Rick Laliberte

[Canadian Parks Agency Act, March 19th, 1998]

I thank the hon. member for raising that point. I have no idea about the future of this parks agency. Nobody has any idea. We are opening the door to an insecure future. There is no vision of what our national parks will be. It will be up to the chief executive officer of the agency that will be created.

It is said a percentage of 80% to 85% is government transfers and about 15% is user fees. Who is to say that in the middle of this century it will be 50% user fees and 50% government? By no means has Canada achieved the percentage of national parks that should be created. I believe it is a 12% commitment that has been made to Canadians that would be set aside as national parks. We have not achieved the percentage of lands to be set aside.

As the number of national parks increases in the future, the amount of transfer dollars available from the federal government will dwindle. Will that be decided through the corporate or management plan which will be one person planning to decide to raise the fees? It is uncharted waters and it is a scary thought.

Once you put a big bow tie on an agency such as Walt Disney, it could take over the administration of the parks and make it a truly business-like plan operating at arm's length. The government says we can raise the issue with the minister every two years for a review. It will be designed like an umbilical cord from the minister to the parks agency. Some day it could be severed and that is the scary thought. I would hate to see the national parks depart from that.

In my riding we have the Prince Albert National Park.

Another legacy that Canadians should be aware of is potash heritage sites in my region, as well as Jasper, Banff, Terra Nova and the Cape Breton Highlands. All of these parks will be impacted as well as future parks. But at what cost? Who is going to design and manage them? It will be the chief executive officer. He will be negotiating contracts with the staff. We are giving him two years to come up with it.

What if they do not come up with a contract in two years? What happens to the employees? They will be operating without a contract. Who do they fall under? Who is going to be responsible for parks like Jasper National Park or the Cheviot mine that will be right next door to a national park which is a world heritage site? Who will decide how to procure these lands? One individual could decide to sell the parks or have an ecological impact on them. That is a scary thought.

[Canadian Parks Agency Act, March 19th, 1998]

As I mentioned, the impact that it has on the 5,000 employees that the parks employ as seasonal workers, summer student employment in the summer, their first work experience at the park creating a natural, historic and cultural legacy for other generations, is truly an honourable process of how our parks have been utilized in creating employment and creating education for our biology, ecology and our culture and geography students. We also look at the fate of agencies and the government's role with regard to DND employees and privatization. A British company is now operating employee status which will have a major impact throughout Canada.

[Canadian Parks Agency Act, March 19th, 1998]

Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

[Canadian Parks Agency Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak against Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian parks agency and to amend other acts as a consequence.

The Liberals would have Canadians believe that the purpose of this legislation is to improve Parks Canada. In fact, the Liberal background papers for Bill C-29 speak of organizational simplicity, administrative efficiency, human resources flexibility and improved financial procedures. Quoting them, they use words such as business-like manner.

Their language flows pretty in its terms, in its fancy window dressing which hides the real reason why Bill C-29 is coming into effect. The real reasons are financial and fiscal and that is why the bill is in the House today.

Canadians will be outraged when they finally realize that the details of this proposal will be understood in the near future. Words like program review are hidden. These are the reasons given for cutbacks resulting from our financial situation in the country.

But the Liberals are quick to state that Bill C-29 has nothing to do with privatization. No, the Liberals know a lot better than that. It will create a lot of trouble. Whisper privatization in anybody's ear, especially dealing with national parks, and there will be a major outrage. The repercussions will take several years to recover from.

Canadians voiced their opposition loud and clear when the Liberals originally tried to take this approach. Our parks are a sacred sanctuary. Our parks are a part of our national identity. Our parks help us define what it means to be Canadian. They are very special and distinct places in our country that reflect the ecological, cultural and geographical integrity for the generations to come.

Our parks are a legacy, a legacy which began in Banff in the mid-1880s and which continues to this day. Bill C-7, the Sagenuay-St. Lawrence marine park, was the latest legacy which was introduced and recently passed in this House. The New Democrats supported it wholeheartedly. From Banff to the St. Lawrence these parks are alive into the next millennium; a century of noble effort and honourable intentions to be laid waste for short term plans and misguided Liberal fiscal policy.

The reason this bill is being introduced is for financial deficits and cutbacks. It is to control the financial roller coaster that nobody seems to be in control of.

The finance minister stated several weeks ago that we have reached a balanced approach. But we never know where this roller coaster is going to go. We are putting our parks in jeopardy by continuing to look at a cherished institution for the sake of expediency, financial accountability, transferability and transparency.

During the deficit battle, like many other programs, departments and services, Parks Canada was attacked. It lost hundreds of millions of dollars, it lost jobs, services were reduced and user fees were increased. If we continue to operate it in business-like manner pretty soon it will be like a hockey game. How many people can afford an NHL hockey ticket today? Who will be able to afford to a part of this legacy for all Canadians, to go to a national park, to experience the beauty of Banff and Jasper, of the polar bears, the marine parks, the heritage sites? User fees will skyrocket. There will be contracting out, pay per person, private companies, loss of dedicated staff and plenty of complaints.

Canadians are angry that our national legacies are not being protected. Canadians are angry that our heritage is disappearing bit by bit, service by service, program by program. The New Democratic Party shares these concerns and is fighting for the very principles that this government and other parties are willing to squander for the sake of business-like practices. Principles are being squandered when it comes to the dollar. The legacy of national parks needs to protected. It cannot be measured by dollar value.

Bill C-29 does not seem to be the answer. If this nation has met the deficit challenge, why are we considering packaging Bill C-29, gift wrapping it for an organizational corporation like Walt Disney to purchase? Why should we consider something like that? The mentality for the last few years has been to axe policies and chop programs. That has to stop. Let us stop it at the national parks. Close the gate, as the Reform leader did at Stornoway, create a gate and stop it.

We should not continue the dismantling of federal responsibilities, especially not our parks and our historical sites. I call on my colleagues to stop an enabling legislation that will impact 38 national parks and 786 historical sites. These are important symbols of our identity. We must think long and hard before we embark on this path.

We will have a Canadian parks agency, a crown agency, reporting to the minister. Why is this necessary? Can we not fix the current problems identified by the recent round of consultations? Can we not fix it by having the employees labour, the service industries and the communities around the national parks addressing these issues with the existing structure? What is stopping us from implementing these changes and keeping Parks Canada intact?

Canadians have witnessed the spins and angles which the Liberals have used to damage our country. The Liberals did not say anything about scrapping the GST, did they? They did not mention anything about the BST in Atlantic Canada and how it would reduce cost and impact Atlantic Canadians. No, they did not mention anything like that. Again they are not mentioning that the agency is not for privatization.

Bill C-29 will save the parks and the heritage sites. That is what they are saying.

When I received my brief from department officials, I immediately felt something was wrong. It just could not be right. The bottom line was to be financially accountable and to make things affordable. However, if they make things affordable and business-like, it will be at the cost of employment services and program services. Services will be eliminated and there will be user fee hikes. That is the mentality of business-like corporations.

The Disney corporation is more than happy to raise their costs to give us a much shinier project or a much shinier concept with a futuristic approach. If they get their hands on this, like they did on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the commercial rights will be owned by a foreign corporation. That is exactly what is happening.

Canadian parks are not being privatized, but they are on the road to being commercialized. A Reform member yesterday agreed wholeheartedly that it was the right way to go, to do it in a business-like manner. He said that if he was the minister of Canadian heritage he would do it that way. I think he was dreaming. It is a right wing, capitalist approach.

Let us keep the national parks as a Canadian entity. Let us keep them for all our children. Let Canadians continue to operate them in the generations to come.

The outcry, which is a whisper right now, can be compared to what happened with our national railways. They are now operating on American soil, on American rail lines. The Canadian dream of uniting our nation has been abandoned.

We had the experience with NavCan. It was packaged by the government to be sold to a private organization. Is that where our parks are going?

As well, a fine patronage plum will be created. Under Bill C-29 a new CEO position will be created. That person will oversee the agency responsible for our parks and heritage sites. The CEO will have exclusive hiring and firing powers. The CEO will be able to dispose of and acquire crown lands and assets, following the rules of course, and we know the kind of track record the Liberals have on following rules.

The CEO will also have the power to negotiate employee contracts. The contracts which exist for Canada Parks employees will be negotiated over the next two years. We do not know what kind of contract they will have. We do not know—

[Petitions, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from petitioners from across Canada. It deals with the multilateral agreement on investment; sovereign rights of Canada; and labour, social and environmental issues.

They call upon the government to take a second look at our signing away these vested interests of Canadians.

[Petitions, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.

I present the first one on behalf of petitioners from across Canada. They would like to draw attention to the actions of the Canadian government in the arrest and treatment of citizens protesting at Clayoquot Sound, Temogami, Ipperwash, Oka, Gustafson Lake, Slocan Valley and APEC. They have violated the civil and political rights of those arrested, which is in violation of the international covenant of civil and political rights to which Canada is a signatory.

They are raising this issue and request that the Canadian government act on it.

[The Environment, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today Canadians join over 200 groups in North America, Europe and Asia in a worldwide declaration against government plutonium policy.

The Liberal government is opening Canada's borders to accept this waste without an environmental assessment, without a transport or emergency policy, without parliamentary debate, and without public consultations with the communities through which this highly toxic substance and weapons grade plutonium will pass.

Canada does not have an adequate nuclear waste plan and the Liberals want to burden our children with more waste. Can Canadians trust the government and the AECB to protect the health and safety of our workers, our communities and our environment?

Today the world is aware of the dangers and is calling for action to protect our lands for future generations. Will the Prime Minister listen?

[Agriculture, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister of agriculture. It is reported that chemical products are contaminating water supplies across the prairies. In Saskatchewan fifteen thousand family farms have been affected by the risk of bad dugout water and contaminated rivers and streams.

What is he doing to protect farm families from this growing risk and ensure prairie communities are well informed of this condition and the sources of this contamination?

[Observance Of Two Minutes Of Silence On Remembrance Day Act, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on behalf of the veterans affairs critic who could not be here and also portray our party's favour in recognizing two minutes of silence. It is very crucial in the issue of remembrance of the sacrifices that were made by the young men and women who faced the atrocities of war to find peace. The two minutes of silence should end in a celebration of peace because peace is the essence of harmony and the fulfilment of a good life.

I would like to reflect on the land we presently occupy and the nations that occupied this land for generations. Along the Great Lakes there was a confederacy of united nations. A great law of peace guided their society, their government, their activities and their relations with other nations. The original five nations which are now called the Six Nations Confederacy lived under the law of peace. They held the might of their strength. The arrow was a symbolism of armaments. But those armaments and the military might were in the name of peace, not in the name of war.

In our history of the Canadian military and the Canadian government we have had glimpses that we are willing to sacrifice our might and our diplomacy for international peace. We have shown leadership and have been recognized as such.

Speaking on remembrance, let us also remember the many people who sacrificed themselves, left their families and the comfort of their homes to go to the front lines. Upon returning home, as the hon. member for Chateauguay mentioned, our veterans faced inequities and injustices.

One of the other groups of veterans I would like to bring forward is the aboriginal veterans, the First Nations, the Metis, the Inuit. Brothers in arms, sisters in arms took the risks and sacrificed, but on coming back the injustices started. The distribution of grants and allocation of land to these people were not fair. The access to pensions and recognition were not given to these men and women.

Our languages were used in combat as well by the aboriginal code talkers. If a Cree person or a Dene person spoke to another on the other side of a radio line, people in the rest of the world could not figure out what they were talking about. This was done in the allied forces for the democratic freedom of all our people. Our languages are gifts of our Creator. We used those gifts to get a speedy recovery from the illness of war, to find peace. These are gifts that can be used to find a peaceful end.

In remembrance of the aboriginal veterans, I call on this country to recognize them. Let us give remembrance to them by giving them equal opportunity as all other veterans of this country.

In the two minutes of silence, as we challenge our children to remember, also celebrate peace. I challenge my colleagues to take up that message because once we have finished the remembrance we have to celebrate peace. This is it. We have it. Cherish it, nurture it and carry it on. We cannot take it for granted. Celebrate it.

In memory of all veterans and all people who gave their lives on the many battlefronts recognized and unrecognized, I give my support to Bill C-279. Hopefully as a nation we can rise above the ashes of war and keep peace into the new millennium and for thousands of years to come.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I concur with my colleague that the motion needs to be reconsidered. There is no national vision of education. The federal government has devolved its constitutional responsibilities to the provinces.

The province of Saskatchewan guarantees in the education act to teach our children until they are 21 years old. However, if they happen to graduate from high school at 17 or 18 years old, that funding or support stops. It should not stop when they receive their high school diplomas.

The guarantee to 21 years of age should be taken literally for all young Canadians. They should be guaranteed a state paid education until they are 21. If the provincial education jurisdictions receive funding through federal government transfers, it could be made available.

Let us look at the educational journey. At the secondary school level our children are just starting to be prepared in terms of their world view of their education and career journeys. We can look at an education in trades or in university. A bachelor degree is the result of a student being tested on what is being taught by the institution. At the masters and doctoral levels individuals begin to develop original thought. Journeymen, craftsmen and artists who study their trade or crafts can excel at higher levels.

After children leave high school they need guidance. I would like to share my vision of the guidance given by aboriginals to their children. It was a vision of sharing the land of Canada. They guaranteed the educational rights of their children. That is what we should do for all Canadians, guarantee the educational rights of all our children. This is a national vision.

The hon. member for Rosemont mentioned that the millennium fund could be a step toward privatization. It is unfortunate but true. We have local school boards and boards of governors representing the views of communities all over Canada, and they give the responsibility to a chief executive officer of Chrysler. That is not a vision of education. That is industrialization and privatization of education. It should be given to our communities.

There is also the French language. My cultural background is Metis. I speak Cree because that is what my parents spoke—