Debates of June 2nd, 1998

Health

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the administration of the RCMP under the last government, but this government has acted on this information. It is being investigated. That is basically all I can say at this time.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the breast implant issue is just one example of a dangerously long list of examples of dereliction of duty by this government's health protection branch. We have implants. We have blood. There is BST, nifedipine, toxic toys and the list goes on and on. Let us face it, there is a mess in the minister's department.

Will the minister launch an immediate public investigation into the health protection branch?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the only mess is the mess in that member's question book. She declines to listen to the answers we give. She ignores the facts when we lay them out before her. We have explained each of these issues and she pays no attention to the answers.

The member should be assured that the health protection branch is doing its job. Public safety is a priority for this government and it will continue to be.

National Highway System

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Following the conference of Canadian transport ministers, Quebec's own inimitable transport minister, Jacques Brassard, said that Ottawa lacked the political will to do anything about the road system and that the federal government did not have one cent to spend on highway 175 between Quebec City and Chicoutimi.

Could the Minister of Transport tell us whether Quebec's transport minister is right and whether this reflects the conclusions of last Friday's conference in Edmonton?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

No, Mr. Speaker, on the contrary.

What I said after the meeting with my provincial counterparts in Edmonton is that the issue of increased funding for the national highway system needs to be discussed with my cabinet colleagues and is a matter of establishing priorities. I am prepared to raise the issue with my colleagues.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us whether he is still in favour of increased reliance on private and public sector consortiums to build and improve the national highway system?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my simple answer to this supplementary is yes.

But I must add that I was surprised by Mr. Brassard's comment, because he did not mention highway 175 during the meeting. If we increase funding for the national highway system, highway 175 will be eligible for funding from the Canadian government, subject to the agreement of the Government of Quebec.

Parole

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last year the solicitor general introduced provisions permitting accelerated parole for first time non-violent offenders. Unfortunately, some organized crime offenders have used these provisions to get parole before serving one-sixth of their sentence.

I would like to know what the solicitor general plans to do to fix this.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.

First, I would point out that there is already a provision that allows the courts to order that parole not be considered until 50% of the sentence is served. Originally it was thought that would deal with this issue. It has not.

As a result, I have sought the support, and received it, of the justice committee, which will be introducing legislation.

While we are conducting the Corrections and Conditional Release Act review I would invite all members of parliament to participate in that exercise to make sure that Canada continues to lead the world in corrections.

Veterans Affairs

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1955 England and Canada conspired in a cover-up to deny Hong Kong veterans their right to fair settlement with Japan for wartime enslavement. This appalling act was perpetrated by the very country the veterans fought and died for.

Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs call for an investigation, stop stalling and get on with the job of fair compensation for Hong Kong veterans' enslavement by Japan?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, during the treaty negotiations in 1952 a compensation package was worked out to honour the incredible sacrifice the Hong Kong Canadian contingent made in that serious battle. We are continuing to work on it. Once the treaty is signed there is no other legal recourse to pursue.

For the hon. member to use the kind of exploitive language he is using does not do proper honour to the people who gave their lives in Hong Kong.

The Late Robert Lorne McCuish

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in rising to mark the passing of Lorne McCuish my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus extend our sympathy to Mrs. McCuish and to her children and grandchildren.

Their loss of a husband, father and grandfather is difficult. I hope they will draw comfort and pride from the public service that Mr. McCuish rendered to the people of Prince George—Bulkley Valley during his career in municipal government and his service to the people of Canada through his election to the House of Commons.

The measure of a member of parliament is not something easily expressed. The consistently positive election results for Mr. McCuish say much about him and the gratitude of his community for his efforts.

The constituents of Prince George—Bulkley Valley from 1979 to 1988 were the beneficiaries of his feisty, tell it like it is style of politics. I am sure Mr. Speaker remembers that. He possessed a wonderful mischievous personality and was not the least bit squeamish about using it on anyone from big business to his caucus colleagues.

Some of those mischievous pranks are legend in this House and I am sure Mr. Speaker has some memories of them. He had a wonderful sense of humour. We recall one of the famous incidents. I believe that Lorne at one time was a member of the consumer affairs committee. His granddaughter and he one day counted the raisins in the bran flakes because the company that produced these bran flakes was talking about two scoops of raisins. It is a famous story. Lorne said “We opened a lot of boxes of these but we never did find two scoops”. Apparently a few days later a truckload of Raisin Bran arrived at his parliamentary office. That is just one of the many things he did. Some of them I cannot mention in the House but he did have a great sense of humour.

Lorne loved his work. He realized that to love his work he had to have fun at it. He did have fun at politics.

Lorne represented a very large riding, 322,000 square kilometres. He was like the travelling representative. He always visited the remote corners of his riding to make sure he was in touch with his constituents, and in touch with them he was.

In expressing our gratitude for the public service of Lorne McCuish we would like to say thank you to his family for its understanding and for sharing him with the House and with the people of Canada.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, today the government caucus joins with the House in paying tribute to the memory of Mr. Lorne McCuish who from 1979 to 1988 served as member of parliament for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

Like many British Columbians, Mr. McCuish was born in Winnipeg but was certainly at heart a true British Columbian. He was raised in Vancouver before moving to Prince George in the 1950s. It was there that he became involved in public service to his community. He gave almost 20 years of his life to public service, working for the greater good of British Columbians, particularly those in northern British Columbia, and of course the country at large.

First as an alderman and then as a parliamentarian he served his fellow citizens enthusiastically, energetically and certainly to the best of his ability.

He ran for parliament for the Progressive Conservative Party in 1979 and became the first person to represent the new Prince George—Bulkley Valley riding.

Lorne made it his personal mission to serve the people of his riding fairly and honestly. His neighbours responded to this deep commitment by electing him to the House three times before his retirement in 1988.

Lorne will best be remembered for his tireless commitment to his constituents, not an easy task considering his riding was well over 100,000 square kilometres and at the outset did not contain a single federal government office. The nearest federal building was a Canada employment centre in the neighbouring riding of Prince George—Peace River.

Lorne had a solution to that problem. He decided instead to take the government to the people and he would spend at least one week of every six travelling his constituency throughout northern British Columbia holding accessibility sessions in town halls, schools, libraries, hotels, community centres and church basements.

His constituents both liked and respected him for his commitment and for his feisty, tell it like it is style.

On a personal note, he will certainly be remembered for his sense of humour and for his love of life. He was famous in this Chamber for his practical jokes and indeed he was called one of the most mischievous MPs ever, but that was always done with good spirits and in a lighthearted way. His personal philosophy was always to live life to its fullest, never to take himself or others too seriously and to live every day to the best.

Mr. McCuish was a husband, a father of four and a grandfather of six, a legacy which will last far longer than any accomplishment of those of us in office.

Those of us who represent constituencies many miles from our nation's capital know what Lorne knew, that our work would not be possible without the support of our family and our friends at home.

As both a British Columbian and a Canadian, Lorne McCuish made an important contribution to our society as the member of parliament for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. I convey to the House on behalf of the Liberal caucus and constituents our deepest condolences to his family and to his friends.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of parliament for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, I knew Lorne McCuish. I met him in 1965 when I joined the Kinsmen club and I feel privileged to pay tribute to our departed former member of parliament who served Canadians from 1980 to 1988 in my riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

Lorne moved to Prince George in the early 1950s after serving with the RCAF in World War II. From there he launched his career as an independent insurance adjuster. Lorne was a tireless worker in the community, having worked for many charity organizations and service clubs, including the Kinsmen club where we met. Lorne's volunteer efforts played a huge role in the building of Prince George into the great city it is now, a great place to live.

He was an alderman for the city of Prince George from 1973 to 1977. During that time he gave freely of his time and energy to help in the planning of the emerging city of Prince George and all the infrastructure that was to come to make it the great city it is.

His integrity and devotion to work were an example to all. Lorne made in his career and in his life many friends and acquaintances. He will be missed by those friends and acquaintances and of course by his family members.

On behalf of the riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley and the Reform Party of Canada, I send our sincerest condolences to his family and friends and express our gratitude to Lorne McCuish for his many services to Canadians as he served the riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleagues in the House of Commons in paying tribute to Lorne.

I had the honour of serving with him from 1984 to 1988, so I got to know him a little, at least during one term. He had been elected in 1979.

I remember that even before his election he was known as an excellent administrator. He joined the team of Joe Clark, whom he greatly admired. He did an outstanding job of representing the new riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley. In fact, he was the first member to represent this riding.

During the term when we served together I had the opportunity to work with him on the famous northern pipeline issue on various standing committees such as veterans affairs, consumer and corporate affairs as well as Indian affairs, because his was a very large riding where a number of first nations were established.

He used to say his sole purpose was to serve the people of his riding. That was more than a mission; it was a passion. He did not have national ambitions as he told us repeatedly. His sole ambition was to serve his constituents well. In that sense he had a rather unorthodox approach to the duties of an MP.

He could, for instance, spend one week in the House of Commons and the next in his riding, not at his office but visiting every village, community and organization to get a feel for what people thought, and this for months on end.

He liked to say “There are no government offices in my riding. I am the office for all the departments, by bringing services to my constituents”. He was passionately fond of meeting the people of his riding. He was, moreover, always elected by a heavy majority because people saw him as one of them. They recognized him as a tireless worker.

He was a fervent supporter of Joe Clark. At this very moment I bet he is sending Mr. Clark signals from the other side about a comeback. He was disappointed to see his leader leave but remained faithful to his party. He stayed for the 1984 election because he dreamed of being a government MP for at least one mandate, and he knew that the Conservatives had a good chance of forming the government in 1984.

He leaves his four children and their children to mourn his passing. I would like them to know just how proud they should be of him and how much he taught all MPs about loving our work, doing a good job of it and serving the public before anything else.

I am grateful for his great contribution to democracy and thank him for it. My sincere condolences to all his friends, his entire family, and the members of his party.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to represent the New Democratic caucus in remembering Lorne as a member of parliament and as an alderman in the city of Prince George.

I learned a great deal from Lorne McCuish. He was elected in 1979 and I was elected in 1980. He taught me a great deal about how a member of parliament ought to operate, particularly in the constituency. We shared a hallway. I spent many an evening with Lorne McCuish. We talked about politics and work in the House of Commons and in various committees.

He was from Prince George and I am from Kamloops which meant that we spent many a flight together flying across Canada. I can recall countless evenings in Vancouver. In those days we were required to stay over because there were no same day flight connections to our respective communities from Ottawa.

As others have indicated, I remember Lorne as a very humourous individual. He always wanted to play a joke. The first time I saw him play a joke was when we were flying from Ottawa to Vancouver. I asked him how he avoided getting into conversations with people he did not want to talk to. Sometimes you sit beside a person who for whatever reason you would just as soon forget having a conversation with. He told me a secret. I do not know if he ever did it but I thought it was very funny. He said that I should take 10 inches of cord with me and when I decided I did not want to talk to somebody I should hang it out of my mouth. He said that nobody would ever talk to a person with a cord hanging out of his mouth and I suspect he was probably right. He would say things like that continuously. He was a man of great humour.

I was talking with him one day about doing constituency work. As others have indicated, he would take one week out of six and go back to his constituency, a very vast area. He held what he called availability sessions for people to come out and meet Lorne. He was a very approachable individual. He asked me to come along and join him for one of these visits, which I did. We got in a little trout fishing at the same time.

I remember walking with Lorne down the streets of Vanderhoof and Fort St. James. He knew every single person by name. If he did not know them he would sort of mumble and they would think he knew their names. I thought that was a rather ingenious approach.

He was very popular and popular for an interesting reason. He was prepared to say no to people if he could not help them. He did not pretend he could help them. Nor did he slough it off. Delegations would come from our part of central British Columbia. To be fair I would try to be kind of nice to those folks but he would just say “No, we cannot help you. We are not able to do anything. We are not even particularly interested in trying to help you with that problem because we do not believe in it”. I had not met anybody like that. It was very refreshing. It demonstrated that you do not always have to agree with people for them to respect you or for them to vote for you.

I can think of a great number of things I learned from Lorne McCuish. On top of that he was a very genuine, nice person. He often spoke of his family very warmly. I know he wanted to spend more time with his family. When he decided not to seek re-election it was because he had decided it was appropriate to spend time with his family and he actually meant it. A lot of people just say that. In the Lorne McCuish style he meant that he wanted to spend more time with his children, his wife and his young grandchildren.

On behalf of the New Democratic caucus, I extend sincere condolences to Lorne's family, in particular his wife, his children and his four grandchildren. We remember him fondly. He added a great deal of humanity to this place and I know his constituents loved him.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, an act to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to amend other acts as a consequence, be read the third time and passed.

Parks Canada Act

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Wild Rose.

It gives me great pleasure to speak on something that is dear to my heart and that is parks. The last time I spoke in the House was on the Saguenay bill. This time I am speaking on Bill C-29 the Canada parks agency act that offers to a degree a newer and more reformed approach to maintaining our national treasures.

Canada is a nation blessed with natural wonders. I represent the riding of Calgary East, a stone's throw away from the humbling beauty of Banff, Jasper and Yoho national parks. I can say confidently that Calgarians and all Canadians are proud of the national parks. Our country's beauty is rarely paralleled in any other nation and that can be seen in our bustling tourism industry.

Our national parks and sites attract over 24 million visitors a year and contribute over $2 billion annually to the economy. My hope is that this bill will allow our national parks to flourish while at the same time free off cumbersome government bureaucracy.

Bill C-29 calls for the creation of a new agency, the Canada parks agency. In this case I see some merit in the establishment of the parks agency. Let me explain why.

Parks Canada is currently responsible for our country's 38 national parks and among other things 131 national historic sites. It manages over 225,000 square kilometres of Canada's natural and cultural heritage and employs roughly 5,000 people. At present, responsibility for Parks Canada falls under the Department of Canadian Heritage through the Secretary of State for Parks and reports to the heritage minister. For this reason the new agency will be held accountable through the minister to parliament.

No doubt this will contribute to more efficiency and will hopefully lead to a decrease in the fees Canadians pay to gain access to our national parks. I have heard from my constituents on numerous occasions that the costs of visiting places like Banff and Jasper are becoming too high. These are treasures of Canada and belong to the people of Canada. We have an obligation to the people of Canada to make it as affordable as possible for families to take advantage of the beauty of this nation. It belongs to them.

It is nice to see once in a while something positive come from the other side. A parks agency is one such proposal, although we do have some reservations on this. The parks agency will be able to raise and keep its own revenues. It will have access to a $10 billion parks and historic sites account which it will have to repay to the crown with interest from revenues generated, making the agency accountable. As well third party operators will be permitted to administer certain facilities hopefully providing increased revenues and efficiency.

This new financial independence will allow revenues generated to flow back into the parks and sites. This means that new parks will be created and those already in existence will be better served and maintained.

The agency will be able to bargain directly with its employees and CEO and will have the authority to appoint employees and to establish terms and conditions of employment for agency staff. Hopefully this will afford the agency the flexibility to develop a human resource regime that is more responsive to the agency's operational environment.

The auditor general will be able to audit the agency at his discretion.

Bill C-29 also commits the agency to hold consultations on a biennial basis. This will allow Canadians to share their views on the agency's program and to participate in its management direction.

As well, the agency will consult directly with parties that may be affected by any new fees. As I mentioned before, Canadians are getting a little upset at the high cost of park entrance fees.

The bottom line is that parliament, the auditor general and most importantly, the Canadian people will be able to hold this new agency accountable. What we have here is a bill asking for the creation of an agency that will be self-sufficient, more efficient, more flexible and fully accountable.

It is also my hope that this agency will contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of Canada's natural environment.

I have been fortunate enough to visit many parks around the world. As a matter of fact I was born near the foot of one of the more famous sites in the world, the Ngorongoro crater in Tanzania. Because of these reasons, national parks are very dear to me. It is important to protect the environment and our treasures not only for the Canadian people but for the world. We are the custodian of these national treasures for the people of the world. This is why this is very dear to me.

I would like to see the responsible management of these resources for future generations. I would caution that I want to see responsible management of these great treasures for the people of the world.

I have gone across the world and have seen great parks but I have also seen parks which have fallen in disarray. It saddens me when I see that happening. Therefore, when something such as this parks agency is proposed, then I feel there is merit to it and am willing to support it.

The official opposition is committed to having our national parks and heritage sites administered in an accountable, efficient and cost effective manner. For the reasons outlined, I see little reason why I should not support Bill C-29.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-29 since it will directly affect Banff National Park which is in my riding of Wild Rose.

The purpose of this bill is to establish the parks Canada agency to administer and protect national parks, historic sites and other heritage areas. Ideally the rationale for a parks agency is that it would simplify the organizational structure, improve administrative efficiency and allow more flexible staffing and financial procedures. At first glance there are a few positive aspects to this bill.

First, the new agency will remain accountable through the Minister of Canadian Heritage to parliament, as all agencies should be accountable to someone.

Second, the new agency will fall under the Access to Information Act. It can be audited by the auditor general, unlike agencies in other pieces of legislation which the auditor general does not seem to be able to touch such as the infamous and protected Canadian Wheat Board.

Third, Bill C-29 was supposed to commit the agency to consultations on a biennial basis and to consult directly with parties that may be affected by any new fees. As of last night's amendments, this will now be in the form of round tables held by the minister. Obviously the government felt that more power must be kept within the cabinet.

Fourth, the agency will be more efficient. It will be able to raise and keep its own revenues, bargain directly with its employees, permit third party operators to administer certain facilities, and allow the CEO to set terms and conditions of employment.

Finally, the agency will have access to a new $10 million parks and historic sites account. Any funds drawn from this account will be repayable to the crown with interest.

All in all, Reformers are committed to having our national parks and heritage sites administered in an accountable, efficient and cost effective manner.

We support the agency's objective of cost recovery, while at the same time ensuring that fees at Canada's national parks and heritage sites do not become prohibitively expensive. This is one amendment that should have passed. I wish it had passed.

The majority of MPs voted down a motion that would have set up a two-tier park price whereby local area residents would pay a lower entrance fee. The lower fee was turned down, despite warnings that soon only the wealthy would be able to afford park prices.

Fees have risen dramatically in Banff National Park over the past five years. Many of the letters I receive about this particular issue concern the increase in fees. The people of that area are not happy. Seniors groups are extremely unhappy.

Time and time again carloads of seniors have driven to Banff just for a nice afternoon out, but they turned around when they reached the gate because seniors cannot afford to pay the fees. Tourists from all over the world have noticed a big increase in fees.

The main problem with this bill is its lack of detail regarding how the agency will be financed and run, what the administrative costs of operating the agency will be and what portion of that cost might be financed by user fees. All of this detail will not be known until the agency is set up. I believe that detail should be taken care of prior to that happening.

As of now it has been reported that the agency is counting on receiving $70 million from user fees in fiscal year 1997-98 and an increased amount in subsequent years. Therefore the agency will have to know exactly what consumers are willing to spend on our national parks and heritage sites because any miscalculation could hinder its functioning.

The one main catch to this bill was highlighted last evening when the Liberal amendment designed to ensure bilingual services in Canada's national parks was passed. I know that many of the people in Banff will really be upset, and so they should be.

I often wonder why this Liberal government does not stop and realize that, for example, Banff has one of the highest number of new citizens. These immigrants come to Banff. Probably nine out of every ten are of oriental background. There are numerous people who want to make that area their home. They are immigrants and they speak neither French nor English.

People from Japan, Korea, Vietnam or some other country choose to make Banff their home. They want to work there. They went there as immigrants, they settled there and they love it. However, they will not even be able to get a job cutting the grass in the park, painting a fence or building protection around trees because they are not bilingual. How ridiculous are we going to get in this parliament? We are constantly passing laws that insist people must be bilingual in order to work.

This is Banff. A number of people out there do not speak French. There are number of people who do not speak English. There are a number of people out there who are very fluent in a number of different languages. There are a lot of good capable workers, however, members on that side of the House insist that they be bilingual. It is getting just a little ridiculous.

I think of the days when I was on the farm. One of the best milkers who came to take over the milking operation on our farm could not speak a word of English. We could not even communicate for a while, except by motions, but did he ever do a job for us on that farm, and we could hardly communicate.

To pass a law that says that is the way it has to be is really getting completely out of reach. Immigrants continually come to this country. Many settle in the west. Many of them land in Banff National Park. It will be very difficult for them to understand why, when they want to make Canada their home, when they want to contribute to the economy by working for a living and paying taxes, they cannot work because they do not speak both English and French.

What kind of mentality would come up with that kind of regulation? Government members do not give it any thought, except when the time comes to vote on it and they jump up like little puppets and vote as the whip tells them to vote. Otherwise they will pay a healthy price for disobedience. They continue down the same old path of not really caring what the bill is about or how it will affect individuals. They only care what the whip says because they are good little Liberals and will always do what they are told.

As long as they keep doing that this country is going to keep going down the tube. They are going to continue to chip away at these small areas and tell individuals that if they do not speak French and English they cannot get a job. It is ridiculous.

When is this government going to come to its senses? Banff National Park is a beautiful place to work. It is a beautiful place to earn a living. If these people can communicate in Japanese and in other oriental languages they are going to be of real benefit to the park. But they probably will not even be able to work for the park because, the way I read it, they have to be bilingual. Is that not so? They have to be bilingual.

Congratulations, Liberals. Congratulations to all the trained seals on the back rows who keep approving bills when they do not even know what they are about. They ought to open up their brains and their minds to learn about what is going on.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is from Alberta and in his territory there are large numbers of parks and wilderness areas. He knows very clearly the problems that our parks have had recently and also the problems they will face in the future.

He mentioned that the moneys that will be used to ensure that subcontractors are bilingual will cause a major problem within our parks. The ability of local people to earn revenues will be hampered. In fact, the ability of the parks to function and generate revenues will be hampered. They will not be able to safeguard the flora and fauna, which in many cases is under siege.

Does the member feel that the money that is going to be lost by this ridiculous amendment the government is putting forward could best be spent in trying to preserve our parks? If so, how would he preserve our parks? What would he do, if he were the minister, to make a more intelligent parks agency act?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

There seems to be an attitude on that side of the House. They do not seem to understand that the national parks of this country belong to the people of Canada. They do not belong to the Liberal government. They do not belong to the government of the day, they belong to the people of Canada.

Therefore, the people of Canada should be able to enjoy these parks and that enjoyment should be affordable. But the government squanders money on areas like bilingualism. The government is going to make sure that the people who work in the parks are bilingual. Those who are not bilingual will be totally confused and very upset. They very much want to work for the parks because they have a talent. That is why they were attracted to the mountains and to the parks. But this legislation will prevent that from happening.

The people of Canada should be able to enjoy their property in a better way than they do today. Fees chase them away. Fees are up because certain costs have to be met. Part of the cost is due to the fact that we have ridiculous legislation which says the workers have to be bilingual.

I hear a lot of nattering from across the floor, but I do not think they have even been to Banff. They do not know what they are talking about. I live in that country. I know what I am talking about and I can guarantee that there are going to be a lot of unhappy people in Banff National Park.

I congratulate those members on their big blunder.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. friend, since we seem to have a lot of wildlife in the House and certainly an endangered species on the other side, some of which are green, and there is certainly a lot of old growth, if maybe this could not be the next park. We already have official bilingualism in the House. Maybe we could confine it here, rather than have it spread to the Northwest Territories, British Columbia and other places where there is absolutely no sense in having it.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. The hon. member is right about one thing. There are some old animals in this House.

Probably the most important thing that the member mentioned is that there is an endangered species on that side because they continually shove things down the throats of Canadians. Canadians do not like it. They are getting tired of it.

I am going to continually insist that Canadians pay attention to that mighty bunch over there who say to the farmers in the west “You will do it with the wheat board, or else”. They are the same ones who tell the people in Banff National Park “You want a job with parks and you can't speak French or English? My, my my”.

The Liberal members should shake their heads and wake up.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy listening to my friend from Wild Rose. I just want to know whether he has cleared his position with his new ally, the premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a brilliant question. It is about as brilliant a question as I hear coming from the other side of the House. Why do you not pull your little chain and see if your light will come on?