Mark Muise

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my hon. colleague.

[Canada National Parks Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise before the House to participate in third and final reading of Bill C-27, an act respecting the national parks of Canada. We are talking about the national parks of Canada, which means that they belong to all Canadians and are for the benefit of all Canadians.

One of the real concerns I had with this government bill was that I believed the rights of some Canadians were being overlooked while the interests of others were being put forward in a very positive manner. I was concerned that the commercial interests within our parks communities were being ignored as the government focused greater attention on preserving the ecological integrity of our existing national parks. This increased focus on environmental issues relegated the concerns of our local entrepreneurs to the back burner.

I believe we could protect ecological integrity without having to sacrifice existing commercial interests. I believe the interests of both can coexist given the willingness of each side to work together for the benefit of our national parks and those who depend upon them for enjoyment.

It was for this reason I introduced an amendment to subclause 10(1) that specifically called for the inclusion of commercial interest among the groups that the minister should enter into agreements with for the purpose of carrying out the act. Although the government did not specifically adhere to the wording of my amendment it nevertheless amended the section to make it all inclusive, and it now includes commercial interests.

Another major concern brought forward by a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee was that the federal government could have terminated leases or failed to renew leases without having to justify its reasoning to the affected individuals. In effect, there was no recourse, no mechanism available for appeal by these individuals whose properties were effectively being confiscated by the federal government.

Our party insisted that the bill include a clause which would demand that any property to be reclaimed by the government be done only if there were just cause. These individuals are entitled to some kind of compensation in the event their leases are not renewed. Therefore I am pleased that the government recognized the seriousness of this issue by reinstating the provisions contained within the Expropriation Act.

I want to congratulate my colleagues who sit with me on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I especially want to acknowledge the efforts of my colleague, the member for Portneuf, whose amendments will give the committee more time to study the extension or the creation of future parks. I also want to mention the efforts of his colleague from Manicouagan who made sure the opinions of the Mingan Archipelago residents would be taken into account.

I congratulate the member for Churchill River for introducing his amendment to delete subclause 7.3 which would have limited debate on a motion to concur in amendments to our national parks system to only three hours. That would have been a bad precedent to be set, the ability to legislate closure or the time allocated to debate a piece of legislation. I am very happy that change took place.

Throughout our deliberations one of the concerns I had was trying to ensure that residents living within our national parks were provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns about the future direction of their local communities. This concern was shared by all opposition members who through a number of proposed amendments tried to draw the government's attention to their need to have a voice in any future decision making.

For example, my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River introduced amendments at report stage that would have called for the inclusion of a “local government body” during any negotiations on the future of our parks communities. Similar amendments were also introduced at committee by me and the member from Churchill. Unfortunately the federal government refused the inclusion of any wording that referred to a local government body for fear, I would think, of creating another Banff.

As I mentioned during report stage, and I will repeat it again at third reading, I regret that the member for Dauphin—Swan River opted not to actively participate in the debate of these amendments during clause by clause deliberations at committee. Instead he opted to introduce his own amendments during report stage. His knowledge of parks communities, particularly having lived and operated near a national park for many years, would have provided all of us at committee very helpful insights into the unique problems facing individuals who reside within or just adjacent to our national parks.

I commend the member for Dauphin—Swan River for introducing an amendment accepted by the government that secures access to a traditional source of fresh water emanating from our national parks which flows into adjacent communities. This amendment was particularly important to the residents of Dauphin who have depended upon water from the Riding Mountain National Park since the early 1900s.

The priority of this government is undoubtedly to protect our national parks. We are all aware of the problems existing in our national parks. Many studies have been commissioned by the federal government and, each time, the consensus was that our parks are in jeopardy.

The federal government could no longer ignore the results of these studies. Something had to be done before the integrity of our national parks was imperilled for ever.

Just like most Canadians, I want to protect our national parks for future generations. As parliamentarians, we must take the appropriate measures to protect our parks, for our children and for our children's children.

The Progressive Conservative Party has a long history of wanting to protect and preserve representative areas of our unique and wonderful ecosystem. As I have mentioned before, Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, created our first national park when in 1885 his Conservative government designated 26 square kilometres around the hot mineral springs near what is now the town of Banff, declaring it a national treasure.

Sir John A. Macdonald began a legacy that successive governments have continued to build upon. He recognized the intrinsic beauty of Canada's natural environment. It is this beauty that we are trying to protect in Bill C-27. Is it perfect? Far from it.

Will this piece of legislation respond to the need to protect the ecological integrity of our national parks? I personally believe it will go a long way to help preserve for generations to come the natural beauty we are so fortunate to have here in Canada.

The bill does not address all the concerns that were expressed before the committee. Residents in our national park communities, particularly in Jasper, are still concerned that their voices are not being heard by the Liberal government. The success of Bill C-27 will depend largely upon the goodwill of the federal government and particularly the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Having said that, I can understand why the residents of Jasper are concerned. The government has failed to demonstrate any goodwill in its past dealings with the residents of Jasper. It is imperative that the government approach future negotiations with our park communities in a co-operative manner and not with the confrontational approach that has poisoned relations between Parks Canada officials and the local residents for years.

As I have said, the bill is not perfect. However I believe it goes a long way in helping the government maintain existing parks while also speeding up the process of creating new national parks. I suggest that we support Bill C-27.

[Canada National Parks Act, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in the House to participate in the debate on Bill C-27, an act representing national parks. Before I begin to address the motions I should like to take a moment to express some of the frustration and disappointment I have felt with the government in the way it has tried to push this piece of legislation through the House before the end of the session.

For instance, a couple of weeks ago we were notified that we would be debating Bill C-27 at second reading the following Wednesday. Late on Thursday afternoon we got a call that we would be debating Bill C-27 the next day. I was fortunate that I was present and could participate in the debate, but some of my colleagues were not able to do so. That is the type of thing that takes away from the good will in the heritage committee and from the ability to properly participate in the process.

We saw some of this going on in committee when we had to sit extended hours for two or three days just so that we could listen to all the witnesses that had to come before us. I am not bothered by the fact that we had to work extended hours but I felt we had to rush and could not properly do all that had to be done. It meant that we had not only to listen to testimony but also had to study and read transcripts. The period of time to do that was too compressed and took away from our ability as parliamentarians to do our work in the proper way.

I congratulate the member for Dauphin—Swan River for submitting his thoughtful amendments. I only regret, however, that he chose to withdraw the same amendments from the heritage committee during clause by clause consideration where we would have had the opportunity to debate them to see exactly where he was going with this piece of legislation and his amendments.

I thought some of the amendments that the member made were quite reasonable. When he refused to put them forward at the heritage committee I began questioning whether the member had changed his mind and now agreed with the government's position on the particular clauses.

Enough about that. Let me touch a little on the motions before us, in particular Motions Nos. 1 and 2 introduced by the member for Dauphin—Swan River. These motions would have the federal government seek agreement with the provinces and the local governing body when creating or enlarging a park.

Like the member for Dauphin—Swan River, I also was concerned with ensuring that people living within the park communities had a chance to take part in the discussions and have input, but the problem arises with the ability to define local government and to describe exactly what it means.

Banff has its own government. We know that the federal government would not like to see that. We recognize that Jasper really did not want that type of thing but wanted some input into the process. The difficulty lies in defining exactly what local government is.

Motion No. 3 was introduced by my hon. colleague from Churchill River. This motion further highlights the extent to which negotiations must be undertaken with all stakeholders.

We introduced an amendment during clause by clause consideration by the heritage committee that would specifically include commercial interest as part of the negotiations. The government changed the clause such that we could support what it did that would make the process broader to include commercial interests as well. This amendment would serve to strengthen the consultation process.

Motion No. 4 is an amendment again introduced by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River. It would ensure that the federal government could not cut off the traditional supply of water to adjacent residents. With the focus on ecological integrity, maintenance and restoration, this could possibly come into play. It is not a bad idea. It is there to ensure that the supply of fresh water remains constant.

Motion No. 5 was also introduced by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River. I like this amendment because it gives local residents a greater say in determining the increase in fees, rates, rents and other charges for those who use park resources and facilities. Since this affects them directly they should have a say in it.

It might also help prevent the astronomical increase in property taxes that the people of Jasper are now being threatened with. Perhaps through public input we could determine an appropriate cost for entering our national parks areas that will be affordable to the average Canadian. We want all Canadians to be able to enjoy our national parts. That is what national parks are all about.

Motion No. 5 concerns the control of access to parks by air, which again was introduced by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River. I know he is an avid pilot who has been flying for years. This issue had been dealt with in the past by the removal of an airport at Banff. It is my belief the landing strip should be maintained for emergency purposes just in case it is needed. It should be maintained for those purposes.

Motion No. 10 was introduced by the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River. We would like to encourage participation by all stakeholders in any decision making process. We want operators of our ski hills to have an equal say in the future of their industry. As any homeowner or business owner, they have a role to play in the creation of a community plan.

Motion No. 13 was introduced by the hon. member for Churchill River. I am not certain it reinforces the rights of aboriginal people to carry on their traditional renewable resource harvesting activities. The language of the government better addresses this concern. However we do not dispute the aboriginal peoples right to carry on their traditional harvesting in park reserves.

In conclusion, I thank the House for allowing me this time to speak to these motions and to the reworking and preparation of Bill C-27.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the CBC's decision to cut regional news programming by two-thirds is an attempt to make regional news programming less relevant to Canadians, therefore helping it to justify its future cancellation? Does he personally support the scaling down?

[Fisheries, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is prepared to offer Burnt Church licences for other fish species if they would sign an agreement with the government.

Can the minister confirm whether this is true? Would such an agreement be in line with agreements signed with other bands? If not, does the minister not have an obligation to treat all bands equally?

[Fisheries, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Is he concerned that boats he has provided to the aboriginal communities as part of his solution to the Marshall decision could be used to expand the controversial food fishery? What steps has he taken to ensure that this does not happen?

[Fisheries, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, many fishermen in my riding have expressed concern that the federal minister of fisheries has excluded them from the negotiation process with native fishermen.

Like everyone else in the House, they heard the minister continually mention that there needed to be a negotiated settlement to address the Marshall decision and that it would require participation by all stakeholders.

Well non-native fishermen have been excluded from discussions, discussions that will have a direct impact on their livelihoods. They have heard about licences, boats and gear being provided to the natives but have no details about the extent of their use. They are concerned that the boats that were provided to the aboriginal communities could be used to expand the controversial summer food fishery.

Why does the minister not share the same concerns? Has he taken appropriate steps to prevent such a situation, and, if so, could he please tell us what they are?

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the minister stand up and speak to things that we should be looking at. There are many ways of strengthening Canada and its institutions. One way we could strengthen the institutions is by ensuring, through proper funding and proper organization, that the CBC continues to represent its various regions, not just from a Toronto and central Canadian perspective, but from Atlantic Canada, Quebec, the west coast and the prairies.

We have an institution that was the pride of Canada for so many years. It showed Canada from various parts of the country. What is happening to the CBC at this point is simply unacceptable. It is an affront on the Canadian people. It is an affront on what we have built in this great country.

One of the things that we should keep in mind is that the CBC, by being broadcast only from a central region, does not show Canada to Canadians. It shows Canadians what central Canada and Toronto see Canadians to be. That is one of the ways the government could move ahead and make Canada better and its people more proud of who and what they are.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants. I am pleased to speak to the motion put forward today condemning the government for using yet another federal agency, this time the Canada Information Office, to hand out lucrative, untendered government contracts to friends of the Liberal Party in exchange for support or donations.

I would like to start by reviewing some of the history behind the Canada Information Office, the forces behind its creation and its mandate. I then want to examine some of the evidence that has been presented to the House in recent days showing that, contrary to treasury board policy, large contracts were given to individuals and companies without going to public tender. These individuals and companies, in turn, gave money and resources to the Liberal Party of Canada. Finally, I want to link the questionable practices of the Canada Information Office with similar conduct of this government in other departments, such as HRDC and public works.

I will show that incidents at the Canada Information Office are not isolated, but part of a larger picture that shows consistently and convincingly that this government in its dying days has lost its moral compass and that this is a government which is corrupt.

The Canada Information Office was born out of the failure of the Prime Minister to deal with the 1995 Quebec referendum. As members will recall, in the six months leading up to the referendum the Prime Minister's strategy for winning the vote was like so many other issues of vital concern to Canadians, and that was to do nothing. Don't worry, be happy, the Prime Minister reassured us. We all remember how the referendum turned out. The Prime Minister came within one-half of a per cent of destroying this great country founded by the Conservative Party and built through the hard work of four generations of Quebecers and Canadians.

Canadians were outraged at this great failure by the Liberal Prime Minister. In the wake of his self-made disaster, the Prime Minister did what all good Liberals do when faced with public demand for action on an issue. He created a new government program and threw millions of dollars at it. Thus, the Canada Information Office was born.

He did this not because it would provide some long term national unity benefit, but because Liberals always do what is good for the Liberal Party first, not what is good for the nation.

There is an important distinction to be made here. Unlike previous Conservative prime ministers, such as the Right Hon. Joe Clark, who always did what was best for the country first, this Prime Minister ignores the serious problems facing Canada by giving voters the perception of doing something constructive.

Following the fine Liberal tradition of creating taxpayer funded bureaucratic solutions, on July 10, 1996 the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced that she was going to be the saviour of our country. How was she going to save the country? She would create this new government agency called the Canada Information Office. She would find $20 million to run it and solve all of our national unity problems.

When the minister made the announcement, she could not say what kind of information the office would provide, how it would distribute the money and where its budget would come from. She was also at a loss for words to explain why the Liberals were creating a new bureaucracy that would duplicate public information operations already in place.

Just about everything the heritage minister announced that day was already being done by the federal government in other departments.

Apparently it did not occur to the Liberal brain trust that public outrage following the 1995 referendum might be an indication that the current propaganda bureaucracy was ineffective and should be scrapped or replaced. Of course not. It meant that the Liberals should spend even more taxpayer dollars on a brand new government agency. Let me quote Toronto Star columnist Rosemary Speirs, who summed up the minister's announcement like this:

The journalists quickly realized that the Canadian heritage minister had only the vaguest notion of what this new $20 million-a-year `non-partisan' agency is supposed to do. She couldn't give examples, couldn't break down the budget, and when she finally called her press conference to a close, she left exasperation and puzzlement in her wake.

And so the Canada Information Office was born. What happens when we have 50 government bureaucrats sitting around with no mandate except that they know they have $20 million a year which they must spend? Is it within the realm of possibility that some of these millions of taxpayers' dollars might end up in the pockets of friends of the Liberal Party?

As hard as it might be for us to believe it, it appears that is exactly what has happened. Access to information documents released this week show that of the millions of dollars spent by the Canada Information Office each year, more than 20% of the contracts awarded by the office are given out without competition, including many that are worth more than the $25,000 threshold set by treasury board to go out for public tender.

In the previous two years $2.6 million was given to two businesses whose owners have in turn given substantially of their time and money to the Liberal Party of Canada. More than $1.6 million was handed to Communication et Strategie Inc. of Montreal in a joint contract with Groupe Cible between April 1, 1997 and December 31, 1999. Groupe Cible is headed by Serge Paquette, a defeated Liberal Party candidate and a long time party organizer in Quebec. This money was used to plan tours and handle media relations for Quebec ministers, a function normally done by the staff of the minister.

Another beneficiary of the Canada Information Office was Tremblay Guittet Communications Inc. of Ottawa, a company owned in part by Michèle Tremblay, who was press secretary to former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner, and a long time supporter of the minister responsible for the Canada Information Office and the Quebec political minister. Tremblay received an annual contract of $53,500 to advise the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, which has been renewed every year since.

Other Liberals have also benefited from contracts given out by the Canada Information Office. Richard Mongeau, through one of his companies, gave $15,000 to the Liberal Party. In return he received $389,000 in legal and communications contracts. He was handed $144,000 for advice he gave to the Canada Information Office in 1996-97 and was paid $160,000 to provide legal advice to the office in 1997 and 1998. On January 13 of this year he was appointed as a Quebec superior court justice. That is not a bad return for a $15,000 investment. The list goes on. These revelations are shocking, but unfortunately they are not isolated.

I would only make one conclusion from the evidence we have examined today. This is a corrupt government, rotten to its core. Canadians would be well served if the Prime Minister were to call an election this fall so that voters could show this group the door and replace it with a government led by the Right Hon. Joe Clark, who is dedicated to solving public policy problems through honest means.

[Highways, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, as we have done so many times in the past, the Progressive Conservative Party called on the federal government to immediately enter into negotiations with the provinces to create a new joint national highway program. This program would give all provinces access to money that the federal government has collected through its fuel tax and use it toward improving safety on our highways.

Driving on our highways is fast becoming a growing concern for our safety. With more than 3,400 fatalities on Canada's roads every year, action must be taken to ensure safety on our highways. In Nova Scotia there have been some 50 fatalities on Highway 101 between Mount Uniacke and Digby since 1993.

The twinning of this section of Highway 101 would cost approximately $250 million, money the Nova Scotia government simply does not have. Yet Ottawa collects over $5 billion annually in fuel tax and spends a mere $300 million on roads. What is going on with the balance of $4.7 billion?

Each day that the government continues to ignore our deteriorating highway system another life is put at risk. I call on the Minister of Transport to immediately—