Deborah Grey

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the comments that my colleague from Edmonton made were certainly true. He gave a good chronology of the day and some of the concerns that people have about it.

It seems to me a week later that we need to look forward. Rather than having legislation winding its way through the House, which as we know from experience seems to take a while, I am wondering if we could look at things that could be done almost immediately in the airline industry.

For those who are travelling worldwide, we would all feel a whole lot safer and it would be much more difficult for terrorists to be involved and do the things they do if we could just put some things in place.

I am wondering if my colleague from Edmonton would maybe comment on a few possibilities. I can think of some things that we could do immediately. We could refit the planes by law with vault-like doors to the pilot's cabin.

I have spoken to a couple of pilots over the last week. They said that would be difficult because of weight restrictions. However we have new fibre fabrics and epoxy resins. I know that there are all kinds of materials in place so that these things could be done almost immediately. Police have bullet proof vests. Surely there is a way to seal our pilots into their cabins.

Another thing we could do is have hidden cameras throughout the passenger compartment. Maybe that would be wise. Sleeping gas has also been talked about in case people need to be tranquilized when there is a crisis. Would the member like to comment on that?

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I know the level of emotion is difficult and raw for all of us here. I also know how important it is to exact some sort of revenge for this. When this kind of terrorist activity goes unchecked it continues unabated and escalates.

As I said in my earlier remarks, it is important to realize what could be sparked by this in terms of retaliation and the repercussions that could be felt worldwide.

The discussion here is centering around whether it is important to avenge what has happened not just to our American friends and cousins but to the Canadians who were lost in the tragedy. We are also discussing whoever else and whatever country may be affected next. That is what we need to look at.

We talk about anti-terrorist legislation and how important it is. The Americans have pretty good legislation and yet we saw how easy it was for terrorists to break through that barrier, make a mockery of the entire FAA security system and board planes.

We need to think very carefully. Many of our constituents are concerned about the issue. In the Edmonton North area that I represent there is a large Arabic and Muslim population, including the Canadian-Arab Friendship Society, and they are every bit as concerned about this issue.

The question the government needs to answer, to which I invite my colleague to respond, is this. We know something must be done. How can we stand here and say, as my colleague just said, that we are multicultural? We know that, but what will we do so that we are not harbouring terrorists or encouraging other countries to do the same?

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I too agree with my colleague from Calgary. We are talking about good versus evil. There is such a thing. We need to be unbelievably aware of that and sensitive to it as well.

I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks. Although I may not agree with everything she said, we do need to come together in this Chamber with true resolve and no sense of partisanship whatsoever.

What gripped the world last week certainly was very powerful for all of us. We need to realize in a place such as this, in truly a house of power, how important it is for us to stand together with our American colleagues and also to realize the pain and suffering of many millions of Afghanis who are repressed, who are living a life of poverty and sadness and who are also victims of such an unbelievable regime. When we think about those people and retaliation and the repercussions that could come of this, our hearts go out and our prayers are with those people, those who were victims in New York last week, and those who were on planes. Many of us who spend so much of our lives on airplanes can only think of the horror that those people went through in their last moments.

We look not only at the act on New York City last week but the trigger effect it may have around the world as we go after terrorism. It is at such a frightening level.

I would like the member to comment briefly about the innocent Afghanis who are trying to get out of the country right now because they fear repercussions, and just exactly what we can do as a House here in Ottawa, Canada to really encourage, not just offer platitudes, but to encourage--

[Division No. 132, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently supported the motion. I intended to vote nay.

[Women Veterans, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is a huge issue. It is a pity the government did not bring forward this excellent private member's motion. We are speaking about women veterans now, but in terms of paying respect to the men and women who did such amazing work for us and thinking about the sacrifice many of them made, it seems a shame the government was not willing or keen to bring the matter forward and say that we need to recognize them.

In my rural constituency of Beaver River, now Edmonton North, I spent many a Remembrance Day going around to various towns and paying tribute to the people who did such amazing things. Every Remembrance Day I pay tribute to the veterans at the Calder Cenotaph and then visit the army, navy and air force vets association on 127th Street.

There is a huge turnout of people young and old. It excites and amazes me when I see people in the generations coming along behind us taking time out, whether they are cadets or grandchildren of veterans, to pay tribute to those who went before us. It is essential. It is amazing to see legions packed to the rafters on Remembrance Day and at other times as well. Surely the least we could do is take time out of our busy schedules to pay tribute to that.

Again, my congratulations to the hon. member who brought the private member's bill forward. It is a word of encouragement, I suspect, to the government to make sure it pays tribute here. If the Speaker simply gets up and says that we spent a nice hour discussing it and then the issue gets the drop kick and is gone forever, that would be a pity. If that is our attitude and the respect we pay to veterans, it is truly a sad day for parliament and for Canada.

I would certainly ask the government to pick up the ball and run with it and pay tribute to the veterans who have done such an amazing job for us. Those of us who are too young to remember the war, the baby boomers and those who have come along behind us, need to pay attention to the issue and keep it burning all the time.

A couple of blocks from Parliament Hill is the war memorial. What an amazing place it is for so many thousands of Canadians certainly, but also for people from all over the world who come to pay tribute to the new tomb of the unknown soldier and to the veterans who served in the wars.

I would again recommend to the government that it treat the issue as a fairly high priority. I know when it puts things in high priority they can whiz through this place faster than the speed of light. It would certainly be a good, healthy, respectful, positive thing if it could do that today.

[Linda Robar, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a good friend who has been a great source of strength and encouragement to me over the last 12 years: my executive assistant, Linda Robar.

Linda is retiring at the end of June after working on the Hill for 32 years. She started in 1969 on the research staff of the PC Party. From 1972 to 1983 she worked with the hon. Walter Baker, MP, and then she worked with the hon. Alvin Hamilton, MP, from 1984 to 1988.

In March 1989 I came here as the lone Reform MP. I needed qualified, skilful help to get me oriented quickly to Parliament Hill. Linda has certainly more than fit the bill. She has managed my office for 12 years, made sure I fit in the right place at the right time and generally kept my very busy life organized.

Linda is retiring to spend more time with her husband Ernie and their family, and of course to further develop her fabulous chocolate business.

Many people on the Hill in various parties and many of the staff who have worked here over the years have become good friends with Linda. This afternoon I am hosting a great big thanks to her in my office. She is one of the many staff who have made all our lives here as MPs easier. I will miss her.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again on Bill C-10, which is going through another life cycle. At the beginning of the 36th parliament it was Bill C-48 and at the end of the 36th parliament it became Bill C-8.

I was pleased to be critic at the time for Canadian heritage and I spent some time on the bill. However it now rises again. These things seem to die on the order paper fairly regularly. The bill originated in 1988 when the Mulroney government introduced the National Parks Act that would permit the establishment of marine parks.

I will not go through all the details but I will hit a few high points about the intent of the legislation. I do not think anyone in the House or across the country would disagree that environmental protection and sustainability are paramount. Whether they pertain to national parks, marine areas or regulating the pollution of large companies, environmental protection and sustainable development are very important issues.

However these issues do not fall specifically within the jurisdictional power of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We talk about ecosystems, fish, aquaculture and so on. It would be wise to place some of the responsibility for these issues with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We could then talk about the Department of the Environment and how important it is to look at environmental sustainability in the whole area of marine conservation parks.

I also sense frustration with the amount of input parliament would have. I am not sure if this place is becoming more and more irrelevant.

Bill C-10 would pare down anything parliament would have to say on the issue. It would limit parliamentary input by giving cabinet the authority to create marine conservation areas on crown land without going through the normal legislative process. The question is, why bother with this place at all? Cabinet might as well get together, have coffee, bring up an order in council and throw a dart and pick a marine conservation area.

A lot of people and advisory committees have done an incredible amount of work on this issue. I have seen the maps and the areas and they seem well thought out. However the whole idea of going to cabinet and just zipping something through in a morning session, or maybe not even that long, maybe even before coffee, is no good. The House of Commons is where such debate should take place.

We know in the years we have been here that the amount of discussion and the power of parliament itself has been pared down. Members have also witnessed incredible growth in government. Budgets have ballooned. The debt has certainly ballooned and hopefully we are starting to control that. The annual deficit is somewhat under control. That is probably a good start.

Let us look at the amount of governing that would occur under marine conservations areas. Once a marine conservation area is established the minister may maintain and operate the facilities, conduct scientific research and monitor and carry out studies based on traditional ecological knowledge of the areas.

That is a nice tidy sentence. We can all guess where it may lead. It could lead to mushrooming bureaucracies, advisory committees and all kinds of studies and scientific research. Such things are essential but if they are not monitored they could fly loose. The legislation could be an entity unto itself. When members see the mushroom cloud it places under the government, a cloud with no checks or balances that will only get bigger and bigger, they should be careful.

This whole area unnecessarily expands the minister's domain to areas that fall outside her ministerial responsibility. The minister talks about marine conservation areas, which is again a nice thought and something that perhaps needs to happen sooner or later to a degree, but it is by order in council and should be under DFO control as much as anything else.

What about the Minister of the Environment? The bill would require the heritage minister to establish a management plan for marine conservation, ecosystem protection, human use and zoning. Somewhere in there surely the Minister of the Environment and his department should be involved. We then start saying that it is this department or that department and the whole thing blows loose because it gets bigger and bigger rather than adopting tighter checks and balances.

In addition, each marine conservation area would require the establishment of a management advisory committee to review and implement management plans. For every marine park or conservation area there needs to be a whole advisory committee. I am not necessarily questioning the wisdom of that. A lot of people have a lot of expertise in the area and I do not. I certainly respect the ability of advisory committees to review and implement plans.

However where does it stop? That is the question. This thing will get bigger and bigger. There must be rules and regulations and the government needs to come forward with them. Unfortunately we see no checks and balances in this piece of legislation.

Ministers have all kinds of power, which we have certainly seen. I could digress and talk about Bill C-15, the enormous omnibus justice bill, but there is no point in getting into that right now. It is certainly before the House. It is an unbelievable piece of legislation and an example of phenomenal ministerial power. I hope it gets chunked down into bite size pieces so we can deal with each section on its own.

Regarding ministerial powers and perhaps overuse of powers, the minister states that commercial fishing and shipping would be appropriate in conservation areas. I would like an expert to tell us those things rather than the minister.

In the last bill we talked about whether the minister would be able to curtail or eliminate commercial flights over marine conservation areas. What would that do to small charter companies that fly over the ocean three-quarters of their lives on the B.C. straits?

The clauses would allow commercial fishing according to the minister's will. All aquaculture fisheries management, marine navigation and marine safety plans would then be subject to the approval of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Heritage. Do we not see the thing getting bigger and bigger? It looks like mushrooming to me.

The whole idea of putting regulations into place is essential. However, how do we enforce them? We have seen all kinds of legislation over the years where regulations were put in place and not enforced. How do we enforce regulations? That is the frustration we see with the National Parks Act.

My colleague talked about Kootenay Park, Banff, Jasper and Yoho. The parallel is that the National Parks Act does not give park wardens sufficient authority to enforce the law. Park wardens drive around in their brown trucks. We see them all the time. I live very close to Elk Island National Park. It is 45 minutes east of my home in Edmonton. Lew and I ride out there a lot. We see park wardens and we know they are people we ought to respect.

I am a law-abiding citizen. When I see the rangers' authority I do not try to pull anything on them. We have gone around and around the block in the House about sidearms for park rangers. If a person is up to no good or wants to poach moose, elk or bison, they know park wardens are fairly powerless. The government is very irresponsible in terms of the National Parks Act.

The parallel can then be drawn: What would the government do with the marine conservation act? The director of Parks Canada has suggested allowing the RCMP to get involved. That is good, but there are lots of parks where the RCMP is more than a 12 minute drive away. Park wardens should have all the power and authority vested in them by the government and the minister to protect both wildlife and public safety.

For marine conservation acts the record is not stellar. We must ask what would happen. Would people be chased around in boats? Is that what enforcing the regulations would come to?

Let us look at the history of the legislation. This is the third swing around. Who knows when it might get passed? Is the government really committed to the legislation? It has died on the order paper a couple of times, as I mentioned. Will we put regulations in place that the minister will live by, or is this a grandiose plan that will not be enforced?

Many think parliament is irrelevant. A proposed amendment structure in the legislation would allow 20 days for amendments and a three hour debate on them. Such amendments may affect shipping lanes, commercial fishing, sport fishing, aquaculture, commercial flights, and who knows what. Recreational boating may not be allowed in some areas. If an amendment is put forward there would be only three hours to debate it. That is almost an admission that parliament is irrelevant and does not matter. Decisions would be made around the cabinet table.

The legislation would severely limit the ability of parliamentarians to consider all options when new marine areas are set up. The bill would give the Minister of Canadian Heritage free rein to create unlimited advisory committees for each marine conservation area. We know where that could go when people are absolutely unchecked.

Limitations on the size and structure of each committee must be established in the legislation. We need to make sure the parameters are in place. If we get an unlimited number of people with unlimited amounts of salary, and it looks like a big pot out of which we can draw cash, we all know that it could go on for a very long time. It may need to be studied for a little longer and, because it is important, we may need to bring in 15 experts. The thing needs some parameters in place but unfortunately we are not seeing that at this time.

I will wrap up by drawing a parallel with the land national parks and some of the things going on there. The parks of Banff and Jasper are absolutely glorious. They have a lot of building projects going on. The minister took her first swing out to those parks last summer or the summer before and was able to see first hand how fabulous these parks are and how important it is that we balance economic and sustainable development with environmental protection.

We want to make sure there is a balance in nature. We may not be able to please both sides of the equation but if I want to go to a park or spend money on a hotel or in a restaurant, I want to be able to do that. If I have the money to go camping in Jasper Park, I want to be able to go there and enjoy the pristine wilderness, have a campfire outside my camper and enjoy the campground. I am not sure that anyone ought to be telling me that I cannot do that.

It would be the same if we were talking about a marine conservation area. It is important that I am able to make use of that area but at the same time I do not want heavyhanded regulations. I want wisdom, not advisory committees. This may sound foolish, coming around in boats, but there needs to be absolute common sense from the government. I do not think we see that to this extent with some of the things I have discussed. I hope the government takes into account, when it swings through the legislation again, that too many rules and regulations certainly are unwise. At the same time, this just cannot be an open can or basket for people to help themselves.

I am really nervous about the fact that the minister would have far too much power and that it would be essential for joint ministries to work together. If we look at heritage we see that we have a marvellous heritage. We can also look at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment. I certainly hope that no one is just trying to make a legacy for themselves. That would surely be unwise and people would be able to see right through that.

[Petitions, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition signed by any number of people in Edmonton, Cold Lake, Bonnyville and the Northwest Territories. These people are very concerned. They are asking that practitioners of Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, and herein after referred to as Falun Gong, are being discriminated against and persecuted in China by government officials and around the world through agents of the Chinese government.

The petitioners pray and call upon parliament to pass a resolution condemning the discrimination and persecution of practitioners of Falun Gong and request the Chinese government to lift the ban on the practice of Falun Gong.

[Prime Minister, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I dare say they are tired of the snow, but I do think Canadians deserve an answer. Surely someone has been working in the shop over there while the minister has been dear knows where.

Was there any funding, direct or otherwise, to Jonas Prince? When will the minister put someone on this file and when will he give Canadians an answer?

[Prime Minister, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on April 5 I asked the minister whether Jonas Prince or any of his companies had received any assistance from the minister's department, the BDC or the Export Development Corporation. The minister promised “to report back to the House at the first opportunity”.

It is almost three weeks later. This is his first opportunity. Will he now answer the question? Was there any funding?