Debates of June 2nd, 1998

Committees Of The House

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 188

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would it be possible for the Chair to seek unanimous consent that those members who wish to present petitions would get that opportunity as it was omitted earlier this morning.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Blackstrap has requested the unanimous consent of the House to revert to petitions. Is there unanimous consent?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is not unanimous consent. We will now go to orders of the day.

Parks Canada Act

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved that Bill C-29, an act to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to amend other Acts as a consequence, be read the third time and passed.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to provide details on a bit of a debate that arose in connection with the deliberations of the committee on Bill C-29, an act to establish the Parks Canada agency.

As I sit on this committee, I had an opportunity to be in on discussions and even, at one point, to introduce an amendment. I would like to speak about this amendment today.

The aim of the amendment was to have the Official Languages Act, a cornerstone of public policy in this country on respect for linguistic duality, apply in its entirety to the bill establishing the Parks Canada agency. I would first like to repeat the remarks I made in introducing the amendment in committee.

First off, I have to say I am no expert, that my area of expertise is not legislative drafting. So, if changes are required to clarify thinking or the scope the committee wishes to give this amendment, if it agrees to it, naturally, I have no problem.

I have to say here that the intent of this amendment was to make it clear the Official Languages Act applied to the bill before us at the time.

As I said, since I am no expert in drafting bills, I asked the government to simply follow the discussions and, if the proposed amendment were passed, ensure that it was improved, if necessary, to really define the scope of debate and accurately represent the committee's intent in the debate that preceded the vote on the amendment. This was done. That said, the debate took place May 12.

What was said in the debate is important. Discussions in committee even raised the question of whether the person painting a fence, cutting the grass or collecting garbage had to do so in both official languages. Absolutely not. That was clear during the debate.

We were referring to services to the public and a majority of committee members felt that, if the agency were created, it could not be exempted from the obligation to provide services to the public in both official languages, even if it called on a third party or subcontractor to provide services that it would normally perform itself. These third parties or subcontractors would also, in the case of services to the public, provide these services in both official languages, in every province of the country. The issue was discussed and clearly understood. The amendment was passed by a majority of committee members.

A little later, on May 20, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt issued a press release which stated, and I quote:

On May 12 the Liberal dominated House of Commons heritage committee voted in favour of including specific reference to the Official Languages Act in the new bill establishing the Parks Canada Agency.

The member for Saskatoon-Humboldt goes on in this vein, leading people to believe that the said amendment would have the exact opposite effect of what was sought, that is to demand that any subcontractor performing any type of work, including painting a fence—which is the example used by the member—do so in both official languages.

That was absolutely not the committee's intention, and it does not in any way reflect the outcome of the debate. I cannot see how the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt could arrive at such a conclusion.

I felt disappointed that he did not praise the committee. The party that he represents has always criticized the hegemony of government. He used the term Liberal dominated House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. It is interesting that in this case the amendment carried and was supported by the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP, the Tories and two of five Liberals. It was not a Liberal dominated vote, yet he chose to present it that way.

He chose to ignore the fact that members of the committee sat down, did some serious work and had a very thorough discussion on the concept of services to the public being offered in both official languages, whether by Parks Canada as a department or by Parks Canada as an agency. That was the debate. That was the intent. That is what the committee wanted, yet he chose to say otherwise. He chose to say that the committee was insisting that anybody who paints a fence must do it in both languages. It is very disappointing to see such misrepresentation of the intent of the committee.

I said at the start that when the amendment was tabled there was an invitation given to the government to redraft it to reflect accurately the intent and the desire of the committee that services to the public be offered in both official languages. That is what the government did. That is the amendment that was tabled in this House, which I had the honour of supporting along with one of my colleagues, and that was the amendment that was carried.

The system worked. The will of the committee eventually won the day and the government rallied, despite an opinion to the contrary. It saw the advantages of putting in the bill a direct reference that the agency and subcontractors who offer services to the public would be subject to the Official Languages Act. This very much reflects a concern expressed to this House by the official languages commissioner in his most recent report.

Over the last few years there has been a devolution in the general way of handling things. They go to third parties, special agencies and so forth. The official languages commissioner has rightfully demonstrated that there has been, without it being the objective necessarily, a fraying of the application of the Official Languages Act. There has been some sort of an erosion of its application through this devolution. A majority of members of the committee wanted to make sure that was not the case with the Parks Canada agency. That is what was intended. That is what the reformulated amendment does.

I would hope that instead of fearmongering, if not French-mongering, we would realize what the objective was. It was strictly to make sure that Canadians from coast to coast could visit their national parks and expect to be served in either official language.

I would like to congratulate the government for showing such flexibility. Various and even opposite views were expressed regarding the need for and appropriateness of such an amendment. It is because we debated these various views that we came up with a solution.

The government endorsed the notion that we had to clearly indicate that we must not shirk one of our main responsibilities as a government, which is to provide services in the language of their choice to all Canadians who visit their national parks. It is as simple as that.

We must not resort to fearmongering with this issue, as some tried to do. This is very bad for everything we stand for in this country: respect for Canada's linguistic duality and the possibility for Quebeckers to visit parks in Alberta and get served in their language and, conversely, for Albertans to go to Quebec and get served in English, if it is their language. Such was the purpose of the amendment, and I am very disappointed by the attitude of some members opposite who tried to make a big deal out of this.

I wanted to take a few minutes to assure all those who contacted me that there was no intention other than to respect a fundamental principle in our country, that of our linguistic duality and the implementation of the Official Languages Act when a Canadian visits a national park in a province other than the one in which he or she lives.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

At this particular stage, are we not at third reading and, therefore, would there not be questions and comments?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are at third reading and we are on the first three speakers, and the first three speakers have 40 minutes.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I was wondering if I could get unanimous consent to present a number of petitions, which should take one minute or so.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member has requested unanimous consent to present petitions. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member does not have unanimous consent.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I think that maybe it would be appropriate for the member for Yorkton—Melville to tell us the substance of his petitions in order that we can make—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Nice try, but it is not a point of order. We will resume the debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-29. This bill seeks to establish a new parks agency responsible for the administration and protection of our national parks, national historic sites and other heritage areas.

As the House knows, the responsibility for national parks presently lies with the Department of Canadian Heritage. Bill C-29 would transfer that responsibility from the heritage department to a new body that would operate at arm's length from the government.

The new agency will still be accountable to parliament through the appropriate minister. As well, accountability will be ensured since the new agency will be subject to the Access to Information Act and the auditor general will be able to report on the agency's activities.

The bill, as it was originally drafted, ensured that the chief executive officer of the agency would undertake consultations at least every two years. It committed the CEO to hold public forums and to invite interested parties to participate. However, the Liberal government has removed that provision and placed those consultations at the discretion of the minister.

As well, reference to public forums has been removed from the bill and in its place the minister will convene a round table of persons. There is no commitment to making these discussions public nor to making the minister's responses to the round table public. This is a step backwards in the bill since it leaves the public on the sidelines and consolidates more power in the hands of cabinet. That is something that we should be moving away from, not entrenching further.

There seems to be a movement within this government to diminish the role of parliament and to move decision making into cabinet and rule by regulation. I think this is a disturbing trend. It leaves many members of the House feeling powerless and ineffective.

Nevertheless, I am pleased to note that members of the heritage committee did at times work well together on this bill and some sensible amendments were the result. First of all, the name of the agency was changed to the Parks Canada Agency. Many witnesses who appeared before the committee expressed a concern that the Parks Canada brand name was going to be lost. It is a name that has international recognition. There was also a concern about costs if Parks Canada signage needed to be changed.

Accordingly, I introduced an amendment at committee stage to have the new agency renamed the Parks Canada Agency. Other members of the committee could see the sense in that, so the amendment carried. It was unusual, but the Secretary of State for Parks testified against the name change, saying that it was unnecessary.

I was pleased that the committee members were not swayed by his arguments and opted to maintain the Parks Canada name. Indeed, a great many amendments were moved at committee stage which I believe reflected the keen interest each member had in producing a good bill.

Unfortunately, one part of the bill is drafted very poorly. It is in fact redundant. I refer to clause 36 which refers to the application of the Official Languages Act.

To paraphrase, clause 36 now states that the Official Languages Act will apply to the new agency, since the agency is a federal institution.

What is wrong with that? The Official Languages Act applies to all federal institutions anyway, so there is no need to spell it out in the bill. Why is it there? It is a smoke and mirrors clause to cover the tracks of the justice minister and the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

At committee stage the member proposed an amendment, which passed, that would force the application of the Official Languages Act on subcontractors working in national parks. Make no mistake about it, despite his denials to the contrary, the intent and the objective of his amendment was obvious. He completely went against the advice and instructions not only of his own justice minister, but of justice officials who were present at the committee meeting. They told him in no uncertain terms that the Official Languages Act would apply because it is a federal agency and that by writing it specifically into the bill with specific reference to subcontractors was unprecedented and would result in the criticism that followed, that being that people who were never before subjected to the requirement of being fluently bilingual would be. Painters and garbage collectors were the examples that were used in committee that day.

He was also discussing whether it was a Liberal dominated committee. In fact it is. I invite anyone to look back at the record to see how the voting went. As far as I know, I am the only person who voted against the amendment.

Furthermore, if what he was saying was so benign and innocent, why did the Liberal officials take him behind closed doors, force him to withdraw the amendment and replace it with this new amendment? They were obviously admitting that they were making a mistake.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member opposite has just said that I was forced to do something and that is totally inaccurate and misleading.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is a point of debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is that if the intent of his motion was not as it obviously was, then there would have been no need for him to have risen in the House today to say that he was standing to reassure members that that was not his intention, when in fact it was, and that should be obvious to everybody.

At committee stage the amendment passed. It would have resulted in the requirement that fence painters and garbage collectors, which were the examples used in committee, would have to be fluently bilingual.

As we know, the justice minister told the member for Ottawa—Vanier not to do it and justice officials told the member not to do it. What happened? He did it. As a result the justice minister looks bad and it is the fault of the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

To get out of this jam and to avoid a major political embarrassment for the justice minister and for the member for Ottawa—Vanier, the government brought in this vacuous political amendment, which is clause 36.1. The wording of this clause is lifted straight out of the Official Languages Act. The clause does nothing to the bill except clutter it. It is trite law. It brings redundant and unnecessary language into the bill. It is poor legislative draftsmanship.

The Liberals do not seem to mind. They would rather pass a poorly drafted bill than simply admit that they made a mistake and delete the offensive clause.

My amendment to delete that clause was voted down by the government last night at report stage. Hopefully when Bill C-29 is reviewed by the Senate it will recognize that clause 36.1 is unnecessary and delete it.

However, I think we can all acknowledge that the chance of that happening is remote indeed because, as we know, the Senate is ineffective and useless. This is a prime example of why we should have an effective and elected Senate because, in cases where a Liberal dominated government puts forward redundant, meaningless legislation, it could be corrected.

Aside from the bill itself which simply establishes the framework for the new organization, I have some concerns about how Parks Canada is currently being run.

We have reports printed by the Globe and Mail that memos within Parks Canada instructed staff to mislead the public with respect to developments at Lake Louise. The same article says Parks Canada will undertake public consultations only after final decisions have been made.

I asked the secretary of state about these memos at committee but he did not really answer my questions. I asked him to table these memos but he suggested I get them from the media.

I find the contents of these memos, if described accurately by the Globe and Mail , to be quite disturbing. My concern is that no Canadian would want Parks Canada to operate in a manner suggested by these leaked memos. I am concerned that this method of operation may be standard practice at Parks Canada but that this time it was caught.

Will the new agency operate differently or is this method of operation too deeply ingrained and impossible to root out? Only time will tell, but I certainly hope these leaked documents are not indicative of how the new agency will deal with the public.

The agency will also have its plate full with respect to parks issues. There is of course the development at Lake Louise and the contents of these memos. As well, near Jasper a debate is raging concerning the Cheviot coal mine.

The federal government has found itself in court over this project as environmental groups argue that the full impact the mine will have on the environment has not been completely examined.

Also, the agency will have to deal with the ramifications surrounding the boundaries of Tuktut Nogait national park. There has been some debate over a mineral find that extends across the western boundary of the proposed park. While the Inuvialuit want the boundary changed to permit exploration of the minerals the federal government refuses to review the matter.

Considering the government's stubborn position, the new agency will definitely have trouble improving relations between itself and the Inuvialuit in the Northwest Territories.

The agency will be working toward the creation of 15 new national parks by the year 2000. This is a monumental task considering the cutbacks that Parks Canada has had to face. I hope this goal does not make it revenue hungry and force it to hike fees and service charges unnecessarily.

Aside from the concerns I have mentioned I believe the creation of a parks agency is a good idea. It should allow national parks to operate more efficiently since the agency will be able to raise and keep its own revenues. As well, it will allow the use of third parties to administer certain facilities and the agency will have access to a new $10 million parks and heritage sites account. This account will provide funds for the agency in times when particular opportunities arise to purchase land, expand a park, et cetera. Furthermore, funds from this account are repayable to the crown with interest.

The new agency structure provides much needed flexibility. I believe the new agency will ensure our national parks and heritage sites are administered in an accountable, efficient and cost effective manner.

Policy issues concerning our national parks are another matter which I know we all take an interest in. However, this bill simply creates a framework for the new parks agency and I support that framework. I hope other members can also see their way to supporting this new organizational structure.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A short time ago I asked for unanimous consent to present my repeal of Bill C-68 petitions. I am wondering if I could present them at this time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.