House of Commons Hansard #152 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was reserves.

Topics

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill.

In looking at this bill in detail members will find that this bill is full of ambiguities. Much of the bill is not clearly stated. Where the responsibility crosses over to the provinces is not spelled out. There are many things on which this bill needs some genuine bookkeeping and homework done.

This bill changes the previous concept in Canada as to what is a park. Traditionally a park was an area relatively free for public travel. A park was established in some cases for heritage purposes. This adds to the meaning of the word park. It becomes a marine park and it is being added to the concept of a national park.

My colleague has mentioned some of the areas where all of the power vested here is given to the minister in charge. In other words we can have something take place within and under the act. Changes can be made without having to steer them through parliament. More and more often bills come before us which give the minister the power to make huge changes to an act without having to come back to parliament which has to discuss the act in the first place but then gives the authority to make substantial changes. We do not believe in that. We believe that if there is a substantial change being made to any act, this is the body that should make the changes, the elected people, and not the committee.

This is a classic example of the government sidestepping the usual legislative process. When that is done, the government gets into a dictatorial way of operating the nation's business.

Government wants the expansion of a new marine conservation area or a reserve to belong to a standing committee. It would not come back to the House; it would belong to a standing committee. The majority of the members on a standing committee are from the government side. As a result, we can almost rest assured that the standing committee is going to pass what the minister directs or asks for. That is a dangerous precedent in the bill.

It also very rapidly shrinks the amount of land that can be used for exploration, as my colleague has mentioned. As a matter of fact it could possibly contain the entire coastline of a country that has more coastline than most. This could all take place at the minister's discretion.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill would require not just the federal crown to obey it, but it would also insist with respect to the provincial waters and resources off the provincial shores that the provinces would not have a say in what becomes a new marine park or the waters thereof. We see all kinds of difficulties in this when the provinces are not consulted.

There is another item in the bill which is terribly dangerous. It violates all the Canadian principles I have ever read. Those appointed to enforce the act would be designated as peace officers as defined by the Criminal Code. These enforcement officers would be authorized to enter and pass through any private property in discharge of their duties. As I read that, it is without a warrant. They have that right.

Also anyone who contravenes the law could be fined $100,000, or if found guilty of an indictable offence, be fined up to half a million dollars.

There seems to be something missing in the bill. While we want the act to have teeth and importance, the due process of law is not mentioned in the bill.

As my colleague said, we agree to the polluter pay principle. There is no question about that. We would strongly support the bill in that regard. However, the bill violates the principle of the democratic process so much. We cannot support acts which lay the real power of the act in the minister's hands.

Further, the rightful place and supreme body for creating and interpreting the laws of Canada is this House. It does not belong to a minister by order in council, nor does it belong to a parliamentary standing committee. I do not understand why members opposite, with almost every bill that comes up, continually want to violate these principles.

This really is not a park bill but is an environmental bill. We believe in sustainability, development and management for the environment to preserve both biodiversity and conserve the environment for the present and the future. This bill expands the domain of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and encroaches on what is more properly the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment. As such, we have real difficulty with the bill.

We have difficulty with this bill because it gives powers to committees, gives powers to orders in council, gives powers to the minister which rightly belong to the legislative body here.

The bill requires, as I said, the provincial governments to fall in line. It also requires that natives under their land claims also fall in line without any consultation, if the government so wishes.

Note that the enforcement officers may arrest without warrant and enter private property without permission.

All of those things are within a bill which the government is asking us to pass. It violates the rule of law. It violates the longstanding principles of justice. It violates the authority of the House as the legislature.

For those reasons we cannot support the bill even though it has many admirable parts to it. Canadians need most of the bill but we do not need to go down the road to dictatorship in implementation of the bill in its present form.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is the House ready for the question?

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The division on the amendment is deferred until later this day at the end of Government Orders.

Jean VanierStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Oak Ridges, ON

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to a great Canadian, a man who lives by his own creed that every person needs to know that they are a source of joy; every child, every person, needs to be accepted.

I am talking about Jean Vanier, founder of L'Arche, a community of homes for the intellectually disabled around the world and of Daybreak House in Richmond Hill in my riding. It is one of 11 L'Arche houses in the Toronto area, home to 44 men and women with disabilities.

It is the first and largest of the North American communities created by a man who has been many things: military officer, philosophy professor and recipient of the Vatican's Paul VI International Prize.

Mr. Vanier was in Toronto last week to give the Massey lectures and to shed light on how most of the world treats some of the most oppressed members of their societies, the intellectually disabled.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Vanier for his efforts in making the world a more welcoming place and for spreading his message of love and acceptance.

National DefenceStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC

Mr. Speaker, the families of servicemen who have been disabled as a result of military service are all too often left to fend for themselves.

On November 24 Marg Matchee goes before the federal court in Halifax seeking veterans benefits. Her husband Clayton Matchee is totally disabled as a result of his service in Somalia. A respected Canadian forces doctor described his condition as mefloquine related. That is, his present condition is the result of a drug, an unlicensed drug illegally administered and fraudulently obtained by the department of defence.

In October 1997, the minister of defence was advised by officials that they had misled the Somalia inquiry on the status of the drug mefloquine. The minister has not bothered to inform Marg Matchee and her daughter that DND misled the inquiry.

I now call on the minister of defence to tell Marg Matchee the truth so that she can support her claim before the federal court next week in Halifax. Time is running out.

Nuclear WeaponsStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, the recent advisory opinion of the World Court on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons establishes a legal duty of states to negotiate in good faith toward the elimination of nuclear weapons and their use in armed conflict.

While some nuclear weapon states still argue that article 51 of the United Nations charter and the right to self-defence that it recognizes would permit a pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in anticipation of an armed attack, the authoritative legal consensus that has now emerged establishes clearly a binding international law principle of no first use of nuclear weapons.

Rural CanadaStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the work of one of my constituents who participated in a national rural conference held in Belleville last month.

Jan Sideris travelled from my riding of Bruce—Grey to meet with some 200 other Canadians for a common goal. They spent three days discussing the challenges of rural life with others who want a sustainable future for rural Canada. Jan tells me the weekend was most productive and the results encouraging.

Participants overcame regional differences and came from tiny east coast villages, remote northern towns and small farming communities. They worked together in a way to strengthen and enhance rural life. They discussed building partnerships and finding workable solutions to chronic unemployment problems.

My thanks goes to Jan and those other Canadians who attended this conference. Their work and dedication are a true contribution to rural Canada.

Member For Dauphin—Swan RiverStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Hec Clouthier Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, it was reported in today's papers that the member for Dauphin—Swan River is taking advice from the Americans on what position to take on Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services by foreign periodical publishers.

The member for Dauphin—Swan River can argue as much as he wants that he got information from both sides, but facts are facts. The member met with American representatives then took his decision by himself before he announced it to the House. Two weeks after the fact did he agree to meet with the representatives from the Canadian magazine industry when they requested a meeting to set the facts straight?

The member for Dauphin—Swan River can argue as much as he wants that he got information from both sides. Just because his seat mate chooses to ignore him does not mean that the member should not communicate with Canadians. It is obvious or it may as well be written ink that the member is off the mark.

GasolineStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Reform

Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, how are Canadians to understand the Liberal policy on Canadian gasoline content?

First during the debate in the House on manganese octane enhancement, the Minister of Industry advocated the necessity for the harmonization of gasoline in the North American market. Now we have the Minister of the Environment dramatically cutting sulphur levels with no regard for the American position. Fantastic Liberal logic.

What makes matters worse is that this Liberal logic will eliminate independent gasoline stations in Ontario, force the closure of Canadian refineries, reduce competition in the retail gasoline market and, according to the chairman of the Liberal committee on gas pricing, the member for Pickering—Ajax-Uxbridge, will mean a 15 cent per litre increase in gas prices.

Will this government ever get its act together and decide on a single reasonable position on gasoline quality in Canada?

PovertyStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Aileen Carroll Liberal Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in the House and on other occasions about child poverty and the discrepancy between Canada's top rating by the United Nations and the growing gap between the rich and poor in our country.

Under treaty agreement Canada will be reviewed by UNESCO on its human rights protections. Social problems such as poverty, homelessness and shortage of affordable housing in our major cities are disturbing aspects of the Canadian landscape that will not show well under the UNESCO review.

We cannot proceed with an agenda that targets the middle and upper classes while thousands of human beings try to survive on the streets. The plight of Canadians who frequent food banks and hostels must become a major priority for the House. I urge that we take action before we loose more lives on the streets of our cities this winter and we loose our bragging rights in the international arena.

Employment InsuranceStatements By Members

November 16th, 1998 / 2:05 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention today to the Madore family's first victory. For 13 years now, Sylvie and Katy Madore have been working for their mother's business in Kamouraska.

But since 1996, Human Resources Canada and Revenue Canada have been denying Sylvie EI benefits on the basis that she is a blood relative of her employer.

Two years of fighting Revenue Canada were required to overcome this flaw in the system. Sylvie Madore will finally receive retroactively the EI benefits she was entitled to during these two years.

Sadly, this family's ordeal is not over yet. Both departments are now targeting Katy, who has been unfairly denied benefits for six months. It is time the two ministers stopped targeting the unemployed and admitted there are serious problems with the Employment Insurance Act and its application, instead of abetting a major misappropriation of funds.

Election Campaign In QuebecStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Yvon Charbonneau Liberal Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC

Mr. Speaker, we are anxious to see which Lucien Bouchard will participate in the leaders debate tomorrow evening.

Will it be the Lucien Bouchard who told the Toronto Star a while back “I entered politics because I profoundly believed and continue to believe that the future of Quebec is within Confederation”, or the one who reiterated last weekend that Quebec must achieve sovereignty?

Which Lucien Bouchard will show up at the leaders debate tomorrow evening? Will it be the one who was a member of a Conservative government and all of a sudden quit on his Prime Minister, the convert who now contends it is essential that Quebec become independent, or the Lucien Bouchard who hinted at the possibility of deferring the next referendum indefinitely?

Which of the two, or rather the three, will participate in the leaders debate tomorrow evening?

Michel TrudeauStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Reform

Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out today to former Prime Minister Trudeau and Margaret Trudeau-Kemper on the tragic loss of their son Michel.

Every parent's nightmare came true for them last week as Michel died in an avalanche in British Columbia. Michel inherited his father's love for Canada's outdoors. He was a sociable young man who loved to travel and enjoyed hiking and skiing with his friends. It was in following those passions that Michel tragically perished.

As a father of five I can only imagine the pain of losing a child. I know the love and hope his parents must have felt for him and I can only imagine their feeling of loss.

I know that my words or any words spoken here today will provide little comfort for them in their time of grief but I want Michel's father and mother and entire family to know that they are in the thoughts and prayers of every member of this House.

Michel TrudeauStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I would say that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has spoken for the entire House today as our heartfelt feelings go out to Mr. Trudeau, to his former wife and the children of the Trudeau family.

Election Campaign In QuebecStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Who is clearer, a premier of Quebec who says he entered politics because he is a sovereignist, or one who says the winning conditions are not in place for holding a referendum on Quebec independence?

Who is clearer? The Quebec premier who had changes made to a resolution on the holding of a referendum during a subsequent mandate, which was passed by PQ militants at the last general council, or the premier who declared this past weekend that Quebec must become sovereign?

Who is clearer? The former PQ leader, Jacques Parizeau, who was anxious to see Quebec independence as soon as possible, or Lucien Bouchard, who is waiting for winning conditions, no matter what the price?

This coming November 30, the vote must be for clarity, for a stronger Quebec within a stronger Canadian federation. I will be voting Liberal—

Election Campaign In QuebecStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Yukon.