Karen Kraft Sloan

[Species at Risk Act, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Group No. 2 motions. I am disappointed that Group No. 2 entitled, “Deadlines and Federal-Provincial Agreements”, contains motions amending a number of the most critical components of Bill C-5. They speak to the heart of the bill: the listing process; protection of critical habitat in areas of federal jurisdiction; and the safety nets and timelines for implementation of action plans. Each is worthy of debate, yet we are restricted to 10 minutes for the lot of them. It hardly serves the House well, nor Canadians.

I will speak first to Motion No. 35, a government motion that would reverse the committee's changes to section 27 which concerns how species are listed.

The original Bill C-5 provided that the decision whether to list a species would be left entirely up to cabinet without time lines based on recommendations of COSEWIC and the minister. The standing committee heard very little testimony that supported this method of listing. The majority of witnesses called for a science based listing system conducted by COSEWIC.

Whether a species is endangered or not is a scientific determination, not political. Under Bill C-5, every decision that takes place after a species is listed, including, and this is worth emphasizing, whether it is even feasible to recover a listed species, allows for socioeconomic considerations and other factors to be weighed by the Minister of the Environment and/or cabinet.

The bill is full of opportunities for such considerations but whether or not a species is at risk is for scientists to decide.

We could get around this dilemma by requiring that all cabinet minister be biologists, but the easier path would be to simply admit that the question of whether the leatherback turtle's very existence is at risk or not should be decided by science, not by cabinet.

However, as a compromise, the committee amended section 27 so that a species would become part of the legal list under Bill C-5 within six months of COSEWIC's recommendation unless, during this period, cabinet determined that the species should be listed. This reverse onus listing process upholds science based decisions with time limits while ultimately, and I underscore this, providing for political discretion.

The compromise approach enjoyed widespread support from over 1,300 scientists, many key conservation groups, the Mining Association of Canada, the Forest Products Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, among others.

Government Motion No. 35 guts this amendment and reverts the bill to straight political listing. Such a motion can only be viewed as strange when at the same time the government has decided to completely side step the cabinet process by automatically listing 233 of the species recently reassessed by COSEWIC. In doing so, the government hailed COSEWIC's work as important, detailed and meticulous.

One might ask, why then not continue the science based approach for future assessments? Why is it okay for these species but not for future listings?

The decision to list a species or not will often be an extinction decision. I ask my colleagues in this place to think about that. An extinction decision would mean that a species not listed would receive no protection under the act. Behind closed doors, when they get around to it, cabinet will point at a species with the finger of life or the finger of farewell. Canadians will never be told why a decision to not list a species was made.

It bears mentioning that straight political listing has failed miserably in those provinces that use such a system. Most recognize fewer than 35% of COSEWIC listed species, some as low as only 7%, that appear in their jurisdictions. How low will the federal figure be?

I will now move to the issue of critical habitat protection, one of the most contentious points in the original bill. Why? For the simple reason that without habitat protection a species at risk will not survive.

The committee heard from many stakeholders, including those cited earlier, that the key to having an effective piece of legislation was to require mandatory critical habitat protection under areas of undisputed federal jurisdiction. It is beyond a doubt the absolute least the government can do to demonstrate its sincerity about protecting species.

Again the committee compromised by only requiring legal protection for habitat in a tightly defined federal house. Under amended sections 58 and 74 the protection extends to federal lands, aquatic species and migratory birds covered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Within these parameters the committee agreed that the federal government must and should protect critical habitat after the action planning stage was completed, which meant not until two or three years after a species was listed. During this period there would be extensive consultation with landowners and other stakeholders, including the provinces, to properly account for public concerns, including socioeconomic issues.

Government Motion No. 84 and others that were not placed in debate Group No. 2 reversed these amendments by leaving it up to cabinet on a case by case basis to decide whether or not to bring in orders prohibiting activities that could destroy critical habitat.

Why? It has been explained as giving Canadians the first opportunity to protect habitat through stewardship. It has been said that such an approach builds co-operation.

Let us be clear, the committee fully supported the co-operation first principle. For this reason, it determined that habitat protection would not kick in until two or three years following listing, so that landowners, resource users and crown land lessees could first attempt to protect critical habitat on a voluntary basis through stewardship agreements.

In fact, the committee recognized that the lack of mandatory habitat protection would serve only to undermine the co-operative approach of Bill C-5. A forest company, for example, would be hard pressed to engage in a co-operative effort to protect the habitat of endangered species which could involve some cost, if they knew that some of their competitors could get away without having to do anything, and thereby gain an unfair advantage. Put simply, mandatory habitat protection not only deals with the bad actors but it also encourages co-operative efforts by the good actors.

Government Motion No. 84 seeks to protect critical habitat in national parks, marine protected areas, migratory bird sanctuaries and national wildlife areas. These extensions, while being sold as a compromise, are a big step back from the committee's amendments. I am sure most Canadians would be shocked to learn that without Bill C-5 it is open season on destroying habitat in protected areas of the country.

Failure to extend protection to include all of the federal house as identified by committee, will result in Bill C-5 being weaker than other federal laws, such as the Fisheries Act, four provincial endangered species laws, as well as the relevant United States and Mexican laws. In other words, when it comes to species protection in the NAFTA family, Canada will come last.

As I am almost out of time, I will address safety nets later.

In conclusion, this misnamed group of motions is a sad package that the government is delivering to the House, to Canadians and, most important, to the species we have promised to protect. They tear the heart out of the committee's work and transform Bill C-5 into one giant maybe.

Canadians expect a bill that will protect species. These motions ensure that we have failed to deliver on that promise, and I call on all members of the House to defeat these motions.

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I share with members of the House and indeed Canadians who are watching this afternoon a remarkable event which took place in the standing on environment. Members on all sides of the House, indeed in all political parties, put aside partisan differences and worked together in an unprecedented spirit of co-operation.

In the spirit of co-operation members around the table worked hard to find common ground to improve the original species at risk act, Bill C-5. The resulting amendments put forward by committee reflect testimony from the scientific, conservation and industry witnesses which the committee heard.

In his ruling this morning on Bill C-5 the Speaker stated that many motions were proposed to make further changes which were substantial modifications by the committee or to reject the committee's modifications. While I had some reservations concerning these motions, arguably these motions ought to have been resolved in committee, the Speaker decided to go ahead with them.

I suggest that these matters were resolved in committee by members who represent all parties of the House.

The matter before us is the issue of compensation. Yet I do not see Motion No. 109 included in this grouping. This is the government's motion. If this group deals with compensation, why are we not dealing with the government motion?

Motion No. 109 by the government reverses the committee amendment regarding clause 64 on compensation. During the committee's deliberations on clause 64 on compensation very important issues were raised with regard to landowners, farmers and ranchers. All committee members applauded the efforts of farmers and ranchers in their activities to protect species and their habitat.

No one expects any one individual to bear the full cost of species protection. I was very concerned about this issue as I did not want to set a precedent in legislation to pay people not to break the law. However I feel it is important to be clear about our commitments to Canadians in legislation. I felt it was important to ensure clarity in this provision. In co-operation with other committee members I supported an amendment to make regulations for compensation mandatory. The government decided through Motion No. 109 to reverse this decision.

A document was produced by the government regarding the rationale around some of the committee amendments. The government says that it partially supports nine of the committee amendments, some of which strengthen the legislation including one dealing with compensation regulations. It is not clear to me why on one hand it says that it supports compensation regulations but it wants them to be discretionary.

This is not the only example of discretion in the bill. Virtually every major decision point in the original Bill C-5 is discretionary. With the over 60 government amendments that have come forward it has reversed the committee amendments so the bill is essentially back to its original state, particularly in key areas.

Now we have a bill that is highly discretionary. This includes the listings of species, prohibitions against killing them or destroying their residence on non-federal lands and prohibitions against destroying their habitat even on some federal land. We therefore cannot claim that under the legislation we will protect species and their habitat. In truth, we may decide to protect a species at risk or we may not.

I raise another issue with regard to the grouping of amendments that was brought forth by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis when he spoke about the grouping of motions in Group No. 2. These amendments are dealing with deadlines and federal-provincial jurisdiction in relations.

The amendments are not merely about deadlines. They deal with the heart of the legislation. It is unfortunate we do not have an opportunity in the debate to rise on questions and comments because I would like to know why we are dealing with the most important aspect of the legislation which is deadlines. We are dealing with listing decisions, general prohibition safety net decisions, and protection of critical habitat. We will hear throughout the debate, as we have heard in committee time and time again, that if we do not protect the habitat of species we do not protect the species.

We have international commitments. We do not want Canada to be the laughingstock of the globe because we do not provide mandatory habitat protection and critical habitat safety nets. These are important issues yet they are hidden. Why are they being hidden?

More importantly, as members of the House we must ask ourselves who we represent. We represent Canadians. I represent the constituents of York North, not just the people who voted for me but everyone who lives in York North. As a member of the House, the Parliament of Canada, I also represent Canadians. All 301 of us represent the people in our ridings as well as the people of Canada. When the committee undertook this important work in a unique atmosphere of co-operation, putting aside partisan interests to do something important for the environment, it was reflecting the concerns of Canadians.

I will share a little about how many Canadians care about endangered species. I am referring to an article from the Ottawa Citizen dated January 29, 2001. I am sure things have not changed all that much a year later. The article says more than 90% of Canadians would support a law to protect endangered species. More importantly, it says Canadians not only care about endangered species but understand what must be in the legislation.

This initiative is second only to the Spanish fishing trawler incident of 1995 when Canada seized a fishing trawler accused of illegally fishing on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. This is an important issue for Canadians.

A survey conducted by Pollara focused especially on rural Canadians who are closest to the land and would be most affected by measures to protect species and their habitats. Of the rural Canadians surveyed, 92% said they supported endangered species legislation. They said they wanted effective legislation, not legislation that might or might not protect species. They wanted legislation with real measures to protect species the way they deserve.

[The Environment, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians both urban and rural care a great deal about endangered species. More particularly they have a clear understanding of what effective endangered species legislation should contain.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has completed its study of Bill C-5. In a tremendous spirit of co-operation, members from all parties came together to make recommendations that would improve the bill and that responded to the testimony of scientists, conservationists and industry. The committee's amendments would strengthen prohibitions against killing listed species, the protection of their habitat, and the listing process.

Canadians will notice if we do not fulfill this longstanding commitment to them and the international community in a genuine and biologically sound fashion. I therefore urge the government not to turn its back on the committee's work.

[Firefighters, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I offer my most heartfelt congratulations to the York North firefighters on receiving the Governor General's Fire Services Exemplary Service Medal: Greg Lockie, Carl Sarasin, Rick Walker, Roger Kett, Ken Bellar, Bill O'Neill, Bill Marritt, Dave Harding, John Rush, Dean Sinclair, George Egerton, Gord Rolling, Antony Caruso, Ken Foster, Joe Kearns, Terry Foster, George Green, Doug Thompson, Ted Wernham, Ken Beckert, Arnold Smith, Russel Foster and John Moffatt.

I thank them very much for their outstanding commitment to their communities and to their fellow citizens.

[Royal Prerogative of Mercy, October 26th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to offer a few words in support of the motion. I thank the hon. member for Dartmouth for bringing this very important issue to the attention of the House.

I ask members to look at the motion. At the heart of it is the principle of the necessity that all Canadians, including those who have disabilities, be treated and be perceived to be treated equally under the law.

When I first read the motion I had to ask myself how we could consider ourselves as members of a civilized society unless we ensured the protection of all, especially those among us who need the greatest amount of care. Another question I had was how we as members of the House could say that we have a hierarchy of values, that we value some Canadians more than we value others.

We have tremendous sympathy for families and caregivers of individuals with severe disabilities. There are huge pressures on these families. I know of individuals in my riding of York North who have family members who have chronic disabilities or who are in a state of dealing with terminal cancer. People have had to give up their jobs to be in their homes to take care of their loved ones.

There are tremendous pressures within the family in dealing with different family members themselves. How does one deal with young children, pre-school age children when there is a parent or a spouse who has a severe disability? How does one take care of these people? The pressures are tremendous.

We have to be proactive. We have to provide support for these individuals. We have to ensure that respite care is available, that there are good supports in the community around social services and medical services. Home care is essential in delivering these services.

As the member for Dartmouth puts forward in her motion, it is for us to look through the eyes of the person with the disability. It is not just a matter of looking at the caregiver. It is not just looking at the father who stopped his child's life. We have to look at the challenges those individuals themselves face.

Life is extremely precious. It is not for others to decide when life is no longer worth living. Despite the hardships, despite the pain, despite the difficulties, it is up to the individuals themselves to make that decision.

As the member for Dartmouth and others in the House have said, this motion essentially deals with a particular issue which involved a child. I would ask members to remember that Tracy was an individual with a disability but she was also a child. I am wondering if something else is not at work here as well.

Children in our society are often voiceless. They do not have the right to vote because they are under the age of 18. It is often very difficult to hear their voices and their concerns in the policies that affect government and the things we do as a nation.

Children have rights. Some Canadians, in fact even some members of the House, reject the idea that children have rights. Certainly under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child these rights are clearly spelled out. Somehow the fact that children have rights themselves that are inherent in them because of who they are as people is seen as a challenge against the family itself.

I ask the House whether this case is before us not only because Tracy was a person with a disability but also because Tracy was a child.

Some very good points have been brought forward by members of the House. They are very important points. They speak to us as to the kind of society we are and the kind of society we want to have. They talk to the rule of law. They talk to the very basic principles of a civilized society.

I want to thank the member for Dartmouth very much for bringing forward the motion in the House today. She has provided a voice for Tracy Latimer, a voice that has in many cases been silenced.

[Margaret Arkinstall, October 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the late Dr. Margaret Arkinstall, pioneer, physician, community and church leader, letter writer, music lover and family Christmas song composer.

In the early 1930s Dr. Margaret and her husband provided medical services in northern Ontario. Years later the family moved to York North where she continued her practice and became a founding member of the Newmarket Home Service to Seniors. Last year she was made a member of the Order of Canada.

In her nineties, Dr. Margaret headed a group called the Friends of New Canadian Citizens. My favourite memory of Dr. Margaret is the welcome speeches she gave at the end of every Citizenship Court when she would rise and deliver a warm, articulate welcome to each of the new Canadians present.

Her talents were many and remarkable. The lives she touched and healed are too numerous to count. We will miss her sharp wit, her intelligence, her tenacity, her decency and her grace.

[National Rivers Day, October 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all of the members who took part in the debate this afternoon on this motion. I appreciate hearing the words of the member from the Canadian Alliance Party from Saskatoon-Wanuskewin.

To address his concern about cost, it is a simple matter of declaring this as a national rivers day. What we have to think about are the wonderful opportunities in our communities, for example, around community economic development. There are a lot of festivals, fairs and opportunities for local merchants to be involved with the community in the clean up, promotion and celebration of our rivers.

To the member of the PC/DR coalition from Dewdney--Alouette, I was very heartened to hear about the work of his local community organization. It is not only just the national rivers of Canada that we would be celebrating, we would also be celebrating the work of our community members.

To the member whose motion this originally was, the member for Vancouver--Quadra, I would like to thank him very much for giving me the opportunity to move the motion in the House. The Fraser Bason Council, of which he spoke, is a very important opportunity that looks at how people, different levels of government and first nations can all work together. Our rivers in Canada connect us through our activities and the projects that we undertake to preserve them.

I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for her wonderful description of some of the major rivers in Canada. I appreciate her fine support and would like to mention to the House how much we miss her on the environment committee now that she has her new duties.

To the NDP member for Churchill, as a member who represents a northern community, it is so vitally important to remember the contribution that the northern rivers have made to our communities in the south through the advances of the early explorers. Imagine setting out on a vast expedition onto one of those northern rivers. What an exciting, exhilarating experience that must have been. It is so important to our history, to the economic development of our country and indeed to our natural heritage.

It is often said that people always remembers the first time they see Lake Superior. I grew up on Lake Superior. It is an incredible expanse of water. It is an image that never leaves one's mind. A variation on this is what the writer Lynn Noel said:

The first river you paddle runs through the rest of your life. It bubbles up in pools and eddies to remind you who you are.

I am sure those of my colleagues who have paddled would agree.

The member for Churchill talked about the soothing qualities of our rivers. I remember as a child the creeks and the rivers that I paddled on and their cool, quiet shores with their leafy vegetation crowding the water's edge. There are many times in this place and related to this place that I look to that image for some soothing and calming.

The same rivers that have so informed our lives and speak to the very soul of us as a nation can inform the lives of others. Therefore, let us celebrate them. Let us once a year talk about rivers, clean up rivers and float down rivers. Let us swim in them, paint them, read by them, plant trees by them, sing by them, dance by them, learn from them and enjoy them. Let us honour them as they honour us.

I have included some of my favourite words from poets to best describe our understanding and feelings of rivers. A favourite prime minister of mine, Prime Minister Trudeau, wrote in “The Exhaustion and Fulfillment: The Ascetic in a Canoe” the following:

I know a man whose school could never teach him patriotism, but who acquired that virtue when he felt in his bones the vastness of his land, and the greatness of those who founded it.

I believe that formal recognition of a national rivers day can help people come to such a place and it is a journey we should well consider. Unfortunately, the motion is not a votable motion. Therefore, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to declare this a votable motion.

[National Rivers Day, October 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to see royal assent on a bill of the House. It is my wish and dream that perhaps this motion will receive royal assent as a bill as well.

I would like to close with a quotation from T.S. Eliot that speaks beautifully to our propensity to ignore and often neglect nature personified here as the river:

I do not know much about gods; but I think that the river Is a strong brown god--sullen, untamed and intractable. Patient to some degree, at first recognised as a frontier; Useful, untrustworthy, as a conveyor of commerce; Then only a problem confronting the builder of bridges. The problem once solved, the brown god is almost forgotten By the dwellers in cities--even, however, implacable, Keeping his seasons and rages, destroyer, reminder Of what men choose to forget. Unhonoured, unpropitiated By worshippers of the machine, but waiting, watching and waiting.

T.S. Eliot's image of the river as something we have used solely for our own purposes and, distracted by the technological age, failed to honour, is one some may differ with, especially those who work on our rivers or who are more connected to our rivers than many of us are.

Nevertheless, we all need to be reminded of the value of these waterways. Therefore I ask my colleagues: Would an annual day spent celebrating rivers not serve all of us well? The creation of a national rivers day would afford a wonderful opportunity to encourage public awareness and involvement in stream and river management, in cleanups, in river heritage and so much more.

It would represent a powerful step in the protection and preservation of Canadian rivers and watersheds, one that would be organized and implemented by communities and local groups. It would highlight an environmental issue of great concern to Canadians for freshwater rivers are linked to healthy fishery, healthy forests and healthy communities.

It would contribute to the illustration of Canadian history and identity. It would provide an opportunity to bring Canada's river constituencies closer together on tangible projects nationally, regionally and locally. Above all, a national rivers day would be a new source of pride for Canadians.

For these reasons I believe a national day of celebration would be appropriate and well deserved. I look forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues on this motion.

[National Rivers Day, October 25th, 2001]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the first Sunday of June of each year as National Rivers Day.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak to private member's Motion No. 382. I was pleased to take on the motion from my hon. colleague from Vancouver Quadra after he was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

The idea for a national rivers day originated in British Columbia where on the last Sunday in September of each year B.C. Rivers Day is celebrated.

B.C. Rivers Day started in 1980 with a single clean-up event along the Thompson River involving about 40 people. While the event that year was small it was nonetheless a great success in terms of the amount of garbage and debris that the small group of dedicated people removed from the river and its banks. As a result of that effort the group decided to plan a few more events the following year.

Thus began the long journey of B.C. Rivers Day. It has now snowballed to a point where this year more than 100 events took place involving an estimated 45,000 people. It has become the largest river related event of its kind in North America. It has become popular for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the concern of British Columbians for the state of local waterways.

By demonstrating their strong support for B.C. Rivers Day British Columbians are poised to embrace a similar national celebration of our rivers as I believe all Canadians will.

B.C. Rivers Day attracts participation from recreational clubs, conservation organizations, community groups, schools and local governments. Almost 350 organizations were involved last year. Virtually every local government proclaimed it, as did the province itself.

Every year this diverse collection of groups hosts a variety of events across the province, events that celebrate the cultural, ecological, historical, aesthetic, spiritual and recreational importance of B.C. rivers to the people of that wonderful province. Most of these events involve volunteers who contribute their time and energy to make a positive difference to the health of B.C. rivers. Their activities also benefit the local communities that take part in the celebrations.

I will list some examples of activities that took place this year, activities such as river cleanups, art exhibitions, interpretive walks, workshops, tree plantings, canoe trips, readings, slide shows, educational paddles and the Whistler Fishtival.

In the midst of all this fun, important public education is taking place. While B.C. Rivers Day offers people the opportunity to get out and experience the province's spectacular river heritage, it also brings attention to the need for better river management. Some organizers view B.C. Rivers Day as a vehicle to raise awareness about the threats facing local rivers. Others use it as an opportunity to showcase success stories. Often these perspectives can be combined into one event.

The intent in establishing B.C. Rivers Day was to celebrate the province's river heritage and promote the natural, cultural and recreational values of its waterways.

The intent of national rivers day should be the same. Canada has a long and rich river heritage. A national rivers day would be a fitting way of commemorating it. I suspect that the same kind of support and enthusiasm we have seen in British Columbia will unfold across the country as national rivers day picks up steam in the years ahead.

I share with all Canadians a deep love and respect for our rivers. As members may recall, I helped bring Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Ottawa last year to speak to members about his experiences with the U.S. organization Riverkeeper. The story of Riverkeeper's efforts to rehabilitate, protect and preserve a long list of rivers all over the United States has inspired people around the world including here in Canada.

I have had the honour of working with Mr. Daniel LeBlanc who was the first riverkeeper in Canada. Mr. LeBlanc and his associates have worked long and hard to improve the condition of the Petitcodiac River in New Brunswick. I hope recent announcements mean that progress is being made.

Closer to home, or at least to the House, Canada now has a riverkeeper for the Ottawa River.

Members may have seen the Canadian riverkeepers broadcast on the CPAC channel.

While the riverkeepers are relatively new, Canadians' awareness of and concern for our rivers is longstanding. I am sure all my colleagues in this place would agree that rivers have a tremendously important role in the history of Canada and always will. They connect us to both our past and our future. Hugh MacLennan wrote the following in 1961:

Incredible though it sounds, the canoe parties which used to leave Montreal in the late eighteenth century were able to paddle nearly all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Their portages were many and exhausting, yet few of them were longer than three miles.So it came about, thanks to the maze of lakes in the Shield, that Canadian waters would be used as an east-west lateral avenue from the St. Lawrence to the Pacific above the American border. That is why it is accurate to say that without the rivers, the early nation could never have survived. The plains and British Columbia would have been fatally severed from the older communities of the Canadian east.

Canada's rivers are Canada's veins, Canada's arteries, Canada's highways, Canada's stories, Canada's history. In fact, they are Canada.

I am sure most members would agree that increased public awareness of rivers and watersheds is a noble objective. We know there is great public interest and willingness in river and lake cleanups. In my riding of York North, for example, people in the community have exerted great efforts on helping to clean up Lake Simcoe and on river conservation projects.

A national rivers day would also increase the public profile of the Canadian heritage rivers system. Established in 1984, the Canadian heritage rivers system is a co-operative program developed and run by the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

The objectives of the program are to give national recognition to Canada's outstanding rivers and to ensure long term management and conservation of their natural, cultural, historical and recreational values. There are currently 38 rivers with a total length of more than 9,000 Kilometres on the Canadian heritage rivers system.

The Canadian heritage rivers system seeks to give national recognition to the important rivers of Canada and to ensure their future management in such a way that the natural and human heritage which they represent is conserved and interpreted, and the opportunities they possess for recreation and heritage appreciation are realized by residents of and visitors to Canada.

Through the board secretariat and working with other federal agencies, national co-operating and non-governmental organizations, Parks Canada publicly works hard at promoting the system as a national program, a national responsibility.

Canada's rivers are not only keys to the understanding of our country's natural and human history. Virtually all of the nation's fresh water eventually flows through rivers into five different salt water bodies: the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans, Hudson Bay and into the Gulf of Mexico. Our river system, thereby, cannot be separated from the larger bodies of water into which they flow.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[Bernard Mascarenhas, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine from York North, Bernard Mascarenhas, worked as the managing director at Marsh Canada. On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, Bernard was working at the company's offices at the World Trade Center in New York City. He did not survive the catastrophic destruction of the terrorist attack.

Over 20 years ago Mr. Mascarenhas adopted Canada as his new country. He was a hardworking man who did very well in his profession. He was also a very humble man who gave much of himself to help those less fortunate. He loved his family and was devoted to his wife Raynette, son Sven and daughter Jaclyn.

In honouring the thousands of people who perished on September 11, we must remember that they were individuals like Bernard Mascarenhas who worked hard, gave to their community, loved and were loved.