Bryon Wilfert

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the member that as a former educator for 20 years particularly in the area of Canadian history, I share her concern and her passion with regard to saving Canadian heritage.

There is nothing more precious than to be able to show future generations the symbols of the history of this country. I want to point out to the member that over 25 years ago, in 1977 the Government of Canada responded to the need to protect Canada's heritage by introducing the Cultural Property Export and Import Act.

The act controls the export of nationally significant heritage objects, including medals. It encourages through tax incentives the sale and donation of such material to public collectors where they may be preserved and made accessible to present and future generations of Canadians.

It is important when cultural property is threatened with export to give the government the ability to aid the cultural institutions, if necessary, with grant funds to help them acquire these objects.

Each year the act is responsible for the sale and donation of important cultural objects worth more than $100 million in Canadian collections. Since its inception the act has ensured the retention or return to Canada of over 600 nationally significant objects and entire collections that otherwise would have been lost to Canadians.

It is through this extremely effective legislation that the government acted, as it has on countless other occasions, to ensure that Canada's heritage institutions were able to acquire a medal such as Corporal Topham's Victoria Cross.

It was the export permit process under the act which first alerted Canada's heritage community to the possible loss of the medal. It was the act that allowed the government to demonstrate to the medal's owners the tax advantages of selling it to a Canadian rather than a foreign collector.

The member clearly is concerned. I want to point out to the member that if something can be improved upon, it is incumbent upon all of us to look at that. However, I would not want the member to have the impression that the Government of Canada did nothing. That is why this act is in place.

If the member has a way that can be helpful obviously in strengthening it, I am not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but I certainly will advise both the minister and the parliamentary secretary, that we have this private member's bill.

Clearly the object is no different from what the member is saying and what we are saying, which is that we need to preserve and maintain Canadian historical memorabilia in this country.

The United States would not have sold Sir John A. Macdonald's bed, as happened many years ago. We need to keep these things. They are a part of what makes us Canadian.

I assure the member that the act is there. If there are ways to improve it, then I think we are obviously open to that. However, I would not want to give the impression that the Government of Canada in this case or any other case was in fact asleep at the wheel. Clearly we alerted the community and that was very important.

[Foreign Affairs, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that a member of the Conservative Party would rather do publicity stunts than engage in frank discussions with Chinese officials.

During the Prime Minister's trip to China there were two occasions where I raised the issue of governance and human rights: at a meeting of the Chinese Communist party international and with representatives of the Canada-China Legislative Association. Had the member attended, he would have had an opportunity to address his concerns. It is clearly impossible to do that when one does not attend.

The death announcement of Zhao Ziyang was controlled by Chinese government officials, but trying to make cheap political points is not the way to advance the issues of human rights and democracy. If the member were truly interested in paying his respects, why the media entourage? Death for the Chinese is a private affair.

The actions of the member will not advance the issues he claims to be concerned about. The Prime Minister directly raised these issues as did other parliamentarians. The member clearly is not interested. It is about time he came clean on what he did in China, which was very little.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I address Bill C-15, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Although I am pleased to address the important provisions of the proposal before us, it is also an honour to address the recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development following its careful deliberations on the bill.

The bill received strong support from the committee. In essence, what is before us are measures that not only make substantial improvements to the environmental legislative regime in Canada, but they also enhance the competitiveness of our economy, improve the general well-being of Canadians and better protect our nation's rich natural heritage. In other words, the bill supports our vision for the environment.

I would like to also recognize the fine work of several members of this chamber. The member for Victoria, when he was the minister of the environment, introduced a version of this proposal in May of this year. It was his clear guidance and direction that were instrumental in getting us here today. We must also recognize it was the members of Parliament, particularly from Atlantic Canada, who worked so hard to address the tragic situation that occurs so unnecessarily every winter on the seas off our coastline. They did the hard work and we now have before us a viable bill that will make a difference .

When the current Minister of the Environment appeared before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, he emphasized the importance he attaches to the conservation and the protection of Canada's migratory birds and the protection of the marine environment. The committee clearly supported these principles as well.

It is gratifying to see that the conservation and protection of migratory birds are so strongly held. As a result, there was constructive and focused discussion in the committee. I commend our colleagues for their fine work. This is the spirit of collaboration on which we can build a sustainable society, one that values nature and remains competitive. In that spirit, I would like to elaborate on some key points.

The bill will accomplish several important things as we move toward more effective enforcement in our marine waters of the amended Migratory Birds Conservation Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. First and foremost, it addresses a serious problem that affects us all: the loss each year of hundreds of thousands of seabirds that die a slow and painful death from cold and starvation because of oil discharged illegally by ships in our waters.

Our scientists say that a conservative estimate is that 300,000 seabirds are killed every winter: thick-billed murres, common murres, Atlantic puffins, herring gulls, great black-backed gulls, common eiders, and many others. We know these birds are also dying off the Pacific coast, but we do not have reliable or accurate estimates of numbers because the winds and currents bring few birds to shore. We do know oil is being dumped at sea there as well, in areas where many seabirds are concentrated.

The oil gets into the plumage of the birds and decreases their insulation, their waterproofing and buoyancy. This is why they starve and freeze to death. A few hundred thousand deaths each year, out of the millions that feed in the waters every winter, why is there so much concern?

Let me use the thick-billed murre as an example. Oiling is the most important known human induced stress on the population numbers of these birds. The models show us that the potential growth rate in the population of this species is reduced to 1% per year because of oil dumping. We also know that climate variability and other factors can and do shift the population balance to the negative side in many years. This means that with ongoing oil pollution, there is no buffer against any threats to these birds, so their overall populations can be reduced.

In order to understand what Bill C-15 does to address this problem, allow me to explain some key points about the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and the migratory birds convention, the international agreement which the act itself implements. These instruments go back to 1916 and 1917 to a treaty with the United States to stop indiscriminate killing of migratory birds and ensure their future.

The migratory birds convention in fact is held up as one of the best examples in the world of an international strategy to protect nature. It is an example that has been followed time and again, as in the case of the international convention on biodiversity, or the North American bird conservation initiative among Mexico, the United States and Canada, just to cite a few examples.

Because the birds travel among jurisdictions, their management is frequently accomplished in treaties and implemented primarily by federal levels of government. These birds are sentinels and flagships of conservation efforts that reach all kinds of biodiversity. Birds fly and so they can react quickly to ecosystem changes. Birds are also highly visible and they can be counted with greater accuracy than can many other species.

This also applies to seabirds in marine environments. The birds protected by Bill C-15 are excellent indicators. For example, seabird eggs have been used to assess contaminant levels in the Arctic monitoring and assessment program and the Great Lakes monitoring program.

We shall look after the conservation of birds, confident that this approach will have much wider benefits. If we can make sure that the bird population continues to survive and prosper, then in a large measure we can be confident that the environments in which they live remain healthy for a wide range of life.

With that in mind, allow me to address some of what the committee had to say about Bill C-15. The committee put forward an amendment that would include a minimum fine for illegal pollution by the largest ships. I am happy to support this proposed amendment. It restricts the application of the minimum fine only to the larger ships, those over 5,000 tonnes. It would leave intact the flexibility for the courts to use the sentencing options in the amended Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 in the majority of cases brought under this legislation.

At the same time as amended, the bill will certainly send a strong message, one that should be heard loudly and clearly by the few in the international shipping industry that continue to view Canada's waters as fair game for the illegal discharge of their oily waste. The committee's proposed amendment shows that Canadians will not stand for a continued illegal discharge of oil into our marine environment and they want the illegal polluters to pay heavily.

The amendment sends a strong message that Canadians want the polluters to be subject to fines that are large enough to deter them from similar or repeated illegal actions. The amounts proposed by the committee's amendment ensure that these fines represent much more than just what some might consider the cost of doing business.

Much as I support this amendment, I would like to propose a further refinement. The committee's amendment establishes minimum fines for ships over 5,000 tonnes. As it stands now, fines are paid to the Receiver General and go directly into the consolidated revenue fund. There is no option to direct the fines to programs for environmental remediation or restoration.

This further amendment goes against some of the changes to the sentencing considerations and options now in the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and proposed in Bill C-15. There the court has the option to fine an offender a nominal amount and then make an order directing the offender to pay the bulk of the penalty into a program of environmental damage assessment or restoration.

My proposal maintains the spirit of the committee's amendment. It is drafted to ensure that fines received by the Receiver General for an offence that is committed under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 be directed to the environmental damages fund. This is an existing fund that was established in 1995 for the purpose of supporting environmental restoration. I hope that members will see the merit in this amendment.

I would also like to address some of the concerns that have been expressed by stakeholders in the shipping industry. I believe that some of their concerns result from a misunderstanding of certain aspects of the bill. I have two points to make.

The Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 1999 already apply to the discharge of oil into Canada's territorial seas. These two laws deal with the protection of natural resources. They apply in Canada's 200 mile exclusive economic zone.

The question is not whether to apply them because they do. The difficulty lies in whether the existing act has the necessary authority to effectively enforce these acts in the 200 mile exclusive economic zone. Bill C-15 enforces that gap. It is very important.

Again, I would like to commend the committee for its fine work. These measures are good for Canadians and for our economy. They are good for preserving our rich natural heritage and the migratory birds that are such an important part of the heritage.

I would hope that the House would accept the committee's report and its amendments to Bill C-15. Further, I would request the House to consider the additional amendment that I have proposed.

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House we should extend our sympathies to his wife. He obviously knows how to show a girl a good time. Notwithstanding that, if I took the member at his word, I would say let us call for unanimous consent on the bill. If he would like to get this through, I would be more than happy to do that. I agree that it is a housekeeping bill. We will be bringing forward more substantial legislation with the help of my colleague across the way.

My colleague across the way raises an interesting issue in which I have had many years of involvement. That is on the issue of incineration, district energy. I probably have visited many of those same places that the hon. member has. I brought my wife actually as well, but I did not bill it as a holiday. I want members to know that it was a working session with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. If a person is going to do that, then at least it should be billed properly and say that it is a working activity, rather than a holiday with some meetings.

The member brings up an important issue. The provinces obviously deal with this issue of incineration. When we deal with the district energy field, is very important that we include CO

2

emissions, using any kind of biomass, whether it is wood chips or garbage as in Uppsala, Sweden where garbage is made into ingots to heat homes. In Denmark heating and cooling homes is through district energy.

This is very important, and I would hope that the member might support a change to class 43.1, which at the moment discriminates against district energy in the sense that it is a very expensive project upfront. The money that is saved five and seven years down the road is very important, and that pays for itself. However, it is the initial pipes, et cetera.

First, could the member comment on class 43.1? What might his party do to assist that, again in dealing with CO

2

emissions?

Second, on the issue of incineration generally, what role does he see the federal government playing in that? I would again concur with this member. I would rather see state of the art incineration as in Europe today. He probably saw that in Denmark and Sweden. How can we assist or do we have a role in this, so we do not use 600 acres of valuable farmland for dumps?

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if things were as easy as the member said there would be no problem.

The Government of Canada administers 150 national historic sites and the provinces and municipalities administer thousands of others.

The member might want to talk to his own provincial government about the need for real teeth in terms of heritage acts in this country. For example, in the province of Ontario, within 180 days of a developer purchasing a site with an historic property on it, that property will be demolished. This is a federal, provincial, and municipal responsibility.

In terms of what needs to be done, that is why we are having federal, provincial and municipal orders of government provide us with a registrant of those sites on the registry. We hope to eventually have 20,000 on there because it is important.

There is no alternative. The only alternative is to preserve it. I do not accept demolition or decay as options. Now that we have the political will, which the member talked about, and we obviously have it federally, provincially and municipally, we now have the tools to act responsibly in the public good.

This is good public policy. I expect all members will support the legislation as we move forward.

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 24th, 2004]

The member says shame. The shame would be if I stood up and said I would not entertain it. The member cannot have it both ways. If he is serious about this issue, which I assume he is, then he will have the decency to put it in writing and give it to me, and I will take it under advisement and get back to him with an appropriate answer. If he does not like the answer then he can bring it back.

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am at the pleasure of the Chair and I am restricted to 20 minutes, therefore I did not comment and the bill does not deal with each individual site in the country. If I could have done that, I would have been more than happy to. Unfortunately, I am bound by the rules of the House.

Since I have not heard this issue before, if the member would like to put it in writing to me so that I have all of the details, I assure him that I will bring this to the attention of the proper individuals and that we will get a response back to him in the most timely fashion.

Being a former municipal politician I can understand some of the issues that the member has raised but I would think that is not an issue that I can discuss in any detail on the floor of the House--

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first I will point out that the registry is an amazing initiative in that we have collaboration and support from all provincial and territorial governments.

Second, I will be looking forward to the member and other members in the House supporting additional funds for this initiative. Initially it will be around $40 million. However, now that we have this registry in place, there is no question that we need to ensure it continues. In fact, technically it will end at the end of March next year.

Therefore we need the support of all members to ensure this continues because not only is it a good example of federal, provincial and territorial cooperation, but it is in fact essential. I never want to get up again and have to say that we have lost more historic buildings and sites in this country. It is my personal view that it is a national disgrace that we have lost 20% since the 1970s. This type of registry program is in existence in the United States, France, Great Britain and Australia. Therefore, it is essential that we support it financially and otherwise.

In terms of commercial properties, in this case the hon. member's point is well taken. Essentially what we are looking at is providing commercial owners who purchase an historic property with the many opportunities, avenues and assistance needed to maybe open a restaurant, a store, or a community centre, something of value, rather than tearing down an historic building and having it go to landfill. The building could be restored to its historic glory in terms of customizing, which means going back to the nature of the doors, the windows and the soffits. Anything to do with these buildings will be taken care of. That is why the registry is important. That is why information in the most minute detail is there.

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to rise on third reading of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

This bill would give legislative effect to the government's reorganization that was announced on December 12, 2003, as it affects Parks Canada, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of the Environment.

The bill would update existing legislation to reflect two orders in council that came into effect in December 2003 and July 2004. They transferred control and supervision of the Parks Canada Agency from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Minister of the Environment.

The bill would also clarify that Parks Canada would be responsible for historic places in Canada, and for the design and implementation of programs that relate to built heritage.

The legislation would be primarily technical in nature. It would update the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act. It would also amend the statutes that enable Parks Canada to deliver its mandate; notably, the Canada National Parks Act, the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Canada Shipping Act, and the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act.

Canada's national parks, national historic sites and national marine conservation areas represent the soul of Canada. They are a central part of who we are and what we are. They are places of magic, wonder and heritage. Each tells its own story. Together, they connect Canadians to our roots, to our future and to each other. Responsibilities for safeguarding and celebrating heritage would continue to be shared among departments and agencies across government.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage would retain a key leadership role and overall responsibility for cultural heritage and would continue to work closely with the Minister of the Environment and with other ministers to keep common objectives with heritage.

I would like to assure the House that Parks Canada's organizational integrity would be maintained. Parks Canada would remain committed to working with Canadians to protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage for present and future generations. This is fitting given the important linkages between the environment, heritage and sustainable development.

I would like to clarify again that the Prime Minister has the continuing ability to decide on which minister has the responsibility for departments and agencies, and to transfer organizations to another minister's responsibility in order to meet objectives.

Parliament has given government the ability to transfer portions of the public service and ministerial powers, duties and functions from one part of the public service or from one minister to another. This would not give the governor in council the power to expand and alter the powers of either ministers or departments. Parliaments plays an important role in this regard.

The power granted to the government gives us necessary flexibility to reorganize the institutions of government to address government priorities and public needs. It is in keeping with the Prime Minister's responsibility to assign ministers portfolios, establish their mandates in keeping with existing legislation, and identify priorities for their portfolios.

The Minister of the Environment has been responsible for the Parks Canada Agency since December 12, 2003.

While the amendments simply reflect the current reality, the government must defend the principle regarding the Prime Minister's ability to make organizational changes. Therefore, we do not support the amendments.

I would like to take a few moments to talk about the built heritage aspects of Parks Canada's mandate. Built heritage includes sites, buildings and monuments recognized for their historic value. These include battlefields, forts and citadels, shipwrecks, archeological sites, cultural landscapes, bridges, houses, cemeteries, railway stations, historic districts, ruins, engineering marvels, schools, canals, courthouses, theatres and markets.

Responsibility for built heritage is managed through a number of programs, including national historic sites, federal heritage buildings, heritage railway stations, and federal archeological heritage shipwrecks in the historic place initiative. These activities are of interest to all parliamentarians and to Canadians in general.

Through the Parks Canada Agency, the Minister of the Environment has responsibilities in three key areas: the management of Parks Canada's built heritage, federal government leadership in programs relating to built heritage, and a Canada-wide leadership role in built heritage.

Hon. members are probably most familiar with the first of these areas, Parks Canada's role in the stewardship of historic places. Parks Canada leads the national program of historic commemoration which identifies places, persons and events of national historic significance. The program aims to celebrate Canada's history and protect associated sites.

Parks Canada administers about one in six of the more than 900 national historic sites which speaks to the diverse and rich history of Canada. Parks Canada's stewardship role with respect to these places, and their historic values and resources is similar to a stewardship role with respect to national parks.

Federal government programs relating to built heritage is the minister's second key area of responsibility. Through its leadership in the federal heritage buildings program, Parks Canada works with departments to protect the heritage character of buildings, while the property is within federal jurisdiction.

The Auditor General has indicated that problems similar to those for national historic sites administered by Parks Canada exist for national historic sites and federal heritage buildings administered by other federal departments. The government is considering ways to respond to the Auditor General's concerns over weak conservation standards and accountability requirements, as well as the recommendation to strengthen the legal framework to protect built heritage. For many years Canada has lagged behind other G-8 nations and its own provincial and territorial governments in the protection of historic places.

The minister's third area of responsibility is to provide Canada-wide leadership in built heritage. Only a portion of the historic places in Canada are owned by the federal government. Cooperation with others is critical. This requires participation by individuals, corporations and other governments across Canada.

Year after year, decade after decade, more and more historic places are being lost. Remaining heritage buildings and structures, cultural landscapes and archeological sites continue to be threatened. Recognizing the need to deepen its resolve to protect built heritage, the Government of Canada has responded with the launch of the historic places initiative, the most significant conservation effort related to historic sites in our national history.

The historic places initiative is based on the acknowledgment that government alone cannot save all buildings and other historic places. The keystone of the initiative is a broad, national coalition with the provinces, territories, municipal governments, coupled with equally valuable cooperation involving aboriginal peoples, heritage experts and a comprehensive number of institutions, organizations, communities and individuals.

In the field of heritage, we are truly in an area of policy interdependence. The goals of the initiative are to create a culture of heritage conservation in this country by providing Canadians with basic tools to preserve and celebrate historic places, and by protecting historic places under federal jurisdiction. Strategies focus on helping Canadians build a culture of conservation.

The protection of Canada's built heritage is not only about saving what is meaningful from the past. It is also about sustaining strong communities for today and tomorrow. Rehabilitation of existing buildings capitalizes on the energy invested in the original structures and prevents unnecessary use of new materials and energy.

Less demolition means reduced pressure on landfill sites and the revitalization of historic downtown areas. It increases the need for new civic infrastructure, such as roads, sewers and public transit. By contributing to such sustainable communities, public policy truly makes a difference in people's lives.

Consensus has emerged on the role that Canada and Canadians want for historic places in our lives in our communities. One of the common goals is the need to provide all Canadians with the practical information and tools they need to protect historic areas.

The launch in 2004 of the Canadian registry of historic places is a product of that collaboration. It is probably one of the most important initiatives that we have seen in this country in terms of the preservation and the celebration of history. For the first time in one place Canadians will have a registry of the buildings and the sites that are recognized as historic by any order of government in the country.

It is anticipated that the registry will contain approximately 20,000 historic places when it is fully populated. The registry will be an important tool for policy makers, community organizations, teachers, students, and families who want to learn about and help preserve the past.

As a former educator, one who taught Canadian history for 20 years, I can say that this is a significant breakthrough, not only a significant breakthrough in terms of establishing this registry, but because we now have a joint commitment by all orders of government. This is an example of good federal-provincial-territorial cooperation.

The standards and the guidelines provide clear and accessible guidance on good conservation practices. This document was developed in consultation with federal, provincial, territorial, municipal and non-governmental stakeholders. There will be a common benchmark for conservation principles and practices in Canada.

It has already been adopted by Parks Canada and by several provincial and municipal jurisdictions. The standards and guidelines are a model of promoting a new approach to the science and technology of building conservation, and promoting and circulating the information broadly for the benefit of all Canadians.

Parks Canada is also implementing the commercial heritage properties incentive fund, a new program announced in 2003 to engage the private sector in the conservation of historic buildings. This fund is a four year $30 million plan designed to tip the balance in favour of conservation over demolition. It provides financial incentives to eligible commercial historic places listed on the registry in order to encourage a broad range of commercial uses for historic properties within our communities.

Fiscal measures like this program are central to engaging others to achieve the government's goal for built heritage. Historic places connect us to our past, to our future and indeed to each other. They provide places of learning for our children and places of understanding for both new citizens and Canadians of long standing.

What we cherish as part of our national identity we also recognize is part of our national responsibility. All Canadians share the obligation to preserve and to protect Canada's unique culture and national heritage. Together we hold our national parks, national historic sites and national marine conservation areas in trust for the benefit of this and future generations.

With this new reporting arrangement, through the Minister of the Environment, it will clearly define responsibilities for built heritage programs. Parks Canada will continue to work to safeguard Canada's built heritage, support the protection of historic places within federal jurisdiction, and engage Canadians broadly in preserving and celebrating our country's historic places. It will continue to play a similar role in the protection of Canada's heritage sites for which it is so well respected by Canadians and indeed admired internationally.

I respectively encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the House to support Bill C-7. The bill again has technical amendments to move the Parks Canada Agency from Heritage Canada to Environment Canada.

However, the work that we are doing collectively to ensure that not one more historic site is lost is extremely important. We have lost 20% of our historic sites since the 1970s. Therefore this agreement on the registry is very important and the work that we do and the support that we give Parks Canada, both emotionally and financially, will be important for generations to come.

Again I urge all members to support the legislation.

[2004 Grey Cup, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as a 22-year season ticket holder with the Toronto Argonauts, I want to pay tribute to the team of destiny.

The Canadian Football League is our game. With distinctive Canadian rules, it is excitement personified. Since Lord Grey first presented the prize for supremacy in Canadian football 92 years ago, we have seen this game played in snow, rain, fog, sub-zero weather and every other element imaginable.

Today I would like to congratulate Mike “Pinball” Clemons and the entire Argo team. Many thought this team would not even make the playoffs. It was an injury-plagued team, with a quarterback, Damon Allen, who was considered by some to be past his prime.

Yet Damon Allen won most valuable player of the game. He represents Canadian football. He is determined, gritty and a tremendous tactician of the game.

Canadians have rediscovered what many of us already know. There is no game like it. Give me the CFL any day, a league in which we can still afford to take our family to a game without having to take our bank manager. Thanks to Toronto for a tremendous year. Argos!