Mauril Bélanger

[Journalist Michel Auger, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, journalist Michel Auger of the Journal de Montréal and the Journal de Québec was attacked last Thursday. Immediately expressions of sympathy poured out across Canada in reaction to the horror of this attempted murder of an honest worker concerned with keeping the public properly informed.

Michel Auger was the victim of an act that makes no sense in a democratic society where the public has a right to information, where law prevails in fact.

My remarks are directed primarily at Mr. Auger to let him know of our support and our hope for his speedy recovery.

We wish you a quick recovery, Mr. Auger, in the assurance that you will be able to return to the job that you love and do with such love, professionalism and diligence.

The Canadian public hopes you may recover your health quickly. Your colleagues have continued to express their support for you since the attempt took place. You must no doubt find this very moving.

In our own way, we in parliament offer the same support. We wish you back among us very soon.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 13th, 2000]

Not bad. The member can say that with a straight face, but the member beside him cannot listen to it with a straight face.

[Canada National Parks Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record.

In one of the comments the member for Wild Rose made he said that there were no amendments accepted to the bill from any of the opposition parties. The exact opposite is true. There were amendments made to the bill by every single opposition party. Those amendments were made as a result of listening to all who wished to be heard at the committee, including rank and file employees of the parks agency and everyone else who wanted to be heard, from Banff and Jasper, from the aboriginal communities, from Mingan and from all the environmental groups.

Every single opposition party in the House put amendments forward and every single party had some of its amendments accepted by the committee, including the Canadian Alliance members at report stage, because they would not put them forward at the committee stage, with all due respect to my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River.

I want to correct the record on what the member for Wild Rose said. It is the opposite which is true.

[Canada National Parks Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as we begin the debate at third reading stage of Bill C-27, I would once again like to thank my colleagues from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for their work on this bill, an act respecting the national parks of Canada.

The debates on this bill were marked by a spirit of co-operation that helped strengthen and improve it.

I would like to review the main features of Bill C-27 and mention the amendments made by the standing committee.

The first point concerns ecological integrity. The panel on the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks clearly indicated that “we must firmly and unequivocally establish that ecological integrity is the core value of Parks Canada's mandate”.

The chair of the panel and other witnesses, including the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Canadian Nature Federation, reaffirmed that position before the standing committee.

Bill C-27 was strengthened in a number of ways: by including a definition of ecological integrity based on the panel's report; by making ecological integrity the top priority, not only as regards the zoning of parks and their use by visitors, but also all the aspects of their management; by specifying that management plans must include a long term ecological vision, a set of ecological integrity objectives and indicators and provisions for resource protection and restoration, zoning, visitor use, public awareness and performance evaluation; and, finally, by requiring that, within one year following the tabling of a new or amended management plan for a park, a wilderness area be designated.

The second point was the establishment of new parks. With this legislation seven new national parks and one new national park reserve will be formally established. As well, Middle Island will be added to the Point Pelee National Park.

The procedure for establishing new parks and park reserves has been streamlined by providing for an order in council process. It will take less time to formally establish new parks once park establishment agreements have been signed.

The examination in parliament of proposals on new protected spaces will be maintained, and an amendment to the act will still be needed to withdraw lands from a park.

In view of concerns about the new process for the establishment of parks, Bill C-27 has been amended as follows:

For every proposal on a new park or park reserve tabled in Parliament, there will be a report detailing the consultations held and any agreement on the establishment of the park, so that Parliament will be able to assess the amount of support the park or park reserve is getting.

Members of the citizens' committee of Havre-Saint-Pierre and Longue-Pointe-de-Mingan, and of the hunting and fishing association have appeared before the standing committee to ask that their traditional rights be recognized in the Mingan archipelago national park reserve. The committee has seen fit to add this reserve to the list of parks where the traditional harvesting of resources will be allowed.

The next point is controlling commercial development in park communities. There are seven communities contained in national parks, all in western Canada: Banff, Lake Louise, Field, Jasper, Waterton Lakes, Waskesiu and Wasagaming. I apologize if I am mispronouncing any of these names and further names that will come in my text. These communities have been the focus of extensive commercial, residential and visitor pressures.

The Banff-Bow Valley study of 1996 made many recommendations to protect the ecological integrity of Banff National Park and to strengthen controls over commercial development and human use in parks.

The new act takes steps to control commercial developments in park communities. Community plans will be tabled in parliament. The legislation makes provision to set the boundaries of the communities, the boundaries of commercial zones, and to cap the maximum square footage of commercial developments. These elements of the community plans will be placed in the schedule of the act and can only be changed by an act of parliament.

Concerns were raised by park community representatives during the hearings on Bill C-27 and the standing committee has responded. Regarding concerns with respect to termination of leases, the bill has been amended to state that the Expropriation Act applies.

Community plan has been defined to mean a land use plan for a park community. This new definition serves two purposes. First, it ensures that there will be no confusion between the use of the term community plan in this legislation and how that term is used in Alberta legislation. Second, it signals to park community residents that there is no impediment to their undertaking their own planning for social, educational, health and related needs of the community.

The section on public consultation now makes explicit reference to representatives of park communities and requires that the minister consult on land use planning and development in such park communities.

The next point has to do with the protection of wildlife and other park resources. Bill C-27 contains increased penalties for poaching. The maximum fine for poaching protected species has been increased to $50,000. The maximum jail sentence for poaching has been increased from six months to five years. The offence of trafficking has been introduced to deal with the increasing trend towards removing large quantities of animal or other resources, such as fossils and rare plants.

Amendments to the bill further strengthen wildlife protection by increasing fines for poaching or trafficking involving protected species to $250,000, which is consistent with recent legislative proposals concerning threatened species, and by increasing fines and penalties for failure to clean up environmental damage from $2,000 to $50,000, including a clause which doubles the fines in the case of repeat offences.

The next point is working with first nations. The Government of Canada, as we all know, is committed to working with first nations as set out in the “Gathering Strength” document.

Bill C-27 reflects this commitment in a number of ways. Five national parks are being established through agreements with first nations. I repeat my previous apology on mispronunciation. These are Aulavik, Wapusk, Auyuittuq, Sirmilik and Quttinirpaaq. Second, provision is made for use of parklands and the use or removal of flora and other objects by aboriginal people for spiritual and traditional ceremonial purposes. Provisions are made in the bill to remove lands from Wood Buffalo and Wapusk to accommodate treaty land entitlement.

The standing committee heard from representatives of the Assembly of First Nations, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Keeseekoowenin Band. They had two primary concerns that they wished to see dealt with in the legislation: first, respect for aboriginal and treaty rights and, second, consultation with aboriginal peoples.

The standing committee introduced amendments to Bill C-27 in response to these concerns. These include a non-derogation clause with regard to aboriginal and treaty rights; strengthening the commitment to consult with aboriginal organizations and bodies established under land claim agreements on policy, park establishment, management planning and regulations; including aboriginal organizations and bodies established under land claim agreements in the minister's agreement making authority; and provision to remove lands from Riding Mountain National Park for the purposes of settling the claim of the Keeseekoowenin Band.

In conclusion, the throne speech included a promise from the government to extend our system of national parks.

In 1997, the government undertook to create a commission of experts to look into the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks. This commission has now tabled its report and the Minister of Canadian Heritage has announced an action plan. A key feature of this plan is to place ecological integrity at the heart of legislation and policies.

Bill C-27 respects these undertakings and will become a heritage for future generations of Canadians.

[Canada National Parks Act, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues from all parties who are members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for the excellent work they have done.

I believe that we had a good discussion on Bill C-27. We heard many witnesses and, on the whole—I suppose that everyone is not satisfied in terms of the measures they wanted—the committee met the concerns expressed during the hearings.

For example, for the aboriginals, we included a notwithstanding clause and made other amendments in reply to certain concerns that were expressed. We did the same thing for ecological integrity. Each opposition party wanted a definition of this concept. The government suggested one, which was amended and which obtained the unanimous assent of committee. The same thing happened in terms of the concerns expressed by the communities living in the parks.

We tried, in clauses 10 and 12, to partly follow their recommendations, by ensuring that they will be consulted and that the minister can conclude agreements with a variety of groups, including business interests, among others.

I believe we really met the concerns of those who made that presentation. For the benefit of my colleague from Portneuf, I must make a small correction concerning the Mingan Archipelago.

This is not a big deal, but I want to mention that the reason the government fully endorsed and followed through with the proposals of this community is mainly the quality of the delegation we received and of its presentation. The members of the delegation were very warm in the way they convinced us of the legitimacy of their proposals. I believe they convinced everybody.

True enough, their MP made representations, but the quality of this group had a lot to do with the government's decision. I wanted to make sure the people from Mingan knew that it is in great part due to their work that they will be satisfied if the bill is passed. I do not want to guess what the House will decide. I wanted to make sure they knew it.

Finally, I want to mention that in the first group we will support Amendment No. 4, but none of the others. Again, overall, the concerns raised by the opposition parties and by the groups that appeared before the committee were listened to. We amended the bill to reflect them in a positive way.

[National Arts Centre, June 9th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, during its last appearance before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, National Arts Centre management volunteered to table a summary of its business plan and operating and capital expenditure budgets for 1999 to 2002.

On behalf of the National Arts Centre, I am tabling that document today.

[Canada Day, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, my hon. colleague does not listen to the news. Yesterday, the National Capital Commission announced its plans to celebrate Canada Day here, in Ottawa, on July 1.

I invite every Canadian, from every province and territory, who can join us to come here on July 1 to celebrate with us the birthday of the greatest country in the world.

[Canada Day, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we no longer need a calendar to know when Canada Day is. Since the Bloc Quebecois has been in the House, every year it is the same old story, questioning the fact that Canadians in every province of this country want to celebrate their belonging to this country.

This is what we do, and we will keep on doing it with pride.

[Canadian Economy, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention the economic news that we received this morning. Today's economic update speaks volumes about the merits of the federal government's policies.

Since this government took office, in 1993, over two million jobs have been created in Canada. This is proof that the economy is thriving.

According to the figures released by Statistics Canada this morning, the unemployment rate is at its lowest in over two decades, at 6.5%, which is two tenths of a point lower than in May. This is very good news.

It shows that the policies to promote investments and the pursuit of sound management are working well, with the result that we have a strong economy right across the country.

I would be remiss if I did not mention in particular the unemployment rate in Ottawa's national capital region, which is at 5.1%. Such a rate should give hope to all those who are looking for work. Jobs are being created. Let us not lose hope.

[Samuel De Champlain Day Act, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is often said that Canada is a young nation. But our heritage and our development as a society can also be measured by criteria that go back much further than our 133 years of official existence as a country.

Indeed our ability to truly understand and appreciate who we are is enhanced when viewed in a much broader context.

The Canada of today has been shaped by events and people whose importance and contributions we must not allow to be forgotten or diminished by the passage of time.

So let us take a brief look at this important explorer. For over 40 years of his life, between the time of his first visit to Canada in 1603 and his death on Christmas Day, in 1635, in the settlement at Quebec, Samuel de Champlain devoted himself to building what would become a strong and vibrant French colony in North America.

Samuel de Champlain's courage and perseverance in pursuing his dream left a legacy that we should preserve and celebrate. That is the underlying purpose of the bill before the House today.

Bill C-428, an act establishing Samuel de Champlain Day, calls on the government to pay tribute to this great Canadian explorer each year on June 26, beginning in 2004.

According to some, this date is an extremely important one in our nation's history because it is recognized, at least by some historians, as the 400th anniversary of the establishment of the first French colony on St. Croix Island, in Acadia, on the border of New Brunswick, in the Bay of Fundy. Marking the 400th anniversary of the founding of this community is quite an occasion.

Champlain, who was a geographer on the de Monts expedition, which landed in Acadia in 1604, was looking for a location for a permanent French colony. With Mr. de Monts, Champlain chose this island at the mouth of the St. Croix River, because of its central location and its accessible and sheltered harbour.

His interest in this region in southern Acadia also had to do with his primary concern, which was to find a passage to reach China's riches. The west facing slopes of the Atlantic coast in the area made Champlain believe that such a passage might exist. As we now know, Champlain was going to be disappointed in his quest for the East's wealth, but very pleased with his discovery of Canada's riches.

As some members mentioned, the first winter in New France for Champlain and the members of the new settlement was terrible. Of the 79 men that accompanied him, 35 died of scurvy. This was definitely not a promising start, but these difficult beginnings eventually led to a lively and solid French presence in the New World.

Champlain spent three consecutive winters in the Bay of Fundy. During his stay, he explored the region between the Isle of St. Croix and the settlement of Port-Royal, now Annapolis, in Nova Scotia. He also ventured south as far as Cape Cod.

For Champlain, the second voyage in New France was soon followed by a third one. The highlight of this trip occurred on July 3, 1608, when the great explorer founded a small colony in Quebec—a colony that slowly grew to become the very heart of the French language and culture in North America.

Samuel de Champlain had done great things as early as the summer of 1608, but many of his trips and discoveries would come later. One year after founding Quebec, he travelled with the Hurons, the Algonquins and the Montagnais to explore the area, including the lake south of Montreal which now bears his name.

Married to Hélène Boullé during a brief trip to France, in 1610, Champlain returned to Canada less than a year later, continuing his exploration of the St. Lawrence and opening a trading post in Mont-Royal. Those who have visited Place Royale in the historic old port of Montreal have been struck by the spirit of one of its first European visitors, Samuel de Champlain.

In 1613, Champlain left the island across from the port of Montreal, Île Sainte-Hélène, which he had named in honour of his wife, and began to explore the sites familiar to generations of Canadians who have visited Parliament Hill, the Gatineau River, the Rideau River and the Chaudière Falls.

Subsequently, Champlain would extend his travels as far westward as Lake Huron in 1615 and southward along the Trent River to the Bay of Quinte crossing Lake Ontario to portions of what is now New York State.

I would be remiss not to mention Explorer's Point Park in my hometown of Mattawa which was dedicated to the memory of Samuel de Champlain, and the Samuel de Champlain Provincial Park a few kilometres up the Mattawa River between Mattawa and North Bay.

Honoured for his accomplishments, Champlain was entrusted with the overall direction of political affairs in New France. The explorer's considerable talents and stamina had already been tested by his arduous journeys, hostile encounters and struggles against the harsh Canadian climate.

The task of colonizing this new outpost of the French empire proved equally challenging for Champlain. He understood the need to encourage and foster human settlement, agriculture and commerce if these new territories were to remain under the flag of France. While dealing with the challenges posed by his various political enemies at home, his repeated trips between new and old France gave him the opportunity to encourage settlers to join him in building a new society on the shores of the St. Lawrence River.

In 1629, Quebec fell to the English forces. The colony surrendered, and Champlain was taken to England as a prisoner. Four years later, following the signing of a peace treaty, he returned to Quebec with the title of commander and remained there until his death in 1635.

All told, Samuel de Champlain made more than a dozen crossings between Europe and the new world, changing both the map of the known world and the course of history.

Champlain might be surprised to know that almost four centuries after the founding of the first French settlement on St. Croix Island his name and legacy enjoy an honoured place in the history of our nation. Today a country called Canada flies neither the flag of France nor England but proudly celebrates the heritage of both these founding cultures.

Through his remarkable achievements Samuel de Champlain helped to secure the presence of the French language and culture in North America. In very real terms Champlain helped define who we are. At the dawn of this century and millennium, Canada is a modern outward looking nation that recognizes and celebrates the contributions of cultures from every corner of the world. Anchoring this vision of openness and accommodation is our official recognition of not one but two official languages.

Samuel de Champlain was a key contributor to Canada's evolution. Because of our history based on two of the great languages of the world, we are a society that easily communicates and interacts with a great number of other nations.

Canada's role as a leader in the Francophonie is an important example of this scope and influence. In this major international forum, Canada plays an active role in promoting French language and culture and building ties among the francophone peoples of the world.

This is an achievement that would no doubt bring great satisfaction to Samuel de Champlain.

The approaching 400th anniversary of Champlain's participation in the first French colony on the Isle of St. Croix will provide an opportunity to mark this stage in our life as a nation significantly.

This would be a proud anniversary for Acadians, who can trace their heritage back to these courageous ancestors, for all the people of New Brunswick, the frontier where this modest first colony was built, and for all the people of Canada.

This serves as a reminder that, while our country is considered still relatively young, we are beginning to measure our history in centuries. We can be justly proud of our history and of the famous figures, such as Samuel de Champlain, not to exclude the others, who contributed to the writing of that history.

The spirit of Champlain is a presence for us until today. Not far from this House, visitors to the Museum of Civilization in Hull can see the astrolabe Champlain used to navigate his way through the Ottawa valley four centuries ago.

It is highly unlikely that this great explorer would have expected his lost instrument to someday find a place in a major national institution. It is even less likely that he would have dreamed that the nation he helped found would one day be recognized as one of the best in the world.

Our history teems with examples of women and men whose heroism, leadership, energy and vision have contributed to the growth and development of Canada. Samuel de Champlain is among their number.

Without question we must ensure that Canadians keep alive the memory of this great explorer. We must ensure that his extraordinary efforts to help the French language and culture take firm root in North America are both remembered and celebrated.

During the debate on this motion, it is obvious that the concept on which it is based is worthy of our recognition and appreciation. This concept is of vital importance, and we hope to be able to continue to celebrate our heritage, through either legislative measures or some other means. Building our future together requires us to keep alive the memory of our past, and to honour that past.