1992-05-22

Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Minister of the Environment) moved: that Bill C-59, an act to amend the National Parks Act be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the bill which is before us today is an important one. Hon. members will discover it is a bill which will be well received as it reflects important partnerships we are developing with aboriginal peoples.
This bill is divided into two major purposes. First of all, the bill will deal with Environment Canada's responsibility for the fulfilment of Treaty No. 8 obligations, flowing from the Cree Band of Fort Chipewyan land claim settlement of 1986.
In that settlement Canada, Alberta and the band agreed that additional entitlements under the treaty would include provision of some 12,000 acres of land for Indian reserve purposes and $26.6 million compensation.
Environment Canada's specific role in the settlement concerns Wood Buffalo National Park which straddles the boundary of Alberta and the Northwest Territories. This park, the second largest in the world, overlays the approximately three million acre traditional hunting grounds of the Cree. Following a settlement it was necessary to prepare a complex boundary survey of this area of the park for insertion in the National Parks Act.
While I must point out that the area will remain subject to the National Parks Act, this bill confirms the right of the Cree Band of Fort Chipewyan to hunting, fishing, trapping and cultural pursuits in their traditional lands within the park.
The bill confirms not only rights to wilderness, it also excises the small community of Peace Point from within the park boundary to enable its establishment as an Indian reserve. This is being done as part of the claims settlement in recognition of the understandable wish of the Cree of Peace Point to greater control over their own affairs.
The final element of the bill affecting Wood Buffalo is the formal establishment of a wildlife advisory board. This board, which has been operating informally but effectively for several years, enables the Cree to participate meaningfully in decision making which directly affects their way of life.
It is indicative of the kinds of partnerships which must be established with native people to ensure that Canada's wilderness values are enriched and the ethics of wilderness protection are shared among all Canadians.
Therefore in this bill we are formally recognizing the long-standing relationship and affinity of the Cree to lands which, by agreement, remain under the protection of the National Parks Act. Moreover we are helping to perpetuate a tradition for caring for the land from which all Canadians can learn.
In 1983 UNESCO declared Wood Buffalo National Park a world heritage site. It was largely because of the contributions of native peoples for the continued protection of this marvellous part of Canada that this international honour was accorded.
The second purpose of this bill concerns a matter with which all members will be familiar. In fact it was the subject of an all-party resolution made in this House in 1987.1 am speaking of course of the establishment of the National Park Reserve in the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia, along with the authorization of a unique management agreement with the Council of the Haida Nation.

May 22, 1992
Government Orders
On July 1, 1987 the Prime Minister and the premier of British Columbia signed a memorandum of understanding which committed the two governments to negotiate an agreement to establish a national marine park in the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands.
On July 12, 1988 the two governments signed a formal memorandum of agreement setting out specific commitments regarding the parks and related initiatives.
Signing of that agreement was the culmination of a 13-year struggle by the Ha'ida and environmentalists, supported by church organizations and others, both nationally and internationally, to protect the area from logging and mining.
In 1985 the Ha'ida and their supporters blockaded logging on Lyell Island leading to the arrest of 72 Ha'ida, including elders, and focusing national and international attention on South Moresby. Agreement to protect South Moresby was greeted by Canadians as one of the most important environmental accomplishments of the government in its first term.
Setting aside the park reserve will protect internationally significant heritage resources. Parts of the area were not glaciated during the last ice age, resulting in the evolution of unique plants and animals-hence the area's common description as the Canadian Galapagos. Moreover, South Moresby represents a rich cultural heritage.
The abandoned Ha'ida village of Ninstints, for example, was designated by UNESCO in 1981 as a world heritage site for its array of totems and other cultural remains; two other village sites in the vicinity have been declared of national historical significance. In recognition of these factors, the name Gwaii Haanas Archipelago National Park Reserve has been selected, meaning "islands of wonder and beauty".
The federal-provincial agreement sets the boundaries of the 147,000 hectare national park reserve. The boundaries of the national marine park reserve, however, will not be finalized before an assessment of the mineral and energy resource potential of the area, and a decision by the federal and provincial ministers this December. Therefore, Bill C-59 deals only with the land reserve.
Since the beginning of the initiative to set aside the national park reserve it has been evident that an understanding with the Ha'ida would be needed to ensure the effective management of the area. An all-party resolution of the House of Commons on May 14, 1987 stated "that the House confirms its intention to ensure the continued participation of the Ha'ida people in matters affecting South Moresby".
Moreover, in his remarks at the signing of the MOU in 1987 with the province the Prime Minister stated: "South Moresby is more than an ecological treasure. It is also the spiritual heart of "Ha'ida Gwaii", the homeland of the Ha'ida. The Ha'ida community will be involved in a meaningful way in park planning, development and operation".
Therefore Environment Canada began discussions with the Ha'ida in 1987 regarding a mechanism for co-operation in the management of the archipelago and the continuation of traditional Ha'ida activities.
As a result of these commitments the Ha'ida did not oppose the idea of a national park reserve which would stop the logging and at the same time not prejudice their position on ownership.
For this reason and in keeping with past practice elsewhere, a reserve for a national park will be set aside pending resolutions of outstanding disputes over rights, titles, interests in and to the area.
Formal negotiations with the Ha'ida on co-operation with the management of the archipelago began early in 1988.
Unfortunately, talks have broken off from time to time giving the differing views of the parties on sovereignty over the lands. However, eventually the parties agreed to set out their different views in the areas of dispute and to concentrate on those issues where there was agreement, principally the protection and conservation of the unique ecology of the area and the continuation of the Ha'ida culture and activities within it.
With that deadlock broken, the negotiations led to a draft agreement in April 1990. The agreement was subsequently ratified by the Ha'ida in a referendum held by the Council of the Ha'ida Nation on May 19,1990. The principal components of the agreement are as follows:
May 22, 1992

(a)	The agreement will be between the Government of Canada represented by the Minister of the Environment and the Council of the Hai'da Nation represented by its vice-president.
(b)	The document contains parallel statements which set out the Ha'ida and Government of Canada's divergent positions regarding sovereignty, title and ownership to the land included within the national park reserve, as well as the definition, i.e., citizenship of those Hai'da to whom the agreement will apply.
By way of explanation, under their definition, the Hai'da Nation includes persons of Ha'ida ancestry living in the United States, whereas Canada maintains that its responsibility under the agreement can only be for those Hai'da to whom subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 applies.
(c)	The parties agree that long-term protective measures are essential to safeguard the area and that the highest standards of protection should be applied. The parties also agree to contribute to the continuity of Hai'da culture.
(d)	An archipelago management board will be set up to examine all initiatives and undertakings relating to park reserve planning, operation and management. The board will have equal representation by Canada and the Ha'ida, and will be co-chaired. The board will operate on a consensus basis.
(e)	The Ha'ida will continue specified cultural and traditional renewable resource harvesting activities with few exceptions, e.g., trees for ceremonial or artistic purposes intended for public display; resource harvesting will be on a non-commercial basis.
The National Parks Act will be amended by this bill to permit these activities by authorizing the Governor in Council to enact appropriate regulations following review by the archipelago management board in accordance with the consensus decision-making process.
(f)	There is an explicit statement that the agreement shall not constitute a land claims agreement or treaty within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, nor shall it be construed as creating, affirming, recognizing or denying any aboriginal or treaty right.
Government Orders
Also it is stated that: "Nothing in the agreement shall fetter or limit, or be deemed to fetter or limit, in any manner the rights, jurisdiction, authority, obligations or responsibilities of either party or their representatives, except to the extent of the requirement that all reasonable efforts must have been made to reach consensus".
(g)	Commitments are made to encourage Ha'ida employment with the Canadian Parks Service and other economic opportunities associated with the national park reserve.
(h)	There is a commitment to negotiate a further agreement with the Ha'ida for the national marine park reserve before it is established.
When this agreement was accepted in principle by the Ha'ida Nation through their referendum two years ago, co-operation between the Canadian Parks Service and the Ha'ida began on the ground. A contract is in place with the Council of the Ha'ida Nation for the operation of an interim archipelago management board to deal with priority issues until the agreement actually comes into force.
However, real authorities are extremely limited in the absence of legislation and the Ha'ida remain cautious about the nature of formal relations in the absence of a signed agreement.
In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the National Parks Act would provide for setting aside lands in the Gwaii Haanas archipelago as a reserve for a national park; enable the Governor in Council to authorize the Minister of the Environment to sign an agreement with the Council of the Ha'ida Nation respecting the management and operation of the park reserve; provide authorities required to implement the agreement as it relates to traditional renewable resource harvesting and Ha'ida cultural practices; and in addition, implement provisions of the 1986 Cree Band of Fort Chipewyan Specific Land Claim which affects Wood Buffalo National Park, by establishing a wildlife advisory board with authority to propose regulations within the band's traditional hunting grounds and excising an existing community from the park for an Indian reserve.
As I mentioned earlier, both the Gwaii Haanas and Wood Buffalo proposals reflect partnerships with aboriginal peoples.

May 22, 1992
Government Orders
As such they are indicative of co-operative land management regimes which will greatly benefit Canada's internationally renowned national park systems.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, basically, the purpose of Bill C-59 is to amend the National Parks Act to bring it into line with the two agreements concluded with two native peoples, or should I say, three.

First, the act we are debating here today allows for the creation of a wildlife advisory board for Wood Buffalo National Park. It does so with the Cree Band of Fort Chipewyan. It allows for traditional aboriginal hunting activities within the park as negotiated in the 1986 Cree Chipewyan Specific Land Claim.
We support this and we would like to congratulate all those on the aboriginal side who were involved for their patience and their perseverance.
Second, the act permits the establishment of the Gwaii Haanas South Moresby National Park Reserve under the National Parks Act as established by the British Columbia Canada Agreement.
Some time ago we, the Liberal Party, supported the all-party motion on South Moresby in the House. Even more specifically, I am proud to say it was a Liberal government that drew the line in the map which first indicated federal interest in South Moresby.
Indeed, it is unfortunate that because of a previous commitment my colleague, the hon. member for Davenport, cannot be here. As Minister of the Environment, he was the person who took the lead on this. Indeed, it is a tribute to his vision that we are here today.
The act we are in the process of debating authorizes the Minister of the Environment to enter into an agreement with the Council of the Ha'ida Nation respecting the shared management and operation of the park. This agreement was ratified by the Ha'ida Nation in a May 19, 1990 referendum. It is clear that occasionally referendums can work.
Let me highlight some parts of this agreement. The Ha'ida will be authorized to carry on specific cultural and traditional renewable resource harvesting activities. Commitments are made to encourage Ha'ida employment with the Canadian Parks Service and other economic opportunities associated with a national park reserve.
Following the aforementioned agreement, legislation was also required to authorize cultural activities and traditional renewable resource harvesting activities since harvesting of plants and animals is contrary to the National Parks Act unless specific amendments permit it. That is what Bill C-59 is all about.
Earlier on, the Hai'da Nation was concerned with the wording of the bill when it was introduced for first reading in February. I have been informed they are now satisfied and that is crucial, as far as my party is concerned, with the amendments that have been proposed by the government. The final act will now reflect the agreement that was reached some years ago.
We can only deplore that it has taken so long to bring forth this bill and to fulfil the agreement that was reached with the Ha'ida Nation and with the Cree Band of Fort Chipewyan.
In these circumstances my party will support the bill as amended. My colleague later on will be expressing his views and other views from a slightly different perspective on this bill but within the context of our support.
I point out to the House how ironic it is that we stand up here giving all-party support to this bill on the day after the government announced its decision in the case of the Oldman dam.
The Oldman dam demonstrates the desperate need in this country for us to come up with a way and a policy of dealing with the environment and all aboriginal Canadians that is fair, by sitting down and discussing and negotiating, not by imposing, not by ducking and weaving and not by turning our backs on our very clear and strong fiduciary relationship.
Yesterday, this government, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport after having hidden, camouflaged and kept away from the Canadian people for over a week the review panel's report on the Oldman dam, finally brought it forth in a way that does not do the government credit. At the same time that they brought it forth, they clearly rejected the number one recommendation of the panel report. At the same time as they brought it forth, they refused to give us the full report until it was far too late and we had to make do with a summary.
May 22, 1992

The way in which this government has dealt with the Oldman dam, its refusal to put into place the means of mitigation, its refusal to deal with the illegal activity of the Alberta government, its refusal to deal honestly and fairly and squarely with the Peigan Band does not stand the government, or indeed the democratic process in this country, in good stead.
So, while my party rises today to support Bill C-59, while we are delighted that this is what we have in front of us, I must say that I do wish this country could come to the point where it deals with all aboriginal peoples on the same basis.
Let the agreement with the Cree of Fort Chipewyan and the Ha'ida stand as the model that we would look to. Let us hope that never again will we have a black mark on our history such as that which occurred yesterday in the case of the Oldman dam.
Madam Speaker, we support this bill as amended.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-59. It is a piece of legislation that has taken a long time to get here.
As someone who is often highly partisan in debate in this House, it is an occasion on which I do not feel there is any need to be partisan at all. We have heard from the Liberal member from LaSalle-Emard. We have heard from the minister's parliamentary secretary.
In relation to Gwaii Haanas, it is worth reflecting for a moment on a number of extremely non-partisan and highly Canadian events that have taken place.
This Chamber just more than five years ago passed the unanimous resolution to work with the Ha'ida Nation in setting aside South Moresby. The former Minister of the Environment, Tom McMillan, worked extraordinarily hard to make it become a reality. Canada's present Prime Minister did an extraordinarily good job in negotiating with the then premier of British Columbia, Bill Vander Zalm, and with the president of the Council of Ha'ida Nations, Miles Richardson, in bringing together the three levels of government: Canada, British Columbia and the Ha'ida Nation, and setting aside an area that
Government Orders
more than three million Canadians had expressed interest in having set aside.
The Prime Minister's office received several hundred thousand letters from Quebec, Ontario, the western provinces, the territories and the maritimes. Support from all over the world was focused on this unique area, which, as other members have made clear, was recognized by the United Nations more than a decade ago in terms of Ninstints, a very small area down off the southern tip of the archipelago.
It really is a remarkable area, often called the Canadian Galapagos, that missed the last glaciation. It was one of the most heavily inhabited areas of the whole west coast of North America until very recent times. There were communities of several thousand throughout the Gwaii Haanas archipelago which regrettably were wiped out. The Ha'ida nation was almost entirely wiped out by measles and smallpox just 100 years ago.
It is significant that such an agreement was ultimately reached. I think it is probably the crowning environmental achievement of the present Prime Minister. I hope the present Minister of Environment will very soon find the opportunity to potlatch in relation to Gwaii Haanas, in relation to what is often called South Moresby National Park Reserve. It is very important that this matter be ultimately brought not only into being but also into a co-operative understanding between the two principal nations now involved: Canada and the Council of the Ha'ida Nation.
It is a tribute today to the minister and to those officials who have worked hard behind the scenes to get wording that has been found to be co-operatively acceptable between the Council of the Ha'ida Nation and Canada. It is also a tribute to the elders, to the chiefs, to Miles Richardson, to Guujaw and others who worked so long right until I understand one of the officials received a call from Miles this morning. I spoke to him at five this morning.
It is a piece of legislation that should be passed today. I am sure there are many members who want to speak on it, but the importance of passing it so that the agreement can in fact come into being should not be overlooked by any members of this House.

Government Orders
As many will remember, the agreement involved a substantial amount of money, $106 million, from Western Diversification. It is interesting that the forest companies have now been compensated. The loggers that were affected have been compensated. Over $12 million in just one part of the agreement has been spent for reforestation in a replacement fund for those areas removed from forest tenure. Regrettably, almost all of that has been spent off the Queen Charlotte Islands, not in Gwaii Haanas, not in areas that had been harvested, but rather in other areas of the tree farm licence.
It is urgently important that this be passed now. I understand there is goodwill in the House to get through as much of this bill as we can today so that it can go on to the other place for passage.
I have reviewed the wording that has been worked out between the Council of the Ha'ida Nation and officials of Justice Department and Environment Canada. I understand it is acceptable on all sides so that an appropriate amendment could take place today so that this can be put in place.
There should be no misunderstanding. The Council of the Ha'ida Nation went to great lengths more than two years ago in a binding referendum. An agreement was passed in relation to what we are doing today. That referendum agreement is running out of time. May 5 was the deadline that only by the grace of the Haida has been extended to allow this debate to take place and for this bill to be passed.
The area is cherished by so many Canadians as a symbol. It may be an area that they will never get to, but it is an area that they recognize the importance of. It may well be withdrawn from this process if this legislation does not proceed.
There are other parts of the agreement that the government must now work very hard to get moving because the Government of Canada is in fact in violation of a number of areas of the 1987 agreement. In fact, it has been for some time, not only in terms of the actual expenditure schedules, but also in terms of other parts of the agreement.
There is an anticipation that $44 million will be transferred to the Gwaii trust. It was a promise made by the Prime Minister of Canada that funds would be made available and efforts would be made to redevelop the economy of the Queen Charlotte Islands from basically,
a logging and forest based economy to one of world-class tourism. That has been a hollow promise so far. There is $6 million in the aid base for the visitor reception centres and for Gwaii Haanas for the summer, but the $44 million is still awaited. Sandspit has waited a long time for the Minister of Fisheries to live up to the small craft harbour agreement that was promised by Minister Sid-don from British Columbia more than five years ago.
I agree that the price tag of $9 million sounds high and it may well be that the minister or ministers could involve themselves in finding some better economic engine for Moresby for the Sandspit area. There has been little political will exercised to get that going. I am certainly hopeful that after such a long, long road on this most important issue and one that has been most honourably pursued by the government, I must say, on almost all occasions that it will now be done this year.
Having said that, I just want to say again that the wording as proposed in the clause 1, page 2 amendments under the title: "Reserve for a National Park on the Gwaii Haanas Archipelago" has been reviewed. I spoke to the president of the Ha'ida nation this morning and confirmed that this wording is acceptable to the Ha'ida nation in order to implement. This is enabling legislation to allow for the agreement reached within the Ha'ida nation to be put into play.
The second part of this piece of legislation is in relation to Wood Buffalo National Park. As I am sure you are aware, Madam Speaker, the Minister of the Environment earlier this week had justice officials move forward with a consent judgment in the courts to halt logging in perpetuity in Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada's largest national park, a park similar to the Queen Charlotte Islands, similar to Gwaii Haanas and Ninstints as a world heritage site 10 years ago.
Part of this legislation, in terms of being an amendment to the National Parks Act, implements the 1986 Fort Chip as it is often called, Fort Chipewyan the full name, the Cree Band from there, their specific land claim which involves a two-square mile reserve inside the park boundaries. That will be excised from the park. I understand later today, if we complete the legislation, it will be transferred for a split second to the province of Alberta and a split second later it will be transferred to Canada where it will come under the protection of the Indian Act and revert to the ownership and obvious existing occupancy of the Fort Chip people.
May 22, 1992

The payment in terms of the specific claim includes $26.6 million and the transfer of 4,969 hectares of land outside the park. It also establishes what I consider to be a very important intergovemment instrument, which is a wildlife advisory board, which will provide for the permanent establishment of a board with four members appointed by the Cree Band, three by the Minister of the Environment with the superintendent of the parks sitting as an ex officio non-voting member. That board will establish a permit system for hunting, trapping, fishing of all various species to monitor any harvesting that goes on within about one-fifth of the park, an area of 8,869 square kilometres of the 44,800 square kilometres of the park.
Therefore, there will be an area within the park that has been recognized as the traditional hunting ground of these aboriginal people. This wildlife management board will have a process for identifying sustainable harvest levels of species that have been traditionally harvested. There will be an identified, designated membership of Cree hunters, trappers and fishers who will be operating within that area. This board will manage this traditional harvesting in a sustainable fashion within the largest of Canada's national parks systems. It is something that I think has encouraged debate among many conservation and wildlife groups in this country. I think it is now well enough understood that this nation was founded on three nations: the aboriginal people, who were the original occupants of Canada; the French; and the English. It is that ultimate recognition which is now recognized constitutionally that is being recognized in part through the legislation we are dealing with today.
I understand there have been both consultations and discussions with Fort Chipewyan and with the Cree. They not only support what has happened in terms of the specific land claim which occurred almost six years ago but also the legislation that we have today, which is to implement the wildlife management board, the territory that it will include, the permitting structure and the excise of this particular reserve land.
Within the schedules of this legislation one finds the description of the Gwaii Haanas Archipelago. In my
Government Orders
consultations with officials and the parliamentary secretary this morning, I understand that this is the precise restatement of the designation and definition of lands in what is now often referred to as South Moresby, but now legislatively will be referred to as the Gwaii Haanas Archipelago. It is what is found in the 1987 agreement struck between the three nations almost five years ago and is therefore for legal purposes not to change any boundaries, so there should not be any concern that this legislation in schedule VI is in any way to add to or to subtract from what was agreed to after a very long and protracted and thankfully happy debate of many years ago.
My colleague from LaSalle-Emard touch on one other point that I think is worthy of the attention of the House today because of the way it occurred yesterday. That is in relation to the panel decision on the Oldman dam. This has been an extraordinarily long and hard fought environmental issue that has probably attracted the greatest focus other than the Grande Baleine project in the province of Quebec.
The issues are ones that are deeply felt in Alberta and in fact all across the country. A very small group of Albertans principally took this matter all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. On January 23 of this year there was a unanimous ruling on most points from the highest court in Canada that there is an affirmative regulatory duty of federal ministers of the Crown in relation to projects such as the Oldman River dam and in particular, is binding on the Minister of Transport in his role with the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
In four months the Minister of Transport never lived up to the orders of the Supreme Court of Canada. Yesterday, regrettably, after the long awaited court ordered panel review of the Oldman River Dam, in the secrecy and darkness of the offices of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport they made a secretive decision to reject the conclusion reached by the expert panel, which is to decommission the dam.
Regrettably, I think the decision made by the ministers in secrecy yesterday, without ever letting the public see the panel report, will be the undoing of environmental assessment and Bill C-13 as it was passed and as it is presently before the other place.

May 22, 1992
Government Orders
The reason I say that is that there will no longer in my view be good reason for Canadians of good faith, aboriginal, environmental, conservation, engineering oriented or whatever to participate in a process where they know an anti-democratic and undemocratic end awaits them. In that process before the expert advice was ever made public so that the public could reflect upon it, two ministers, neither of whom claimed any engineering expertise, any hydrological expertise, any wildlife conservation expertise, any fisheries expertise, any aboriginal rights expertise, any archaeological expertise, no expertise at all, other than straight political chicanery, decided against the expert advice, five to one, of professional engineers, professional experts who heard hundreds of hours of evidence.
They reviewed over 126 written submissions, made probably one of the most difficult decisions of conscience they could possibly make in their own home province, which was to decommission a dam that had cost almost $500 million, had been to the highest court in Canada, had existed illegally contrary to the basic fundamental moral and legal tenets of that province and this country since its inception and went against it.
I predict, regrettably, that the Cree and others in Quebec will probably withdraw from the environmental assessment process of the Grande Baleine. I predict that many groups will withdraw should an EARP now proceed in relation to Kemano II in British Columbia. I suspect that the Tetzlaff brothers in the province of Saskatchewan are as appalled as anyone in this country that it could happen again in another province by the same ministers in relation to the same issues.
It is absolutely appalling on the brink of the earth summit in Rio that a minister from this country, who is going to be Canada's lead minister in Rio, would have taken such an anti-democratic, anti-environmental view of a project. The panelists made it absolutely clear that the economic benefits of the Oldman River dam were massively outweighed by the negative implications on aboriginal people, the Peigan people.
Milton Bom with a Tooth was here speaking yesterday about his feelings on this issue. I can understand the emotional tenor that he brings to this debate after being so callously treated by the justice system and by the ministers responsible.
The issue is one of credibility of this institution if this institution is going to pass into law, new law to go beyond the 1984 cabinet guidelines order and expect Canadians in good faith to enter a process of compromise, to enter a process of assessment, to appear before an expert panel that would weigh as it did in this case the economic benefits for irrigation, for farmers in southern Alberta and for communities such as the Lethbridge water district and others in southern Alberta.
They weighed that, the cost of the dam, the cost of decommissioning against the phenomenal dangers of mercury poisoning for the fish in three river systems as a result of the empoundment of the water. All of the negative impacts on forest ecology, sacred sites, archeological sites were weighed. They came to one principled conclusion because 22 of their 23 recommendations dealt with mitigation issues that have never been dealt with by Alberta, and I predict never will be.
They have never been dealt with by Canada, and I predict never will be. Regrettably, the decision made by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment yesterday will stand as the darkest, blackest, sleaziest decision that was ever made on an environmental issue by a panel.
Therefore on Bill C-59,1 am honoured that we finally have an opportunity to do this honourable thing today, prior to the referendum time running out with the Ha'ida in terms of Gwaii Haanas and also for Canada's largest national park, Wood Buffalo National Park, now that logging has halted and the rights of the First Nations, the aboriginal people, the Cree are recognized and passed in this legislation.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead):: Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member on having convinced the government to take this new initiative in his riding, which is not easy. In fact, we as members from Quebec approve of this government initiative, which was a joint effort.
I would also like to take this opportunity, at a time when we are right in the middle of a referendum debate, to make certain points and ask the hon. member to comment and perhaps explain his party's position on the points I intend to raise, including the fact that Quebec has far fewer national parks than the rest of Canada.
May 22, 1992

I would like to ask him whether he happens to know what percentage of national parks are located in Quebec, what the value is of the various national parks outside Quebec and those inside Quebec, and the consequences this may have.
While I was listening to the hon. member's speech, which was brilliant, and while I was listening to the parliamentary secretary to the minister, because the minister is off somewhere else while we are having this debate-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has been in the House for a number of years and I fail to see why he insists on commenting on the presence or absence of a member or minister in this House. I think there is really no excuse for that, since the Minister of State for the Environment and the parliamentary secretary are both in the House. I think this is an inappropriate attempt to make a fuss.
I will let the hon. member finish his question and give the hon. member for Skeena a chance to respond.
The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead.


François Gérin: You are perfectly right, Madam Speaker. It is Friday and after a rather long week during which the government has been playing its procedural tricks, we overlooked certain rules. You are right and I am looking forward to seeing the minister in the House, in order to ask him some very specific questions.
Meanwhile, you are perfectly right, and I will put my question to the hon. member. If, as expected, Quebec's sovereignty becomes a fact, and I think it will, because those federal offers will never be made, I would like to ask him whether he agrees that the national park to be created in his riding or the territories that will be created and which have a certain value, should remain the property of British Columbia, and that this should be absolutely clear? Does he agree that the various assets located in the territory of the province of Quebec should remain, after Quebec has become sovereign, the property, in no uncertain terms, of the province of Quebec, without any obligation to pay compensation of any kind?
Government Orders
I would appreciate an answer to these two questions. And I again wish to congratulate him on this auspicious occasion. I have known the hon. member for a number of years. I know he has always had a passionate interest in the environment. He has been a member of practically every committee on the environment and has worked very hard. As a member of this House he is very dedicated to his province, to environmental issues and to his riding. He is an example to all members of this House.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for the question. The issue that he raised first, in terms of the amount of land designated as what are called national parks in the province of Quebec, is a shame to this country. Less than one-third of 1 per cent of the land in the province of Quebec is designated as a national park.
I have looked into it a bit, and it has long puzzled me why so little effort has been made at the national level to achieve the kind of co-operation that there should have been over a long period of time for the designation of lands. Frankly, a considerable amount of the existing friction between the First Nations in Quebec, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Quebec is related to the lack of serious attention paid by Canada and the Government of Quebec to issues of title, in terms of First Nations, but also in terms of lands to be designated as parks.
Not only is this true of areas set aside and designated as national parks in Quebec, but as well Quebec has the second lowest level of all the provinces in terms of areas of provincial significance protected within the provincial parks system.
If we were to achieve what this House unanimously voted for just one year ago in June-a motion that I made and which was ultimately remade by the Minister of the Environment and the member for LaSalle- Emard-to set aside 12 per cent of Canada by the year 2000 our greatest single challenge would be in Quebec, despite having a Prime Minister from Quebec for 24 of the past 25 years. There has been no serious action to designate the areas of incredible beauty and incredible national, regional, and world-wide significance in that enormous and beautiful province.

May 22, 1992
I am glad my friend raised the issue of referenda because it is something that all members of this House should understand today. In May 1990 a national referendum was held on the issue of Gwaii Haanas among the Haida nation. This was a difficult and divisive vote, one that pitted elders and ancient family traditions one against the other in relation to the designation of this area. It was an emotional and deeply rooted spiritual battle as deeply wounding and as deeply painful as the one presently going on in this country.
Referenda, for all of the good that can come from them, also carry inherent dangers because of the nature of the wording of a question on a very difficult issue. It is a challenge not easily met in the present legislation because it could pit one region against another, one province against another, one part of the country against another, and there is unlimited funding. There are major questions about the referendum process that I do not think have been seriously addressed by this House in the vault and pressure of time allocation and strangulation which the government has chosen on the referenda legislation.
On the issue of property that is designated as parks, national or provincial, I often remind myself when I look in my children's faces, and I encourage you to do the same, that property and lands belong to no one. Time will always pass it on to another generation.
Our greatest challenge in this country at this time is to remember that Quebec will never move anywhere. The geography, the land, the trees, the people, all of that will always remain there. That is why I was proud to be a member of the New Democratic Party when we voted as a party for the right of self-determination for Quebec.
I am proud of that. If the people of Quebec choose that road I will always be proud to be in Quebec, to be in this country, to be on this land and to be on this planet.
In terms of land for parks, as to whether it ever reverts to Ottawa or British Columbia, we will be hearing about our greatest single challenge if we listen to what is going on during this lead up to the earth summit, which is a few weeks from now.
People like Dr. Caldicott are telling us that we are into the last of a decade. Dr. Caldicott predicts that if we do not change what we are doing within the next eight years
the major biological systems of this planet will collapse. The atmosphere will collapse, and the oceans of the world will collapse in terms of their productivity.
Our greatest challenge in this Chamber should be to find ways to protect 12 per cent of Canada, to find ways to get out of the fossil energy trap. The fossil energy consumption of this planet is the great trap. If you bum a gallon of gasoline it weighs eight pounds, then after it is burned you have 20 pounds of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
When you drive in a car you must think that it takes a large tree a whole year to take back out of the atmosphere the gallon of gasoline you burned as you drove 30 miles. We move blindly onward with all the crazy debates we have in this House about referenda, about what is happening with the Westray mine, and all these other things.
They are certainly important, but this Chamber so rarely pays attention to the great things we can do. One great, tiny thing we can do is viewed by every Canadian. Remember that several hundred thousand Quebecers wrote to this Chamber about South Moresby, about Gwaii Haanas to plead with this Chamber to set it aside. Three million letters came in. Some of the strongest support in Canada came from Quebec. I urge that this bill be passed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, we will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31. The hon. member for Bruce-Grey.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, the Skopje republic, formerly part of Yugoslavia, cannot count on recognition unless it abandons the name of Macedonia to which it has no ethnic, cultural or historical birthright.
May 22, 1992

s. o. 3i
There is only one Macedonia and that Macedonia is Greek. Skopje's insistence to include the word Macedonia in its name can only lead to instability and uncertainty and a point of friction for the whole Balkan area. At some point it could become very dangerous.
Skopjans should take an official stand on the issue and propose a new name for their state which does not include the name Macedonia.
In point of fact, the inclusion of the name Macedonia in the country of Skopje only traces back to the Second World War. Before then it was known as Santzakio Skopje and after the First World War as the province of Vardari.
Therefore, I call upon the government to hold back any recognition of Skopje until that country decrees that it will not use the name Macedonia.


NUCLEAR TESTING
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I find it rather sad and interesting that the Secretary of State for External Affairs remains strangely silent after the Chinese government detonated a 1,000 kiloton nuclear bomb underground yesterday.
The sheer magnitude of the blast, the largest underground nuclear test ever conducted by the Chinese, is totally inappropriate in 1992.
This morning, I contacted the Chinese Ambassador and asked why China feels it is still necessary to prepare for war at a time when the risk of external threat has been reduced to its lowest point in 50 years. The Ambassador explained to me and I quote: "China is in favour of a complete prohibition of nuclear testing and the thorough destruction of all nuclear weapons".
The problem, the Ambassador explains, is that the other established nuclear powers also continue to test their weapons underground.
That is why it does not matter which country is toying with nuclear might. Canada must condemn all nuclear testing once and for all.


TRIBUTE TO PATRICK POULIN
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to a young hockey player from my riding, Patrick Poulin, of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. He has been a stand-out performer on the St. Hyacinthe Lasers and earned attention from the Hartford Whalers professional team.
That is why Patrick Poulin was duly recognized for his outstanding potential at the 10th anniversary Vanier Quebec sports and cultural gala, chaired by the likable Guy Lafleur, a well-known figure from professional hockey. During this ceremony, I was proud to note once again the tremendous potential of tomorrow's generation.
As members of this House, we must continue to recognize the determination and talent shown by our young people.
Therefore I am pleased to belong to a government that believes in today's youth and gives them all they need to develop fully. In that way, our society will be privileged to have among it other young people of the same calibre as Patrick Poulin.


GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, the government members have been going into a feeding frenzy over some tongue-in-cheek remarks of mine that were reported in the Hamilton Spectator a few weeks ago.
If they had read the article with more care, they would have noted that I said these comments were not New Democratic policy. They never have been and they never will be.
I spent much more of my time in Hamilton speaking on the serious topic of unemployment and the thousands of people who must apply for welfare for the first time in their lives as their UI benefits are either delayed or exhausted.

May 22, 1992
The government's economic policy is much more ludicrous than anything I could ever suggest. It is creating unemployment through high interest rates, a high dollar, free trade and the GST.
Why will members on the other side of the House not stop harping on one throw-away comment of mine and instead, pay some attention to the serious matters that confront Canadians.


CANCER TREATMENT
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House an issue that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is aware of and is doing nothing about.
Cancer patients require many forms of treatment and most should have this treatment within a two-week period. Some hospitals in Ontario have had to wait-list cancer patients beyond the two-week period. This situation is not acceptable.
The federal government has cut back in transfer payments for the provinces in the area of health care resulting in insufficient funding to our hospitals and cancer centres. It affects our hospitals that do not have enough radiology equipment nor enough technologists to run the equipment.
There are risks to the patients, to the caregivers, to the cancer centres, and to our health care system. I find it absolutely deplorable that consideration is being given by some centres to send patients into the U.S. for treatment, at what cost to our health care system and to the patient.
I ask the minister of health to immediately review these serious ramifications to his government's budget decisions. I have mentioned only one health care area. How many others are there?


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, those of us who are fortunate often tend to forget that 13 per cent of Canadians in total, including 39 per cent of those who are 65 years of age or older, are disabled.
For this reason the establishment of June 1 to June 7, 1992 as National Access Awareness Week is exceedingly important, particularly in light of the fact that its purpose is to challenge all Canadians to create and support equal access which will enable persons with disabilities to participate fully in all aspects of life.
Whether it be a question of access to the workplace, to government offices, or to movie theatres, which can be a particular source of some difficulty, those with disabilities have rights which all too often have been ignored.
We have an obligation, both moral and otherwise, to ensure that this very basic need is met.
I congratulate those who are responsible for the implementation of National Access Awareness Week as they are doing their part to enhance national awareness on this important issue.
Madam Speaker, it is now up to the rest of us to ensure that concerns do indeed lead to action.


TAMMY DE SILVA
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the House the case of Mrs. Tammy De Silva, a disabled woman from Winnipeg, who was abducted in February, 1992 by five Americans, including her estranged husband and two Chicago police officers.
Charges are to be laid momentarily by the Winnipeg police department and a Canada-wide warrant is to be issued. But this action is not enough.
I urge the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to ensure that extradition charges will be laid immediately against these five individuals in order to protect the rights of Canadians at home.
Without a true effort to bring these individuals to answer charges in the Canadian courts, a signal will be sent to foreigners who violate our sovereignty. It will be open season on Canadians.
This government must not allow our sovereignty to be eroded. I ask it to defend the rights of Tammy De Silva and all Canadians.
May 22, 1992


INTERNATIONAL HEART HEALTH CONFERENCE
Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, the International Heart Health Conference will be held in Victoria from May 24 to May 28. The theme of the conference is "Bridging the Gap: Science and Policy in Action".
Organized jointly by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Health and Welfare Canada and the British Columbia Ministry of Health, and co-sponsored by the World Health Organization, it is expected to attract 600 national and international delegates and feature Victoria declaration on heart health.
This conference will showcase the accomplishments of the Canadian heart health initiative in which all provincial departments of health are working together with Health and Welfare Canada to implement a national approach to the prevention and control of cardiovascular disease.
This conference is a landmark for cardiovascular disease prevention in Canada. It will set the future direction for policy and research agendas in heart health beyond the year 2000.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is misleading Canadians about its refugee determination program. The rate of acceptance of refugee candidates in Canada has been cut to 54 per cent for the past half year.
This was done by narrowing the legalistic interpretation of the word "refugee" and by harshly rejecting most humanitarian and compassionate claims that would have been accepted a year ago.
The government defends the program by saying that Canada accepts a higher proportion of claimants than any other country. That is not true.
Britain protects a far higher proportion than Canada. In 1989, Britain gave protection to 37 per cent of claimants under refugee status and 47 per cent under exceptional leave which leads to permanent residence. That is 80 per cent of claimants protected.
Canada needs to amend our system by giving full right of appeal against the many mistaken IRB decisions and by establishing clear rules and procedures for protection on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.


SILKEN LAUMANN
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, millions of Canadians were dismayed to learn this week that Silken Laumann, a leader in Canada's quest for Olympic gold in Barcelona, suffered severe injuries in a rowing accident in Germany. Silken captured the hearts of Canadians at the 1991 world championships where she placed first in the single scull event. It was the first time a Canadian has ever brought that title home.
This achievement is just one of a long list of impressive accomplishments by Silken Laumann. She has served as a continuing source of fierce Canadian pride in international competition. Her dedication to the sport of rowing has provided inspiration for many young Canadian athletes.
Despite her serious injuries, her courageous spirit remains unbroken. Canadians are sure to see her return to the sport of rowing with a renewed vigour and a brilliant future.
I ask all members of this House to join me in expressing our best hopes and wishes for Silken's speedy recovery.


MACEDONIA
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs is preparing to visit Greece, Thrkey and Cyprus. I strongly hope that she will be able to impress her Turkish colleagues and convince them that the time has come for Thrkey to withdraw its occupation troops from Cyprus, where our Canadian troops have served so long with such style, intelligence, courage and patience under the aegis of the United Nations peacekeeping forces.

May 22, 1992
I also hope that she will have an opportunity during her visit to Greece to note the historical attachment of Greece to Macedonia's history. Macedonia has always been and will always be Greek. As they say, "Makidonia i Hellas."
Finally, no new geographical entity that is about to become a country can usurp the name "Macedonia" to obtain diplomatic recognition. The minister must reassure her Greek colleagues that Canada will not recognize this former Yugoslav entity if they use the word "Yugoslav".
To conclude, I ask her to offer our friends in Cyprus, the Greek and Turkish Cypriots, our best wishes for them together to make Cyprus an earthly paradise.


COMMONWEALTH WAR GRAVES COMMISSION
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, this month, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is marking its 75th anniversary.
The duties of the War Graves Commission are to mark and maintain the graves of members of the Commonwealth forces killed in the two world wars.
Members of the House who have been on overseas pilgrimages can testify how well the commission fulfils these duties. So too can the many Canadians who each year visit the graves of loved ones. They can return home with the consolation of knowing that the graves of those who were killed far from Canada are being tended by caring hands.
Along with Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, India and South Africa, Canada shares the cost of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. It is money being well used.
I congratulate the Commonwealth War Graves Commission on 75 years of faithful service.


SILKEN LAUMANN
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I join with the hon. member for London-Middlesex in calling on the House to pay tribute to Silken Laumann.
Last Saturday, Silken was very seriously injured and possibly deprived of an opportunity to achieve that highest goal of athletes, an Olympic gold medal, in her event.
Silken trains and lives in Victoria. We are all very proud of her and wish her a quick and speedy recovery.
However, I have a concern about the highly unusual circumstances of this injury. She was injured when a German shell crashed into her. Her leg broke causing her great pain and difficulty.
The government should conduct a Canadian investigation to ensure that this was not an act of deliberate sabotage of this very fine Canadian athlete or was otherwise not a product of gross negligence by the organizers of that event.


ALLERGY AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, let me bring to the attention of the House that the Allergy and Asthma Information Association has proclaimed May as Allergy Awareness Month.
The incidence of allergies is on the rise. Furthermore, the association estimates that about a third of Canadians suffer from some form of allergy. Allergies can strike at any age. They cost the health system hundreds of millions of dollars a year, which explains their great importance, and cause over 500 deaths a year, due mainly to asthma.
This year, emphasis will be put on hay fever. To survive the allergy season, the association recommends being well informed and avoiding allergens.
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to pay tribute to this organization and I publicly support Allergy Awareness Month.
I would also like to point out the efforts of the Lanaudiere community health department and especially Dr. Suzanne Fortin.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but time is up. The hon. member for Longueuil now has the floor.
May 22, 1992


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, in 1989,
I made a study of research and development contracts awarded by the federal government in the provinces. I found that at the time, the federal government spent $1.2 billion more in Ontario than in Quebec.
The government appointed a departmental committee to analyse the problem. Today, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources sent me some information. I noticed that 20 businesses were subsidized across Canada but none from Quebec.
My conclusion is, of course, that there have been no changes in policy to benefit Quebec. The government talks about technology and prosperity, but as far as developing prosperity and technology is concerned, Quebec apparently does not exist.
There have been no changes in the past three years, and the situation is still the same.


RETAIL SALES
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, retail sales figures came out this week and they indicate a decrease of .04 per cent for March. This follows two months of no growth.
Bargain Harolds, Jack Frasers, George Richards, Marks and Spencer are all retailers which are either out of business or experiencing difficulty. Today's statistics give retailers little reason for optimism. This government's dogmatic policy of relying on low inflation and low interest rates is not enough.
When is this government going to do something to stop the haemorrhaging of the retail sector? When will the government take some solid action to get our stagnant economy moving again?
The government must realize that an infrastructure program would not only be a much-needed boost to the economy, but it would also be a much-needed investment in our long-term competitiveness.
How many more retail businesses and retail jobs will be lost before this government takes some action?
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. On Wednesday, May 20, 1992 in Hansard the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, when asked questions in regard to the role of the Government of Canada on safety issues at the Westray coal mine said:
In fact, that regime was being complied with regularly in all its particulars by the mine and confirmed by the Bank of Nova Scotia which regularly monitored it month by month through independent mining consultants.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether or not he stands by that statement by the hon. minister?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we have a statement from the independent mining consultant who is quoted in The Daily News of Halifax and I will quote:
"I will concur that as late as March, I believe we had confirmed independently with the Nova Scotia Department of Labour and (Natural Resources) that they (Curragh) were in complete compliance with the current statutes, and that answer was provided and passed on to the bank," he said.
McCandlish said his firm's primary role was to monitor the levels and cost of coal production.
He also assured that the mine was in compliance with provincial regulations. This is his statement yesterday.
As you know, Madam Speaker, as the federal government we have no responsibility over provincial regulations. Provincial regulations are to be monitored and regulated by the province, but we did receive these regular reports from the independent mining consultants, as you can see from this quote, as late as March.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, that is rather strange because the consulting firm, which was hired by the Bank of Nova Scotia to monitor the loan agreement, says it was not asked to conduct independent safety inspections at the Westray mine and in fact, the Associated Mining Consultants was reported to have said in the newspapers today: "We didn't independently check any safety conditions".

May 22, 1992
Oral Questions
My question for the minister is this. Will the minister now come clean with the House of Commons and tell us exactly what has transpired in this particular incident? Were there safety reports? If there were, where are they?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows, and he has been told this the last three days, and he knows it without being told, that the whole regime for regulating provincial compliance with safety regulations is put in place by the province. The judicial inquiry will inquire into all those questions.
The federal government's role was a very limited one. We simply guaranteed a loan. We assured ourselves that we received certificates of compliance from the bank, which received them from the independent mining consultants on a monthly basis, that the mine was complying with provincial statutes. That is something we asked for and we got them on a regular basis, to show that they were in compliance with provincial statutes. These were certificates which we received on a regular basis.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on Wednesday and Thursday of this week this minister said in this House repeatedly, almost 11 or 12 times, that he had independent reports in regard to safety which the government was getting through the auspices of the Bank of Nova Scotia. We now have a senior official who has said; "We did not independently check any safety conditions".
Why does this minister not come clean and produce those documents so that all members of Parliament, and the general public, will have all of the knowledge in regard to the safety conditions at the Westray coal mine?


Thomas Hockin: We have made it clear that we are assembling all the documentation and will be bringing it before the House and before the public. The documentation is voluminous. It is into the thousands of pages but
we are making good progress with that and we will be bringing forward all this documentation very shortly.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, the minister stood in his place and no fewer than seven times yesterday and seven times the day before said that the government received "independent mining consultant reports about safety at Westray". We are now being told that they did not receive these independent mining reports.
He also said and I quote: "We informed ourselves on a regular basis that this contract was in compliance". He is now saying that this was not done.
He said that the $85 million loan guarantee was given on the basis that safety would be maintained. We now see that the government did not care one bit about the safety of the Westray mine.
Why did the government say it received the independent consultants' reports when it did not? Even more reprehensible, why did the government try to give the impression that it did receive them when it did not?


Thomas Hockin: Well, Madam Speaker, even more reprehensible is the hon. member's allegation that the federal government did not receive certificates of compliance from independent mining consultants month by month. We did receive such documents and those are going to be laid before the House together with all the documentation on this issue.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, what the minister said was "independent consultants' reports", over and over again. This is what the minister said yesterday, and I quote him once again: "The Prime Minister made it clear that this particular mine is regulated as to its safety and health regimes." But when the Prime Minister was asked in Washington whether anyone raised safety issues with him, he said: "Of course not, of course not."
I want to ask the minister which is the correct version, or did the minister make a mistake about that, too?
May 22, 1992

Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: I am surprised at the hon. member, Madam Speaker, because he is purposely confusing two things.
The Prime Minister was asked in Washington about a Devco report of 1987 and whether the question of safety was raised. He said it was briefly raised in the Devco report. Devco, of course, was concerned about Westray because it might have taken some of Devco's market share. There was a brief reference to safety, but this was three years before the mine was even started. When the mine was put in place it accommodated those safety concerns.
What the Prime Minister was talking about is that this is over-all an economic or business decision for the Government of Canada and not a safety decision. In fact, the Devco report of 1987 emphasized almost entirely nothing but business questions. That is what he was talking about.


OLDMAN DAM
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Experts appointed by this government just spent over a year examining the impact of the Oldman River dam project. After hearing witnesses and other experts, their conclusion is that the dam should not be used, but the government has rejected their conclusion.
I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. How can the public be expected to trust a government that talks about protecting the environment but simply refuses to listen to its own experts?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Madam Speaker, I think the leader of the New Democratic Party should give the public the correct information. In the report submitted yesterday, the commission recommended that if its first option was not acceptable, the dam could be maintained, provided certain recommendations were implemented. The government responded favourably to 22 of the 23 recommendations contained in the report. I think this shows the government is anxious to protect the interests of all concerned.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.
The report says, and I quote: "The dam should be decommissioned". That was the panel's first recommendation: decommission the dam. This recommendation was made very clearly in this report as their first preference.
My question for the minister is this. This group of experts, chosen by this government, have stated that the consequences of the project impose substantial environmental, social and economic costs and particularly is critical of the unfair treatment of the Peigan Band, of the serious environmental consequences and the minimal economic returns. Why has the minister and his government chosen to ignore the primary recommendation of the panel of experts chosen by this government itself?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, the truth is in the report itself. I do not know if the leader of the NDP has had a chance to read the report. For her information I will refer her to page 6 where the panel, first of all, mentioned that it has examined the possibility of recommending the dismantling of the dam.
It states: "An extreme option for resolving the problem would be to dismantle the dam. The panel thinks that this would be an inappropriate use of government funds."
It goes on to say: "The panel's preferred recommendation is to decommission the dam by opening the low-level diversion tunnels and permitting unimpeded flow of the river. However, the panel recognizes that this option may cause insurmountable inter-jurisdictional difficulties. Consequently the panel also presents a secondary set of recommendations directed toward minimizing the environmental and social economic impacts of the dam if it were to be operated".
We have accepted that recommendation with the 22 other recommendations contained in this report.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker.
The report clearly says that the panel concludes, and I quote: "that environmental, social and economic costs of the project are not balanced by corresponding benefits and finds that as presently configured the project is unacceptable". No matter how the minister wants to

May 22, 1992
Oral Questions
portray this, this government has chosen to ignore a panel of experts.
I ask the minister again, why would the public have any faith in any environmental process that this government undertakes when it refuses to listen to its own handpicked experts? What confidence can he expect the public to have, whether it is aboriginal people or other groups, in the process of this government?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, again I believe this is a perfect case of selective interpretation of a report. Again on page 6 of the same report, the panel's "less preferred second recommendation is offered because the proponent has shown some efforts at mitigation and because acceptance of the first recommendation may lead to insurmountable inter-jurisdictional conflicts".
The chairman of the panel said on national TV last night that this is a recommendation that is pragmatic because it is enforceable as the other would probably not be enforceable.


WESTRAY MINE
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The premier of Nova Scotia has publicly stated that he asked the Prime Minister of Canada to intervene to keep the Westray proposal alive. The premier said: "There is no question I expressed my concerns to the Prime Minister. There is no question that I made representations to him".
There is no question that the Prime Minister of Canada himself was intimately involved in the approval of this project. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: what was the Prime Minister's role? What did the Prime Minister of Canada do to see this project through?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is overlooking the fact that public spokesmen, leaders at the municipal level, provincial level, members of Parliament, many people were interested in economic development in that part of Nova Scotia.
Stellarton area had high unemployment. The whole region of Central Nova had high unemployment. We believe in regional economic development and so does the province. This particular project, which was going to contribute directly 240 jobs and a multiplier that could be two, three or four times that is a very, very important regional economic development instrument.
Therefore, many municipal leaders, many wardens and mayors came forward and supported this project. It is not unusual that they do because of the economic strength that this particular project could bring to the region.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is again to the Deputy Prime Minister.
We are not talking about a municipal politician. We are not talking about company representatives. We are talking about the involvement of the Prime Minister of Canada in the approval of this project.
Wednesday, May 20 in the Nova Scotia legislature, Premier Donald Cameron stated: "What the Prime Minister did after I spoke to him, you would have to ask him. I cannot answer for the Prime Minister".
In the absence of the Prime Minister, I once again ask the Deputy Prime Minister: what was the response? What role did the Prime Minister of Canada play in the Westray mine decision?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman does not like the fact that there was a mine begun in Pictou country. He is not alone. There are a number of people from Cape Breton who felt the same way.
Let me tell you who agreed with the development of this particular regional economic development project: Hank Dunnewold, the warden of the municipality of Pictou County.
There was Barry Trenholm, mayor of the town of Trenton; Ronald Marks, mayor of the town of Stellarton, and in a letter to the Prime Minister: D. Hugh MacGregor, chairman of the Pictou County Research and Development Commission; Dan Currie, mayor of the township of Pictou; Clarence Porter, ex-mayor of the town of Stellarton; Mary Daley, mayor of the town of Westphal; J. H. MacLean, mayor of the town of New Glasgow.
May 22, 1992

This was a very supported project by municipal leaders in that area.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, the minister can skate all he wants. The Prime Minister had an intimate involvement in this project.
I want to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Given that intimate involvement by the Prime Minister, he must have known that this was the most dangerous coal seam in North America. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us about the people whom the Prime Minister so quickly embraced, what was the extent of their experience in driving an underground coal mine, in operating an underground coal mine?
Did the Prime Minister even have that information before he decided to fast track the project?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I notice the hon. member is wearing running shoes today. If he calls three years fast tracking, then he is a pretty slow runner.
This project in fact took over three years to put in place. Thousands and thousands of pages of documentation and contractual agreements had to be worked through. It frankly took a considerable amount of time to put in place to the acceptability of the province and of course to Westray, the banks and ourselves a proper contractual arrangement for the beginning of this mine.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, the minister makes my point beautifully for me. Sure it took three years but I put it to him that he should check. It took a lot less than three years after the premier called the Prime Minister.
The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism is having an awful time getting his lines straight on this one. Everything he has said so far has been contradicted by respected, knowledgeable people, people in the know, responsible people.
The Deputy Prime Minister this morning, given now a total I think of eight opportunities, just sits there. I want to ask him: why the stonewalling on this one?
Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I cannot think of one instance in the last three days where anything I have said has been contradicted by anybody in the know.
We have allegations from hon. members opposite but allegations are not clear refutations, they are just allegations. Yesterday, in fact, we had a statement from the independent mining consultants confirming still further what I have already said.
What the hon. member should know, if he has got concerns about this tragedy and we all do, is he must direct his attention to the commission of inquiry in Nova Scotia where all of these matters will be looked at properly. I have made it clear we are going to be not only open with that commission of inquiry but co-operative as well.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the next member it would be helpful if members would make an effort and not impute motives at this time.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
In April 1991, Alan Craven, an engineering consultant for Associated Mining Consultants and the Bank of Nova Scotia, said:
That the construction of the Westray coal mine was one of the most
rapid he had ever seen. It is extremely fast to achieve an underground
mine in 10 months. Normally you are talking years instead of months.
Considering the excessive speed of this mine construction raised by this consultant in April 1991, a year ago, and in view of the federal government's and the minister of energy's awareness as early as 1988 that this coal seam was a high-risk venture in terms of safety, why did the federal government not exercise greater direct scrutiny over safety developments rather than relying on the loans office of the Bank of Nova Scotia to do its job for it?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, we have no jurisdiction over matters of that sort. This is a provincial jurisdiction.
Yesterday we had a major constitutional discussion between the provinces and the federal government. Different levels of government have different levels of responsibility.

May 22, 1992
Oral Questions
The monitoring, inspecting, all of that was the responsibility of two departments, the Department of Labour and the Department of Mines and Energy in the province of Nova Scotia. Therefore something went wrong. The hon. member is quite right. Something went wrong. What went wrong? Tire commission of inquiry in Nova Scotia is going to help us find out what that is.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, the minister has obviously been in office too long. He has forgotten how to ask questions. That is all he had to do.
The minister has made repeated references to receiving regular safety reports from his independent mining consultants or the consultants of the Bank of Nova Scotia. In today's Halifax The Daily News, Keith McCan-dlish, who is a geologist with Associated Mining Consultants in Calgary, said his firm wrote 18 reports for the bank between August 1990 and May 1992. As a courtesy he said: "Five of them were passed along to the federal Department of Industry, Science and Technology as a courtesy. Our function was not to monitor safety on a direct basis".
Who is telling the truth here? The minister or the consultants who performed and reported the inspections? Come clean.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I can help the hon. member with his question if he will listen carefully.
The job of the independent mining consultants was to make sure we received on a regular basis certificates of compliance, that we knew that this mine and that Curragh were complying with provincial statutes and regulations.
That was part of the monthly certifications we received from the independent mining consultants. In fact it was confirmed today in the very quotation that the hon. member makes. The day to day inspections of this mine was the job of the province of Nova Scotia through its inspectors, through its two government departments. That is what the committee of inquiry is looking into.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
We all heard the President of the United States say yesterday that he was just a phone call away from the Prime Minister on trade disputes.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: did the phone go dead on Honda? Did the phone go dead on softwood lumber? Did the phone go dead on magnesium? Why is it that the only thing the Prime Minister came away with from Washington was a ringing endorsement from Dan Quayle?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Madam Speaker, I think if my hon. friend read the press reports in Washington as well as here, she would understand that the Prime Minister had a very effective meeting with the President of the United States. The matter of the trade disputes that are there between us is going to be handled very effectively in the future.
We have had some difficulties. That is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister has raised these matters with the President. The conclusion we have seen from this meeting is that those matters will be handled more effectively in the future by the United States.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I did hear the press reports and I heard the President and the Prime Minister being compared to the fathers of free trade.
For my part, I would like to say that if they are the fathers of free trade, I would rather be the child of Murphy Brown.

I have not heard the Prime Minister state that the American government will abandon its action on Honda automobiles, that it will abandon its action on softwood lumber, that it will abandon its action on magnesium.
What did the Prime Minister really accomplish in Washington during his visit? Was it nothing else but a photo opportunity?
May 22, 1992


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, this was not, as my hon. friend has alleged, a publicity stunt.
At the luncheon meeting the Prime Minister had with the President in attendance were the Secretary of State, Jim Baker, and the U.S. trade representative, Carla Hills, two key people in the management of the relationship between the United States and Canada.
These matters, the ones she has referred to, have been discussed. But there is a certain element of process that must be followed in these matters, whether we are managing them or whether the United States is managing them.
What has become very clear as a result of the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister is that the attention of the President and the senior members of his cabinet will be engaged at all times in the management of these issues.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance in the Conservative Government of Manitoba said that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is a failure, the cause of massive unemployment and that the federal government deliberately misled Canadians in 1988 in selling the free trade agreement as a panacea.
I want to ask the Minister for International Trade instead of spending time cavorting with Dan Quayle, should not this government be listening to the serious condemnation being made by senior ministers of its own party about the failure of the free trade deal? Will it not understand that it is now time to renegotiate that deal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I think that if my hon. friend looked at the facts he would see that last Wednesday, or was it Thursday of this week, there was an announcement of trade statistics which demonstrated that exports to the United States were at record levels.
Oral Questions
We have seen an increase in exports to the United States of some 5 per cent at a time when the United States is in a recession. We have been increasing our market share during that same period because exports into the United States from other countries have been declining. This demonstrates that companies in Canada are competitive and that the increased exports are being translated into increased jobs in Canada at a time when we are going through a difficult time in our economy.


An hon. member:: When?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon friend asks: "When". If he could add he would see that there is an increase of $5 billion to $6 billion in exports from Canada into the United States. That translates into some 75,000 or 80,000 jobs.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the minister talks about facts. Well, these are the facts. Since the signing of the free trade agreement Canada's industrial production has declined substantially relative to every other G-7 country. That is from his own agency, Statistics Canada.
Another fact is that Canada has lost 23 per cent of its manufacturing jobs compared to 6 per cent in the United States. The toughest fact of all is that there are a million and a half Canadians unemployed.
If the Minister of Finance in the province of Manitoba, a good Tory, can understand the drastic decline of Canadian production as a result of the free trade agreement, why can't this minister and why can't he start doing the honest thing by listening to Canadians and renegotiating the deal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let me just draw my friend's attention to the Peter Cook column in today's edition of The Globe and Mail where he comments on this very point. Let me quote one thing: "Under Mr. Chretien we would have a prostrate Canada pleading its case".
My hon. friend says: "Yes, we are going to go down there beating ourselves on the chest and we are going to renegotiate that deal". What is the hon. member going to give up? Renegotiation is not a one-way street. If he is going to ask the United States to give up something, what is he going to offer in return?

May 22, 1992
Oral Questions
Let me just quote two figures. Since January 1989 merchandise exports are up 12.3 per cent. Since the implementation of the FTA merchandise imports from the United States are up 6.2 per cent.
Who has been the winner? Canada has been the winner.


TOBACCO
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue.
A study released today in the British medical journal, The Lancet, shows that 250 million of the world's population will die from tobacco smoke. In Canada this will be
48,000	persons a year, our largest single cause of death by far.
Yet since April, when the government caved in to the tobacco manufacturers and removed the export tax on cigarettes, cigarette exports are up 37 per cent and cigarette tobacco exports are up 450 per cent according to Statistics Canada.
Since fully 80 per cent of these exports are smuggled back into Canada, how can the government still claim that its new cigarette smuggling policy is more effective than the export tax it replaced?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the government continues to be committed to the national strategy for reduced tobacco use. We in this government do not need to take a lesson from anybody, least of all from the hon. member, to reduce tobacco product smoking in this country, particularly for young people.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: You caved in.


Otto John Jelinek: Our policy continues to be anti-smoking. We will continue to do everything and lead the world in that regard.
As far as the specific question is concerned, the hon. member says we caved in to the tobacco manufacturers. He knows full well that it was the other way around, that we have been trying for years to get the tobacco manufacturers to the table to give us the things that would allow our law enforcement officers to track exported tobacco products so that we could ascertain who the smugglers are, get to the root of the problem,
and make sure that we will reduce smuggling and therefore reduce smoking of tobacco products in this country.
He is right that 80 per cent of cigarettes exported are smuggled back into Canada. That is why we have taken these positive steps with tobacco manufacturers. The co-operation is going to lead toward the reduction of tobacco-smuggled products into Canada.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The minister knows that these dramatic increases in cigarette smuggling undermine Canadian small business, cost the federal and provincial government substantial revenues, and threaten the Canadian anti-smoking effort.
In light of the extensive investigation by The Toronto Globe and Mail which appeared today, why does the minister still claim, as he did in April, that this government did not cave in to the tobacco lobbyists? Why do friends of the Prime Minister, such as Bill Neville, have such a negative influence on Canadian health policy?


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the hon. member just cannot get it through his thick head that the agreement-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure everyone would appreciate it if the hon. minister would find another way of expressing himself.


Otto John Jelinek: The hon. member just cannot seem to understand that the agreement we have reached with the tobacco manufacturers, in conjunction with the RCMP and other law enforcement organizations, is going to go a long way toward the elimination or reduction of smuggling tobacco products into Canada.
This is not a smoking issue. It is not even a health issue at this time. We are committed to reduced tobacco smoking in this country. What we have to do is put a major dent in the amount of tobacco that is smuggled back into Canada.
What we agreed with the tobacco manufacturers will allow law enforcement officers, agencies and Revenue Canada to do exactly that for the benefit of all Canadians.
May 22, 1992


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Madam Speaker, Pearson International Airport in Toronto handles one-third of Canada's airline passenger traffic and 40 per cent of its international and national air freight.
Modem, efficient facilities are required, not just for Torontonians but for those in my city and indeed dozens of other communities. The government has recognized this. It has announced plans to build three new runways and to have the private sector modernize and manage terminals 1 and 2.
I would like to ask the Minister of Transport to reaffirm the government's commitments. Specifically will the minister assure the House, subject to the report of the environmental panel, that the three new runways will continue to be a high priority and that the competition to redevelop terminals 1 and 2 with a promise of thousands of badly needed construction jobs at no cost to the Canadian taxpayer will move forward?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the member has asked this question. It gives me the opportunity to reaffirm my commitment to making sure that the future success of Pearson International Airport continues to grow. It is the same concern we have with all airports in Canada.
We are awaiting the report of the EARP panel on the runways and decisions will have to be made at that time. In the meantime I would like to reassure the member that the future of Pearson airport is in good hands.


CANADA POST
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post. Yesterday Canada Post announced the elimination of over 200 jobs in 85 communities across Canada.
Why does it make sense to the minister to eliminate jobs in small town Canada and send mail hundreds of miles away to be sorted, only to be returned to a few blocks from where it started?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's party along with every other
Oral Questions
party in the House said to Canada Post in 1981 when we made it a Crown corporation: "Go out and act like a business. Look at new technologies, improve your efficiency and improve service". That is what Canada Post is doing.
If the hon. member thinks that Canada Post should go back to sorting by hand and using the distribution techniques that were quite proper 40 or 50 years ago, he is alone in that view. In my view we should be applauding Canada Post for being a leader in Canada in seeking efficiency, improved delivery and at a cost that is second to only one in the rest of the world.


Don Boudria: No,
Madam Speaker, I do not intend to applaud Canada Post for firing hundreds of workers. If the minister wants to do that, so be it.

I wish to ask a question to the minister. According to section 60 of the Financial Administration Act, he and this government have the authority to give instructions to Canada Post. Is he willing, today, to give such an instruction to Canada Post in order to stop all cuts pending an independent evaluation of the new system, which I predict will be ludicrous?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is misinforming the House when he says that employees are being fired. The employees are not being fired. He knows that. Positions are being affected. That is different.


Don Boudria: Oh.


Harvie Andre: If the hon. member would stop barracking from his seat, I could answer him.
The reality is that Canada Post has the most generous job security program of any company in the country. The hon. member knows that. No one will be fired. No individual is going to be displaced or financially disadvantaged.
What will happen is Canada Post will continue to make progress on its efficiency, on its delivery service, on its on-time delivery, and will continue to be a major contributor to the economic growth of this country.

May 22, 1992
Oral Questions
The hon. member knows that. At some point in time I hope he will show the political fairness to acknowledge that.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The government's ducking and weaving on the issue of the Oldman dam has caused farmers in southern Alberta great pain, the taxpayers of the country unnecessary costs, and it has shredded whatever credibility this government might have had left in terms of protection of the environment.
Recommendation No. 5 of the review panel's report deals with the failure to mitigate environmental consequences and the need to reach agreement with the Peigan band.
Does the government accept recommendation No. 5? If not, why not? If it does, how can it allow any build-up of water behind the dam until both conditions have been resolved satisfactorily?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I was hoping that the member for LaSalle-Emard would have understood the answer to a preceding question put by the leader of the NPD and which was on the same subject.
The commission presented its report yesterday, and I do not know if the member has had the opportunity to take a look at it. The report recommends, among other things, the introduction of dress and agreement measures between the parties in order to maintain the dam open. The report contains 23 recommendations. We have rejected one, the very first one in fact, which would have the effect of eliminating all together the use of the dam. All other recommendations were retained, and we will ensure that they are implemented. That shows our interest in the environment.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, yesterday, the federal environment minister placed all the blame for the mess at Oldman on the lack of co-operation from the Government of Alberta. At the
same time the minister who has just answered, the Minister of Transport, said that the federal government rejected the review panel's prime recommendation because, he alluded, the federal government was afraid to do battle with Alberta.
If the federal government is not prepared to stand up for its own jurisdiction in cases where it publicly condemns the illegal actions of a provincial proponent, when in Heaven's name is it prepared to act?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I hope this attempt on the part of the member for LaSalle-Emard to mislead people is unintentional because, in fact what the commission says, what it recommends is to close down the dam by opening internal diversion tunnels, and to let the river flow freely.
However, the commission, and not the government, recognizes that this option can create enormous jurisdictional conflicts. Consequently, the commission presents a second set of recommendations in order to minimize the social, economic, and environmental impact if the dam is operated. We have accepted this recommendation along with the 20 others which are part of this excellent report.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will have a single question from the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and a single question from the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, in view of the unavailability of the Minister of Agriculture, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Saskatchewan farm families have debt problems unlike those in any other province, yet the agricultural minister said Wednesday that he would instruct the Farm Credit Corporation not to obey any legislation by the province of Saskatchewan that would require lending institutions to lease foreclosed land back to the original owner for six years.
May 22, 1992

This is a recommendation that was made by a committee of lenders, academics and farmers, including the Saskatchewan credit unions, the Canadian Bankers Association and FCC itself. There has been no complaint by either the banks or the credit unions. Why is the government playing politics?
Is this the position of the federal government and if it is, why is it refusing to protect farm families from foreclosure?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I want to indicate to the hon. member that the present Farm Debt Review Board has worked well for the last five years. It is a plan that is set up for all producers and farmers across Canada facing difficulty. To offer one province a different program would not be fair to the producers in the rest of Canada.


THE DISABLED
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the status of disabled persons. It concerns his omnibus bill, Bill C-78.
Disability groups were expecting this omnibus bill to contain amendments to the Immigration Act, Broadcast Act and the Evidence Act. It does not.
More than anything Canadians with disabilities are looking for timetables, deadlines and enforcement mechanisms in this bill. Instead they get promises of more review, more consultation and more delay.
Would the minister at least agree to develop some timetables for accessibility in such key areas as transportation?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite well knows that first, the contents of the bill were derived largely from the consultations that we had with the community.
Second, the community is very favourable to the bill. Third, the community required a number of minor amendments that we are looking at right now and to which I will most likely agree. We expect to be able to go forward.
On the specific issue of immigration that the member raised, it was felt that from a technical point of view it
Privilege
was more expeditious to deal with that in the upcoming review of the Immigration Act which should be tabled in this House very shortly. We have a commitment to that effect.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Reuben Meade, Chief Minister of Montserrat.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I also wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Bohdan Horyn, Member of the Ukrainian Parliament and Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRIVILEGE
Gregory Francis Thompson: With due respect, Madam Speaker, today the government side of the House had, I believe, at least two questioners. We had one question allowed on this side of the House today. I am concerned because we are here to represent our constituents. I had a very important question for the Minister of Environment. Do we have to sit on the opposition side of the House to ask a question of the government?
During Question Period today each and every one of the opposition members had supplementals, at our expense, and in some cases they were not deserved.
Madam Speaker, I am attempting to represent my constituents and when I am not allowed to get on my feet and ask the question I feel it is a violation of my privileges as a member of this House. This has occurred more than once.
Madam Speaker, if you consistently go through that list, as you do every day, you will find that we are not getting our fair share of questions on this side of the House. In many cases what we have to say, the questions that we ask, are just as important as the questions asked by opposition members in this House.


An hon. member:: More important.

May 22, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Gregory Francis Thompson: I believe that this whole process has to be reviewed, giving members on this side of the House equal opportunity to ask questions.


Jesse Philip Flis: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. When I sat on that side, almost in the same seat, and I had a question for a minister, I just went up to the minister and asked him. I suggest the hon. member do the same.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, we asked to be allowed to put a question today. We had come to an agreement with the Chair giving us the opportunity to ask three questions per week, but we managed only one this week, and we were not allowed one today on a subject as important as research and development where Quebec is totally neglected by the federal government as far as technology and prosperity is concerned.
Madam Speaker, I think you are not being fair or you are unaware of our agreement and you should talk to the Speaker who will confirm that we have been given the opportunity to ask three questions each week. I think this is unfair to the Bloc Quebecois.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point to support certainly one part of the member's contention, not all of it but one part of it. I too for the last couple of weeks have been trying to find the Minister of the Environment in order to ask him a question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I see that we have now had something from each side of the House, on what was not a question of privilege. The hon. member who raised the question did not see fit to wait and see what I would say about it, and of course it was not a question of privilege. I realize that it is sometimes frustrating, but there are only 45 minutes during Question Period and today we had 19 questions. I think it is a fair number of questions.

As to the remark made by the hon. member for Longueuil, I would ask him to rephrase it in a way which does not question the fairness of the Chair. I do not think that anyone, at this time-not me anyway-can be accused of being unfair toward the hon. member. He was recognized for a Standing Order 31 statement this
morning and, as he can see, other members also wished to ask questions, but it was impossible to recognize everybody in the 45 minutes we had.
I would appreciate it if the hon. member would admit that he did not really mean what he said, then we could go on with the rest of Routine Proceedings.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, I did not say you had been unfair to me or to the Bloc Quebecois. I said you should ask the Speaker, the supreme authority in this House, about our agreement giving us the opportunity to ask three questions per week. We were allowed only one this week. I asked whether you had been properly informed by your boss, the Speaker of the House.
I repeat, this week the Bloc Quebecois was not treated fairly, but I am not accusing you.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am grateful to the hon. member for this clarification. However, I think he should also realize that the Chair cannot do everything and can only recognize one member at a time in the 45 minutes reserved for Question Period.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 16 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See Today's Votes and Proceedings.] [Translation]


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Next are ministerial statements.


François Gérin: There is not a single minister. They all left.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead is saying things which are out of place in the House. He knows it perfectly well; he admitted it himself barely an hour ago. I hope he will regain his memory and remember that alluding to who is
May 22, 1992

or is not in the House is contrary to our rules. The hon. member for Shefford has the floor.


Mr. Jean Lapierre:: Madam Speaker, I know that one is not supposed to mention that a given minister is not in the House. But I thought it was customary to be able to say that there was no minister present in the House since there should always be at least one or two of them. That is what this is all about and I would like you to give me some clarification on this point, Madam Speaker. I have always been under the impression that there should be one or two government members present in the House in order to prove that the House is not sitting just for the fun of it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not think that under normal circumstances the House sits just for the fun of it. I think that it is when we get bogged down in slightly touchy and tedious issues that we give the impression that that is the case.	$


François Gérin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, on a point of order.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, I have been listening to your comments regarding my case. I also listened to the remarks made by my friend, the member for Shefford, as well as your answer to him. Nonetheless, I would like to have some more definite clarification from the Chair. Do the Standing Orders of the House allow sitting when there is no minister of the Crown present in this Chamber? That is exactly what I would like to know.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Yes. We will now go on to
presentation of committee reports. The hon. member for Terrebonne.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 35, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-46, an act respect-
Routine Proceedings
ing contraventions of federal enactments, with amendments.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, with amendments.



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations on Bill C-22, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend the Income Thx Act in consequence thereof, with amendments.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I have a very important point of order to raise regarding Bill C-22. As you no doubt realize, Bill C-22 is an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof. It was introduced in the House of Commons on June 13, 1991.
On November 5, 1991 Bill C-22 received second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee for Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations for clause by clause consideration. After having covered 28 clauses of the bill, the committee broke on December 3, 1991 on the basis that an amendment

May 22, 1992
Routine Proceedings
introduced by the parliamentary secretary was out of order.
Five months later, on May 5, 1992 the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs appeared before the standing committee and said that he was severing the Wage Claim Payment Act part of the bill. The committee then went back and negated the 28 clauses we had already previously agreed to and then proceeded to vote down the remaining clauses that dealt with the Wage Claim Payment Act which was a major principle of Bill C-22.
The main principles of Bill C-22, as approved at second reading, are to establish a wage protection plan and to include insolvency.
I submit that the committee did not narrow the principle; it changed the principle. It is no longer Bill C-22 that we are dealing with but Bill C-ll, so to speak. The House as a whole, all of us, agreed on the major principles of this bill, sent it to committee and the committee wiped out one of those major principles.
I would like to cite Beauchesne's, and make other citations, which I think will help you, Madam Speaker, in your deliberations on this question. I quote Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition, citation 684, page 204:
684.(1) The time for moving an Instruction is immediately after the committal of the bill, or, subsequently, as an independent motion.
It goes on:
If the bill has been partly considered in committee-
I wish to emphasize:
If the bill has been partly considered in committee, it is not competent to propose an Instruction.
As I said, it had been partly considered. We were up to 28 clauses at the time that it was severed.
No instruction had been given at the end of second reading nor prior to committee stage. In other words, the committee received no instruction from the House to empower it to change the principle of the bill.
Another citation from Beauchesne's reinforces this citation. It is citation 689 on page 205:
689.(1) A committee is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive of this principle.
I want to emphasize that the committee had approved the first 28 clauses of the bill, and that following the appearance of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on May 5, a full five months later, when he announced that he was eliminating one of the two main principles of the bill, namely the Wage Claim Payment Act, the government members proceeded to go back to the 28 clauses that were approved and then voted against them.
I would also like to quote Joseph Redlicks' Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of its History and Present Form, A.M.S. Press, 1909, New York, Volume III, page 95: "It is not proper to ignore the transformation of a bill by committee into what is really a new bill".
I submit that we are dealing with a new bill. To continue the quotation: "The correct course to adopt in such an event is to withdraw the bill and to introduce the measure as altered by the committee as a new bill beginning again with the first reading".
I look to Beauchesne's as the primary determinant of questions of procedure. I fully understand that Erskine May is often cited, but it reflects predominantly the British House of Commons while Beauchesne's is written by Canadians for the Canadian Parliament.
I believe sincerely that this bill is illegitimate. It is a bastard bill. That is what it says in Beauchesne's, which is based on Canadian practice and precedents, and it should have a final say in matters when there is a difference of opinion with Erskine May.
I submit that Bill C-22 reported out of committee is out of order and should be withdrawn and reintroduced for first reading.
Madam Speaker, I submit to you this information most humbly and I ask you to consider it seriously.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, it is not a matter of whether one agrees or disagrees with wage earner protection.
I do personally, but I submit that the point of order made is not valid. First, the committee can legitimately remove clauses from the bill if it so wishes, which it did.
What was out of order was an attempt by the government to introduce amendments which were against the original purpose of the bill, and the chairman of the committee ruled on that some time ago as he had to according to our rules. That part was done.

May 22, 1992

Finally, even if the committee had amended a clause I submit to you that that should have been raised as a point at the committee rather than here.
However, as much as I would like to see a wage earner protection plan I do not think that the point that is being raised today is valid. Clauses were removed from the bill, narrowing the scope of the bill. In other words the bill covered several items and it now covers one item less. However desirable or undesirable that particular move is it is certainly not out of order.
Further, hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake if we do not get a new bankruptcy law. I do not want to see any more workers lose their jobs in the depths of this recession. We need to help workers immediately. I do not want to see this delayed any further, notwithstanding my great desire, and that of my colleague from Dartmouth, to have the wage earner protection plan which I certainly hope the government will introduce at the earliest opportunity.
Coming back to the point of order, I submit that particular one is not one. The purpose of the bill was not changed, unless one considers narrowing the scope of the bill as being a change. Narrowing the scope of the bill is perfectly within our rules.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the arguments of my two colleagues and, just like you, witnessed the vote on second reading of Bill C-22. You know that after the report tabled a few minutes ago, you would not recognize Bill C-22. It has been changed to such an extent that you will think it is a different one. Bill C-22 was stripped of all its content. We are all aware. We all heard the speeches during second reading and particularly that of the consumer and corporate affairs minister talking about the wage claim fund.
That wage claim fund is fundamental to the bill. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I think that when you examine the report presented to you by the chairman of the committee today, you will realize, as we did, that the committee has completely modified the content of the bill by removing its major element. I therefore think, as does my colleague from Chambly, that this bill should have been tabled again in the House because the
Routine Proceedings
government backed down on the fundamental intent and the very principles of the bill.


An hon. member:: Twenty-eight sections.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Twenty-eight sections were removed between the second reading, where we all agreed, and the tabling of the report. So, Madam Speaker, I think that the essence and the principles have been modified, exactly what my friend the member for Terrebonne does not understand, essence and principles. Obviously, once you have read the chairman's report you will send him back to the drawing board because this House cannot be victimized by such a travesty of a bill.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to intervene on this point of order, having had a little to do with its early history in a previous capacity.
I thought the hon. member for Chambly stated his argument in very colourful fashion by calling this a bastard bill. Actually it is intravenous feeding of the bill rather than a bastard bill. I do not find his citation of Beauchesne's, page 204, citation 684, to be pertinent to the issue before us at this particular moment.
I would rather go to citation 689(2), which my hon. friend also referred to, which states:
A committee may negative every clause and substitute new clauses, if
relevant to the bill as read a second time.
I submit that the negativing and substitution are relevant to the bill as read a second time.
My hon. friend depreciates the value of Erskine May because of its jurisdiction, but I think it is appropriate to add that Erskine May states on page 486, paragraph 2 that: "Notwithstanding the rule which forbids the moving of an amendment which is destructive to the principle of the bill, there is nothing to prevent the committee from negativing a clause or clauses, the omission of which may nullify or destroy the bill and reporting the bill as amended to the House".
The committee did not consider amendments in regard to the point raised by the hon. member. The committee simply rejected certain clauses of the bill. Committees can approve or reject clauses of the bill. I would ask the hon. member whether he is proposing in objecting to the report of the committee that committees should not have the power to approve or disapprove of clauses.

May 22, 1992
Routine Proceedings
With reference to the intervention of my hon. friend for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I appreciate his sagacity, his knowledge of this issue, and the wisdom of the points he makes. I appreciate the generosity of his comments.
The hon. member for Shefford suggested that the bill as reported is empty of all substance. The wage earners of this country, the unsecured creditors of this country, and the farmers and fishermen of this country, who will be protected by this bill as amended do not regard it as being empty of all substance.


Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I want to say that the ultimate objective of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act dating back to 1949, as we all know, was to create a fund for wage claims. That was the whole philosophy behind this bill.
At present, according to the report the chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-22 just tabled, the philosophy of the bill has been totally changed. As far as I know, legislative committees have never been allowed to change the philosophy on which bills are based.
I remember very clearly when we were studying the firearms bill in committee, I was proposing amendments for every section and was told the changes were out of order because they altered the philosophy of the legislation.
Madam Speaker, I just wanted to say that I totally support the hon. member for Chambly and I also ask that the bill in its present form be withdrawn.


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond very briefly.
The hon. member from the government side mentioned that it seemed as if I were questioning the ability of a committee to make changes to the different clauses or the different sections in a proposed bill. Of course I am not saying that, Madam Speaker, and I am sure you did not understand me to say that.
What I am saying here, and I feel that it is important it be emphasized, is that when we are talking about a major principle of a major piece of legislation and we are talking about a Canadian citation which is often used in this House, Beauchesne's, I believe we are talking about jurisprudence. I have always been told in court that it is better to use Canadian jurisprudence rather than American or English.
What I tried to do by citing Beauchesne's at two different intervals was to show clearly that Beauchesne's was on the side of bringing in a new bill.
I believe there is a question of balance of convenience. I am sure you understand that whenever someone goes before a court and tries to have an extraordinary action accepted by a judge has to be shown as in the case of injunction, a balance of convenience.
Let us look at the balance of convenience with the government here. We are simply saying bring in the bill and respect Parliament. We do not want any more bastard bills that affect the legitimacy of what we are doing.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. members for Chambly, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Shefford and Saint-Hubert as well as the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the Government who brought my attention to these issues.
I will take the matter under advisement for a little while and get back to the House as soon as possible.



BILL C-58 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-58, an act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and other acts in consequence thereof, without amendment, in both official languages.
May 22, 1992

[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, now I am seeking the floor because it is with great pride that I wish to present a private member's bill dealing with amending the Financial Administration Act. It is a private member's bill which essentially allows Canadian citizens to sue on behalf of the government any contractors which have been hired by the government and who do not serve or deliver the product-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We were not advised that the hon. member would move his bill today. I would like to put it to the House and then allow the hon. member to tell us what it is about so that we are within the rules.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


Philip Edmonston: for leave to introduce Bill C-347, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, I will try to be very brief.
It is essentially an act to amend the Financial Administration Act in order to allow Canadian citizens to sue directly contractors and suppliers of the federal government that have given the federal government less than was agreed to, have abused the government or have defrauded the government.
This flows from legislation which originally came from the United States during its civil war where many of the suppliers of that time were ripping off the government. They found out that the government was incapable of suing them in every instance. It actually gave citizens the right to sue and have a part of whatever they received in judgment in favour of them as plaintiffs.
This is very important because it gives citizens the right to sue suppliers to receive part of the money of which they feel that the government was cheated.
I hope that we get to this bill later this year.
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Edmonston moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



MAIN ESTIMATES


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), the following motion in the name of the hon. Leader of the Opposition is deemed adopted.
Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), consideration of Treasury Board votes 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 and 20 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993 by the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, be extended beyond May 31, 1992.


PETITIONS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, today I wish to present two petitions signed by a number of people in Windsor, Ontario.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people, binding upon Parliament, to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I wish to present three petitions also signed by a number of people in the Windsor, Ontario area.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation establishing mandatory minimum sentences for all violent crimes. These minimum sentences would apply uniformly to all regions of Canada.
These petitions have been examined by the clerk and have been duly certified pursuant to our rules.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, today it is my duty to table five petitions, part of a series of petitions I have tabled in this House concern-

May 22, 1992
Routine Proceedings
ing the Court Challenges Program, a program which, as you know, made it possible for individuals and minority groups to have their constitutional rights, as they relate to language and equality rights, clarified before the courts.
Madam Speaker, your petitioners maintain that the Court Challenges Program was, and should still be an essential instrument in the evolution of our constitutional rights and that all Canadians must be given equal access, whatever their income, to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Your petitioners want Parliament to consider re-instating the Court Challenges Program which gives all Canadians equal access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity today to present to the House petitions from over 4,000 Canadians relating to the Canadian ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the oceans cover 70 per cent of the earth's surface; that the Law of the Sea Convention was open for signature in 1982; and that the report of the World Commission on the Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland commission, states that the most significant initial action that nations can take in the interests of the oceans' threatened life support systems is to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention without delay, no later than June of this year, and to mobilize Canadian diplomatic resources to encourage other nations, particularly developed nations, to ratify this important international treaty.
In presenting these to the House, I would like to pay particular thanks to the World Federalists of Canada who have co-ordinated this national signature and letter gathering campaign. I will present all of those to the House that are in the proper form and those that are letter or correspondence or other petitions I will present directly to the minister.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from various communities in my riding; Lansdowne, Malloiytown, Rockport, Gananoque, Frank-ville, Toledo. They are petitioning the government to make sure that any amended Canadian Constitution has been approved by the Canadian people before it is altered in any way.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by dozens of people in the Hamilton-Stoney Creek area. The first signature is that of the secretary of the Legion in my riding, Cora Ring.
The petitioners are calling upon the members of Parliament to support Bill C-289, the Remembrance Day Act, to ensure that Remembrance Day continues to be observed. Remembrance Day is a solemn day for remembering the dead and those who fought in the two world wars and in Korea.
Certainly I know that there are hundreds of other Hamiltonians who join with me in supporting this petition.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition that is mainly directed to the Department of Labour and was sent by the Postal Workers Union in Sorel. Your petitioners have some questions about the validity of collective agreements and about the constant changes taking place at the Canada Post Corporation, which may threaten their jobs or force them to move to another region.
This petition was signed by all members of Local 408 in Sorel. Once again, your petitioners are opposed to any special legislation and any changes being made in their collective agreement before it expires.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I assume the petition was certified in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House?


Louis Plamondon: Yes, as far as I know.


Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, I have a petition I would like to present. It was sent by women in my own and other Bloc Quebecois ridings, who request that the goods and services tax be removed
May 22, 1992

from items for female hygiene such as tampons and sanitary pads. I realize this is not something we often talk about in this House, but just the same, it is my duty to table this petition for these women who want to see the goods and services tax removed from sanitary pads in this country, and I think that is quite reasonable, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I assume the hon. member, who is herself a member of the legal profession, can give the House the assurance that she had her petition certified in accordance with the Standing Orders.


Pierrette Venne: As far as I know, Madam Speaker, my petition is entirely in order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, this petition is hereby certified correct as to form and context by the clerk of petitions.
I am presenting this petition on behalf of 136 real estate professionals who represent nine different offices. These petitioners are calling upon Parliament to include property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 241, 258, 276, 305 and 309.


Mrs. Feltham: With respect to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (a) how many jobs have been created as a direct result of the agreement (b) how many jobs have been lost as a direct result of the agreement?
Routine Proceedings


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will have positive effects on the Canadian economy over the long term. At this stage, it is too early to come to any conclusions about the effects both positive and negative that the Free Trade Agreement has had on the labour market in Canada.
Job losses over the past year should not be attributed to the free trade agreement. It is only one of several factors including wage rates, business cycles and the value of the Canadian dollar which influence employment patterns in Canada.
There have been encouraging economic developments. In 1991, Canada sold $15 billion more in goods than it imported from the United States. In the three years since the free trade agreement was signed, merchandise exports to the United States have increased by an average of 5 per cent over 1988.
While there have been positive developments, some workers may be adversely affected by structural adjustments taking place. These individuals can be and have been assisted by the wide range of general labour market programs we have in place.


Mr. Karpoff: As of March 16, 1992, has the PMO received any cards, letters or petitions or other forms of written or electronic communications concerning pending changes to the Patent Act and generic drugs and if so (a) how many (b) how many signatures did they contain (c) how many signatures favoured increased patent protection for pharmaceuticals (d) how many signatures opposed increases in pharmaceutical prices?


Mr. Leonard Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The following is in response to Mr. Karpoff's question of March 17, 1992:
a)	As of March 16, 1992 the PMO had received 4,177 cards, 28 letters, 147 signatures on petitions and 34 other forms of written or electronic communications concerning pending changes to the Patent Act;
b)	The total number of signatures contained within the above documents was 4,386;
c)	Of the total number of signatures received, 10 favoured increased patent protection for pharmaceuticals; and

May 22, 1992
Government Orders
d)	Of the total number of signatures received, 4,376 opposed increases in pharmaceutical prices.


Mr. Robinson: With respect to the court cases of (a) Veysey vs the commissioner of Corrections (b) Egan and Nesbit vs the Minister of Justice (c) Mossop vs the Minister of Justice (d) Haig and Birch vs the Minister of Justice (e) Canadian Committee against Customs Censorship vs the Minister of Justice, in each case, what was the (i) number of hours spent by Department of Justice lawyers preparing the case (ii) number of hours spent by Department of Justice lawyers arguing the case (iii) estimated cost incurred by the government at each level of litigation (iv) cost of any private sector lawyers or consultants in preparing the case?


Mr. Robert D. Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: 0)	It is not possible to provide the number of person-hours ex-		
	pended by various justice lawyers in	the several departments in-	
	volved in these cases. All cases except Veysey are still before the		
	courts, either at trial or on appeal.		
(ii)	The estimated number of hours spent by justice counsel arguing		
	these cases:		
Veysey	-	6Egan	-	18Mossop	-	12Haig	-	12Cdn. Cttee. (Glad Day Bookshop)	-	24(iii)	Disbursements paid by the government:	Veysey	-	$ 50.00Egan	-	9,555.31Mossop	-	1,264.64Haig	-	780.86Cdn. Cttee. (Glad Day Bookshop)	-	1,234.80(iv)	No agents were appointed	-	nilCosts of consultants	-	$16,585.95


Mr. Karygiannis: With respect to The State of Canada's Environment, 1991 edition
(a)	what was the total cost incurred in the designing, printing and binding of this publication (b) what is the breakdown of these costs (c) what would have been the costs incurred in the designing, printing and binding of a similar paperback edition?


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: (a) The total cost incurred by Environment Canada in the designing, including word processing, typesetting and graphics, printing and binding of The State of Canada's Environment, 1991 edition, was $334,969.67.
(b)	The breakdown of these costs was:
Design: $155,364.37
Printing and binding: $179,605.30
(c) Because of the size of the report which was nearly 750 pages in English and over 800 pages in French, a hard cover format was chosen to substantially increase its durability and shelflife. This was strongly recommended by Canada Communication Group, our co-publisher; Banfield-Seguin Ltd., the designer; and the printers, D.W. Friesen and Sons Ltd.
Nevertheless, in response to your question, the cost incurred in the designing, printing and binding of a similar paperback edition would have been $290,969.67, a reduction of $44,000.


Mr. Jordan: Of Canada's total exports to the U.S. in the first quarter of 1992, what percentage is from companies that are either partially or totally controlled by Americans?


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: By the
minister responsible for Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada reports:
Statistics Canada does not have the necessary data to relate U.S. ownership of exporting companies to exports on a current basis. Obtaining this information would represent a considerable increase in paperwork for businesses and a very costly set of surveys.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Charest that Bill C-59, an act to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.
May 22, 1992
Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-59, an act to amend the National Parks act. Obviously, we are all aware of the significance and importance of this bill that has come up this Friday and which the government wants to rush through. Nevertheless, we want to exercise our rights as members. Although the government regularly denies our existence, we want to show that we do exist and that we intend to participate fully in the debate.
We want to participate in the debate so much, that we bitterly regret not being members, for example, of the legislative committee on Bill C-81 concerning referen-dums. Of course, today we want to show the government its insensitivity, given the presence of some members who do not belong to the usual club. Therefore, I want to talk today about the National Parks Act, not only about what this bill contains but especially about what it does not contain.
Madam Speaker, you no doubt know that the lack of Canadian national parks in Quebec is now legendary. My colleague from Megantic-Compton-Stanstead just obtained figures showing that it is a third of one per cent.


François Gérin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.


François Gérin: I invoke Standing Order 29(3), Madam Speaker.
And the count having been taken:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We have a quorum. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I am very glad that my colleagues came to hear my excellent speech. I wanted to talk to you about the National Parks Act and the obvious lack of co-operation now between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec. I know that the Minister of State for the Environment will tell us in her speech later on about the mandate of her department,
Government Orders
particularly as regards the administration of the National Parks Act.
Everybody is well aware of the issue of the Saguenay marine park and I know that if my colleague and leader, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, was here today, he would have stressed the importance of this issue, given all the efforts and the work he did. I know that the parliamentary secretary will provide us, maybe in a speech later on at the report stage or at third reading, with the details regarding the Saguenay marine park.
The agreement in principle on the establishment of the Saguenay marine park was reached two years ago. Although some work has been done since, the most important decisions still have not been made. Indeed, unlike Bill C-59 which we are now debating, we still know nothing about the area of the park, although the minister said he was open to proposals to the effect that it be larger than originally planned. Nothing is happening with this project. The minister is in the last months of his mandate and one would have thought that he would have wanted to finalize this project before retiring. Last February, Quebec Minister Blackburn raised the possibility of a 1200 square kilometres park.
It is obvious that if the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean would still be the Minister of the Environment, Bill C-59 would not only include prescriptions for Wood Buffalo National Park, but would also provide the details of the boundaries of the Saguenay marine park.
The Minister of the Environment is in a hurry today. He wants us to pass this bill, but he has not done his homework regarding the Saguenay marine park. This situation compels us to intervene. In a release, the minister said regarding the master plan, that he still hoped to implement it with the co-operation of all the stakeholders. In fact, some kind of harmonization committee was set up and the last information that we have is to the effect that following the tabling of the progress report, the committee members were confident that the development of the management plan could start. That was in March, but the plan has yet to be completed and we are very concerned.
Obviously we would have liked the Minister of the Environment to tell us about his timetable regarding the Saguenay marine park. Obviously we would have liked to have in this bill the legal prescriptions, the provisions for the legal creation of the marine park. Right now, this

May 22, 1992
Government Orders
marine park exists only on paper. Nothing in this House recognizes a legal reality and, in fact, the real creation of the Saguenay marine park. I know that the minister or his parliamentary secretary will later try to explain this major omission. If you bother to come before this House to table a bill on national parks, obviously it should include all the details regarding the Saguenay marine park. We can only regret this omission.
I would also like to know what is happening with the work of the harmonization committee. Harmonization is fine as long as it leads to something. There is talk of an amount of $493,000 in capital projects regarding the land part of the Saguenay park, but we would like to get more details on the project.
One of the most substantial elements of the creation of the Saguenay marine park, as well as Moresby, is the boundaries. The bill that we are debating today is very specific about this aspect. For instance, looking at schedule V and schedule VI, there is a detailed description. Therefore, the necessary work has been done and one of our colleagues from the New Democratic Party, who worked hard on that project, told us earlier how he, the minister and others worked to reach a successful conclusion to that project.
In any case, I know why the bill does not give us any details on the Saguenay marine park. It does not because no agreement could be reached on who was going to administer the park. Some people think administration of the park should be handed over to a management company.
Madam Speaker, I know you share our concern about the Saguenay marine park. Of course I do not want to spend all my time talking about this marine park, although it is a major omission, and if it were not for the intrinsic value of this particular bill, we would have to vote against it. However, our leader, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, initiated the plans for Bill C-59 and worked very hard to prepare what we now have today, a bill that settles some centuries old problems. That is why we intend to support Bill C-59. We are sorry more information was not available beforehand.
Personally, I was astonished when I heard the leader of the government in the House announce rather pompously yesterday that an agreement had been reached by all parties, that everybody agreed and that the bill would be expedited through the House. They always forget, unfortunately, because they would prefer to pretend we do not exist. Yesterday, the leader of the government again forgot we existed when he pompously announced everything would be over in a matter of minutes. He thought our conscientious members would rubber-stamp this bill.
Madam Speaker, you and the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell are aware we are usually prepared to co-operate, but there are limits. At this very moment, while we are here in our seats waiting for the referendum legislation we intend to fight, we know that Parliament has once again formed a committee while ignoring the representations in this House.
I have no crystal ball like the former Prime Minister Mackenzie King, but I predict that after the general election there will be so many of us in this House that our presence will indeed be felt. Maybe at that point the government in power will have the courtesy to invite our contribution to the debate.
I will get back to the referendum bill, because that is probably the worst sticking point. The government has decided to form a committee on Bill C-81. The only members opposed to the principle of the bill in the House yesterday, 197 to 7, the real opposition, the opposition's opposition, were us and we have no seat on this committee.


François Gérin: It's a farce.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I remind the hon. member for Shefford that we are discussing Bill C-59.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I was getting there. I was just going to say that I hope the committee that will consider Bill C-59 will have a few members of the Bloc Quebecois at the table who will be able to discuss the case of the Saguenay marine park. I am sure that even the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, our own leader, would like to raise some questions with the committee, because as its spiritual father, he is very much aware of the importance of the Saguenay marine park.
May 22, 1992

There are a number of questions we would like to ask, both on this important committee and the other committee on the referendum bill. We want to express our views wherever we can. I know that my colleagues are all anxious to talk about Bill C-59, its contents, what it does not include, and especially the questions that they have.
If tomorrow morning British Columbia voted for self-determination, how would the assets be split? What would happen to the park that we are creating today? Would it be federal property? Would B.C. have to pay a fee to the federal State? What would happen? This is more or less the kinds of questions that were examined by the Commission on the political and constitutional future of Quebec, more commonly called the Belanger-Campeau commission.
I know that you followed the work of the commission with great interest, but there is one aspect that is directly linked to Bill C-59, and that is the division of assets. I believe that it is a legitimate question, at a time when we are establishing new federal territories, to wonder what would happen if a province opted for sovereignty, whether it is British Columbia or Quebec.
Let us take the example of Quebec. This applies very well to Quebec because there are already four national parks that we will have to deal with, including the Mingan Islands, Forillon Park and a few other ones. We will have to look at those in due time. Some experts from the Belanger-Campeau Commission said that in the case of Quebec-which is what concerns us with Bill C-59-the share of the province in the federal non-financial assets would be equivalent to the ratio between the value of those assets in the territory of Quebec and the value of the over-all non-financial federal assets in Canada and around the world.
The incomplete and imprecise information regarding the over-all value of the non-financial assets of the federal government does not enable us to quantify accurately those federal non-financial assets on the Quebec territory. But there is no doubt that the National Parks Act covers several of those assets.
To solve this important issue, they used the data provided by the Canadian Tax Foundation on the grants in lieu of property taxes that are distributed to munici-
Govemment Orders
palities by the federal government. I am convinced that my colleague from the NDP is concerned about the grants in lieu of taxes which will be distributed for instance to B.C. following the passing of Bill C-59 that we support.
Indeed, even if Government of Canada properties are not subject to municipal property taxes, in some cases, the federal government has agreed to give grants in lieu of taxes, as though the federal properties were taxable. There is of course no specific detail in this bill regarding the estimated value of the new park that we are establishing. We have exactly the same problem: What is the value of the Forillon Park? What is the true value of other parks such as this one?
Madam Speaker, I had a list of some assets that you would certainly have liked to consider, but unfortunately I do not have all those data. I can share with you the data of the Treasury Board of Canada, which concern us, and which were used by the Canadian Tax Foundation. The Quebec share of the grants in lieu of taxes paid by the Government of Canada and received by the municipalities in Quebec represent some 18 per cent of the total distributed to municipalities across Canada. In the basic scenario, this data is used to get an idea of the proportion of federal non-financial assets in Quebec.
Consequently-and this is of interest to us-the undeveloped, for instance the national parks that are certainly not established yet, are not the object of grants in lieu taxes. Such is the case and the Belanger-Campeau report precisely dealt with national parks. This surprises me. It is especially the case for the 35 national parks, of which only three are in Quebec. Three out of thirty-five. That is why there is a major omission in Bill C-59.
Therefore, the 18 per cent figure seems high. The alternative models will use other percentages.
Just imagine the importance of such a bill in the case of state successions. Just think that because Quebec was penalised compared to the rest of the country under the National Parks Act, the 18 per cent usually withheld cannot apply in the assessment of grants in lieu of taxes for national parks because such grants are not available when national parks are not built.

May 22, 1992
Government Orders


An hon. member:: And no tax is levied on them.


Jean-C. Lapierre: You are right; no tax is paid. My colleague who was a minister in Quebec was concerned about the fact that the federal government does not pay taxes on national parks. Therefore, I know he will want to explain further, later on, all the mathematical formulae that allow the federal government to get away with not paying.
Now, I will not keep on talking about the accumulated deficit. I know it is of particular interest to my colleague, the member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead. We have a good sense of humour here, Madam Speaker. My colleague for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will certainly wish to add his knowledge to this debate because, as you know, the frontier towns between Quebec and Ontario will-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time is up. Are there any other questions or comments? We will hear the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: listened extremely carefully to the member for Shefford. I took note of some of his remarks and I would like to ask him a couple of questions. For instance, he said that the member for Lac-Saint-Jean was the father, albeit a spiritual one, of a marine park idea in the Saguenay River. If I understood him correctly, he also said that if the member for Lac-Saint-Jean had remained the environment minister, everything would have been complete. The work would be finished. You will understand, Madam Speaker, that I am asking myself a few questions. First of all, does it mean that the member for Shefford is blaming the member for Lac-Saint-Jean for quitting his job as minister? I am curious to know the answer to this.
Second, if the Saguenay Park, the marine park, is, and I quote, a federal enclave, does it mean that the Bloc Quebecois member, who wants Quebec to go its own separate way, supports federal enclaves? It seems that he does since he said that if his leader had remained the environment minister, a job he claims he should not have quit, he would have completed the task which consisted of creating a federal enclave.


Louis Plamondon: That has nothing to do with the issue in question, Madam Speaker.


Don Boudria: But, Madam Speaker, I am asking questions regarding the member's statement and I have quotes right here.
I also noticed that the member said that there were penalties and that Quebec was, and I quote, penalized with regard to grants in lieu of taxes for national parks. Well, if that is the case, how can he explain that he congratulated the member for Lac-Saint-Jean for being the spiritual father of a project which, according to him, penalizes Quebec?
Well then, I would like him to reconcile all of these ideas which he described earlier because there will be a lot of Canadian men and women quite concerned by the member's remarks and who will be surprised to hear, for example, a Bloc Quebecois member blaming another member for, first of all, saying that he was not present in the House today. I myself would not have said such a thing and, in view of the fact that I hold the member for Lac-Saint-Jean in high esteem, I would have never mentioned it, but the member for Shefford did. Anyway, those are the comments he made regarding the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
I would therefore like to know if he supports or not the fact that the member for Lac-Saint-Jean quit his job as environment minister and consequently abandoned the Saguenay marine park project? I would like answers to all these questions and I am quite sure that all the members opposite are also curious to know the answers to all these very relevant questions which flow directly from the remarks made by the member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I think that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell paid tribute to the member for Lac-Saint-Jean for the work that he started when he was Minister of the Environment. Indeed, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean has always been loyal first and foremost to his constituents and to the province of Quebec, so much so that, when his government denied his loyalty toward Quebec, when this government decided to abandon Quebec, he even sacrificed his position as Minister of the Environment to defend Quebec before everything else.
May 22,1992	COMMONS


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-C. Lapierre: It is obvious that the member for Lac-Saint-Jean would have carried out the marine park when, like many others, he believed the risk worth taking. But he was smart enough, with other colleagues from his caucus, to realize that his government was betraying the advocates of risk taking. At that time, he had the courage of his convictions, which is not the case with many other members of this House.
I am happy that the member for Lac-Saint-Jean took part in trying to re-establish some balance in the National Parks Act. I am very glad to see that the member for Sherbrooke, for example, is giving a national park to British Columbia, but he forgot where his government, where his power came from. He forgot those who elected him. He should have tackled head on the problems of the marine park of Saguenay, for example, and today we should be examining the two parks in this legislation.
When we talk about penalizing, I think that the greatest penalty that Quebec can get at this time is to have to bear with this government which claims to have power because it got 58 members elected. Unfortunately, it is turning its back to Quebec, which is not the case with the member for Lac-Saint-Jean who is in Sept-Iles preparing for the coming of the next group of Quebec members of Parliament to Ottawa.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member whether he is aware and is prepared to speak to those British Columbians who are presently watching this debate, in particular the Ha'ida people.
This is not a piece of legislation to give British Columbia a national park. I would hope that the member knows that. This is enabling legislation to allow an agreement to be implemented between the Ha'ida people and Canada.
This debate has been going on in this House for six years. The member has already expressed to me personally that the reason for holding up this piece of legislation, for holding up the debate, is to try to extort from
Government Orders
the government a seat on the referendum committee that is presently meeting, which has eight members on it.
To hold the Ha'ida people hostage like this while claiming to be seeking some kind of just remedy for the Bloc Quebecois is unethical, immoral and unworthy of anyone who is elected to this Chamber. This is a First Nation that stood on the line to protect the land. The elder people were arrested and taken to jail.
They ultimately negotiated with two levels of government. They held a referendum in their nation on their land to protect their land. This small bill that is before the House is solely to enable an agreement to be put into place, an agreement that has been promised since 1987.
The members of the Bloc Quebecois know full well that they are attempting to extort something that is not provided for individual members, or in any formula to any collection of members known as a party.
I just would like to hear from the member as to why he thinks his rights in representing a view from his province override those of the Ha'ida people.


François Gérin: Question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a question of privilege.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, you told some Bloc Quebecois members several times today that some words are not to be used. I just heard the word "extort" in reference to Bloc Quebecois members, and I ask you to act in the same way the New Democratic member who just spoke-as you have acted all day with Bloc Quebecois members.
You know very well that that word and several others he used before are unparliamentary. Accusing a Bloc Quebecois member or all Bloc Quebecois members of trying to extort, that, is of trying to use a bill to get something else, is an extremely serious attack, Madam Speaker, much more serious than using a word like "unfair" about the Speaker of the House. It is much more serious.

May 22, 1992
Government Orders
Yes, and you know it. We were elected to be here and we are debating a bill under consideration. We have had it before us for barely an hour and a quarter. The member himself said that the government has been preparing it for four years. We have had it in front of us for an hour and a quarter and he accuses us of trying to engage in extortion in order to obtain something else.
Well, I hope that you will ask him to apologize publicly, here in this House, and not just in any old way. Otherwise, expel that member, we do not need him. Basically, I know why he wants to rush it through. It is because the government is preparing a nice little trip to Rio and he will need the unanimous consent of the House. I tell him in advance that he will not get unanimous consent. They will stay here to do the work.
I am ready to sit all next week-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think that we are getting off the subject. What the hon. member for Skeena said, twice, is that he was quoting the hon. member.


Mr. Rocheleau:: I never said that in my life.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not know who he was talking about, but he said that a member had admitted such a thing to him.
I cannot personally cast doubt on the word of the hon. member for Skeena. Perhaps the term used was-


François Gérin: Impartiality.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Maybe the term used was not the best one and I am sure that the hon. member might want to rephrase it-while he still has the floor, because I will let him finish-or find a different word to express his opinion. But he told me that he was quoting someone.
As for the other terms mentioned, I think that when the hon. member sees the transcript of the debates, he will find that no one was attacked personally. A state of mind or attitude was mentioned, but there was no personal attack. Otherwise I would have made it a duty to call the hon. member's attention to it.

Would the hon. member for Skeena be kind enough to change his words to make sure that we do not have any unparliamentary language?


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, certainly when you review the "blues", if you find that the context and the way in which I used the word "extort" would lead you to believe that it is unparliamentary I would be glad to withdraw it.
What I was expressing was a direct conversation I had with the member who just spoke, who indicated that he was intending to hold up this legislation and keep it from passing, to try to use political blackmail to obtain a seat on the referendum committee, which is the same thing.


François Gérin: That is false. I never said that. What the member is saying is false. Madam Speaker, you see how unfairly you are acting in such situations.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I see no reason for the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead to accuse the Chair for the way I act-I take no responsibility for what a member might or might not say. I can assure the hon. member that I am doing my work as calmly and fairly as possible and I do not believe that insulting the Chair will make debate in this House easier or in any way contribute to decorum in this House. I do not believe that this kind of attack will raise the esteem in which Canadians throughout our country hold the House of Commons or raise its image.
I think that we are all adults and that we can debate situations without insulting each other. The period for questions and comments is now over. We will-


François Gérin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead. I imagine he is going to apologize.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, I am willing to apologize as much as you want and rephrase as you advise, if you feel offended. I was saying that debate in this House should be conducted in an impartial manner. If the Chair was offended by what I said-I see no reason why, but if she was-she should be able to imagine how I felt about what was said by the hon. member. I would ask her to be just as demanding of the hon. member for Skeena as she is of me. Put yourself in my shoes. The only way to maintain decorum in this House, the only way, is to treat all members the same way. What the hon. member said is unacceptable, and you know it.
May 22, 1992

I am asking you to ask him to withdraw. You asked him politely to rephrase, you did not order. He did, but seeing an opportunity he was at it again, using even stronger insults. When such a behaviour is tolerated, we come to a point where it is impossible to have the discussion we should be having.
This is my opinion. Do not take it personally. I know that someone should preside over our proceedings. We know that, and today it is you. I am glad to have you in the Chair, but in circumstances like these, I am asking you to be stricter, to show more authority so that debate can proceed in a noble and dignified manner to the satisfaction of all Quebecers, and indeed all Canadians.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his good advice. I will check the record of our exchange this afternoon and, if necessary, I will come back to the House.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The point of order has been dealt with. We are going to proceed with debate. The hon. member for Richelieu.


Louis Plamondon: In that case, Madam Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate. Like many other members, I looked forward to address this issue. I prepared a speech into which I put a lot of determination and a lot of research. My first words would have been for my NDP colleague in the opposition who spent five years fighting for a park in his riding.
But now, given what he just said about the Bloc Quebecois and other members, I want to congratulate him for the park, but not for the intentions he thinks we have but which never crossed our minds. Again, the Bloc Quebecois is here to stimulate serious and honest discussions, to reflect with the official opposition, our NDP colleagues and members of the government on what the government intends to do with the bills, including the one before the House today, Bill C-59.
Of course, on a Friday afternoon, at the end of the week, when we know we are not sitting next week and
Government Orders
that we always have to deal with a lot of legislation in June, it is surprising to see that the government, after ignoring the issue for five years, wants to railroad such an important bill for the people of British Columbia, such an important bill for the Hai'da nation who have been hoping for this legislation for five years now. It is surprising that the government wants to ram through this bill without proper consideration, as our House leader mentioned. Yes, we all applaud this park in British Columbia. It was a rightful demand. But why not reflect at the same time on a fairer division of parks in Canada?
Why are there only three parks in Quebec, but 35 throughout Canada?
Why is less than one-third of 1 per cent of Quebec's territory set aside for parks? For the sake of fairness, this should be 12 per cent. I think this bill should give us pause to reflect on the principle of fairness that should guide our thinking and the proceedings of this House, and which should inspire government in the proper distribution of public funds.
The park mentioned in this bill is the result of a five-year campaign by the Ha'ida, the people of British Columbia and the hon. member, who has been fighting for this for many years. At one time this government had the most effective Minister of the Environment that Canada ever had. I am referring to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who was sympathetic to these claims and insisted that this project be made operational and that the requisite administrative steps be taken so as to produce legislation as soon as possible. However, as soon as he left, his successors failed to sustain his enthusiasm, like this government which since 1984, and especially since its second term, has been fumbling around in a kind of bureaucratic fog.
This government has no idea what to do about the economic situation or social problems. It has not a clue how to spend taxpayers' money. This also applies to our national parks, because otherwise it would produce legislation that would reflect a political will to have more national parks. This government makes decisions after

May 22, 1992
Government Orders
the fact. It is incapable of finding real solutions to the real problems, which are plain as the nose on your face. In talking about the economy the only policy it has in this respect is to hope, as the Minister of Finance said, that interest rates will go down and that the dollar does not go up too fast. It is a policy of economic wishful thinking. That is what this government has to offer us in the economic sector.
As far as research is concerned, today the government published a small folder. Does it worry about fairness? Of course not. We read that 24 companies will have subsidies for technology and prosperity, but not a single one is from Quebec in this particular document. It is the same old story. This government does not understand what the situation is, does not understand there are two founding peoples, and it governs Quebec while blithely ignoring its concerns. The members who represent this province are sleeping on the job. They are satisfied with whispered promises. Their only hope is that in the next election, the political winds will be as favourable as they were before. They do not see the storm rising in front of them, a storm that will topple them, leaving not a single member from Quebec in this House.
They are fourth in the polls today. Why? Because during debate on this kind of legislation, not a single member ever rose to consider the issue of national fairness and what should be his province's share. Of course not. They are not here to defend those issues. They do not intervene. Do they have any particular reason to be or not to be in the House? I do not know. But they do not rise in this kind of debate. They did not rise in the debate on the environment legislation that took powers away from Quebec. They did not intervene in the debate on occupational training, although historically, Quebec has always had jurisdiction over occupational training. Normally, they should have protested, but they chose to remain silent, to abstain, which is typical of members who are part of a machine they do not control, who are part of a government that is not their government. They do not recognize themselves in this government. And instead of leaving and hoping, as we do, for a government that does represent the interests of Quebec, they prefer to abstain. Are they worried about their pensions? I do not know. Their personal interests? No idea. Are they naive? I wonder.
Maybe all these adjectives best describe this lack of debate from them, this failure to take a firm stand on and for Quebec. But no. They are silent as always. What fate do the voters have in store for them? The same fate as the Liberals in 1984. What did they get in 1984 after their mistake in 1982? They let the Constitution be repatriated in 1982 without saying a word, without Quebec's consent. They went dancing in front of Parliament with the Queen of England and the nine other premiers. They forgot about Quebec's interests. They forgot to take a stand. They forgot that they had been elected by Quebecers.
For that reason, they were sent home in 1984 in a landslide. The Liberal members, or rather former members, will recall that. That is the fate that awaits the Conservative members from Quebec. The same fate awaits them and they remain silent and let such important bills as today's be debated without saying a word, without thinking about what Quebec should demand as its share for national parks. Such an attitude is incomprehensible.
Look at the bill that preceded yesterday's debate. We are talking about a country's future. This government, in one day, decides that the debate will not even last the whole day. It imposes closure. Last night, the minister responsible threatened to limit debate again today on the committee studying the bill after second reading. It is already in a big rush to bring it up again in early June. It wants to get rid of a constitutional problem, thinking that a referendum would solve everything.


Mr. Della Noce:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know the hon. member gets carried away. But I would like you to call him to order so that he would address the bill before us. As far as the election is concerned, I think that his time will come and that it will be soon enough for him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Richelieu can proceed and it would be appreciated if he would limit his comments to the current debate.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I will take heed of your sound advice.
May 22, 1992

I was about to tell my hon. colleague for Laval-Est that I am making a link between the defeat he can expect at the next election and the fact that no government member from Quebec is rising in this House to speak on such an issue. That, I say to the member for Laval-Est, is the link. Did I hear him speak about parks in Quebec? Did I hear him speak when we were dealing with job training and the sacred rights in education? Did I hear the hon. member for Laval-Est when the last throne speech mentioned two government proposals on environment and education, but he voted against the best interests of Quebec? That is the link to be made.


An hon. member:: They did not speak either on the referendum legislation.


Louis Plamondon: Not a word! They did not speak on the referendum legislation. There is a link between any legislation and the higher interests of Quebec. That is what I want to bring into the debate.
Of course, the NDP member who spoke on this bill is right. He is right to ask for something for his province. He stands up for the interests of British Columbia; he stands up for the interests of his constituents. He wants to get a park. Of course, he does his duty. I congratulate him for that, but less for the remarks he made about us. But where are the Quebec members to get their fair share? Will we be content with mere patronage, with a few thousand dollars spent in some riding as the Liberals did with a paint job for church basements just before the election? Not at all. That era is over for Quebec.
Quebec expects its members to stand up, to say white or black, not grey. Quebecers are fed up seeing their members in Ottawa sleeping, keeping quiet, abstaining from participating in debates, in major debates, be it on Bill C-59 or any other legislation. They are fed up not to hear from their members in their ridings.
It is the same thing for the member for Terrebonne. I was going around his riding the other day. How can he get that disconnected from the reality of his riding, not intervening as he does-


Jean-C. Lapierre: He is always away on a trip.


Louis Plamondon: Travelling around the world, forgetting-


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, during his passionate
Government Orders
speech, the member for Richelieu mentioned the name of the hon. member for Terrebonne, and he was asking how-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: This is not a point of order, but I understand what the member for Richelieu is saying, because he generally uses quite colourful expressions, giving many examples here and there. I ask the hon. member to conclude his remarks, because his time is running out. I would ask the hon. member to speed up and resume debate. I think his remarks attract much attention and I would ask him to go on and conclude.


Gilles Rocheleau: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in accordance with Standing Order 29(1) I call for a quorum count. What my colleague has to say is in fact very important.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: We have a quorum. If the hon. member for Richelieu wants to go on, I hope his colleagues who have great respect for him will let him conclude his remarks.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be able to get back the time I lost because of points of order that were out of order. I would like to be able to sum up by showing the link between the whole referendum debate, this specific bill and the attitude of the members. I thank all members who came to the House to hear my speech. I knew they were courteous, but I am surprised to see such a crowd, even here in the House of Commons.
I was just about to raise more specifically the problem of national parks in terms of equity. Equity means equal distribution of them on the land or equal share among the public. Yet, a third of one per cent of the Quebec territory is national parks. Three national parks out of 35 are in Quebec, but the member for Terrebonne remains silent about such a blatant injustice, as well as the member for Laval. I discussed that matter with several members and they seemed absolutely oblivious to the circumstances. I do not know which method of torture is used to silence them like that, to frighten them, in order that they nod without thinking and always say yes. It is worse than a congregation.

May 22, 1992
Government Orders
The member for Laval wants to know how much time left I have. I have five minutes left. I will be glad to speak about you a little longer, if you wish. Do I still have the floor, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: Yes.


Louis Plamondon: Thank you.


Vincent Della Noce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member keeps talking about his colleagues. He talks about anything but the parks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: That is not a point of order. The member for Richelieu.


Louis Plamondon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see that the truth hurts. The behaviour of the hon. member for Laval is a good illustration of that. Of course, some truths are difficult to hear. But it is my duty to repeat them, because I have been travelling for three months throughout Quebec, preparing for the next election where there will be candidates from the Bloc Quebecois. Often, people I-


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Richelieu just mentioned that he has been travelling throughout Quebec for three months. That is why he is never in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: That is not a point of order. I would ask the member for Richelieu to conclude. I think he is capable of ending his speech in a way acceptable to the members of the House and I think he will do just that.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly follow your good advice. But just to make a little digression before closing, I must say that I was travelling at my own expense and not at the government's, as the member did when he went to Japan or Europe.
So, Mr. Speaker, concerning Bill C-59, the distribution-


Jean-Marc Robitaille: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Terrebonne has no lesson to learn from the member for Richelieu.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: That is not a point of order. Would the hon. member for Richelieu please continue.


Louis Plamondon: Thank you again. I find it too bad that members interrupt that way when we have to debate a serious important bill that concerns the future of fairness with respect to national parks. We have work to do. We members from Quebec, members of the Bloc Quebecois, are here to-


An hon. member:: You are in Canada.


Louis Plamondon: The member over there tells me that I am in Canada. As long as we pay taxes, we will tiy to get our share of the loot and the goodies, my friend. Then we will go when an agreement is signed. Who will defend that agreement, who will bring it about and settle it? The Bloc Quebecois members, not the silent ones who are on the government side today.


Gilles Rocheleau: Dummies.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I conclude on this bill by paying tribute once again to the member from British Columbia who worked very hard for five years to make that sleeping government understand the importance of this park. He really defends the interests of his province, British Columbia. He gets his province its due, as the members from Quebec who sit on the government side should do, but are not doing, so the Bloc members remind them. I would like to tell the Haida nation that we fully support this bill, as we agree with their just land claims, although we have some questions about clause 8.4(3), for example, which refers to the Governor in Council. I think it gives too much power to the Governor in Council. After consulting the Cree council, I think that the Cree council should have full authority, now that it will become their territoiy, part of their nation. That is what I mean.
I conclude with the wish that this bill will be passed as soon as possible, since British Columbia is waiting for it. However, Bloc Quebecois members and Conservative members from Quebec are waiting too for a marine park and other parks in Quebec. They want their fair share, not just trips to Europe or Japan from time to time.
May 22, 1992	COMMONS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: We are in the
10-minute period for questions and comments. The hon. member for Laval-Est.


Vincent Della Noce: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot say that I listened to the hon. member's speech with interest, because he was off topic. He was making political propaganda. He talked about the Bloc Quebecois. He talked about recommendations. If they are so popular, why could they not get 10 volunteers to take care of Voyageurs 92? I am also interested in this bill. I made some inquiries about the fairness aspect and I will quote my colleague: it is a matter of fairness, based either on territory or on population. He is right. However, there is something he does not know and which he ought to know. He should find out about this, because the Canadian government would like to have more parks in Quebec. I have a few questions for my hon. colleague, but I will not yield to him right away, because he probably thinks he knows the answer. Why are there not there more national parks in Quebec? Why does the Government of Quebec want to set aside more land for national parks? Why does Quebec penalize its population by not having more national parks? So why are the members of the Bloc Quebecois making such a fuss? Unfortunately, the people listening might even believe those stories.
The hon. member for Saint-Hubert is laughing. I do not think it is funny, because I do not treat my constituents like school children. I do not think it's funny, not at all, because I think Quebec deserves better. If we have only three or four parks, there must be a reason. And since this is the period for questions and comments, I have a question. Why do we not have more parks? And why does Quebec not want to set aside more land so we can have more national parks?


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, it will be easy for me to answer the hon. member. It is strange that government members should ask opposition members questions on how to do things.
But I want to remind the hon. member of one thing, they have been delaying the marine park for two years. It is not because of Quebec, but because of the federal

Government Orders
government. And why is there not a park? He told us it is because Quebec is against it. That is not true. Canada, when it wanted to take a part of our territory was imposing unacceptable conditions. Quebec's territory, is sacred and has been defined since the land agreements. When a park is created on its territory it is quite normal to have administrative agreements.
Canada, under the arrogant Liberals in the past and under the arrogant Tories now, insists on doing paperwork instead of solving problems. This is the real reason.
The hon. member for Laval-Est put his finger on the problem when he asked that question. He asked the question, but of course he did not know the answer. He was given questions to ask. But to get the answers, why did he not go to the committee responsible for parks and ask why the matter of the Saguenay marine park was not settled? It was because civil servants were questionning commas, were engaged in useless constipating negotiations which led nowhere. Why was that? It was because the hon. members only asked questions without demanding anything, as the hon. member from British Columbia did.
What has the hon. member for British Columbia been doing for five years? He has been fighting like mad at the committee on environment. This is why he will get his park. I do not mean his personally, but a park for his province, his constituents. Meanwhile, in Quebec, we get documents in quadruplicate saying that if we had agreed on the length of the fish-tails or on water temperatures in Celsius, if the second town clerk or the deputy minister had been willing, then-and allow me, Mr. Speaker to answer fully to the question-we would have had a park. But no, we get only excuses. In Quebec we get documents in quadruplicate when what we want are real parks of the type they get in British Columbia. Here is something concrete to deal with, why do not you do it? The example of the other hon. member is the best we can give? It has taken him five years, but he has done it.
For that, I congratulate him. I know people in British Columbia will applaud him. They will say he, as a member of Parliament, fulfilled his duty to his riding, his constituents, his province. We should do the same for Quebec, but this is the rub. Instead of that, they have studies, discussions; they try to have federal-provincial agreements with conditions unacceptable to Quebec. Let me remind you of the park in Gaspe, where discussions

May 22, 1992
Government Orders
went on for five years because the conditions of the Liberal government at the time were unacceptable.
Today, the Conservative government uses the same tactics, the same language and the same officials-


Vincent Della Noce: Talk to the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: The member for Laval-Est. Order please. This is the questions and comments period, but the member for Richelieu seems to be repeating a good part of the speech he gave a while ago.
Considering that we wish, on both sides of this House, to respect the periods of time allotted, if he has a question I will give the floor to the member for Terrebonne. The member for Richelieu will certainly be able to give, in his answer, sensible advice or judicious precisions on the content of his speech.
The hon. member for Terrebonne may ask a question.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to be able to make a few comments regarding the remarks made by the flamboyant member for Richelieu.
As we were able to judge, it seems that the Plamondon family is artistically inclined, especially when it comes to show business. However, I would just like to make a few comments.
A moment ago, the member for Richelieu mentioned that the Bloc Quebecois members would go and get the marine park. It should not be forgotten that the man who was in charge of the Saguenay marine park project is the Bloc Quebecois leader who was environment minister at that time. So, if the matter is not settled today, let us not forget that it would have been possible for the then environment minister, the present Bloc Quebecois leader, to settle the matter.
Second of all, the Bloc Quebecois members are wondering if, as Quebec Tory members, we would go and get projects such as the marine park.
Through our presence in this Chamber, and it is easy to know when the member for Richelieu shows up here, just about once a month, we hardly ever see him here-Mr. Speaker, I am nearly finished.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: I think the hon. member for Terrebonne is well aware that we cannot mention which hon. members are present in the House and which are not.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Come on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: Would the hon. member for Shefford please let me finish. I think you have a lot of decorum in that respect.


Gilles Rocheleau: But he is insulting us quite a lot.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: I think the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer is in no position to give anyone a lesson. Therefore, I will say to the hon. member for Terrebonne that we must keep the decorum and proceed. This debate is extremely interesting and, for the benefit of all Canadians, we should put our personal squabbles aside and deal with the legislation that is before this House.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I will respect the decorum, but contrary to my colleague from Richelieu, I will also comply with your requirements. I just wanted to stress the fact that the member for Richelieu is rising to talk about this issue for the first time since he became a member of this House.
My question is very simple. In his speech, the member seemed to imply or would have us believe that, when it comes to the creation of national parks, the federal government negotiates with Quebec according to different rules or using different approaches than those he applies when negotiating with British Columbia or any other province.
Is the member for Richelieu in a position to illustrate quite clearly how the federal government does in fact use a different method with Quebec as compared to all the other provinces?
May 22, 1992


Louis Plamondon: First, I would like to say to my hon. friend that the bill he mentioned, when he said I did not intervene in this matter, was presented this morning. In fact, it was adopted at full speed all stages at once. This then is the first day of debate. So do not tell me I did not intervene.
Second, he spoke to our leader, during the first part of his speech, and said that it was the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean who started this debate, who first dealt with this matter when he was Minister of the Environment. After he left, you fell asleep, and the matter was put on the back burner.
Now, as for federal-provincial agreements, we are not interested in agreements, paragraphs and what have you. We want to talk about results obtained by preceding governments. Since the creation of the National Parks Committee, three parks were established in Quebec of a total of 35, the equivalent of 1 per cent of the province's territory. These are facts showing that members of Parliament and the Minister of Environment are not doing their job. The only time we spoke of creating a park in Quebec was when the member for Lac-Saint-Jean was Minister of the Environment. That is the only time we spoke of creating a park in Quebec. Maybe we will get it one of these days, thanks to the remarkable work done by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean when he was minister, because since then nothing has happened.
Mr. Speaker, how long do I have left? Two minutes, I believe.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: The hon. member for Skeena wishes to put a question to the hon. member for Richelieu. He can do it as long as it is very short because there is really no time left. The member for Richelieu can also give a very brief answer after.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether or not the member for Richelieu is aware that by holding up this legislation this afternoon, in light of the fact that a referendum took place on the Queen Charlotte Islands in the Ha'ida nation two years ago and that the Ha'ida nation is a sovereign nation that he is dealing with, if it is directly bearing on Bill C-59 and if this legislation is held up, not only will the Ha'ida withdraw from this enabling legislation for the agreement to effect Gwaii Haanas, but
Government Orders
what these members have been talking about, particularly the member for Richelieu, this national park reserve, will no longer be a national park reserve. It is a national park reserve that was broadly supported by Canadians living in Quebec. It was broadly supported by Canadians in every province and both territories and this is a sovereign nation. If he reflected for a moment, he would see that the cause he claims to justly represent here in the House today is the one that is doing the most damage to another sovereign nation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: The hon. member for Richelieu must give a very brief answer since the ten minute period has now elapsed.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the hon. member say that I am delaying the debate. I am participating in the debate as requested by my constituents and according to my mandate as a member of Parliament. I participate by bringing in my arguments, just like any other member. I have often been refused the right to speak. Pursuant to the rules, I have the right today to talk on this bill, which I support. In fact, I hope that it will be passed and I would even propose that the House obtain unanimous consent to sit on Monday, in order to carry on that debate and have this bill passed as quickly as possible according to the usual rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Champagne):: The 10-minute period has now elapsed. Debate. The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.


François Gérin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is with some concern that I have been following the debate since this morning. The remarks made by the members from across are often disrespectful toward the members of the Bloc Quebe-cois, and I wish to remind you of a government motion moved on November 21, 1991 asking that this House recognize that it is the national forum for the consideration of issues and challenges facing all Canadians; that this House recognize that its members were elected by the people of Canada to represent them in a manner which demands that individual members respect one another and their democratic right to express differing opinions; that Canadians have expressed alarm at the

May 22, 1992
Government Orders
excessive partisanship and lack of decorum and civility too often in evidence in the House.
That is not all. I ask the hon. member for Laval to listen to me. That this House recognize that disruptive behaviour and verbal interruptions, including abusive language, leads to a depreciated view of and respect for the institution of Parliament and its members.
This motion was moved for a reason. It is because Canadians no longer believe in their institutions. Right now, the Mulroney government stands at about 12 or 13 per cent in the polls. Why? Why is this government's popularity so low? It is because this government and its members act irresponsibly and Canadians as well as Quebecers stopped believing in them more than two years ago.
I left this government about two years ago, almost to the day, and I suggest to the members across to read again-


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe we are debating Bill C-59. There are certain rules of relevance which are noted in Beauchesne and which are noted in the traditions of this House. I would hope that the member would at least make some attempt to at some point say something relevant in relation to the agreements we are talking about with the Cree of Wood Buffalo National Park and the Ha'ida people of Gwaii Haanas.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Standstead also got a very clear message. I would ask him, if he could, to make his remarks relevant to the second reading of the bill.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, I did listen to the hon. member for Skeena, but what I do not understand is why my comments are not relevant to the issue under study. That is what I do not understand, but anyway, I want to continue with my speech.
These interruptions are made with one purpose in mind. They are used to destabilize the speaker. They are used, at a specific time, to interrupt the thread of the speech so that, in the end, Canadians who are watching may believe the speaker was not very coherent. It is an old trick, a very old trick.
That is why the minister moved his motion in the House on November 21, 1991, asking members to put an end to such verbal interruptions which prevent a member to make a speech when all his or her attention is focused on it.
There is one thing I can tell you, Madam Speaker. I want people to recognize that I can have my own different view on this bill for various reasons. Let me give you one. Today, we heard a lot of talk mainly during speeches but also through points of order about the absolute necessity to pass this bill on second reading, in committee of the whole and on third reading today. I do not agree.
I may be ready to extend the sitting today in order to facilitate second reading. I would even be ready to come back on Monday to finish this item. I would be agreeable to that.
I have questions I want to ask about this bill and questions about links between this and other issues I am concerned about, but I do not think I can get answers today. I realize that the hon. member for Skeena is interested in having this bill passed unamended, but members of the Bloc Quebecois were not consulted about this procedure today.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois want to participate actively in discussions on the business of this House in order to be more efficient and more useful-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena on a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was not consulted on the procedures affecting this piece of legislation either, but I believe there are certain rules of relevance. I know now that there are several thousand people in British Columbia watching this debate. It has been put on the CEN national network to make sure that
May 22, 1992

people tune in just to see how totally irrelevant and incompetent members of the Bloc Quebecois really are.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, now I understand why the hon. member for Skeena is making those frivolities.

The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead has the right to speak in this House. It is amazing, but each time someone else intervenes, the same rules no longer apply. Therefore, what I would like is that we let the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead make his speech, like we did for the hon. member for Skeena, who was allowed to conclude even though he attributed motives to several of us. We would ask that he shows toward the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead the same respect as we did in his case.
On top of that, I would like to present a motion. I move that the House sits next Monday. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House, Madam Speaker. If the hon. member for Skeena is serious, instead of being on holidays, he will be here with us next Monday to follow up on the debate. I therefore ask for the unanimous consent of the House and propose that the House sits on next Monday, despite its regular agenda. We are ready to give up our parliamentary recess to follow up on the debate. I therefore ask for the unanimous consent.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Shefford, who has made it his duty these last few years to learn the procedure in its most subtle details, knows full well this is not the type of motion he can propose on a point of order, unless of course there is unanimous consent of the House. However, I have already heard some nays.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The member for Shefford told me in the lobby with others present that he and the Bloc intended to hold up the passage of this piece of legislation to try to use political blackmail to get a seat on the referendum committee.
That is not how this House is supposed to operate. He is attempting to use my constituents as some kind of
Government Orders
political fodder for some other kind of juvenile game he and the others are involved in.
At some point, I just call upon the members of the Bloc, such as the member for Shefford, to show some sense of decency, justice and honesty toward other Canadians. This Chamber is to serve the Ha'rda people. It is to serve the people of Quebec. It is not just to serve the petty self-interests of people like-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, I think we are now getting into a debate. It is not really a point of order and it is not productive either.
I can quite understand the deception which the hon. member for Skeena feels at this time. However, as long as we are proceeding with debate and we are not into totally dilatory motions, the Chair cannot and will not stop the debate. I would like us to keep on and try to debate the bill which is in front of the House.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the hon. member for Skeena is making very serious allegations.
In fact, we do want to take part fully in this debate. It is obvious that the government House leader pretended to have unanimous consent in order to proceed at all three stages without consulting us.
What I said to the hon. member for Skeena is that if we do not exist for the referendum legislation, if we do not exist for consultations, we will show that we indeed exist for debate purposes. Consequently, we are happy to take part in this debate.
So I would like to ask the member for Skeena why he wants to apply closure, since he says that this bill is so important to him? No one has had the decency to consult us, not him, not the government, not the Minister of the Environment, nobody. They did not do their job.


Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, I would like to add something to what my colleague from Shefford just said. The member for Skeena made allegations to the effect that we were trying to blackmail the government in an attempt to have a seat on the legislative committee on the referendum bill and that we would be trying again. He even mentioned the name of a member from the Bloc and the Bloc as a party. I am concerned and I want the member for Skeena to take back what he said.

May 22, 1992
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Two opinions have been voiced in the House, one by the hon. member for Skeena and another one by the hon. members for Shefford and Saint-Hubert.
The Chair is not in a position not to believe either one, so it is a matter of debate. It is not a point of order. I think we should go on with the debate. The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead had the floor.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, I assume the time used for those points of order will not be counted in my 20 minutes. Would it be possible for you to tell me how much time I have left?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is right, that time will not be counted in his 20 minutes. So the hon. member has 12 minutes left.


François Gérin: We cannot take a problem out of its context. I will ask the hon. member for Skeena to listen very carefully to what I have to say. I think that he is an intelligent man so he will understand that we cannot simply isolate a problem and do as if the rest of the world did not exist. I will give him two examples. He is upset today because we are using up the time. Would he be upset if they had done to him and his party what they have done to us on the referendum legislation, by imposing closure and making sure that the only opposition to this legislation had no member in the legislative committee, by denying most of the Bloc Quebecois members the opportunity to speak on this legislation and gagging them? Imagine his anger. It would be obvious.
My second point is this, Madam Speaker. There are a couple of small lakes too in your riding. There are many in mine. There is the Memphremagog Lake, the Massa-wippi Lake, the Megantic Lake, of course, just to name the major ones, but there are about fifteen lakes in my riding. There are many federal wharves on these lakes, under the management of the small craft harbour branch. Almost every community has some, maybe not in Laval or downtown Montreal, but there are wharfs in a rural riding like mine.
Well, this was at the time when the federal government was overly generous and was building wharfs here and there, and everybody was happy with that-


An hon. member:: The time of the nerds.


François Gérin: Yes, the time of the nerds. It was incredible. The wharfs were under federal management, and they had lots of public servants to manage them. It was not making any sense whatsoever. Those wharfs require much maintenance and much repair. Often after 20 or 30 years, they have to be totally rebuilt. Now, with increasing public deficits, there is no money left for that.


Vincent Della Noce: You have to tell people why.


François Gérin: Just wait and see what I am getting at. The member for Laval-Est should pay attention. At some point, there was a policy to hand those wharfs over to municipalities. Then, the government was committing itself to do that. Here is what I am getting at: this whole policy has been put aside lately, last fall, at the hon. member for Yellowhead's request. It has been put aside until the constitutional issue is settled.


An hon. member:: Come on. This is almost blackmail.


Louis Plamondon: This has been confirmed to me by letter. You see what I am getting at?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I draw your attention to the fact that the remarks of the hon. member are not germane to the legislation. I think you understand that he indeed has a responsibility to speak to the bill.
If the hon. member and his colleagues are as concerned about the legislation as they claim to be, then surely they would wish to discuss the legislation as proposed. By the way, it was not introduced into this House today. In fact, I believe it was introduced and given first reading on February 20.


François Gérin: But, Madam Speaker, if, in the case of federal wharfs, we ask that all municipalities postpone any purchase or takeover, to their great displeasure, why could we not do the same for the establishment of a national park? Why do we treat Quebec differently from any other province?
May 22, 1992

Government Orders
I just mean to say that the member for Skeena is asking us today to consider one park separately and to ask ourselves if we are in favour of it. From that perspective, of course we are.
The member for Richelieu and the member for Shef-ford stated that this issue was too broad. Yes, we are in favour of that park, but we are also in favour of the marine park. So, why restrict the issue? Yes, we agree that municipal governments should take over federal wharfs and get a compensation from the federal government. But we are against the federal government delaying all of that until a constitutional agreement is reached. It is unacceptable.
If it is unacceptable for Quebec, it is also unacceptable for British Columbia. But the fact that it is done only in one province and not in others is particularly unacceptable. That is what this bill does and that is why I ask not to restrict the issue. It must absolutely be looked at in its entirety.
Earlier, the member for Shefford talked at length, among other things, about what would happen if one province or another became sovereign. Who would take charge of the costs? Who would pay for the debts and all those things? That is certainly an important issue.
Yesterday the government passed legislation on the referendum issue. That legislation affects such an important and fundamental issue which is the Constitution of our country. In all the speeches, I heard members talk about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That legislation that was passed has no relation whatsoever with, for example, this bill under study or any other bill that it will table. Listen, the Constitution of the country and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are fundamental issues. They underlie everything else. You cannot just take something like that and throw it at us. Today, because of this piece-work administration of many years by this government, we have a huge deficit, we have unemployment, we have a recession and all of that. The government's administration must absolutely be looked at as a whole.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we have a bill before this House and I think that the member should be speaking to the bill.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, I have sometimes the feeling I am speaking into deaf ears in this House, but Canadians and the Quebecers who are listening to us understand what I mean.
When it is explained to a Quebecer that we have three national parks in Quebec out of 35 there are not many who do not understand that. When they are told that there is one-third of one per cent of the area of Canadian national parks which is on Quebec's territory, there are not many Quebecers who do not understand that.
There is none so deaf as he who will not hear. That is for sure. As far as I am concerned, it is not with repeated interruptions that you are going to upset me or have me change my tune. It is not for that reason either that we are going to proceed at top speed or otherwise. I think there is a message to deliver, and the main point I wanted to make concerns the constitutional problem. In Quebec, they are delaying the settlement of many issues. In my riding alone, there are at least 10 issues which are important for the municipalities, dealing with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans about the matter of small boats. They are postponed with the excuse or the official reason that this situation will last as long as the constitutional matter is not settled.
Government acts like that for the wharfs. A wharf is a tiny bit of territory, sometimes 30 feet by 30 feet. We are not talking about a national park which extends over thousands and thousands of square. So, for a tiny area of 30 feet by 30 feet which is important for a municipality such as Lac Megantic, ir says the matter is completely settled, but it will be finalized when the constitutional problem is solved.
When we get to the park which is at issue in this bill, then it is okay to set aside hundreds of thousands of square. Because it is not in Quebec. But when we deal with, for example, the marine park, then we hit a brick wall because it is in Quebec. You think that I am against the creation of a reserve or a park in British Columbia? On the contrary, it pleases me. I am very happy for them.

May 22, 1992
Government Orders
I am very happy for the member who worked toward it. I am happy for the people of British Columbia. I would think that the provincial government was advised. But as a member for Quebec, I demand to be treated the same way, I resent being cajoled into giving my agreement, very rapidly, suddenly and at once, on a Friday afternoon when everybody knows that generally there is hardly anyone in this Chamber. On top of that, the day before, I was gagged on a most important question, which is perhaps at the root of the reason I am here in Ottawa with the Bloc Quebecois, I mean the Quebec sovereignty issue. I am gagged on an extremely important issue and then they try to cajole me from the other end of the country. Well, good for them. All I am asking for is fairness, as my colleague for Richelieu said, fairness. That is what it is all about, fairness. No need to make phone calls to Sept-Iles for that. No need at all. That is it, Madam Speaker.
I will now conclude since I know that I have very little time left. I will conclude somewhat like the member for Shefford a moment ago. Let us take the time to review this bill. Let us not rush it through. Let us look closely at the powers that will be conferred upon the Governor in Council, the powers that we will be giving the Governor in Council. Let us try to look at what will happen to this reserve in, say, 10 or 15 years. Let us try not to create another white elephant. Let us try to plan so as to avoid any horrendous problems in the future. We must never engage in piecemeal management. Let us try to look at the question as a whole.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Comments or questions? The hon. parliamentary secretary. The hon. member for Richelieu wants to raise a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: I am positive, Madam Speaker, that three members from this side rose from their seats before the parliamentary secretary.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has been in this House since 1984. He knows that the normal procedure, after a speech, is to allow a question from someone from another political party. The member for Skeena and the parliamentary secretary rose at the same moment. As it is my prerogative to decide, I choose to recognize someone from another party at this time. I
think it is fair and just according to the rules and customs of our House. The hon. parliamentary secretary, please.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, the hon. member and some of his colleagues have referred to the very appropriate role played by their now leader when he was Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Does the hon. member really believe that the position taken by himself and his colleagues today is consistent with that of their leader?
On May 4, 1990 the then Minister of the Environment wrote to Miles Richardson and said: "Together we have crafted a truly innovative and creative approach. I have made this one of my highest priorities and I have ensured that every effort was made to find accommodations, despite the complexities and the risks so that we could proceed quickly with the management of this spectacular natural area".
Later on he said: "During our meetings I felt that we shared the same strong desire to have the agreement ratified by the special Ha'ida assembly now scheduled for May 5 so we could move ahead in the spirit of co-operation that characterizes the agreement".
I would ask the hon. member whether the obstructive tactics they are displaying this afternoon in trying to prevent the passage of a very important bill is in any way consistent with the very appropriate flexibility and innovative spirit which their hon. leader was displaying in this particular communication of May 4, 1990.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
I do not know if you explained to him why the government tabled this bill for first reading on February 20, 1992? As far as I know, this is the end of May. What did the government do during these three months to prevent the passing of this bill? Why does it now want to rush it through in one day? What is the point of all this?
May 22, 1992

This colleague and I once sat on the same side of this House, and I respect him very much, but I just want to draw his attention to one thing. He is furious today because of what he thinks is a filibuster. Imagine how furious we are now that the government gagged us and denied us the right to sit on the legislative committee on the referendum bill. Could he help us? Yesterday, he voted to exclude us; he voted for the gag. We were alone; 177 against 9.
Why did he have that attitude yesterday and a different one today? Because the roles have changed? This is something I do not understand in the member's attitude.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to the member. He does not seem to have been listening with care to what I think has been a fairly carefully articulated history of the situation in relation to Gwaii Haanas. I would like to sum it up for him again and hear his views on it. I think Canadians who watch this debate or read this debate need to know what is really going on here.
As the parliamentary secretary has quite properly mentioned, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean was the former Minister of the Environment. I had many meetings with him. Miles Richardson had many meetings with him. There was an intense period of negotiations. An agreement was ultimately put by referendum to the Ha'ida people of Ha'ida Gwaii in relation to the Gwaii Haanas archipelago question.
The referendum took place two years and seventeen days ago. The period for implementation of the referendum ran out on May 5 of this year. The legislation presently before us was brought before this House on February 20 of this year. It was only yesterday that the government House leader found an opportunity as I understand it, and that is up to him, to explain why that was possible. But I cancelled my travel arrangements to go to my constituency to make sure that this important piece of legislation was put in place.
It is enabling legislation. What it does is it enables Crown Canada to enter into an agreement with the sovereign Ha'ida nation for the joint administration of
Government Orders
what is presently known as the South Moresby National Park Reserve.
The point I want to ask the member about is what one of his members said. I have raised this before and it has not been denied. There were others present when the member for Shefford said that he was planning along with the Bloc to hold this legislation up, not to allow it to pass today, knowing that there would not likely be an opportunity this month because the House is not sitting next week. This will violate the terms of agreement of the Ha'ida referendum.
There is a question the member must address as a member of Parliament, not as a member from Quebec. As a member of this House he serves all Canadians. He serves the members of the Ha'ida nation. Does he think this is appropriate in the last 40 minutes available for this bill probably before next September? It will mean the end of the national park reserve and the end of the agreement because the referendum has taken place and it is binding. Is this fair to the Ha'ida people who are watching this debate, for reasons that simply are not now deliverable? The government House leader is not in the House. He is not going to approve in the next 40 minutes a seat on the referendum committee; he is not going to do it. The only people being punished are the Ha'ida people. Does he understand that? Yes or no?


François Gérin: It is really a shame that some get into petty politics like the member for Skeena just did.
It seems to me that the level of debate in this House could be raised a little. He is the one who gagged us yesterday. I mean the member for Skeena. I know he was here and voted to gag us, to gag the province of Quebec, to gag the Quebec interests. Today, he is insulted because it concerns British Columbia. Well, so be it. We are insulted as well when something concerns us Quebecers.
Tell me why they could use the constitutional problem as an excuse for not dealing with 10 harbours for small boats in my constituency but not when it comes to British Columbia? Tell me why. Give me a good reason for that.


Gilles Rocheleau: Is this on debate, Madam Speaker?

May 22, 1992
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: No, there are still three minutes left. I am very careful with the timing. The hon. member for Longueuil. Questions and comments.


Nic Leblanc: I listened to my colleague when he talked about small harbours. He was telling us how tough it was to have small harbours transferred from the federal to the municipal level, because the federal government thought the constitutional debate was not over yet.
Personally, what also concerns me is that we agree to create such an important park in British Columbia without knowing the outcome of the constitutional talks.
This is because Mr. Ovide Mercredi, chief of the Canadian nations, is negotiating full time for native self-determination in Canada and agreements concerning this park will have to be reached between the federal government, the park authorities and the natives. I am wondering why we are in such a hurry to pass this bill this afternoon and to establish this park.
There is something else we have to worry about. We will have to examine the assets and liabilities if Quebec ever becomes sovereign. In this period of frenzied constitutional talks, we will have to assess the assets and liabilities of Quebec, as well as everything that province invested in Canada over the last 125 years. Quebecers will have to get their hands on those assets in order to pay for whatever liabilities they will owe.
I do not think we should be in a hurry to pass this bill today. We should Wait, and that is the question I want to put to my colleague. We should wait until after October, that is not so far away, before settling the issue. Then, we will not have to think about dividing the assets and liabilities and understanding at the same time the real position of the natives, and especially of Ovide Mercredi, chief of the First Nations.
There is something wrong here. I felt it as soon as I learned that this bill was being debated today. There is something that does not quite fit, something I cannot quite figure out. Why are we in such a hurry?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member, since the question and comment period is over.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer.


Gilles Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, before I start, could we please follow Standing Order 29(3)? I would like hon. members to hear some of the remarks I have to make about this bill.
And the count having been taken:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. We have a quorum. Would the honorable member for Hull-Aylmer withdraw what he just said about one of his colleagues. I heard it very clearly and it is unacceptable in this Chamber. No one can be accused of lying.


Gilles Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Laval said I did not show up in the House for the whole week. That is a lie because I was here Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and I am here today.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Withdraw.


Gilles Rocheleau: Let him withdraw his words, and I will withdraw mine.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I believe there is another way to correct an hon. member when such a mistake is made. The hon. member knows full well that the word he used is unparliamentary. Even if someone makes a mistake, one can always point out to that person that a mistake has been made, without making accusations and using unparliamentary words in the House.
I would ask the hon. member I had recognized for debate, and whom I will recognize for debate after, to start by doing the honourable thing, that is to withdraw the unparliamentary words he pronounced, after which he will be able to continue.


Gilles Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, I wish to withdraw the words I said with respect to the hon. member for Laval, but I would like to say that he was not very kind to me, because I was here Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I had an engagement yesterday, and I am back today to speak precisely on this bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for doing the honourable thing and rectifying what could have left a false impression on the House.
May 22, 1992

I will now recognize him for debate.


Louis Plamondon: We have gentlemen in our party.


Gilles Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, thank you for recognizing me on Bill C-59.1 am not against this bill, but I have some concerns about it. We have been talking about it for a while and, indeed, it was given first reading some two months ago-


An hon. member:: More like three months.


Gilles Rocheleau: -maybe more, three months. It was in February, but I do not remember the exact date. Then the government chose today, Friday, May 22, to shove this bill down our throats and have it read a second time, without amendments, passed at third reading and done with.
We could ask ourselves a few questions about our national parks, and indeed some were asked during this debate. It has been said that there are 35 national parks in Canada, including three in Quebec. The hon. member for Laval said that the reason we did not have any more in Quebec was because the province was unwilling to give some land to the federal government in order to set up national parks.
I would like to remind members that in the Ottawa area the Gatineau Park belongs to the federal government and is managed by the National Capital Commission. This is our backyard. We have special concerns and this brings me to ask a few questions on some parts of Bill C-59.
Section 8.5(4) says that the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the carrying on of traditional renewable resource harvesting and aboriginal cultural activities on the reserve. The budget for the Gatineau Park, a park which has been in existence for years, has been cut over the years because of government spending restrictions. This brings me to ask a few questions.
When the government tables a concrete bill on national parks, I want to ask some questions and get some answers. Will the government recognize its responsibilities afterward? Will it accept those responsibilities? Will it provide the necessary funds that are requested?
I make a comparison between Bill C-59 and the Gatineau Park where, just a few years ago, an agreement was reached between the municipality of Lapeche,
Government Orders
formerly Masham, and the National Capital Commission for the Gatineau Park regarding the access to Lac Philippe.
Agreements were reached through regulations to allow users to use the access road to Lac Philippe, that is the residents of the municipality of Masham. This year they want to charge a $5 fee everytime people use the road that goes to Lac Philippe.
Yet the regulations did not provide for a fee to property residents in the Lac Philippe area, who have always employed free access to the interior of Gatineau Park.
Bill C-59 provides no guarantee, and I have not heard anything today in the House confirming that the government will fulfil its commitments, accept its responsibilities and recognize the regulations that it proposes to make.
I use that as an example because we have a park in our area. Last year, the National Capital Commission wanted to close for the winter an important access road between Gamelin Boulevard and Tache Boulevard, on its property in the park. The NCC simply wanted to close access to citizens who use that road every day. I had to personally ask the Minister of Public Works, who is the minister responsible for the National Capital Commission, to allow citizens to have access to that very important road.
I am not opposed to this bill. On the contrary, it could suit the First Nations and it is obvious that the First Nations have been experiencing particular equity problems in Canada for many years. If they have been experiencing those problems it is because of the governments that were in power. It is not my fault.
I might add that they will experience more problems, because the government wants to force the passing of a bill like this on a Friday afternoon, go through second and third reading, and not allow any amendment. We cannot protect the parks that we are concerned about in Quebec. One wonders if this is not simply part of a constitutional package to please the aboriginal people so that they will be understanding and accept gracefully the constitutional offers and therefore allow for some solution.

May 22, 1992
Government Orders
If it was simply that, there would be no problem. We would have solved that minor issue a long time ago.
We referred to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean when he was Minister of the Environment and dealt, among other things, with the Saguenay marine park.
In fact, it has been over two years now that the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean quit his job as a minister, and we are still waiting for the confirmation of those agreements concerning the marine park in Quebec. We, from the Bloc Quebecois, are not the ones who opposed that project, who put a spoke in the wheels. Not at all. Is it because this park would be in Quebec? Is it because it would be in a riding represented by a Pequiste member in the National Assembly that this government refuses to give its consent to these agreements, to initial them, Madam Speaker? These are all questions that we can ask ourselves, without being accused of wanting to block this bill. This week, we had Bill C-81 before us. Yet, although it was an important bill, because its purpose was to provide a Canada-wide referendum, our government applied closure. Today, we have Bill C-59 before the House-
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Terrebonne just insulted me in this House. If you did not hear him, I will repeat what he said for you. He said that I spoke badly. This is not acceptable in this House. Therefore, I would like him to come back from behind the curtains, where he usely hides, to apologize.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I cannot interrupt or shout at a member that I do not hear. I think the hon. member can understand I did not hear a word. And I cannot act now since-


Nic Leblanc: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Longueuil could wait for me to sit down before raising a point of order.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Terrebonne.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Madam Speaker, as you can see, the member for Hull-Aylmer is hearing voices.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will need 10 seconds to figure out what the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer just said.
Unfortunately, as I just told the hon. member, I did not personally hear any remark which would have been unparliamentary. Anyway, even if the words used in a comment or remark are not in Beauchesne, when an expression causes any trouble in the House, the member concerned is asked to apologize.
As for now, I did not hear any unparliamentary remarks. However, I can promise the member I will check the transcript of the debates. If in fact there are reasons to ask some members to take back their words, I commit myself to do so as soon as possible. I hope this will suit the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, whom I recognize again.


Gilles Rocheleau: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I forgive the hon. member for Terrebonne for what he said about me. It is unfortunate. He simply wanted to stop me while I was raising points in this House, some points that I consider veiy important. I do not think that I hurt anybody's feelings when I tried to explain the problem that that bill raises in regard to other national parks. Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois supports the bill. But we cannot accept to have a fast one pulled on us and be silenced.
We have so few opportunities to speak in this House that when we do have a chance, we ask questions. I would like to take, for instance, section 8.5(2) and 8.5(1).
We read:
The description of Wood Buffalo National Park set out in Part I
of Schedule I to the said Act is amended by adding thereto the
following:
Saving and accepting thereout and therefrom all those lands lying within Peace Point Indian Reserve No. 222 as shown on plan 71277 recorded in the Canada Lands Surveys Records at Ottawa, a copy of which is filed in the Land Titles Office at Edmonton.
It says together with all mines and minerals, the remainder containing about so many square kilometres. The question arises, whether prospecting rights are included in the rest of the territory. Such questions come to mind because in Gatineau Park, which is the responsi-
May 22, 1992

bility of the National Capital Commission, mineral exploration is prohibited.
Everything is prohibited. In the seventies we had snowmobile trails in the park which were a boon to the industry in Quebec, including companies like Bombardier. This particular use was prohibited. Two years ago people who wanted to use the park at no extra cost could no longer do so. I am referring to cross-country skiers, for instance, who now have to pay if they want to use the park in the winter. That is on the Quebec side.
On the Ontario side, people can skate on the Rideau Canal and it does not cost a cent, but it does on the Quebec side, where it is a federal park. Does this mean that after the regulations to Bill C-59 have been drawn up with the municipalities, they will simply block all these measures? Will they say that the government is no longer participating so you have to pay the whole shot?
Will the Ha'ida have to absorb the costs in the long run? Who is going to pay for maintenance, improvements and operating costs? It says here in the recommendation that His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled "an Act to amend the National Parks Act".
There is an undertaking here to appropriate public moneys. If the government cuts, as has been the case in so many programs, in previous budgets and in this year's budget, for instance, $1 million in subsidies to the Outaouais Transport Commission were cut for transfers across the river between CTCRO and OC Transpo. Last week, the Minister of the Environment said that the transition period was over and the annual $1 million subsidy would no longer be paid. I am sorry but this was not a transitional measure. It was compensation, because in 1970, the city of Hull allowed the federal government to build federal buildings with fewer parking spaces in return for $1 million in compensation annually, to be applied to public transit.


François Gérin: I did not know that.


Gilles Rocheleau: This year, the Minister of the Environment said: the transition period is over. It was not a transition .In Bill C-59, we see the kind of regulations
Government Orders
the government might impose. Will he do what he did in Gatineau Park to the people in Lapeche? Will he do what he did to the cross-country skiers who use Gatineau Park in the winter, charging them $5 a day to use the ski trails?


An hon. member:: That is a good point.
Will it simply remove these subsidies when the government no longer feels like paying because it is wasting too much money on other things? These are all questions that arise when we consider Bill C-59, and I am raising them now-


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I have listened with care to the member and those members of the Bloc who spoke before him. In particular, this member has never said the word "Ha'ida", has never said "Ha'ida Gwaii", and has never mentioned "Gwaii Haanas". He has never mentioned anything to do with the legislation we are dealing with, and he is simply holding up a very important piece of legislation for some kind of personal political gain.
I think the rules of relevance should be used at this point.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, without denying the importance of the points some members want to raise this afternoon, I think that it would still be possible, if the House agreed, to pass this bill through all stages if we proceeded immediately. That means there are still about 10 minutes to do it, if the House agrees.
In his point of order, the hon. member for Skeena just raised the whole issue of relevance and the time would be right to raise it. Of course all hon. members have the right to express themselves, but, Madam Speaker, we must recognize that a native community is affected by this and I know something about it-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was really turning it into a debate and not a question of procedure.

May 22, 1992
Government Orders

I also listened very carefully to the hon. member for Skeena, and I must tell him that I do have a very difficult problem at this time with the rule of relevancy.
As I usually do with all members in the House, whatever bill is in front of the House, I always try to give the member the benefit of the doubt and hope that somehow there will be, as shortly as possible, a link to the bill in front of the House.
The hon. member will know that occasionally members do stray from the subject of the bill to the point of irrelevancy. I do agree that today it is particularly difficult to follow at times.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the member for Skeena are trying to portray the members of the Bloc Quebecois as trying to do something negative toward the Haida people.
The House must realize that every one of these speeches has been in favour of the legislation, so there is nothing in the debate that is against anybody.
We share with the Haida people the feeling of the tyranny of the majority. I know we could share together a lot frustrations, but we are not going to be-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is also getting into debate and this is not a point of order.
There are a little over two minutes remaining for the hon. member-

-for Hull-Aylmer.


Gilles Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, regrettably I must say that the member for Skeena is barely back in the House and he accuses me of not talking about Bill C-59. Throughout my speech, I compared the difficulties of the people out west with the situation in Gatineau Park, which the government had promised to subsidize and today is charging user fees. What I find regrettable in this House today, and I think you will agree with me, is the pushing through of a bill like this one. It is not because the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats are in agreement that they do not want to debate this legislation, but that the bill will ipso facto be rushed through like this in the House. Madam Speaker, you will have to accept the fact that, in this House, the Bloc Quebecois represents the higher interests of Quebec and I personally represent the interests of my constituency and constituents.
Quebec has not been a member of the Canadian federation since 1982. You are just as illegitimate as me.
In conclusion, I repeat again that we support this bill but that we fear this government. We fear that this government will not assume the responsibilities that are established in the bill and that once the legislation is passed, the regulations could be changed, which could result in major costs for the aboriginals and in particular the Ha'idas.
It is in that context that I made my speech. If they pulled a fast one on us-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, the time of the hon. member is now up.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, because this is a very important issue, I would like to take just a moment to speak through you to the Haida and to the Cree of Fort Chipewyan who are watching this debate. I would like to say to them that although I regret we have not been able to complete our task here this afternoon, which was indeed to pass the legislation in all stages, that all members of the House are supportive of the bill. I know when I say that I speak on behalf of the government and on behalf of-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately I must interrupt the hon. member. We will proceed with questions or comments.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, my comment arises out of the remarks just made by the parliamentary secretary and indeed by the remarks made earlier by the member for Shefford.
The procedures in this House must appear somewhat opaque if not strange to those who are watching. They certainly are to me. Not only are we dealing here with rules that are steeped in history, but there are many agendas that are being played out in this House at this time.
There is one thing that ought to be very clear, and I say this to the Fort Chipewyan Cree and to the people of the Haida nation, and that is that all members in this House, without exception, support this bill. The parliamentary secretary has said it, the members of the Liberal opposition have done it, the member for Skeena has been very articulate and indeed the member for Shefford has expressed it on behalf of the Bloc.
May 22, 1992


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: We all support this bill and let the Chipewyan Cree and the people of the Ha'ida nation understand that very clearly. We are with them. We are one.


Gilles Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, we confirm on this side, that is the same side as the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard-


An hon. member:: The Bloc Quebecois.


Gilles Rocheleau: The Bloc Quebecois confirms that it supports Bill C-59. But the government must not do to that nation what it does to the Quebec nation, that is to ridicule it in this House and wait at the last minute, on a Friday afternoon, to force the passing of a bill about which we have questions to ask. It is not we who call the shots here; it is the government which tabled its bill on a Friday afternoon.


An hon. member:: Three months later!


Gilles Rocheleau: Yes, three months later.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth) that Bill C-289, an act to provide that Remembrance Day be included as a holiday in Public Service collective agreements, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
Private Members' Business
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today on Bill C-289, an act to provide that Remembrance Day be included as a holiday in the Public Service collective agreements.
Before commenting on this bill I would like to take this opportunity to commend my hon. colleague, the member for Dartmouth, for bringing forth this legislation.
Given the long-standing relationship between the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadians in his riding I am sure that many of his constituents are very interested in the objective of Bill C-289.
Remembrance Day in Canada is observed every November 11. This date marks the anniversary of the end of the First World War. On each November 11 Canadians pause to remember those who fought and gave their lives for their country in time of war.
We specifically remember those who fought for Canada in both world wars and in the Korean war. For veterans Remembrance Day is a very special and important day that is full of symbolism and emotion. Veterans and families across Canada remember comrades and relatives who did not return from battles fought in the defence of what we in Canada are so blessed to enjoy today.
Given the significance of Remembrance Day, a number of Canadians across the country find it disturbing that as time passes there is a tendency for some in our society to place less emphasis upon remembering Canada's war dead.
There is no doubt that the pressures and concerns in our daily lives can at times be overwhelming. However, we must never get caught up in our day to day lives to the extent of taking for granted the many things we have here in Canada and the way in which they were preserved for us by others in times of great peril.
The things we continue to enjoy today as citizens of Canada did not come about without a price. The price previous generations paid for our freedom and our way of life today was not cheap. Many of us in this House remember the Second World War and the difficult period that Canada and her allies went through until they achieved victory. We should never forget those who

May 22, 1992
Private Members' Business
fought for Canada and never returned to enjoy the fruits of their victory.
Recently, many Canadians had the tragic opportunity to witness the destruction and horror of war as a result of the Persian Gulf conflict. While this war was short in duration compared to World War II live media coverage gave Canadians, and especially our youth, a vivid picture of war and the death it brings.
The concept of having a Remembrance Day holiday for every Canadian to remember the contributions and sacrifices their fellow Canadians made for our country should not be diminished in any way. However, as we have discovered, Remembrance Day is currently not considered a compulsory holiday for all employees of the federal government under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Bill C-289 seeks to correct this present situation. It will, if passed, ensure that Remembrance Day will become permanently entrenched as a statutory holiday for all non-essential federal public servants who have contracts negotiated under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
However, there is some concern that Bill C-289 will not receive appropriate support from the government side. It is indeed hard to believe that there would be any question as to whether this bill would obtain the necessary support needed for it to be passed. Yet, unfortunately there is some doubt.
Recently I received a letter from Mr. John Lariviere, president of Royal Canadian Legion branch no. 357 in Finch, Ontario, which is located in my riding of Stormont-Dundas. In his letter, Mr. Lariviere writes that he has regretfully received word from Dominion Command that Bill C-289 is experiencing some difficulty in the House of Commons. He goes on to state that:
Surely Canadian pride should warrant that one day to remember
those who made the supreme sacrifice, is the least our country can
do to honour their memory.
Mr. Lariviere also noted something which I am sure many Canadians will take very seriously.
In his opinion it appears strange that while our neighbours to the south accept the principle of remembrance as a basic fact of life Canada seems to be drifting in the opposite direction.
He concluded by stating that, and I quote:
Our Prime Minister should recall his recent statements at Vimy
Ridge and Dieppe and realize that now is the time to put those
words into action.
I hope that members of the government will do just that and give their full support to Bill C-289.
I would like at this time to refer to another letter which was written by Mr. Jolleys, dominion president of the Royal Canadian Legion, to the Prime Minister on April 2, 1992. In this letter, Mr. Jolleys writes that the Government of Canada is attempting to block the process of Bill C-289, based on recommendations made to it by Treasury Board.
Apparently the Treasury Board has reservations regarding the impact this bill would have on future collective bargaining with Public Service unions. According to Mr. Jolleys, the Treasury Board seems to view the entrenchment of Remembrance Day in Public Service collective agreements as being tantamount to discarding a bargaining chip or a potentially negotiable benefit.
If the Treasury Board does indeed have such a view it would be one that is totally unacceptable to Canadians. As far as my colleagues in the Liberal Party and I are concerned the question of the observance or the non-observance of Remembrance Day should never be viewed as a question to be negotiated between labour and management in the federal Public Service. To do so would be an insult to Canada's war dead, their families and their memories. I am sure Canadians would not wish to see such a belittling of the day we set aside each year to honour those who served their country proudly and have fallen in battle.
Remembrance Day is currently a holiday for most federal public servants. However, it is not one for all public servants because it is not considered in some cases to be an automatic holiday. There are cases in which a holiday for Remembrance Day is currently a matter for negotiation. Bill C-289 seeks to correct this by ensuring that Remembrance Day will indeed be observed as a holiday by all employees of the federal government unless their work is deemed to be, as the bill states in clause 2:
May 22, 1992

essential for the public safety or public interest.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Canadian people would support the preservation of the honour and remembrance we bestow upon our country's war dead each November 11. However, I believe the federal government should, above all, be no less respectful.
By helping to pass Bill C-289 the government will prove beyond any doubt its commitment to the memory of Canadians who fought and gave their lives for their country.
In conclusion, I urge all members of this House to support Bill C-289. By passing this bill we will not only remove a very solemn day from the Public Service contract negotiating process, but more important we will be giving a clear signal that the federal government and this House of Commons will never forget the debt Canada owes to those who gave their lives for what we hold so dear.


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, I would also like to speak to Bill C-289 and take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the member for Dartmouth, for having tabled it. I believe nobody in this House is opposed to the principle of the bill.
All members will agree that Remembrance Day is a very important holiday, quite deserving of our attention and consideration. However, we must admit that we can do nothing more to increase the people's understanding and consciousness of the the event we commemorate on that day. Unfortunately, the content of Bill C-289 offers nothing new. It only proposes to guarantee civil servants a holiday on that day, but they already have that through-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like you to give me some information. I am told that the rules of the House provide that members will speak abundantly from the heart instead of inanely repeating a speech written by others. Does this rule still exist in our books?
Private Members' Business


Madam Deputy Speaker:: You will recognize with me that that is indeed a somewhat archaic rule that existed. But I think that members are still allowed some notes to make it easier for them to express their views on a bill. The hon. member for Laval-Est.


Vincent Della Noce: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The hon. member just said "abundantly from the heart". I do not know if he still has one, considering all the foolish things he said this afternoon. I think it is getting to be-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would appreciate if the hon. member for Laval-Est would make amends, withdraw comments which are not parliamentary and proceed with his speech.


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, I follow your suggestions and I withdraw. But I would like, if the hon. member will allow me, to continue reading from my notes. And if that bothers him, he will do as usual and just leave this House.
As I was saying earlier, this holiday is already in one collective agreement and is nothing new. So, if there is nothing new, we would legislate for the sake of legislating.
Parliament has already stated its position by accepting this Public Service Staff Relations Act. That act also says that statutory holidays must be negotiated between the employer and the bargaining agents, through a union for instance. I sincerely believe that legislation giving a holiday to people who already have it will have no impact whatsoever on the remembrance of those who took up arms or who gave their lives for our country.
Canadians will continue to respect Remembrance Day in their own way, through commemorative ceremonies, social events or family gatherings, or through personal gestures. For example, students learn about the importance of that day by participating in the ceremonies held at their schools and not simply by being out of school on that day. It should not be a holiday, but the memory of the good deeds that should mark that day as being a special one for each and every one of us.
Even if I respect the intent of my colleage, the member for Dartmouth, I do not agree with that bill.

May 22, 1992
Private Members' Business
[jEnglish\


Jim Jordan: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill in support of my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth. We all know that Dartmouth is a historic and military place. It seems appropriate that the private member's bill would have originated with the member for Dartmouth at this time.
I congratulate him on his tenacity and determination because it seems that is often what it requires to get a private member's bill through the Elouse of Commons. It received first reading way back in September and now we are looking for second reading on this bill, Bill C-289, the Remembrance Day Act.
I just want to refer to why I think we need this bill. Some would suggest that it is a bit repetitious and that we already have made provision for this. A lot of people probably do not know that choosing the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month was not just a coincidence. That was the when the armistice, as we used to refer to it, the cessation of hostilities of the First World War, occurred.
I remember very well in just about every town and village at the cenotaph there would be great crowds of people recognizing Armistice Day. After the Second World War it was decided to have remembrance of it coincide with that same day, as was the case after the Korean war.
A strange thing happened, in my opinion. I can only attribute it to the remoteness of war in the country. As people get older and memories fade, there has been less and less interest shown in the remembrance aspect of Armistice Day. I think that is the reason that my colleague is presenting the bill at this time. It seems appropriate that we do it now. If this generation does not do it, the likelihood of it ever being done would become more and more remote because memories fade and people fade. The thoughts of war, unpleasant as they are, must not be allowed to fade.
It is very difficult to impose respect or impose remembrance. It is impossible. You need something of this nature that will bring forward that kind of memory every once in a while, something that will jog our memories every once in a while. The difficulty that we have got ourselves into in this country is that this has become a
negotiable item at salary negotiation time, and that means you can trade it off.
It can be in the contract or it can be traded off for something else. We think it is too important to be left to the whims of management as good as management's intentions might be. It should not be imposed on the Canadian people. There should be some provision and this legislation would provide for it. This must not be allowed to slip our memories.
It is in the collective agreements pursuant to the Public Service Staff Relations Act that we think it would be appropriate. Perhaps the federal government should take the initiative. That is what my colleague is trying to do with his private member's bill.
The veterans and members of the Legions across the country are dismayed to think that this is a negotiable item. There is nothing left to negotiate. To leave it to the whims of the negotiators would seem to put it in a very weak position.
The likelihood of its continuance in the next generation and the one after that would be very slim indeed at the rate that we are going now. So there is a degree of urgency to it. As people, battles and memories become more and more remote, that gives it even more urgency. The federal government, of all agencies, has a special responsibility to protect this memory of the fallen ones in the two world wars and the Korean war.
To remove Remembrance Day as a bargaining chip, that is exactly what my colleague is endeavouring to do. He does not want it left to where a decision could be made to trade it off for something else. The only way to prevent that from happening is to get it written into the contract in such a way that it remains there, that it cannot be removed, it must stay.
I am not criticizing. The negotiation process has to go on. But let it be remembered that this is not something that is negotiable. This is something that has already happened. It is a fact. All he is asking for in his private member's bill is to make sure that there is continuity.
A bargaining arrangement can run out or expire. That means we no longer remember. We no longer have an Armistice Day. We no longer have a Remembrance Day. Perhaps at a future time that would be negotiated back in. That lack of continuity it seems to me asks for trouble because the Remembrance Day aspect of it will very
May 22, 1992

soon be forgotten, if not by the present age group, certainly by the next generation.
That is all my colleague and I are asking. Give it some continuity. Give it some real meaning. Give it some real purpose. Take away the risk of it being an item to be bargained in or out.
This bill is an attempt at entrenchment. We want to entrench this so that it will be there for all time. No one can tamper with it as in the case of salary negotiations between any two bodies, the authority to recognize and impose this on all working groups. We are suggesting that those who are involved with the federal Public Service groups have some right to impose it or entrench it in order to make sure that it stays there for all time.
Let us make sure that November 11 will be observed by Canadians for time immemorial at least by some sectors of our society and will not be bartered away for some other benefit or someone else's benefit at some future time.
I want to congratulate my colleague for Dartmouth on his initiative in bringing forth the bill. I hope it will pass. I know that legionnaires around the country are watching very carefully and they too are hoping that it will get third reading and become law.
I want to congratulate my colleague on his initiative. [Translation]


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker I also want to take a few minutes this afternoon to mark my support for that legislation and furthermore, to congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth for his initiative.
This act is to provide that Remembrance Day be included as a holiday in Public Service collective agreements. Canadian men and women who will read the House of Commons report or those who are watching us on television should not be under the impression that we want to establish a new holiday for anybody because that is not the case.
First of all, the bill provides that Remembrance Day be included as a holiday only in Public Service collective agreements. At this time, to my knowledge, Remembrance Day is already a holiday in all Public Service collective agreements.
Private Members' Business
However, the member for Darmouth, in his wisdom mentioned the fact that Remembrance Day could be used as a bargaining chip by the various parties negotiating a new collective agreement.

I do not think the day to remember our war dead should be utilized as a bargaining chip in a collective agreement by either party. It is not a matter of trying to give more holidays or less holidays to whomever. This is an occasion that we have to recognize officially that which we are already in essence doing but that which is also being threatened with undoing, namely the remembering of our Armistice Day.
Many people have spoken today about the fact that every year when all of us hon. members appear before the various cenotaphs in our constituencies the crowds are dwindling, there are fewer and fewer people. To a degree perhaps that is normal. Our veterans are getting older. Some of them are no longer with us and every year fewer of them are with us. Nevertheless, those of us who have our freedom because those others gave their lives should be more conscious of the tremendous contribution that they made for all of us.
Perhaps this is a good time to indicate to all our fellow Canadians, particularly at this time of difficulty in our national unity, that we should remember the tremendous contribution of those who have given their lives in the first, second or even the Korean war, as well those military people who have given their lives during peacetime. It is a day to recognize all those who made that valuable and priceless contribution of their own lives.
The hon. member for Dartmouth has indeed seized an important issue. It would be my hope that we could pass this bill unanimously. Merely to pass it on second reading, although in itself is a good thing, is not the be-all and end-all because the government ultimately has the decision power in terms of bringing back the bill for third reading. Even then proclamation is a decision of the government in any case afterward.
The point I am making is that we should be passing this bill today and that committee should be reporting the bill expeditiously. Actually it is the kind of bill that could easily be dealt with in committee of the whole. The bill should then be given third reading, and hopefully very soon we could incorporate in the statutes Bill C-289 as proposed by the member for Dartmouth.

May 22, 1992
Private Members' Business

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Canadian legion members in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott- Russell who, these last months, kindly sent me letters indicating their support for the bill tabled by the hon. member for Dartmouth. Legion members in my riding, like other members everywhere in Canada, are certainly following closely today's debate. They hope and are confident that we will not let them down nor forget them.

The challenge is up to us. Let us vote on this bill. Let us vote for it. Let us approve it unanimously this afternoon. Let us make sure it becomes law very quickly so that our veterans know that at least we do remember them and that we care. If we make this veiy important gesture, we make a small contribution toward raising the level of consciousness of Canadians generally in terms of the tremendous effort and the tremendous benefit that have been given to all of us by our war dead.
It was said long ago that if we do not remember our history we risk repeating it. If we do not want to repeat war, perhaps even for that reason alone the wisest thing we could do is remember the last ones we have had.
Many countries of this world are still in a state of war. I am thinking of the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina and other parts of this world such as parts of the former Soviet Union where we are watching today tremendous violence and unrest. We are lucky in this country that we live in the peace that we do, notwithstanding our differences and, regrettably I must say, notwithstanding our difficulties right now on the national unity issue.
We cannot take that peace we have for granted. We must remember those who have given so much for our freedom. Today we have an opportunity to make but one small gesture to indicate that yes, it was a long time ago but we are still remembering and grateful for the contribution of our war veterans.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, I too want to congratulate my hon. friend from Dartmouth on bringing forward this bill. I am not surprised, because during his time in the House of Commons he has shown that not only is he a knowledgeable member of Parliament but also a very assiduous one who takes his job seriously.
For him it must be a great deal of satisfaction because it is really only with a private member's bill that one experiences the kind of satisfaction only a member of Parliament can get. That is making some real, significant change in the country.
I think this is an important change. This bill may seem very simple, but I think it was Will Rogers who said: "There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come". This idea certainly has come of age. As a matter of fact, it should have come of age much earlier and I want to say why I think that is so. There is a need to remember.
My colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has just said those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. It is well for us to remember that now more than at any other time, perhaps because the cold war is over. People are thankful that it is over and there is a sense of relief. There is an inability at the same time to identify a threat and to put in place a security system to deal with that threat.
What really bothers me at the moment-and this is why I think it is so important to remember-is that we are struggling with a new security system and we have not found it. We hear talk about the interlocking security architecture of Europe. We hear about NATO, the CSCE, the western European union, the UN, but none of those organizations was able to solve the problem in Yugoslavia.
We see peacekeeping troops withdrawing from Yugoslavia. We see the Red Cross withdrawing from Yugoslavia. The irony here, if I am not mistaken and there may be somebody in the Chamber who can correct me if I am, is that I believe it was in what is now Yugoslavia the first shot was fired that started the First World War. If I am wrong there will be somebody either here or outside the Chamber who will correct me. The interesting irony is that Yugoslavia was the spot that started the First World War. Today again we see peacekeeping troops being withdrawn from Yugoslavia. That bothers me. This generation has gone through an experience that I have not. Young people have gone through the nuclear age with the threat of nuclear war. I did not have that experience. I remember going through the Second World War. I remember in St. John's, Newfoundland, as with Halifax which was a sea port, where we experienced the war. We had to darken our windows. We had black-outs. We heard the air raid sirens. We were threatened by aircraft and by naval ships. We experienced war, but
May 22, 1992

nothing like the nuclear threat that hung over the heads of the present generation.
The real problem is now that that threat is taken away, my worry is that we have not put a security system in place to deal with whatever threat is out there for the future. That is why it is so important to remember. I do not think that remembering can be an option. It is an absolute necessity and that is why this bill is important.
Remembrance cannot be a bargaining chip. We have got to remember. Only by making every effort to remember do we keep in mind the lessons of history and guard ourselves against repeating the mistakes that we have made in the past.
I have public servants in my riding. I think I can say on their behalf that they do not want to see this as a bargaining chip. They serve the same Queen as the veterans served in tire Second World War, the First World War and the Korean war. The people who fought and died in those conflicts served the Queen. It is the same Queen that we serve here today and it is the same Queen that the public servants are working on behalf of.
I think it is important for them, maybe more than other people, and for us too, to think of that seriously and to therefore put in place legislation that protects their ability to make that effort at remembrance.
There really is no option for us today. We had to have this legislation. I am sure that the veterans across this country want it. It is very timely, too, in terms of my own province. July 1 which is Canada Day is in my province the anniversary of the battle of Baumont Hamel, which was an important one for us in the First World War. There was a Newfoundland regiment that served and many died in that particular battle. We are coming up very close to that event in history. Where I live, we certainly have not forgotten that.
I think it is extremely important now more than ever, now that the threat of nuclear war has receded and we think has been erased. I do not think it has been erased, but it has receded. There is a feeling that you want to put this out of your mind now. There is a sense of relief. The danger in that sense of relief is that it clouds your mind to remembrance of what precautions need to be taken.
Private Members' Business
I would like to quote, if I may, because I think it is important to us today, some lines that the Canadian legion uses often in its ceremonies. The lines are taken from a poem by Kipling called Recessional. It is instructive for us today to read those words in full because it expresses some of the reasons why we must not forget. The lines are well known and they go like this:
God of our fathers, known of old,
Lord of our far-flung battle-line,
Beneath whose awful Hand we hold Dominion over palm and pine.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget-lest we forget!
The last verse is:
For heathen heart that puts her trust In reeking tube and iron shard,
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And, guarding, calls not Thee to guard,
For frantic boast and foolish word -
Thy mercy on Thy People, Lord!
We should bear in mind those words "lest we forget" today and the thoughts that come from that particular poem.
Now it is more important than ever that we remember what happened, because if we do not we can never guard against it happening again. That is why this bill is important, that is why this bill says that remembering is not an option. Remembering is something we have to do.
I congratulate my colleague for bringing it forward, and I hope that the House will approve it speedily.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few brief moments to speak in regard to this piece of legislation, Bill C-289.
I would like to speak as someone who is just having a regional office for veterans affairs located in my riding at Kirkland Lake, with 180 employees, but more for the veterans who served in the First and Second World Wars and the Korean war, in remembering those individuals who fought for the democracy that we are able to have here today.
As a result of the fact that those of us in this House have freedom of speech and the opportunity to serve our constituents and Canada, and in a time when our country is going through some difficult times, in a growing country and a different country, I think it is important for us to remember those who have served so well, those who lost their lives and contributed to the success and the future and the fortunes that we have in Canada.

May 22, 1992
Private Members' Business
I just want to say on behalf of the legions in Timiskam-ing and northern Ontario, and those in other parts of the country-we have received many letters in support of this piece of legislation-that I want to make clear that I believe we should be doing anything we can do to remember those who have served so well over the years for us.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the division stands deferred until 6 p.m. Monday, June 1, 1992.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, did you say that the yeas had it?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As far as I am concerned, the yeas had it, but as more than five members had risen, a division has been called. If the hon. member reads Hansard, he will realize it.
It being 15.38 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, June 1, 1992, at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 15.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 1,1992