Angela Vautour

[Canadian Parks Agency Act, March 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I must say that I cannot reassure my hon. colleague because he told it exactly as it is. The chief executive officer has exclusive authority. We have to ask ourselves why the power to make all decisions regarding hiring, operations, everything, has to be concentrated in the hands of one individual. We clearly have to figure out exactly what the Liberal government is up to here. It is trying to pull a fast one, as we say.

However, some members of this House can see exactly what is going on. It is not fair, and that is a fact. This person obviously has too much power, and that is the direction we are headed in, as I indicated earlier. We are moving in the wrong direction, that is, toward the commercialization of our national parks. That is quite obvious. No one can argue that we are not headed in that direction, which will mean more pollution, more of everything.

Again, we must realize that unemployment is a big problem in this country. Affected employees will be guaranteed a job for two years only. They do not know where they will be working two years from now. Many employees across the country have no idea where they will be in two years.

I completely agree with my colleague that the government is moving in a very dangerous direction, which will certainly be harmful to our parks and to our economy.

[Canadian Parks Agency Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-29, since I am very close to it as a result of my past experience.

My first job was with Parks Canada in P.E.I. in 1981, and my last federal government job was at the Kouchibouguac National Park. So I have seen a lot of things first hand, particularly the developments between 1981 and 1997. I saddens me to see the direction our parks are taking today.

The first reason to create the agency is, as my colleague has said, downsizing, or job cuts. It is privatization. When the announcement came a couple of years ago that an agency would be created, I can still clearly remember our conference call with Mr. Tom Lee. It was clear that jobs were going to be lost.

We were also headed toward alternate service delivery, which means people get shown the door and then hired again on contract at a considerable loss in salary, from $15 to $5.50 an hour. When that first teleconference was held we were not fully in agreement, and those same concerns are still with us today.

I am giving you the real facts, for I lived them. If one looks at exactly what is going on in the parks today it is true that some have already got to another stage.

If people wonder what my job was, I was a cashier. I was the person who took money at the entrance. Often, families would turn up who did not have the $7 needed to get in and use the beaches, the bike paths, the walking trails. They had to turn their cars around and leave. We would have paid the fee out of our own pockets if we had been able to afford it, so that their kids could get to the beach.

That is where things have got to today. That is what the bill will bring in, a continuity of the process of making national parks accessible only to those who can afford the high fees to rent a camp site, use the bike paths and our beautiful beaches, enjoy nature. The national parks are very lovely, and they exist for a reason.

Today, they are in the process of being destroyed. Today, there is a charge for a little bundle of wood for a camp fire. Before people had to pay for wood, we had no problems with our camp sites. Now people are cutting down the trees in our national parks because they do not want to pay the $3 or $5 extra for firewood. Our parks are now being destroyed.

This agency cannot offer any guarantee that this is for the good of our parks, because that is not true. It is absolutely false.

We must also look at the reasons why national parks were established. They were estaablished to protect nature and to make sure these places would still be there for future generations. Many national parks are located in high unemployment areas. Often, they are the main employer.

Back home, I was one of the best paid employees in the region at $13 per hour, because the park was the main employer. Just think that people in these regions have to accept seasonal jobs that pay $5.50 an hour.

There are other reasons that explain what the government is doing. As my colleague pointed out, the government wants the parks to become self-sufficient and self-financing eventually.

I can see it coming. I can also see how the human aspect is absent from our parks. When I started with the parks, in 1981, the focus was on client services. Clients came first. By the summer of 1996, the priority had become “give me your $7”, or “give me your $18”. Fees are unbelievably high and they are not consistent across the country. In some parks they are very high, compared to other places.

Those who cannot afford such fees have no way of seeing, of discovering the natural resources of our national parks, and the situation will only get worse.

As a former regional vice-president of the public service alliance for the Atlantic region, I have a pretty good understanding of national parks in that region. I heard people's concerns. At one time, people were given this alternative: either we create an agency, or we make this cut and that cut. People have no choice. No one likes this system. People have to choose the lesser of two evils.

The New Democratic Party clearly will not support this bill. It is unacceptable. It goes against what we believe. All Canadians should have access to our national parks. This access should not depend on their income.

The more the government increases the cost of services, the further it is pushing in the same direction. The philosophy is “if you do not have money in this country, too bad. We changed the rules and you will no longer have access to anything”. That pattern can be seen in health care, education and the national parks.

It is very obvious that the government wants to follow the Reform Party's philosophy, which is “if you do not have money in this country, too bad”. I have a problem with that, because at one time I was among those who do not have money. I was also one of those who were expropriated from Kouchibouguac national park. I am very familiar with national parks, and I know why we pay for parks. Today, I can see that the government is changing direction, and this is not acceptable.

[Employment, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. The unemployed in the Beauséjour—Petitcodiac riding are once again taking the hit when it comes to financial help from the Liberal government. Forty per cent of the identified gappers will not qualify for the programs announced by the Liberals. This means they are going with no income for three months because of EI zoning problems and cuts to the EI program.

With a $20 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund, is the minister prepared to admit that his reform is not working and is he prepared to take steps to alleviate the suffering of the unemployed?

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

On December 16, 1997, the Prince Edward Island legislature stated that the multilateral agreement on investment would give the major multinationals nation status. The Prince Edward Island MLAs also called on the federal government to impose a moratorium on the ratification of the agreement pending public hearings on the matter throughout Canada.

Is the government prepared to make a commitment today to holding public hearings on the MAI throughout Canada before asking Parliament to ratify the agreement?

[Competition Act, March 16th, 1998]

I know the Liberals hate to hear this because it is the truth and that is why they are all complaining at this point.

Highways should be paid for by our income tax which lets people pay for services based on a percentage of their incomes instead of tolls which are unfairly applied at the same rate to both poor and rich citizens.

In addition, I oppose the tolls on the Trans-Canada section between Riverglade and Moncton to MRDC because this section should not be part of the deal. The section in question has already been paid for by our taxes, both provincially and federally. The highway is part of the Trans-Canada, a national symbol which links Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This section is the only highway linking residents of the riding with health care needs which they can only obtain in Saint John or Moncton. The federal government has double-dipped in the pockets of Atlantic Canadian businesses.

This toll tax on the main corridor between the maritime provinces and the rest of Canada will result in an increase in the cost of goods and services imported and exported from the maritime region. The tourist trade will also be directly affected.

In addition, the people of New Brunswick will be looking at a $2 billion tax increase.

In 1995 the Liberal government eliminated the Atlantic Canada freight rate subsidies, promising to invest $326 million over five years to modernize the highway system in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec. Where did it go?

In Atlantic Canada freight rate subsidies existed to help Atlantic Canadian businesses compete with central Canadian businesses which were favoured because of lower transportation costs. This represented thousands of dollars in subsidies every year for many Atlantic Canadian businesses.

Now the toll highway, already paid for by tax dollars and the savings of the subsidies eliminated, is costing these businesses more than before. It does not add up.

For example, a company which used to pay $1,000 to ship its products to Ontario would get a rebate of $250. Now they have to pay the $1,000 plus an extra $110 fee per day to travel.

In closing, I would like to say that the Trans-Canada Highway should be toll free from coast to coast. In the words of Ruth Jackson, present mayor of Salisbury: “A toll on any part of the Trans-Canada Highway is a breach of trust to the citizens of Canada, removing them from the freedom of unifying transport across this country. Any tolled road, be it provincial or private, must be separate and distinctly not part of the Trans-Canada Highway system. If this toll is allowed to proceed, all geography east of Moncton will be denied the freedom of national highway access to any commercial transport”.

[Competition Act, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I once again would like to bring attention to the River Glade to Moncton toll issue. In short, I disagree with tolls charged on highways because highways are basic public goods needed for economic and safety reasons.

Since the New Brunswick government announced its secret deal with the Maritime Road Development Corporation to build a new highway between River Glade and Fredericton, I have opposed the deal. The process by which negotiations were conducted between the provincial government and Doug Young's company should not have been secret but instead should have been open to public scrutiny before any contract was signed.

[Competition Act, March 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to join the debate on Bill C-20.

As members will know, this is a bill which seeks to modernize the Competition Act to respond to a changing business environment by increasing flexibility in the administration of the act and efficiency in its enforcement.

I would like to focus my speech today on what New Democrats see as the two main parts of Bill C-20. The first part of my speech will deal with the aspects of Bill C-20 which are aimed at getting tough on telemarketing fraud. New Democrats support this part of Bill C-20 without any reservation.

In the second part of my speech I will talk about Bill C-20 as it changes the administration of the merger notification process. This is where New Democrats have reservations with Bill C-20.

I want to begin by talking about the serious problems of telemarketing fraud in Canada. We know that it is a $4 billion industry in Canada and it is growing. We know that after being chased out of the U.S. by aggressive law enforcement efforts, the scam artists started moving north to Canada. Offering prizes, cheques, trips and more, these silver tongued artists have targeted Canada in their latest wave of greed. Victims are usually people in a vulnerable position, most often seniors and even sometimes people suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

I point out that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Colchester.

While we should all applaud and encourage the efforts of our police to catch and prosecute these offenders, I believe it is important that we also try to make members of our communities aware.

I may have been a victim if I had not caught on. I got a phone call at 11 o'clock at night to say I had won a trip to Florida. All they needed was my cheque number so they could get some money. During that same week people unfortunately did get caught in that scam. We have to make sure people are phone smart so that they are no longer in danger of being victimized.

This time last year New Democrats launched a public information campaign in our ridings to educate the most vulnerable members of constituencies about telephone fraud. New Democrats included in their householders a quick reference card entitled be on guard which could be hung by the telephone. New Democrats also went around to senior residences in our ridings and handed these cards out personally.

A few minutes ago I said that I would talk more about the efforts of the police in tackling this awful crime. I want to single out a certain OPP force which is dealing specifically with the crime of telemarketing fraud. It is called Operation Phonebusters and is a joint OPP-RCMP clearing house.

Several New Democrats have had the opportunity to work with Mr. Bob Elliot, the OPP officer heading up this effort called Operation Phonebusters. I want to express to the House the tremendous job Mr. Elliot is doing, and with limited resources I might add.

The hard work of Mr. Elliot can be seen directly in Bill C-20 and the changes which will make it easier to prosecute these con artists. I do however feel the need to express to the House and all hon. members the concern that Operation Phonebusters has become virtually a one person operation. While its prosecution record is impressive, its limited resources means that there is a serious delay between the reporting of a crime and the laying of charges. In some cases this allows the offending operation to bilk seniors, close its doors and move on before prosecutions can be undertaken.

I encourage the solicitor general to provide the much needed policing support by bolstering the federal government's commitment to Operation Phonebusters.

I also encourage the solicitor general to instruct the RCMP to take a leadership role in fighting this fraud on a national level. We cannot tackle this problem on a city by city basis because these guys will just pick up their shop and move to the next city. With just a handful more full time RCMP officers, we can send a clear message to the con artists and those who would steal from the innocent, that Canada is not open for that kind of business and is working hard to pull the plug on phone fraud.

There is some urgency in taking a hard line on this type of crime. In fact, it seems kind of silly to me that it has taken the government so long to realize that this is a serious crime. The problem in my mind has been very serious since the 1980s when lower cost telecommunications offered crooks a cheap, effective way of picking pockets.

The victims with whom I have met in my riding are truly the honest and the innocent. They should be able to answer their phones with the confidence of knowing that they are protected by law, especially since the laws are in place to protect them.

New Democrats support any effort which leads to a harder line approach against this type of crime. Canada has been without a national strategy to fight telemarketing fraud for too long. New Democrats are willing to work together with the government to achieve this.

Before I finish, I want to stress that telemarketing fraud is a very important part of the bill. It is a serious problem. I think we all know somebody who has either been or almost been a victim. We can also relate that to where one lives.

At a time when I was a seasonal worker I was told I had won a trip to Florida and thought is was great. They target areas where people are vulnerable and will go for it. It is very easy for some people to get access to phone numbers, even private phone numbers. It is scary how easily some groups access such information.

[Toy Labelling, March 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the motion introduced by my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst. I think it is a sensible motion that should be taken seriously. Its purpose is to protect our children's health against chemical agents in certain toys.

Phthalates are chemical agents put in plastics to soften them. These very widespread agents are present in plastic lids, cellophane paper and children's toys. Studies have shown that these materials can cause cancer, damage the liver and lead to infertility.

Growing children are more susceptible to these harmful effects. Phthalates are released from toys and ingested into children's systems. Even more alarming, phthalates are released from common toys such as pacifiers and other soft toys that children put in their mouths.

I have a two-year-old daughter and this situation frightens me. It is something that should be taken seriously. It is infuriating that the Liberal Party does not consider this a serious matter. I should not say the whole party, because we have been informed that a number of Liberal members support this motion, but it remains to be seen whether or not they will really support it when it comes to a vote.

We know that new European studies resulted in store chains in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Argentina, Spain, Belgium, Germany and Italy taking a great number of toys containing phthalates off the market. This is a matter of protecting our children, as well as a consumer-rights issue.

In Canada right now, parents who are concerned about this issue have no way of knowing whether the toys they are buying contain these chemical agents. As lawmakers, we must take a stand on these issues that have not already been debated in Parliament, particularly when it is a question of protecting our children's interests and health.

It is also a question of raising public awareness. This is a very serious matter, when one considers that any young child has plastic toys he puts in his mouth. I cannot stress enough that we are talking about our children and grandchildren.

All that we are asking is for these objects to be identified so that parents may decide whether or not to buy them. We are not asking for them to be pulled off the shelves. We are asking for a study to be carried out and for there to be labelling in the meantime. Some countries have already withdrawn them. We are not imagining things. This is real. It has happened, regardless of what any hon. member may say to the contrary. What has already happened cannot be changed.

This motion is all the more important because of its proactive nature in preventing long-term health problems. Prevention is important because it will protect our children from liver disease, cancer and infertility. It will also impact upon the future costs to our health system. If we can prevent devastating and costly diseases such as cancer now, our already overburdened health system will benefit.

This is not the only instance where this is happening. Many decisions being taken across this country are very costly to our health system. We are making people ill. We are not giving proper care to our people in hospitals. We are shipping them back home before they are ready, and they end up costing the system more as a result. Some in this country end up paying a still higher price, as needless deaths occur.

All we are asking here is for these items to be labelled so that parents can decide whether or not to purchase them. I think what we are asking is very reasonable. There are some doubts being expressed about these products presenting a problem, that they are making our children sick. I cannot imagine that this House cannot reach agreement on such an important matter.

We are asking for assurance that our children will not fall ill as a result of our buying products that are not identified in the stores. It is a sad thing that the Liberals are playing politics at the expense of our children's well-being. This is unacceptable.

We are not asking for the moon and the stars, here. We are just asking for a little label on products that make our children sick. One might well wonder which companies with certain political affiliations are going to be hurt by this labelling requirement. A stop must be put to this. People must come first, ahead of scoring political points, when such important issues are at stake.

I stand today speaking on behalf of this motion. This is something that is very dear to my heart. I have children at home. I have a two year old that puts everything she can find in her mouth and here we are talking about substances that can make her extremely ill. All we are asking is to identify those products.

I could go out there today and buy those products. I do not know which ones they are. We are asking to protect our children, not asking for the moon or the stars. We are asking to keep our young children healthy. That is all we are asking.

[Access To Information Act, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, speaking to Bill C-216 today, I lend my cautious support to the bill on the basis that if passed it will genuinely represent a commitment to open and accountable government.

It is not often that a representative of the New Democratic Party would possibly be supporting something put forward by the Reform Party. Politics is a complex game in which there are no definitive answers, only winners and losers. This is unfortunate. This is why I am pleased to see two parties with opposing views possibly coming together on this issue.

I believe I am speaking for many members of the House when I say it is nice to see the Reform Party put forward responsible and intelligent suggestions. It would be nice to see the Reform members focus more energy on issues relevant to the country as a whole and less time on flag throwing, redundant nit-picking and issues which make the voters identify Reformers as nothing more than comic relief in the House. We have great responsibilities, responsibilities beyond performing as the court jesters of Parliament.

With regard to Bill C-216, I support in large part three particular points put forward by the Reform member.

First, the Access to Information Act is intended to increase and enhance public confidence in government by opening it up to scrutiny. It is an indispensable means of ensuring that government is as transparent as is reasonably possible and prudent.

Second, Bill C-216 will improve the freedom of information. It will expose and deter extravagance and waste and make crown corporations more open and accountable to the public. Open government means not only opening the finances of government to the people but also conducting the affairs of government above board.

Third, Bill C-216 will make citizens better able to judge the performance of their governments and make more informed voters. The guarantee of public access to government documents is indispensable in the long run for any democratic society.

To highlight the issue for those who are not as familiar with the bill and/or do not have the information at their disposal, I will briefly outline both its nature and purpose.

Bill C-216 will make crown corporations subject to the Access to Information Act. Crown corporation as defined by the Financial Administration Act means a parent crown corporation or wholly owned subsidiary. This in essence is added to the definition of government institution in section 3 of the Access to Information Act which formerly read “government institution means any department or ministry of state of the Government of Canada listed in schedule I or any body or office listed in schedule I”.

Under Bill C-216 this will read “government institution means any department or ministry of state of the Government of Canada listed in schedule I, any body or office listed in schedule I, or any crown corporation as defined in the Financial Administration Act”.

Among the crown corporations which are currently exempt from the Access to Information Act are the Canada Post Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Wheat Board.

I want to say a few words about the CBC. I will be careful in my comments, because I think the service provided by the CBC is very good, but we must ensure that it can continue to provide such good service and to be accountable to Canadians at the same time. I will end my comments on that note.

[Lobster Fishery, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Since lobster catches dropped by about 25% in 1997, and since fishing is one of my region's major industries, can the minister assure people working in that industry, including plant workers, that he will start listening to them and take the measures needed to ensure the protection of this industry against things such as inconsistent lobster measurements?