Debates of May 28th, 1998

Parks Canada Act

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is ironic that my riding name changed in 1997 because of changes to the electoral boundaries act. Now that you and your colleagues are getting used to this name we just passed a bill today that will change it again. We always like to keep a challenge for the Chair.

There is also a real challenge before us today with this bill, with this motion and with the process through which this place works. I believe there is some merit in this motion. I have some degree of sympathy for those neighbouring communities. It could be argued that we should support it or that we should not because it is not clear enough and that it should have been better clarified.

The real irony and the real shame of this House is that the government has already stood up to say that it does not support this motion. This is the way this place works. The government makes that decree through one government member who represents the appropriate ministry. Then all the rest of the sheep have to vote the same way. We have already seen this. That is one of the ironies of debate in this House.

We can stand up and pontificate on the need to do good things for the citizens of this country but if the government has already made up its mind not to do anything good for the people then that is the way it will be. That is really unfortunate. It is unfortunate that we cannot discuss things openly and meaningfully where the government can listen and say that it does not support something because it truly does not make sense or that it does make sense and it should look at it.

The British parliamentary system on which our system is based has done away with the confidence convention. We often see members from various parties voting across party lines because they truly want to support what is good for their constituents.

With regard to the specific amendment, until the riding name changed in 1997, part of my riding bordered one of our national parks. If you live in the middle a province that does not have a national park within hundreds of miles of your place, then you come and go and that is part of your normal routine life. If you live on the edge of a park, you are sometimes forced by your proximity to it to go frequently through that park. It penalizes those people for the government to make them pay for freedom of movement because of their proximity to a national park and because they will have all kinds of tourists driving by their doorsteps which sometimes has economic benefits and sometimes has drawbacks, in particular in terms of highway traffic and congestion. That is unfair.

Bloc Quebecois members were on the right track when they started talking about this issue. They should have done a little more work on it although there may not have been sufficient time to do that. There should have been more work that said these are the specific fees we are talking about, maybe they should pay for the use of a facility inside the park because they are getting the same benefit as people from elsewhere. But in terms of access into and through, there should definitely be a preferential low rate for those people who are forced by nature of their proximity to pay these high fees. It is unfortunate that the Bloc has not defined in its motion what a local person is or what the ratio of fee should be.

We already know the government is going to defeat the motion, so it does not matter how good of an argument we make. I believe there is some desire on the government side to be fair, so in the interest of fairness I hope government members listen to the arguments of the Bloc, to mine and those of others who speak to this motion, or of those who speak about the motion since I am not necessarily supporting it the way it is written.

I hope they recognize the need to be fair to those people who are forced, not who choose, to make frequent access to the park by nature of their proximity to it. I hope they try to recognize that something should be done. They are going to defeat the motion, fine, but they should recognize that something needs to be done. I hope they will take that into account and that they will try to find a way to ensure fairness is brought to those local residents.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on Motion No. 6 put forth by my hon. colleague from Rimouski—Mitis.

National parks when established in a specific area might not take away but might prevent people who used the facilities without cost from going there. I think it is only fair that these people have access to the place. The reason I say this is these people are good ambassadors for the park because they will tell other people what is available because they have lived there all their lives.

Government members have already stated they would vote against this motion. I think they should look at different options to help make it fair for those individuals who live in those areas, who benefited from those areas in the past and can still benefit without having undue cost put on them.

I support this motion but I would like to see included a definition as to who are local residents and what are the costs local residents will incur.

I am asking government members, even though they have indicated they would vote against it, to consider something of this nature, clarify it and put it into effect.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 6 which would do a couple of things which I do not think are positive development in whatever parks agency we may end up with.

I am thinking of the idea of using preferential fees for local residents especially when the term local residents is not defined. It is my belief that the national parks system is for the benefit of all Canadians and it does several things.

It preserves ecologically diverse areas of the country, perhaps not always in pristine wilderness but at least it does preserve that area for future generations for all time. If there is human activity in the parks, and inevitably there will be more and more of that, at least the area has been identified and set aside for this and future generations.

Although our national parks are a treasure for the world they are also a treasure for Canadians. I do not believe we want to start differentiating between local residents and distant residents since I think all Canadians in a national institution like a park should be treated equally.

Unless we are talking about something like transit fees through a park to get to a work site or something that is a very unique situation, fees associated with the parks system should be the same for all comers when they have a Canadian licence plate on their car and they are driving in. That is good enough for me. I think we want to be very careful when we start differentiating fees in one area from another.

I think to have a fee structure based on local versus distant, administratively this could be very difficult for the people employed within the parks system. To decide who is local and how local is local would be very difficult. It may be true that all politics is local, as the saying goes, but certainly for administration of a park we want to have all Canadians treated equally.

The vast majority of national parks are located in western Canada and one of the tremendous legacies of the west has been the ability to establish these parks in different areas.

That is a benefit not only for western Canadians but for all Canadians and is something we are very proud of in western Canada. It is a bit of wilderness spirit and an ability even from a large city to be back to nature and the wilderness, often within minutes. Often this takes place in a national or provincial park.

I oppose this motion unless without better clarification as to what these definitions were about local residents. I encourage others in the House to think twice before they pick differing fee structures for different Canadians based on their province of origin or how far away they are from the park site itself. I think that is an unwise motion and I would vote against it.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 6 stands deferred.

We will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 3.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 36.1.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-29, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 17 with the following:

“36.1 For greater certainty, the Official Languages Act applies to the Agency and the Agency has the duty, under section 25 of that Act, to ensure that, where services are provided or made available by another person or organization on its behalf, any member of the public in Canada or elsewhere can communicate with and obtain those services from that person or organization in either official language, in any case where those services, if provided by the Agency, would be required under Part IV of the Official Languages Act to be provided in either official language.”

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Motions Nos. 7 and 8 are grouped together and will be debated at the same time.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I assure you that my hon. colleague is quite correct. We did arrange for me to speak first because I have to be in committee.

I strongly support Motion No. 7. I want to take some time to explain to this House why. In the first place it should be known that this motion came about after the committee was warned not to deal with this motion, clause 36.1.

Members on the government side of the House in committee were warned by the justice minister and her officials. However, it was put into the bill anyway.

I want to explain the situation as it relates to Saskatchewan's newest national park, Grasslands National Park. It is situated entirely within the constituency of my colleague, the hon. member for Cyprus Hills—Grasslands. However, it is only about 30 miles outside of my constituency and I know the area well. My daughter and her family ranch right up against it.

This motion relates to subcontracting and the use of the Official Languages Act. I have often gone through state and national parks in the United States. When we get to the lower part of the United States, into Arizona, into Texas, there is no mandatory use of language. Wherever the second language is needed it is there. If we go to the post office and the second language is needed, it is there. If we go to the tendering process and the second language is needed, it is there. There is no gouging, there is no arbitrary decisions to irritate people in that country over language.

For example, at the western end of Grasslands National Park let us say we were going to tender and four sections of that park were to be fenced out with limited grazing for that period of time. With the drought situation in that area right now, that may well become a factor.

To even tender in that part of Saskatchewan under the guise of the Official Languages Act, all that would do is irritate everybody within that whole area of Saskatchewan. First we would not get a contractor to come that distance who would qualify under this motion. We would eliminate all those people there who have all of the equipment, the post pounders, the wire stretchers and everything else. They would be eliminated because this has been injected into this bill.

What the government is doing by putting this in the bill is taking a peaceful group of farmers and ranchers and gouging them a little deeper and then maybe saying the rednecks show up a little more. Why do we do this? It is absolute nonsense.

Where it is necessary, let us follow the example. No one on this side of the House, no one in the Reform Party, objects to the application of the Official Languages Act. But when it gets to an area which would eliminate the local population totally, all the government is doing is putting more fuel on the fire and it is not calming anything in Saskatchewan or in areas where the one language dominates.

In this park, and I am using it as an example again, there are certain roads that have to be built. Not many roads are being built anywhere in Saskatchewan right now.

Imagine putting out a tender for a contractor to build so many kilometres of roads in that park but the contractor must have and make use of the stipulations under the Official Languages Act. They would not even get a contractor. Nobody would even apply because there are none there. What would they do? I suppose they would import one. I do not know where they would come from but in order to live up to this clause in the bill they might have to import a contractor from outside the province altogether. Why? This is why I strongly support my colleague's motion.

I think the government itself knows this is wrong. Where it is necessary, use it. Please do not let this motion die. Please support this for the sake of our national consciousness and for the sake of local people. I think there is enough common sense on both sides of the House to indeed support this motion. I certainly look forward to supporting it.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, why am I not surprised by my Reform colleague's opposition? If my colleague is irritated by the requirement to provide services in both official languages, I hope he is not looking to me for an apology.

The Reform Party's opposition to the basic principles underlying the Official Languages Act is nothing new. In the rather simplistic view of things we have all seen outlined in their program—and I am summarizing it, of course—Quebec would be entirely francophone and the rest of Canada totally anglophone. That would fix everything.

I am sorry, but this is not the way this country was built. There are one million francophones outside Quebec, and anglophones make up 15% of Quebec's population. And they are just as Canadian as the members opposite.

I think talking about limiting the use of French in services provided by the Government of Canada or its representatives is entirely normal. Clause 36.1 or Motion No. 8, which we are proposing, is an amendment intended to reaffirm the spirit and the letter of the Official Languages Act. I think that questioning this is fanning the flames.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say for once I am on the same side as the government. I was part of that debate when the amendment was put forward regarding the parks.

Unfortunately, this really gives another opportunity to the Reform Party members to try to gain some political points. What they are coming out with and what that amendment is, is really not what it is.

I also sit on the official languages committee. We had the official languages commissioner before us this week. We checked with him what we had passed.

What it is really is where there is bilingual status for workers, if God forbid there was contracting out, it would stay the same. It is the same thing in an anglophone region where the jobs are anglophone. Again God forbid if the government contracted out, it would stay anglophone. It would stay francophone if it was a position in Quebec. It is not changing that. It is making sure that the anglophone regions will keep their anglophone jobs. That is what it means. It means the same thing for the francophone and bilingual positions.

Unfortunately the Reform Party members have decided to have another field day like they did with the flag. They are trying to gain points with it. It is unfortunate that Reformers do that but they do. Today it is on language. I wish they would put as much effort into the unity of this country as they do in trying to divide it which is what they do on a daily basis.

I certainly do not support the motion. I know that we in committee did not pass anything that will complicate the lives of anglophones or francophones. We simply made sure that the official language legislation would continue to apply. That is all we did. We can come up with other things if we like, but I personally have better things to do than to try to compound the country's problems. We have enough problems already, we do not want to add to them.

I reiterate that the purpose of the amendments proposed by the government in committee is not to complicate the lives of anglophone, francophone or bilingual Canadians.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, the Bloc Quebecois will not support Motion No. 7 before us. This motion calls for the deletion of clause 36.1, which we discussed in committee, having examined the bill clause by clause, and which was added by the committee.

Naturally, we asked questions of the Department of Justice lawyer and departmental officials who came to explain the bill to us.

But some committee members disagreed with departmental officials, who claim that it is not required in the bill, because the law automatically applies, apparently. If the Official Languages Act automatically applies, it does not cost a lot to include it in the bill. Nothing is compromised by doing so.

We said that we thought it was very simple; clause 36.1, which had been added, stipulates that the Official Languages Act applies to the Agency and to its subcontractors. There was the situation with Air Canada, which claims that Air Alliance is not subject to the Official Languages Act.

Complaints were filed with the official languages commissioner on several occasions, not always politely, because the Official Languages Act was not applied in this very parliament. There was the example of the construction site workers. We even received a unilingual English document from the Department of Human Resources Development concerning members' insurance benefits—fortunately, the error was quickly corrected yesterday, and we were sent a letter in French.

It was pointed out, for instance, that all the proceedings in Nagano were in English. Not that long ago, when we had the Commonwealth ceremonies in the Speaker's chambers, the whole thing was conducted in English only.

Ever since we got here, we have not stopped fighting to ensure that the Official Languages Act is complied with. A few years ago, I visited some parks in the maritime provinces during the month of July. Wherever I went, I was told “Mrs. Tremblay, unfortunately the last francophone who came before you took the last French document that we had”. I was told the same thing everywhere I went. It was probably thought that 10 French copies or so would do. I never even saw one. I do not even know whether they exist. I believed what I was told, and I concluded that so many francophones were visiting the maritimes and Newfoundland that they ran out of French leaflets. Quebeckers cannot be accused of not being open, since they visit our national parks in such large numbers.

It appears that, after consulting officials, probably from the Department of Justice, a compromise was reached and Motion No. 8 was proposed. It reads as follows:

36.1 For greater certainty, the Official Languages Act applies to the Agency and the Agency has the duty, under section 25 of that Act, to ensure that, where services are provided or made available by another person or organization on its behalf, any member of the public in Canada or elsewhere can communicate with and obtain those services from that person or organization in either official language, in any case where those services, if provided by the Agency, would be required under Part IV of the Official Languages Act to be provided in either official language.

Motion No. 8, which seeks to replace clause 36.1 of the bill, is simply a reminder of what the Official Languages Act provides. With things being so clear, the agency can never claim not to know that it is subject to the Official Languages Act. This is merely a precaution. Like a double lock on the door of a hotel room, this motion provides added protection. We know that the Official Languages Act protects our rights, but we want to make sure the agency will never forget it.

I will conclude by saying that, since the Reform Party expressed two different opinions on the previous motion, I would like to see at least one of its members tell us that francophones have a right to exist in this country.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, these are the simple facts of the matter. When this came before committee, the Minister of Justice of the governing party sent a four and a half page letter to the committee telling them in no uncertain terms to not insert the clause which would subject the Official Languages Act to contractors and subcontractors in national parks. There were four and a half pages explaining the reasons why.

Let me quote a few parts of that letter. “Wording of this amendment goes beyond the current application of the Official Languages Act.” If any member has stood up here and said that it does not do this or that, it does. There is absolutely no question about it.

She goes on to say that because all parts of the Official Languages Act would apply to contractors and subcontractors of the agency as if they were federal institutions, this would have the effect of creating linguistic obligations for the contractors and subcontractors of the parks agency that do not currently exist under the Official Languages Act for contractors and subcontractors of other federal institutions. How much more plain and simple can it be?

That was only an excerpt from one part of her letter, but the most significant part of the letter from the Minister of Justice to her own members of that committee appeared in the fourth last paragraph. She makes about five points there. I will summarize the effect of what she is saying.

First of all, non-governmental organizations or private business and holders of commercial leases would no longer be exempt from section 25 of the Official Languages Act. This means that someone holding a commercial lease or engaging in a private business that previously did not have to be subject to those obligations now would be. It means that all workers must be fluently bilingual, not just the ones responsible for supplying services directly to the public.

The point was made in committee that why would painters and garbage collectors or other people who have no engagement with the public whatsoever have to comply with those requirements of being fluently bilingual? It does not make any sense. In fact, officials from the justice department were at the committee, telling the committee in no uncertain terms do not insert this clause because of the effects it will have.

Also, contractors and subcontractors who would be under the application of the Official Languages Act that previously did not apply but now would, would not only have to have bilingual employees but that 50% of them would have to be French speaking, in other words French as their first language.

Further to that, they would have to undertake a commitment to the promotion of both official languages. I am not sure exactly what that would entail, but requiring fence painters to have a commitment to the promotion of both official languages in the conduct of their job which is painting the fence does not make any sense whatsoever.

Finally, non-compliance with these new requirements would be subject to court sanctions and orders of enforcement. In other words, if someone did obtain a contract to paint a fence agreeing they would do all these things and then in some fashion did not uphold that, they would be subject to court intervention. Absolute stupidity.

Despite the recommendations of the justice minister to her own committee, in its infinite wisdom the committee put it in anyway. Now we expose it and we explain why this is a bad idea, why it goes far beyond the intention of the Official Languages Act and why it would cause a lot of problems in national parks across our country. There is no arguing that and there is no denying it.

The most sensible thing is to simply delete the clause because, as was previously stated by the justice minister—and the lawyers from the justice department who were in committee knew this—it should be common sense to anyone that the Official Languages Act already applies to that federal institution. Subjecting contractors and subcontractors to it does not make any sense.

The committee members who voted in favour of it knew exactly what they were doing. They wanted to subject people to the Official Languages Act who were not previously subject to it. Clearly the hammer from the justice minister came down. She said that we were not going to go through with this. Not only was it unwise based on common sense, but obviously there would be a lot of political repercussions.

What did they do? Instead of simply deleting the clause, which is my amendment and makes perfect sense because now the Official Languages Act would apply anyway, as it always would have, there is no problem, they put in this wordy amendment that begins by saying “For greater certainty” and then it just repeats what the Official Languages Act says anyway.

There is no need to say “Although the Official Languages Act applies”, it applies. It is called trite law. It is poor legal draftsmanship. That is what we are getting from the Liberal government. That is the type of leadership we are getting.

We are going to have a bill with absolutely useless wording in it. The Liberals are doing it because they are in a jam. They want to save face for the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, who inserted the clause against the advice of all the justice officials and his own justice minister, and they want to save face for themselves, so they implemented this clause. Rather than pass a poorly drafted bill, they should have just admitted their mistake. But no, they are going to insert this wordy clause that means nothing and is, as I have said, trite law.

Let me explain for the Liberal members what that really means. It means that if you do not have to say it, do not say it. We do not have to be excessively redundant. The Official Languages Act already applies. Why write it in? They are writing it in because they are trying to save face because their committee members made a mistake. It is just political wrangling.

Canadians deserve better than that. If members opposite are going to form the governing party they should be at least obligated to draft legislation that is consistent with the laws and rules that apply to drafting legislation. They cannot even accept that. Instead, damage control tops their list and we are going to end up with a piece of legislation that is very poorly drafted. But that is the manner in which the Liberal government tends to operate in all matters.

I think I have sufficiently explained the circumstances that surrounded what happened and how the Liberals are trying to get out of this jam. I certainly hope that Canadians see it for what it is.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, at the risk of driving the last member a bit crazy, I am going to agree, at least in part, with what he said.

There was a lack of clarity in the amendment, which we recognized and which we dealt with, but which does not seem to have been recognized by the members of the Reform Party who have spoken to it. That is to say, we are simply in this modified amendment restating the principles of the Official Languages Act because we are concerned when we hear from others that Parks Canada may be perceived as not following through on all of its obligations. We believe that Parks Canada is doing so, but for greater certainty we want to state that it is a commitment of the Government of Canada to provide services to its citizens, to the public, in both official languages.

The amendment concerns services which are involved in direct contact with the public. It does not cover painters. It does not cover garbage collectors. It does not cover ranch men and ranch women in Saskatchewan. It is simply those people who deal with the public who would be covered under the Officials Languages Act as employees of Parks Canada.

If we subcontract to other people who deal with the public in the parks, the rules of the Official Languages Act apply. That is all it does. It provides greater certainty. It does not change anything, but it does make the point that Parks Canada is attentive and concerned about this issue.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting debate. It is not only interesting to hear the government's point of view, which I will get to in a few moments, but also to hear the views of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois.

I remember bills going through the transport committee in the last parliament and any time we said anything that suggested we were in any way infringing on the full, unfettered rights of people of Quebec, even though it was not fact, Bloc members would go ballistic. They do not seem to recognize what is practical and reasonable in this country.

My colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain talked about the idea of territorial bilingualism, of having services wherever they are necessary and practical.

I hope the Bloc will listen to this. In 1994 I invited a member of the Bloc Quebecois to be my guest in my riding, which was then Kootenay—West Revelstoke, to see what that side of the country was like and to meet the people from that side of the country. This was at a time when they were talking about taking us on and disconnecting those people. I also invited him to explain to the constituents of my riding what the Bloc's movement was all about.

I took the opportunity to tour the member of parliament for Portneuf around my riding to show him bilingualism in effect. I took him down to the hospital in Castlegar to show him how everything is bilingual in that hospital. It is English and it is Russian. We have a very large number of Russian Doukhobor people whose heritage we celebrate. It does not create division. It makes our area richer because we work together.

I took him to the city park in Nelson to show him the bilingual signs, which are in English and in Japanese. The second language institutions in Nelson have made quite a business teaching English as a second language, particularly with the Asian connection.

He saw that we do not try to quash people being served in their most appropriate language. We go out of our way to celebrate, not kill the culture and heritage of others who can make us richer.

I listened to the government member speaking to the intention of the amendment relating to parks. Notwithstanding his statements, the intention of the amendment, as it has been put forward by the committee, would apply to fence painters and to garbage collectors. It would apply to everybody. He had better be careful when he says that it will not, because the minister has already said that it will.

There is a clause in the bill that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to us. It is unacceptable to the government. Now we have two amendments. We have a Reform amendment which would take the offending clause out. We have government amendment which would tinker with it a bit, push it a bit here and push it around there.

I will read for the hon. member the government's motion. Maybe he has not read it clearly enough.

For greater certainty—to ensure that, where services are provided or made available by another person or organization on its behalf, any member of the public in Canada or elsewhere can communicate with and obtain those services from that person or organization in either official language, in any case where those services, if provided by the Agency, would be required under—the Official Languages Act—

The Official Languages Act is already there.

Now we are getting down to that grey area. We have somebody painting the fence. Along comes a person who asks “Which way do I go to get to the park?” Is that communication with the public? It is not part of their job, but the amendment says if they communicate with the public. The fact is that it could be interpreted that way. Maybe the member who is chuckling over there thinks that would not happen. Maybe not, but it could.

We used to chastise insurance companies and other companies for writing contracts, agreements and policies in legalise which nobody could understand. In fact, it gets down to a point where lawyers dealing with a claim start battling over the interpretation. Some enlightened companies started putting out policies and contracts in plain language. A minimal amount is said and it is in the plainest language possible.

There is a clause that the minister instructed not be put in. It was put in anyway. The government recognized it was not good. Realistically, how should it be dealt with? If there is a clause that should not have been put in, should it be tinkered with and massaged so that it might be interpreted better, or should it simply be taken out? The logical answer is to take it out. Otherwise the bill becomes bigger and bigger. At some point there will be an amendment to clarify what the amendment meant. That amendment will impact on some other part of the bill, so another amendment will be brought forward.

Keep it as simple as possible. I know the government hates to do that because it likes everybody to think it is so important. It thinks people could not live without it and live without all the wild and wonderful interpretations in the great complex legislation it deals with. The fact of the matter is, the simpler the government keeps it the more respect it will command because finally it will be putting out something that makes sense.

If there is a clause which the minister says should not be in the bill, the solution is to take it out. We support taking it out. That is not knocking the people of Quebec.

The member from the Bloc Quebecois who harangued Reform for its position on this should recognize that, as it stands now, in a national park in Quebec, if they want someone to put a fence around some part of a path so people do not hurt themselves, they cannot hire a local francophone to do it. They can only hire a fully bilingual person to do it. Maybe it is so when you curse that you are an equal opportunity curser. I do not know. It simply does not make sense that somebody fixing a fence or picking up the garbage in Quebec has to speak English any more than it makes sense for someone doing those same tasks in British Columbia has to speak French.

We are not saying that they cannot speak French. We are not saying that somebody who is a francophone should not be able to bid on the contract. We are simply saying that for these jobs it should not be imperative that they be bilingual. It does not make sense. It is bureaucratic. Think of the costs. Did the government even stop to think of what the costs would be?

My colleague for Souris—Moose Mountain mentioned that if a road has to be built, the local contractor should be able to do it at less expense than importing someone from Winnipeg where there is a large francophone population. Perhaps there is a road builder there where many people speak French. If not, I guess someone would have to be brought in from Quebec. Think of the costs that would be involved if local contractors could not meet the requirements and someone had to be brought in from another area. They would have to move their equipment, their manpower, lodgings and all the rest of it.

If the government wants to do what is sensible, do not tinker with it, remove it. It should not have been in there in the first place. The minister even said that. Simply do what the minister said in the first place. We do not always agree with the ministers, so when we finally come up with something we agree on we would hope that government would not turn around and disagree with the minister by not taking it out.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, to continue on the general trend, in fact it is worse than that.

The member who just spoke actually summarized it very well.

There are a couple of things I would like to point out to the government side.

First, what the government is trying to do, and we all know it, is to try to save the reputation of a Liberal member who did a royal botch-up in committee. That is what we are debating today. There was a royal botch-up. It should not have happened. The minister came forward with four and a half pages saying “Whatever you do, don't do this”. Now we are in the House at report stage trying to amend a royal botch-up in order to save the face of the member who brought the original amendment into committee.

The amendment should never have been brought in. The members opposite say for greater clarity they want to make sure the Official Languages Act applies to this agency. Why did they not say for greater clarity in the case of first degree murder that might occur in this park area we had better have a clause saying the Criminal Code applies? It would be greater clarity just to make sure everyone is not confused about that, so that people walking around do not say this is a new park, maybe they could murder somebody and get away with it. It is just silly.

Clauses are not put in for greater clarity when the other legislation already encompasses agencies under the federal jurisdiction. It is not needed. It is redundant. It is a waste of time. It is a face saving measure to try to save the political reputation of someone who should never have brought it into committee to begin with. That is what that is.

I can think of a case that was as silly as this in the last parliament. The chairman of the official languages committee, Patrick Gagnon, was defeated in the last election. He brought forward the proposal that we have an investigation to see why there were not more French signs on Sparks Street in Ottawa. It was an excellent job for a committee of the House of Commons to determine why there was not more French on Sparks Street.

Even the Liberals said to Mr. Gagnon in a not so roundabout way what kind of bonehead idea is this. It is not the job of the committee to look at that. That was another silly, frivolous type of investigation. Are we going to bring the language police on to Sparks Street?

It was a silly thing and of course he lost his chairmanship of that committee, and he subsequently lost the election. It was an example of a Liberal member's bringing something forward that their own colleagues said was unnecessary, overkill and should be deleted. Unfortunately there was a big row about it until the Liberals killed the idea. That is of course what they are trying to do with this amendment today.

I would like to respond a bit to Bloc members' assertion about Reform's language policy. They do not like it but that can be taken for what it is worth. There is an anomaly that points out a bit of hypocrisy on their part.

The Reform Party has always advocated from the beginning of our party that where numbers warrant and where it makes obvious sense we should have bilingualism absolutely in place.

One of the places where we have always said this should be in place is in the House of Commons. There is no doubt about it that both French and English are spoken here in large numbers. The staff, the researchers, the proximity to Quebec, for all those reasons this place needs to be bilingual. That is why we have translators. That is why we have interpreters. That is why motions are put in both languages and so on. It is necessary because this is a bilingual institution, as the Reform Party has always said it should be. This is typical of a place that should be and is bilingual. It is bilingual so let us treat it that way and make sure it is handled that way.

But a strange thing happened. When the Reform Party became the official opposition a shuffling of offices took place within the centre block building. We moved from the fifth floor to the fourth which are the offices occupied by the official opposition. When we did that we made some subtle and some not so subtle changes. We put the Canadian flag outside the leader's office because it is the office of the leader of the official opposition of Canada.

There were other changes, not least of which was an attitudinal change. An interesting thing structurally happened on the fifth floor where the Bloc Quebecois entrenched itself as the third party, our old suites upstairs.

When the Reform Party was there the signs on all our doors were bilingual. This being a bilingual institution, we always made sure all the signs were in both official languages because that is the way we believe it should be. But when the Bloc Quebecois took over, it took down the bilingual signs on the doors of the fifth floor and put up French only signs. Why would it do that in a bilingual institution like parliament? Why would the leader of the third party take down the bilingual signs and put up French only signs in a bilingual institution?

That has been changed on the whole floor on which the Bloc Quebecois is currently ensconced. I find that disappointing. Bloc members say in the House that we must have respect for both languages, which I also believe. It is disappointing when they get to a floor they call their own, although it is a part of this institution and we all must deal with things on that floor, that they take down the bilingual signs which the leader of the Reform Party had in place and put French only signs up. Why did they do that? Why would they try to put one language only? I would not do that in this institution. This is a bilingual institution. But they did it.

Bloc members are in favour of this Liberal amendment. However, their complaints ring pretty hollow when they say that they would like to see more French in our national parks. It is ironic that 90% of our national parks are in western Canada. I have seen that we provide services in many languages as need requires. I have seen tour guides speaking Japanese and Chinese. We host the nation in these parts. But when it comes to our own national institution, the House of Commons, they put French only on the doors, the one structural thing they have control of. That is too bad.

It is a sad commentary when we should be promoting and encouraging bilingualism and celebrating that diversity in this institution. It is a sad commentary where numbers warrant and where it is a national institution that they choose to go the other way. That is unfortunate. I hope they take the opportunity in the next few days to change that, to show that they respect the spirit of bilingualism in this kind of institution in their own offices. I hope they will but I will not hold my breath. Although they talk a good line for the national parks in my region, they will not practice what they preach even here in our national parliament, and that is too bad.

This is an amendment to fix a botched up amendment which the justice minister gave a four and a half page tongue lashing about, saying that it should never have been there. This tries to fix it in a poor management style in terms of legislation. Fixing bad amendments by amending them further is the worst way to create good legislation.

I am worried they are setting a precedent. What are we going to have? Is the Minister of National Revenue who is contemplating a national tax collection agency going to have to put this clause in his bill? It should never have been there. What about all the bills that do not include it because the Official Languages Act already covers it?

Here we have a bad amendment made worse, a precedent setting one at that, by including it in an agency development bill. As the government goes to other agencies, this amendment will now have to be pushed through on every one of them. That is too bad and unfortunate.

The government would be wiser to cut its losses and to cut this clause. It is unnecessary, vexatious and strictly a political statement that tries to cover up a very bad mistake made in committee.