost of living is really four times
greater. Up north, a quart of milk costs $2, three liters cost
$8, while here they cost maybe half that. These people have
only half our income as well.
The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is currently
holding a quite extensive examination of economic development.
When I spoke before, I referred to the fact that sometimes that
carton of milk or other essential item had passed through 21
middlemen before the aboriginal people bought it at their local
Northern Store.
1705
If you traced that milk from the beginning until it was
purchased in the Northern Store, it sometimes had passed through
21 intermediate steps, which was not logical. Everybody along
the way took a little cut, which ended up making the price
exorbitant.
I think we must get to the bottom of this. It is part of
economic development. It is one way to help the people of the
North by trying to find some way they can obtain their staples
at a reasonable price.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure and an honour to rise in this House to speak on Bill
C-39. I have a great deal of interest in this debate. I have
listened to it for five or six hours but I have to admit I am not
interested in a lot of the discussion that ensues about dragging
the debate into other areas and other jurisdictions. I am not
interested in the term Balkanization. I am not interested in
filibustering and I am not interested in how this affects the
Senate.
What I am interested in is what this bill says to the people of
Canada about a very historic occasion in this country. This is
the first time in over 50 years that we are presenting a new
territory, bringing a new territory into the Canadian mosiac.
This is a very historic occasion and it is one that as a member
of the Indian affairs and northern development committee I am
very proud to have participated in.
I think it is time to quickly summarize what this debate is
about. The Nunavut Act will create a new territory on April 1,
1999 in the northeastern and central regions of what is currently
the Northwest Territories.
This process was initiated in the 1960s. It has been a long
process and it has been a long debate. I am sure the people who
started that debate in the 1960s would be very weary of it if
they were still here. Some of those early participants are still
here.
The creation of Nunavut was set out in the Nunavut land claims
agreement signed on May 25, 1993 by then Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney. The government of Nunavut will be a public government
reflecting the demographics of the area which is 85% Inuit. The
official language will be Inuktitut.
During the debate of this bill, during the process of this bill
through parliament we made some additions. We made some changes.
Amendments to the Nunavut Act were necessary to allow for a
smooth transition for April 1, 1999 to ensure the continuation of
services.
Because of the complexity of the regulations, the original bill
required amendments to ensure this would take place. The
amendments allow for additional seats for both a new member of
parliament and a new senator to represent the territory.
As well, this legislation removes any uncertainty regarding
basic services like drivers licence registration and courtroom
proceedings to allow them to continue after April 1, 1999 in an
uninterrupted manner.
These are the specifics of the bill. These are the nuts and
bolts of what we are talking about here. This is not an occasion
for members of parliament to get up, filibuster and ask questions
that have no relevancy whatsoever to the piece of legislation we
are trying to discuss.
Bill C-39 is an historic piece of legislation that will create
the third territory in Canada. It is a step toward provincial
status for all territories, Yukon, NWT and eventually Nunavut.
Amendments to the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act were
necessary to allow for an election prior to April 1, 1999 and to
make a seat available in the House of Commons and the Senate to
reflect and provide representation for this new territory.
This is an historic event in the development of our country. I
want to let the citizens of Canada consider that for a minute.
This is not a time for politicians to stand up, filibuster and
talk about issues that are certainly interesting and important, I
admit, but which are not relevant to the debate. If we are to
have debate in the House of Commons surely we should have
relevant debate.
1710
Another thing for which there seems to be a misunderstanding is
the size of this new territory. Nunavut will encompass 2,242,000
square kilometres. Approximately one-seventh of that is under
Inuit title under Inuit land claims. That land claims area is
Inuit controlled land. The rest of that territory belongs to the
people of Canada. It is crown land. This is not one huge land
claim.
I have listened to comments today. Obviously members have not
read the act. I have heard the debate go on and on about 25,000
people and what it is costing the people of Canada. What has it
cost the territories of Canada to belong to this nation? How
much have we taken from Yukon? How much have we taken from the
NWT? How much have we taken from the eastern Arctic in mineral
royalties, mining rights, oil and gas revenues? How much have we
taken in taxation dollars? How much has been contributed? A
lot.
I think it is time to allow a bit of common sense to enter the
debate. We are talking about maturity here. We are talking
about the maturity of a nation. We are talking about having
three territories. Surely it is time we can be proud of this
historic occasion and the very fact that on April 1, 1999 Canada
will have a new territory. I think it is an historic occasion
and a wonderful event.
On those words I take my seat and I hope the filibustering has
stopped.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague from Saint-Jean and my colleague from
South Shore. I have been in the House all afternoon and I hoped
we would get around to talking about Nunavut and what it means to
this country and to the people of Nunavut, and my two colleagues
have done that.
I would like to put on the record one or two points about this
Senate which seems to have consumed our friends from the Reform
Party, that our need for reforming the Senate is somehow more
important than our need for having our aboriginal people become
part of this great nation, I mean a real part.
There is a senator from Nunavut, Senator Willie Adams, in the
other place. He was appointed in 1977. He was not appointed by
the present Prime Minister. There is a Yukon senator, Senator
Lucier. What we will have to do is appoint another senator for
the western Arctic, Northwest Territories, the territory that Mr.
Adams represented all these years. With the split another senator
is necessary.
I am reminded in this historic debate, as my colleague from
South Shore has said, of a comment by a former colleague, Elijah
Harper, the former member for Churchill. I remember him standing
in his place at the other end of this Chamber and telling the
then third party in the House that it just did not get it.
My colleague from South Shore tried to put that across in gentle
terms. I am not prepared to be quite so gentle. Quite clearly
it does not understand.
The chief representative for that party on the standing
committee, where we have done a lot of good work on this in my
opinion, spoke for a minute and a half.
Then like a trained dog he proposed the amendment, completely
unknown to anyone else in the committee, his colleagues or anyone
who worked with him. We have spent hours debating something that
is secondary or tertiary or maybe quaternary instead of the
important parts of the act.
1715
One of the Reform speakers said to scrap the Indian Act. We
have tried scrapping the Indian Act on more than one occasion. We
tried to scrap it when the present Prime Minister was the
minister of aboriginal affairs. We tried to scrap it two years
ago. The aboriginal community do not want to scrap it.
One of the previous speakers spoke about ownership on the
reserves and ownership of land. My colleague for South Shore and
I visited villages, both aboriginal and Inuit in the northern
part of Quebec. We also visited Iqaluit just two weeks ago.
I ask my hon. colleague whether in those villages that we
visited he found a forward looking, positive attitude, a feeling
that they were going to get somewhere with their rights as
aboriginals, with their homes, health care and institutions. That
is what this act is about.
I hope that every member of the House will allow Nunavut to come
into being as a fully functioning member of the Canadian
federation. I expect all worthy members who see the Canadian
federation as first in the world, as I do, will support it.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Oxford for his question.
Very succinctly I would say it is an extremely progressive and
very forward looking attitude. It is almost an ebullience of
wanting to become a realistic part of Canadian society and an
equal partner in Canadian society.
We have a group of people who have always paid taxes. They have
always contributed to Canadian society. They have always been
full-fledged members in Canadian society. Today I found some of
the disparaging comments that have been made or tendencies
leaning toward that direction a bit irritating and quite
annoying.
We have an opportunity with aboriginal people in Canada with a
land base that is sufficient for them to actually be responsible
and in control of their own destiny. We have a larger land base
over which they have political influence. We have a window of
opportunity to be equal partners in our own land. That is an
important statement they will be able to make when this is over.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
Anybody who introduces petitions behind the scenes does so very
cowardly and I have the right to submit these openly. I ask for
the consent of the House to submit openly the great stack of
petitions I have on the repeal of Bill C-68.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The incredibly
persistent hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has asked the House
for unanimous consent to revert to the presentation of petitions.
Does the member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unanimous consent is
not forthcoming.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
As a member am I not entitled to some reason why the Liberals
are—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No. Resuming debate.
1720
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of
order.
It is abundantly clear that law-abiding firearm owners all
across this country want to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1805
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 207
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Duncan
| Epp
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 46
|
PAIRED
Members
Crête
| de Savoye
| Duceppe
| Fournier
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Proud
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
LIEUTENANT COLONEL WILLIAM BARKER
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.) moved:
That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage prepare and
report a bill to this House, in accordance with Standing Order
68(4)(b), no later than ninety (90) days following adoption of
this motion, that will create a memorial recognizing the
outstanding contribution of Lieutenant Colonel William
(“Billy”) Barker (deceased), V.C., World War I flying ace, and
hero of Canada and the Commonwealth.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity
to debate this bill today. Unfortunately this bill was not made
votable. First I thank the members who will be speaking on
behalf of this motion today.
Yesterday I was flipping through some clippings and I came
across a book review in the Globe and Mail of November 8.
There was a very appropriate caption. This review was on the
book written by Wayne Ralph called Barker VC: William Barker,
Canada's Most Decorated War Hero which was released this past
fall.
The heading for this book review was “The greatest air ace
you've never heard of”. Below that in bold was “How Canada's
most decorated hero slowly became an unknown soldier”.
Is that not appropriate when we talk about Lieutenant Colonel
Barker, VC? I want to tell this House and the Canadian people
why we are debating this motion at this time. This has been a
personal project of mine since 1996. As a former mayor of
Dauphin I began writing all the politicians associated with
heritage, certainly the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the
historic sites and monuments board of Canada requesting that
national historic significance be conveyed on Lieutenant Colonel
William Barker, VC.
1810
For those who do not know anything about Lieutenant Colonel
William Barker, VC, which is not a surprise to Canadians, this
man was the most decorated soldier, not Canadian soldier but
soldier, of the first world war, in the world. Yet we are not
familiar with his name.
I wrote to the historic sites and monuments board. I received a
negative response from the executive secretary, Mr. Friend. He
refused to acknowledge Barker's outstanding contributions during
the first world war. He said: “Lieutenant Colonel Barker's
post-war career does not appear to have been remarkable”.
I will give a couple of pieces of evidence to show how
remarkable his post-war career really was. It appears to me with
this kind of response that Mr. Friend did very little research,
certainly his department did very little research.
Lieutenant Colonel William Barker was the first president of the
Toronto Maple Leafs, installed in 1924. He was also the first
acting director of the Royal Canadian Air Force at its founding
in 1924. If that is not an incredible post-war career, I do not
know what is.
If the historic sites and monuments board did its job, I would
not be standing here today to talk about this. If the minister
took an interest in this subject I would not be standing here
talking about it. Unfortunately no one on the side of government
took an interest.
I have been asked by the media why am I so interested in this
topic, whether it is because he was born in Dauphin. Obviously I
am interested because he came from Dauphin, Manitoba. But more
important, I am interested because as a country we need to
recognize the real heroes of this country, people who have put
their lives at stake so we can be free and enjoy the standard of
living we have today.
Lieutenant Colonel William Barker was the most decorated soldier
not only in this country but in the Commonwealth of Nations
during that period. He is remembered not by Canadians but by our
European allies, people in Great Britain, in France, in Italy.
He is a household name in England but not in his own country.
Canadians have heard of Billy Bishop because of the CBC
production which most of have seen at one time or another.
Ironically Bishop, as famous as he was, paid William Barker the
ultimate accolade and labelled him the greatest fighter pilot the
world has every known. Is it not astonishing that most well
known fighter pilot and war hero in this country, Billy Bishop,
labelled Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, VC the greatest
fighter pilot the world has ever known? It is amazing. Yet no
one seems to know who Lieutenant Colonel William Barker is.
I want to read a couple of paragraphs from an article written by
William W. Walker on the same topic. He asked was this just one
Canadian going overboard on the ability of another fellow
countryman. If Barker deserved Bishop's appellation of the
greatest, why is he almost unheard of today? That is a fair
question.
Barker seemed to shun publicity about himself and his exploits.
He left no memoirs in contrast to many of the aces who
meticulously set down their autobiographies.
1815
There are no known definitive biographies of him or even of the
RCAF. The air ministry at Ottawa has only the barest history of
one of the most illustrious warriors of World War I.
Perhaps the reason there is only fragmentary information about
Barker stems from the fact that he had very little use for
systems and no patience for protocol. His job was fighting and
killing Germans. It was an employment he pursued with
relentless, wholehearted enthusiasm. He lived for the thrill of
the chase in combat and for the final blazing minute of the kill
which was the pay-off, the raison d'être of the fighter pilot.
Each victory spurred him on to new goals. In the air he was as
courageous and reckless as any of the young hellions skimming the
clouds over France and Germany.
However, once out of the cockpit he seemed more withdrawn,
sombre and reserved. He was different from his more lively
compatriots who liked all the carousing and wenching they could
crowd into the short hours between flights. Most of them
reasoned that death would join them in the cockpit soon enough,
so why not live it up.
As the squadron commander, Barker was always concerned about his
charges. He was anxious to teach them the combat tactics that
would enable them to survive. When occasion demanded he would
celebrate and drink with them, but unbridled celebrations and
uninhibited acts so typical of the flying Galahads just did not
fit in with his personality. Compared with some of the more
flamboyant young blades like Lufbery, Udet and Frank Luke, Barker
was quite restrained on the ground.
Barker's score of 58 was not the highest, but he pioneered
fighter pilot tactics that were widely used in the second world
war and he blueprinted a plan for fighter armaments that was used
by the British in the battle of Britain in 1940. Few airmen have
left such a legacy.
I will read a short passage written by Peter Warren, a Manitoba
freelance journalist and broadcaster. He asked this question in
his column: “Why is this Dauphin man the unknown hero for
Canadians? My God, he took a British cabinet minister and
dropped one of the allied spies behind enemy lines in August
1918”.
Barker was told by King George V at his investiture on March 1,
1919 that he had set a new record by receiving six gallantry
awards, two more than the king had previously presented to any
soldier in the British empire.
Mr. Warren raises this question: “Somebody out there help me
explain”. I do not know if there is an explanation, except that
this country has basically ignored Lieutenant Colonel William
Barker. Government after government has forgotten his
contribution.
As Canadians we tend to look elsewhere for our heroes, across
the border and across the ocean. We are a relatively young
nation. As a young nation matures we need to recognize and learn
from our history. One lesson we must learn is to acknowledge our
heroes, those who can be positive role models for all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to make Motion
No. 251 a votable motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Dauphin—Swan River has requested that the motion standing in his
name be considered a votable motion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
1820
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first I would like to offer my congratulations to the hon. member
for Dauphin—Swan River for his initiative with respect to
Lieutenant Colonel William Barker. I think he has certainly done
a service to Canadian history and Canadian heritage by moving
this motion.
The House may be interested to know that I have a very similar
motion on the Order Paper. Whereas the motion of the member for
Dauphin—Swan River talks about a memorial, my motion talks
specifically about commemorating a statue to Lieutenant Colonel
William Barker.
It is worth mentioning that the hon. member was instrumental in
getting Dauphin airport renamed as Lieutenant Colonel William
Barker airport. Again, for that, I think the member deserves
congratulations.
The history of the first world war has many heroes and many
villains, but from a Canadian standpoint I think that William
Barker's name stands out as being one of Canada's pre-eminent
heroes.
I became interested in Lieutenant Colonel William Barker's story
as a young boy growing up in Nepean when I read a popular history
book called Knights of the Air which talked about the great
first world war aces like Bishop and Barker. It was not until
just last fall that I saw a book by an author named Wayne Ralph
who lives in B.C. who had done what I considered to be probably
the most definitive history on Lieutenant Colonel Barker.
The book struck me as portraying a very sad story. Barker was
well known to the Commonwealth and well known to the Canadian
people during the first world war because of his exploits.
However, tragically, after the war he ended up having some
personal problems. Lieutenant Colonel Barker managed to get
himself back on his feet again, but on March 12, 1930 he was
killed in a very unfortunate air crash on the Ottawa River just a
few miles from these parliament buildings at the Rockcliffe
airbase where he was test flying a plane for the Fairchild
company.
At his funeral in Toronto there were apparently 2,000 soldiers
who served as an honour guard. There were 50,000 spectators at
his funeral. Today Barker's name has been all but forgotten in
the annals of Canadian history.
I find that very unfortunate because I think a country certainly
needs its heroes and Barker was clearly one of ours. The
Americans have popularized their heroes over the years. Hollywood
has done a tremendous job of instilling patriotism in the hearts
and minds of many Americans based on the exploits of people such
as Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, John Paul Jones and many other
famous American heroes. We do not have that in Canada. We have
not had the glorification of our heroes to the extent that the
Americans have.
What was Lieutenant Colonel Barker's record during the first
world war? As the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River has
mentioned, he was credited with quite a number of air victories.
The hon. member mentioned 58. I believe his record was 50,
according to Mr. Ralph's biography.
Perhaps Lieutenant Colonel Barker's most famous action occurred
within two weeks of the war's end. If I could, I would like to
refer directly to the Victory Cross citation that William Barker
received. I would like to refer to it specifically because I
think it outlines why Barker had the reputation that he did
during the first world war.
1825
The citation reads: “His Majesty the King has been graciously
pleased to confer the Victoria Cross on the undermentioned
officer of the Royal Air Force in recognition of bravery of the
highest possible order: Captain, Acting Major, William George
Barker, DSO, MC, No. 201 Squadron, Royal Air Force”.
On the morning of October 27, 1918 this officer observed an
enemy two-seater over the forêt de Mormal. He attacked this
machine and after a short burst it broke up in the air. At the
same time, a Fokker biplane attacked him and he was wounded in
the right thigh but managed, despite this, to shoot down the
enemy airplane in flames.
He then found himself in the middle of a large formation of
Fokkers which attacked him from all directions. He was again
wounded in the left thigh but succeeded in driving down two of
the enemy in a spin. He lost consciousness after this and his
machine fell out of control. On recovery, he found himself again
being attacked by a large formation and, singling out one
machine, he deliberately charged and drove it down in flames.
During this fight his left elbow was shattered and he again
fainted and, on regaining consciousness, he found himself still
being attacked but, notwithstanding that he was now severely
wounded in both legs and his left arm shattered, he dove on the
nearest machine and shot it down in flames.
Being greatly exhausted, he dove out of the fight to regain our
lines but was met by another formation which attacked and
endeavoured to cut him off. But after a hard fight he succeeded
in breaking up this formation and reached our lines where he
crashed on landing.
This combat in which Major General Barker destroyed four enemy
machines, three of them in flames, brought his total successes up
to 50 enemy planes destroyed and is a notable example of the
exceptional bravery and disregarded danger which this very
gallant officer always displayed throughout his distinguished
career.
Major Barker was awarded the Military Cross on January 10, 1917,
the first bar on July 18, 1917, which means he won that award
twice, the Distinguished Service Order on February 18, 1918, the
second bar to the Military Cross on September 16, 1918, and a bar
to Distinguished Service Order on November 2, 1918.
I think members can certainly grasp from the account of that
particular action that Barker today would be referred to as a
super hero. However, he has been all but forgotten.
At the end of the first world war he was definitely Canada's
most decorated war hero. He held the Victoria Cross, the
Distinguished Service Order and bar, the Military Cross and two
bars, the French Croix de Guerre, two Italian silver medals for
valour and three mentions in dispatches.
It is also worth mentioning that in terms of his later career,
as the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River has already mentioned,
he was appointed as the first acting director of the Royal
Canadian Air Force in 1924. He was, as was mentioned, the first
president of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey club in 1927-28.
Interestingly enough, his name was so well known that he was
used as a character in one of Hemingway's books, in his famous
short story The Snows of Kilimanjaro.
Canada has a forgotten hero and his name is Lieutenant Colonel
William Barker. I think this nation must in some manner
commemorate his name. He is buried in Mount Pleasant
cemetery in Toronto in a crypt that bears the Smith family name.
Something must be done to ensure that the name of Lieutenant
Colonel William Barker lives on and that his exploits and daring
are understood by future generations of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to speak to Motion M-251, introduced by my
colleague from Dauphin—Swan River, in Manitoba.
The objective of this motion is the creation of a memorial
recognizing the outstanding contribution of Lieutenant Colonel
William Baker, a first world war pilot and hero of Canada and
the Commonwealth.
1830
We agree in principle, but all the facts must surely be checked.
This Canadian hero downed 53 enemy planes during the first
world war and was awarded the Victoria Cross, the Military
Cross, French and Italian military distinctions, six citations
for acts of bravery from George V and other distinctions.
Surely, he deserves recognition by future generations.
I do not doubt the facts, but personally I cannot verify them.
The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada was created for
this very purpose in 1919, and we should call on this board, in
this instance.
I will therefore speak about this board in order to add weight
to the bill that will be introduced.
Since 1979 the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada has
advised the government on the commemoration of individuals, of
historical sites and events of national interest and the
mounting of plaques to inform Canadians about their history.
Over time and with changes to Canadian historiography, the board
widened its scope to include military, political and
geographical subjects and to the broader subjects of our social
and economic history.
In reality, the board advises the minister on the commemoration
of people, events, sites, structures and locations representing
aspects of Canada's history of national importance.
It also indicates the level of commemoration it deems
appropriate, be it the installation of a plaque, the sharing of
expenses with a third party or, more rarely, the acquisition or
development of a site by Parks Canada.
It can provide information on important persons, places and
events of the past, on the principles and techniques of site
construction and preservation, and on heritage legislation.
Each year, it receives over 200 requests, 50 to 70 of which
result in studies by the historic services branch.
It has always viewed its plaque installation program as an
educational activity in the broadest sense of the term. To
date, it has installed over 1,100 commemorative plaques
throughout the country. These are a testimony to its dedication
to educating the public.
An interesting fact is that it has broadened its definition of
heritage to include cultural neighbourhoods, gardens and
landscapes.
I therefore agree that the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of
Canada should be called upon for advice. We could also follow
the example of the Fondation des Amis de René Lévesque, in
Quebec City, which is now raising funds in order to erect a
monument in his memory.
We all know that not only was Mr. Lévesque a World War II war
correspondent, but that he was a member of the Liberal Party of
Quebec before founding the Parti Quebecois and becoming premier
of Quebec. He was therefore a very important person.
In 1960, he was the father of the quiet revolution and the
father of the nationalization of electricity in Quebec; he was
also was instrumental in helping the Quebec Liberal Party regain
power in Quebec after decades in opposition.
We also owe him the great democratic legislation on party
fundraising, which eliminates slush funds, limits contributions
and allows the public to participate in the financial control of
the parties.
René Lévesque was also the driving force behind the
constitutional reform undertaken in the 1980 referendum to save
Canada. It is well known that he was trying to achieve
sovereignty association in order to put an end to this idea of a
federation justifying a centralizing and dominating government.
I could go on for hours talking about René Lévesque and quoting
him as an example, but I will stop here for now and conclude by
saying that this great man has no lack of feats to his credit,
yet it will be his friends who will be putting up a memorial.
I therefore urge the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River to take
the advice of the Canada Historic Sites and Monuments Board or
follow the lead of the Fondation des amis de René Lévesque
regarding this memorial.
1835
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on this occasion to speak to Motion No. 251 to
create a memorial recognizing the outstanding contributions of
Lieutenant Colonel William Billy Barker, a World War I flying ace
and hero of Canada and the Commonwealth.
Billy Barker was born in Dauphin, Manitoba. He died in Ottawa
on March 12, 1930. He was a cohort of Billy Bishop. I remember
Billy Bishop through a work of art basically, a play written by
John Gray called Billy Bishop Goes to War. It was an
important play that helped me to understand in a very real way
what it meant to go to war.
Billy Barker was a cohort of Billy Bishop, just another young
scared boy probably of the age of many of our children who went
off to war. It is very important to remember people such as
Billy Barker and Billy Bishop. It is important that we
acknowledge their contribution to the military and to World War
I. It is important for Canadians to recognize heroes who served
in the armed forces, both men and women.
As the member of parliament for Dartmouth I represent a
community with a long and proud military tradition. I have met
many of the heroes of today in the military, the peacekeepers,
the sailors and the soldiers who make tremendous sacrifices for
peacekeeping, national security and such things as environmental
clean-up and natural disasters.
Many people right now in Canada are very aware that these people
are heroes when they manage to put sandbags around their houses
and save their homes or save their children or save their lives
from fires. We have many heroes today in the military.
I am also aware that there is a parliamentary committee crossing
the country right now looking into the situation of people in the
military and addressing the fact that perhaps DND and the
Canadian government are not at the present time recognizing the
heroes we have here and now. I have also talked with people,
peacekeepers who have come home from various war zones with their
health is ruined. They are trying to cobble together veterans
assistance and basic disability payments. We have to be aware of
them also when we are talking about recognizing heroes.
How do we recognize our heroes? There are ways. There are
memorials. That is one way. I would say that a memorial for
such a person as Billy Barker is an important way to do it.
I also urge that we continue to recognize heroes on a daily
basis by recognizing the values that people such as Billy Barker
fought for. These are values such as democracy, equality,
freedom of speech, freedom from fear, freedom from racism and
freedom from injustice. I again say that we have to recognize
people in the here and now.
As well I recognize a massive commitment to such things as
education of our young people about the contributions of
Canadians to politics, war, peace, culture, humanitarian efforts
and strengthening our communities. I take this opportunity to
talk about some of the real heroes right now in our country.
Today I had the privilege of taking part in the buddies
celebration in the centre block of the House of Commons. Over
the past year, 18 young people with special needs have been on
the Hill every week working in MPs' offices with their staffs.
This buddies program gives young people with disabilities a
chance to build self-esteem, learn job skills and be part of the
world of work.
We have some heroes today, people like the teachers at Ridgemont
High School, Ilse Turnsen and Pat Mainwaring, who have put
together this program to allow disabled people to fight for their
rightful places in our communities. They are heroes of the here
and now.
I have in my office once a week a young boy named Capnello
Bueti, who is trying to be part of our world of work and I
appreciate that.
1840
In closing I reiterate my desire to show the living practical
commitment to the values of people such as Billy Barker for all
the many years ago he sacrificed for the kind of society we want
to live in. In terms of memorials to people such as Billy Barker
let us remember by doing, by educating and by committing our
public resources to the struggle against such things as poverty,
hunger, inequality and racism. As well let us remember by
example Billy Barker in the present.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind the House that this is Canada. In some
respects perhaps Billy Barker did not do so badly for not having
recognition when we remember that Billy Bishop got the
recognition as the kid who could not miss.
In the National Film Board treatment of Billy Bishop's career it
was posed that Billy Bishop lied about the victories that gave
him the Victoria Cross. This was the subject of a great debate
in the Senate. There were protests around the country on the
fabrication of the story that maligned one of our first world war
aces.
I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. I find it
slightly flawed in only one respect. It celebrates only Billy
Barker and his roots coming from Dauphin, Manitoba. I appreciate
why the member for Dauphin—Swan River wants to celebrate a local
hero. The problem is that we have to be a little careful in that
respect because the same may be argued with respect Billy Bishop
who was born in Owen Sound and certainly ought to have a similar
memorial. So it should be argued with respect to various other
military heroes of various communities across the country.
That being said, what is so fine about bringing the issue before
the House of Commons is that it is not a just question of Billy
Barker. It is not just a question of Billy Bishop either. What
we are remembering about these two men is the tremendous
contribution that Canadian first world war fighter pilots made to
the first world war. They were legends in their own time. It
was a different era. It was the last era of military chivalry.
The best knights of the air were Canadian pilots Billy Bishop and
Billy Barker.
I remind the member for Dauphin—Swan River that there are other
less well known heroes but heroes nevertheless. I refer to Wop
May who went on to be one of Canada's most famous bush pilots and
Roy Brown who was remembered as the man who shot down Baron von
Richthofen, the Red Baron.
Billy Bishop is famous because he was the surviving ace with the
most victories at 72. Richthofen was the ace of the second world
war with the most sheer victories before he was killed, some 80
victories.
I have read the autobiography of Billy Bishop. I recommend that
all Canadians read it to get into the mind of an individual who
reflected the spirit of chivalry that existed on all sides in the
air battle during the first world war. It also reflects the
Canadian independence of spirit that made Canadian soldiers both
in the first world war and in the second world war some of the
most admired soldiers of any nation in the world. Certainly that
was the case with the fighter pilots of the first world war.
Fortunately, I assure the member for Dauphin—Swan River, there
is one very excellent memorial to Billy Barker, Billy Bishop, Wop
May and Roy Brown. It is a series of novels by Donald Jack that
are loosely called the Bandy Papers. Three Cheers For Me
is one of the titles and there are several others.
I say to all Canadians that if they want to read good Canadian
literature about Canadian fictional heroes taken from the real
life stories of the real heroes they should read the Bandy Papers
by Donald Jack. They are some of the most amusing reading I have
ever read.
1845
They are very insightful. They build on the wartime careers of
both fighter aces. They describe the struggles these two men
had. How do I describe it? The British were not great champions
of independence. In fact one of the problems of the recognition
of the first world war fighter pilots of Canada was that the
British were very loath to recognize the colonials for what they
did as colonials. In fact they would only acknowledge anyone who
was flying the British roundels as a British pilot. They would
not acknowledge that Canadians were actually the lead pilots in
the Commonwealth forces during the first world war.
I will digress for a minute. If members of the House would like
to get an idea of what it was like in Billy Bishop's day or Billy
Barker's day, I recommend they go to the Canada warplane museum
here in Ottawa. There is a ride available on a Stearman biplane.
For $40 one can fly over Ottawa.
I had the great good fortune last summer when my son and I went
out to the warplane museum and we took a ride in the biplane. It
is quite incredible. We flew over the parliament buildings and
over the river. We had this great sense of slow motion and this
great sense of being next to the sky, next to the air. We could
see what inspired those Canadian pilots of so many years ago.
For anyone who wants that thrill, that thrill is available.
To come back to the point, my problem with the motion is simply
that it does not go far enough. I wish it were a votable motion
and that we could amend it to honour all the Canadian first world
war flying aces. I agree with the member. We cannot leave it to
bureaucrats, to academics who are sitting out there surrounded by
weird senses of personal power.
It does not matter a fig what Billy Barker did after the war. It
does not matter a fig what Billy Bishop did after the war. They
were heroes during the war. They were special heroes. They were
heroes who were admired the world over. Can we in Canada not do
anything better than condemn one of those heroes with a National
Film Board production called The Kid Who Couldn't Miss
which actually maligned one of our heroes?
I hope the minister is listening to this. I hope all Canadians
are listening to this because I congratulate the member for
Dauphin—Swan River. However, it should not be just Billy
Barker, it should be all the Canadian fighter pilot heroes of the
first world war.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion
No. 251 introduced by my hon. colleague from Dauphin—Swan River.
This motion was first introduced by my hon. colleague in October
1997 and is in furtherance of efforts which he made as mayor of
Dauphin, Manitoba prior to his election to parliament.
The actions of my hon. colleague illustrate the best elements of
election to the House, whereby this House becomes a means to
address concerns that caused a member to decide to stand for
election.
By this motion my hon. colleague seeks to have the House
recognize by way of a memorial the valour and contributions to
our history of Lieutenant Colonel William Barker.
Lieutenant Colonel Barker was awarded the Victoria Cross for his
valour in World War I. It is regrettable this motion is
non-votable since a vote would demonstrate to Canadians how
parliamentarians view memorials to personal sacrifice and
contributions to the freedom of Canada and the world.
On the other hand we have the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan
River to thank for making the effort to raise this issue in the
House, such that our views of Lieutenant-Colonel Barker's
accomplishments may be part of the permanent Hansard record
and thus part of the permanent historical record of Canada.
Actions such as those of the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River
become extremely important as a means to counter tendencies to
forget valorous actions, or to diminish such accomplishments on
the basis that they are associated with violence and war.
Memorials are an important means by which we learn about and
remember our history. Most Canadians are connected to these
famous people, these heroes, in one way or another.
In addition to Will Barker, I personally think of a relative,
Harry Amy of Saskatchewan, and aboriginal Tommy Prince of my
riding in Manitoba.
1850
Will Barker was a farm boy born in the Dauphin Valley of
Manitoba in 1894. As a boy, Will became a crack shot and helped
to put food on the table with his skill. His grandfather put
money down on his shooting ability in competitions at local
community events. Will never let him down.
In 1915 not far into World War I, Barker enlisted with the First
Canadian Mounted Rifles. His ability with a gun soon caught the
attention of his superiors and he was given air reconnaissance
duty as an observer in the second seat of the plane manning the
cameras and guns. But Barker wanted to fly the plane.
On November 8, 1916 he was reassigned to the Royal Flying Corps
and on January 12, 1917 began flight training. After two dual
trips, one of 50 minutes and another of five minutes, Barker
soloed and received his flying certificate on January 18. On
February 14 Barker was graded a flying officer.
William Barker completed both ground and flight training in
three weeks at Oxford University. The normal time for ground
training alone was six weeks. Although Barker was recognized for
his heroism in the air for shooting down some 50 enemy planes and
balloons, he was known as a leader who would never leave behind
any member of his squadron. No flyer died under his command.
When Wayne Ralph, author of Barker VC, asked another of
Canada's air aces, Ken Guthrie, whether he liked Barker, he
replied “Like Barker? I liked him, more than liked him, I
practically adored him”. The closing paragraphs of Wayne Ralph's
Barker VC go as follows:
Unlike Britain and the United States, Canada did not build a
`Tomb of the Unknown Soldier' after the Great War. It took us 19
years to put up a national war memorial. We do not have a
national military cemetery, our 100,000 war dead lie buried in
foreign soil. If it is true, as one Canadian philosopher has
noted, that Canadians seem to like their heroes smaller than
life, then Barker is sadly irrelevant.
Outside of Canada, however, he is still remembered. Almost all
the magazine articles and narratives about Barker in the past 20
years have been written by British or American writers who still
like their heroes larger than life, and don't mind them having a
darker, more complicated side.
Canadian historians and writers quickly erased everything that
made Barker a human being, especially his physical and
psychological pain. We were left this cartoon image of a
warrior—his life before and after October 27, 1918 (the day he
won the Victoria Cross) only a footnote. His internment in the
private Smith family crypt, without even a bronze plaque to mark
his place, was the final footnote.
Our most decorated war hero gradually became our unknown
soldier, except, most importantly, in the hearts of the men and
women who had loved him.
I take great pleasure in speaking today in memory of
Lieutenant-Colonel William Barker. I certainly would like to
support the motion of my colleague.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland):
As is the practice with Private Members' Business, the last five
minutes of Private Members' Business is reserved for the member
moving the motion. The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River has
the last five minutes. If he speaks, that is it. So if anyone
else would like to get on, there are seven minutes of debate, and
12 minutes in total remaining.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
first I would like to thank all the members of the House who rose
today to speak in support of Lieutenant Colonel William Barker,
VC.
What we have heard today is that there is certainly support for
Canada's most decorated soldier of World War I and a true hero of
this country.
The point was brought up that other people have been discounted.
That is not the intent of this motion. The intent is not to
discount other heroes like Billy Bishop whom I consider to be a
hero as well.
I would welcome an amendment to include all air aces. I have no
problem with that whatsoever.
1855
As a nation it is an indication of our maturity to start
recognizing the true Canadians and heroes who have risked their
lives and have made contributions to this country. This
generation has a renewed interest in learning about Canada's
history. We had almost thrown that out the window as well in
terms of history.
Lieutenant Colonel William Barker played a large part in
Canadian history. There is something really wrong when other
countries of the world know who our significant Canadians and
Canadian heroes are and we in this country do not. It was brought
up numerous times that there are many people to recognize in this
great country of Canada.
There is Dr. Norman Bethune who is known better in China for his
contributions to that country. If it was not for another
television production, Canadians would not know who he was.
I just came back from a parliamentary exchange trip to Taiwan
and did I make a discovery. I found out that we have another
Canadian hero who has made immense contributions to the country
of Taiwan. His name is Dr. George MacKay from Oxford county in
Ontario. It was Dr. MacKay who started the school system, the
medical system and the agricultural system. He had a huge
influence in the development of that country. Does anybody in
this country know who he is? I do not think so.
On May 13 of this year the town and the RM of Dauphin, Manitoba
at least took the first step to formally recognize
Lieutenant Colonel William Barker. The regional airport was
dedicated and renamed in his honour. We were fortunate on May 13
that after the ceremony the famous Canadian Snowbirds, and we all
know who the Snowbirds are, dedicated their air show in his
honour. I know from the ceremony the air force holds
Lieutenant Colonel Barker in high regard and always has. The
three grandsons and one great-grandson of the late
Lieutenant Colonel William Barker were in attendance at the
ceremony.
I really do not want to take up much more time. This is long
overdue. Canada needs to grow up and recognize all people who
have contributed not only to the development of this country but
to many countries around the world.
Mr. John Bryden Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wonder if I can get unanimous consent to rise on debate for
about 30 seconds in order to move an amendment to the motion
before the House?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington has, as the House knows, spoken to the
motion. Because the original mover of the motion had the right
of reply, technically the debate on this motion has ended.
In order to have a motion moved, it would be moved on debate.
The member for Wentworth—Burlington is asking that the time for
debate be extended and that the member be recognized on debate
for the purposes of moving an amendment to the motion. He will
be finished within 30 seconds to one minute.
Does the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington have the
unanimous consent of the House for this purpose?
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unanimous consent is
not forthcoming.
There being no further members rising for debate and the motion
not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1900
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
BANKING
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on May 8, I asked the Liberal government to support my
motion before the industry committee to hold hearings into the
impact of the bank mergers on small business, consumers and rural
Canada. The minister misunderstood my question, believing it was
a private member's motion.
There is a new math in Canada. It is the math of mergers. It
is not the math we learned when I went to school. In this math
the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the big get bigger, the
small get smaller, the centre gets the cream and the regions get
overlooked. Here is what it adds up to for the people in my
riding.
Of the 42 bank branches in Regina, 33 belong to one of the
merger partners. Customers and employees can read the writing on
the wall and it is not good news.
Lesson number one in the math of mergers is bank branches. The
Royal Bank has nine branches in Regina and the Bank of Montreal
has eight. Will the new bank really keep 17 branches in Regina
open? Will the second megabank really keep 16 branches open? I
think not.
These are the questions people are asking. In the math of
mergers, 9 plus 8 will not equal 17 branches and the CIBC and TD
merger of 9 plus 7 will not equal 16 branches. When some of
those branches close, jobs will go with them.
Lesson number two in the math of mergers is executive's
salaries. Look at the salaries of top 19 executives of the 4
banks that want to merge. They have combined salaries and
bonuses of almost $50 million and unexercised share option gains
worth almost $222 million. That is a total pay package for 19
people of over a quarter of a billion dollars. In the math of
mergers, that would also pay the salary of 10,000 bank tellers.
Here is the catch. When the bank executives negotiate the
mergers, the market goes up and the value of their unexercised
stock options goes up. Once the mergers are approved, the
tellers lose their jobs.
Lesson number three in the math of mergers is bank profits. The
banks say they need to merge to become profitable and compete in
the global marketplace. The last week's second quarter earnings
report show they are certainly already profitable. Earnings
increased 15% at the Royal Bank, 19% at the Bank of Montreal and
28% at TD. Meanwhile depositors get dinged with one service
charge hike after another.
I should mention there was a year about 10 years ago when the
Royal Bank as a corporation actually paid less tax than one of
its tellers.
Lesson number four in the math of mergers is fewer banks equal
more consumer choice, or at least some people like the C.D. Howe
Institute today are trying to make that argument.
The Bank of Montreal has even written me a letter making more or
less the same promise, but CIBC chair Al Flood was a little more
frank with the Toronto Star editorial board. He said last
Wednesday: “We've got more consumer choice and corporate choice
if we leave it the way it is, but I think it's too late for
that”.
The NDP is the only party saying that the bankers' math does not
add up. You do not cut the number of banks without risking the
number of branches and the number of jobs. You do not build
incentives for bank executives to hike their salaries with
mergers and expect them not to take the opportunity. You do not
get more consumer choice with fewer banks.
Opposition to the bank mergers among small businesses and
consumers in Saskatchewan is growing every day. The provincial
government is taking steps to strengthen our credit unions so
they can step in to fill some of the void in rural Saskatchewan.
The bankers' math does not add up and Canadians are going to
want a thorough audit. That is why the NDP has been pushing for
immediate hearings with all five political parties into the
impact the bank mergers will have on Canadians. We are sorry the
government and the other parties do not share that sense of
urgency.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the announcements by
the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal and subsequently by the
CIBC and TD of their intentions to merge have changed the
potential landscape of the financial sector in Canada, as
referred to by my hon. colleague opposite.
These mergers, however, will not proceed without the approval of
the Minister of Finance and not unless the government is
convinced of the benefits to Canadians.
1905
The government is concerned about the level of competition in
the financial services sector. It is concerned about the impact
of potential mergers on access to services by Canadians and
possible implications for employment. Consumers, in particular
those in rural areas, have expressed concerns about the
possibility of reduced choice or higher fees as a result of these
mergers. Small businesses are also concerned with the potential
loss of face to face contact with their bankers if branches are
closed.
The Minister of Finance will consider the advice of the director
of the competition bureau, the office of the superintendent of
financial institutions and of the task force on the future of
financial institutions in determining whether to allow any merger
in the banking sector to occur.
I assure the hon. member and all members of the House that
Canadians will be involved in this very important process. Public
consultations will be held to give Canadians the opportunity to
express their views before any decision is made on these mergers.
The hon. member has the opportunity to participate in that
debate.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on May 13, I wrote the minister of immigration a
letter and on May 14, I asked a question in the House with regard
to a gentleman in Vancouver named Mr. Iraz Rezaei who runs an
immigration consulting firm and who is facing 18 criminal charges
for the way he conducts his business. The charges against Mr.
Rezaei are eight counts of forgery with passports, six counts of
attempted organized illegal entry into Canada, two counts of
counselling false refugee claims, one count of threatening and
one count of assault.
When I asked the minister the question in the House her answer
was the normal one she gives, that she does not talk about
specific details of any individual case. This was not a case.
This was an individual breaking the law in Canada and who is now
using the Internet to expand his business. He is sort of laughing
at us with the negative publicity he is getting. He is saying it
has actually increased his business.
The minister also wrote me a letter. Amazingly enough, I
received it today. It is dated May 25 but it arrived today.
Once again the minister says she will not talk about the case
because it is a criminal case, that he is innocent until proven
guilty and that they are not going to do anything. As the
minister knows, if a lawyer were charged with such offences that
lawyer would be suspended during the investigation. Yet this man
is allowed to continue doing his business. That is because there
is no regulatory body.
The minister's letter states: “You are likely aware that there
are currently no regulatory bodies or regulations governing
immigration consultants and that CIC officials are currently
examining the very complex issue of how best to encourage
competency and integrity in persons who represent our clients”,
the people who come to Canada as immigrants or refugees. She
states: “Officials will be presenting options on how to address
this very important issue in the near future”.
The near future is not good enough. We have been looking at the
near future in this department for years and years. The minister
also said: “I am sure you can understand that, due to Canada's
privacy legislation and because the case is before the courts, no
further comment would be appropriate”.
The privacy legislation in Canada was not brought in to protect
criminals, those who violate the laws of Canada. It is right in
the act that for the Canadian good ministers can go around the
Privacy Act. Certainly with a gentleman like this, with all
these charges against him, with what is happening in his
business, with the demand of the people in the city of Vancouver
and the province of British Columbia, the minister should give us
the full details concerning this case.
While negotiations are going on with the provinces on this
issue, the minister should tell Canadians that her department
will not deal with immigration consultants, period, until the
licensing issue is solved. Let us put them right out of business
until they have licences and until there is a body that can
govern what they do.
Innocent people are coming to Canada. The federal government
immigration office is in downtown Vancouver. That is where people
get sworn in to become citizens and where they go for interviews.
It is a very nice building with all the typical government
signage on it, welcome to Canada. Right across the street is
this gentleman's business. It has big signs in every language
“free immigration consultant”. We all know he is not in
business for free.
I know Vancouver like the back of my hand but there are those
just coming to Canada, a strange country for them. A new citizen
or a refugee may come to this country and be told at the airport
to go downtown. He will see this sign across the street that
says free help. Looks nice and warm. It has his own language
written on the sign. He will tend to walk in there before he
goes in to see those big government guys. They are not used to
free governments like ours. They are not used to officials who
work to the benefit of those who are trying to come here.
They get sucked into this man's office. He is there. He sucks
them in. He finds out where their money is and he is making lots
of money. It is time the minister acted.
1910
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to answer the question of my colleague from West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast.
The Immigration Act provides for the removal from Canada of any
foreign national found guilty of serious criminal activity. I
think that is pretty clear. Any person facing charges in
Canada's judicial system is however presumed innocent until
proven guilty. In any instance where an individual has been
convicted of a serious offence under the Criminal Code
departmental officials monitor the case to ensure that
enforcement action is taken when warranted.
At present there are currently no regulatory bodies, as the hon.
member mentioned, or regulations governing immigration
consultants. Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials are
currently examining the very complex issue of how to best
encourage competency and integrity in persons who represent
immigrants or refugees.
In view of the fact that this is an area involving provincial
jurisdiction, departmental officials have been in contact with
provincial authorities. In addition, departmental officials have
been consulting with other federal authorities as well as with
the legal community.
The issue of immigration consultants has also been a subject of
discussion during the recent legislation review consultation.
Subsequent to these consultations departmental officials will be
presenting the minister with options on ways to address this
important issue directly.
While I understand that the hon. member does not agree, we still
have to abide by the Privacy Act. With regard to charges brought
against specific individuals, I am still unable to discuss
details of any specific case in public.
I agree with the hon. member that it is an issue which has to be
addressed. As I have previously stated it is provincial
jurisdiction, not just federal. It needs to be addressed across
the country and negotiated with all provinces. This is what the
department is attempting to do as we speak.
POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
whole stack of reports has documented what too many Canadians
already know as a daily reality. Poverty is increasing in
Canada.
The latest report of the National Council of Welfare paints a
devastating picture similar to other reports from Campaign 2000,
the Canadian Council on Social Development and the Canadian Human
Rights Commission.
I have raised this serious matter many times in the House and
pointed out that while the Minister of Finance talks about
growing economic optimism millions of Canadians are desperate as
a result of high unemployment, low wages and lower welfare rates.
Cuts to social assistance, education, health care and EI only
make matters worse. The information from the National Council of
Welfare report is a condemnation of the government's record. It
shows that the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing.
Three billion dollars have been slashed since 1996 and poor
people are paying the price. Some 5.2 million Canadians are
living below the poverty line. They stand in food line-ups,
homeless and raising kids on welfare that keeps them in poverty.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has drawn attention to this
government made travesty. The chief commissioner pointed out in
her 1997 annual report that the Canadian Human Rights Act made no
mention of poverty and did not include social condition as a
prohibited ground of discrimination. She went on to say that in
the broader context poverty was a serious breach of equality
rights which she believed had no place in a country as prosperous
as ours.
Also she said that it was difficult to argue that poverty was
not a human rights issue given the devastating impact it had on
people's lives and that we must not forget that article 25 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated that everyone had a
right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of himself and his family including food, clothing,
housing, medical care and necessary social services.
I have introduced a motion in the House that would amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include social conditions as a
grounds for being prohibited from discrimination.
Will the government take action to reduce poverty by setting
targets that are achievable? Will the government admit that the
too often announced child tax benefit falls far short of being an
anti-poverty strategy? It eliminates the benefit to families on
welfare. It is not indexed. It has more to do with keeping
wages low and unemployment high.
All this is taking place in an environment of media and
political attacks on the poor. Just last week the Reform Party
member at the human resource development committee launched into
an attack against poor people.
1915
We need political leadership from the government and all
political parties to agree that unemployment and poverty are
serious matters crying out for change in government policies.
We need a fair taxation system. We need proper income
distribution. We need corporations to pay the billions of
dollars in deferred income taxes. We need the government to
restore our social programs. We need to set targets to
aggressively reduce unemployment and poverty.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon.
colleague, the government is very concerned about the situation
of low income Canadians. We are particularly sensitive to the
situation faced by some of our children and youth.
In the February 1997 budget the government committed $850
million to create an enriched child tax benefit. This new
investment will give much needed support to the 1.4 million
Canadian families and will help more than 2.5 million Canadian
children.
In the February 1998 budget the government committed another
$850 million investment over the course of our current mandate
fulfilling its promise made to Canadians. This will bring the
total Government of Canada investment into the well-being of our
children to almost $7 billion per year.
The government's commitment to provide more income support for
low income families will enable our provincial and territorial
partners to redirect savings into social assistance. Those
savings can go into complementary programs and services with the
goal of helping welfare parents become fully employed. This is
the basis for the national child benefit system.
Building on this co-operation, last January the government
agreed to work with the provinces and territories to develop the
national children's agenda. It will be a broad comprehensive
strategy to address the important needs of Canada's children,
especially those in particular need facing poverty.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.16 p.m.)