Alan Tonks

[Municipalities, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, recently members received a copy of “Our Place in the World”, the role of municipal government in Canada's international policies and programs.

I would like to congratulate the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for this document. It lays out clearly the potential for municipal governments in this country to play an important role in achieving our collective international objectives in areas of development assistance, trade and representing Canada abroad.

The ideas in this document are built on the successes of FCM's international program, which started in 1987 when FCM and CIDA joined together to work in the developing world.

Since then, thousands of municipal officials from Canada and overseas have worked together to improve the quality of life and sustainability of communities around the world.

This document presents the argument that municipalities are able and willing to do more, more to strengthen our development assistance, more to enhance relationships with our diplomatic and trading partners and, in short, more to strengthen Canada's place in the world.

I encourage all members to read this document and think about the valuable contribution--

[Foreign Affairs, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. As Somalia's new government and newly elected president, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, prepare to restore and return order after years of state collapse, according to a new report by the Norwegian Refugee Council, the country's 400,000 internally displaced people remain in a highly precarious situation.

Now that there is a democratic government in place, when will we recognize this government and what actions will our government take to help end the humanitarian crisis in Somalia?

[Committees of the House, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “The Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements”.

In accordance with its order of reference under Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on October 21, 2004, the committee has considered and held hearings on the subject matter of the Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements and agreed to it on Thursday, November 25, 2004.

I would like to express appreciation to the members of the committee and those who made deputations as witnesses.

The subject matter deals with Annex 2001, which is an initiative dealing with the diversion of waters within the Great Lakes basin. This is a matter that has been of great urgency. In fact, the history of protecting boundary waters goes back to 1909 with the establishment of the International Joint Commission.

This is a consensus document. I would invite all members to read the document carefully. If there are questions of either the committee or individuals on the committee, I would certainly volunteer as chair of the committee to undertake to get responses to those questions. I thank the members of the House for their attention to this committee.

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's question, I will read from an overview. It states:

Whoever is appointed the Minister responsible for Parks Canada is bound by the provisions of the Canada National Parks Act. Parks Canada will continue to be accountable to Parliament through its responsible Minister.

That would take some steps toward allaying the fears that have been expressed and have led to an amendment with respect to the bill to take the “may” out and to make the Minister of the Environment as the accountable person.

I think members can see from the responses I have given how seriously I take the accountability with respect to the intent of the bill. Therefore, members might know that I also would not be opposed to being very sharply definitive in terms of ultimate and absolute accountability. If that is determined to be the Minister of the Environment, then I would have no problems with that.

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate both the spirit and the substance of the question. As the member was reflecting on the nature and implication of the mountain pine beetles, I also was reflecting on the impact a similar invasive species, the Asian longhorned beetle, has had in my constituency in Toronto. In many constituencies, the Asian longhorned beetle is decimating softwood, in particular, ash, such as mountain ash and other species of ash, in Toronto and the area.

The member might not be aware that there are signs all over, trying to cloister the impact of the Asian longhorned beetle. It is having a similar impact in urban settings where it is so necessary to have trees to maintain the ecological balance. It now has been found that the Asian longhorned beetle is not only just a seasonal problem, but it is permeating itself. It can hibernate in the winter and re-emerge in the summer. It is a very serious issue. In that instance a strategic initiative is taking place, coordinated between the provincial and local governments.

I cannot give a total answer, but I can give a process answer and possibly a substance answer. The first is to get the information as to what is being done with respect to the mountain pine beetle. There is absolutely no challenging the cause and effect that the member has established. It does implicate on this bill and the spirit behind it. That case can be established. Having established the case in terms of what is going on, how effective we are, it then is a jurisdictional issue as to how we can establish a process that will deal with it.

I will get as much information for the member on what the nature of the issue is at this point. Then there might be the opportunity to raise it as a matter before the House and have the appropriate minister give an overview, or an inter-jurisdictional plan from heritage and natural resources, so the whole House can be informed as to not only what is going on, but what the future plan is.

Just in asking the question, the member has done a service to the issue which this bill is based on, and that is that we all are accountable for our natural heritage. This is not a partisan issue. We have been given that responsibility. If the member has defined and identified an issue that is of concern in that geographic area, Banff and Jasper, it is an issue for all Canadians.

I can assure him that I will get the information in the first instance of what we are doing, and then we can use that as the basis to satisfy ourselves as to whether that is enough. Then we can take it on from that point.

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted this morning to rise on Bill C-7. The bill is in fact a reaffirmation of the government's absolute desire and commitment not only to review the responsibilities associated with our natural heritage with respect to our parks and historic designations within our parks and natural environment, but also to make sure of the continuity required with respect to our built history, to make sure that there is a very clear delineation of responsibility with respect to maintaining what Canadians have a right to. Their natural and their built heritage should be protected, administered and managed in manner that is in keeping with the high degree of responsibility we all feel for our heritage.

As members will know, then, the bill is an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other acts. As I said, it will delineate responsibilities.

The thrust of my comments today will be about the action plan on establishing new national parks and national marine conservation areas within the context of the bill, two subjects which members have said from time to time are issues they really want to get into.

I will give members a little history. On December 12, the control and supervision of the Parks Canada Agency was transferred from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Minister of the Environment. This transfer was given effect through an order in council.

On July 20, 2004, another order in council came into effect relating to responsibilities for our built heritage. It was required in order to clarify the earlier order in council. First, control and supervision of the historic places policy group, that group and its responsibilities, was transferred from the Department of Canadian Heritage to Parks Canada. Second, the powers, duties and functions related to the design and implementation of the program that had built heritage as their primary subject matter were transferred from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Minister of the Environment.

Bill C-7, as I have indicated, will update the legislation to reflect these directions and these responsibilities.

The bill deals with the machinery of government and does not contain any substantive policy provisions. It simply gives legislative effect to the direction that the government reorganization was taking, as announced on December 2003, in particular as it affects Parks Canada.

In addition to amending the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act, Bill C-7 also amends statutes through which Parks Canada delivers its mandate: the Canada National Parks Act; the Historic Sites and Monuments Act; the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act; the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act; the Saguenay--St. Lawrence Marine Park Act; the Species at Risk Act; and the Canada Shipping Act. All of these are associated statutes that are implicated by this transfer. But there are no additional funding requirements related to Bill C-7, as the jurisdictional responsibilities with respect to funding, works and associated initiatives obviously are within the budgets of the relevant departments.

Parks Canada's organizational integrity has been maintained. The Parks Canada agency remains committed to working with Canadians to protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage for present and future generations.

I think it would be an understatement to say that the examples of that unique heritage, which in fact is a reflection of the various cycles of immigration and our first nations and aboriginal peoples and so on, are top of mind with respect to our heritage.

I would like to take a few moments to talk about the Parks Canada story. I think it is a global best practice. It is a story that is worth repeating often in order for us to have a sense of just how absolutely spectacular this country is in terms of its natural heritage.

I am sure that from the House's perspective Canada's national parks, national historic sites and national marine conservation areas are somewhat akin to the soul of our country. They are a central part of who we are and what we are and in fact what we want to be. It is what we signal to the world that is so important with respect to the preservation and the stewardship of the natural heritage we enjoy.

These places are obviously places of wonder and awe for those Canadians who have travelled from coast to coast to coast. I happen to be one of them. I am never above and beyond being totally impressed with what God has given us as a natural environment. It is just so absolutely awesome, even in the global context.

Each of those places also tells its own story because the people who live in those areas have a special kinship with respect to their natural heritage and their built heritage. In fact, it is a reflection of a very regional kinship that people have with their own immediate environment. It is one that they wish to share with all Canadians and in fact with the world. It is unique. That natural environment, our built environment, is also a reflection of the mosaic that we refer to as Canada.

What we cherish as part of our national identity, we also recognize as part of our national responsibility. If we feel so strongly on the one hand how special our heritage is, then equally we have to rise to the challenge in terms of our accountability to nurture and preserve it.

All Canadians share the responsibility to preserve and protect Canada's unique cultural and natural heritage. Together, we hold our national parks, our national historic sites and our national marine conservation areas in trust for the benefit of this and future generations.

Canada has the distinction of having established the first national park service in the world. Over the decades, our system of national parks has grown to 41 national parks and reserves, preserving for future generations almost 265,000 square kilometres of lands and waters. There are plans to add an additional 100,000 square kilometres through the creation of eight more national parks. This legacy is possible in large part because provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal and first nations people and local communities have worked with us to create many of these new national parks.

The creation and management of national parks is a delicate balance between protection of ecologically significant areas of importance to wildlife and meeting economic and social needs of communities.

The Government of Canada is committed to working with aboriginal people, local communities and other Canadians and stakeholders to protect our precious national heritage through the creation of new national parks and national marine conservation areas. When I say the Government of Canada, I include that this particular issue is a non-partisan issue in which all members of the House on both sides, in all parties, feel the same with respect to the protection of our natural and built heritage.

In October 2002 the government announced an initiative to substantially complete Canada's system of national parks by creating 10 new parks over the next five years. This will expand the system by almost 50%, with the total area spanning nearly the size of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have already created two of these 10 new national parks with work continuing on eight other proposals. Five new national marine conservation areas will also be created.

Canada is blessed with exceptional natural treasures. We owe it to Canadians and to the world to protect these lands and waters. The action plan calls on Parks Canada to work with all of its partners, the provinces and territories, aboriginal and rural communities, industry, environmental groups, labour and all others, to complete this effort.

In March 2003 the government allocated $144 million over five years and $29 million annually thereafter toward this effort.

The action plan has already produced two national parks. The new Gulf Islands National Park Reserve of Canada protects 33 square kilometres of ecologically rare land in the southern Gulf Islands of British Columbia.

At over 20,000 square kilometres the new Ukkusiksalik National Park of Canada protects virtually an entire watershed close to the Arctic Circle in Nunavut.

As we speak, the whole issue of ecological balance is being discussed. We have had the recent Arctic report out of Iceland and a conference is going on with respect to countries that have responsibility for the Arctic. Our mandate is to be accountable to preserving the Arctic. We all know there are huge challenges with respect to global warming and the Arctic.

Other parallel concerns are being expressed through reports that will be coming to the House. As a matter of fact, there will be a report today with respect to water quality in some of our natural areas, one of which is the Great Lakes Basin, that will be a parallel effort in an attempt to make sure that these natural areas are protected, the latter being water quality.

The Ukkusiksalik Park is a product of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Inuit of Nunavut forged over several decades of hard work, all focused on protecting land, water, caribou and polar bears for present and future generations.

Specific sites for more national parks will be selected in other natural regions across Canada, the southern Okanagan; the lower Similkameen in interior British Columbia; Labrador's Torngat Mountains and Mealy Mountains; Manitoba's lowland boreal forests; Bathurst Island in Nunavut; and the east arm of Great Slave Lake in the Northwest Territories. Just to speak about those potential inclusions geographically gives one the sense of the vastness of Canada. Sites for the two remaining national parks are being identified by Parks Canada.

Negotiations to establish the Torngat Mountains National Park Reserve in northern Labrador are nearing completion. Members will be pleased to know that this longstanding proposal will protect some of the highest mountains in North America east of the Canadian Rockies.

In March 2004 the Premier of Manitoba and the former minister of the environment signed a memorandum of agreement identifying the boundaries for public consultation for a national park in the Manitoba lowlands. They also committed to negotiating a national park establishment agreement by May 2005. Both parks will make significant additions to our worldclass national parks system.

The government is also working with partners to establish five new national marine conservation areas, adding an estimated 15,000 square kilometres to the system. This will be a major step for global conservation of marine habitat. Canada has the world's longest coastline and 7% of its fresh water.

This commitment to creating a new marine conservation area is consistent with recent Speeches from the Throne in which our government made a commitment to create new marine protected areas as part of the ocean action plan. These national marine conservation areas will be located in ecologically unrepresented marine regions. Four sites have been identified, including the Gwaii Haanas off British Columbia's Queen Charlotte Islands, western Lake Superior, British Columbia's southern Strait of Georgia and the waters off the Îles de la Madeleine in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

While a site for the remaining national marine conservation area has yet to be finalized, Parks Canada has received a number of proposals from local communities, a testament to the growing interest in the conservation of our marine heritage.

In addition, the government will accelerate its actions over the next five years to improve the ecological integrity of Canada's 41 existing national parks. This will implement the action plan arising from the report of the panel on the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks, which was endorsed by the government in April 2000.

These two initiatives, the action plan to establish our system and to expand our system of national parks and national marine conservation areas and the action plan on ecological integrity, are the most ambitious initiatives to expand and protect national parks and national marine conservation areas in over 100 years, indeed, since Banff National Park of Canada, Canada's first, was established in 1885.

Parks Canada needs to get on with the job and Parliament has assigned the job to it. I urge all members, for the reasons I have attempted to articulate in my comments, to support the bill as a major step forward in outlining and saying to Canadians that the House, the government and all parties understand the responsibilities with respect to the stewardship of our natural and built environment, and that the bill is a step toward maintaining that accountability with all Canadians.

[Genome Canada, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last week members had the pleasure of witnessing a great achievement in Canadian R and D during an exhibit of genomics for MPs and senators right here in the Centre Block.

Let us consider these facts. In four years Canada has been able to reclaim world recognition and leadership in this exciting area of science with $375 million in federal government investment and more than $400 million in investments from the provinces, foreign agencies and the private sector.

Through Genome Canada, a non-profit foundation created by scientists in universities, government and industry, and inspired by the late Michael Smith, a Nobel laureate, today we can boast a cadre of more than 2,000 researchers and scientists from all regions of Canada. Of the scientists I have met, I was particularly impressed with many who have chosen to leave Sweden, the U.S. and France to join a research team in Canada because the climate for doing groundbreaking research in this field has become so attractive.

I, along with my parliamentary colleagues, congratulate Genome Canada for helping to make this country--

[Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as being in favour of the motion.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when the Auditor General reviewed, on two occasions since I have been in the House, the use of the employment insurance fund, the Auditor General's criticism was in two basic areas.

One was that there was not an exact accounting out of the fund for the reimbursement back into job training, skills development and related activities. It was an accounting aspect that the Auditor General was putting her finger on. The second thing as I recall was the charge that the government, as a result of that, was taking money and putting it into general revenues and then spending it on a variety of unrelated activities.

I may be wrong but it is my belief that the government is now acting with respect to the recommendations that were made. If the $45 billion had been accounted for according to accounting procedures in terms of what amount of that money actually went into employment development and to regional programs that would attempt to deal with regional employment issues, in fact it would have accounted for a great deal of that money.

To answer the other question with respect to reimbursing the fund, I think that what we want to do is get actual value in accounting terms for the money that is being taken in from employers and employees and accounting for that as we reinvest in Canadians. In fact that is the objective of the bill.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly congratulate the member on his interest and, in fact, his vision and foresight with respect to this issue. It was a huge opportunity lost if in 1998-99 the wherewithal did exist to look at the whole issue of foreign credentials and to take action which may have alleviated some of the skill shortages that we are suffering in key sectors.

The member's comments become even more graphic and profound when we think that between 2011 and 2016 immigration is expected to account for 100% of Canada's net labour force growth.

It is absolutely important that we maximize the credentials that immigrants bring to this country. We do not want them relegated to doing things they are not trained for and which are not self-fulfilling.

The 2003 budget also invested $40 million over five years to improve foreign credentials. There was another $5 million per year committed in the 2004 budget.

Through the foreign credentials program we are working to try and make up for actions that perhaps we should have taken and opportunities lost because we did not act in the past. We are acting now. We are meeting with territorial sector councils and with other partners to accelerate the integration of internationally trained professionals.

I think that is what all Canadians want us to do. Canadians want us to bring into the mainstream of professional and labour life those people with qualifications, such that they can add to the quality of life of all Canadians.