Debates of June 11th, 1998

Petitions

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is the last petition I have. There are 37 signatures on this petition. It is from citizens of Limerick and Assiniboia, Saskatchewan.

The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that most Canadians understand the concept of marriage as a voluntary union of an unmarried male and an unmarried female and that it is the duty of parliament to ensure that marriage as it has always been known and understood in Canada is preserved and protected. The petitioners pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act so as to define in the statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[The Deputy Speaker]

When the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands started citing a petition from Limerick, I thought he was going to break into verse.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South. It concerns our police officers and firefighters.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they discharge their duties. When one of them loses their life in the line of duty the employee benefits often do not provide adequately for their surviving family members. Further, the public also mourns that loss and wishes to recognize in a tangible way the officers who are killed and to assist their surviving family members.

The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the families of police officers, firefighters and all public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to present calling upon parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I have a second petition following a meeting with representatives of Canadians of Serbian descent calling to parliament's attention that the actions of the Canadian government with regard to Serbia are in their views non-democratic. The petitioners are asking that the House of Commons consider the best interests of all citizens of Serbia for peace and democracy in the Kosovo region.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the people of Peterborough on behalf of the 18,000 Canadians suffering from end stage kidney disease.

These people recognize that kidney dialysis and kidney transplants are very important lifesaving treatments. They point out that access to dialysis treatment and the rate of organ donations are not sufficient to meet the need.

The petitioners call upon parliament to work and support research toward the development of a bioartificial kidney that will eventually eliminate the need for both dialysis and transplantation for those suffering from kidney disease.

This petition is particularly important to the people of Mount St. Joseph and Milltronics.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I respectfully ask the hon. member when we could expect an answer to Question No. 21 which we asked not so long ago, I believe it was on October 3, 1997. Can we get some kind of commitment as to when that answer could be expected?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member and his colleagues have been particularly interested in Question No. 21. As I pointed out, this has required inquiries of every department in the government. I can assure the member there will be a response before the end of this session.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Whenever that may be.

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

Mr. Speaker, is the end of the session the end of this parliament or the end of this sitting session?

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is an academic question. The hon. parliamentary secretary may wish to illumine us on that.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

It is a very good question and the answer is yes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-38, an act to amend the National Parks Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

National Parks Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-38, an act to amend the National Parks Act.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows: (a) Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be voted on separately; (b) Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted on separately.

I shall now put Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-38 be amended by replacing the title on page 1 with the following:

“An Act to amend the National Parks Act (creation of Tuktuk Nogait National Park)”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-38, in Clause 1, be amendedby replacing line 8 on page 1 with the following:

“luit Settlement Region, recognized by the Western Arctic Claim, Inuvialuit Final Agreement and the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act;”

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to make a change to Motion No. 1 because, both in French and in English, the name of the Tuktut Nogait park has been misspelled.

I therefore seek unanimous consent to replace the last “k” with a “t” so the title of the act reads as follows: an act to amend the National Parks Act (creation of Tuktut Nogait park).

[The Deputy Speaker]

The purpose of the motion is just to change one letter in the title.

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to make this change?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I also thank the hon. members.

This amendment to the motion is both a minor and a major one, since it merely specifies that Bill C-38 makes direct reference to the park. The amendment only seeks to point out that the legislation refers to this park. I have no other points to make regarding this first motion.

As for the second motion, nowhere in the legislation is reference made to the fact that the creation of this park is the result of a very long process that began a long time ago.

That process began with an agreement signed in 1984 by the Canadian government and the Inuvialuit, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.

This was followed by the act, which was also passed in 1984. Negotiations lasted a long time. I believe it took seven years to sign an agreement on Tuktut Nogait, in 1996. Finally, in 1998, we will now pass the bill to create this park.

It is important to know that the claims were recognized in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and in the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act. This is why we would like to see this amendment included in the bill, whose content is rather limited.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Motion No. 1, the government would support that motion with the correction of the spelling error.

Motion No. 2 the government cannot support. It is not because of the intent. The intent is certainly in the right direction. However, a legal opinion has suggested that the recognition does not actually give the Inuvialuit settlement region any further guarantees or claims. There are already provisions in there with respect to the Western Arctic land claim, the Inuvialuit final agreement and the Western Arctic claims and, therefore, it is not appropriate to have that second reference or change.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak at the report stage of Bill C-38.

The Reform Party will support Motion No. 1, which will change the name of the new national park to Tuktut Nogait.

We feel that Motion No. 2 is unnecessary. It is an amendment that is covered already under Bill C-38. The Reform Party will be opposing that motion.

The third motion, which was put forward by the Bloc, changes the boundaries of the park which will allow exploration for minerals in an area that is a calving ground for bluenose caribou, and we will be opposing that motion.

I would be remiss in not using this time as an opportunity to castigate the minister for her short-sighted views on Banff National Park. The government has done some good work with Bill C-38, but it is also missing the boat.

The minister said that one of the greatest goals that exists—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Should the first and second motions not be debated?

The Reform Party member has already discussed the third motion and he is raising an issue which is not even on the agenda, that is Banff national park. I think we should go back to the agenda, that is Motions Nos 1 and 2.