John Duncan

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill of stealth, dressed up as modernization. This bill gives the minister and thus the senior bureaucracy all the power they could ever possibly want to reward their friends and consolidate their strength and powers.

All this is coming from what is characterized as the most centralized, top heavy and arrogant bureaucracy in the federal government. It is amazing to me how the consolidation of powers in this bill can be characterized as modernization. Thank goodness I have not spent my life in academia to buy this logic hook, line and sinker like some Liberals in this place.

In 1995 DFO and the coast guard merged. And guess what? The DFO senior bureaucracy won the turf war which it was so well placed to win in the Ottawa trenches since its last priority was serving the public. British Columbians have seen the negative consequences to coast guard services on the west coast ever since.

There is one thing that I would like to state very clearly. There is nothing the government can do under the new fisheries act, Bill C-62, that it cannot already do under the existing act except extinguish the public right to fish. The central and deplorable change with respect to fisheries management is that the minister gains unfettered powers to do what currently requires the specific authorization of Parliament or cabinet. The power has become the intoxicating element of Canada's proposed fisheries act. For a minister and department that have singlehandedly mismanaged this resource so completely to be handed even more absolute power would be a derogation of the trust placed in us as parliamentarians.

Bill C-62 is further testimony to the government's inability to manage and allocate a resource and further testimony to the government's refusal to honour historic common law regarding the public right to fish.

Despite Supreme Court decisions to the contrary, this bill will also ensure the continuation of a native only commercial fishery. This legislation is contrary to any enlightened and cogent advice proffered by the fishing industry, unions, commercial and recre-

ational fishermen and anyone who knows anything about the industry.

All the bill really accomplishes is to give the minister complete discretion to enter into fisheries management agreements with any group. It is a recipe for a patchwork, piecemeal and divisive fisheries policy. How in the world could the minister allow his bureaucrats to once again snow him by holding him captive to his own ignorance and ego?

Bill C-62 gives the minister the power to end the public right to fish and replaces this time honoured tradition with private fishing agreements, or what the bill calls partnership agreements.

There is an expression in the banking business which goes something like this: "If you owe the bank $1,000 you are a debtor. If you owe it $1 million you are partner". With the omnipotent power Bill C-62 now gives to the minister I can see every good Liberal and financial contributor to the party becoming real partners with the minister and the government.

Ministerial fiats are dictatorial and an abuse of democracy. Can we see one town along the Fraser River in B.C. that votes Liberal becoming a partner and another town that does not becoming a debtor unable to strike a partnership agreement? This is outrageous power.

These fishing agreements would be similar to the aboriginal fishing agreements the government currently enters into with native bands. The native only commercial fishery was undermined by the Supreme Court's August 1996 R. v. Van der Peet, R. v. NTC Smokehouse Ltd. and R. v. Gladstone decisions. The court ruled against an aboriginal commercial right, saying they had no right to an exclusive fisheries. B.C. natives, to quote, "do not have a constitutional right to catch and sell fish commercially". Here we go again, more appealed decisions leading to Supreme Court rulings in order to bring the bureaucrats and their captive minister to their senses.

Bill C-62 expunges historic common law public right to fish in exchange for a privilege dependent on the discretion of the minister. This is pure and simple fiat perpetuated by this most centralized and arrogant bureaucracy and foisted upon a minister and he upon the public.

If this is not going far enough, Bill C-62 gives the minister absolute discretion to manage the fishery through ministerial decrees or what the bill describes as fisheries management orders. These orders would replace the regulations made by governor in council which are now used to govern the fishery. These fishing agreements and management orders are exempt from Canada Gazette publication and from its more rigorous regulatory requirements. It is sheer arrogance and purely meant to exempt the minister from the scrutiny of those who will most be affected.

Transparency and review are the hallmarks of our parliamentary system. If the Liberal government thinks the Reform Party will roll over and capitulate on this attempt to defraud Canadians of their rights, it is mistaken.

Do the minister and his bureaucrats truly believe that fiat and management through patronage will address the problems in the fishery?

Denial is a wonderful thing and it has become the hallmark of this government. According to it, there is no deficit, unemployment is not a problem, health care is secure and there is no crime. However, the undeniable truth is there are major problems in all these areas. If there is one area of endeavour where public confidence is weakest in terms of the ability of the federal government to properly manage it the fisheries.

On the east coast much of the fishery is closed due to the collapse of groundfish stocks. On the west coast the problems with the Alaskan catch of Canadian bound salmon are unresolved. Again on the west coast the salmon fishery, the key stock, is in disarray. There has been almost no non-native commercial fishery on the Fraser River for the past two years and now, should that ever change, Bill C-62 will ensure that good Liberals can be awarded with the catch.

Furthermore, the undeniable truth is that the government's native only commercial fishery is a mess. Our brilliant bureaucrats and the minister introduced a native only commercial fishery based on the expectation that the Supreme Court would hold that natives did have such a right. I guess that is why the Supreme Court judges and others working at fisheries and oceans regional headquarters in Vancouver do not yet work for the justice department.

As I mentioned earlier, the Van der Peet, NTC Smokehouse and Gladstone decisions highlight DFO's lack of authority to enter into exclusive fishing agreements with aboriginals. Now these same minds want to carry it a step further and enter into exclusive commercial fishing agreements with Liberal friends. Once again the legislation before us is an attempt to extinguish the public right to fish.

Bill C-62 may run nearly 100 pages. It need not have. There is a lot of verbiage intended to obfuscate the central element of the legislation. Specific to the management of fisheries, there is nothing the government can do under the new fisheries act that it cannot already do under the existing act, except extinguish the public right to fish.

With respect to partnership agreements, the minister has absolute discretion to enter into agreements which include provisions on allocation.

The response to Bill C-62 has been universal in condemnation. Fisheries unions fear that this power will be used to allocate fish stocks to large corporations. Recreational fishermen fear allocations to commercial interests. Commercial troll fishermen fear allocations to sports fishing lodges. Corporations fear allocations to inshore fishermen. Commercial fishermen fear allocations to native interests. It is an all around alienation of everyone in one fell swoop. What a statement of mismanagement and an undermining of a resource struggling to survive. The death knell may have finally rung.

Does the minister understand completely what the bill does? I doubt it. Does the senior bureaucracy understand completely? Undoubtedly.

Virtually all commercial and recreational fishing organizations in B.C. oppose the new act and wish to preserve the public right to fish. While commercial fishermen desire increased security of tenure, they feel that the loss of the public's right to fish in exchange for a privilege granted by the minister reduces their security and transfers too much power to the minister.

In the Atlantic provinces opposition appears to be growing for the same reasons.

Bill C-62 does not address the real problems in the fishery, for example, declining stocks, problems with Alaskan interception and the need for strict enforcement of conservation measures.

Bill C-62 is a desperate attempt to deal with the government's political problems, that is, what to do with the native only commercial fishery and the growing awareness that the present Fisheries Act does not give the minister the authority to enter into exclusive fishing agreements. There are some simple solutions to the problem. Clear criteria ought to be established for the transfer of fisheries management to the provinces. Fish tend not to notice political boundaries.

On the east coast chaos could result if one or all of the coastal provinces were to take over management of the coastal fishery. There is a need for comprehensive consultation, not abrogation, by granting the minister such discretion.

As well, clear criteria ought to be established for any transfer to the provinces of responsibilities for the protection of fish habitat. Provinces now regulate forestry, agricultural practices, urban development and waste. Why not fish habitat?

As usual the minister has chosen the easy route on this, but as usual it is ultimately the most divisive and destructive route. Bill C-62 expunges equal access to fishing and replaces it with granting fishing licences by political party membership. Bill C-62 replaces ownership of fish stocks by all Canadians to ownership by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The unilateral actions displayed in this bill and the lack of protection of the public interest coming from DFO are no surprise to people involved in coastal marine activities. I will quote myself on some recent coast guard initiatives that were promoted by the newly merged DFO bureaucracy.

On October 24 I said: "The hole's been patched but the ship's still sinking about the coast guard's reprieve for boats in Powell River, Campbell River and Ganges.

"While the coast guard is leaving the Mallard , Point Race and Skua where they are for the time being, nothing has changed because we have still not heard a clear vision from the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans about long term objectives. We still have a top-heavy bureaucracy in DFO in Ottawa and in the regions that does not appear responsive to maintaining a safe waterway on the west coast. Nor do they appear to be forthcoming in providing accurate and timely information about their intentions.

"The coast guard, in August, announced that bases in Powell River and Ganges would close, the vessels would be reassigned and the 70-foot Point Race , stationed in Campbell River, would be moved to Port Hardy. On Tuesday the coast guard announced that temporarily Powell River's Mallard , the Point Race and French Creek's Kestrel would remain at their current stations, along with the Skua in Ganges.

"What we want is a world class marine service that enables safe and efficient marine operations on Canada's coasts. This latest announcement by the coast guard does not deliver this assurance. The announced changes are a case of the bureaucracy trying to wait out and defuse the most vocal opposition.

"The fact that the coast guard did not even mention the issue of lightstations in its latest announcement shows that its plans to press ahead with its agenda using the `damn the torpedoes' approach. The fleet reduction plan is based on a complete focus on downsizing and does not address the delivery of a first class marine service.

"We have been offered a piecemeal solution that addresses some symptoms but does not get to the heart of the problem which is: Where is this new department headed and what is its vision for west coast marine services?

"It appears that DFO's bureaucrats have won the fight for control of the newly amalgamated department. DFO and the coast guard were asked independently about the time of their merger last year to offer spendings cuts. Both DFO and Canadian coast guard identified the same $30 million in spending cuts. These cuts were double counted and the coast guard component of the newly

merged department has borne this $30 million extra cutback from Treasury Board".

I am still quoting myself, just so the House understands the flow: "The U.S. has a clear coast guard objective which involves using people and technology to ensure their coastline has first class navigation and marine services. The Reform Party has addressed the whole issue of creating such an environment in Canada in its recently announced platform which calls for amalgamating coast guard into the Department of National Defence and providing more resources for fishery surveillance and coast guard activities.

"I urge everyone whose battle for the maintenance of services to keep up the fight. I fully credit the efforts of those who have pursued the issue tirelessly with having won this temporary reprieve which helps us for the time being in the lower coast. However, the immediate future for the north coast already looks dire with an already skimpy presence having been further diluted.

"The coastal communities and advisory groups and stakeholders must continue to press for rationalizing the huge bureaucracy in Ottawa and the regions and to press for world class marine services".

For all of those reasons I oppose Bill C-62.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad one of my colleagues was listening so closely to the way in which something may have been interpreted by someone reading Hansard .Yes, indeed, I fully concur with my colleague's statements that we are not talking about the calibre or qualifications of the member from the Liberal Party who has been nominated. We are talking about the issue of deputy speaker appointments.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, how do we separate ourselves in this Parliament from the democratic process and talk of ourselves in terms of the political process? I believe that my colleague's opening comment is probably the most appropriate. I believe that the Reformers in the House have a very different view of democracy than the other members in the House. Perhaps it is one of the main planks in our platform.

I have been constantly amazed at how some of our fundamental tenets, things that underpin us philosophically and resonate back home, are still denied by the old parties in the House. There is still a complete misunderstanding among many members in the House

as to what a free vote actually means to a Reform member of Parliament.

In terms of discipline, we heard my colleague talk about cracking the whip. We have a much different view of discipline as well. When it comes to the fundamental principles of democracy, I do think we are talking about what appears to be a small item here, when we are talking about deputy speakers. It is not a small item. I have talked and I am sure every one of my colleagues has talked about the behaviour of the Speaker or deputy speaker in various circumstances that have happened over the last three years in this House. Certainly not in your case, Mr. Speaker, but yes, there have been some concerns about individual decisions or postures or behaviours of various deputy speakers.

There are times in this House when there are not firm guidelines. There is free speech in this place and the deputy speaker does set the tone when the Speaker is not in the chair. It is of fundamental importance that the deputy speaker have all-party support in the House of Commons.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that could be done by committee. In the transition, I am sure some things which are now done by appointment would be laborious for a committee. However, once everyone recognized the ground rules, that all parties would have access to all information relating to those appointments, then I think it could be a very smooth process.

What could be better in terms of ensuring that blatant patronage is taken out of the appointment process than ensuring that all parties have a chance to blow the whistle on an individual if there is a problem? In the long run it would be in the interests of the government because it would lead to better appointments and it would also bring buy-in from all political persuasions in terms of who the appointed people were.

Therefore yes, I think democracy is hard work. We all know that. However, this is a major move forward in terms of responsive democracy if we could make the kind of changes that my colleague has suggested.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the reason this is all so important is that it is very important that the government meet its promises. It is an election promise which is still outstanding. We want the government to fulfil its promise.

In summary, I wish to endorse the idea put forward by the member for Calgary Centre that we have an election for the position of deputy speaker based on names put forward by the opposition generically.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, what is wrong with the House of Commons is very well displayed by what is going on in the debate today.

When we came to this place in 1993 over 200 members of Parliament were new. At that time we did something which all of us remember well. We were all on the list for potential Speakers of the House. In order not to be on the list of eligible Speakers we had to indicate so and our name would be taken off the list. It was open to any member from any party with any tenure.

The reality is for the most part the members with tenure in this place, members who had been here in previous Parliaments, were the most logical candidates to run for the position of Speaker of the House. Therefore it was only logical when the voting took place that we were voting for Liberal members.

It was a rather exciting evening in this place because the ballot went to three votes. There was a tie ballot after the second vote. It was a very exciting time. We made a choice and we have all lived with that choice. The Speaker who was selected that evening is the Speaker we still have today. We have all been very comfortable with the choice we made that evening.

Now we are discussing the appointment of a deputy chair. Why should deputy chairs be arrived at in any different form than the Speaker? That is the core of the question. If deputy chairs are strictly government appointments, then we are demeaning this place.

I would like to endorse the comments of the member for Calgary Centre. An appropriate vehicle in the current circumstances would be to have a nomination from the Bloc and a nomination from Reform. There is one vacancy. We could have an election. That would be consistent with the recommendation that was made. It would enhance the non-partisan nature of the Chair.

The British practice has been mentioned, which alternates the Chair positions between government and opposition. Thus, if the Speaker were from the government party, such as is the case now, then the deputy speaker would be from the opposition, the next officer would be from the government, and so forth.

The government knows that this debate is going on in the House today. I hope there is someone who is empowered to make a decision other than the nominee who was announced. It was assumed, from all signs, that his appointment would be immediately adopted by this House.

Who is making an issue out of this? The Reform members are. Why are we making an issue out of this? I have explained some of the background. Time after time in this House of Commons the Reform caucus has done its job. Reform has done its homework

and is representing the interests of Canadians. We are representing due process, or what we see due process should consist of.

We have heard time after time that we are the third party. Government members take great delight in calling us the third party. As an MP from British Columbia, I know what a struggle it is to represent all interests in this Parliament.

I believe in the last Parliament there were 43 or 44 members of the New Democratic Party in this House of Commons. I have talked to some of those members and I know what a difficult time they felt they had in this environment to get their message out. Under the circumstances Reform has done quite well in that regard. I make that point because an effective opposition in this place is very important.

There was a recommendation by an opposition member at the time in developing party policy which then became a government policy document. It was enlightened and would lead to one subtle movement toward creating a more non-partisan and better Parliament. We are seeing an attempt to cripple Reform and the opposition at every turn because the government feels threatened. This is quite inappropriate. There is a singular focus on Reform in this case because it is recognized as the only party that can replace the government.

Will the government accept the amendment the Reform Party has put forward today? I have a great concern that it will not. Why would I say that? Because the signs and symptoms are all there.

We have all had experiences at the committee level. I have been through elections and consistently I have seen that no Liberals have voted for adoption of a Reform vice-chair to any committee and all Liberals have supported vice-chairs from the Bloc.

In my last experience with an election in committee, at the time of the nomination of a Bloc vice-chair, I asked that the Bloc vice-chair explain his position on the northern Cree in Quebec should the PQ make a unilateral declaration of independence. That was a litmus test as to the suitability and appropriateness of whether or not that Bloc member should qualify as vice-chair. In response the Liberals said that it was irrelevant and voted against making it a debatable motion.

The government has shown on many occasions that it does not want to share and it does not want to consult. I endorse the idea put forward by the member for Calgary Centre that we have elections from the opposition. We will see how that stacks up for this deputy chair position, a non-partisan election, a free vote.

Why is it whenever the Liberals are held to debate on an issue, that if they know they cannot win based on the logic of the debate, they turn it into a procedural debate? That is what they did in committee when I brought forward a motion for debate about the northern Cree in Quebec. There was no attempt or any desire to upset the Bloc or to upset the Quebec agenda but rather than debate the issue, a procedural argument was brought in so that debate could be avoided.

If government members cannot turn it into a procedural debate, they turn it into a personality issue. We have seen that in the debate we are having today. Or they turn it into a partisan issue; we have seen that in the debate today; or fill in the blank. We just saw another fill in the blank which was to turn it into a medicare issue. I am puzzled as to how that relates to the election of a deputy speaker, but that is where we ended up in this debate.

Two-thirds of the members were new to this House in 1993. We have fallen a long way from that heady idealism of 1993. I would like to see us move forward. I would like to see this amended motion or some other compromise adopted, such as the one put forward by our member for Calgary Centre. We should not put ourselves in the position of entrenching that it will be done the way it was done before because that is the way it has always been done. That seems to be where the government is coming from at this moment.

If we look at western democracies, when Canada has a majority government it has every potential of having all the signs and symptoms of an elected dictatorship. We do not have the checks and balances of other western democracies. Looking to the south of us, the U.S. president is given a veto power. That is done for a reason. It is because they have a Congress and a Senate which act quite independently. They do not have the entrenched party discipline system we have seen from the old parties in Canada. It is a two-edged sword. In the United States, this has a tendency at times to handcuff the government but on the other hand, it makes the government more responsive.

What implication does it have for Canada? The major implication it has for Canada is that the party that forms the government has an even larger onus placed upon it to fulfil its election promises because we do not have all those other checks and balances. This was recognized very early by the Reform Party. It is why we set out such a detailed platform document prior to the last federal election.

I believe it was that document which led to the development of the red book by the current government. The Liberals had to have a platform to respond to our platform. We are seeing that all over again in the lead up to the 1997 federal election. Reform now has its fresh start platform. We are setting the agenda and we are going to see the Liberal Party once again do the same thing.

My point is, this is a singular contributing reason why it is so important that government-

[Nishg'A Agreement In Principle, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I recently made a submission to a B.C. standing committee with regard to the Nishg'a Agreement in Principle. It is holding public hearings throughout British Columbia.

Contrary to public expectations, these hearings are configured in such a way that no substantive change to the AIP can be achieved.

Last spring the federal government behaved as if it could be changed. Now it is clear that governments are acting as if it is a binding agreement. There is a sense of public disgust because they see no tolerance from governments to vary from their predetermined agenda. The only mandate of this committee is to determine what elements of the AIP are transferable to other B.C. treaty agreements.

All we have heard recently is a deafening silence from the federal minister as the province carries out this sham. It is time for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to honour his earlier commitment for meaningful public input and analysis into the Nisga'a deal.

[The Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that is an option but of course that adds complexity to the arrangement. One of the concerns that I have about a lot of the legislation is the way the parole boards operate, the way the courts operate and so on. We have so much complexity now into the system that there are too many avenues of things falling between chairs.

If you look at the Paul Butler case I was describing, I have only described the tip of the iceberg. What we had here was an incredible set of complex circumstances. When you talk to someone like Marjean Fichtenberg who has lived and breathed this case since the murder of her son, you hear descriptions of all of the rules, the guidelines, the terms of reference, the different bodies involved in terms of applying or trying to interpret policy, all the various ways things cannot happen that are supposed to happen. The more straightforward the legislation is, the less likely that is going to happen.

If it involves having to go back to court, the likelihood is that the authorities will not pursue it in many cases because there is once again an opportunity for too many things to happen. I think that is one way to respond to the question.

[The Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, before us today is Bill C-55. The purpose of the bill is to address those offenders who present a high risk of violently reoffending. As well, we have a new designation of long term offender with a provision of supervision for up to 10 years in the community. That is in addition to the sentence for the offence.

At the outset let me say that the Reform Party will not stand in the way of Bill C-55.

The bill is composed of three components: a new and expanded dangerous offender provision; a new long term offender provision; and a new judicial restraint clause.

The Reform Party supports adding a new definition to the Criminal Code which will deem any person who on two or more separate occasions commits an offence causing serious personal injury to be a dangerous offender and subject to an indeterminate period of imprisonment.

The new dangerous offender provision in Bill C-55 recognizes that the current process by which certain criminals are assigned dangerous offender status and therefore required to serve an indefinite penitentiary sentence is not sufficiently strong to protect Canadian communities against violent criminals. Therefore, Reformers applaud those new provisions in Bill C-55 which expand the criteria for designating violent criminals as dangerous offenders.

Who in the House could find fault in designating a person as a dangerous offender who has been sentenced for armed robbery,

unlawful confinement and shooting at a police officer and who, during a jail sentence, commits a further 40 offences including a stabbing?

Sadly, this was not the case when career criminal Paul Butler was granted day parole in September 1993 in Prince George and then went on to murder Dennis Fichtenberg, the son of a constituent of mine, Marjean Fichtenberg. Despite Mr. Butler's criminal record and an arrest weeks before the murder was committed, the parole board agreed that Mr. Butler posed no risk to society and was not dangerous. Tell that to Marjean Fichtenberg and her family who suffer their loss and whose only satisfaction has been some recommendations made by a coroner's request initiated last year by the attorney general for B.C.

The government had an opportunity in this new dangerous offender provision as contained in Bill C-55 to let the Marjean Fichtenbergs of this world know that she and her family, the victims, have rights too. However as usual, the proposed changes for designating certain criminals as dangerous offenders once again do not go far enough.

Specifically the proposed changes in Bill C-55 would allow the crown up to six months after conviction to bring about a dangerous offender application. Even under the proposed changes this provision would apply only if the crown gives notice at the time of conviction of the possibility of a delayed dangerous offender application and where relevant information also emerges to support the application.

What Reformers want, what the Marjean Fichtenbergs want, and what all level headed Canadians want is for dangerous offender findings to be made at any time after sentencing. To be precise, the crown should be given the right to seek dangerous offender status for persons convicted of crimes causing serious personal injury at any time during that offender's penitentiary sentence. Would 40 offences while in a correctional institution including a stabbing be good enough for the Minister of Justice?

Reformers also propose that Bill C-55 require the courts to automatically place a dangerous offender finding upon any person who commits on two or more separate occasions an offence constituting a serious personal injury offence. This proposal would also include that the dangerous offender be subject to an indeterminate period of imprisonment.

If we are going to begin to address the agony, loss and frustration of the type Marjean Fichtenberg and her family feel, our amendments are essential. We propose a further essential change to Bill C-55 and that is to expand the list of Criminal Code offences upon which a dangerous offender application may be brought about to include pedophiles and sexual predators.

A basic tenet of Reform policy is for violent offenders to serve their full sentence. Once released, some violent offenders and all

repeat offenders should be under parole supervision, and I do not mean unsupervised parole which was applied to Paul Butler and under which he committed murder.

My colleagues have spoken to the long term offender provision. It is incumbent that we broaden the range of offences committed to include sexual predators or pedophiles so that they cannot only be designated long term but can also be designated as dangerous offenders, because many of them are.

The judicial restraint provision proposed in clause 9 of the bill contributes a broad indiscriminate infringement of personal liberty which unduly violates the civil rights of individuals. The judicial remedies proposed in this clause should only be contemplated in matters where individuals have been convicted of offences under the Criminal Code and according to due process of law. We propose striking this clause in its totality.

On the one hand we do not go far enough in the dangerous offender clauses by excluding sexual predators or pedophiles. On the other hand we have the potential of allowing the attorney general to lay information against anyone he believes will commit a future offence, even though the individual may have been acquitted of any charge or never even charged with a criminal offence.

I will now turn to clause 15 of Bill C-55 concerning long term offenders, specifically the provision regarding aboriginal communities. Clause 15 allows that for long term offenders who express an interest in being supervised in an aboriginal community, the aboriginal community must first receive notice of the supervision and have the opportunity to propose a plan for the release and integration into the community.

In other words, aboriginal communities have the right to become involved in planning for the release of a high risk offender into their community and the right to become involved in the planning for that release. Other Canadians do not share this proposed right and consequently receive no such notice. We think they should. Why is the government doing the right thing for aboriginal communities and not for other Canadian communities?

The government should be uniting Canadians with a standard of behaviour. Canadian citizens everywhere deserve the same notice and planning provisions as those proposed for the aboriginal communities.

Besides all that, the minister of defence should resign.

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments about the speech of the previous speaker. First, we are going to talk about Prince Rupert. Our next speaker will do that.

Second, when it comes to the infrastructure program and the various dealings with the infrastructure program, as the member knows, that was a federal-provincial initiative. The provincial member who represents Prince Rupert also overlaps with my riding. The federal member for Skeena is not here today and so I feel some obligation to talk about how that infrastructure program works in British Columbia and about how there has been much co-operation with the provincial MLA in terms of expediting projects.

In my case my overlap is in the Bella Coola area. Indeed we have co-operated and we have created a good project with their waterworks program. I know that type of thing would be very possible with the influential member of the provincial legislature who is a cabinet member. This is not a unique thing that the member talks about and it is not foreign to the British Columbia members.

Third, the mayor of Port Edward and many of the other municipal politicians from that area of the province met in Penticton from September 19-20. They all have common concerns with Reform members of Parliament in British Columbia. We did

indeed have conversations and areas of common concern, many of which were brought up earlier today in addressing our motion.