Lost his last election, in 2004, with 10% of the vote.
The Environment October 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about this government's inaction on climate change.
In June of this year 25 Order of Canada recipients declared immediate action on climate changes is required. The infrastructure works programs ends in March 1999 and municipalities are calling for an extension for climate related projects.
What action will the Minister of Finance include in his budget to support municipal climate projects?
Canada Small Business Financing Act October 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to address the hon. member's comments. He dealt with education. I realize he championed the national headstart program, the early childhood intervention program. Fortunately the aboriginal headstart program is well on its way and is serving a greater purpose.
I want to share with him a vision of education. One of the first obligations of the country to first nations occurred when the aboriginal people negotiated the future of their people. Education and health were major priorities. Education rights and health benefit rights are entrenched in the treaties.
In a social democratic country like Canada why do we not have tuition free education? Why do state controls stop after our children have gone through school from kindergarten to grade 12? Why can we not hold and nurture them until they become adults at the age of 21 to 25? Then they could stand up and take on their master's degrees or the Ph.D degrees to attain their careers. Tuition for university, technical schools, business schools and all trade apprenticeship programs should be supported. Youth need to be prepared a bit longer.
I wonder what the hon. member's vision is, because his heartbeat seems to be on the socially conscious side.
Banff National Park October 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister of heritage. The Liberal government tells Canadians that only basic and essential development can occur at the Banff National Park. For this reason the village of Lake Louise is denied improved medical facilities, a small church and a school. But when CP Hotels wants a seven storey convention centre on the lakeshore, this government jumps to its approval. Can the minister of heritage explain why a conference centre is more essential than the basic needs of a community?
Saskatchewan Summer And Winter Games October 2nd, 1998
I rise to congratulate the people of northern Saskatchewan.
The Hon. Carol Teichrob of the Saskatchewan government has announced the creation of zone nine for the Saskatchewan summer and winter games.
Louis Gardner, representative of the Northern Recreation Co-ordinating Committee said “This gives our northern athletes provincial and national exposure. Hopefully they will be participants in the Canada and Commonwealth games and have an opportunity to represent Canada at the Olympics”.
This decision recognizes the wealth of potential to be tapped by Saskatchewan's competitive sports teams from a a population where over 60% are under the age of 26. This opportunity will instil a sense of pride in our youth through their contribution of gifts and aspirations.
My very best wishes to northern Saskatchewan's young athletes.
National Parks Act June 12th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have two points to make. The Reform Party spoke about its support for the ecological integrity of the Arctic region. This park is certainly one way of guaranteeing it.
This past week we had a motion ready to be introduced on an international agreement on persistent organic pollutants that affect endangered species of northern Canada. Why would his party not support an international agreement on persistent organic pollutants?
I congratulate all members on the successful parliament of the last year and ask them to enjoy our national parks. I look forward to a safe summer.
National Parks Act June 12th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to restrain myself from commenting in respect of other members.
I take exception to the hon. member's statements on a number of occasions. The first is that there is no honour in hunting. I beg the member to reconsider this. Sport hunting and sustenance hunting are two different forms of hunting.
When northern people enter the tundra and kill a caribou to bring home and feed their child and sustain life for their family, for their generations to come, there is no greater honour than entering the woods, surviving the elements and bringing back the meat and the sustenance for that community or for that family. One does not need honour to be up in a chopper with a telescopic gun aiming at unprotected species on the ground. There is no honour in that. But when you sustain your family, when you hunt for the privilege of honouring and respecting the land, there is great honour in that.
We no longer have buffalo, as the hon. member said. There was no honour when the hunters climbed on to the trains and used automatic weapons and killed and piled buffalo bones on the banks of Wascana Lake, as it was later created. Wascana means piles of bones.
There is no honour in that. But when you retain the national parks and the integrity of the national parks, there is some security for the future generation. They can see in the past what ecological measures were taken.
I challenge the member to travel along the west coast of the United States. He will see the cathedral red woods standing in a protected area of northern California. Then he will arrive in Oregon where it is clearcut.
In terms of resource inventory, environmental impacts and challenging Parks Canada to retain its integrity and resources this costs money. The Reform Party time and time again has tried to be accountable. This government has made cutbacks that have had an impact on Parks Canada. Let us invest and put money in our budgets to retain the future of our parks.
National Parks Act June 12th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend support on behalf of the New Democratic Party to Bill C-38, an act to establish a national park and establish the boundaries of Tuktut Nogait.
The process began with a letter on March 10, 1989.
The Wildlife Management Advisory Council of the Northwest Territories wrote to the minister responsible for Parks Canada and proposed a study to consider the possibility of creating a national park in the vicinity of Bluenose Lake.
The context of the request was for the Paulatuk community conservation plan. The plan identified caribou and particularly the protection of the calving grounds of the bluenose herd as the foremost conservation concern for a community that has for generations depended for their livelihood on the caribou herd. Indeed, as mentioned throughout the debate on this bill, the park name, Tuktut Nogait, means caribou calves in the Siglik dialect of the Inuvialukton.
Seven years of analysis, consultation and negotiation followed. There were extensive discussions with local stakeholders, including the Paulatuk community corporation, the Paulatuk trappers and hunters committee, the elders committee, the government of the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit regional corporation and the Inuvialuit game council. These consultations led to an agreement signed in Paulatuk on June 28, 1996.
The federal government and the territorial government, together with the four other parties, agreed and the boundaries were set. That was the start of the birth of a park.
Then, after much fanfare, nothing happened. The federal government moved on with more paper signing, without follow up or action.
Suddenly Tuktut Nogait became an issue again. Over the winter the mining company that had removed exploration from within the park boundaries changed its mind. The anomaly proved to be a worthwhile investment within the boundaries.
Suddenly some of the local stakeholders who were looking at the environmental impact it would have on their communities were willing to take a risk on an economic venture into mining, and stating this whole concern under a park agreement, as the parties had agreed they wanted to make a change. It was quite a confusing state of affairs.
But the main problem was created by the government dragging its heels, especially when it knew that money would have to be spent to start the park. The government was not fulfilling the promise it had made.
The risks were not limited to the potential loss of critical area within the proposed park. The principle of developing within national park boundaries has opened up a great issue.
Canada witnessed just last fall the Cheviot mine case in which a huge strip mine will be developed beside the national Jasper Park, a very prestigious world heritage site. That brought a terse response from UNESCO, asking the government to reconsider and reverse its decision to allow a mine to be located at such close proximity to a pristine valley.
In this decision the minister used his discretion and as a result the fish habitat was damaged. It was the spawning ground for the western bull trout and it has been a sacred tenet of environmental protection to keep such a crucial species in this country.
This brings us to an important point as parliamentarians today consider Bill C-38. We must consider the remaining natural regions that are not protected. Failure to do so would be a great demise.
I bring members back to the Tuktut Nogait National Park. The existing park boundaries, as presented in Bill C-38, will create a park inside a settlement region, the Inuvialuit settlement region.
This region and the majority of its community members have compromised their settlement of lands to create a national park. But the federal government and the parks agency people, as they will soon be called if the parks agency bill is passed, have promised that Tuktut Nogait will protect the integrity of the bluenose herd.
There are other proposed boundaries to this park which involve the Nunavut settlement region and the Sahtu Dene settlement region. Why are those proposed regions not included in the bill? Why does it not state that the Tuktut Nogait National Park will be a huge protected area involving three settlement regions?
Principles of co-management are part of the commitments the government is making with the people of northern Canada, especially in the northern region where economic wealth is based on traditional lifestyle. For the economy to change to an eco-tourism based economy for the protection and enhancement of the national park with potential mineral development in that area, co-management and community involvement are required.
The agreement included a parks agreement which stated that the Inuit impact and benefits agreement would be considered when this national park comes into being. Employment and training opportunities must be considered.
All these issues will have a major impact on this community and on the northern region. The integrity of the ecology, the history and the biodiversity of our country must be protected for future generations as we create national parks. Development is a crucial risk for these national parks. We are witnessing decisions on requests being made for the Banff National Park. We must take these into serious consideration and not make decisions for the sake of the economy.
The root of the word economy is eco, which means your home. We know what money means, so it means the home of your money. But ecology means the home of your environment. Without this environment and this vast country we call Canada there would be no money made, there would be no people calling it their home.
This environment and this land must be respected. The national parks are a sacred way of protecting this land for future generations. They keep in tact the many generations of sustainable development that the aboriginal peoples of this world and this land have retained for their people. That sustainable development or that non-parasitic way of utilizing the land and resources for our own immediate needs without putting back is a crucial lesson for future generations.
I call upon other parties to take heed. The investments we make as a nation are not necessarily from park created revenues. As the Reform Party was quick to point out, the integrity of a park should be maintained by revenues created from within it. We must find investment from other sources within this country to maintain the integrity of the national parks of the far north which will never have the same revenue base which Jasper, Banff and other national parks have the privilege of creating.
This federal government has dragged its feet in creating this park, which has resulted in some controversy in a community that has other vested interests for economic reasons. It must also deal with the inequity. It must deal with the Nunavut settlement region and the Sahtu Dene settlement region to include the whole park boundary as originally proposed and not just within the Inuvialuit settlement region.
I am happy to state that we are in support of Bill C-38 which would begin the creation of the Tuktut Nogait National Park. The other settlement regions will contribute further boundaries and further vast tracts of land to protect the integrity of the bluenose herds and the integrity and the biodiversity of that land, so that it will remain sustainable for future generations of the north. May the ecology of this country not be compromised for the sake of the economy.
Firefighters June 12th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to thousands of men and women across northern Canada who are fighting forest fires. All Canadians owe a great debt of gratitude for their courage, discipline and resourcefulness.
In Churchill River hundreds are fighting fires in northwestern Saskatchewan communities such as Île-à-la Crosse, Buffalo Narrows and La Loche. In northern Alberta they protected Swan Hills. In the Yukon they are fighting fires around Haines Junction and Whitehorse.
The federal government should recognize the valuable resources available across Canada to meet the challenges of natural disasters. As a nation we have faced many tragedies, like the Manitoba flood and the ice storms of 1998. These disasters could be addressed by the firefighters of northern Canada.
Today I extend thanks to all the firefighters in northern Canada for protecting our communities.
National Parks Act June 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I also share the views of the hon. member regarding hearing the community's point of view in making this decision.
As the government speaker said, keeping the integrity of the Tuktut Nogait is of the utmost priority. I also come back to the point that there are two additional proposed areas for this park, the Nunavut area and the Sahtu area.
No discussion or reference has been made to these two regions because the bluenose herd requires the entire region for its protection. The community of Paulatuk and Inuvialuit settlement region are compromising their lands to create this park. There is no assurance that the other lands will be included in future park expansion with the existing bill. There is no reference to this. The speaker did not mention this at all.
I would beg that this government make this clear to the people in Paulatuk who are reconsidering a new economic opportunity by the anomalies that have been discovered, the distance they are from the surface. The anomaly inside the park is of prime mineral extraction.
I also go back to the agreement that says protecting the herd is most important because for generations the people of the north have been provided life and sustenance by this herd. I believe this herd can still sustain life in the northern regions of this country without compromising the ecology, practices and traditional way of life of the people of the north.
This government has made a parks agreement with the people of the Inuvialuit settlement region. The agreement includes job creation, training for the people and human resource development and also the environmental and ecological creation of eco-based tourism that the people of the north could benefit from. This agreement gives them first opportunity to gain access into that sort of industry.
There are also agreements in the park legislation for creation of co-management to include the people in making decision on how the park is developed, land use decision and development within it.
There is the question of adjusting the boundaries to gain access to minerals. Our party has always spoken in favour of creating and keeping the integrity of the parks. We cautioned this government during creation of the Cheviot mine neighbouring the Jasper National Park.
In other regions of the world parks also have a sphere of influence surrounding them for the integrity of the species and the ecology. If this were taken into account in this country the development of Banff, the development of Jasper and also the mineral extraction neighbouring some of these parks would be scrutinized in a different light. I think that should be done. A short term gain of mineral extraction and the impact it leaves in most cases must be taken very seriously.
For the time being I challenge the government to include in the Tuktut Nogait national park all the proposed boundaries and clarify to the people of the north that the entire park and its proposed boundaries will be included. It would be like if we live in an urban centre and the local government decides to put an easement between people's properties it is not fair that the local government make an easement on my property first before it makes a total easement on all the properties affected.
In dealing with the Inuvialuit settlement region let us be fair with them. Let us be up front with them that they are not going to be the only ones comprising their lands to create a national park for this country. We must be up front with them and tell them that the Nunavut settlement region and the Sahtu settlement region will also be contributing to this huge national park which has a better chance of keeping the integrity of the ecology and also the integrity of the bluenose caribou herd.
National Parks Act June 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, these two motions deal with the creation of Tuktut Nogait National Park and the effect that will have on our caribou calving grounds.
I would point out that this park is being created specifically in the settlement region of the Inuvialuit.
I agree with Motion No. 2, that the Western Arctic claim and the Inuvialuit final agreement should be recognized. The Tuktut Nogait National Park, also known as the Bluenose National Park, should include the Nunavut settlement region and the Sahtu Dene settlement region, which is another 12,000 square kilometres of park. It should be all encompassing.
This government should not have dragged its heels in the last few years. It should have been finalizing the agreement of the total park boundary and not just dealing with one region, the settlement region of the northern Arctic.
The community has made specific claims. I believe that the next motion will deal with the requests it has made.
With respect to retaining the integrity of our national parks, I am sad to see that the Reform Party has taken a pro-development position within our national parks. The integrity of the ecology of our national parks should be preserved for future generations. There should be sustainable development. The species and the beauty of these parks should be preserved for future generations to enjoy.