Reed Elley

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.

I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to acknowledge the great growth of the Canadian tourism market over the past number of years. In many parts of the country, tourism accounts for perhaps fourth or third, sometimes even second or first, among the industries that produce dollars. From the unique locations that have a story to tell, the many historical points across this land of ours, to the remote locations of ecotourism, Canada has a lot to offer the world.

All across the country there are tourism boards which are mainly made up of volunteers looking to promote their own local highlights. From small town Saskatchewan to urban Montreal and all the points east, west, north and south the country has much to offer. We ought to be exploiting the scenic beauty and the many historical sites around the nation.

I will take some time to read into the record this afternoon a bit about the community in which I live. The story of Chemainus, British Columbia, is one of the success of tourism in the nation.

Those who do not know where Chemainus is located ought to know. It is located about one hour north of Victoria, British Columbia, on beautiful Vancouver Island. Many people are looking forward to making that part of the country their final destination. It is a great place to live and I suspect, although I do not know yet, that it is probably a good place to die.

The local tourism information centre describes the history of Chemainus as a small town having relied for over 100 years on the lumber industry for its existence. In 1980 concern about MacMillan Bloedel's inevitable downsizing prompted the community to begin discussions on revitalizing the downtown core, with the hope of developing some form of tourism.

Taking advantage of a provincial downtown revitalization program, the town fathers developed a business improvement plan now known as the mural project. They recommended painting large, high quality murals depicting the logging and lumber history of Chemainus on the exterior walls of various buildings.

The first mural was painted in 1982 by Vancouver Island artist Frank Lewis. These amazing professionally painted murals, all painted from authentic historical photos of the settlers, vividly depict the history of the Chemainus valley including the forest industry and first nations chiefs.

In addition to the magnificent murals Chemainus now boasts a new 270 seat family dinner theatre, many fascinating shops, and is home to many talented artisans. By the third year it was estimated that the murals were attracting somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15,000 tourists. Today over 400,000 people visit Chemainus annually to see the 33 world famous murals. A sign on the edge of town reads “Welcome to the community that is known as the little town that did”.

Chemainus is a success story of determination, courage and vision. For over 100 years the town had solely depended on the forest industry for its existence. Confronted with the downsizing of the forest industry in the early 1980s, the community began embarking on the transition to diversify its economy. Along with the city fathers there was one man who was the driving force behind the original Chemainus mural project, Karl Shultz. Many people could learn a lot from Karl. His credo is never let those who say it cannot be done stand in the way of those who are doing it.

Many people looked at Chemainus in those days and declared that turning the town into an outdoor art gallery simply could not and should not be done. Fortunately the people who were busy trying to do it were too busy to get discouraged. That is why Chemainus is known today as the little town that did.

During this transition Chemainus went from a 120 year old sawmill town with no tourists in 1981 to a thriving tourist destination with over 450,000 tourists by the year 1988, and from 40 local businesses to over 300 today. Chemainus has gone from being left off the maps of the world to becoming internationally famous.

Members can imagine that municipal revenues have more than tripled what they were a little over a decade ago. From the work of one man to a dedicated group of community minded volunteers Chemainus is indeed the little town that did.

Chemainus received the prestigious British Airways Tourism for Tomorrow Award for the Americas in London, England. It was featured on radio with 1.5 million listeners hearing the story on the British travel TV show Wish You Were Here . They were viewed by 15 million people and appeared in the London Times with a readership of 3.5 million.

In Japan the popular quiz show Naruhodo the World , with 10 million viewers, featured the Chemainus Art Gallery. As well there was an eight page article in the May 1994 issue of the Smithsonian Magazine .

This is just one small town with one story to tell in the tourist industry across Canada. It is what the dream and determination of dedicated people coming together in a common cause can do.

Chemainus is a prime example of the success of entrepreneurial spirit that captures the heart and soul of many Canadians across the country today. In fact, many Canadians have come to the conclusion that if we do not do it, it will not get done. That is simply the way it is.

In the midst of speaking about the bill I ask why there is the need to have one more crown corporation to do the work being done so well by groups of people like the citizens of Chemainus. I have no doubt that the Canadian Tourism Commission plays an important role at the international level, but I really wonder whether it is the government's business to be involved in such things.

Why am I concerned? Simply put, it comes down to who can perform the task best and at what financial cost. If we go over the history of Canada, the involvement of the Canadian government in the economic life of the country and the stories that are told about government crown corporations, surely we will learn some lessons from the past. Whether crown corporations are federal or provincial, over a period of years their budgets and bureaucracies are virtually out of control. It is certainly out of the control of the ordinary Canadian taxpayer who ends up funding these projects.

The board of directors is now largely made up of private industry members. It is in their best interest to continue to promote Canada as a tourist destination. Why not simply let them continue doing the job without the apron strings of government? Let them do what they can do best. We have the obvious example of the Chemainus success story. Surely it can be repeated over and over and over again across the nation.

While my colleagues and I in the official opposition firmly support the creation of efficiency in government and the delivery of government programs, I cannot support the move to establish the Canadian Tourist Commission as a crown corporation.

My opposition is based mainly upon lack of public accountability. At a time when the public is demanding greater accountability of its tax dollars at work, we should not be allowing the creation of another crown corporation which does not have the need to come before parliament to account for how it spends its money.

Some of my colleagues in the House have already pointed out the problem of too much political influence by the government in crown corporations. That political influence starts right at the Prime Minister's Office. It goes down through the various departments and their ministers to the grassroots. Before we know it power is vested in a small group of people taking control of all crown corporations.

We already have a situation where the Prime Minister's Office has far too much power. Are Canadian taxpayers aware that the Prime Minister's Office has the power to make over 5,000 appointments from supreme court justices to senators in the other house and down through parliamentary secretaries to members of committees? It goes on and on. We have vested far too much power in the hands of a few. Crown corporations are just another way of keeping a tight rein on that power.

As I have shown with my hometown of Chemainus, local businesses and municipal leaders have been able to take what was a desperate situation in the early 1980s and turn the community into an international success story. I invite members to join me next summer in Chemainus to see what the private sector can do and see what real success and community pride are.

The Canadian Tourism Commission could learn a lot from Chemainus. The government could learn a lot from the little town that did.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I had the pleasure of participating in a grassroots democratic meeting on the Nisga'a agreement in Vancouver sponsored by the official opposition.

Contrary to the Liberal government's version of democracy, with stacked witness lists and no public forum, this meeting was open to all who wished to appear. Yes, there were experts who put forward their opinion on various aspects of the agreement. More importantly, the microphone was open for anyone who wished to voice their opinion on this controversial agreement.

Democracy is not just about an opportunity to vote every four or five years. Democracy is intended to be a verb, where there is participation and action and free debate by the common people represented here in the House of Commons. At the conclusion of the debate, a result is reached that is absent of class distinction or arbitrary decisions by a select few, most notably in the Prime Minister's office. All too often the Liberals seem to be afraid to listen and consult with the very people who employ them, the citizens of Canada.

Last Friday was democracy in action. I only wish that the members across the way could have been there to see it.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we rise today to speak to Bill C-8, the marine conservation act. In view of the fact that this body of amendments really calls for the clause by clause elimination of the bill, we can only speak rather generically to the bill itself.

Perhaps we should call this bill the marine environmental act or, maybe even better, the heritage minister's power grab act. That may seem a little strong, but I want to explain this over the next few minutes to see if there are not some members who might agree with me.

As I look at the bill I shake my head in amazement. The purpose of the bill is to establish marine conservation areas and reserves under the authority of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the minister chiefly responsible for national parks. On the surface that objective sounds like motherhood and apple pie. In fact there are some parts of the bill that I would agree with and support.

The official opposition, for instance, is in favour of a polluter pay principle. It makes sense to me that, just like a user pay situation, those who pollute should also pay the price.

The official opposition is also supportive of the concepts of participating in the world community of agreements and maintaining the biodiversity. Throughout this we need to be good stewards of what we have been given.

Unfortunately, that is just about as much support as I can give for the original drafting of this bill. I will expand upon my level of support for the amendments shortly.

I have far more concerns over the remaining portions of the bill. To begin with, I question whether this is a parks bill or an environmental protectionist bill. I believe that parks are to be available for the public good. The way I read the bill, the minister will have sweeping powers to virtually eliminate public, private and commercial activity in vast areas of Canada's marine lands. I do not know if this would be acceptable to many Canadians.

Through clauses 5, 6 and 7 the minister would be able to designate new areas under the act without bringing the act forward again to parliament. This investiture of power to one official in one office is not in keeping with my personal view of an accountable, democratic government. The circumvention of parliament may exist in other acts; however, that does not make it right.

I am very concerned that the heritage minister may simply exclude any exploration or development from any and all sites that she deems to be held within the marine conservation areas. I find this demagogue-like approach to power within the bill very scary but typical of the Liberal government.

This approach to power is one that cannot be taken lightly. As an example, I would like to bring a matter before the House that is a direct case in point of the heritage minister and Parks Canada superseding all reasonable approaches to power and the issue of common law. Within my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan lies a portion of the Pacific Rim National Park. Pacific Rim is home to the West Coast Trail, and a more beautiful and rugged part of Canada we will hardly find. Yet, it is here that a family's nightmare began.

One of my constituents, Mr. John Van Egmond, has met with me on several occasions. The Van Egmonds had a dream of living in a wilderness setting and being able to help people through a practical, hands on approach.

Less than two years ago the Van Egmonds thought that they had found the perfect solution to their dream. Two parcels of fee simple land became available for sale. One land parcel was adjacent to and the other within the boundaries of Pacific Rim National Park. They subsequently purchased both parcels of land.

They confirmed with the local regional district that they would be permitted to build a bed and breakfast on this property. Unfortunately, after Parks Canada later became involved, they learned that a bed and breakfast would not be permitted.

Ever resourceful, the Van Egmonds began to put together a wilderness adventure school that could teach people about the outdoors, specifically in the West Coast Trail environment. Furthermore, their school would be used as a rescue base and emergency shelter for the many hikers that annually use the trail. Over the past several years, due to the popularity of the trail, a reservation system has been used.

Although isolated, thousands of people from around the world use that trail every year. Nevertheless, many people are not fully prepared for the hardships of the trail and are injured along the way.

To accomplish their revised goals, the Van Egmonds had the written assurance of Parks Canada that the rights of private property owners would be respected. However, that is when the problems really began with Parks Canada.

Over the course of the next few months Parks Canada officials cut off access to their land. Remember, this is private land that had been privately purchased. Parks Canada would not permit them to cross crown land that was designated as a park reserve.

The Van Egmonds believe that Parks Canada officials contacted all the local helicopter companies and told them not to contract with the Van Egmonds to drop building materials or supplies on to their property. It disallowed a septic permit for the Van Egmonds on their own property, even though the local regional district had given its approval. This is where it gets interesting. This was in light of the fact that 8,000 hikers annually use the trail and use the pristine shoreline and surrounding area as their own private septic field.

In order to try to comply with Parks Canada officials, Mr. Van Egmond had been using a wheelbarrow to move his supplies from a river to his property along the beach. Parks Canada then issued a letter that the Van Egmonds would not be allowed ingress or egress across park land at all, which meant that they would be trespassing every time they stepped off their own property. This is in free Canada.

Furthermore, Parks Canada officials had told the local Ditidaht Band that the Van Egmonds were illegally fishing salmon stocks out of the local Nitinat Narrows and accepting fees to show hikers a series of revered petroglyphs adjacent to their property. This was brought to a head when several members of the band verbally and physically confronted the Van Egmonds.

When cooler heads prevailed and voices of reason compared different sides of the story, the Ditidaht Band realized that Parks Canada officials had not told them the truth about the Van Egmonds. The Van Egmonds had not been fishing illegally and were not taking people to view the sacred petroglyphs. At this point the Van Egmonds and the Ditidaht Band began to work together.

Out of respect for the Ditidaht Band, the Van Egmonds have left their property and have been attempting to resolve the issue with the heritage minister.

The situation is so serious that the Ditidaht Band has since written the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Canadian Heritage stating that they will not continue in their land claim negotiations until Heritage Canada resolves the issue with the Van Egmonds. Sadly, neither minister has taken the time to date to respond to the Van Egmonds.

These allegations in a free democracy are difficult to believe. Yet, I have talked and met with people independent from the Van Egmonds who have confirmed these reports. The Van Egmonds want nothing more than to resolve this issue, and yet once again the government is not listening, as it does not listen to many people, particularly in B.C. Is it any wonder that I cannot support this bill and the centralization of power that it would give to the minister?

I take this opportunity to speak out loudly on this issue. This bill is inappropriate. It has far-reaching power that I believe supersedes parliament itself. This is not acceptable. We cannot have any more cases like the Van Egmonds. It cannot be supported. Without the approval of many amendments, I will certainly not be able to support the bill.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister also has a peculiar sense of democracy. There are obviously serious side effects from spending too much time at the cabinet table.

Last Friday, he said “Having referendums on matters is not consistent with our democratic approach to parliamentary government”.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister, aside from shutting down the debate, rigging the committee process and ramming the Nisga'a bill through the House, what other weapons are in this government's democratic arsenal?

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased today to join the debate on Bill C-13, the Canadian institutes of health research bill.

At this time of an overall failing health care system in Canada, I am pleased to see some encouraging news contained in this bill. I also wish to offer a critique of Bill C-13 and to offer some points on what I believe are the bill's shortcomings. I raise the points of concern only in an effort to improve the bill. Overall I believe that the bill is worthy of further support and my colleagues in the Reform Party would want to give that support at least up to committee level.

As I understand the bill, it is intended to take the place of the Medical Research Council and provide a more direct and systematic approach to research in Canada. Furthermore, the primary objective of the Canadian institutes of health research is to excel and build upon internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence and research through the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for all Canadians.

One of the primary methods that will be used is that of virtual institutes through the Internet and other high tech communications. The institutes will be made up of experts in their selected fields.

The promise of addressing a portion of the Canadian brain drain is a worthwhile discussion. I would agree that one of the reasons we are losing our best and brightest from Canada to the United States is the research dollars that are available. To lose our best means that while they may have been educated in Canada, we are losing them to a foreign country. The consequences of this failing is like a row of dominoes. As the first person leaves, the process becomes easier for the next person, and so on and so on. Before we know it there is a flood of people leaving Canada which is virtually impossible to stem, unless there is a major change in the reasons that people are leaving.

Why are people leaving? May I suggest that it is the lack of incentive to contribute to our own medical and health research, a lack of financial support for the employees and institutes that they work at, and higher taxes.

We need to take corrective action. With some constructive fixing I believe that the bill could be one small piece of the solution to the brain drain, particularly in the medical professions in Canada today. I believe there are a number of concerns and ways that the bill can and should be improved.

I note that by the end of the second year the CIHR will have a proposed budget of $500 million. This is up from the current budget of $300 million. The addition of $200 million is a substantial amount of money. However, I believe it to be prudent to put some reasonable restrictions on the use of this money.

I fail to believe that without legislative regulations the intent of today's debate will carry over to reality tomorrow.

It is imperative that we set out a framework for the governor in council to work under. Therefore, I believe the administration costs arising out of the CIHR need to have a cap. Currently the Medical Research Council administration portion of its $300 million budget is 4.5%. May I suggest that this level could be maintained and perhaps even capped at 5%. To allow otherwise often leaves open the door for future abuse of taxpayers' dollars.

Under Bill C-13, clause 26(2), the CIHR “may borrow money, issue debt obligations or grant or receive a security interest only with the approval of the Treasury Board”. I fail to see why the CIHR needs to have this capability. With an annual budget approved by parliament, it is imperative that all ministries, departments and crown corporations live within their allocated budget needs. The future for any organization is built upon the available resources. I can see no benefit in allowing the CIHR the ability to borrow money even with the approval of Treasury Board.

Remaining on the issue of finances, I would draw attention to clause 26(1)(f), whereby the CIHR may for the purpose of achieving its objective, license, assign, sell or otherwise make available any patent, copyright, industrial design, trademark, trade secret or other like property right held, controlled or administered by the CIHR. While I do not disagree with the premise of this clause, I would like to see the financial benefits accrue back to the Canadian taxpayer. In other words, when the above types of licensing agreements are granted, the revenues revert to the CIHR and this lowers the financial burden on the Canadian taxpayer.

I agree that individual Canadians do not need to take a back seat to anyone or any other country when it comes to research and development. They simply need the chance and the environment to continue and complete their work. While I believe that Canadians are willing to fairly contribute and ensure that innovative medical research is undertaken in Canada, it is fair to say that those same Canadian taxpayers want to see a return on their tax dollar investment.

I am also interested in the individual projects themselves. It appears there are two distinct and different ways of selecting the projects. One approach is for the governing council to ask for proposals on a given area of research. The governing council would then review the submitted proposals and select them according to peer review.

The advantage of this approach is that the issues of the day will be sure to receive a given amount of research resources. The disadvantage however, is that without strict guidelines, the governing council runs the risk of being swayed by the political agenda of the day. We must remain vigilant on this and ensure that politics do not interfere and compromise our medical research.

In consultation with health officials, it was confirmed that there is an alternate route for those who wish to submit proposals. Anyone may draft a proposal and submit it to the governing council for peer review and selection. The advantage of this process is that new cutting edge medical research will find a forum for peer presentation. Individuals without connections to major universities and other research centres need to have an opportunity to present projects for research funding.

While meeting with the minister's staff regarding the selection of the individual projects themselves, it was indicated that there would be a balance between these two alternatives. I am pleased to support this aspect of the bill, but believe that the advantages and disadvantages need to be accounted for in the regulations. This could easily be included within the operating guidelines and subject to review by the Standing Committee on Health.

Most recently, the present government has been in the debacle of definitions concerning pay equity. The issue of scientific merit enters into this debate. It is important that the preamble also include a statement that indicates “Whereas parliament believes that health research should provide support for research on the basis of scientific merit”. This should be interpreted as research funding based upon the validity of the project, not on the basis of employment equity groups.

One aspect of this bill that requires strengthening is the matter of ethics. We all recognize today that technology has made great leaps forward. The minister has stated that this is an important part of the bill. I believe it can be further strengthened.

It was not that many years ago that some of the routine procedures used today would have seemed like science fiction: organ transplants, fetal surgery, gene therapy and open heart surgery, to mention only a few. Much can still be learned in these matters. They routinely occur in many parts of the world today.

I do not wish to use scare tactics and I certainly cannot predict the future, however I believe it would be in everyone's best interests to strengthen the ethical portions of the bill. Let us have a process whereby when new issues arise which have not yet been contemplated that researchers do not find themselves lost in a morass of bureaucracy. Let us ensure that the future is safe from deviation and questionable ethical decisions. Let us ensure that these decisions are not left in the hands of any one person or indeed in the hands of the bureaucracy.

One other aspect of the bill which I feel is important to draw further attention to is clause 21. It states:

The Governing Council shall review the mandate and performance of each Health Research Institute at least every five years after it is established and determine whether its mandate or the policies respecting its role and functioning should be amended or whether it should be merged with another Health Research Institute or terminated.

The importance of this particular clause lies in the history of other government programs. All too often a valid government program has been initiated with no end in sight. It just goes on and on.

It is imperative that when this bill is enacted that clause 21 remain or even be strengthened. When a program has outlived its usefulness, then it is time to eliminate it. The program may act as a catalyst, however the program should not be an industry in and of itself. Where a government program is not worthy of further funding, then we simply must end the program and move on to something else that is bigger and better.

The CIHR information states that there will be 12 to 15 institutes. I would ask that the future governing council and Minister of Health bring this matter before the Standing Committee on Health for input and development. If the CIHR is to work effectively, it must not only have the support of the government, but the support of the taxpayers as well. In order to accomplish this the research must be seen to be without political interference, without the view by the public regarding validity and necessity and with the broad based support of Canadian medical researchers.

While I favour the concept of private-public relationships, stringent regulations must be built into this legislation. We must be certain that such a partnership does not become an opportunity for the government of the day to have the private sector do its bidding. For any such program to work, there must be a transparent, accountable process. Clause 4 states:

The objective of the CIHR is to excel, according to internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence, in the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for Canadians, more effective health services and products and a strengthened Canadian health care system, by—

One manner in which the bill sets this out is in subclause 4(l):

(l) ensuring transparency and accountability to Canadians for the investment of the Government of Canada in health research.

Let us remember that the Government of Canada represents the taxpayers of the country. As such, the taxpayers will not accept any more Shawinigan shenanigans. I want to stress to the government that it should get it right this time. When the bill states “transparency and accountability”, let us have clear regulations set out for the research institutes involved. Let the bill and regulation adhere to standard acceptable accounting procedures. Let the recommendations of the auditor general be attended to immediately and not on a never-never plan.

While I believe that the intent of the bill heads us in the right direction, I want to stress that since its introduction and the subsequent briefing, there has not been sufficient time to draw together an independent body of medical researchers to vet the promises and premise of the bill.

I realize that the Medical Research Council has played a large role in this development. However, I feel it is imperative that those outside the system also be given an opportunity to review the bill and to give their input.

If the CIHR is intended to promote health and medical research across the country then let us take sufficient time now to ask researchers if it is in their best interest. If the researchers who will be involved find that the proposed system will not work or will work better in some other way, let us find out now and change the system at its inception, not partway through the process. Hopefully we can do this at the committee stage when the bill comes to committee.

One aspect of the bill I have not yet addressed is the high level of taxation that exists in Canada today. While the bill addresses one part of the brain drain, even though the Prime Minister refuses to take his head out of the sand and acknowledge the serious problem, it is clear that high taxation is a problem for medical research in the country.

As we go through this debate I would call upon the finance minister to take direct action on the high rate of taxation rampant in Canada today. Enough of the smoke and mirror shows with promises one day, only to be reneged on the next. We need lower taxes so more Canadians will stay in Canada to begin with and those in the medical profession can do the research we so urgently need.

No less of a body than the International Monetary Fund has stated that Canada needs to devote the majority of the surplus to lower our debt and taxes. I ask that the finance minister heed these words and assist in the elimination of Canada's brain drain, particularly in the medical professions.

Over the last 20 years our health system in Canada has been failing Canadians. It is common knowledge that the government has torn $21 billion out of the Canadian health care system in the last six years. It is only prepared to put back a small portion of that $21 billion into it. Canadians are paying a very real price for this failing. The failing rests squarely on the shoulders of the health minister, the finance minister and members of the Liberal government.

Now is the time to fix it. Now is not the time to lay blame where blame does not deserve to be laid. Premier Klein is not the problem. He is attempting to solve a problem in his province that has its root cause in Ottawa. By finding innovative solutions the failing of the Canadian health care system can be reversed and better health for Canadians will come about. The status quo is not acceptable. We must move forward and seek out real, new and innovative solutions. This bill may be a part of that but we know that we can all do better.

In conclusion, I reiterate that at this time the Reform Party will support the bill up to committee level. I believe that I have enumerated ways in which the bill could be improved and strengthened. Let us work together collectively to build a better health care system, seeking ways to improve it and certainly seeking ways to improve medical research that is so important to the health of Canadians.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from the New Democratic Party. We have co-operated on a number of issues over these past couple of years as we have sat together on the health committee.

Of course on this whole debate on health care many proposals will be made. Many proposals are already being made. However, the fact of the matter is, and I think my hon. colleague will agree with me, that we have seen an abysmal lack of leadership on behalf of the federal government, which is supposed to be the custodian of health care in this country, to take any kind of initiative and to actually renew health care.

If proposals which have come from the Reform Party, or any other party, the member's own party for that matter, are not debated in a sensible way, where emotion will not run riot, we will not get answers.

In view of those kinds of comments, I ask my hon. colleague if she is prepared to lay at the feet of the government the responsibility for the demise of the health care system. Is she prepared, along with Canadians right across this country, to offer concrete solutions that are not embedded in 1960s philosophy, but really take into account what is happening in Canada today?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, this member just recently shut down some interventions in the House on behalf of Canadians. I would like to ask him on behalf of my constituents if he agrees with the statement that Mr. Ken Conrad from my riding wanted to make to the aboriginal affairs committee when it travelled to Victoria.

Along with many other Canadians in B.C. he was not allowed to address his concerns. I am told that members such as the one opposite simply mocked the people who had any concerns about Nisga'a. That does not surprise me with the Liberal record on undemocratic methods.

I will ask the hon. member about this comment. Mr. Conrad says that all this is an ill-conceived creation of the federal Liberal and provincial NDP governments. From all that he can gather from discussing these agreements with his native friends, governments made no efforts to reach out to the grassroots natives who must live with this decision. The only people they have consistently consulted with are the persons whom they deem to be leaders of the communities. He suggests that they not use the excuse they can submit their concerns directly to the department of Indian affairs, that it is common knowledge that any adverse communication ends back in the hands of those being criticized. They have failed to communicate with these people directly and have lost their respect in any process which they are currently undertaking.

If this gentleman who has worked with native Canadians for a long time is correct then I am asking the member if this does not bode ill for the future.

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-3 respecting Canada's youth criminal justice act. I am pleased the bill has finally arrived before the House of Commons. I just hope the Liberal government and in particular the justice minister are open to listening to what members of the House and the justice committee have to say about the bill.

I acknowledge that there are some positive aspects to the bill. I agree with the comment that we should approach youth justice with a balanced approach. Each situation will have similar but different aspects that must be dealt with case by case. Not every crime should have the same punishment, but every crime should be punished and society should feel that the offender has been dealt with in a way that brings justice and the chance to change.

Today's youth must be held accountable for their actions. Surely they should understand why they must feel remorse and have a desire to right their wrong wherever possible. I support the premise of diversion or what the minister has called extrajudicial measures. My colleagues from Crowfoot and Surrey North have done a great deal of work in this area. They have seen diversion work firsthand and believe in it. I have also had constituents write to me with their support of this means of justice. I believe there is merit in this type of justice program and would support its implementation.

The act of being confronted by those who have been wronged should bring young offenders face to face with the consequences of their actions. Criminals of all ages, especially youth, need to know that when they steal, vandalize or commit some other vicious act, they are affecting someone else's life. Someone had to save to buy the television, the car or the house.

To wantonly commit a criminal act without realizing the impact on victims and their families is not right. Youth who commit criminal acts must understand what they have done to someone else's life, how they have violated the person's rights, and the measure of stress and distress they have wrought for their victim and their victim's family.

Unfortunately I have many more concerns for the bill than I do accolades. While we all acknowledge that the old Young Offenders Act had its flaws, I do not really see how the replacement bill truly corrects the many flaws many Canadians have pointed out across the country.

We hear and read about extreme violence in many cases involving youth crime today. We certainly do not have to look at our friends south of the border, either. We have our share of high school violence and riots, youth shootings and beatings, drive-by shootings, car jackings, hate crimes, as well as intimidation, shoplifting, and break and enters. The list continues ad nauseam.

It is only a short drive from my home to Victoria where Renna Virk was savagely beaten and left to drown. This past week we were all shocked to hear of the swarming of a Toronto youth, a 15 year old lad, allegedly over a cigarette, and now he is dead. What a sad commentary on the state of our nation and some of its youth that there is even a climate anywhere in the country for that to occur.

For the past number of years Canadians have become more and more appalled at our justice system and particularly at young offenders, or what the bill calls youth justice. Even young people themselves look at the Young Offenders Act with disdain.

Let us take the problem with age discrimination, for instance. Young people know they can basically get away with anything, including murder, until they turn 18. This is absolutely wrong. This makes our youth justice system a sham.

Those aged 16 and 17 need to be treated as adults. These young people ask for the opportunity to drive, to get a good paying job and participate in the adult world. With these rights and privileges must come the acceptance of not some but all adult responsibilities that go with them.

I am also concerned that 10 and 11 year olds will still not be held responsible for their criminal actions in the bill. We do not want to have 10 year old children in jail, but we do want to ensure that children of this age receive the help they need. For the Minister of Justice to infer otherwise is ridiculous and certainly not worthy of further comment by this member.

Leaving children of this age strictly to the child welfare system is not a reasonable approach for either the child or the welfare system. Violent youths require more than a child welfare system can offer them. Putting these youth into the current welfare system takes badly stretched resources and thins them ever further.

There is a need to ensure that these children are rehabilitated prior to developing any further or more serious criminal habits. By offering younger children a rehabilitative process that teaches respect and discipline and reinforces positive learning skills, the end result will be a person who contributes to society rather than takes from it. The cost to rehabilitate today is much lower than the cost of incarceration tomorrow.

The next concern I have is for the other end of the juvenile age group. Those youth 14 and 15 who commit a serious offence should be moved into an adult court. They need to realize the enormity of their actions. They need to take responsibility. They need to understand that there are consequences. This is a part of the learning and maturing process. As they grow and take on greater tasks, they must also accept the greater responsibilities that go with them.

Unfortunately our society has degenerated in many aspects. One cornerstone is the family. One aspect of the bill I am somewhat pleased to see is the movement toward the recognition of the rights of victims. I believe that the bill and our justice system as a whole could move a lot further in this recognition.

To this end I encourage members of the House to review the victims rights bill drafted by the member for Langley—Abbotsford. He has worked on the issue passionately for years, and this is one rights bill that deserves our attention.

Obviously we cannot talk about youth without recognizing the impact on the family. Our society has been sliding away from strong family values for some time. I believe some of our youth crime problems are directly related to the breakdown of the family unit.

I am therefore encouraged that the bill sets out the compulsory attendance of parents at court if the judge considers their presence to be in the best interest of the youth. People are busy and oftentimes a wake up call is needed in order to reorganize and reset their personal priorities.

I am further encouraged that there are possible consequences for the parents who fail in their obligation to court directives with regard to the supervision of their children. Wilful disregard by parents of court orders puts others at further risk from their children's actions and sets a poor example for their children to follow.

The Liberal government must accept its share of the responsibility for the breakdown of the family unit. High taxation has driven many families to the brink of financial destruction. When mom and dad are struggling to survive it does not take much for the cracks to appear: financial cracks, emotional cracks, cracks in all levels of our temperament and patience. Before long these cracks widen and people, our children, begin to fall through them.

The bill will obviously not resolve all the problems. Nor is it intended to. The bill should be one more piece of the building block to strengthen and support families in society, but I do not believe it will do much to accomplish this goal.

There has been some minor tinkering with the Young Offenders Act in order to arrive at the youth criminal justice act. The Young Offenders Act needs a major overhaul. The justice minister has long promised a comprehensive bill to address the needs expressed by all Canadians from coast to coast. I believe Canadians are disappointed with the timid actions to date, and in this bill those actions continue. The interest of Canadians has not been fully addressed.

Unfortunately at this point I will not be able to give my support to the bill, but I hope in committee the government listens to the suggestions and recommendations of people and in the end we might be able to support it as a whole.

[Petitions, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of 200 constituents and others on Vancouver Island who are concerned about genetically modified foods. They believe that it is the right of all consumers to know what is in the food they eat. They are requesting that parliament require manufacturers and growers of genetically altered foods to label such products accordingly in a way that is obvious to the general public.

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member from Saskatoon just made reference to the member from Nanaimo. There are two of us so he may not have possibly been talking to me, but since I am in present in the House I ought to take the opportunity to clarify that I indeed support my party's principles.