Pierre De Savoye

[Canada National Parks Act, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Did you say on debate?

[Canada National Parks Act, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, during second reading of Bill C-27 on national parks, the Bloc Quebecois indicated that it was in agreement in principle, but that it intended to raise some important concerns. First, there was the issue of maintaining and restoring the ecological integrity of parks, and the question of the time limits for the examination of ministerial orders with respect to amendments to certain schedules of the proposed legislation, which we feel are too short.

There was also the issue of respect for the rights of communities living within or near parks and, finally, the designation of historic sites, without consulting provinces or municipalities.

Following representations made to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage by the various interested parties, the Bloc Quebecois moved twenty or so amendments. The committee agreed to include a definition of ecological integrity in the bill.

We would also have liked clause 4 to deal more directly with this issue of ecological integrity, but we are happy that clause 8 stipulates that the minister's first priority shall be matters of ecological integrity.

The committee extended the time limit for examining ministerial orders to amend certain schedules to the legislation from 20 to 30 days. This is no guarantee that the committees responsible for these matters will be convened, but it reduces the risk considerably and we are satisfied.

The issue of respect for the rights of communities living within or near parks has not, in our view, been entirely resolved. However, clause 12 has been considerably improved so as to require the minister to encourage the public to participate in the development of policies and regulations that might concern it.

In addition, I must point out that, thanks to the intervention of the member for Manicouagan, the representations from inhabitants of the Mingan Archipelago were well received. Thus, in accordance with the wishes expressed by its inhabitants, the Mingan Archipelago has been added to the list of parks in clause 17 of the bill in respect of which the minister may make regulations regarding the exercise of traditional renewable resource harvesting activities. Besides, the limits of the park in the Mingan Archipelago will be, for each island, at the high water mark, as the representatives of the area wanted it to be.

On another topic, clause 42 of the bill provides that the governor in council may set any land as a national historic site to commemorate a historic event or preserve a historic landmark.

At first sight, these provisions appear desirable and harmless, but a closer examination shows that the minister could intrude, without provinces and even interested municipalities being aware, on sites and historic sites and deal with them and develop them the way he wants without necessarily abiding by town planning, zoning or any other municipal bylaws or provincial regulations.

There is a risk that a quiet neighbourhood might be transformed over night. A historic town centre could become a federal property, one building at the time, and the whole of it would become free from any obligation relating to provincial regulations or municipal bylaws. This is unacceptable in my opinion.

The Bloc Quebecois moved in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage an amendment proposing that such acquisitions should at least be approved by the provinces or province involved. The amendment was rejected by the Liberal majority.

This is why, and we will come to that later, I move that this clause be withdrawn, as it creates this type of risk for our provinces, municipalities and populations. If the House does not withdraw this section, I urge all provincial legislatures to legislate in order to subject to the approval of a provincial minister all real property transactions that would result in the transfer of a site to the federal government for the purpose of making it an historical site.

In this way the transaction could be made, but the provincial government and the municipalities would know about it and would be able to take steps to ensure that those transactions are respectful of the people and the authorities concerned.

To conclude, the Bloc will support the bill as amended at report stage. We will, however, be carefully monitoring how Parks Canada, whose priority must be the preservation and restoration of the environmental integrity, is carrying out its mission .

[Canada Day, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important for the public to know why the government is keeping from us a piece of information which seems to me rather innocuous. Is it a state secret or does it threaten national defence?

Could it be that the minister asked her colleague responsible for the CIO to find new funds for her after giving all of her $5 million to Quebec? Or is it in fact because Canada Day is only celebrated in Quebec?

[Canada Day, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to put a simple question to the government, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage will understand me correctly.

How much money is the federal government planning to spend outside Quebec on Canada Day celebrations?

[Canadian Heritage, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in this whole issue, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage come to realize that what is disturbing in the Scully RDI and Heritage Minutes affairs is the hidden role played by the government?

[Canadian Heritage, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the CR Bronfman Foundation produced the Heritage Minutes , but the necessary money was provided by the federal government.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Do the role played by the CR Bronfman Foundation and the source of funding not demonstrate that, in fact, the CR Bronfman Foundation is nothing but a frontman for the federal government?

[Canadian Heritage, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government has made use of Bell Canada Média and the CR Bronfman Foundation as fronts for the “Heritage Minutes”.

Are we to understand that the government is using the frontman technique to disguise information that is, in reality, nothing but propaganda?

[Canadian Heritage, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we have already learned that Bell Canada Média served as a front for the program “Le Canada du millénaire”. Now we learn that the “Heritage Minutes” of Heritage Canada have a link with the CR Bronfman Foundation.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Why is this government, which is so keen on gaining visibility most of the time, with the millennium scholarships for instance, hiding behind Bell Canada Média and the CR Bronfman Foundation?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, June 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the speech by our new member in the House, and at one point he spoke of the agreement Quebec concluded with Newfoundland on the development of Churchill Falls.

He deplored the fact that, in this agreement, few benefits remained for Newfoundland. Perhaps I misunderstood and he could enlighten me, but he seemed to be blaming Quebec for being greedy in signing this contract.

I would like to point out that no one wanted to support Newfoundland in its efforts to build the dam and develop hydro-electric power: neither New York—the Americans—nor the Canadians, nor Ottawa. Only Quebec supported Newfoundland at the time. Although Quebec set rigorous conditions for Newfoundland, no one else would have been satisfied with them, they would have demanded more.

So, we have to go back. It was many years ago. Quebec helped Newfoundland at that time and is prepared to do so again with the development of hydroelectric power at the border between Labrador and Quebec.

[Copyright Act, June 5th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-485, an act to amend the Copyright Act (Minister).

Madam Speaker, the bill I am introducing today proposes that the Minister of Canadian Heritage become the minister responsible for the application of the Copyright Act, except for the purposes of section 44.1 of that act.

This bill is in response to the almost unanimous request of copyright holders who, faced with the Minister of Industry's careless handling of the Copyright Board, are asking that responsibility for the board be turned over to the Department of Canadian Heritage.

This request has been made repeatedly by the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, known as SOCAN, as well as by the largest Canadian agency representing the cultural sector, the Canadian Conference of the Arts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)