Mark Muise

[Fisheries, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the last day of another successful fishing season in my riding. As our fishermen prepare to put away their gear for another season they can only wonder what lies ahead for their future fishery.

Our fishermen are deeply concerned about their industry because, despite the many promises made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to resolve the crisis, he has done nothing except increase tension between native and non-native fishermen.

We hear about the millions of dollars being spent to purchase licences and equipment for aboriginals, but what we do not hear from the minister is how he plans to address the serious problem of the summer food fishery. This summer fishery threatens the livelihoods of all fishermen and if the minister does not soon take this threat seriously he will be risking the long term survival of an industry than spans generations.

I want to congratulate our fishermen for another successful season and thank them for their commitment to peacefully resolving the crisis in the Atlantic fishery.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I come from Nova Scotia, specifically the riding of West Nova. A couple of issues stand out clearly when we talk about transportation, but specifically Highway 101 which has seen some 50 fatalities since 1993. It is a fairly dangerous stretch of road and a couple of concerns come to mind. First, further twinning is required from Halifax toward Yarmouth as much as possible. Second, there is a stretch of highway between Digby and Weymouth in my riding that is not completed and it basically is still the number one highway. This creates a lot of difficulty when it comes to safety, tourism and other issues.

A government that collects over $4 billion in fuel tax every year and returns just a mere 4% of that to the provinces concerns me greatly.

The other issue is that in the estimates for Nova Scotia in 1999-2000, under a Liberal government I might add, a $1.8 million fund was set out for highways. In 2000-01 under a PC government the amount to be transferred is zero.

I have a question for my colleague across the way. What will the federal government, along with the provinces, do to ensure that we have safe highways and that there is a proper amount of funding from the federal government for highways?

Another issue I forgot to mention in my comments is that it is not just the twinning or the completion of the Highway 101. It is also the condition of those roads. They have been left to deteriorate to the point where it is almost dangerous to drive on some highways.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell us if today's announcement by the CBC regarding regional suppertime news is an attempt to systematically dismantle regional news programming? Does he support this type of downscaling?

[Cbc Regional News, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Compass in P.E.I. and Here and Now in Newfoundland are the most watched CBC programs in their respective provinces. With an audience share of 68% and 59% respectively, these two programs seem to contradict the CBC president's assertion that nobody watches regional CBC news.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage intervene on behalf of all Canadians to protect these and other popular TV programs?

[Cbc Regional News, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us whether she has indeed held discussions with the president of the CBC with respect to the elimination of regional news?

If so, can she reassure the House that she will never accept such a proposal?

[Job Creation, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Motion No. 268. This motion would see the federal government take into consideration regional unemployment rates when establishing or expanding government offices and agencies so that regions with high rates of unemployment would be considered for any new job creation.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from Nova Scotia the member for Sydney—Victoria for drawing the government's attention to the serious unemployment problem which exists in the maritime provinces. The member would likely agree that the Liberal government has done little if anything to stop the tide of our young and brightest Atlantic Canadians who are being forced to relocate to other parts of the country in search of employment. Even the Prime Minister has failed to recognize the serious brain drain problem in the country.

It was indicated in the comments by my colleague from across the way who spoke earlier that everything is rosy. In certain parts of the country unemployment rates are low, but I can assure my hon. colleague that the unemployment rates are very high in the Atlantic Canada ridings, and more specifically the riding of West Nova which I represent. Unemployment in seasonal work is very high. The amount of seasonal jobs are high as well which causes a lot of unemployment.

Another issue which is important in West Nova is the brain drain. The last census showed that over 2,000 people have left the riding. These people are between the ages of 18 and 35.

With a population of approximately 70,000, West Nova cannot afford to lose 2,000 of its brightest inhabitants. It is time the federal government did something about this problem before more of our young people decide to leave.

I can certainly sympathize with the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. All Canadians are aware of the many difficulties that have plagued Cape Breton Island over the past decades. Unemployment is at an unacceptable level. Therefore it is paramount that the government do something to assist future economic development in that area as in most areas of the Atlantic provinces.

The Progressive Conservative Party recognized the serious problems facing Atlantic Canadians. That is why in 1987 the Progressive Conservative government of the day announced a new direction for regional economic development policy in Canada. That Progressive Conservative government was responsible for creating the western economic diversification program and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

I might add that earlier my colleague opposite seemed to speak in very positive way of those things which the Progressive Conservative Party put forward and which the present government has adopted as its own. It is interesting that when things look bad, government members point the finger at us. They would probably point the finger at Sir John A. Macdonald if they thought they could get away with it. But when it is an issue that has worked well for parts of the country, they take it as their own.

One of the very important components of these two new agencies was precisely the moving of government's regional development decision making out of Ottawa and closer to the people it serves. This policy helped to address some of the concerns referred to by the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria in the motion he has put to the House.

Obviously much more needs to be done to help Atlantic Canada. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was given a legislated mandate which in part reads “to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada and more particularly, to enhance the growth of earned income and employment opportunities in that region”. In many instances ACOA has achieved those goals.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has enabled many small and medium size businesses in the Atlantic provinces to create jobs that otherwise would not exist. Its involvement in the region's economy has resulted in an important net positive contribution.

Despite its success, there have also been some publicized failures. These failures have been harshly criticized for some of their business decisions and rightfully so. Overshadowed by this criticism is the fact that there have been countless success stories throughout the Atlantic provinces; companies such as Tri-Star Industries in Yarmouth which, with the help of ACOA, is now exporting ambulances throughout the world.

There are problems with ACOA. Improvements must be made to ensure that Canadian taxpayers are getting true value for their investment. However, unlike the reform party, I do not believe in running away from the problem and turning our backs on Atlantic Canada. Let us work together to make necessary changes to ACOA so that Atlantic Canadians can benefit from this agency and ultimately create new long term jobs for our youth.

When the reform party calls for the disbanding of ACOA, it fails to recognize the fact that most chartered banks in Atlantic Canada are quite reluctant to support a small business venture unless it is willing to provide between 30% and 50% of its own equity. Unfortunately most aspiring entrepreneurs are unable to meet this demand. Without ACOA having taken a chance on individual projects, many would not have gotten off the ground.

The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria has introduced a motion calling upon the government to focus greater attention on regions with high rates of unemployment when establishing or expanding government offices and agencies. Unfortunately the opposite appears to be happening. Already the federal government has made huge cuts in the federal civil service.

I will take a moment to speak to the comments made earlier by my hon. colleague on the Liberal side. He said that job creation was going very well.

I am thinking specifically of my part of the country, the riding that I represent, West Nova. We have seen many jobs in Yarmouth, for example, being pushed off to more centralized locations in other parts of the province. These are jobs that are valuable and needed in an area where unemployment is too high.

Another issue which I think is very important is the CBC, the links it provides and the potential removal of local broadcasting centralized in Toronto. This is another issue in which the government seems to lack the foresight and the intention. I would stress that it should keep pushing to make sure that local broadcasting can remain in local areas.

On the weekend the Right Hon. Joe Clark, leader of the PC Party, made a commitment to all Atlantic Canadians that our party would be working hard on their behalf to help them achieve their maximum potential. As the member for West Nova and a proud Atlantic Canadian I will do whatever is necessary to help us achieve that goal.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the amendments in Group No. 1 to Bill C-16 put forth by the critics for citizenship and immigration. I am not our party's critic for immigration. The critic for our party is the member for Compton—Stanstead, but I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments.

In dealing with the motion put forth by the member for Lakeland, our party does not agree that either the father or the mother should have to be a citizen or a permanent resident for a child to have Canadian citizenship. Citizenship in this country is precious and should not be thrown around frivolously. However, if someone is born on Canadian soil, he or she should be recognized as Canadian. It is for this reason that we have a problem with this amendment.

Concerning Motion No. 2, we do not feel that an individual should claim time toward permanent residency status after having made a refugee claim. When an individual makes a claim there is not even a guarantee that he or she will achieve refugee status. We support the present provision in the act, which states that a person begins claiming time toward permanent residency status once he or she has been determined to be a convention refugee.

With respect to Motions Nos. 3 and 17, the hon. member for Rosemont has been quite concerned about the adoption provisions for some time. The amendments he proposes solidify the fact that adoption is a provincial area of jurisdiction. We support the autonomy of the provinces in their areas of jurisdiction and would gladly support the hon. member for Rosemont; however, he specifies only jurisdictional powers over adoption for the province of Quebec. If the motion had specified all of the provinces in Canada we would have supported it.

We support Motion No. 22 put forward by the hon. member for Lakeland. During the course of debate on Bill C-16, this party raised concerns about the coming into force of this act. It stipulates in the bill that all citizenship cases will fall under the new act once it is proclaimed. We did not like this. What kinds of extra paperwork and headaches will this cause for cases which are smoothly making their way through the system under the current act? There should be some sort of cut off point for cases presently going through the system. Perhaps there could be a period of one year to give the department and applicants alike time for adjustment.

[Canada National Parks Act, May 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, with some trepidation, it is a pleasure that I rise today as we begin the important process of examining Bill C-27, the Canada national parks act.

I recognize that changes are necessary if we are to protect and enhance Canada's national parks system. Yet I am concerned, among other things, that Bill C-27 will lead to the reduced role of Canada's parliamentarians in the creation of future national parks and national historic sites. Furthermore, I believe the bill will seriously restrict the ability of local residents living in our national parks to have any meaningful input into the future of their communities. For instance, clause 9 of the bill reads:

Powers in relation to land use, community planning and development in park communities may not be exercised by a local government body, except as provided in the agreement referred to in section 35.

The agreement in question is for the town of Banff, but what about the town of Jasper? In the May 2 Gazette there was a story about the residents of Jasper who were very upset about a Parks Canada plan to more than double and even quadruple the annual rates residents and businesses paid for their land.

We are talking about a figure of $2.2 million being suddenly increased to $5.2 million. I would call that a very significant increase.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage will likely point to the fact that living within one of Canada's national parks is a privilege. To live within one of Canada's most beautiful scenic areas in the world is probably a wonderful privilege, a privilege which I am sure the residents truly appreciate. However, let us not forget that for many of these residents, this national park has been their home for many years. They grew up there, as did their parents before them. They have a vested interest in wanting to help preserve the natural beauty of the area.

Mr. Dick Ireland, a chairman of the town committee that has some limited input into the way Parks Canada manages Jasper, bemoaned the lack of municipally elected officials by declaring that the existing system is basically a system by which the residents pay taxes without the benefit of representation.

Instead of improving the situation, I am convinced that this bill will only make things even more difficult. Where will these people turn to? Who will be their advocate? Will the heritage minister be able to meet their needs?

The same problem exists in other national parks where people live on a permanent basis. I have received letters from some of those residents who want to express their displeasure with this bill. They are not satisfied with the way they are represented, even if they pay taxes. They see no solution in this bill.

As it stands now, these residents feel like they are paying taxes without any representation.

I expressed concern about the lack of input being afforded parliamentarians in the creation of a new national park. I can appreciate why the Liberal government would want to reduce the lengthy process involved with designating an area as a new national park.

As we recently witnessed with the creation of Tuktut Nogait National Park in the Northwest Territories, it can take virtually years before we can finally arrive at a satisfactory agreement.

Nevertheless, I think it would be a mistake for us to shirk our responsibility simply in the name of expediency. Creating new national parks by an order in council will rob Canadians of an opportunity to witness some healthy debate. It reduces the role of parliament by transferring more power to cabinet.

To remove any lands from a national park would require an act of parliament. If an act of parliament is required to remove lands, then perhaps it should also require an act of parliament to create new or expand existing national parks.

Perhaps my fears should be lessened by clause 7.1 of the act which states that any amendments to our national parks will be tabled in each House of parliament and then referred to the standing committee that considers matters relating to parks, which in this case would be the Canadian Heritage committee.

I would welcome such a move since it would give our committee an opportunity to closely examine the proposed changes while also providing interested stakeholders another chance to voice their opinions on the amendments. The government of the day would do well to heed the advice of committee members.

The fact that Canada's national parks are in decline comes as no surprise. Successive studies conducted in 1990, 1994, 1997, and most recently the report released by the panel on ecological integrity of Canada's national parks, have all called for immediate action to help protect the ecological integrity of our national parks.

As a member of the Canadian Heritage committee, I take these calls for help very seriously. As I am sure all members of parliament know, the Progressive Conservative Party has a long history of wanting to protect our fragile ecosystem through the creation of national parks.

Our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, recognized the intrinsic beauty of Canada's natural environment. He also recognized, or perhaps he could foresee, the deep-rooted affection Canadians would have toward their environment, which is why he created Canada's first national park in 1885.

I think it would be very interesting to witness the reaction of our first prime minister if he could come back and see the changes that have occurred in the town of Banff since he designated those 26 square kilometres around the hot mineral springs. He likely never envisioned the tremendous expansion that has occurred in this little area when he was contemplating Canada's first national park over 115 years ago.

The town of Banff in particular, but also Lake Louise and Jasper, have grown tremendously over the years. The natural beauty of the area has attracted tourists from all over the world. These three areas are primarily responsible for the over four million visitors the park welcome every year.

This national park has provided a tremendous boost over the years to Alberta's economy. The increase in tourism has brought about an increase in development within our national parks. Hotels, lodges, golf courses and ski trails have all contributed to the tremendous growth in the area.

However, we now recognize that this growth has not come without a price. The physical landscape has been affected and the wildlife has felt the ill-effects of the countless intrusions by humans.

I think we all recognize that something has to be done. Even the local residents who make Banff, Lake Louise and Jasper their home would agree that some changes are in order to help protect and preserve their environment.

Let us face it, local businesses are there to stay. Therefore, it is imperative that we find some kind of workable balance that will respond to the needs of the local community while also managing to address the need to maintain ecological integrity.

I went to Alberta three times to visit our national parks. After discussions with the local people, I am convinced that they want to work with the federal government to find a solution that would meet their needs. They want to be part of the solution, not of the problem.

The federal government will have to work with these people to find a solution. Unfortunately, the minister seems more interested in imposing her solutions than in negotiating to find a reasonable agreement.

Following the introduction of this proposed legislation, the premier of Alberta responded angrily, accusing the federal government of failing to consult with them prior to formulating the bill. With such critical decisions required to limit the further expansion of commercial interests within our national parks, it might have been better or more conducive to achieving agreements had the government entertained full public hearings in this matter.

It has been the history of this minister to approach a situation in a very confrontational manner. Rather than working together to find a solution to a problem, she is often quick to impose her own ill-conceived solutions that in the end satisfy no one.

Under the proposed legislation, a community plan for a park must be consistent with the management plan for the park according to the guidelines set forth by the minister. The community is effectively being dictated to as to how its community is to be run in the future.

The minister seems to want to assume responsibility for all decisions affecting our national parks despite the fact that some of these decisions might fall within town jurisdiction.

Canadians have often complained that they are being regulated to death by government. When I look at some of the regulations contained in clause 16(1) of the bill, I ask myself whether all those regulations are really in the best interests of Canadians.

It says that regulations could be made respecting the protection of air quality and cultural, historical and archaeological resources. First, the federal Minister of the Environment failed to live up to the Kyoto agreement so please do not blame me for being a little skeptical about the Department of Canadian Heritage somehow being more successful in protecting our air quality.

I am pleased to see the minister wanting to manage and regulate the fishery in our national parks. Let me tell the members that she cannot do any worse than her colleague, the fisheries minister, who has yet to find a solution to the Atlantic fisheries crisis.

As for respecting culture, I can see where placing a life size photo of Wayne Gretzky and Lucy Maud Montgomery in downtown Banff will really improve the cultural or cultural component of the town. Is it not somewhat ironic when one thinks of it? One of the problems identified in the state of the parks report is the overabundance of tourist traffic in our parks, yet we would have the minister introduce these life-sized figurines in Banff to attract tourists.

There are many positive elements to be found in this proposed piece of legislation. The legislation, although flawed in a number of areas, should provide Parks Canada personnel with a set of rules that will provide them with the support they have been asking for to ensure the long term protection of Canada's national parks.

I am personally encouraged by the government's commitment to conservation and protection of wildlife and other park resources. It was imperative that any new national parks act contains stiff penalties for poaching. Each year we lose an unacceptable number of our wildlife and this must stop if we really are concerned with ecological integrity.

Our wildlife must be protected against offenders if we want to ensure that we maintain a representative assortment of wildlife. It is important that the fines associated with illegal poaching activity be significant enough that they will serve as a strong deterrent. I believe the minister has taken this into consideration as demonstrated by the huge fines and the threat of a prison term incorporated into the legislation.

We should identify boundaries for all communities found within our national parks. However these boundaries have to be developed in partnership with all stakeholders. By this, I include local environmentalists, Parks Canada officials, the federal, provincial and local politicians, as well as existing commercial interests.

I have many concerns about this proposed piece of legislation. However, I and my party support sending this legislation to committee where witnesses from across the country have already expressed interest in appearing before the committee to share their views on the future of Canada's national parks.

After listening to the witnesses and studying the many interventions I suspect we will receive, we can then draft appropriate amendments that will allow us to get on with the task at hand of creating new parks across the country while protecting the ecological integrity of Canada's existing national parks.

[Disaster Assistance, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, damage caused in Nova Scotia by the 1998 ice storm was not deemed significant enough to qualify for emergency federal funding. On January 21 another winter storm severely damaged five wharves and still there is no federal assistance.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why is it when residents of Quebec and Ontario are faced with tragedy the federal government is quick to provide assistance yet it can turn a blind eye to Atlantic Canada?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked an answer.

The minister turned her back on the magazine industry through the concessions to Bill C-55. She appears willing to allow foreign ownership in our newspaper and broadcasting industry and she screams content to allow the CBC to withdraw from local newscasts.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us which foreign investor will be charged with telling our Canadian stories to our Canadian children?