Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is that if the intent of his motion was not as it obviously was, then there would have been no need for him to have risen in the House today to say that he was standing to reassure members that that was not his intention, when in fact it was, and that should be obvious to everybody.
At committee stage the amendment passed. It would have resulted in the requirement that fence painters and garbage collectors, which were the examples used in committee, would have to be fluently bilingual.
As we know, the justice minister told the member for Ottawa—Vanier not to do it and justice officials told the member not to do it. What happened? He did it. As a result the justice minister looks bad and it is the fault of the member for Ottawa—Vanier.
To get out of this jam and to avoid a major political embarrassment for the justice minister and for the member for Ottawa—Vanier, the government brought in this vacuous political amendment, which is clause 36.1. The wording of this clause is lifted straight out of the Official Languages Act. The clause does nothing to the bill except clutter it. It is trite law. It brings redundant and unnecessary language into the bill. It is poor legislative draftsmanship.
The Liberals do not seem to mind. They would rather pass a poorly drafted bill than simply admit that they made a mistake and delete the offensive clause.
My amendment to delete that clause was voted down by the government last night at report stage. Hopefully when Bill C-29 is reviewed by the Senate it will recognize that clause 36.1 is unnecessary and delete it.
However, I think we can all acknowledge that the chance of that happening is remote indeed because, as we know, the Senate is ineffective and useless. This is a prime example of why we should have an effective and elected Senate because, in cases where a Liberal dominated government puts forward redundant, meaningless legislation, it could be corrected.
Aside from the bill itself which simply establishes the framework for the new organization, I have some concerns about how Parks Canada is currently being run.
We have reports printed by the Globe and Mail that memos within Parks Canada instructed staff to mislead the public with respect to developments at Lake Louise. The same article says Parks Canada will undertake public consultations only after final decisions have been made.
I asked the secretary of state about these memos at committee but he did not really answer my questions. I asked him to table these memos but he suggested I get them from the media.
I find the contents of these memos, if described accurately by the Globe and Mail , to be quite disturbing. My concern is that no Canadian would want Parks Canada to operate in a manner suggested by these leaked memos. I am concerned that this method of operation may be standard practice at Parks Canada but that this time it was caught.
Will the new agency operate differently or is this method of operation too deeply ingrained and impossible to root out? Only time will tell, but I certainly hope these leaked documents are not indicative of how the new agency will deal with the public.
The agency will also have its plate full with respect to parks issues. There is of course the development at Lake Louise and the contents of these memos. As well, near Jasper a debate is raging concerning the Cheviot coal mine.
The federal government has found itself in court over this project as environmental groups argue that the full impact the mine will have on the environment has not been completely examined.
Also, the agency will have to deal with the ramifications surrounding the boundaries of Tuktut Nogait national park. There has been some debate over a mineral find that extends across the western boundary of the proposed park. While the Inuvialuit want the boundary changed to permit exploration of the minerals the federal government refuses to review the matter.
Considering the government's stubborn position, the new agency will definitely have trouble improving relations between itself and the Inuvialuit in the Northwest Territories.
The agency will be working toward the creation of 15 new national parks by the year 2000. This is a monumental task considering the cutbacks that Parks Canada has had to face. I hope this goal does not make it revenue hungry and force it to hike fees and service charges unnecessarily.
Aside from the concerns I have mentioned I believe the creation of a parks agency is a good idea. It should allow national parks to operate more efficiently since the agency will be able to raise and keep its own revenues. As well, it will allow the use of third parties to administer certain facilities and the agency will have access to a new $10 million parks and heritage sites account. This account will provide funds for the agency in times when particular opportunities arise to purchase land, expand a park, et cetera. Furthermore, funds from this account are repayable to the crown with interest.
The new agency structure provides much needed flexibility. I believe the new agency will ensure our national parks and heritage sites are administered in an accountable, efficient and cost effective manner.
Policy issues concerning our national parks are another matter which I know we all take an interest in. However, this bill simply creates a framework for the new parks agency and I support that framework. I hope other members can also see their way to supporting this new organizational structure.