Inky Mark

[Municipalities, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, at the 1996 Federation of Canadian Municipalities convention we heard the Prime Minister acknowledging that it was time to recognize the municipal governments in their own right.

At the FCM meeting in Regina today the Prime Minister said nothing about the role of municipalities. If he really wants to connect with Canadians let him listen to municipal concerns brought on by federal funding cuts and downloading of services.

The Prime Minister talks about the information highway. Municipalities are stuck figuring out ways to pay for streets and roads. Municipalities already have the smarts. What they need is a voice and a seat at the table.

Let the government heed section 5 of Reform's new Canada act: “The Government of Canada hereby recognizes municipal governments as the first level of government in Canada, and agrees to ensure municipal government representation at federal-provincial conferences dealing with the provision and financing of essential services.

[Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation And Safety Board Act, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-2, an act to amend the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, the Canadian Labour Code.

This bill is a reprint of Bill C-86 which was introduced during the last parliament on March 6, 1997. It passed first reading, but it was never considered by the transportation committee of the House of Commons.

Before I speak to the bill I would like to say a few words about the process that is being followed.

I am on the transportation committee and this is the first time I have heard about this bill. Would it not make sense for the transportation committee of the House to see the bill before it is introduced for debate in the House of Commons? This is one good reason for the House not to accept bills originating in the Senate.

The transportation committee of the House of Commons is the scrutineer of all legislation pertaining to transportation matters in this country, not the Senate. At no time should the transportation committee be left out of the process.

We on this side of the House support this bill in principle, but we need an opportunity to clarify some technicalities in the bill, hopefully at the committee level. We agree that there is a need to modernize Canada's transportation safety investigation regulations to align them with the recommendations made in a 1994 review commission report on the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and the 1992 Moshansky commission report on the Dryden air accident.

One of the goals of the review was to uncover cost efficiencies as well as increase the flexibility of the board's operations. Included in its recommendations allowing for part time board members was that the ratio of the full and part time members would be left up to the governor in council. That makes a lot of sense. For example, should there be a large serious accident or even a series of serious accidents it may seem necessary to the governor in council to appoint five full time members. At other times a full time board would not be necessary.

Is it necessary to have three full time members all the time? Would it not make sense to leave it up to the government of the day to hire on need?

The good news is that this amendment, unusual as it may be, would not result in new programs and new expenditures. This is indeed unusual in most government bills.

The amendments to repeal the Transportation Safety Board's mandate to initiate and conduct special studies and special investigations on matters pertaining to safety in transportation puzzles me. This amendment appears to take away from the Transportation Safety Board the authority to be independent and to initiate investigations on its own.

This amendment would make the Transportation Safety Board very reliant on directions from government on what it can and cannot investigate.

Bill S-2 will also place a greater emphasis on the identification of safety deficiencies in the transportation sector. It will prohibit other federal departments, except the Department of National Defence, from investigating a transportation occurrence for the purpose of making findings as to its causes and contributing factors. An investigation for any other purpose is sanctioned.

Bill S-2 will strengthen the distinction between safety investigations and court disciplinary proceedings. It will also provide for greater protection of information provided to the Transportation Safety Board. It will prohibit the use of on-board recordings in legal proceedings and will generally relieve investigators from the obligation to appear as witnesses in any such proceedings.

The Reform Party supports the bill. It is critical to the process that the bill originated in the Senate and should pass through the transport committee of the House of Commons.

[Judges Act, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support the amendment put forward by my colleague from Crowfoot.

The amendment initiates the process to scrutinize and review the commission's report calling for witnesses and reporting its findings to the House.

For the record I would like to say that the concern is that the commission, which is comprised of three members appointed by the governor in council: one nominated by the judiciary; one nominated by the Minister of Justice; and one, who shall act as a chair, nominated by the first two nominees. Does anyone think they will be objective in their deliberations? That is precisely the point and it is the concern of the public and our constituents. These members may not be objective as they have a vested interest in increasing their and their colleagues' salaries and benefits.

The issue here is optics in that it just does not look right and it will not sell. From a political point of view I cannot understand why the government would put forth such a bill with such an amendment.

I would like to briefly return to the issue of the 8.3% pay raise over four years. The bottom line salary today of judges is $162,300. If this bill passes there will be a retroactive raise of $13,000. A lot of my constituents in Dauphin—Swan River do not even make $13,000 on an annual basis.

The real issue is not about a pay increase for judges. If this government really wants to do some real work in terms of reforming our judicial system, it needs to deal with those issues and not about pay.

How many people in my own riding would support this pay increase? I do not think too many would. My constituents would say that there are lots of issues and problems in the judiciary system so why are we not addressing them first?

More and more people are feeling unsafe these days because of youth crimes. For years we have talked about the Young Offenders Act. In fact as early as 1991 when I was first elected as a councillor I remember very well a municipal initiative calling on the federal government to deal with the Young Offenders Act. I remember filling out surveys sent out by the solicitor general's office asking for input on how the Young Offenders Act could be changed and reformed. Fortunately the municipal organization co-operated and did submit its surveys but unfortunately there was no response on the part of the government, and this is going back as early as 1991 and 1992. The people of this country want to see change but unfortunately the government at this level at that time did not deem it important enough to follow through on.

Therefore people have very little faith in our judicial system, the lack of a justice system. We have heard figures of 52% of the country having very little faith in the justice system. Bill C-68 is another indicator where the government is treating law-abiding citizens like criminals. The government knows that with expenditures of $1.2 billion projected to implement the registration of all firearms this has no effect whatsoever on crime control. A whole new bureaucracy has been established and I am sure thousands of people will be hired to implement another bureaucracy which will cost taxpayers more money.

There are many components to a justice system. My colleagues speaking on this subject indicated that politicians are included. I agree, politicians are part of the problem. Perhaps they are the problem. Politicians know that people want changes in sentencing practices. The public wants changes victims rights to be addressed by the politicians. As I indicated, we all know the public wants changes in the Young Offenders Act. The government has to be more accountable for this current situation. The government can respond to make judges more accountable and to make changes to the Young Offenders Act.

What I am basically trying to say is although we have said many things about judges I think the politicians need to take some of the heat as well.

Governments cannot use the judicial system as a vehicle when they believe it is expedient, as we have experienced in these latter years of our history. Judges need to answer to this House because this is the supreme house of this country.

I ask all members in the name of democracy to support the amendment put forth by the member for Crowfoot.

[Judges Act, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-37, an amendment to the Judges Act.

First I would like to comment that we really do not need a lecture from the member from Windsor on how we should or should not speak in this House. We are all cognizant of the privileges that we need to exercise as members of this House.

This is the highest court of the land. Whatever needs to be said needs to be said here. We are superior to the Supreme Court of Canada. We have a right to bring forward in this House the concerns of our constituents regarding the judicial injustice we hear about almost on a daily basis.

More and more people in this country are losing faith in the judicial system. In fact 52% have little or no faith in the current judicial system. We as members of parliament have a duty to bring their concerns and the injustices that our constituents want us to air to this House of Commons. If the Feeney case can illustrate a good example of this lack of faith in the judicial system, then the Feeney case should be illustrated and made reference to.

If this bill passes, the pay hike of 8.3% over two years for judges will certainly happen. This is really not the time to be talking about wages. As we know, members of parliament are getting blasted for the pay hike of 8% over four years even though members of parliament have not received a pay hike since 1991.

The question I would like to address with reference to this amendment is whether judges need or deserve a pay hike. My colleagues who have spoken before me on this amendment brought up the issue of need. For the record I will quote from the salary schedule to make sure the people of this country know exactly what the current salaries are as of April 1998.

In the Supreme Court of Canada the chief justice makes a salary of $208,200. If someone is just a justice in the supreme court, a salary of $192,900 is paid. Under the Federal Court and Tax Court of Canada, the chief justice and associate chief justices earn a salary of $177,700 and justices earn $162,300. In the Superior Courts the chief justice and the associate chief justices earn $177,700 and the justices earn $162,300. Certainly, these salaries far exceed the salaries of members of parliament who sit in the highest court of the land.

Do these judges deserve a pay raise? The question can only be answered if judges are evaluated by an independent panel. Certainly it is ironic to see judges comment on decisions made at the provincial level regarding judges' salaries, when the judges themselves say that the provincial governments really do not have any business capping their salaries. How ironic it is.

MPs get evaluated every four or five years by the people who pay their salaries. Judges should be evaluated to make sure that if they deserve a raise they get a raise.

The other point I would like to make is that judges are appointed for life. Members of parliament are not appointed for life. We certainly do need term limits on judges.

It is unfortunate that Bill C-37 was not amended to develop a new process for the appointment of judges, to make it one that is more open and more transparent. We heard today that the current process is very patronage based. Today judges are appointed through a political patronage system, through their connections to the political system and political parties. That is normally how someone gets to the bench. We need to make this process much more transparent and politically accountable.

Recently in Manitoba the attorney general, Mr. Vic Toews, was criticized for getting involved in the judicial appointment process. Personally I applaud the attorney general for Manitoba for his intervention. If he is acting on behalf of the people of Manitoba, he certainly has a right to make sure that the federal laws are complied with and that the best judges are appointed.

Another point I want to bring to this House is that under the current federal agreement, in Manitoba three of the federal judges must reside outside the city of Winnipeg. That is a contract the federal government made with the provincial government. Recently there has been pressure to reduce these numbers.

I believe that judges need to reflect the mosaic of the province. Considering that 40% of the population lives outside the city of Winnipeg, I believe that 40% of the federal judges in the province of Manitoba should also live outside the city of Winnipeg. I would hope the Minister of Justice would agree with my opinion.

The government should not be concentrating its efforts on pay raises for judges. We should be concentrating on introducing victims bills of rights legislation and making substantial changes to the Young Offenders Act.

I close by referring to an article printed in the Free China Journal dated May 15. It was a surprise to me. The title is “Victim recompense law passes”.

The Government of Taiwan recently passed new legislation aimed to correct the public misconception that legal measures only protect the offenders. A majority of citizens in our country certainly believe that the laws are there for the law breakers and certainly not for the law-abiding citizen. The legislature of Taiwan had just passed a law that provides timely compensation to crime victims and their families. This unprecedented legislation stipulates that if the breadwinner of a family is killed during a crime, his or her family should apply for compensation for this sad state of affairs.

In the past the government also tried direct compensation. It found that direct compensation of this type was often difficult to obtain. In many cases suspects could either not be positively identified or remained at large. It made it impossible for victims to be legally compensated for those who committed the crime. As a result those affected families plunged into a life of financial hardships.

This is a good example that governments do care about the victims of their country. This is a first step that they have taken to make sure that families are looked after. I will send a copy of this news item to the Minister of Justice.

There are certainly many issues this government needs to address beyond that of pay increases for federal judges. The people of this country have waited for a long time for things to change. Unfortunately this government tends to spend its time concentrating on money issues rather than real issues that people have in mind.

[Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank all the members of the House who rose today to speak in support of Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, VC.

What we have heard today is that there is certainly support for Canada's most decorated soldier of World War I and a true hero of this country.

The point was brought up that other people have been discounted. That is not the intent of this motion. The intent is not to discount other heroes like Billy Bishop whom I consider to be a hero as well. I would welcome an amendment to include all air aces. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

As a nation it is an indication of our maturity to start recognizing the true Canadians and heroes who have risked their lives and have made contributions to this country. This generation has a renewed interest in learning about Canada's history. We had almost thrown that out the window as well in terms of history.

Lieutenant Colonel William Barker played a large part in Canadian history. There is something really wrong when other countries of the world know who our significant Canadians and Canadian heroes are and we in this country do not. It was brought up numerous times that there are many people to recognize in this great country of Canada.

There is Dr. Norman Bethune who is known better in China for his contributions to that country. If it was not for another television production, Canadians would not know who he was.

I just came back from a parliamentary exchange trip to Taiwan and did I make a discovery. I found out that we have another Canadian hero who has made immense contributions to the country of Taiwan. His name is Dr. George MacKay from Oxford county in Ontario. It was Dr. MacKay who started the school system, the medical system and the agricultural system. He had a huge influence in the development of that country. Does anybody in this country know who he is? I do not think so.

On May 13 of this year the town and the RM of Dauphin, Manitoba at least took the first step to formally recognize Lieutenant Colonel William Barker. The regional airport was dedicated and renamed in his honour. We were fortunate on May 13 that after the ceremony the famous Canadian Snowbirds, and we all know who the Snowbirds are, dedicated their air show in his honour. I know from the ceremony the air force holds Lieutenant Colonel Barker in high regard and always has. The three grandsons and one great-grandson of the late Lieutenant Colonel William Barker were in attendance at the ceremony.

I really do not want to take up much more time. This is long overdue. Canada needs to grow up and recognize all people who have contributed not only to the development of this country but to many countries around the world.

[Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, June 2nd, 1998]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage prepare and report a bill to this House, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), no later than ninety (90) days following adoption of this motion, that will create a memorial recognizing the outstanding contribution of Lieutenant Colonel William (“Billy”) Barker (deceased), V.C., World War I flying ace, and hero of Canada and the Commonwealth.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to debate this bill today. Unfortunately this bill was not made votable. First I thank the members who will be speaking on behalf of this motion today.

Yesterday I was flipping through some clippings and I came across a book review in the Globe and Mail of November 8. There was a very appropriate caption. This review was on the book written by Wayne Ralph called Barker VC: William Barker, Canada's Most Decorated War Hero which was released this past fall.

The heading for this book review was “The greatest air ace you've never heard of”. Below that in bold was “How Canada's most decorated hero slowly became an unknown soldier”.

Is that not appropriate when we talk about Lieutenant Colonel Barker, VC? I want to tell this House and the Canadian people why we are debating this motion at this time. This has been a personal project of mine since 1996. As a former mayor of Dauphin I began writing all the politicians associated with heritage, certainly the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the historic sites and monuments board of Canada requesting that national historic significance be conveyed on Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, VC.

For those who do not know anything about Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, VC, which is not a surprise to Canadians, this man was the most decorated soldier, not Canadian soldier but soldier, of the first world war, in the world. Yet we are not familiar with his name.

I wrote to the historic sites and monuments board. I received a negative response from the executive secretary, Mr. Friend. He refused to acknowledge Barker's outstanding contributions during the first world war. He said: “Lieutenant Colonel Barker's post-war career does not appear to have been remarkable”.

I will give a couple of pieces of evidence to show how remarkable his post-war career really was. It appears to me with this kind of response that Mr. Friend did very little research, certainly his department did very little research.

Lieutenant Colonel William Barker was the first president of the Toronto Maple Leafs, installed in 1924. He was also the first acting director of the Royal Canadian Air Force at its founding in 1924. If that is not an incredible post-war career, I do not know what is.

If the historic sites and monuments board did its job, I would not be standing here today to talk about this. If the minister took an interest in this subject I would not be standing here talking about it. Unfortunately no one on the side of government took an interest.

I have been asked by the media why am I so interested in this topic, whether it is because he was born in Dauphin. Obviously I am interested because he came from Dauphin, Manitoba. But more important, I am interested because as a country we need to recognize the real heroes of this country, people who have put their lives at stake so we can be free and enjoy the standard of living we have today.

Lieutenant Colonel William Barker was the most decorated soldier not only in this country but in the Commonwealth of Nations during that period. He is remembered not by Canadians but by our European allies, people in Great Britain, in France, in Italy. He is a household name in England but not in his own country.

Canadians have heard of Billy Bishop because of the CBC production which most of have seen at one time or another. Ironically Bishop, as famous as he was, paid William Barker the ultimate accolade and labelled him the greatest fighter pilot the world has every known. Is it not astonishing that most well known fighter pilot and war hero in this country, Billy Bishop, labelled Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, VC the greatest fighter pilot the world has ever known? It is amazing. Yet no one seems to know who Lieutenant Colonel William Barker is.

I want to read a couple of paragraphs from an article written by William W. Walker on the same topic. He asked was this just one Canadian going overboard on the ability of another fellow countryman. If Barker deserved Bishop's appellation of the greatest, why is he almost unheard of today? That is a fair question.

Barker seemed to shun publicity about himself and his exploits. He left no memoirs in contrast to many of the aces who meticulously set down their autobiographies.

There are no known definitive biographies of him or even of the RCAF. The air ministry at Ottawa has only the barest history of one of the most illustrious warriors of World War I.

Perhaps the reason there is only fragmentary information about Barker stems from the fact that he had very little use for systems and no patience for protocol. His job was fighting and killing Germans. It was an employment he pursued with relentless, wholehearted enthusiasm. He lived for the thrill of the chase in combat and for the final blazing minute of the kill which was the pay-off, the raison d'être of the fighter pilot. Each victory spurred him on to new goals. In the air he was as courageous and reckless as any of the young hellions skimming the clouds over France and Germany.

However, once out of the cockpit he seemed more withdrawn, sombre and reserved. He was different from his more lively compatriots who liked all the carousing and wenching they could crowd into the short hours between flights. Most of them reasoned that death would join them in the cockpit soon enough, so why not live it up.

As the squadron commander, Barker was always concerned about his charges. He was anxious to teach them the combat tactics that would enable them to survive. When occasion demanded he would celebrate and drink with them, but unbridled celebrations and uninhibited acts so typical of the flying Galahads just did not fit in with his personality. Compared with some of the more flamboyant young blades like Lufbery, Udet and Frank Luke, Barker was quite restrained on the ground.

Barker's score of 58 was not the highest, but he pioneered fighter pilot tactics that were widely used in the second world war and he blueprinted a plan for fighter armaments that was used by the British in the battle of Britain in 1940. Few airmen have left such a legacy.

I will read a short passage written by Peter Warren, a Manitoba freelance journalist and broadcaster. He asked this question in his column: “Why is this Dauphin man the unknown hero for Canadians? My God, he took a British cabinet minister and dropped one of the allied spies behind enemy lines in August 1918”.

Barker was told by King George V at his investiture on March 1, 1919 that he had set a new record by receiving six gallantry awards, two more than the king had previously presented to any soldier in the British empire.

Mr. Warren raises this question: “Somebody out there help me explain”. I do not know if there is an explanation, except that this country has basically ignored Lieutenant Colonel William Barker. Government after government has forgotten his contribution.

As Canadians we tend to look elsewhere for our heroes, across the border and across the ocean. We are a relatively young nation. As a young nation matures we need to recognize and learn from our history. One lesson we must learn is to acknowledge our heroes, those who can be positive role models for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to make Motion No. 251 a votable motion.

[Ukraine, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as many as seven million Ukrainians were starved in Soviet socialist dictator Josef Stalin's artificial forced famine in Ukraine in 1932 and 1933.

This is approximately the total population of Manitoba, Newfoundland, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and P.E.I.

This month Canadians of Ukrainian descent commemorate the 65th anniversary of this socialist inspired genocide. Soviet socialist leaders used troops and secret police to seize every last scrap of food and grain. Ukrainian farmers were beaten, arrested and even shot for trying keep a few kernels on the fields of their collectivised farms.

We must never forget the millions of innocent Ukrainians who lost their lives. We must never allow a repeat of this terrible tragedy.

[Parks Canada Act, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out that it is very frustrating. When someone is trying to get answers, one of the problems, as I indicated earlier, is who to take the problem to and will they want to deal with it.

Problems seem to go around in circles and circles. It is difficult to track down who is supposed to make the decisions to resolve the problems.

[Parks Canada Act, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, one of my biggest concerns with respect to accountability is: Where does one go when there is a problem with Parks Canada? Even though the process is in place, we have all the stakeholders, the round tables are established and the specific groups are organized, somewhere throughout this process it can be totally sabotaged. I say sabotaged seriously because, unfortunately, we do not control the final documentation or the final reports that are written about the discussions that take place at the round tables.

Sometimes I feel that it is almost like playing politics with the people who live in the parks and the surrounding areas. It almost appears as if they are trying to keep these people busy. Maybe the people will not complain as much if they are given access to the discussions, so they let them discuss the issues. But they know what they are going to do when the consultation process is finished.

That is my biggest concern. If the process is flawed, where does one go? Does one report to the minister or to the deputy minister? At this time, with my experience over the last seven year, I have felt very frustrated in terms of who I take a problem to.

[Parks Canada Act, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Skeena.

I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-29, the parks Canada agency act. My Reform colleagues and I are committed to having our national parks and heritage sites administered in an accountable, efficient and cost effective manner. We support the concept of cost recovery, but at the same time fees should not be levied at such a level that would deter people from using the parks. The national parks, after all, belong to the people of Canada.

The people of Dauphin—Swan River are fortunate to have a national park located in the centre of their riding. It is a beautiful park, possibly 70 miles by 30 miles, and is within an hour's drive for all residents of the riding.

The area that I would like to concentrate on in this brief time is the area of accountability.

Bill C-29 states that the agency will report directly to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who, in turn, will be accountable for its activities before parliament. Current mechanisms to ensure responsible public dialogue and accountability will be enhanced. I agree with that objective, but I will say that from my experience with Parks Canada we have a long way to go before that occurs.

A bi-annual review or forum of stakeholder groups will be conducted to provide an opportunity for public dialogue.

What I would like to do at this time is to relate my experiences regarding the national park located in my riding and basically talk about the process of consultation. I hope that with a new Parks Canada Agency Act the same mistakes will not be made.

Several years ago Parks Canada took on the task of restructuring the organization. The first thing it did was to notify the public and the stakeholders in my riding that it was going to hold meetings, which it did. As a former mayor of Dauphin I attended. Lo and behold, when the report came out, guess what happened? It forgot about listing the town of Dauphin. In fact, I complained about this very issue, but to no avail. It is obvious that in the report the meeting that was held in Dauphin was not there. Obviously we did not have a meeting. We had a meeting, but we really did not have a meeting. Surely this type of behaviour is unacceptable.

I hope this is not the way the new parks agency will conduct its consultations. By the way, the final report did not completely reflect the views of the stakeholders of the region. What it did reflect were the views of the parks officials and the bureaucrats.

The common point of view was that this consultation process was exercised so that Parks Canada could cut jobs. This it certainly did after the report was released.

Who will be the watchdog of the new Parks Canada Agency? Who will make sure that the consultations will not be a repeat of my own experience?

I would like to read a paragraph from a letter written by a 15 year employee of the park who resigned due to this reorganization. This individual had experienced many wonderful years in the employ of Parks Canada, except for his last couple of years. He states in his letter:

However, due to many reasons, both work oriented and personal, I feel that my services are no longer beneficial for myself or the department. It has become very clear to me that my health has diminished and the stress level I am experiencing is intolerable. I have honestly persevered for approximately two years whereby specific individuals engaged in activities that I feel are not only legally unacceptable, but also morally unacceptable. As a result, the working environment has suffered considerably. Therefore I am unable to work in the conditions that now exist within my department. The low staff morale, the high double standards, unfair favouritism, lack of respect and authority along with the continual individual personal attacks on myself and others is beyond control.

It is my hope that the new parks agency will deal with its personnel in a more rational manner. I say again, who will be the watchdog of this new parks agency? The legislation says that it will report to the minister. Big deal. What does that mean? If the minister does not care to take an interest, where do we go from there? This has already happened in my experience in dealing with Parks Canada.

Another area I would like to talk about is cost recovery. I agree that we need to practise this principle. Even here there are limitations. The Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce is concerned that at this time the concept of cost recovery is exercised beyond what is reasonable. It is not considered reasonable for the park to charge local residents who live nearby when they enter the park to buy an ice cream cone.

The chamber of commerce is very concerned when the town site of Riding Mountain National Park is compared to the town site of Banff National Park. Obviously we cannot compare those two different places. There is probably no town site that could be compared to Banff National Park.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird of the Keesikownan Indian Reserve has concerns that they will not be considered as stakeholders in any future discussions with the new parks agency. A portion of Chief Blackbird's reservation is inside the boundary of the Riding Mountain National Park.

The town of Dauphin is also concerned about the new agency because of the water supply. Their water supply comes from the park. They were there before the park came into existence. Obviously they should have some historical rights to water.

Another concern is the decision of Parks Canada to clear cut 80,000 mature white spruce trees from inside the boundaries of the national park. Has anyone ever heard of that, cutting down 80,000 mature white spruce trees inside a national park in this country? I thought parks were to preserve our forests.

Once in a while we hear the threat from Parks Canada that it will charge users of the provincial trunk highway, which travels north and south through the national park. It is a direct access road between Dauphin and Brandon.

The last concern that I will mention concerns the historical rights of access to a road closed by the park during the 1960s which connects the towns of Grandview and Rossburn. This was done without any consultation with the local people. Currently there are seven municipalities which have lobbied hard to have the access road re-opened.

I will close by saying that these and other decisions made over the last many years continue to puzzle the people in my constituency. The people of Dauphin—Swan River want to see more transparency in how decisions are made. People want to be involved in the process and they want the process to be honest. They do not want consultation and then see something totally different written on paper.

One of the problems is that the park superintendent has too much power. At the present time the park superintendent or the director general has total authority within the boundaries of the park.

I challenge the new Parks Canada Agency to put into practice its proposal for enhancing accountability to Canadians. After all, it is the taxpayers of Canada who own the parks.