Ken Epp

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Canadian Alliance.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On numerous occasions the Speaker has ruled that the name of this party should be used as it is properly registered. It is Canadian Alliance and I would urge the member not to demonstrate his total inability to learn two words by actually using the name Canadian Alliance.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On numerous occasions the Speaker has ruled as to the name to be used for the party on this side. It is the Canadian Alliance. This member has frequently today used different terminology. I wonder whether you would call him to account and ask him to be respectful of the ruling of the Chair.

[Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised. When I tried to fulfill their election promise, Liberal members came out of the bushes and said they did not want to do it. I am really surprised. They ran on that election promise. I thought they would be quite willing to accept the motion that the GST be eliminated because that is what they ran on. It would have been done and they could have gone home and said, “Look, we have fulfilled our promise”, just by staying in the bushes behind the curtains when a member of the official opposition moved that motion.

I also have a general statement about Bill C-24. It is illustrative of the things the government does. The budget is much more of a PR exercise than most people are aware. The announcements made in the budget every year by the Minister of Finance are numbers which are really designed to make people feel good.

There were announcements in last year's budget for example restoring $13.5 billion to health care. Canadians felt so good about that. Wowee, after all the money that has been taken out of health care. We all know how our health care system is suffering and now the government is putting back $13.5 billion. That is the messaging the Liberals do. What people do not know, and I guess it is the job of the opposition to point this out to Canadians and we need to repeat it over and over again, is that is a cumulative total over five years.

In my humble opinion it is bordering on dishonest in a one year budget to use numbers like that. It implies that $13.5 billion per year is being restored to health care when that is not true. It is $2.5 billion in the budget year, $2.5 billion the next year, $2.5 billion the year following, and then a couple of other payments in the next two years. Over five years the government will manage to put $13.5 billion into health care.

It makes us wonder why the government did not say $20 billion spread over 10 years or $40 billion spread over 20 years. Why did it not do that? The government could have got a bigger kick out of saying $40 billion instead of $20 billion or $13.5 billion.

Bill C-24 very much illustrates this because over and over it talks about implementing measures that were introduced in the 1999, 1998 and 1997 budgets. By voting in favour of this bill, if anybody does, they are simply saying to the Liberal government that it is okay for it to lie to the Canadian people and to totally misrepresent the budgetary facts by putting these things into place and talking about them.

Way back in 1997 there was the announcement of the millennium scholarship fund. The government got three years of kick out of it but did not put any money into it. The students' lives were not made any easier; their tuitions and costs did not go down. Meanwhile the government had this $3 billion millennium scholarship fund and all of the young people said, “The Liberals must truly be wonderful because they are giving us $3 billion”. But they did not. Over the objections of the auditor general, they billed it to that year's expenditures but they are simply taking it, hoarding it and putting it aside somewhere to spend in the future.

The same thing is true with many of the other issues the Liberals come forward with. What about the tax cuts? In this year's budget the Minister of Finance said that there would be $58 billion of tax cuts. Even Canadians like me feel like jumping up and kicking our heels because $58 billion of tax cuts is pretty exciting. Those are the words they used.

Let us look at our pay stubs. Is there any effect there? No. Our total taxes have actually gone up because the CPP premiums went up. The reductions are way down the road, five years from now. It is very presumptuous of the finance minister to do things like that. How does he know if he will even be in power five years down the road? The Liberals' mandate ends in the next year or two. It is very presumptuous of him to make promises of accumulated tax cuts. However, he gets the PR kick out of it and people feel good.

Unfortunately, feeling good does not affect our economy. It is only when we physically leave more money in the pockets of the taxpayers that our economy gets the real kick. Only then can Canadians buy the things they need for their families thereby promoting the economic well-being of businesses in their communities and the economy takes off. That only happens when they actually get the tax cut.

Meanwhile the Liberals are so interested in all of this spinning that we end up on May 9, 2000 implementing parts of the 1997 budget speech. Finally we are implementing the things that they promised three years ago.

The conclusion is simply that Bill C-24 is not good enough. It is a bill that has one or two good provisions as I said. I would love to vote in favour of them, but I cannot because of the other things.

The overriding issue of course is that in many areas we are revisiting and revising the implementation of the GST provision when in fact the government promised that it would eliminate, kill and destroy the GST. It has not happened. The Liberals who stand up and vote in favour of Bill C-24 will once again be standing in front of Canadians and saying “You cannot trust us. You cannot really believe what we say because we are implementing exactly the opposite of what we promised in the election campaign”.

[Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand to give my point of view with respect to Bill C-24. It is important for everyone who is listening, both in and outside the House or perhaps someone who may be reading Hansard some time in the future, to know what is going on here.

Bill C-24 is actually a budget implementation act. I begin my speech by saying that a very strange thing happens in Canada when it comes to the implementation of budget measures. There is the day when the Minister of Finance stands and there is a bunch of hoopla. All the media come and set up their big tractor trailer units with their dishes. The cables that run into this place are twice as thick as usual. It is called budget day. On that day, the minister announces all the determinations that are going to appear in the new budget rules which, for all intents and purposes, means this is how we are going collect money from Canadians and this is how we are going to spend it for them. That is the big picture of the budget. Of course, everyone pays close attention to it and wonders how it will impact on them.

What I find difficult to understand and accept is that the budget is announced prior to any real input from Canadian people or from parliamentarians. I know that all the Liberals in the House would protest that if they were so inclined. They would say that we have had prebudget consultations, we have listened to the people and we are implementing the things that the people of Canada want. I think most of the members in the House presently would probably be silent.

I would however point out that this really is a very one-sided affair. The Minister of Finance in conjunction with the top people in the finance department actually write that budget speech and determine the budget provisions well in advance of the budget being made. When it is announced in the House of Commons instantly becomes de facto law. We can call that a democratic process if we want to but I seriously question that because of two things.

First, the one I have already mentioned, is that there is no meaningful input or debate in the House prior to the budget. We go through some machinations of doing that but we very seldom see the actual minister or his departmental officials. How it is transmitted to them I do not think is much beyond some political considerations. These decisions are made behind closed doors and then it becomes de facto law.

The second part, which shows that this is very one-sided and dictatorial, is that there is to my knowledge no record of a parliament ever reversing anything that the Minister of Finance has said on budget day. In other words, what he says is then law. When we come to vote on the budget, the government members are all whipped into voting for these measures. Whether they agree with them or not and whether they understand them or not, they just do it. We have new rules imposed on Canadians without any real input.

Traditionally the members on the opposition side will speak and vote against those parts of the budget that they find objectionable, and in our party, we will speak in favour of the things that we support. We are then asked to vote, usually on its entirety.

One of the dilemmas we face with the bill before us today is that with one vote we will have to either vote for some of the things we agree with, thereby giving our assent to those that we profoundly disagree with or, on the contrary, we will vote against Bill C-24 because of the objectionable parts of it. The political spin from our opposition on the other side will be that we voted against giving a tax break to people who have extra expenses because they are handicapped.

I have a great dilemma. I in fact would like to say yes. I am in favour of those provisions in the bill that provide for reduced taxation for those who have special costs because they are physically or mentally handicapped or whatever their needs. However, it is as if I had gone to a restaurant where the waiter brings me a beautiful steak and instead of having it surrounded with potatoes and vegetables, it is surrounded by gravel.

I now have a beautiful steak with gravel around it and I have to ask myself “Am I going to take it or not?” As good as the steak may appear and as hungry as I may be, I can look at the plate and say “That steak is so appealing. Yes, I would love to eat it but the gravel, the sand and the other garbage around it makes it unpalatable. I have to send it back to the kitchen and maybe the cook can try again”. That is probably what will happen with Bill C-24.

As I have said, there are some admirable and commendable things in this bill. I would like to be on record as being in favour of it but I do not think that will be an option because of the objectionable things.

About 1994, if I remember correctly, the third party, as we were called at that time, brought forward a motion on the budget. During that parliament, as in this one, the Liberals had a majority and could do pretty well what they wanted to do. The Reform Party at that time moved some amendments to the budget which were truly not substantive but very symbolic.

One of the motions we moved would have reduced the expenditures of several departments by a small amount. As I recall, our motion called for the expenditures to be reduced by $20,000. I hesitate to say that is a small amount because people in my riding and elsewhere in Canada are being taxed to death by the government and to them $20,000 is by no means a small amount. However, in comparison to the billions that the government taxes out of Canadians and spends, sometimes very foolishly, $20,000 is a very small proportion of the total budget.

We therefore moved a motion that one or two departments have their total expenditures reduced by $20,000 as a symbolic statement simply to demonstrate that parliament did have control over the budget. We thought that was an important first step. If that could have been established, we would have proceeded to the next step and taken some real control as parliamentarians over the budget process. We would have been able to tell the bureaucrats how much money they could spend instead of them telling us how much they were going to take from Canadian taxpayers and spend in government departments.

I believe that every Liberal member at that time voted against our motion. We gave the Liberals an opportunity to demonstrate that parliament had control over the budgetary process but they chose to vote against it. They said that they would not reduce departmental budgets even by $20,000 because they wanted to continue the dictatorship that comes from the Minister of Finance.

There is another reason that it is very difficult to hold the government accountable. I will illustrate this by taking one of the cases in the particular act that we are studying today. We have an issue in Bill C-24 where the government proposes to exempt from taxation part of the accommodation costs made by people who come into Canada as visitors. This simply exempts and adds to the exemption people who are coming in as tourists and who are using the campgrounds as accommodations. Up until now campgrounds were not included in this.

I want to read this clause in the bill because it illustrates to Canadian taxpayers, and to people who happen to be listening to this debate or who will be reading it later on, how difficult it is for us to keep the government's feet to the fire so to speak because of the convoluted language that is used even in such a simple matter. I refer to section 252 of the act which is being amended by clause 68 of Bill C-24. It states that section 252 of the act is replaced by the following:

“camping accommodation” means a campsite at a recreational trailer park or campground (other than a campsite included in the definition “short-term accommodation” in subsection 123(1) or included in that part of a tour package that is not the taxable portion of the tour package, as defined in subsection 163(3))—

That is how it starts. I will go back and read the first part again but I will miss the brackets this time. It reads:

“camping accommodation” means a campsite at a recreational trailer park or campground—

And then we have this parenthetical phrase:

—that is supplied by way of lease, licence or similar arrangement for the purpose of its occupancy by an individual as a place of residence or lodging, if the period throughout which the individual is given continuous occupancy of the campsite is less than one month. It includes water, electricity and waste disposal services, or the right to their use, if they are accessed by means of an outlet or hook-up at the campsite and are supplied with the campsite.

“tour package” has the meaning assigned by subsection 163(3), but does not include a tour package that includes a convention facility or related convention supplies.

That is how this thing starts but then it becomes convoluted. Perhaps I should not read all this but it now begins to define “non-resident”. I previously said that this is the part in Bill C-24 that proposes to exempt from taxation the taxes on camp fees that are charged to non-residents. It states:

a non-resident person is the recipient of a supply made by a registrant of short-term accommodation, camping accommodation or a tour package that includes short-term accommodation or camping accommodation,—

It further states:

a particular non-resident who is not registered under Subdivision d of Division V is the recipient of a supply of short-term accommodation, camping accommodation or a tour package that includes short-term accommodation or camping accommodation.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what I said? Do you understand what I just read? I hate to admit this publicly but I am not sure I know what this means. However, I will vote on it and so will all the Liberal members afterwards. Of course it is easy for them because they will just stand when their string is pulled. However, as a member of the opposition I have to somehow try to make sense of this and figure out whether this is a good thing or not.

I would like to urge people out there in the real world to get on the Internet and call up Bill C-24. They just have to go to the parliamentary site, www.parl.gc.ca, look for government business, look at the bills, pull up Bill C-24 and try to read it. I defy them to read it.

I know there are not many Liberals listening to me right now but maybe there is an accountant listening. Maybe that accountant could phone me back and say “I read that and I understood it perfectly”. I would like to meet that person. That is only one example. It goes on and on. I hesitate to punish our interpreters, whom I value so highly, by reading more of this. These are really strange things. It goes on and on for four or five pages.

There is another strange thing that happens. Different parts of the bill come into effect on different dates. Subparagraph 252.1(13) states that subsection (1) is deemed to have come into force on February 24, 1998, which is a little over two years ago. There are other parts of the bill which I scanned through while I was sitting here that have implementation dates all the way back to 1990. Even though this is a bill that primarily implements the provisions of the budget in the last year or two, or three, there are some sections which go back further than that. For example, the top of page 98 states:

(5) Subsection (2) is deemed to have come into force on November 26, 1997”.

(6) Subsection (3) is deemed to have come into force on April 1, 1997.

(7) Subsection (4) is deemed to have come into force on December 17, 1990.

That is over 10 years ago. We are implementing a budget provision that, when the bill is passed, will retroactively be deemed to have come into force on December 17, 1990. Most of us cannot even remember where we were on that day.

I do this to illustrate how convoluted the Income Tax Act is. The whole bill is full of this.

If there is anything that has urgent need, it is the simplification of the Income Tax Act. I despair of a government which has as its goal to fleece Canadians of as much money as it can and then selectively, through all of these different provisions of the Income Tax Act, make provisions from which one person or another is exempt.

I resent the tax exemption on camping facilities. I resent the fact that non-residents can come into Canada and rent the same space that I and my fellow Canadians can rent and pay a lower price for the same space. If the space is worth it, we should all pay the same amount. Non-residents are exempt because it helps to make us competitive in the travel industry. It is ironic that the bill discussed prior to this was the tourism bill. Tourism is very important to Canadians. It is a large part of our economy and it must be competitive.

In Bill C-24 we have a move to make it more competitive, but what about Canadians who choose to travel in their country, to enjoy their parks? They are priced right out of it. After they have finished paying their income tax, property tax, sales tax and their daily expenses, Canadians scarcely have enough money left to even consider going on a vacation. If they do go on a vacation they pay taxes on everything that happens when they go to different places, including parks. They pay huge fees now to the Government of Canada to enter a national park and then they pay the GST on top of that fee.

Speaking of the GST, I distinctly recall that the Liberals, when campaigning for the 1993 election, made some statements about not liking the GST. In fact, there were some members of the Liberal team who campaigned on trying to get rid of it.

I do not know if you were one of those, Mr. Speaker. I know that you ran under the Liberal banner and, of course, due to the neutrality of your position I am not able to draw you into these partisan debates. However, I think of all those other Liberals. Should I call them the green foreheaded Liberals over there? At least I see a lot of green, so that must reflect their foreheads.

Many of them ran under the campaign which said “We will kill the GST. We will eliminate it. It will be gone”. In fact, the hon. member who is now the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who in the last parliament was the Deputy Prime Minister, was actually forced to resign because day after day the press and the opposition kept reminding her of how she had said she would resign if the GST did not disappear. Finally, one day she had that critical moment when she went to her banking machine and it gave her a tinge of conscience. It said to her “You had better resign because you said you would if the GST was not gone, and it is not gone”. The Canadian taxpayers in her riding got to fork out another approximately $100,000 to run a byelection. They paid for the fact that she and all of her colleagues broke that election promise. They paid again. They paid for the election campaign.

Of course, it was well reported at that time that prior to her making this decision which showed that she had such a deep conscience there was some polling done, paid for by the taxpayers, which determined in advance that if, having resigned, she were to run again that she would be re-elected. Then she was able to fulfil her tinge of conscience and resign.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if that poll had said that if she had resigned over this GST issue she would not have been re-elected. I wonder if she still would have followed through on that deep pang of conscience. I wonder if maybe she would have just invented more excuses in order to hang on to power.

The point I making is this. There was a commitment to kill the GST, to eliminate it. It would be gone, the people were told, if they voted Liberal. I sometimes wonder how many Canadians voted Liberal in the 1993 election based on that promise alone. I think there were many of them.

The Conservatives brought in the much hated GST in 1990. I have never before in my life—and I have lived quite a long time—seen a tax which has gained such enduring hatred of Canadians.

Every week there are advertisements in the papers in Alberta where one store or another has a big sale and the biggest banner on the sale announcement is that there is no GST, but in smaller letters it says that the store will have to pay the GST because it is a legal requirement.

Instead of saying there will be a 7% reduction in prices, which would bring in only a few people, they put up a big banner that says “No GST” and the people flock there to avoid the GST. The stores find that they get more people coming to storewide sales when they have a no GST event than if they were simply to say they would reduce the prices by 7%.

The GST is a very much hated tax. I sometimes think that the Liberal government sits in the position of power in Ottawa based on, dare I say it—and it is not attributed to any individual—based on a fraud.

The people on the government side in the election campaign said they would eliminate the GST if elected. That is why Canadians voted for them. The government turned around and not only kept the GST, but harmonized it in those provinces participating. It is now a 15% tax instead of a 7% tax. We all know it is a harmonized tax and some of the revenue goes to the province, but I think it is also fair to say that instead of eliminating the GST in the participating provinces the government effectively doubled it.

That is the Liberal record on the GST. Bill C-24, which we are debating today, has included in it a number of GST provisions. I said at the beginning of my speech that I am not opposed to some of those provisions. There is an increase in tax on cigarettes, which is another topic. Bill C-24 reduces or removes the GST on a number of health care related services.

I would like to share this with hon. members. We recently had a funeral in our family. My beloved sister passed away about a month ago and we had the funeral. We did not pay much attention to this issue that I am now going to mention at the time of my sister's funeral, but I had a grieving constituent phone me because his wife had just passed away and he said “In the middle of my sorrow, I go to buy a casket for my wife, and the casket is $3,000 and the government wants another $210 in taxes, in GST, on the casket.” He was very upset. I was not able to comfort him in his loss, nor was I able to promise him that there would be no GST on caskets tomorrow, because there is, the government has arranged it.

I noticed in Bill C-24 that there is a change concerning burial plots and the GST as well, but I do not quite remember what it is. It is one of those convoluted things that I tried to read, but could not really figure out from the bill whether the GST will be increased on burial plots or whether it applies to non-residents, or what it was. However, there are some revisions.

The GST is everywhere. It is there when you are born, it is there when you live, and it is there when you die. The government has no intention of reducing or removing it. It loves the revenue. There is nothing that the government does not like to tax.

Here is an interesting one. I want to say a bit about the tax on cigarettes. It was about three, four or five years ago that cigarette smuggling was a huge issue, so the government decided to reduce the taxes on cigarettes to make the price differential between smuggled cigarettes and those purchased at the store less so there would be less demand for the black market, thereby reducing smuggling. The government tells us that this has had some effect.

Bill C-24 will once again increase cigarette taxes. It also provides for a rebate system to retailers in the cigarette marketing industry, but I will not go into that detail. However, I have to ask the question: If high taxes were part of the reason for developing the smuggling industry in the first place, would it not be possible that by increasing these taxes, as Bill C-24 will do, the problem will return? I think that is something the government should think about.

I want to talk a little about some of the other provisions in Bill C-24. One that comes to mind has to do with non-residents, cross-border transactions and the work of conventions. This bill talks about provisions for collecting taxes on gas and other utility transmission and generation. The bill also provides for a tax rebate for charities. Charities can get a tax rebate on the money they raise in bottle drives and things like that.

The real thing happening is that we are meddling. We are once again increasing the complexity of the Income Tax Act. There is no real change here. Nothing here will substantially change the tax level of Canadians. That is what is regrettable.

I would like to see the Liberals actually implement their election promise. Perhaps we should have a motion again in the House calling for the elimination of the GST. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think that if you were to ask for it right now, perhaps we could get unanimous consent that the GST be eliminated. I would ask for that. Sure, why not?

[Canada National Parks Act, May 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I suppose we could just step outside and have a conversation but we are doing it publicly here.

The member said specifically that he was against the presence of the small grass airstrips which are there. It is not possible for large aircraft to land there. The small aircraft strips are designed mainly for emergency and some recreational use by people who own small planes.

If a small plane in the area is in trouble, would the member rather have the pilot put his airplane into the side of a mountain or to have an accessible airstrip? That is one question. The second one is very short. I would like him to respond to the present method of providing for the enlargement of a resort location. Presently it requires a change in the act by parliament. According to Bill C-27, it is going to be put entirely into the hands of the minister. Is the member pleased with that?

[Canada National Parks Act, May 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, my question deals specifically with two of our most notable national parks, namely Banff and Jasper. Most Canadians would agree that those are the two that stand out in most people's minds.

It is quite valid for beautiful places like those to be accessible not only to Canadians of wealth, but ordinary Canadians as well. They should be accessible to those who come here from other parts of the world simply because they want to enjoy and admire the grandeur of God's creation in this part of the world. It is highly desirable that these places be accessible to people.

The member has indicated there should be no privatization in these parks. Is the hon. member proposing that the government should operate hotels, lodging places and places which supply meals for visitors? Should the government do it instead of private enterprise or is he simply proposing that we put up big fences and just keep people out altogether?

[The Economy, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to have endless money to spend on mismanaged grants at HRDC, mindless dead rabbit art displays, and endless politically motivated boondoggles.

One of the people in my riding told me that they would much rather have an MRI machine in the hospital than a fountain in the Prime Minister's riding.

When will the government correct its priorities, provide adequate funding for health care, get the debt and interest payments down, and give some real tax relief?

[Canada National Parks Act, May 5th, 2000]

No, it is not nonsense. The member opposite says that what I said was nonsense. What I am saying is not nonsense. I am talking about Bill C-27. There is no requirement for meaningful consultation among the stakeholders.

That is wrong. There are situations in Banff for example. A place which hosts visitors to our country and tries to be hospitable to them is now required to have buses to run its staff out of the park for overnight stays because it is not permitted to construct a building for the staff to stay overnight.

Talk about ecology, talk about the environment. What is better: running a bus an extra 100 kilometres a day, or having a building right next to where the people work so that they can walk or ride their bicycles to work? It is case of using a sledgehammer to solve a problem instead of trying to be reasonable about it.

I am very concerned about the way in which changes to parks can be made if we pass Bill C-27. It used to be that under the old Canada parks act, establishing a new park or adding land to it required an amendment to the act itself. It would have to be debated in parliament. It also required that notice be given in the Canada Gazette as well as in newspapers in the local area. That is not the case anymore. Now it allows simply for orders in council. The minister could make a declaration and whatever the minister said would be the new law. No public notification is required. I think that is an error.

I believe very strongly that the ministers in many, many of the bills which the Liberal government is passing are being given way too much power. We are losing that thread of accountability which comes in a good democratic system.

There is no mention made in the bill of required public consultation, co-operation or support from local governments or provincial or territorial governments in which the parks exist.

We need to not only provide for those points of consultation, but I would love to see a government with the humility on many occasions actually to accept what the people out there are saying. Most of the time the people who are working day to day in the parks and the area know the situation very, very well.

One of the things we are going to hear is that it would be turned over to commercial interests. I want to talk a bit about that. I do not believe for a moment even if we turned the parks over totally to commercial interests that their task would be to completely destroy them. Why would they destroy that which attracts people from all around the world? I believe they are very capable people who in conjunction with local, provincial and federal governments could consult and come to an agreement as to the degree of expansion required.

Tourism is so important to our country. It is economically important. I will not negate that. It is important.

I have already spoken about the importance of allowing other people to come to our country to share in its grandeur, but it is also important that we provide decent Canadian hospitality and that will come in balance. I am simply not prepared to say I trust the federal government fully and I trust the commercial interests not at all, because what we need is a balance. We need a dialogue between them. We need to come to agreements. Sometimes the federal government may have to give a little. I simply do not believe in the high handed, autocratic, dictatorial government. That is what we have in this bill.

I am very concerned about the long term future of our parks under a bill like this one. The interests of the government in proposing Bill C-27 seem to be much more to preserve its little fiefdom, its little kingdom, its control. That seems to be what the largest interest the government has in this.

The government is not interested in preserving the beauty of the parks and their accessibility to ordinary Canadians. That is most important. I would not begin to put a human being at the level of an animal although some would, but if an animal has a right to be in a park, in my view so does a human being, so do Canadians and so do visitors from around the world.

I would like a parks policy which would permit co-operation among the commercial interests, the interests of tourism and the interests of allowing our Canadian citizens to enjoy the beauty of our parks. That balance is missing in this very one sided, give all the power to the government, in fact, give all the power to the minister bill. We should have one that would be balanced and which would serve Canadian people so much better.

I am aware that I could have more time to speak. I have certainly emphasized the most important things that have been on my mind and in my heart. I appreciate very much the attention all members in the House have given today. Only two of them have dared to squawk at all in protest about what I have been saying. The others have been blissfully silent.

[Canada National Parks Act, May 5th, 2000]

I will avoid the temptation to sing it on the prompting of the member opposite but it has a phrase, “When I consider the world that You have made, I see the stars, I see the awesome grandeur of the mountains”. It is very seldom that I go into the mountains that I do not think to myself and often say to my wife or other family members who are with me, what grandeur, what extravagance God used in creating this part of the world.

Our native friends have that same affinity. They often express in their religious faith the grandeur of God's creation. We need to make sure that Canadians of all different backgrounds and visitors to our wonderful country have an opportunity to stand in awe of this huge monument of creation when we observe what our parks are.

There are some misdirected points in the bill before us. One of the things Parks Canada and Heritage Canada try to do is to run roughshod over the taxpayers and citizens of this country. That is a totally misdirected priority.

There are limitations in the bill which say arbitrarily that we are not going to permit a park to grow beyond its existing boundaries. Boom, just like that. There is no consultation, no input from the people, no input from the stakeholders.