House of Commons Hansard #45 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was parks.

Topics

Canada National Parks Act
Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I am not laughing at what he is saying; I am laughing at him.

Canada National Parks Act
Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Canada National Parks Act
Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the federalists stole the referendum from us in 1995. I can take the insults and abuse from the President of the Privy Council; it does not bother me one bit, because it concerns the future of my people.

As for the $38 million put into the referendum campaign, it is disgusting. It is shameful. It is a miscarriage of democracy. These are dishonest people. These are people who thwarted democracy. These are people who have deceived the entire population of Quebec and I continue to maintain that—

Canada National Parks Act
Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Speaker

The hon. Minister of the Environment.

Canada National Parks Act
Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the problems of Quebec as described by the hon. member, particularly the problems his party will have in the coming election.

Nonetheless, I thought we were talking about transferring a small piece on land in a park on Vancouver Island from Parks Canada to Indian Affairs. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Is Bill C-28 about Quebec referendum issues or is it about Pacific Rim and Riding Mountain parks?

Canada National Parks Act
Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Speaker

The hon. Minister of the Environment has raised a point of order on a matter I think is pertinent.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot should, indeed, be speaking to the bill before the House instead of discussing the issue of referendums and other things of that kind because, as the Minister of the Environment has pointed out, the bill does not concern referendums or anything of that sort.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Canada National Parks Act
Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude on Bill C-28. We support this legislation.

However, I want to say that I am upset this morning after reading in the newspapers that, in 1995, $38 million were spent to fight sovereignists in Quebec, to betray democracy. I will continue to say and maintain that each and everyone of those people over there is a robber of democracy.

Canada National Parks Act
Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Speaker

When we read something in the newspapers it is always interesting, but it is not what this debate is about.

Therefore, if the hon. member wishes to talk about Bill C-28, he may do so, but he may not go on talking about the morning papers.

Canada National Parks Act
Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am done. We support Bill C-28. That is all.

Canada National Parks Act
Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak this morning on Bill C-28.

An allegation was made a bit earlier today that this bill, somehow, was brought back to the House in a manner that some have felt was premature. Of course, this is not true. In fact, this bill was introduced at first reading, went to second reading and was referred to a committee, which tabled its report on April 27.

I am convinced that members remember, as do I, Sessional Paper 8510-373-41, with which we are all very familiar and which states that the committee, in its meetings, made no amendments to the bill.

Furthermore, parliamentarians who are not members of that committee have the opportunity to move amendments at report stage, the relevancy of which, amongst other things, is then considered by the Chair. Since no amendments were introduced in the House, it is quite proper this morning to move forward with this legislation and send it to third reading, debate and then refer it to the other place, which will pass it in due course.

The context of the bill is as follows. On the one hand, as was mentioned earlier, it concerns withdrawing the 86.37 hectares from the Pacific Rim National ParkReserve in order to increase the Esowista Indian Reserve land base and remedy a serious housing problem.

I congratulate the parliamentary secretary for his excellent speech a bit earlier this morning. In passing, he always does a wonderful job in the House, as we all know. His constituents in Beauharnois—Salaberry are well represented, and he will no doubt be re-elected by a healthy majority. He told the House this morning that the changes are being made, not to the park perimeter but to the lands within that perimeter, meaning the lands that will be inside or outside the reserve. That is the sole issue.

I want to take a few minutes to address this treasure called the Pacific Rim National Park. Every year at Christmas, parliamentarians receive calendars from Western Canada Wilderness Foundation, I believe, which have probably helped us, better than anything else, to get to know this park. These calendars contain beautiful pictures.

I have had the opportunity to visit a very small portion of the park. It is not, of course, fully accessible to people using conventional means of transport. Some parts have only water access, for instance. I have seen part of the park, however, and it is absolutely extraordinary. In my opinion, all Canadians ought to make this pilgrimage—I would call it that—to Pacific Rim National Park. That region of our country, with its mammoth trees and its ecosystem, is absolutely amazing.

Then—and this of course relates to another park—there is the removal from Riding Mountain National Park of a small parcel of land, 4.75 hectares—which, as a member representing a rural riding, I do consider a small parcel. The reason for this is merely to correct an administrative error that occurred in the implementation of a 1994 settlement of a specific land claim.

In addition, there is the withdrawal of lands, which can be done only by amending the National Parks Act. In other words, this is the only tool available to us to correct that anomaly.

The support for this initiative is fairly broad, particularly from the first nations concerned, the provincial first nations coalitions, the local, regional and provincial administrations, and NGOs concerned with the ecology. There seem, therefore, to be very little concern about negative impacts on the parks from adjustments to their borders as set out in this bill. Such groups are always the first to let us know when they think we are doing anything to spoil a park. This is not the case in this instance.

As far as environmental impact is concerned, the removal of this small parcel of land will not unduly compromise the ecological integrity of Pacific RIm. There is no impact at all as far as Riding Mounting is concerned.

I believe I see your signal that it is 11 a.m., so I am prepared to come back after oral question period to continue my explanation of the merits of this bill to my colleagues.

Softwood Lumber
Statements By Members

11 a.m.

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC

Mr. Speaker, Canada won a major victory in its dispute with the U.S. on softwood lumber. A special panel formed under the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, found the U.S International Trade Commission threat of injury determination to be unfounded and inconsistent with U.S. law.

The Quebec Forest Industry Council favours a long-term solution through a negotiated settlement as the road to lasting peace.

Any negotiated agreement needs to include the reimbursement of duties paid by Canadian companies since May 2002, with interest.

Failing a negotiated, long-term agreement and full reimbursement of countervailing and anti-dumping duties, I call on the Canadian government to take legal action against the United States.

Taxation
Statements By Members

April 30th, 2004 / 11 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ken Epp Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, this government knows no bounds when intruding into the personal lives of Canadians. It has come to my attention that if two people live at the same address, Revenue Canada is unilaterally determining that they are a common law couple and are having conjugal relations. This is preposterous.

How about a woman who has a female boarder living in her house? Revenue Canada determines that she is a lesbian and that she is having conjugal relations with this boarder. This is not true and it is very unfair to characterize her this way, to reduce her benefits, and to force her to appeal to get it reversed.

Let us consider a couple who are separated and divorced but unable to afford separate living quarters. She lives on one floor and he on another in the same house. Revenue Canada reverses their status and treats them as a couple.

Trudeau said that there is no room for the state in the bedrooms of the nation, but that concept is totally lost on this government and this minister. What a nightmare.

Canadian Forces
Statements By Members

11 a.m.

Liberal

Jeannot Castonguay Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday as I was waiting for my flight at the Montreal airport, I happened to meet soldiers who were on their way back from Afghanistan for a three-week break at home. One of them was Daniel Dupuis, from the Gaspé and the other Ben Gale, from Cape Breton. Daniel phoned home and his little girl Marie-Christine said, “Daddy, I put on my pretty dress to come meet you at the Quebec City airport later”, and Daniel, this brave solider, had tears in his eyes.

Two hours later when I arrived in Ottawa on the same flight as Ben, I saw him on the floor with his two and a half year old son in his arms and I saw his less than six month old baby in mother's arms. This was the first time this family had been together in many weeks because of the father's service in Afghanistan.

That is when it became very clear to me what sacrifices military families make when their loved ones serve abroad in the name of peace and the fight against terrorism, just as these brave soldiers are doing.

On behalf of my colleagues in this House, I thank these soldiers and today I also thank their families for the sacrifices they make that far too often go unrecognized. I also thank the nearly 1,900 Canadian soldiers who are deployed to Afghanistan.

Thank you to all these service men and women and their families.

Corporation d'aménagement et de protection de la Sainte-Anne
Statements By Members

11 a.m.

Liberal

Claude Duplain Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to report that on April 26 the Department of the Environment, through its EcoAction program, made a $34,044 grant to the Corporation d'aménagement et de protection de la Sainte-Anne. This contribution will help establish a project aimed at reducing drinking-water consumption in 1,692 homes, 215 businesses, and several institutions connected to the municipal water supply of Saint-Raymond de Portneuf.

In this way, the Government of Canada has renewed its commitment to the environmental policy it expressed in the throne speech.

I proudly congratulate the Corporation d'aménagement et de protection de la Sainte-Anne on the quality of its project. Such initiatives place the riding of Portneuf at the forefront, taking up the environmental challenges of today and tomorrow, while meeting the needs of the community.

75th Wedding Anniversary
Statements By Members

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to announce the 75th wedding anniversary of two of my constituents, Walter and Regis Day.

Mr. and Mrs. Day were married on April 23, 1929 by Father Henry Barry in the original St. Joseph's Church in Little Bras d'Or, Cape Breton. They have 10 children, 44 grandchildren, 61 great grandchildren, 4 great-great grandchildren and 4 more on the way. That is a total of 119 offspring.

I was fortunate to be able to visit Mr. and Mrs. Day at their home to wish them a happy anniversary last Saturday, and what a pleasure it was. They shared a few stories and a few jokes, but in all seriousness, it is obvious why their marriage has lasted 75 years.

It is very rare that we have the opportunity to recognize such a wonderful, long-lasting marriage. Today in the House of Commons I would like to offer congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Day in celebration of their 75th anniversary. Along with the community, their family and friends, I wish for Walter and Regis many more years of continued happiness.