Jim Pankiw

[Motions For Papers, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to the delay of the government in answering Motion No. P-8.

Motion No. P-8 deals with the Bombardier NATO pilot training contract. I have raised this request on the Order Paper for the last seven months and I have raised four previous points of order on the matter.

I sincerely hope that the auditor general's investigation is not going to be stonewalled like I have been. I demand that Motion No. P-8 be called.

Motion No. P-8

That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documentation related to the awarding of a 20-year deal with Bombardier Inc. to train Canadian and allied fighter pilots in the NATO Flying Training in Canada program.

[Parks Canada Act, June 2nd, 1998]

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.

[Parks Canada Act, June 2nd, 1998]

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.

[Carbon Dioxide Emissions, May 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the motion put forward by the member for Davenport proposes that the government should, as part of a global effort to minimize climate change, develop a strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in Canada possibly by 20% based on 1988 levels by the year 2005.

This target is far more ambitious than the target agreed to by this government last December in Kyoto when an internationally binding agreement was signed to reduce Canada's emission levels by 19% by the year 2012.

It is ironic that we in the House are debating this motion in the same week that the standing committee on environment, which the member for Davenport chairs, has tabled a damning report on the environment department's enforcement of its Environmental Protection Act. It is also the same week that the commissioner on the environment has tabled his report on the environment that essentially gives this government an F on its ability to manage our environment.

The target set by this motion is highly unrealistic given that the commissioner on the environment just reported that he does not believe it is possible for Canada to reach the goals established at Kyoto.

The timeline for this motion, approximately 20% emission reduction by the year 2000, is clearly unrealistic. The environment minister probably will not have a strategy in place by the end of 1999.

Clearly a lot of work needs to be done before this government is capable of sorting out the details that must be considered before it can get close to devising any sort of strategy.

One of my serious concerns that this government fails to recognize and which is missing in this motion is the other players, the provinces, industry and Canadians.

Government cannot unilaterally establish a target. It must work with the provinces. It is not enough to just consult with Canadians. It is absolutely essential that government work in co-operation with the rest of Canada.

Reform has clearly taken the position, before and during the negotiations at Kyoto, that the federal government work with the provinces to set a mutually agreed on target. That was the purpose of the Regina accord.

Last November federal and provincial governments met and established a joint position on emissions and reductions. They agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010. Yet a month later the government singlehandedly overturned the Regina position when the Prime Minister announced his own target of 3% below 1990 levels by 2010.

The Prime Minister was more concerned with beating the Americans than with setting realistic, acceptable standards for Canada. Surely Canada's interests deserve more consideration than this.

It appeared there was no other rationale behind these randomly chosen targets. No wonder the provinces were up in arms. These targets clearly placed Canada in a bad negotiating position when it went to the table in Kyoto.

To make matters worse, this government came out of Kyoto with a deal that was even worse. Without the support of the provinces, the Liberals agreed in Kyoto to a reduction of 6% below 1990 levels, which means a 19% reduction in only 10 years. This was not a national position but a federal government initiative. That is why to date the Liberals have failed to gain the co-operation of the provinces.

What the Liberals fail to recognize is that responding to climate change is an area of shared jurisdiction. Under the Constitution Act of 1867 there is no explicit mention of the environment and the division of federal and provincial powers. The provinces have jurisdiction over their natural resources, including energy production. They have control over power generation, building codes and transportation. The federal government has jurisdiction over transboundary air pollution. Therefore responsibilities for taking action and for developing public policies to address issues such as climate change are shared.

Unfortunately, as we noted in the House time and time again and as the commissioner of the environment pointed out again this week in his report, the Liberal government refuses to work with the provinces. There are no clear and transparent agreements between governments that specifically define their respective roles and responsibilities in achieving the stabilization goal.

At the same time, federal roles and responsibilities have not been made clear. Leadership has been split between the natural resources and environment departments but nobody seems to know who is in charge. On one hand, the Liberals want to have the lead role in climate change but on the other hand, they refuse to hold themselves accountable.

According to the environment commissioner, the federal government has failed to devise an acceptable means by which it can be held accountable for its leadership on the climate change issue and for federal participation in implementing Canada's national action program on climate change, the NAPCC.

Not only is there an absolute lack of accountability with this government, there is also a vacuum of information. According to the environment commissioner, there is no written plan to implement the strategic direction of the national action program on climate change. The national action program on climate change is silent on the regime to measure and monitor results. There is no information on the results achieved from government actions.

Clear and concrete performance expectations have generally not been established. Implementation milestones and interim targets have not been defined. Before we devise a strategy as proposed by Motion 38, we must understand the implications and costs of the deal. This should have been done before Canada signed the Kyoto agreement. Yet six months after Canada has committed itself to legally binding emissions reductions, this government is still unable to give Canadians an estimate on the cost of living up to these obligations. The only studies that have been available are from external sources. These are the only studies that department officials have been able to refer to and they show the cost would be enormous.

According to a study prepared by the Business Council on National Issues, achieving the Kyoto target levels would require one of the following measures.

We would have to remove all Canadian cars and light trucks from the road or we would have to remove 90% of commercial trucks and air, railway and marine transportation, or Canada would have to eliminate heating of all homes, all commercial buildings and all national gas distribution, or Canada would have to shut down three quarters of its fossil fuel power generation.

These are examples of the magnitude of the deal signed at Kyoto. The Kyoto agreement could cost billions to Canadians. Clearly governments need additional information on the costs and benefits of inaction as well as the costs and benefits of action. Such information is needed to make a sound cost-benefit decision.

Yet a 1996 review of the NAPCC reported that little or no work was under way in Canada to assess the economic implications of inaction. Canada must be a leader in setting high environmental standards while maintaining a global competitive position and good economic performance. In addressing emissions reductions nationally, the needs of both industry and the environment must be balanced.

Canada's economic interests must be protected. Yet the only way to protect Canada's economic interests is to ensure that internationally we have a level playing field. Developing nations must be an integral part of the solution. Canada has already achieved 80% of its goals in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions is expected to come from developing countries.

Countries such as China and India will be the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases by early next century. However, developing countries do not have to participate in reductions and they did not sign the agreement in Kyoto. The possibility of climate change is a global issue and it must be addressed collectively.

Developing countries are responsible for 40% of the world's emissions. Canada is only responsible for 2%. In the next 15 years it is estimated developing countries will be responsible for 60% of the world's emissions.

The American government is taking the position that it will not participate in an agreement unless the developing countries sign on. The provinces have agreed Canada should not sign unless 75% of the countries responsible for greenhouse gas emissions sign on. If developing countries are not part of the discussion about climate change and rising greenhouse gas emissions, there will not be a solution.

Any proposed goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not be achieved without their participation. Before Canada ratifies any agreement, both developed and developing countries must participate equally in the protocol.

We must ensure that any commitments made are in Canada's interests and recognize Canada's unique circumstances. A national consensus should be gained before international commitments are made. Any greenhouse gas emission targets must be realistic, achievable and based on sound scientific evidence.

[Year 2000, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. For weeks now when questioned on the year 2000 bug the minister has said don't worry, be happy.

But the government's chief information officer and the year 2000 team contracted by the government have said that government computers will fail.

What is the minister's contingency plan to deal with seniors who will have to line up and wait for bureaucrats to hand out their old age security and Canada pension plan cheques in the year 2000?

[Parks Canada Act, May 28th, 1998]

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.

[Parks Canada Act, May 28th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 7

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

[Parks Canada Act, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Motion No. 1, this motion is unnecessary because the priorities already set in the preamble of the bill can be found in subclauses (f) to (m).

Motions Nos. 2 and 4 have been grouped together. I stand in opposition to those motions because as currently written in the bill consultations would be undertaken by the agency and so it should be. Changing that to consultations being undertaken by the minister will consolidate power further in the hands of cabinet. That is not wise. The direction the bill was taking in the first place was correct so the intent of Motions Nos. 2 and 4 is wrong. I oppose the motions.

The remaining motion in Group No. 1 is Motion No. 3. That motion is unnecessary because goods and services procured by the agency would already be on the recommendation of Treasury Board.

I support the intent of Motion No. 5. The idea of trying to promote openness and transparency with respect to public consultations by the agency is a good one. There is no existing requirement in the bill to do that.

Hopefully the House will have the wisdom to oppose Motions Nos. 2 and 4 so that we may vote in favour of Motion No. 5. Thereby public consultations will be done by the agency as they should be in an open and transparent fashion for the public.

I have covered all the motions in Group No. 1.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member on her community initiatives to deal with the problem of youth crime. I wish the justice minister would take some initiatives at the federal level.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide any specific explanation as to why youth crime is higher in Saskatchewan than in Quebec, in fact higher than anywhere else in the country.

The Reform Party has proposed a three step plan to deal with young offenders. The first step involves early intervention and prevention. The second is community based sentences for non-violent, non-serious crimes. The third is what I focused most of my discussion on, getting tough and having effective and harsh penalties to deal with repeat violent offenders who are not start getting the message currently.

We had a town hall meeting recently in Saskatoon. Advocates of the current system's remaining as it is were there and there was a young offender there who had committed repeat violent crimes over a period of five years. His opinion was “see, now I'm better”, but if our Young Offenders Act were working and effective, his first offence would have been his last. That is the type of justice system we need to prevent people from getting into patterns of repeat criminal behaviour.