The House met at 10 a.m.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to
introduce this bill.
It effectively includes Nav Canada under the Access to
Information Act because information is no longer available to
critics, ministers and airport managers regarding safety with
respect to the air navigation system in Canada.
Prior to divestiture, when the air traffic control system was
under Transport Canada, all this information was available to
critics and airport managers to help design and ensure that
safety regulations were in place. Now we no longer are able to
access internal memorandums regarding safety and operational
condition reports written by air traffic controllers themselves,
and engineering reports of Nav Canada.
I feel we are operating at a very distinct disadvantage by not
having access to this information like we had in the past.
Hopefully this bill will pass and get the support of all members.
The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species
at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a
committee, and of the amendment.
First and foremost we have to think about what Canadians want
when it comes to protecting species at risk. All Canadians want
to help the environment. All Canadians want to protect
biodiversity. We in the Canadian Alliance care about protecting
species that are at risk and protecting or recovering critical
habitat. The Canadian Alliance plan creates the potential for
this to happen.
Canadians recognize that we need a proactive approach to protect
species at risk that is based on respect, respect for the species
that inhabit our lands and waters, and respect for those who own
those lands. Our plan to protect species at risk is a common
sense policy that considers the needs of all stakeholders. Our
plan is balanced, accommodating, practical and workable.
The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving
Canada's natural environment and endangered species, and to the
sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for use
by current and future generations.
The Canadian Alliance maintains that for any endangered species
legislation to be effective it must respect the fundamental
rights of private property owners.
The four key areas or issues regarding the bill which I think
are important are: compensation for landowners; recovery
planning for specific species; the role of the Council on the
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada; and compliance,
enforcement and dispute resolution. I will go into detail.
The first area is compensation. Compensation for expropriated
lands that is not at fair market value is not fair. The species
at risk act we are debating today hardly touches on the pivotal
issue of compensation. There is no clear formula for
compensation outlined in the bill. Compensation will be dealt
with through regulations following the passage of the bill, and
we know how the regulations work. The minister has this
backward. Co-operation among stakeholders is unlikely unless the
landowners are assured that any land expropriated for the purpose
of species or habitat protection or recovery will be expropriated
at fair market value.
The second area is recovery planning for specific species.
Recovery strategies should list the activities required. A
recovery plan should include estimated costs associated with the
recovery of a given species or habitat. Integrated listing or
recovery planning must be part of the act. Without such planning
we will find ourselves listing species we have no capacity to
protect. There should be no listing of a species as being
endangered unless it can be scientifically proven that that
species is in fact endangered. Furthermore, there should be no
expropriation of land unless it can be scientifically proven that
the species can be recovered.
The third point is the role of the Council on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada. In the endangered species listing
process, the Canadian Alliance supports an independent,
scientific listing body such as the Council on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada while recognizing the role and
authority of parliament in recovery planning.
The last point of compliance, enforcement and dispute
resolution, is a very important point. The Liberals should not
introduce legislation that threatens to use criminal sanctions in
addition to its power of expropriation.
Any attempt by government to expropriate private property should
be subject to the following process. This process should include
a review process that offers some form of arbitration and/or
dispute resolution to landowners. Where warranted, and only
after a fair review or dispute resolution process has been
completed, the expropriation of private land at fair market value
should be reasonable. The process should also include that any
use of criminal law power by government against private
landowners is unreasonable. A functional dispute resolution
mechanism would render the use of criminal law power largely
unnecessary.
The majority of producers and landowners believe that the
government could achieve more through co-operation with farmers
and ranchers than through threats of punishment.
So far I have been discussing the problems that the official
opposition has with this bill.
The people of Surrey Central, whom I represent, are from largely
metropolitan or suburban areas. While we are not running the
risk of having our land confiscated without compensation, without
reimbursement of fair market value, we do not want any Canadian
subject to such an unjust treatment. Many of us in Surrey
Central own our homes. We make mortgage payments like everyone
else. We would not want the Liberals to swoop down and section
off any of the area of land that surrounds our homes without
paying us for that portion of land the Liberals say that they
have to take from us for obvious reasons.
My constituents do not want me to sit on my hands in the House
while the Liberals threaten to take huge chunks of land,
thousands of acres in some cases, from Canadian citizens and pay
them virtually nothing.
In fact, far from working in a democratic way to help Canada's
ranchers contribute to our nation's efforts to save our
endangered species, the Liberals are promising punishment for
those ranchers. My heart goes out to the farmers and ranchers
who are already overtaxed by the government and who are already
suffering. They have huge input costs that are the fault of the
government and its lack of vision. They have to compete at a
disadvantage on the world markets thanks to the government's poor
record on international trade. The Liberals are now planning to
take, from what I have been told, sometimes thousands of acres of
land from individual Canadians without a process of compensation
and under the threat of criminal charges.
I received a note from one of my constituents, David Pope, and I
would like to read from it. He said that the offensive penalties
for actions against plants, animals or organisms that are deemed
species at risk and the land which makes up their habitat are
unlike any found in Canadian criminal law. They range from
$50,000 and/or one year in jail to $1 million and/or five years
in jail for each offence and are doubled if repeated. These are
not offences of murder, arson, theft or rape but are for harming
or harassing a plant, animal or organism or destroying a portion
of its habitat, which is on one's land, and that is outrageous.
Mr. Pope went on to say that the above offences are strict
liability offences and that an accuser need only say “you
committed the offence and you must prove that you did not”.
That is a reverse onus, as the lawyers say, and rarely used in
criminal law.
In the usual serious criminal offence a person is assumed
innocent until proven guilty and beyond a reasonable doubt. That
is not the case under Bill C-33. Mr. Pope further writes that
the farmer is prohibited from charging them with trespassing.
They can take anything they like and not pay for it. Homes can
be searched under a search warrant which bears no resemblance to
the usual murder, arson, rape or other serious criminal offence.
A search warrant will be much easier to obtain. This is an
outrage.
When the eco-police start asking ranchers or farmers questions
about the alleged offence the rancher or farmer must give them
reasonable assistance. They must answer the questions or be
charged with obstruction of justice. They will be forced to give
evidence against themselves. Once again, under Canadian law an
accused does not have to incriminate himself but he does under
Bill C-33. Yet another civil liberty breached.
Another provision of Bill C-33 provides statute standing for
anyone 18 years or older and a resident of Canada to start an
investigation against a rancher or a farmer for any of the
offences I have just listed. Any special interest group or
anyone with a grudge against a farmer or a rancher can start an
investigation which may well cost the farmer thousands of dollars
in litigation fees and fines if not time behind bars. This is
neighbour turning against neighbour. Do we really want this kind
of society in Canada for these kinds of offences?
Bill C-33 provides that the accused rancher or farmer can never
know who started the investigation against him. He will never be
able to face his accuser in open court. Canadians and free
people everywhere are afforded the right to face their accusers
in open court but not under Bill C-33.
Fair market compensation is not mentioned in Bill C-33. There
is a clause covering compensation but it appears from the wording
that any compensation received for a regulatory restriction on
agriculture land use to protect the habitat of species at risk
will be difficult to obtain and below fair market value. These
are the issues of concern.
The people I represent believe that there should be a fair and
democratic manner in which to handle the protection of endangered
species. We do not believe that conflict and heavy-handed
government penalties should be the basis for working out this
matter. The government is making a mess of the process.
I have some recommendations to make with respect to Bill C-33.
This bill should be based on voluntary co-operation and
partnerships between the stakeholders and our government. That
is possible. It can be done.
All Canadians, including ranchers and farmers in our remotest
lands, want to protect our environment, our vegetation and our
animals. They want to protect flora and fauna. The people of
Surrey Central want our government to work hand in hand with the
stakeholders and have them co-operate and benefit from measures
to protect our endangered species. It can be done. A Canadian
Alliance government will do it. This Liberal government is
trying to do it through the back door, through regulations. That
is wrong.
I know it is wrong because I am on the scrutiny of regulations
committee. There are a number of regulations in the pipeline
which should not be there. They have been in the pipeline for
years, some of them for 25 years, because when the committee
writes to ministers of the crown they will not respond or will
not respond in a manner that will resolve the issues. The
regulations go in circles and keep on existing when they should
not be there in the first place.
The government uses bill after bill. There is very limited
scope in the bill but a huge number of regulations that control
the implementation of that act. This is not the way to go. This
is the back door process and that is wrong.
The Liberals should be up front and prepare the legislation.
They should give details on how the protection of these species
will be achieved but they are not doing that. The people of
Surrey Central will not support what the Liberals are doing with
this bill. We are ashamed of what the Liberals are doing.
Therefore, we cannot support Bill C-33.
We feel that this is a bill that has been rammed through under
threat by the minister to pull the legislation if there is any
movement in relation to amendments or adjustments. That
certainly is not the way to handle not only a piece of
legislation that is important and as sensitive as this, but any
piece of legislation.
We might say that this legislation will become as quickly
extinct as some of the species if we do not soon get our act
together and do something about it. The government cannot ram
through legislation just because it is an arrogant government in
power when it affects so many people and so many species.
There are a number of agencies that have grave concerns about
what is happening in relation to our existing wildlife. These
are not people who are just concerned from an environmental point
of view. Many of them are very ordinary citizens who are not
necessarily caught up in the protective groups. They are people
who love what this country has to offer. They are members of
industry who realize that even though their livelihood sometimes
depends upon hurting the environment or destroying habitats, they
are beginning to be aware only too well that in order to preserve
our great country and continue to make a living they also have to
be very conscious of the environment and the habitats that
surround them.
We are seeing, as we never saw before, a coming together of the
different fragmented groups for the purpose of preserving what we
have and what we are rapidly losing. These agencies have a
tremendous amount to offer if we give them a chance, if we listen
to them and if the committee goes out and hears their
presentations. If we pick the best of what each group has to
offer, if we look at putting together the solid recommendations
that are coming to us and if we listen to the concerns that have
been expressed, surely we can come up collectively with
legislation that will not only do the job but will do it well.
When many of us were growing up in this great country,
particularly those of us who grew up in the rural parts of the
country, we remember living in a society where we worked and
operated hand in hand with nature.
If we take time to listen to our elders we hear them talk about
how they practically lived off the land. They did that not by
raping what the land had to offer but by taking carefully as they
needed while always making sure that there was something left for
tomorrow because they knew the food they put on the table and
their livelihood and the livelihood of their children depended on
it.
If we go back to the opening up of the country and the days of
the fur trade, perhaps in those days people thought we had so
many animals that we could take more than was necessary or more
than we should to preserve the species. However they quickly
learned. As the animals they were hunting at the time became
scarce in the areas in which they operated, they moved farther
afield.
Perhaps we could even thank them for their concern about not
depleting different groups of animals. They were forced westward
and the country was opened up, not just because of curiosity of
seeing what was beyond the next mountain but because these people
pushed forward, in the fur trade in particular, in order to make
a living for themselves and in order not to destroy what existed
closer to the places where they had originally settled.
We should learn from the past. For years and years the country
continued to produce the different species that were here
originally, but it seems that somewhere along the line we forgot
about it. With our concentration on opening up great towns,
cities and building freeways we sometimes forgot the damage we
were doing to the habitats for a lot of these species.
In my own province of Newfoundland everybody remembers the great
auk, which is as extinct as the Liberals will be in Newfoundland
after the next election. The only people who will survive are
those who will not run.
My great friend from Bonavista—Trinity—Conception must be
delighted this morning that the effort by the provincial Liberals
to rid themselves of his colleagues did not work. The member for
Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte will be back for a while in the
House. The member for Labrador will also be back, I understand.
Both of them won their nominations handily, as they should. It
shows that the other agenda that is working certainly has not
paid off for those who were perpetrating it.
Concentrating on the bill itself, when I was growing up in
Newfoundland, some years after my distinguished colleague for
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, it was still at a time when there
seemed to be an abundance of everything. As a youth we would
spend our evenings on the wharves. We could stand there looking
at the eels and small cod fish that swam right into the harbours
and by the wharves. We used our trolling poles to try to catch
them.
It is now almost impossible to find codfish in Newfoundland.
During the recent recreational fishery that we had in the areas
where for years there was an abundance we did not see any at all.
Luckily some bay stocks still exist. Perhaps, if we are very
careful, they will regenerate the growth that is necessary for
the fishery to rebuild. However with the lack of scientific
information that is a major concern.
One morning when I was teaching school I was driving toward the
community where I taught. I stopped by the roadside to look at a
small fishing area just off the coast. I counted 127 boats
fishing a very lucrative area within a mile of the coast. In
this one small place the codfish were so plentiful that there
were 127 boats. When I talk about boats I am talking about boats
from 20 feet to 40 feet, not big draggers but small inshore
fishing boats. This fall during late August and September, which
should be prime fishing time, no one could find one codfish on
that same ground. It just shows what happens when we are not
careful about protecting species that can easily be destroyed.
The country behind most of our rural communities always abounded
in ducks, beaver, muskrat, moose, caribou and dedicated wildlife
officials. Perhaps no thanks at all to the governments as such
but to the wildlife officials, they took it upon themselves to
make sure that the herds were protected. We still have in many
cases an abundance of wildlife in Newfoundland.
I suggest to my colleague from Bonavista—Trinity—Conception
that perhaps in this great country of ours Newfoundland can be
looked upon as the last frontier. It is rapidly becoming a
tourist destination for many people from within and outside the
country. In particular we are drawing a lot of tourists from
Europe, simply because of the habitats that still exist exuding
different types of wildlife whether it be animal or plant
varieties. It is providing a tremendous attraction for people
who appreciate these things and who come from far away countries
just to see them.
Where else in the country can we fly into the capital city as we
can into St. John's, Newfoundland, and drive in a circular
direction for four hours and see herds of caribou grazing on the
side of the roads and see whales—
We can walk through the various paths in the woods. There is a
tremendous trail being developed from St. John's right around the
Avalon called the East Coast Trail. A lot of dedicated workers
are involved and a lot of government money, to the credit of the
government for investing in such projects. It is tying together
not only the historic sites and the culture of the area but also
giving people a chance to move right into the heart of wildlife
habitats. The variety is such that anyone who has not
experienced it would not believe if we tried to explain. We can
stop by salmon rivers and fish when the season is open.
We can pick almost any kind of berry imaginable as we walk
through this area.
After one day we could see caribou, whales, seals, moose,
rabbits galore running around, and all kinds of species of birds.
A greater variety of birds than perhaps any other part of the
country congregate in that small area of the Avalon.
We have three or four major wildlife reserves. The Cape Saint
Mary's Bird Sanctuary is known all around the world. There are
also a couple of great islands off a community called Witless Bay
where a number of species of birds attract attention from all
over the world.
Without getting into the numerous other things in the region I
could mention, we still have regions in the country where
wildlife abounds, due to the dedication of the wildlife officers
and perhaps the education of the people.
People have become educated about how important it is to
preserve. Many people have seen our wildlife being endangered.
They have seen some species even become extinct. They are now
concerned to the point where they realize that we perhaps have
one more shot at doing it right.
The government is attempting to follow up on legislation
originally brought in by the Tory government. In those days the
bill was given an A rating by everybody. Now after several
years the government is bringing in a bill to ensure proper
preservation of wildlife. However it is doing so simply based
upon perhaps what the minister thinks should be done. That may
not be and certainly is not what most agencies in the country
feel should be done.
The legislation should be brought out for public input. We
should take our time. We should listen to the groups and
agencies that have much to offer. We have seen a variety of
groups. Many of them have not been working hand in hand over the
years. In fact they have been operating in opposite directions.
When we see them willing to come together to effect a piece of
legislation that will be good for all of them, we will hopefully
see a piece of legislation of which everyone can be very proud.
I support the hoist so that we have time to assess this major
piece of legislation. Then when it is finally brought into the
House for a vote it can be passed unanimously because we will
know it has the teeth to do what a good piece of legislation
should do.
Recently it was announced that some logging would be done around
some very sensitive salmon river areas. Voisey's Bay has been
talked about as well as the expansion of power near the Churchill
area along with Quebec. What does he think those so-called
megaprojects would do to the wildlife and the habitat of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
Pointing to this piece of legislation, I say again that it is a
time when we see the major players coming together wanting to
offer solutions.
We cannot go out as environmentalists and put a hold on
everything that is happening in the country. Neither can we go
out as developers as in the old days when we jumped on a D-8 full
steam ahead and cleared out everything ahead of us.
In order for people to survive, two things are necessary. We
must make a living and we must assure that life goes on around
us. There is no reason at all that major projects cannot be
developed and still be very conscious of the general habitat and
the wildlife around them. We do not have to destroy major areas
of a country or a province just because it is a megaproject. In
this day with the scientific knowledge we have, certainly with
proper planning and with the involvement of all the groups, we
can work hand in hand.
I say to the member, as these projects press forward and are
developed, they must be done in a very sensitive way. I am not
convinced that cannot be done; in fact, I am sure it can be done.
Today, we have new leaders here with us in the House. We will
also have several interesting questions on the Order Paper. I
trust that the business carried out in the House will meet the
expectations of the people of Canada, and of Quebec in
particular.
Bill C-33 on the preservation of Canada's wildlife is one
deserving of debate in this Parliament for a number of reasons,
primarily the fact that it seeks to implement a number of
Canada's international obligations under conventions it has
signed, such as the Convention on Biodiversity and others like
the Ramsar Convention, which is aimed at protecting species and
preserving the flora and fauna of this planet.
This debate is of particular interest to me because there is a
wildlife sanctuary in my riding of Beauharnois Salaberry, the
Haut-Saint-Laurent, which is home to a number of species, some of
them at risk.
This is an issue that interests me particularly because certain
individuals have made representations to me, including those who
keep various species and want to have the public get to know
them at the Hemmingford safari park. They think the present
legislation is inadequate and should be expanded and improved
with standards to ensure better species protection.
The Bloc Quebecois would like improved protection, legislation
ensuring such protection for endangered wildlife, but in a
debate such as this, it is concerned about the government's
desire to pass legislation without any possibility of amendment.
We recently heard the Minister of the Environment say that this
bill was fine as it stood, as he had introduced it, as it had
been tabled in the House.
What is the point then of today's debate, which will continue
before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development, if we already know that the government does not
want any amendments, does not want it improved?
And yet, this bill is far from perfect. We could cite criticism
by members of the government even, who hope the bill will be
amended once we have passed it or when we are called to pass it.
The member for Lac-Saint-Louis, an expert on environmental issues,
who served as minister of the environment in Quebec under Robert
Bourassa, said on the same day with respect to Bill C-33, and I
quote:
The member for Lac-Saint-Louis added:
I find that terribly ironic...
We are not even starting with the roll of the list of the 339
species identified by COSEWIC. That is a glaring fault in the
law. Without a listing there cannot be protection.
As members can see, this bill needs to be amended, it needs to
be improved upon, as suggested by two Liberal members. They
are not the only ones who think that the bill is flawed.
A number of environmentalists and environmental groups have also
said that the bill would not eliminate the loopholes left by
certain provinces. Some of these groups, including the Sierra
Club, also said that this legislation, which the minister
claimed to be the strongest in the world, is an embarrassment
for Canada at the international level.
According to Elizabeth May, of the Sierra Club, species at risk
are not adequately protected under this bill.
On behalf of her organization and of several environmental
groups, she said that politicians, not scientists—and this is
definitely an area where the voice of scientists should prevail
over that of politicians—have the last word regarding the
selection of species deemed to be at risk, when we should in
fact call upon an independent group of experts to make an annual
list.
This criticism from environmental groups should be listened to.
It should trigger a debate and a thorough examination by the
members of this House. I hope that the criticisms made by some
Liberal members, including the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis,
and by environmental groups will be taken into consideration by
the committee.
In something rarely seen when it comes to environmental
issues, industry is also opposed to the bill in its present
form. For instance, two organizations, the Canadian Pulp and
Paper Association, which wished to comment on Bill C-33 as it
now stands, and the Mining Association of Canada, have indicated
that the government could have taken a much tougher approach
with respect to federal lands, public lands and natural areas,
where the federal government's constitutional jurisdiction is
not challenged by any of the provinces, particularly by our
party, the Bloc Quebecois.
1055
This brings me to the intergovernmental and constitutional
aspects of Bill C-33. As my party's intergovernmental affairs
critic, I feel it is necessary and indeed essential that the
constitutional issues raised by this bill be tackled at this
stage of the proceedings.
In matters of the environment, the division of powers in Canada
is such that the federal parliament and the parliaments of
various provinces have overlapping jurisdiction. This is
affirmed in the preamble to the bill.
But many provisions of the bill proper seem to run counter to
this division of powers with respect to the environment and, by
extension, the protection of wildlife.
Here, as in other areas, what we are seeing is a desire by
parliament and the government introducing this legislation to
drag in the issue of national interest.
Moreover, this bill is intended to implement an international
treaty, namely the Convention on the Preservation of Biological
Diversity referred to in the third paragraph of the preamble. It
might serve, as has already happened in the past before the
courts, the Supreme Court of Canada in particular, to imply that
there is a national dimension to this bill, since it is intended
to implement an international treaty and international
obligations. Then, because of this national dimension, the
appropriate legislation for the purpose of implementing these
obligations becomes the federal legislation.
We in the Bloc Quebecois and all the governments of Quebec, one
after the other, have always challenged this national dimension
theory.
The courts have hesitated to apply it, although they have
sometimes been tempted to broaden the range of federal
jurisdiction through reference to this theory, particularly when
the environment is concerned.
It seems this is the case again here, because certain provisions
in this bill clearly suggest the desire for this legislation to
apply to the provinces, and apply to them without their consent.
Moreover, a number of its provisions are along those lines.
For instance, paragraph 34(2) is the most explicit, and is very
clearly aimed at having federal legislation apply within a
province and without the province necessarily wanting this to be
so. I will quote this, because it is worth reading in its
entirety:
(2) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the
Minister, by order, provide that sections 32 and 33 apply in
lands in a province—
This relates to the listing of a species of wildlife as
extirpated species.
Federal legislation can thus end up being applied in a province
without the province's consent.
This would indicate that the government has little concern about
potential overlap between this upcoming federal law and certain
provincial laws passed in previous years, which have enabled the
provinces to meet some of their obligations, including
international ones arising from Canada's ratification of certain
treaties on biological diversity and the protection and
preservation of flora and fauna.
1100
This is the case with Quebec, for example, since it passed two
important bills: the act respecting threatened or vulnerable
species and the act respecting the conservation and development
of wildlife. The National Assembly considered it practical and
essential to pass these laws to preserve endangered wildlife in
Quebec.
Accordingly, the Government of Quebec, through its minister of
the environment, Paul Bégin, has said that Bill C-33 constituted
only more unnecessary duplication for Quebec and that its aim
was to put in place a safety net for endangered species and
their habitats in areas under federal jurisdiction. This is in
keeping with the provisions of the constitution and the
jurisdiction it afforded parliament over the environment, but
the federal government wanted to do the same thing on Quebec
soil, which the government of Quebec was not prepared to accept.
Neither are the duly elected Bloc Quebecois representatives in
this House prepared to accept it, and their voices must be
heard.
I would add that some provisions of the bill are also likely to
be declared unconstitutional as they are incompatible with the
division of powers.
I am thinking in particular of clauses 36, 39 and 57 to 64,
which also seek to allow the federal parliament and this
legislation to interfere with the powers granted to the Quebec
National Assembly and to the other provincial legislatures.
I take this opportunity to praise the work of our critic on
environmental issues, the hon. member for Jonquière, who, in
this area as in several others, shows not only an interest for
the environment, but also for the protection of the right to the
environment, this third generation right whereby we have a duty
to protect species, to protect nature, plants and animal life
against the dangers and the harm that man and institutions can
cause.
In particular, I wish to emphasize the work done by my colleague
regarding the importation of MOX, a fuel that entered Canada
against the will of several environmental groups. In fact, MOX
could still enter Canada through Quebec and Ontario even though
no real debate, no consultation and no adequate impact studies
have been conducted to our satisfaction and that of a number of
other parliamentarians and groups representing the civil
society.
The Bloc Quebecois will not accept and will not support a
legislation which, we are already being told, cannot be amended,
even though we know it is inadequate, even in the eyes of
Liberal members such as the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who
is here with us.
This bill is deemed unacceptable by several environmental
groups, by a number of people in the industry, who want the
federal government to take action in this sector, but only in
those areas and territories over which it has accepted and
recognized jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will not accept a federal act that
creates overlap and duplication in this area, as is the case in
so many other areas.
1105
Yesterday afternoon, we learned that the government wanted to
impose another gag—and this sets off bad memories for us; members
have only to recall the series of gags imposed this past spring
by the government, which was trying to ram through its clarity
bill, gag by gag—to prematurely cut off debate in order to get
its young offenders legislation passed.
This is another debate in which the Bloc Quebecois has been
trying to defend Quebec's interests and its jurisdiction in a
field where it has shown that flexible, intelligent legislation
encouraging the rehabilitation of young people was much better
than federal laws designed to put 12 and 13 year olds in jail
when what they deserved was a chance at rehabilitation.
The government does not seem to be interested in making the
effort or urging others to do so, but is instead casting doubts
on the chances of rehabilitating young people, and thus perhaps
responding to the people represented by many Canadian Alliance
MPs today, who are calling for tough measures against young
offenders.
The young offenders bill, like Bill C-33, other bills, programs
such as the millennium scholarships and others that come under
provincial jurisdiction, shows just how far the federal
government is prepared to go, this government which claims to be
a national government, which wants to be such a government and
in fact reiterates this in the bill when its speaks of its
desire to defend Canada's national identity and history, of
which its natural heritage is an integral part, and shows just
how unfederal its federalism truly is. It is for this reason
that so many of the Quebecers represented by the 44 members of
the Bloc Quebecois are challenging this federalism and calling
for their own country.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like
the hon. Bloc member to elaborate a little bit more fully on the
scientific input that will not be there when making lists for
species that are endangered. If we think of species that are
endangered, we have to realize that their habitat is endangered.
The people who are on the land and share that habitat with the
animals are scientists, biologists, elders, hunters, fishers and
trappers. Those are the people who know the patterns of the
wildlife.
It is completely unacceptable and really shocking that there
would be no input from the scientists who have evaluated the
patterns and the history of the wildlife and the flora and fauna
on that land.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's
question, we share the same concerns. I hope the NDP will be
consistent with its view that this piece of legislation is
incomplete. It is certainly weak when it comes to defending the
interests and allowing for better protection of the fauna and
flora.
One of the very obvious weaknesses is not to want the scientific
community to have the last word on the wildlife species that need
to be protected. In that sense, together we should make sure
that the government amends the provisions of the legislation so
that it does give a say, and I would say a final say, to the
experts on these issues.
1110
In the draft legislation the cabinet, obviously, will have the
last word. I think this kind of decision should be removed from
the cabinet. It should not be ministers who make that decision.
We should rely on experts. That is something that is not unusual
and something that could be done in this case.
Hopefully the government will understand that this law is
imperfect and it should be amended, which is contrary to what the
Minister of the Environment has said. The environment minister
said that this bill was good as it was.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague the member
for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
He has given a very important new dimension to the work we are
doing on Bill C-33. The new dimension he had to propose this
morning relates to the division of powers between the federal
and provincial governments.
Despite what the government says, it keeps on violating the
Constitution Act of Canada. I think that, since the Bloc
Quebecois was first elected, ours is the only party in the House
of Commons that stands up for the constitutional right of the
provinces laid down in the Canadian constitution.
I would like my colleague to give us specifics to prove beyond
all doubt that, with this bill, the government is once again
violating the constitution and looking for yet another fight
with the provinces.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, the whole constitutional issue is
taboo. We must not talk about the constitution or wonder if it
is being upheld or not, and we cannot amend it when we all know
that it should be amended in order to meet the aspirations of
many Canadians, including Quebecers, natives and all of those
who want some of the provisions of the constitution to be
amended.
Canadian constitutionalism has failed, and that is why some of
us do not want to address these issues. They say that these
issues should not be considered, even in our parliamentary
debates. And when we go ahead and address these issues, they
call it “constitutional obsession”.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and member for
Saint-Laurent—Cartierville likes to talk about constitutional obsession when
we raise constitutional issues and try to stand for the
interests of Quebec and to protect the current version of the
constitution, which recognizes the jurisdiction of Quebec and
the other provinces in some areas, especially in the area of environment
which is being undermined by Bill C-33.
But of course we do not hear about constitutional obsession when
the minister and some of his colleagues base this bill and other
pieces of legislation on spending power, for instance, or
legislative power, because it deals with cross-border issues
and cross-border pollution. No, they forget all about
constitutional obsession when they need to exercise their
federal jurisdictions under the terms of the constitution.
But there is an obsession with the constitution when it comes to
protecting and defending the integrity of Quebec's
jurisdictions, in the House and before parliament.
It is not an obsession. As long as Bloc members are
sitting in the House, defending Quebec's interests will mean
defending the respect of the current constitution before the day
comes, and it will come soon, when we will decide, because of
the numerous violations of this constitution, to give ourselves
a country, to give ourselves the jurisdictions which will allow
us to develop Quebec without having to suffer continuously,
through parliament, violations of the constitution.
In fact, to respond to the question of my colleague, I would
also like to point out that the Supreme Court of Canada is a
strategic ally of the government and of the Parliament of Canada
on this issue.
1115
The theory on the national dimension which I mentioned earlier
is a theory that the Supreme Court of Canada has tried to apply
in many areas. On the environmental issue, on the transborder
pollution issue, in the Crown Zellerbach affair, which was a
very important case in Canadian constitutional history, the
supreme court went very far in recognizing a federal legislative
jurisdiction over the environment and the protection of the
environment.
That the supreme court can use this to enrich and to interpret
the Canadian constitution, largely in favour of increasing
federal jurisdiction over the environment, is very disturbing.
It concerns the Quebec government, which in other matters,
especially when it comes to passing environmental legislation
allowing for federal impact studies, has tended to want new
powers and to expand its jurisdiction in an area where federal
legislation could be interpreted by the courts in such a way as
to annihilate the jurisdiction of the provinces and of Quebec
by enshrining it in the constitution.
This is unacceptable. If this legislation is not amended so as
to respect the jurisdiction of Quebec and other provinces, the
government will not have the support of the Bloc Quebecois.
Environmental groups and industries which oppose this legislation
will know that our objection is based not only on the criticisms
they share with us but on an even more fundamental basis, that is,
that we do not want this legislation to pass. Parliament must not
pass legislation it does not have the jurisdiction to pass.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak
to this very important topic.
I say to my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois Party that
protection of the environment should never be in isolation. The
problem occurs with cross-border pollutants and cross-border
migratory species, et cetera. The best way to protect our
planet's species and everyone else involved in that sphere should
be co-operation at all levels. To do it in isolation simply will
not work.
Our party vehemently rejects this legislation because it is
quite simple. It is absolute nonsense to say we will protect
animals and not protect their habitat. The bill does nothing to
protect habitat.
The policies of the New Democratic Party will be the following
ones:
Identification and listing of species at risk by an independent
committee of scientists, wherein scientific evidence is the
primary consideration and not political interpretation of data;
and
Comprehensive, nationwide natural habitat protection, including
protection for species that range or migrate over Canada's
domestic and international borders; and
Inclusion of stakeholders in development of species recovery
plans, provision of adequate support to those whose livelihood is
disrupted by a species recovery plan and provision for just
transition to workers and communities affected by the recovery
plans.
That is a much more proactive approach to species at risk.
I will delve into a little story of an area just outside my
riding called the Liscomb Game Sanctuary. Two-thirds of that
game sanctuary is already logged. When asked by a group trying
to protect it, DNR officials in Nova Scotia said “Don't get us
wrong but our job is to protect the wildlife and not the
habitat”. That shows the nonsense of officials in the
bureaucratic governmental level who do not understand that if we
do not have a healthy, vibrant habitat for species at risk then
we simply will not have any species. Bill C-33 will just not
allow that to happen.
It is unfortunate that the minister, who I believe is well
meaning, does not understand that aspect of it.
1120
A while ago the International Fund for Animal Welfare gave every
member of parliament in the House a species to identify with.
Mine of course was the bottlenose whale, a whale with a fairly
large forehead but a very endearing smile. I thought that was
quite nice. Every member in the House received one.
What that organization was highlighting and saying to every
member of parliament was that it was our responsibility to do
everything we could to protect the particular species identified.
If we work together, if we do it from the ground or the waters of
the ocean up then we can do it. We can do it very successfully,
but if it comes from the top down there will be rejections and a
very futile effort on the part of government when it argues about
it. Meanwhile the destruction of our planet carries on.
As we speak, in Washington state just south of Sumas in the
Abbotsford area of British Columbia, there are plans to set up a
new power plant. Its emissions into our environment would equate
to about 480,000 vehicles every day. What does our government do
about it? Absolutely nothing.
There are many legal avenues that our government could pursue.
It could send it to an arbitration board. It could ask for
better clarification. Yet our government sits there and tells
the state of Washington nothing. If this plant goes ahead I have
very dire predictions for the environment, for the health of
British Columbians and even for the people of the state of
Washington for wherever that ill wind will be blowing.
We can also look at the history of past Conservative and current
Liberal governments in terms of the fishery species. It is not
an accident that salmon on the west coast and salmon on the east
coast, cod, and crab stocks off Newfoundland are depleting at a
very rapid rate. Many independent scientists are now saying that
cod off our coastline may never recover.
Yet as we speak there are still terrible ongoing harvesting
methods. We are still dragging the bottom of our oceans. We are
still dumping millions of pounds of fish over the sides of boats
every year. That is an abysmal policy of the government.
To say that we will now protect species at risk is simple
nonsense. The government and the previous Conservative
government have no idea what it takes, the leadership that it
takes to protect our planet. When we protect the flora and fauna
and other plants and animals, in essence we are protecting
ourselves as well.
It is most unbelievable that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore
Petroleum Board issues leases through the province and gives out
lease permits to oil and gas companies to do seismic work off the
coastlines of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia. Once it gives out a
lease it says the company has to do an environmental assessment.
It is simple nonsense.
The government is saying that the company has to do its own
environmental assessment, report back, and nine times out of ten
proceed as normal. A full independent, complete environmental
assessment should be done of those areas first. Based on the
discussions and on the parameters of that assessment, leases
could then be granted if they will not harm ocean or fish
habitats.
The mandate of the DFO and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
is quite clear: the protection of fish and fish habitat. However
basically the cart is before the horse when it gives away
jurisdiction to an independent board that grants leases before an
environmental assessment is done. There is nothing in the
legislation that reverses that practice. Thousands of fishermen
in their communities are very concerned about it.
I am not saying that oil and gas exploration and fisheries
cannot coexist, but we need hard core, scientific, independent
environmental evidence first to ensure that all fish and all fish
habitat are protected by the burgeoning oil and gas industry.
At this time I would like to mention one of the top three books
I have read, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. Unfortunately
many people in the House probably have not read it. I know
government officials have never read it. It was written in the
early sixties by an American environmentalist who predicted what
is happening today: the decline of species, the increase of
asthma in children, and the rampant use of agricultural
pesticides on crops and products throughout the world.
It is no coincidence that on Prince Edward Island there are fish
kills every year related directly to agricultural pesticides in
its potato fields. What is done about it? Nothing, absolutely
nothing.
1125
We do not want to upset farmers. The salmon river groups and
the fishing groups are saying that they do not want to upset
farmers either. We have to work together not only to be able to
yield a sufficient crop in the potato industry but to protect the
waters and the habitat of fish. It does no good to promote one
industry at the destruction of another. That kind of attitude
needs to change and a more co-operative level has to happen.
At this time I wish to thank some great organizations throughout
the country that do a tremendous amount of good in protecting our
habitat for future generations. The Sackville Rivers Association
in my riding does a tremendous job of river cleanup, habitat
protection and everything else, on a shoestring. The Atlantic
Salmon Federation is trying to promote sustainable recreational
fisheries for salmon. As well it is trying to protect their
rivers and breeding grounds and ocean stocks in order for the
salmon to return.
I also thank the people of the Burns Bog Society in Steveston,
Richmond, British Columbia. Those people are trying to protect
the Burns Bog area for migratory birds species. Unfortunately
all levels of government are not really listening to them, but I
thank those people for their efforts in protecting those species.
Also I thank a wonderful group in Nova Scotia called the Ecology
Action Centre. It is a great group of environmental people doing
it on a shoestring, trying to protect specific areas in Nova
Scotia like the coral reefs and forested areas so that many
generations from now can enjoy the benefits of those beautiful
areas.
I also thank the David Suzuki Foundation for the great work it
does not only within Canada but internationally, and of course
the Nova Scotia Nature Trust. The Nova Scotia Nature Trust was
started by a gentleman in Chester named Rudy Haase. Basically it
purchases lands from people and tries to protect them for future
generations.
I say to the government and other opposition members that if we
do not protect the habitat of the specific species we are talking
about, it is simple nonsense to talk about the back end and say
we will protect the species without protecting their habitat. It
can be done co-operatively with the use of aboriginal knowledge,
especially of the north. It can be done with the municipalities,
the provinces, industry, workers and all associated groups in
that level working together not only to protect our country but
to protect our planet.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill which I believe
was tabled last April. It is much awaited endangered species
legislation. While all Canadians support prudent measures to
protect species at risk, this bill simply goes too far.
This piece of Liberal legislation was introduced by the
environment minister. It will have a profound impact on property
owners. It will essentially make them criminals if they fail to
protect endangered species or habitat on their land. The bill
gives the federal government the power and the capacity to pass
emergency orders that will force property owners to halt economic
activities that may adversely affect the species or habitat in
question.
Further, there is no clear formula for compensation outlined in
the bill. By ignoring this issue, any hope the minister had for
co-operation among landowners, conservation groups and the
government is tossed right out the window. Compensation for
expropriated land that is not at market value is simply not fair.
It will adversely affect ranchers and farmers, just to name a
few.
I am familiar with the situation in certain areas of the United
States where this type of legislation has been attempted.
Unfortunately it has been to the detriment of endangered species.
The expression used in many areas south of the border because of
this kind of legislation is: shoot, shovel and shut up. It
expresses the feeling among landowners in the U.S. that it is
better to quietly dispose of endangered species than protect them
through less draconian measures.
1130
Some have gone so far as to destroy land or habitat that they
feared could potentially host or attract endangered species. This
was to avoid potential problems with their federal government
down the road.
Many people with whom I am acquainted have lost their land to
the federal government. The land has become the property of the
state and compensation was never part of the consideration. This
just cannot be done to people.
There will, of course, be lots of lawsuits and families will
attempt to recover the losses they will have by these draconian
measures. If our government is interested in that kind of thing
taking place, where we are constantly in the courts settling
disputes because we have a constitution and a charter of rights
that does not recognize property rights, there will be some real
problems. The legislation will make these problems quite capable
of occurring.
The ranchers and the landowners in Alberta are good stewards of
the land and they all have a personal interest in preserving our
natural heritage. They want to do it. There are also over 100
conservation groups in existence that do an effective job of
managing millions of hectares of wildlife sanctuaries.
Canadians recognize that we need a proactive approach to
protecting species at risk that is based on respect: respect for
the species that inhabit our land and waters and respect for
those who own and work the land. What we do not need is
legislation that makes criminals out of all of us.
The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving
Canada's natural environment and endangered species, and to
sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the
use of current and future generations. The Canadian Alliance
maintains that for any endangered species legislation to be
effective, it must respect the fundamental rights of private
property owners. This legislation does not do that.
Compensation for expropriated land that is not at fair market
value is simply not fair. There is no clear formula for
compensation outlined in this particular bill. Compensation will
be dealt with through regulations following the passage of the
bill. How many times have we seen that with this government? It
passes the bill then brings in the legislation and socks it to
Canadians.
The government does not have the courage to bring these things
forward and have them included in the bill. Government members
like to slam the door, usually through some kind of hurried
legislation. Getting it through is the main thing. They put
closure on it and then the regulations will be in effect.
This minister as well as other ministers in this government have
this backwards. If we are going to have good legislation we need
co-operation among the stakeholders. This is unlikely unless
landowners are assured that any land expropriated for the purpose
of species or habitat protection and recovery will be
expropriated at fair market value. If that is not discussed and
built into the legislation prior to the passage of the
legislation, we can kiss those stakeholders goodbye. They will
sit back and wait for the draconian regulations to come in that
will make criminals out of them.
I could name other legislation which makes people feel like they
are the criminal all of a sudden.
We have law abiding people who feel they have been placed into
the criminal element because of the government's lack of proper
consultation and working together with other stakeholders.
1135
There is no recovery plan. They should be integrated into all
the activities. There should be a recovery plan which includes
the costs associated with the recovery of any given species or
habitat. Without such planning, we will find ourselves listing
species that we have no capacity to protect.
The Canadian Alliance supports an independent scientific listing
body, such as the Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada. We also recognize the role and authority of
parliament in recovery planning. That is our role.
However, the Liberals have introduced legislation which threatens
to use criminal sanctions in addition to its powers of
expropriation. Any attempts to expropriate private property
should be subject to a process and that process should be a
review which offers some form of arbitration or dispute
resolution to the landowners. It does not exist in this
legislation. Where warranted, and only after a fair dispute
resolution process has been completed, the expropriation of
private land at fair market value is reasonable.
The majority of producers and landowners believe that the
government could achieve its intention in protecting wildlife and
endangered species through a much more co-operative attitude with
farmers and ranchers instead of threats of punishment.
I encourage the government today to look at its legislation and
recognize the fact that it is not building bridges between all
these stakeholders who exist when it comes to this kind of
legislation. Rather, it is putting up walls of resistance
because of its constant threats to the law-abiding people of the
land through this kind of legislation which says “If you don't
do it our way, we'll sue the tail off you”. Threatening and
abusing the landowners to that degree is unacceptable and, unless
the legislation is amended properly, there will be no support
coming from this side of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
1867, when some twenty Fathers of Confederation laid the very
foundations of Canadian society, they were not in the least bit
concerned about endangered animals and other environmental
issues. That is why today, with regard to endangered species as
well as to the environment, we see federal interference in an
area under provincial jurisdiction.
With regard to environment, as shown by agreements between
provinces and the federal government, we have come to the
conclusion that when a problem affects more than one province or
a neighbouring country, the United States for example, it comes
under federal jurisdiction. When the environmental problem is
within a province, it comes under the province's jurisdiction.
This is well understood and it works well. We must acknowledge
that sometimes it goes beyond the jurisdictions of more than two
countries and affects every country on this planet, since we
breathe the same air and drink the same water.
1140
With respect to endangered species, it must be pointed out that
four provinces, including Quebec, have already passed strong
laws, even better than Bill C-33, which is a reincarnation of
Bill C-65 that died on the Order Paper and was sponsored Sergio
Marchi, who was then the minister responsible.
Since 1989, more than eleven years ago, Quebec has had its own
legislation to protect endangered animals. Now in the year
2000 the federal government wants to play an active role and,
once again to encroach upon areas under provincial
jurisdiction, again by using its spending authority.
From the point of view of the ordinary citizen, we cannot be
against Bill C-33 since there are more than 70,000 animal species
in Canada. On these, 340 are at risk. We must give them every
chance to survive. We need only think of the peregrine falcon.
It is estimated that 12 species disappeared in the last few
years.
Of course, if I taught ecology in grade eight, all of my pupils
would tell me that something has to be done. And it is true.
Well, Quebec did take action and was followed by three other
provinces, including Alberta. We have our own act, we are
enforcing it and things are working well.
Until recently, the federal government did not care much about
the protection of species facing extinction on its own land,
that is in federal parks. But suddenly, it has come forward and
wants to interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction.
Quebec will never accept, as it has already been had with
overlaps and with direct theft by the federal government.
Members should remember that during the war, the federal
government took over the power to resort to direct taxation,
supposedly for only a few years. The war ended in 1945, which is
more than 55 years ago, but we pay more and more taxes directly
to Ottawa.
With Bill C-33, the federal government is still trying to
encroach indirectly on provincial jurisdiction. Worse still, the
bill purports to protect habitats.
I agree that the habitats must be protected. The government of
Quebec currently protects the habitats of animals, primarily
those threatened with extinction. If this bill were passed,
what about cutting rights, for example, of spruce trees which
are natural resources and therefore under provincial
jurisdiction? Well, Quebecers would have to obtain Ottawa's
approval to cut down a mature forest.
We know federal bureaucracy. It does not happen in a week.
It can take two years to get an answer. We write to ministers
and sometimes it can take six months to get an answer, an
acknowledgement. Getting approval for cutting rights will
take two, three or four years.
No, Bill C-33 must not be passed as it stands.
Worse yet, clause 34 of the bill provides that the minister may
establish jurisdiction over a province by order in council, if,
after summary discussion, he does not feel that things are being
done the way he likes, that the province is dragging its heels.
1145
He would quite simply treat a province rather like a large or
small municipality depending on the province. Worse yet, we have
before us another fine example of structural duplication. It
usually creates a lot of discontent and costs a lot of money.
I point this out all the time to my dairy producers, who have a
cow and a quota. As we know, quotas today are mixed, that is a
combination of unprocessed and fluid milk. While the fluid milk
is under Quebec's jurisdiction, milk used in
processing to make butter or something else comes under the
jurisdiction of the department of agriculture in Ottawa.
So there you are, with two ministers of agriculture trying to
lead the same cow.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Poor cow.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: So we have the same milk, the same cow,
and two ministers of agriculture. We will end up with an
endangered species and two environment ministers, one in Ottawa
and one in Quebec City. It will take so long to reach agreement
that the endangered species will have time to disappear
completely from Canada or Quebec. It is not appropriate to have
squabbles over endangered animals.
Two weeks ago I experienced a wonderful example of harmonious
co-operation in Stratford, in the regional county municipality of
Granit Cambior, Ducks Unlimited, the municipality of
Stratford and Mayor Gaétan Côté, and the regional municipality
got together and invested $2.5 million to restore the former
Sullivan mine sites. Now that the site has been restored, there
are more than 170 species which can be found there again after a period of
total absence. This was accomplished without the federal
government and without any squabbling.
There are enough problems at the present time.
In the health field, agreement has been reached precisely
because the problem originated with the federal government,
which once again wanted to meddle in areas of provincial
jurisdiction. Fortunately the agreement between Messrs Harris
and Bouchard managed to overcome the resistance of the Quebec MP
representing Saint-Maurice, who would not listen to reason and
was prepared to again stir up things between Quebec and Ottawa
in order to raise his prestige in English Canada. We are
familiar with his recipe: jump on Quebec in order to get English
Canada on your side. Fortunately it did not work this time.
We can see that there is unified opposition to Bill C-33, by all
opposition parties in this House, the great majority of
environmental groups, the major companies whose operations
involve large tracts of land, such as pulp and paper companies,
and the mining association.
I would forewarn hon. members that the Bloc Quebecois will do
everything it can to stop this bill from moving through the
House.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand today to speak
to this issue, particularly in light of the concerns the people
in my constituency of Kootenay—Columbia have. My constituency
has some of the finest, if not the finest, big game hunting, if
not in North America, certainly in all the world.
This is an issue that I, quite frankly, despair over in that
there seems to be so much misunderstanding on the part of people
who do not live in a constituency such as mine. To suggest that
people who are concerned about this issue and who are speaking
against some of the provisions of this issue are therefore not
concerned about the environment is really desperately
unfortunate.
1150
I and my family have had the privilege, and I count it as a
privilege, of having lived on the shores of a lake in the Rocky
Mountains since 1974. When we wake up in the morning the sun is
rising over the Rocky Mountains. There are loons, osprey,
muskrat, beaver and all sorts of wildlife in the area. I love
and respect that part of the country and I really respect the
fact that I have had the privilege of bringing up my family in
such an idyllic location. I therefore speak with a tremendous
amount of passion about this issue.
The people in the cities who take a look at certain television
programs or read certain documentation can come to a particular
perspective. Sometimes that perspective is accurate but more
often than not it is inaccurate. I think for example of the
situation where we have had the various extreme ecogroups who
have been involved in the so-called B.C. great bear rain forest.
There is no such thing as the B.C. great bear rain forest. It
has never ever appeared on a map. It is a pure fabrication and
creation for marketing to get more money into the coffers of some
of these organizations. Unfortunately, what has happened is that
companies which purchase wood products, softwood lumber and items
of that type from that area have ended up succumbing to this
marketing program. What we are looking at now in the interior of
British Columbia is that the American extreme environmental groups
are now silently working and coming toward the interior of
British Columbia.
I will cite a specific example. I will read from notes I
took in two days of meetings last Saturday and Sunday in the town
of Revelstoke, part of my constituency. This city has been in
existence for 100 years. It has spawned many great citizens, not
the least of whom is the member for York South—Weston who was
born and raised in Revelstoke. We make note of that very
profound event.
All kidding aside, we have 8,500 people living in this city
that is completely and totally surrounded. There are basically three
valleys which converge at that particular point. We have a
static population of 8,500. They traditionally have treated the
environment with a tremendous amount of respect because it is the
environment from which they sustain their living.
With the changes that there have been, and some very good
changes I must say, in the forestry practices that have been
brought forward by various levels and various brands of
provincial government, we have seen a rollback in the amount of
responsible resource extraction in the way of harvesting timber
and wood products in the area.
As a consequence, there have been moves to more value added
products with less actual fibre being taken out of the bush.
However, there is a limit to how many guitar faces or how many
violin skins can actually be created and still have an employed
work base in the area. However, I should say that on balance it
strikes me that there has been a balance between the
environmental concerns and responsible harvesting practices.
Because there has been a downturn and because the area is so
absolutely spectacular, they have now moved to what we might call
ecotourism. We are talking about snowmobile facilities and
heli-skiing up on many of the magnificent glaciers in the area.
Suddenly, as a result of the federal Department of the
Environment red listing the caribou in the area, out of the clear
blue sky the ministry of environment lands and parks, MELP, has
decided that it is going to effect a closure for the snowmobilers
in the area. This is understandable and would be particularly
understandable if there was good scientific data and a good base
to make these judgments. Indeed, from the notes I read, we have
to take a look at the caribou in that area under the issue of
habitat impact, disturbance and wildlife.
We keep hearing that the grizzlies are an endangered species,
and indeed they are in certain areas of Canada, but in that part
of my constituency, as in the far southeast corner of my
constituency, the grizzlies are not an endangered species by any
stretch of the imagination.
They are predators that prey on deer and once they run out of
deer they go after the caribou and the elk. What kind of
pressure have the wolves as predators brought to the caribou
herds? These are questions that MELP does not seem able to
answer. However, this came about as a result of a listing by the
Canadian Department of Environment.
1155
Did MELP include, for example, the fact that we have Mount
Revelstoke National Park and Glacier National Park adjacent to
and between Revelstoke and Golden which obviously offer a
tremendously undisturbed area for the caribou to go to? Did MELP
include in its survey the fact that there was this totally
undisturbed area? When we asked that question in the meeting the
answer came back “In certain instances, yes, and in certain
instances, no”.
What the people of Revelstoke, Kootenay—Columbia and all
Canadians who understand these issues want to know is how are we
making these judgments, on what basis are we making these
judgments and have we taken into account all the impacts.
I also want to speak very forcefully in support of the
responsible use of the environment and the species by hunters. I
will read something into the record. It says:
If you were to believe the rhetoric of many of the so-called
modern environmentalists, hunters are an anachronism.
We are told that wildlife populations are declining while the
callous, uncaring hunter goes afield intent only on the kill,
giving no thought to the future of the resource.
A newly released survey from Wildlife Habitat Canada puts the
lie to this carefully nurtured image.
The survey reveals that over a 15-year period hunters have
directly contributed more than $335 million to habitat
conservation projects in Canada. While that figure is impressive
by itself, the study notes that this does not include the hunter
support given to national groups such as Ducks Unlimited Canada
and the Nature Conservancy of Canada. It does not include the
$600 million in license fees collected from hunters over the same
period, nor does it include the $600 million that hunters invest
in the Canadian economy each year on equipment, travel, lodging
and other related expenses. It is also important to note that
these figures do not include the equally significant
contributions that anglers have made to the resource.
In British Columbia alone, hunters have, over that 15-year
period, invested over $106 million dollars and almost 2.5 million
hours of volunteer work toward wildlife habitat conservation.
An impressive record for a group of citizens who are often
portrayed by the popular media as a group of uncouth rednecks,
blazing away at anything that moves and generally desecrating the
environment.
I must speak up on behalf of the people in my constituency, not
just the hunters but the people who, like myself, choose to live
in the area because we have such a tremendous amount of respect
for the environment, the ecology and the species. We must be
heard and be part of the process.
When we come forward with this species at risk act, if indeed it
is the will of the House for us to come forward with this act, we
must take into account all the issues I have brought forward
today, and the many more to come, to see that we create a proper
balance and that we have an understanding of what that balance
should be.
I and many of my colleagues who represent people like the
citizens in my constituency will be standing up for them.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to address Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of
wildlife species at risk in Canada.
My interest in this bill is twofold: first, a concern for the
environment and, second, a concern for the effectiveness of this
legislation. I am also concerned about how the federal
government wants to get involved in areas of provincial
jurisdiction and about the centralization process proposed by
the federal government in that area instead of achieving true
co-operation and signing parallel agreements with the provinces
based on what is being done in each of them.
As we can see once again with this issue, the federal government
has no desire to take into account the particular situation of
the provinces.
1200
It is important to realize that biodiversity as a whole is the
result of an evolution process that has been taking place on
earth for over 4.5 billion years. That process has created a
large number of living organisms and natural environments, and
it is important to protect them to ensure a balance on our
planet.
These organisms make up the ecosystems that we know. They all
play a role in the food chain and in maintaining our planet's
biological balance. However, in recent years, scientists have
been telling us that certain species are increasingly at risk of
becoming extinct, and that there is an increase in the number of
endangered species or species that are at great risk.
Let me describe the present status. There are 340 species at
risk in Canada, 15 are extirpated, 87 are endangered, 75 are
threatened, 151 are vulnerable and of the 97 whose status is
being reassessed, 27 will be closer to becoming extinct in the
coming years. The situation is alarming and we must immediately
look at what Bill C-33 will realistically allow us to do.
Given the increasing rate of extinction of some species, as I
just mentioned, I admit that we are facing a serious problem.
The Bloc Quebecois is showing its concern by having several
members speak out against Bill C-33. It is imperative that we
react quickly but effectively.
Before reacting, though, some questions must be asked. The
Minister of the Environment is telling us that the bill cannot
be amended. What utter contempt for the committee that will be
struck to study Bill C-33. What utter contempt for the opposition.
Today, all the opposition parties have taken a stand against
this bill; they want some regional issues to be dealt with.
Environmental groups are opposed to this bill and they want
some specific changes.
The Minister of the Environment is ignoring all these
objections, as well as those made by industries with daily
activities which impact directly or indirectly on the
environment.
Some basic questions must be answered. Will Bill C-33 result in
better protection and can it really be enforced? Will the bill
really help to increase the protection of our ecosystems and of
their endangered species? These are the first questions to be
asked. For me and for a number of representatives of various sectors
affected by this serious issue concerning the survival of
endangered species, the answer is no. This is what the Bloc
Quebecois, through its objections, wants to say to the
government.
The principle of a better protection for endangered species is a
principle the Bloc Quebecois can readily endorse, contrary to
what the government party would have us believe. Incidentally,
government members are quite silent today about Bill C-33.
We are not convinced that Bill C-33 will protect endangered
species any better. We are just not sure. Indeed, we oppose this
bill because it is a direct intrusion in many areas under the
jurisdiction of Quebec and other provinces, instead of an effort
to have a true dialogue with the provinces and true respect for
what is being done in the provinces.
1205
In fact, it duplicates Quebec legislation that has been in force
since 1989, legislation that works just fine and has had a
significant impact in Quebec. One again, this bill is granting
the federal government excessive powers at the expense of
Quebec.
Although the preamble of the bill indicates that the protection
of species is a shared responsibility, everything leads us to
believe that the minister has the power to impose his vision
and the vision of cabinet when he deems appropriate. The
minister is also putting himself in a vulnerable position.
We are very well aware that there are various lobbies around
whose job it is to represent the interests of certain companies
whose actions might pose a threat to certain endangered species.
Cabinet and the minister are there to decide whether or not the
legislation should be enforced. It is very dangerous.
In other words, its legislation would automatically take
precedence over existing provincial legislation, even when
habitats are entirely under provincial jurisdiction. We know
that such an approach is unacceptable and will do nothing to
promote the much desired balance in protecting our threatened
species.
Clause 10 says that the minister may enter into an agreement
with respect to the administration of any provision of the Act.
More specifically, clause 34(2) under general prohibitions,
clearly states:
(2) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the
Minister, by order, provide that sections 32 and 33 apply in
lands in a province that are not federal lands—
This is where the Bloc Quebecois does not agree. As if that
were not enough, clause 34(3) states that:
(3) The Minister must recommend that the order be made if the
Minister is of the opinion that the laws of the province do not
protect the species.
So cabinet will influence the minister. By extension, the
minister and his office may be heavily influenced by various
companies that dump chemicals into waterways and lakes. We are
therefore unable to support this bill.
We can see how the party in power really operates in this
legislation to protect endangered species. We know that it got
a D minus and yet it wants to tell the provinces what to do.
What a joke.
The government fails to get a passing grade when
it comes to protecting endangered species but it wants to tell
others what to do, just like the Prime Minister offering advice
on poverty at international conferences.
His own government, for the last seven years, has torn away the
social safety net, has axed the employment insurance program and
denied the provinces the amounts they need for social housing,
and these are but a few of the measures it has taken. If I were
to mention every way in which the federal government has backed
out of social programs, the list could be very long. Here we
have a government that is trying to teach us a lesson when it is
in no position to do so.
That is exactly the purpose of Bill C-33: the government is
trying to tell provinces what to do. Some provinces definitely
have nothing to learn from the federal government, as they could
be leaders and show the federal government how to be more
effective on its own lands.
The Minister of the Environment is absolutely inflexible: He
will not entertain any amendments to Bill C-33. That is what he
said.
We know that the pulp and paper industry, some environmental
groups, the opposition here today and even some members of the
Liberal Party of Canada have told the minister that this bill
will bring no real solution without major amendments: They have
even said that this bill is seriously flawed.
1210
Two members of the Liberal Party of Canada have also said that this
measure disregards a list of 333 species identified by a
committee struck in 1978.
So the government wants to give lessons without knowing how the
provinces have enforced certain provisions of their own
legislation on endangered species.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I notice that members opposite seem
to be a bit embarrassed about this bill because the Liberals are
making no attempt in the House to defend it. I am not really
surprised that they do not want to be associated with their
handiwork in a public way.
The enforcement and penalties provisions of the bill epitomize
the contempt the government has for due process and individual
rights. Why does the government always have to use the big
sledgehammer to come forward with legislation which, we must
admit, has a wonderful intent? I am sure its intentions are
fine. I agree with them but not with the means. With what the
government is proposing to do and the jeopardy it will place
rural people in, our farmers, ranchers and woodlot owners will
have to live with draconian legislation which contains provisions
contrary to every historical piece of jurisprudence that I can
find, and certainly contrary to the spirit of common law.
Why do I say that? Provisions in the legislation for searches
without warrants of any building other than a dwelling house are
almost word for word the same as in the notorious firearms
legislation, Bill C-68. Even the condition that a warrant to
search a dwelling may be obtained merely on the basis that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that entry will be otherwise
refused are incorporated in this bill. This bill also copies the
provisions in Bill C-68 that make it a criminal offence to fail
to assist an officer searching one's property or to withhold
self-incriminating information.
Clauses 86 to 91 must have been written and compiled by the same
folks who wrote the firearms legislation because paragraph after
paragraph in the enforcement section are absolutely identical in
wording to the other bill. This is not a coincidence.
We say that this bill is to protect endangered species. I think
it is here to protect a predatory species, namely the lawyers who
have written it for lawyers. Lawyers will become fantastically
wealthy trying to defend innocent landowners against the
provisions of this insane legislation.
Not only are the provisions for search and seizure and all those
good things totally contrary to the spirit of Canadian law, but
the prescribed penalties for killing, molesting or trafficking in
endangered species will be extraordinarily severe. This is a
country noted for leniency for most criminal sanctions, but with
this legislation an individual may be fined up to $250,000 and/or
imprisoned for up to five years, even if he does not deliberately
commit the offence. Even if it is through negligence or
accident, these penalties are available.
1215
The same penalties are available for “destroying the nest or
den of an endangered creature” again even through negligence. A
person who accidentally runs over the nest of a bird which is
supposedly endangered could be in trouble.
If I go out on my ranch, which incidentally teems with game, to
check my cattle and I accidentally run over a species of plant
which is deemed to be endangered, or even if my saddle horse
steps on such a plant, under the terms of this legislation I can
be charged. I can be charged not for some statutory offence, but
with a crime. Why does the government want to make criminals of
ordinary citizens every time they turn around?
The implications of the legislation for farmers are really
alarming. Equally alarming to the possibility that one might
accidentally destroy a nest or den is the provision that the
penalties I have been quoting can be applied to anyone who
destroys any part of the deemed critical habitat of an endangered
species. There does not even have to be any endangered species
present for this law to come into full force.
I would ask the indulgence of the House to read from an analysis
of the bill which was prepared by Mr. David Pope, a prominent
Calgary attorney who, as I do, cherishes civil liberty and the
common law. Here is what Mr. Pope has to say:
The offences and penalties for actions against plants, animals
and organisms that are deemed species at risk and the lands which
make up their habitat are unlike any found in Canadian criminal
law. These are not offences of murder, arson, theft or rape but
are for harming or harassing a plant, animal or organism or
destroying a portion of its habitat.
Mr. Pope then describes the listed environmental crimes as
“strict liability offences”. That is to say that an accuser
need only say that the offence was committed and the person
accused must then prove that he did not do it. This is called,
in legal terms, reverse onus. It is almost never used in
criminal law. In the past it has been virtually unheard of, and
the test for conviction is much less than the usual standard of
the criminal law. This is a dangerous change, especially when
one realizes that it is aimed directly at ranchers and farmers
who are usually not seen as criminals in Canadian society.
The competent minister has authority to appoint eco-police who
have the same powers as a peace officer but no training. These
eco-police only have to justify themselves to the minister.
Finally, since I see my time has nearly elapsed, there is a
provision in Bill C-33 for anyone 18 years or older and resident
of Canada to start an investigation against a rancher or farmer
for any of the offences that we have been mentioning. Any
special interest group or anyone with a grudge against a
particular farmer may launch such a prosecution and can do so in
complete anonymity.
1220
As a matter of fact, the act states that the minister may not
release the name of the plaintiff. Anyone else in a criminal
court in Canada is allowed to face his or her accuser. Even
murderers have that right, but someone who may have accidentally
or negligently damaged an endangered species habitat does not
have that right. He or she cannot bring an accuser into open
court face to face.
I do not know how the bill can be fixed in its present state. We
would have to eliminate so many sections to bring the enforcement
and penalty provisions into line with Canadian custom and other
Canadian law that we would virtually gut the bill. I would
respectfully suggest that that is what should happen. Perhaps
that is why government members are not defending the bill. Maybe
that is their intent. I pray that it is.
Let us go back to the drawing board. Let us get it right. Let
us protect endangered species without beating up on our own
citizens.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker. it is with
pleasure that I rise today to speak to a bill as significant as
this one.
This bill does not deal with the issue of endangered species
such as the members of the Progressive Conservative Party or the
NDP. As a matter of fact, it deals with endangered wildlife
species, an issue that is extremely important.
Today, we are debating Bill C-33. This is a very significant
bill. Its content and purpose meet a desperate need. As hon.
members are aware, there are some 340 wildlife species at risk
in Canada.
A number of these species are already extinct. Others are in a
rather critical state. There are 87 species that are considered
endangered, while 75 are threatened and 151 are vulnerable, for
a total of some 340 wildlife species at risk in Canada.
We know that this is an important issue not only in Canada, but
also all over the world. There were several conferences,
including the 1992 Rio Summit, which brought together
representatives from different countries who looked into the
issue of endangered species.
Environmental pollution, combined with all the issues related to
water and atmospheric pollution, plays a role in the extinction
of animal species. We ought to make every effort to ensure their
preservation. That is why there was a summit in Rio in 1992 and
why Canada signed the convention on biological diversity.
In fact, that is what prompted Canada, in 1996, to hold a
conference to reach an agreement on the environment with the
provinces. This was the agreement on the protection of
endangered species, which led to the introduction, by the
Minister of the Environment, of Bill C-65, an act respecting the
protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or
extinction.
This legislation formed the basis of the bill we are examining
today, Bill C-33. It is more or less the same bill with a few
changes. In fact, this is the first time that the federal
government has tried to pass legislation to address the issue of
endangered species.
1225
This is the government's first bill, but it completely misses
the mark. We even wonder why the federal government introduced
such unclear legislation which has drawn so much criticism from
all sides.
Even when the former version of the bill, Bill C-65—and the
federal government was aware at the time of criticism that the
bill was inadequate—was introduced, opposition to it came from
all of the provinces, not only from Quebec, but also from Nova
Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, the Yukon and the Northwest
Territories.
Everyone in fact was opposed to the principle that seems to be
reincarnated in Bill C-33, namely the lack of harmonization with
the provinces.
The bill represented an approach that did not respect provincial
jurisdictions and lacked harmonization between federal and
provincial jurisdictions. We do know that the federal government
has powers in this area, it has legislated this area, but so
have the provinces. The provinces have the tools to better
protect the habitats of endangered species.
The federal government does have some degree of jurisdiction,
but the ideal would be of course to have some degree of
harmonization between both levels of government.
However, once again the federal government seems unable, even
when it would be very important to do so, to agree with the
provinces. Quebec is not the only province to criticize the
approach of the federal government under Bill C-33. One must
wonder whether it is not always trying to create
federal-provincial conflicts, as illustrated by this piece of
legislation.
There is a fair amount of opposition to this bill. Without
referring to all the clauses—there are 141 of them dealing with
various definitions—I can say there are two major issues that
bother us, and that bother all the opposition parties, all the
environmental groups and even some Liberal members.
The federal government wants too much power to enforce this law,
and this puts into question the effectiveness of the law and may
even threaten wildlife species at risk.
The federal government wants to impose its vision, a vision
which, once again, does not respect provincial jurisdiction and
which seems to imply that the federal law will take precedence
over provincial jurisdiction.
The government is off to a bad start, obviously, because a law
cannot be effective when it is creates a problem in
federal-provincial relations. It is obvious that the government
is not at all on the right track. This is not a political
matter. It is a matter of responding to a need other countries
have been aware of for years. Time is of the essence. The more
we wait before enforcing such legislation, the more endangered
species will vanish.
That is the problem.
Once again, in this bill, the federal government does not
respect provincial jurisdiction, is seeking too much
discretionary power and even, which is totally absurd, wants to
let cabinet rather than experts, people who know this field,
determine which species are endangered. It is totally crazy to
play politics with a bill that deals with very scientific data.
1230
It is good to involve people who are familiar with the
situation. People who are in the know about environmental
issues and the protection of endangered species are opposed to
this bill. All, or very nearly all, environmental groups are
totally opposed, because it is ineffective. It is useless, even
dangerous, they say. It is dangerous in the sense that it does
not respond to the need to effectively protect endangered
species because instead of protecting them it creates a
federal-provincial conflict once again.
Even stakeholders such as the pulp and paper industry and the
mining association are opposed to this bill as well. Imagine,
there are even Liberals on the government side who have examined
this bill, and not just any old Liberals. The member for York
North, for instance, was one of them. On June 12, 2000, she
said “We will do nothing to protect species at risk unless this
bill leaves committee as a good, effective piece of
legislation”. However, the minister has already said he had no
intention of making changes to the bill.
The hon. member for York North, who is incidentally very
involved in environmental issues, also said “The House must
support legislation that is strong, fair, effective and makes
biological sense. Unfortunately Bill C-33 is wanting”. These are
the words of the member for York North.
That same day, June 12, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis who, in
another life, served as Quebec's minister of the environment
under Premier Bourassa, said “Instead of being recognized as
being the final list produced by scientists of the highest
repute who have worked tirelessly over the last two decades, the
list will now be subject to the discretion of cabinet”. What
business does cabinet have interfering in these decisions, which
must obviously be based on scientific experience? It is only
common sense that the experience required should be scientific
in nature.
The member for Lac-Saint-Louis went on to say “I find that
terribly ironic—We are not even starting with the roll of
the list of the 339 species identified.”
That is a glaring fault in the law. Without a list, there can be
no protection against this approach, which was why the Sierra
Club said that, if the bill were passed, it would be an
international embarrassment to Canada.
I would also point out that all the opposition parties are
opposed to the bill, as well as the government of Quebec
obviously. Once again, we feel there is duplication and
interference. The federal government does not seem to know
where its jurisdiction ends. This bill must be killed.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to this bill today. I agree
with many of the comments made by my Bloc colleague, particularly
in the area of interference on the part of the federal government
in areas of provincial jurisdiction. We share a lot of those
concerns in that area. The government quite frankly does not
respect provincial jurisdiction as is set out in our
constitution. That is very unfortunate because it is not
particularly productive.
We are talking about protecting species at risk. I know that I
and the people in my constituency certainly take that seriously.
I know my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance also take this
issue seriously. We are concerned about protecting species at
risk. The approach the government has taken will not do that.
It will not be effective in any way in protecting species at risk
because instead of using a co-operative approach, instead of
ensuring that there will be fair compensation for any loss of
property or loss of use of property, the government has taken a
heavy-handed approach with large penalties and fines and large
potential jail sentences for those who do not act in the way that
it lays out in the legislation. It has used a big stick rather
than a true co-operative approach which would by far be the most
productive approach.
1235
I could cite dozens of examples from around the world, including
here in Canada and in the United States, where a co-operative
approach has been extremely successful in protecting a species
which a particular group has decided should be protected. It has
been proven to be effective.
United States endangered species legislation has proved
that this heavy-handed intrusive approach with large penalties
does not work. It does not work because people who may find they
have a species at risk on their property or on property that they
are using will not report that and will not work with government
in protecting those species because of the fear of losing their
property or losing the right to enjoy it or losing income from
it.
I have been here seven years and this is the government's third
attempt to put forth legislation. In spite of the fact that it
failed twice before to put forth legislation to protect species
at risk, it has taken the same approach again, a failed approach
and an approach which does not work.
I want to talk a little about my background and where I am
coming from in terms of my most urgent concerns with this
legislation. In my constituency of Lakeland, in east central
Alberta, there are many farms. It is a rural constituency. Also,
there is an oil and gas industry which is a resource industry
that is very concerned about this particular legislation as well.
I grew up on a mixed farm by Lloydminster. I bought a farm in
1974. I took agriculture at university. I have a bachelor of
science in agriculture degree. I bought a farm with 100%
financing, so I know what it is like to try to make a living on a
farm. I know it is extremely difficult. I know there were years
when I wondered whether I was going to make it another year.
I also worked as a farm economist and a business management
consultant with farmers, first seasonally and then even on a full
time basis as I farmed to help support this farm. Too often I
was at a kitchen table where the children and their mother were
in tears and where the father was there with a vacant look in his
eyes because they knew they were about to lose the family farm.
Too often I was at the kitchen table in situations like that.
I made a promise to myself at that time that it would be my
mission to make sure that things improve for farmers so that it
did not have to be like that any more. It is still my mission
today.
I am not going to stand by and allow a piece of legislation
which takes a heavy-handed approach which will cause farmers
should it go ahead to lose their farms when otherwise they would
not and one which will cause a loss of income to farmers which
they cannot afford. I am not going to stand by and allow that to
happen because I came here to fight on behalf of farmers and
others against legislation such as this. We all want legislation
which will work to protect species at risk. This bill will not.
It will make things worse.
Farmers have proven over the years that if we co-operate and
work with them, they will do everything they can to protect
species at risk. They have done that and proven it. This
legislation is going in the wrong direction.
Farmers have told me privately that if this legislation goes
through what it will lead to. If they should identify a species
at risk understanding that they could lose their property without
compensation or should they lose the income from a part of their
land which has been designated as the habitat for a species at
risk, knowing that could happen, they are not going to want to be
particularly co-operative. There is no guarantee of compensation
and there is certainly no guarantee of compensation at market
value.
1240
In fact, it will be counterproductive and will lead to them
ignoring that species at risk or worse. It will be a negative
thing and that is not what we are looking for. The legislation
simply is not productive. It is not a positive way of dealing
with this problem. It has failed twice before because of that
and now the government is introducing the same type of
legislation again. It will fail again and that is not what we
want.
I talked about farmers and those in the resource industries who
will be impacted by this legislation should it pass as it is. I
would like the environment minister to explain the situation to
his friends. They may have cottages or may have finally, after
years of work, managed to build the house they want on a shore
someplace in an ideal spot. They have worked their lifetime to
finally achieve this and they value it so greatly. What would
happen if a species identified at risk was an found on their
land? I want the minister to explain to those people whom he
does not know what would happen if a species at risk was found on
the land around their cottages or on some other property they own
or use to earn a living. I would like the minister to explain to
them what would happen in terms of compensation.
This minister has refused, despite being asked so many times,
that should that situation arise, should that property be
confiscated or should the use of that property be limited as a
means to protect a species at risk, to guarantee that there will
be compensation at fair market value.
The message has come across very clearly that there will not be
compensation at fair market value. I want him to explain to his
friends when they lose their cottages or lose the right to enjoy
it or lose their property or the right to use it for the purpose
of their business, why he thinks they should lose that right and
lose their property without at least a guarantee of compensation
at fair market value. Yet no such guarantee has been
forthcoming. In fact, the message is very clear that there will
not be compensation at fair market value.
In a vague way, the legislation talks about the possibility for
compensation. It does not say there will be compensation and
nowhere does it guarantee that there will be compensation at fair
market value.
What I want put into this legislation, not in regulation, before
it ever passes this House, is a clause which guarantees, in an
ironclad way, that should anyone lose property or lose the right
to enjoyment of property or to income from property as a result
of a plan to protect species at risk, that they will be
compensated at fair market value. Along with some other changes
that will help lead to a co-operative approach to dealing with
the problem. Under that kind of situation, we can protect and
will protect species at risk in a meaningful way.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to add some comments to this bill
which is important and timely. There are few people in the
country and in the Chamber who would not have a soft spot in
their hearts for species at risk in this country.
This particular bill aims at its very root to prevent wild
species in Canada from becoming extinct or lost from the wild and
to in many ways move towards securing their recovery in their
natural habitat.
A small background to this bill, in 1992 the former Progressive
Conservative government signed what was then and went on to
become the first industrial country to ratify the United Nations
Convention on Biological Diversity.
That convention included in its body the commitment for
legislation and/or regulatory provisions for the protection of
threatened and endangered species. It was certainly a worthwhile
cause then and is equally so today.
1245
In 1996 the Liberal government introduced legislation to fulfil
the commitment made earlier by the Progressive Conservative
government. That commitment came about through Bill C-65, the
Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act. That bill was
roundly criticized by environmentalists, scientists and
landowners at the time. Sadly, because of parliament recessing,
it died on the order paper at the House committee stage.
Bill C-33 is modified and renamed from Bill C-65. It represents
the second legislative attempt by the government to fulfil
Canada's commitment that was made earlier. According to the
government, Bill C-33 is intended to complete and complement
existing provincial and territorial legislation on endangered
species. It would also fulfil the federal government's
commitment under the federal-provincial accord for the protection
of species at risk, signed in 1996.
The substance of the bill calls for protection of various
species that are named and identified as being at risk of
extinction. It prohibits the killing, harming, harassing,
capturing or taking of species officially listed on a document.
That list is there to signify those species in Canada that are
endangered or threatened with the destruction of their own being
or of their residence.
The species at risk legislation provides for emergency authority
to list types of species and to take action to prohibit the
destruction of critical habitat for those listed species and
those that are identified as in some imminent danger. It will
also provide for the recovery, the strategy and the action to
identify the critical habitat of threatened or endangered
species.
Obviously there is a need for a holistic approach that will
identify the species being threatened. It goes hand in hand to
say that we have to identify where they live in a strategy to
prevent further harm and to preserve and complement their
recovery.
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada is
given legal status under this act. It will continue to operate
at arm's length from the government. It will assess and classify
the status of wildlife species. There is a great deal of ability
for outside participation beyond simple government control. These
assessments will be published and will be brought about in the
form of a basis for the minister's recommendations to cabinet on
the list of wildlife species at risk.
From the Progressive Conservative Party's perspective this is
where the bill falls down to a large degree. The final
determination as to what species will appear on the list is still
very much entirely in the hands of cabinet. It is entirely at
its discretion. That is fine in some areas, but in this instance
it is specialized and in need of particular input from
non-governmental bodies outside government to make this
determination. Yet the government has retained exclusive control
over this list and the determination of this list.
I will refer to who comprises the working group that is very
much opposed to the government's preservation and exclusive
jurisdiction over this decision. It includes the Canadian Pulp
and Paper Association, the Mining Association of Canada, the
Sierra Club of Canada, the Canadian Nature Federation and the
Canadian Wildlife Federation.
Their position is that they are in much better position to
determine which species should or should not appear on that list.
They feel that by cabinet retaining control over this exclusive
decision it very much remains a political issue when it should
not be such. It should very much be based on science, on
tangible evidence that can be documented and put forward to
determine whether species fit into the specialized category of
being on the verge of extinction.
The mining and pulp and paper industries and environmentalists
are often at odds with one another. Some would go so far to say
they are often at each other's throats. If they can come to an
agreement and a consensus that they can work together to make the
list viable, it is in the country's interest and very much
something the government should defer to this group.
1250
It is almost trite to say that the Progressive Conservative
Party recognizes that extinction is forever. There is no turning
back when a species has been eliminated from the planet. As
such, we believe that all Canadians very much support strong
legislation that will preserve a species and in some cases will
take very drastic measures to ensure the preservation of a
species.
The status that has been given or would be designated is
something that is a matter of scientific fact and not political
choice. This is the reason the Progressive Conservative Party
believes that to be effective the legislation has to take action
based upon science and based upon evidence. This is not
something that is political or partisan. This is an issue of
utmost importance. It has to be placed in the hands of those
best able to make the determination of what species may be at
risk.
We are also committed to protecting the rights of landowners and
users who believe that no single individual or entity should bear
the burden of recovery when the benefits of a species' protection
for all society are to be appreciated. There are occasions when
the natural habitat of a certain species may be very much in the
hands of a private landowner. There has to be some accommodation
and perhaps some compensation involved when the government steps
in and makes a determination that everything in its power has to
be done to preserve the species and to ensure that their habitats
are safe.
This is why we as a party believe the bulk of the decision
should be left to the stakeholders when designing this recovery
plan and not to cabinet. The party also recognizes that if an
endangered species is found in a given area, landowners must be
doing something right and should in some instances be given the
tools to continue doing so or in some instances to make that
environment right.
We agree, support and recognize that many volunteers and
voluntary measures have fully endorsed the stewardship as a means
of providing protection for species in their critical habitat. We
endorse a graduated approach to the stewardship and a full tool
kit of materials designed to engage the stakeholders positively
in the process. There must be an ongoing process of examination
of factors such as examination of the habitat of the species and
monitoring of the numbers of a certain species.
Once again it is obvious that this will be based upon scientific
evidence that can be gathered in the field by those who have very
specialized training in some instances. It is very obvious to
me, and I suspect to all, that persons have spent virtually their
entire lives studying certain species. I know that this is true
in the maritime provinces of certain species of fish. I suspect
it is true all over the world that individuals have made a very
clear and very strong commitment to the preservation of some of
our most natural and beautiful species on the planet.
The Conservative Party believes that simply making criminals out
of landowners will not save endangered species. We have to
include the stakeholders, scientists, landowners and governments
in a role of enforcement. We cannot leave this decision simply
in the hands of political masters.
This is one instance where it should be taken out of the
political realm and based solely on science and individuals who
have the know-how, the appreciation and the understanding of the
status of species that may be literally on the verge of
extinction from the planet.
These are four components of the bill, but there are certainly
problems and areas in which there could be improvement. I hope
and certainly expect that we may hear from the minister on the
issue in the very near future.
One contentious element has been the minister's intransigence
and unwillingness to yield on this point. He has said publicly
that under his stewardship there would be no amendments to the
legislation, that it would be an all or nothing approach. Early
indications now are that he is recanting that position. We look
forward to working with him at the committee stage and improving
this important bill.
1255
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
despite the fact that the preamble to the bill states that
responsibility is shared between the two orders of government in
matters of species protection, the bill is not drafted in these
terms. It does not reflect the reality, namely that habitat
protection essentially concerns the provinces.
Indeed, this legislation would automatically take precedence
over existing provincial legislation even when habitats are
entirely under provincial jurisdiction.
An example. Clause 34 provides clearly that “The Governor in
Council may, on the recommendation of the minister, by order,
provide that certain sections apply to lands in a province that
are not federal lands”. In addition, the minister must recommend
that the order be made if he is of the opinion that the laws of
the province do not protect the species. Of course, the bill
provides as well that the minister does not recommend that the
governor in council make an order until he has consulted the
appropriate provincial minister. Nevertheless, only the word
consultation is used.
Here is another example. The choice of terms with respect to recovery
strategies is also of some concern as it applies to the
jurisdiction of the provinces in the matter. Indeed clause 39
provides that the competent minister will prepare the recovery
strategy with the appropriate provincial minister to the extent
possible.
The same applies to action plans, in which case again, it is
provided that co-operation will be to the extent possible. More
particularly, the entire section on protecting the critical
habitat allows the government to develop codes of practice and
impose national standards or guidelines, when the federal
government has no legal authority over most of the lands
concerned and no power over the management of the resources in
these areas.
This bill encroaches squarely on the jurisdiction of the
provinces and excludes their making any real and direct
contribution in the process. Existing laws are ignored.
This is just the way it is with so many other recent laws and
will be the same with future ones, we have no doubt. This law
does not respect provincial jurisdictions.
Another point needs to be raised.
Most environmental groups are opposed to the bill introduced by
the Minister of the Environment, even though these groups should
be the minister's allies.
Most stakeholders feel that the proposed legislation does not go
far enough. Even organizations representing the industry think
that this bill will not provide greater protection for species
and will not help them determine what they should to protect
species living on the sites of their operations.
But the main problem raised by environmental groups has more to
do with the fact that the decisions concerning the designation
of species will be made by the minister and by cabinet, rather
than by scientists.
A lawyer from the Sierra Club strongly condemns such an approach.
She condemns the fact that such discretionary power about the
designation of species is given to politicians, not to
scientists. The minister is being criticized for resorting to a
piecemeal approach dictated by cabinet, instead of a global
approach supported by compelling legal measures if an agreement
cannot be reached.
What is the position of the government of Quebec, which is
directly concerned, on Bill C-33? As soon as the federal Minister
of the Environment introduced his bill, his Quebec counterpart,
Paul Bégin, said that the proposed legislation was just another
example of useless duplication for Quebec. Indeed, the Quebec
minister indicated that Bill C-33 sought not only to create a
safety net for endangered species and their habitat on federal
lands, but also on lands all over Quebec, regardless of whether the
lands are under federal jurisdiction or not.
1300
Although it is a federal responsibility to pass legislation to
protect migratory species, the federal government has no
constitutional power over habitat management in provincial
territory. Obviously, as far as Quebec is concerned, there is
no question of the federal government invading areas of
jurisdiction that do not belong to it and dictating what
approach is to be used to protect Quebec ecosystems when Quebec
already has legislation aimed at protecting endangered species
and their habitat.
The government of Quebec believes in fact that legislation such
as that proposed by Bill C-33 might be acceptable if it were to
exclude any species or habitat under provincial jurisdiction and
were applied to provincial territory if, and only if, the
province or territory were to specifically request it.
The government of Quebec passed its own legislation on this in
the late 1980s. In fact, Bill C-33 represents a direct overlap
with Quebec legislation which has been in place since 1989 and is
working well, with conclusive results already evident.
This bill therefore represents a risk of creating more red tape
instead of making it possible for limited resources to be
properly channelled into the right things. The government of
Quebec already has legislation in the areas addressed by Bill
C-33.
While we recognize that the environment is a shared
responsibility, it is becoming increasingly clear to us that the
federal government is ignoring this fact, flying completely in
the face of genuine environmental harmonization between the
various levels of government. It is introducing legislation in
an area which is outside its jurisdiction and liable to again
bring about unnecessary duplication in areas which are already
handled by the provinces and which affect their lands and
resources.
What the federal government calls a double safety net, for
example, two
levels of government operating in the same area of jurisdiction,
in fact waters down the accountability of both and needlessly
complicates the assignment of responsibilities.
There is nothing new under the sun in Ottawa.
With its arrogance, incompetence, and scorn for provincial
jurisdiction, Bill C-33 is typical of traditional Liberal
policy. But let us be fair. Whales, a protected species, seem
to be beyond the reach of those whom Ottawa claims come under
its exclusive jurisdiction, provincial jurisdiction
notwithstanding. This was an oversight I am sure. Henceforth,
I suppose that whales will sport a maple leaf. The oversight
has been corrected.
I need hardly point out that our party will be voting against
this bill, with its fresh demonstration of this government's
incompetence and arrogance. Only sovereignty can save us from
the mess of Canada's federal system.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the world series is approaching and
the government has thrown the third ball. It is the third time it
has tried legislation like this and it is the third time it will
strike out.
I believe the government has deliberately designed the bill to
promote confrontation. Nobody in his or her right mind would
design a bill that confronts the people in my constituency and in
the constituency of the hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands, who did an excellent job of making this
presentation. The bill is as ill-fated as the two former
attempts. It will bring about the same animosity among innocent
people as did Bill C-68, I can ensure hon. members of that.
Canadians from coast to coast agree that it is important to
protect our wildlife.
Canadians are enraged when people overfish. They are enraged
when animals are hunted out of season. They are enraged when
animals are hunted at night. Canadians aim for conservation.
These same Canadians are delighted to work with any government to
protect endangered species. This agreement must not come from
the top down as this legislation has.
1305
This bill will make criminals out of people who are completely
innocent. Within my constituency there are huge areas of ranch
land. I suspect that without the knowledge of the person who has
running cattle on that land, there could well be endangered plant
species. If by chance that same rancher puts up a new fence and
unknowingly drills through one of the endangered plant species,
he is automatically a criminal. That is the way the bill is
written.
Contrary to most laws, although the individual knows nothing
about the offence, he has to attempt to prove himself innocent.
This is not like ordinary law where all people are innocent until
proven guilty. The fines are so outrageously heavy that if they
were enacted, the individual would not only have to sell his
entire herd, but he would have to sell his ranch as well.
Because a lunatic went mad and shot some girls at École
Polytechnique, the government overreacted and brought in Bill
C-68. To this day it has had no value to anyone except to make
criminals out of a lot of duck hunters across Canada. It has not
solved one crime. However, some innocent young fellows were
denied the right to have FACs for their rifles because their
divorced wives said they were dangerous people. The government
brags about taking the guns away from these nasty people who have
never even had a traffic offence in their lifetime.
This legislation is going to fail. The legislation will use the
government's criminal law powers on innocent people. I wish all
Canadians would listen to the fear expressed by some
environmentalists who probably have never seen one of those
plants. This small group has encouraged the minister to bring
this bill in. Where did the minister choose to announce the
legislation? He made the announcement not in the prairies, not
in a city, not when parliament was sitting, but in the new
territory of Nunavut during the summer.
The last time the bill came before the House, Dan Gardner, who
is on the Ottawa Citizen editorial board, wrote “Any
government that is serious about saving endangered species has to
compensate landowners for economic losses. To do otherwise is to
pit people against animals and when that happens animals lose
every time”.
I would like everyone who is concerned about this to recognize
that if the bill is passed, co-operation is gone. If the
government takes the bill back and consults with people who will
be affected by the bill, it will get wholehearted co-operation.
Right now the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in facing
confrontation, is preaching co-operation. This bill does not
co-operate.
No farmer, no rancher, no farm organization, no cattle
organization to my knowledge were ever approached by the
government before it brought in this legislation. As a result of
that, it is going to fail.
1310
In an area not too far from where I live ground owls are
nesting. The farmer took down the endangered species sign
because he knew this bill was coming and he would ultimately lose
that property. That is not co-operation; that is dictatorship.
I plead with the government to not pass this bill. No amount of
amendments will make the bill palatable. Read the bill and see
what powers it gives to the government. It could destroy people's
lives overnight. Property could be seized overnight.
I beg hon. members, backbenchers and all, to read the bill and
then have the guts to stand in the House and vote against it for
the sake of humanity and for the sake of the people in
agriculture and for the sake of all people who could innocently
be incarcerated because of the bill. Am I being extreme? Not at
all. I urge members to read the bill themselves.
When this bill comes for a vote, I pretty well know that a good
number of the members opposite will probably be whipped into
shape, forcing them to vote for the bill. In talking to many of
them, I know they do not agree with the bill.
For the sake of our livelihood, for the sake of our country, for
the sake of wildlife, let us take aim at conservation. This bill
takes aim at confrontation and that is why it is doomed to fail.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today at second reading of Bill C-33, an act
respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.
Before I start my remarks, I would like to mention that the
International Fund for Animal Welfare held a precursory event
when this bill was introduced in the House.
They allowed MPs to officially adopt an endangered species.
Dr. Rick Smith, the Canadian director of the international fund
for animal and plant welfare, gave each MP a certificate on an
endangered species and an information booklet on its habitat and
the dangers threatening its survival.
He told members about the following survey: a Pollar survey
conducted in May of 1999 confirmed that 97% of Canadians
believed that laws to protect endangered species are
important. In addition, 85% felt that Canada's legislation
should be the most rigorous and complete in the world. The
survey results were consistent across Canada.
I myself received an adoption certificate making me responsible
for protecting the Anticosti aster, a species whose survival and
recovery depend on global and stringent legislation on the
protection of species at risk. The Anticosti aster is one of
the 313 Canadian species in danger of disappearing.
I would point out that two of our eminent colleagues from the
other side of the House adopted well known mammals: the beluga
and the blue beluga. For the two of them, the war of the
belugas would obviously not have happened. The members have
only to consult their list.
1315
Biodiversity as a whole is the result of the evolution of the
earth over close to 4.5 billion years.
It is to be noted that the secretariat of the convention on
biological diversity has had its head office in Montreal since
November 1995. The decision was made at the second conference of
the parties, held in Jakarta.
The secretariat follows up on the decisions made regarding the
protection of biological diversity when the convention was
signed. By signing the convention, the nations of the world
pledge to preserve the biological diversity of our planet, to
use biological resources in a sustainable way and to share
genetic resources fairly.
Starting in the 1970s, international conventions were signed to
restrict the trade of certain species and to limit the trade of
those threatened with extinction or that are highly
vulnerable.
In recent years, scientists have been telling us that we are
seeing more and more species become extinct, as well as
increasing numbers of others being threatened with extinction or
becoming highly vulnerable.
The UN report on biodiversity mentions several factors explaining
the decline in biodiversity. One of these factors is the
increase in population and economic development which, in their
own way, contribute to the depletion of biological resources.
The increase in human migration, travel and international trade
is also a threat to biodiversity, as is the increase in pollution.
It should be noted that the government has already introduced
Bill C-65, an act respecting the protection of species at risk in
Canada which died on the order paper.
The federal government can play a role in protecting wildlife
species under certain statutes such as those dealing with
fisheries or with our national parks. However no federal
legislation exists for this specific purpose.
If passed, Bill C-33 would be the first Canadian legal instrument
dealing specifically with the protection of wildlife species at
risk.
It is estimated that close to 70,000 known species have their
habitat in Canada, many of which are found only in Canada. The
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or
COSEWIC, has designated 340 wildlife species as at risk in
Canada.
This organization, established in 1978, is composed of
representatives from every government agency, province and
territory, as well as four national conservation agencies. It is
the main player in the protection of species and it is
responsible for establishing an index of the endangered species
in Canada.
As well, through clause 36, the bill forces the provinces who
identify some species as threatened species not listed as
endangered species by COSEWIC to apply the same restrictions to
their own species as those imposed on designated species.
By doing so, the federal government is assuming the right to
impose its own way of protecting species.
By giving discretionary powers to the Minister of the
Environment, the bill does not respect the division of powers as
stated in the Constitution.
Bill C-33 interferes in an area under provincial jurisdiction and
excludes the provinces from any real and direct input into the
process.
The protection of species can only be effective if habitats are
also protected, but it is the responsibility of the provinces to
manage these issues in co-operation with the various
stakeholders.
While it may be appropriate for the federal government to
legislate to protect migrating species, this government has no
constitutional authority regarding the management of habitats on
provincial lands.
1320
The Quebec government cannot let the federal government infringe
again upon areas of provincial jurisdiction. Quebec already has
its own legislation protecting endangered species and their
habitats.
The principle of providing greater protection to endangered
species is in itself one the Bloc Quebecois readily supports.
However we do not believe that Bill C-33 will improve the
protection of species at risk.
In fact we oppose the bill because it constitutes a direct
intrusion into many areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. It even
overlaps the act Quebec passed in 1989.
The bill could very well increase the paper burden. The Quebec
government has already legislated in areas covered by Bill C-33.
We recognize the need to improve the protection of our
ecosystems and the endangered plant and animal species that
constitute them, but we do not believe Bill C-33 is the way to
go. The Bloc Quebecois is opposing the principle of this bill
today.
In closing, I will repeat the opinion expressed by the Liberal
member for Lac-Saint-Louis on June 12 of this year, and I quote:
We are not even starting with the roll of the list of the 339
species identified by COSEWIC. That is a glaring fault in the
law. Without a listing there cannot be protection.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I will speak briefly to Bill C-33 because for the people
who live in cities and are really driving this bill it is very
easy to legislate away someone else's property.
In a moment I will read into the record a letter I received from
one of my constituents, Earl Campbell, who will be greatly
affected once Bill C-33 is passed. He wrote a very good letter
to the minister on April 25.
It is a pity we do not have the same rights to property as
American citizens have. Our constitution, unfortunately, does
not give us property rights so it is possible for a government,
like the Liberal government, to just run roughshod over people's
property rights. It can take away something for which people may
have spent their whole lives saving to purchase some sort of land
that they could retire on only to find that a government can take
it away without even giving reasonable compensation.
I will now read Mr. Campbell's letter into the record which was
sent to the Minister of the Environment on April 25, 2000. Mr.
Campbell indicated that he had read the bill which he had located
it on the Green Lane website. He read again the executive
summary from December 1999 provided by the government and the
material in a folder that had been sent to him by the minister,
obviously promoting the bill.
Mr. Campbell wrote:
My main objections to the detailed wording are still the same.
The enclosed editorial from the National Post says it
rather well. Any individual rights are totally abrogated.
I will read the National Post editorial in due course, but
I will continue with Mr. Campbell's letter at this point.
It is clear that you do not expect that this land use legislation
is going to affect you personally, or restrict your future income
or lifestyle, or you would be more concerned with the draconian
nature of the regulations already proposed, and the absence of
any appeal process.
All the talk in the world about what you or the Canadian
government may do for the environment still leaves me in the same
unenviable position; namely, some of my property is used
seasonally by species listed in the lists in Sec 129 under
regulations so far established, ironically enough because I
protected some of their habitat under my control.
Bill C-33 says the minister may compensate individuals whose
property use may or will have to be changed, making an economic
difference to the individual owner. Nowhere does it say the
Minister must compensate private individuals, adequately,
completely, and promptly, for loss of use or benefits of their
lands. Nor is there any provision for compensating the landowner
for the costs arising from any damage caused by empowered
officials entering or crossing private property as an access to
other property which they may wish to enter or inspect; nor other
costs.
This difference may be small to you.
It is not small to me. It is the difference between careful
modest enjoyment of my retirement years and a penurious
existence.
I am sure that I am not alone in this position.
Further, there are powers in the proposed bill which allow the
Minister (or apparently even persons delegated by the Minister of
Environment) to make further regulations from time to time. These
would not necessarily ever be publicly debated, either.
Potentially more dangerous.
I have already seen the effect of such omnibus powers as used by
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Clearly, any individual
landowner has to be both vigilant and lucky not to have some
perceived infringement under these regulations cause a major
problem with some enforcement officials.
I have little expectation that you, the minister, will ever see
this letter—
1325
Today, because I am reading it into the record, the minister
will get it firsthand.
That is why my faint praise is on page 2.
I think that you may be making an honest effort, not just a
political one, to do some real habitat protection for at least
some of the threatened and endangered species.
Further, I agree that the government must make the final
judgement on which species, and even which portions of a habitat,
must be protected and conserved. To that degree, I think the
introduction of socio-economic factors into the factors affecting
any decision is prudent. The absolute protections as found in the
United States laws, while they may soften the criticisms of the
wildest environmentalists, offer no chance for rational decisions
about the greater public good. It will still be a political can
of worms to even discuss a decision to abandon some protection
somewhere, for anything, I am sure; but the option needs to be
open.
That is a heartfelt letter from someone who will be directly
affected by this bill. There is something wrong with a proposal
for a government to take away something that a person has worked
his entire life to produce: a retirement farm that could be
taken from him at a moment's notice, especially when he has taken
the trouble already to provide habitat for a protected species.
As I mentioned, the position he took was backed up by a
National Post editorial dated April 14, 2000. I am not
sure I will have time to read the whole editorial but I will read
it as far as I can. It is headed “Unsustainable” and reads:
Protecting endangered species and their habitats makes sense
educationally, aesthetically, ecologically, even spiritually. But
for a rancher or logger who finds such a species on his land, his
immediate thoughts turn to personal risks. Will he lose
economically if the government finds out he is working in an
endangered habitat? Will his land be seized? Or just as bad,
will he be allowed to keep his land, but forbidden to use it?
These are not just theoretical concerns. In the U.S.,
heavy-handed legislation has led to a “shoot, shovel and
shut-up” mindset, where property owners view endangered species
as creatures to be destroyed, not preserved.
Any workable conservation effort must recruit property owners to
the environmental cause.
This is just like my constituent. From the tone of his letter,
he clearly supports the idea of protecting these endangered
species. All he asks is for reasonable and fair treatment by the
government. The editorial compares the situation with the new
federal species at risk act. It says:
Compensation for landowners is specifically not guaranteed: The
bill says the government “may” choose to pay a landowner for
taking his property—not “must” or “shall”. This is no
trifle; it is the only line a landowner has to read to know that
endangered species are his economic enemy.
As with the colleague who went before me from the Canadian
Alliance, I would beg and plead with the government
representatives to please read the bill.
They should think about what it would do to people in their
ridings who have saved their entire lives to buy property to
prepare for their retirement and now find themselves faced with
the possibility of seizure of their land without any reasonable
compensation. I ask them to vote against the bill and send it
back for revision.
1330
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-33, the Species at Risk
Act.
The public is far more concerned about the environment when the
economy is doing a little better. Fortunately this is the case
in a number of regions of Quebec and of Canada. This concern
ought to be an ongoing one and everyone agrees on that. There
must however be effective legislation and measures that have a
connection with reality.
First of all, I must admit to not having done an enormous amount
of work in this area, but I do have some familiarity with it. My
colleague from Jonquière is the one who handled this issue for
the Bloc Quebecois. I was extremely surprised, seeing all the
material on this issue, that the government has not managed after
all this time, for this is not the first time it has tried to get
such legislation, to get any more support for a bill which ought
normally to respond to some practical objectives.
Protecting endangered species is a worthy cause, but what it has
managed to do instead in this case is to unite people against it.
A number of provinces—if I remember correctly, Quebec, Ontario,
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and others I cannot
recall, there is a sixth I believe—already have legislation to
protect endangered species.
If there is federal intervention, it ought not to have a
negative impact on what is already in place, or occupy a space
that would make it possible to better protect our environment and
our ecosystem and provide all the environmental protection
necessary. Like many others, the government of Quebec is not
really comfortable about this because it looks like another case
of duplication.
All this is not because everyone keeps saying it is less
pertinent. For individuals, organizations, all those involved in
the field it is not easy to figure out what is going on when
there are two different pieces of legislation to deal with. Which
one takes precedence? Which addresses which particular aspect?
It is not a very simple matter. If the information is simple and
understandable, people will be more careful and more informed,
and a very healthy pressure will be put in place.
If the federal government also wanted to deal with what is under
its jurisdiction, it could do many things in environmental
matters. It too could set an example by the way it takes care of
the environment. It could be more open in its approach to the
citizens.
This brings to mind the MOX that the government tried to
transport on the sly: the less people are informed, the better.
My colleague and some people in her constituency managed to make
the plan public and called for a halt to it. The government was
forced to say that it would have to abide by its own principles.
If it had not been for the vigilance of a few people this might
have been done on the sly. The federal government's behaviour
is not exemplary.
Speaking of the environment in the broader sense, people in my
region as well as in northeastern Ontario are very concerned by
what is coming up. When we talk about Témiscamingue, that is the
Quebec side, but there is also Timiskaming on the Ontario side,
with a similar name because of Témiscamingue Lake which straddles
the border.
Northeast Ontario will have the great honour of hosting the
largest dump, or almost, in North America. Out of generosity, the
city of Toronto has decided to send its garbage to a former
open-pit mine in northern Ontario; three other regional
municipalities will do the same, Peel, York and Durham. A minimum
of 20 million tons of garbage will be sent to northeastern
Ontario, close to rivers flowing directly into Témiscamingue
Lake.
For those who do not feel concerned, I mention that
Témiscamingue Lake flows into the Ottawa River and eventually
into the St. Lawrence River. It is located at the watershed.
We live at the north-south divide, in an area where two
watersheds meet. This project will be in the southern watershed,
just at the very edge of that watershed.
1335
I will explain briefly. They will put the garbage in the mine
pit. Sure, they are going to put sand all around to protect the
exterior walls of the mine. They will pray that there is no leak
in the ground. Then, they will pour into the pit water from the
surface and use it to rinse the garbage, pump it back up and
treat it.
This water will then go back in the rivers. To sum up, they are
going to contaminate pure water and treat it afterwards. This,
at a time when people worry so much, and rightly so, about
drinking water.
Mr. Speaker, this project is an environmental disaster, and so
far the federal government has not made a single comment about
it. It did not state its position, when its own legislation
would allow it to do so, because there are interprovincial
considerations involved and the aboriginal people have land
claims over the area. It should look after its own jurisdictions
instead of always trying to duplicate what is being done
elsewhere and to extend the areas where it can step in. It would
be nice if it started to use its own powers more efficiently.
Incidentally I am taking this opportunity to raise the
awareness of the Liberal members from the Toronto region,
because I know that several of them are interested in this idea
of shipping all that waste to our area.
When we talk about the environment we must emphasize the notion
of recycling. The city of Toronto and three neighbouring
communities will get a bonus for having signed a contract with a
private contractor. They guaranteed 20 million tons and, if they
exceed this amount, they will get a $1.50 rebate for each ton.
Do you think that these municipalities will put pressure on
people to recycle? Do you think they will use common sense? They
are locked into a 20 year contract with a private contractor who
will become a major waste manager.
Southern Ontario sends its refuse to the north and does not
care one bit. It gets rid of the bad odours, etcetera.
This also has a major impact. It is related to the whole issue
of the protection of species. What would be the consequences on
our ecosystem, on our environmental balance, not just on our
waters, of having a mega-dump, the biggest dump in North America,
in a region like that? I can predict that our region will also
end up having the largest concentration of seagulls and pigeons
in North America. These birds also travel and contaminate other
areas.
People back home are extremely concerned. We are very
concerned about the Ontario provincial government, which seems
to care little about the environment. We are also concerned
about the federal government which has so far remained silent
on this project.
When I see a debate like today's, where the government wants to
assuage its conscience and pass a bill to protect wildlife
species at risk in Canada, when six provinces are present already
in this field trying to do the job—it may not be perfect
what they are doing, but they are trying to follow the right
path—when I see the federal government introducing a bill that
does not even satisfy environmental groups that are very attuned
to the issue, I say to myself that this is definitely not a step
in the right direction.
I will not repeat the arguments made by my colleagues
earlier. I would, however, like the government to be a little
more realistic. It should pass legislation that is practical, and
existing laws, such as the environment law, which allows the
federal government to intervene when necessary, should be used
too, when there is opposition such as is found in northeastern
Ontario and northwestern Quebec, which is back home.
Just to give members a sense of proportion, where I come from,
5,000 people signed a petition. They oppose Toronto's proposal
to ship its garbage out. Five thousand people at home represents
a third of the population. In Toronto, it would take a million
people to make the equivalent. I challenge members to find one
million people to support the proposal to ship out waste.
I am happy to see that the government is talking increasingly
about the environment. It will eventually also have to talk about
real problems, our over-consumption of certain resources. We are
not contributing either to maintaining a healthy balance for our
environment, and our actions are not helping protect the species
needed to protect our ecosystem.
It takes more than the passage of laws of limited scope and
considerable confusion rather than positive solutions to go in
the right direction.
I conclude by asking the Liberal members to awaken their
conscience. They have to take real action. I hope that in the
next stages of considering the bill, the government will return
to a more realistic approach.
1340
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to
Bill C-33. If there is one thing Canadians hold very close to
their hearts it is the concept of endangered species. They feel
that this is a legacy not only that they have inherited but one
that they need to pass on to their children and their
grandchildren.
The government has had at least two opportunities to deal with
this pressing issue. Again, unfortunately, in Bill C-33 it has
failed. As my colleagues have pointed out throughout the course
of this discussion, a number of loopholes in the legislation will
not enable us to protect the most vulnerable species within our
midst.
It is important for us to understand the scope of the problem.
In my province of British Columbia only six per cent of the
temperate rain forests is actually protected. In our country
today nearly 350 species are in danger of extinction. This
situation unfortunately will only get worse.
The reasons are multifactorial but can be best summed
up by habitat loss, the use of pesticides, agricultural practices
and clear-cut forestry practices. We have seen this perhaps most
dramatically on the prairies where large swaths of indigenous
lands have been destroyed. The outcome of this has been the
destruction and decimation of many species, from the great ox to
the passenger pigeon.
We have an opportunity to deal with this matter in a very
comprehensive fashion, and I will deal with the solutions one by
one. The first and most pressing issue is the protection of a
central habitat. My colleagues and I would love to see the
government take a more aggressive stance in this regard by
balancing off the protection of habitat with the understanding
that landowners and property rights have to be protected also.
What is interesting is that property owners, and indeed the
private sector, very much would like to see the government come
up with a distinctive plan to deal with it. They want rules
under which they can function. They also want fair compensation
for land that is taken away from them.
The private sector is very committed to wanting sensitive
habitats protected, but it also wants to ensure that its land
will not be taken away by the government in a willy-nilly
fashion. Fair compensation is what my colleagues have called
for, for a long time. Perhaps the most reasonable way of doing
it is by basing compensation on fair market value.
It is not always necessary, in fact only in a minority of
occasions is it necessary, to take away land from the private
sector. As we have seen in Saskatchewan, most farmers and other
private landowners would like to work with the government in
ensuring that their land is protected and that the land can be
used reasonably without endangering the endangered species.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
JOURNALIST JEAN V. DUFRESNE
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
past few days, the Journal de Montréal has been dealt two heavy
blows.
The attempt on the life of Michel Auger was followed by
the death of former Montreal journalist Jean V. Dufresne of lung
disease, this past Saturday morning.
Mr. Dufresne was a gifted writer with a long career in both the
print and broadcast media. He was on the staff of the three
French-language Montreal dailies: La Presse, Le Devoir and
Le Journal de Montréal. He was also on Radio-Canada. The
quality of his work earned him the respect of his colleagues and
of his readers and listeners.
Jean V., as he was known to his collegues, retired from Le
Journal de Montréal five years ago.
I would like, on behalf of myself and my
colleagues, to express most sincere condolences to Mr. Dufresne's
family, friends and colleagues.
* * *
1345
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
let us look at the facts of the Canadian Alliance solution 17.
Under our solution 17 a family with a mom and a dad and two kids
would pay no income tax at all on the first $26,000 of income.
The Liberals are squeezing $6 billion per year from these
families.
Let us compare two families under our proposal. One family
earns $60,000 and with solution 17 their taxes would go down to
about $6,000. However families with a $30,000 income will have
their taxes go down all the way to $680, one-half as much income
but only one-tenth as much tax. That is a fair progressive
system, and those are the facts.
This plan will work. It is affordable. It is good for
families. It is good for the economy. Careful scrutiny shows
that our plan is far superior to the Liberal plan. Canadians
will find the truth and when they vote for us that truth will
liberate them from years of PC and Liberal tax slavery.
* * *
ROBERT S. K. WELCH
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am saddened but honoured today to pay tribute to a great
individual who passed away this summer, Dr. Robert S. K. Welch.
It is difficult to put into words the tremendous achievements of
such a respected and accomplished person. Dr. Welch was an
educator of our youth, a political leader, a well respected
member of his community and loved husband, father and
grandfather.
Dr. Welch had a long history of public service and deep roots
within the Niagara community. Over the years he held the posts
of chancellor of Brock University, Ontario minister of education,
deputy premier of Ontario and an officer of the Order of Canada
that he received in 1994.
Robert Welch was a loved and respected man whose work and
dedication will be missed. I extend my condolences to his
children Robert, Beth Kerley and Mary-Jayne Mete, and to his four
grandchildren.
The memory of Robert S. K. Welch will remain in our hearts and
minds and in many manifestations of his life of dedication to
home and community.
* * *
SPORTS
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to recognize two outstanding athletes from
Chatham—Kent. The first is Meaggan Wilton. Meaggan was a
virtual unknown in 1998 but scored the winning run that qualified
Canada to compete in the Olympics. Now she is in Sydney with the
Canadian National Women's Softball Team. That is a dream came
true.
The second is past Olympian Shae-Lynn Bourne. On the ice
Shae-Lynn and her partner Victor Kraatz have dazzled crowds. They
have won seven Canadian championships and four consecutive bronze
medals at the World Championships.
Off the ice Shae-Lynn's courageous public stand for fairer
judging practices has brought about positive changes in the rules
for all competitors. For her efforts Shae-Lynn has just received
the Governor General's Meritorious Service Cross.
I congratulate Meaggan and Shae-Lynn, two outstanding
ambassadors for Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for months I have been calling for a cut in the federal
excise tax and the Bouchard government's road tax on gas and
diesel fuel, as well as for Canadian fuel companies to give a
breakdown at the pump and on the bill of the gross price of a
litre of gas, along with all the taxes separately.
This year I asked for an emergency debate, but it was denied.
Why do the opposition parties not call for an opposition day
debate on the prices of gas, diesel fuel and fuel oil?
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House debated organized crime but
today we have to talk about postage stamps for terrorists. Canada
Post is considering the issuance of a vanity stamp for Velupillai
Prabhakaran, leader of the Tamil tigers, the ruthless terrorist
organization.
The government has already allowed a vanity stamp for Kumar
Ponnambalam, a well known supporter of the Tamil tigers. That
stamp was issued in violation of Canada Post's vanity stamp
program rules requiring the consent and permission of the person
to be pictured. Kumar was deceased and he could not give
permission, but still the Liberals gave him a stamp.
Liberals have not only given tax free status and made Canada a
haven for terrorists. Now they issue them stamps. Rather than
stamping out terrorism, they have put terrorists on our stamps.
1350
Did the finance minister promise to approve it when he was
attending the Tamil tiger fundraiser along with the CIDA
minister? How many more terrorist stamps—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kingston and the
Islands.
* * *
OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my constituents in Kingston and the Islands are
rejoicing at the triumph of Simon Whitfield from Kingston in the
men's triathlon at the Sydney Olympics.
Mr. Whitfield's gold medal is a tribute to his dedication to his
sport, where he has excelled for a number of years. All
Canadians were moved to see the magnificent finish in his race
when he surged ahead of his opponents to win the big prize.
Sharon Donnelly, another of Kingston's athletes at the games,
participated in the women's triathlon. Ms. Donnelly was a strong
and hopeful medal contender, but she was involved in a bike crash
caused by other riders. Despite knowing that a top finish was
gone for her and despite her injuries and pain, Sharon got back
on to her bicycle and finished her Olympic triathlon showing
great courage.
I know my colleagues on all sides of the House join me and my
constituents in congratulating Simon Whitfield and Sharon
Donnelly on their accomplishments.
* * *
[Translation]
KOREAN WAR
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Korean war has been called Canada's forgotten war, although
27,000 Canadian soldiers took part in it. Of these, 516
Canadians, 113 of them Quebecers in the 22e Régiment, perished.
They must not die forgotten.
I wish to mention last Sunday's unveiling in Quebec City of a
commemorative plaque in tribute to these Quebecers. The 22e
Régiment laid on a guard of honour for this ceremony, which was
attended by Quebec's Lieutenant Governor, Lise Thibault.
I find it regrettable that the Department of Veterans Affairs
did not see fit to contribute financially to this tribute, as it
was asked to do.
Personally, and on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I congratulate
the Korea Veterans Association of Canada, especially Roland
Boutot and his wife, Carmen, on this fine initiative, which will
serve as a memory to future generations of the sacrifice made by
these Quebecers, who lost their lives in the Korean war.
* * *
[English]
POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of political party
leaders who want to download government, who urge slashing taxes
to benefit the rich, who are prepared to jeopardize our health by
privatizing public services, who think backbench politicians are
better at home in their riding schmoozing for votes than debating
how to make the best laws possible.
Canadians are not fooled by political party leaders who think
governing is a series of personal photo ops, publicity stunts,
private press conferences and attack ads. I have proof,
unassailable proof. On September 8, in a provincial byelection
in my riding, the Liberal candidate swung 20,000 votes away from
the Ontario Tories in a landslide rejection of the policies of
Premier Mike Harris.
Where walks Mike Harris stalks the leader of the Canadian
Alliance. It may take some time—
The Speaker: I ask hon. members to use the names of
ridings and not our regular names.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last night the House sat until after midnight
debating the issue of organized crime in Canada. This insidious
force that is a cancer in Canadian society has grown in our lives
in the last seven years under the Liberal government.
In their speeches last night it was evident that the justice
minister and solicitor general have no concept of the complexity
of this problem. They do not understand that organized crime
presents a threat not only to the personal security of Canadians
but also to Canada's national security as terrorists link arms
with organized crime. Dangerous forces attempt to undermine the
freedom of speech and association of Canadians as they threaten,
coerce and attempt to bribe people in public life.
When will the government finally get serious and recognize the
solid link between organized crime and national security? It is
time the government came forward with a strategy that will
encompass foreign affairs, immigration, armed forces, CSIS and
our national police forces. A united solid front is the only
wall between Canadians and the forces of destruction.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
September 5, the Minister for International Cooperation tabled a
five-year plan targeting four key sectors of social development
in developing countries.
A total of $2.8 billion will be invested in these priority
sectors over the next five years. Funding for health and
nutrition will more than double, while amounts earmarked for
basic education, the fight against HIV/AIDS, and the protection
of children will quadruple.
1355
[English]
CIDA's social development priorities will allow Canada to bring
a greater focus to its international development priorities. It
will ensure that Canadian resources are invested where the needs
are most pressing.
This framework for action presents a clear vision that will make
Canada's development assistance program even more effective in
building a better quality of life for some of the poorest and
most marginalized people in the world.
* * *
CANADIAN ALLIANCE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, welcome to the Bay Street golden trough Olympics where
Liberal, Tory and Alliance parties fiercely compete for corporate
gold.
Bay Street dinners have seen Tories charge $500 a plate, the
Liberals $1,000 and the Alliance's Tom Long $5,000 a person for a
picnic in the Muskokas. However this year's winner of the golden
trough award is the so-called grassroots Canadian Alliance for
organizing a $25,000 a table corporate fundraiser in Toronto.
Twenty-five thousand dollars is the yearly income of an average
working family in my riding. Twenty-five thousand dollars is
more than two years salary for a person working at minimum wage
in the province of Alberta.
This is the Alliance's price for democracy. This is its price
for access to its corporate agenda. This is a party where Bay
Street is now paying the piper and a party where Bay Street will
call the tune.
* * *
[Translation]
LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government
House leader thinks we oppose his coming to Quebec because he is
a Franco-Ontarian.
I would remind the leader that the Bloc Quebecois opposes visits
by all federal ministers touring Quebec at the expense of the
Canada Information Office, the famous CIO, in tours organized by
the good friend of the Minister of Public Works, Michèle
Tremblay, and a former Liberal candidate, Serge Paquette, to
whom the Liberals have paid out over $4.2 million since 1997.
Why are the visits to Quebec only? Why the heck are these
visits organized by the CIO and not by the various ministers'
offices? Why are the contracts for the organization of these
visits being given to friends of the Liberal Party of Canada?
The government leader would be better advised to rise in defence
of his minority, which has been rather mishandled these days.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga West.
* * *
[English]
MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA WEST
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am a member of parliament and I am a Liberal. I believe in
universal health care and the Canada Health Act, not the CA's two
tier American style health care system.
I promote tax cuts, not the CA's proposal for a flat tax. I
wear a business suit, not a wet suit, thank goodness. I do not
even own a personal watercraft. I work seven days a week, not
four. I believe in a clear majority on a clear question, not the
Bloc's intention to confuse Quebecers and other Canadians.
I believe in sound fiscal management, not the NDP's urge to
spend, spend, spend. I believe that when we circle the wagons we
shoot outward unlike the Conservative view of pulling together.
By the way, I believe in the Canadian Olympic dream. Our team
will win more medals to come and the 2008 Olympics are coming to
Canada. Yes, I am Canadian and I am a Liberal.
* * *
MEMBER FOR KINGS—HANTS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am a Progressive Conservative and on behalf of the Progressive
Conservative caucus I am pleased to welcome back to the House of
Commons the new member for Kings—Hants.
I had the honour and pleasure of serving with this member from
1988 to 1993, at which time he proved to be an outstanding
international leader and represented our country so very well.
1400
More recently I served with him going door to door in
Kings—Hants and could not help but be impressed as people came
out to shake his hand. They brought their children across the
street. They said “I want my daughter to meet Joe Clark. I
want my son to meet Joe Clark”. This is just an indication of
the honour and respect that people hold for this man.
There is a void in Canadian politics that is not now being met.
Under his leadership in the House, the Progressive Conservative
Party will now fill that void. Every single one of us will be
there to follow his leadership in reaching out to Canadians and
meeting their needs.
On behalf of his entire caucus welcome back to the House of
Commons, the Right Hon. Joe Clark.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
NEW MEMBERS
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the house
that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral
Officer the certificates of the election and return of the
following members:
The Right Hon. Joe Clark, for the electoral district of
Kings—Hants.
Mr. Stockwell Day, for the electoral district of
Okanagan—Coquihalla.
* * *
1405
NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED
Joe Clark, member for the electoral district of Kings—Hants,
introduced by Mrs. Elsie Wayne and Mr. Peter MacKay.
Stockwell Day, member for the electoral district of
Okanagan—Coquihalla, introduced by Miss Deborah Grey and Mr.
Chuck Strahl.
1410
The Speaker: I guess as they say in the Olympics, let the
games begin.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we can wait a few minutes so we can be serious before
the fun of the coming weeks.
I want to give a very special welcome to the hon. Leader of the
Opposition to this House, and to federal politics. He will soon
discover we do things a little differently here on dry land.
There are no life jackets in the House of Commons.
It gives me great pleasure again to see new leaders of the
opposition. In fact the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla is the
sixth leader of opposition to sit across from me. It is a very
dangerous occupation.
I had discussions with my caucus and I want to assure the Leader
of the Opposition that my caucus will work very hard to make sure
that he has a long and fruitful career as the Leader of the
Opposition.
Seriously, in the House of Commons politics is very important.
We may speak in the House from different points of view and have
different policies and approaches, but anyone who sits in the
House of Commons is here because that person believes that we are
working together to make Canada an even better country. That is
why I welcome the opposition leader to this House.
[Translation]
I know that the new Leader of the Opposition is arriving here
full of good intentions. He will work very hard and put a great
deal of energy into promoting his ideas. We will have serious
and sometimes heated debates. But in the end, we will both be
working to ensure that Canada gets off to a good start in the
21st century.
I wish to welcome the opposition leader in the House of Commons
and, as I said earlier, I know that the members on this side of
the House wish him a very long career as Leader of the
Opposition.
[English]
I welcome the new member for Kings—Hants, the leader of the
Conservative Party. He has been a servant of this House for a
long time. I was a minister in 1972 when this young member of
parliament came from Alberta and immediately made his name in
this House.
He had a terrific task. He became my critic when I was minister
of Indian and northern affairs. I had two critics at that time,
the hon. member and the then member from Kingston, Flora
MacDonald. I used to call them the flora and the fauna.
However, more seriously he was an extremely good
parliamentarian. He was very effective in the opposition, he was
always well prepared and he would give it to you very straight.
However, he was a soldier because he would take it too.
He became the Leader of Opposition when he was very young. He
also became the prime minister when he was very young. After
that he served the nation with great distinction as minister of
foreign affairs. I am very happy that he is back with us because
he is a parliamentarian from the school of Ged Baldwin, Stanley
Knowles and Jack Pickersgill, people who made their names here in
the House of Commons.
1415
[Translation]
As for me, I am pleased to welcome a soldier with whom I had
many battles in my life, but for whom I have the utmost respect.
This is a man who is fully dedicated to public life and
sincerely committed to making Canada an even better country.
I am sure that the House of Commons has much to gain from the
return of the hon. member. I wish him good luck.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I join
with the other members of this House in welcoming the two new
members from the ridings of Kings—Hants and Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Although they are newly elected, these two new members are not
new to politics. Mr. Clark's experience as party leader,
minister and Prime Minister will stand him in good stead here.
Mr. Day will now be able to defend his ideas in the House,
ideas I do not share for the most part, but which will lead to a
democratic debate in the House and improve the quality of the
debate, since it is through debate that we get a better grasp of
ideas.
I have no doubt that we will engage, in the coming weeks and
months, in vigorous debate reflecting the high level of the
House, of parliamentary procedure and of our parliamentary
democracy.
The arrival of new members in parliament is always an important
occasion in parliamentary life, because it is the tangible
expression of the voters' choice. It reminds us pointedly that
we are all representatives of the public whom we have a duty to
defend and whose interests, values and hopes we must express.
I have no doubt that the arrival of the two party leaders will
help to keep alive this parliamentary tradition so important to
us and which they will contribute to through their energy,
talent and determination.
I welcome these gentlemen to the House and wish them luck.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too
rise to participate in that time honoured parliamentary tradition
of welcoming new members to the House. I would like to associate
myself perhaps for the first, last and only time, with the Prime
Minister of Canada during this session, with the comments that
have been made to sincerely welcome the new members, the new
leaders to the House, but at the same time not extend to them too
much in the way of wishes for good electoral success. I think
that is the more honest thing to do.
I think we are all aware that the two members who today take
their positions as leaders of their respective parties are no
newcomers to politics, no political rookies, and so I will not
attempt to give them any advice today, or at least not too much
advice. For one thing they would not take it anyway coming from
this corner of the House.
I do want to say a special word to the leader of the
Conservative Party, as I think Nova Scotians would want me to, to
welcome him as an honorary Nova Scotian at least for the moment.
I would only say that if he endeavours to reflect the true values
and the true hopes and dreams of Nova Scotians in his work on
behalf of the people of Kings—Hants, then he will have served
Canadians very, very well indeed.
Let me say to the new member who has taken his position today as
the Leader of the Official Opposition, as a member who faced the
transition from provincial to federal politics as he does now, do
not be too afraid of the scrums. Take it from one who knows.
It can be tough sometimes but it can only get better.
1420
We are living today in a world of the 500 channel universe. In
the everyday lives of people there is no shortage of sports
spectacles or circus entertainment. So I say with all due
respect to the Speaker, because I do understand the context and
the spirit with which the Speaker has said let the games begin,
let us instead hope that this will be the dawning of a new day in
the life of this session of parliament. Let us instead commit
ourselves to ensure that the real debate begins.
People have asked whether I think the dynamics of this place
will change as a result of the two leaders taking their seats. I
can only say let us hope so. Let us hope we see some change for
the better because in the end, there is only one challenge that
we all face in common, and that is to try to make the Parliament
of Canada work for the people of Canada and to ensure that the
government of the country is accountable to the people.
Again I say congratulations to the two leaders who now have
joined us in this place. Let us let the real debate begin.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for your
warm welcome to the House.
[English]
I recognize that this is indeed an historic Chamber. Much
history has been written here and much will be written.
I would like to first acknowledge those who have made it
possible for me to be here, and possibly for each of us to be
here in our own way. It was in this Chamber that a constitution
was recognized which was prefaced with a clause that said
“recognizing the supremacy of God” and by the grace of God we
are all here.
I am also here by the grace of my wife and my family. They have
continued to put up with me through the years, to encourage me,
to let me know when I am getting too serious, and to let me know
when it is time to lighten up. “Take off the pinstripe suit and
put on a wetsuit” they tell me. I acknowledge them for being
such a significant reason for my being here.
I wish to acknowledge the constituents in Okanagan—Coquihalla
who gave to me such a wonderful mandate and such support from the
farms, the ranches, the towns, the cities and the vineyards of
that fabulous constituency. I owe thanks.
Yes, this is an historic Chamber. I experienced history just
outside the Chamber. As a young teenager I stood outside of
these doors when a flag was lowered and the new maple leaf was
raised. At that moment as a young person excited about that
event, I felt pride and expectation for the future. I witnessed
a former prime minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, who stood there with
tears coming down his cheeks at that moment. Beside him was the
prime minister of the day, Mr. Pearson. I respected Mr.
Pearson's respect at that moment in time for a great change that
was taking place. I learned the power of change but also the
importance of respect at moments like that.
I also learned outside of the Chamber, down the cement corridor
that leads to the sidewalk. I participated in my first protest.
I was about 15 years old. I was with a friend. We circled with
other protesters. I cannot remember what the protest was about.
We joined them because it looked like fun. As the cameras
approached I had a horrifying thought: What if my parents saw me
on the news? So I ran and I have been trying to overcome my fear
of cameras ever since.
Mr. Speaker, I say through you to our Prime Minister that we
will have debates in the Chamber.
We will have greater debates in the great crucible of the next
general election. Yes, my party and I will question his
policies and I will question his plans. Sir, I have watched you
over the years and I want to assure all members that I will never
question your love and your dedication for this country and for
the high office which you hold.
1425
[Translation]
This is the start of a new era, one in which the public wants
governments that respect democracy, the House of Commons, the
legislature and taxpayers, governments that hold freedom in
respect.
[English]
With that respect, we will
bring forth the plans and the priorities that we think will lead
to a better, a stronger and a healthier country with more hope
and more opportunity. Under that umbrella of respect and
optimism, we will conduct ourselves.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it will be
an unusual thing for me to have the last word in the House, at
least until the next election.
[English]
I want to begin by expressing my deep appreciation to the people
of Hants county and Kings county in Nova Scotia. May I say to
the leader of the New Democratic Party that while I am an
honorary citizen of that province, my
great-great-great-great-grandfather was not from away. I take
very seriously the trust that they have vested in me as their
member of parliament. I look forward to working with you and
others in the House to advance the interests of those Canadian
citizens and the others represented by others here.
I think members of the House would allow me a brief departure
from parliamentary practice to recognize and thank someone who is
in the gallery, Scott Brison, the former member of parliament for
Kings—Hants. There may be less applause for what I intend to say
next, which is that I fully expect Mr. Brison to be back in this
place after the next election.
[Translation]
As the House is aware, the highest tides in the world are found
in the riding of Kings—Hants, and those tides swept away the
Liberal Party from Nova Scotia in the last federal election. I
can assure you that the tide is stronger than ever now.
[English]
I want also to congratulate the new Leader of Her Majesty's
Loyal Opposition both on his victory in Okanagan—Coquihalla and
in the leadership process of his own party. I wish him good luck
in the give and take of democratic debate.
I notice he made reference to his family and I can be forgiven
for making reference to mine. My wife and daughter are in the
gallery as they have been with me through 20 some years of active
public life. I do not want to intrude on the Leader of the
Opposition's family life, but I noted he said that from time to
time his family told him when he should lighten up a little bit.
I can tell him that this House will take care of that.
1430
I deeply appreciate the words of welcome from the other party
leaders in the House. The Prime Minister noted that I was his
critic when I first entered the House years ago. Do not take
this unkindly, Mr. Prime Minister, but it is easy to be your
critic.
We in the House have a parliamentary duty to hold the government
accountable, and I look forward to that responsibility, but we
also have a Canadian duty to draw together the diverse interests
of this truly extraordinary country. In all of Canada the House
of Commons is the place that can best claim to represent all
the communities of Canada. The nation is here. I hope to play
some role in drawing out the better instincts of this nation, of
having parliament reflect less of our divisions and more of what
we can aspire to together.
I am honoured to be back among you and back to this House of
Commons of Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: This is such a good day I am almost tempted
to cancel question period.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FUEL TAXES
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, only yesterday the Minister of
Finance said that he could not take leadership in seeing taxes
lowered on fuels because there was no provincial interest. I am
aware of two ministers of finance, myself formerly being one of
those, who wrote letters to the Minister of Finance expressing
interest in this.
Even if that could have been an excuse, which it now is not, why
will the Minister of Finance not commit to seeing these fuel
taxes reduced?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since the Minister Finance often takes questions for
me, I will take a question for him today.
We have a serious problem and we are looking into it. The
Minister of Finance has asked the provincial governments to
collaborate with him. However, as he has said, we have to make
sure, as any move has an impact on consumers.
Perhaps I could quote an expert on that who said at one time
“If we look at lowering the gas tax what kind of guarantees do
we have that the gas retailers will also drop the price, or are
they just going to fill in the ditch?”
An hon. member: Who said that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: It was the Leader of the
Opposition when he was the treasurer in Alberta.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is quite right.
First, I am surprised that the Prime Minister did not let one of
his most loyal supporters answer the question that was put to
him. However, I will go on.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the
Opposition may begin his question.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I did not think loyalty
was such a touchy subject over there.
[Translation]
Two years ago, the Liberal members gave their support to
reducing the taxes on fuel.
This Thursday, is the Prime Minister going to allow his MPs a
free vote on the Canadian Alliance's motion on lowering the
taxes on fuel?
1435
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
everyone knows that when a budget motion is moved, if the hon.
member wants to have an election right away, all he has to do is
ask members of parliament to vote with him. However, there are
members, as some journalists have told me, who are afraid to
have an election.
This is the point I would like to make at this time. First,
there is a very good relationship between the Minister of
Finance and myself. He has been an excellent Minister of
Finance. Because he is a responsible person, he did not use a
piecemeal approach. By working with the caucus, cabinet and
myself, he was able to bring the Canadian economy forward,
achieve a zero deficit, generate a budgetary surplus—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I realize my French is not perfect,
but I did not think the Prime Minister would misunderstand it so
badly and totally miss the question.
I would like to inform the Prime Minister that just this morning
I spoke with the president of the Canadian Trucking Association
who informed me that if this motion to reduce the taxes on fuel
were to pass on Thursday that there would be no truckers' strike.
Why will the Prime Minister not commit to allowing this vote to
go ahead and preserve the nation from being crippled by this
strike?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when you are in government you have to be absolutely
responsible. You do not make fiscal decisions because there is
pressure from one corner or the other.
We have a plan. We know that the priority of Canadians at this
time is to have good management of the economy and the priority
of this party is, first and foremost, to keep giving Canadians
reductions in income tax.
I see that already he is going from a flat tax to an oil tax.
Very soon he will be flat you know where.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): I look forward in the days ahead, Mr. Speaker, to
explaining that we do not propose a flat tax, only a single rate,
actually two rates; 17% and zero.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the
Prime Minister talk about responsibility because I would like to
ask the following question. In the event that this nation could
be crippled by a truckers' strike, will the minister responsible
for such eventualities tell us what the contingency plan is that
is in place right now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Canada are very responsible. They know we
have a problem with the international increase in the price of
oil. The Minister of Finance will be at the IMF and the World
Bank in the next few days where all the ministers of finance in
the world will be there to discuss the consequences of the
increase in the price of oil by the oil producing nations. This
where the problems lie at this time.
We hope that this situation will be re-established and the
people will understand that when one sector of the economy like
that takes too much it could create downward pressure on the
economy and create a recession. I hope that everyone will
realize how important it is to have international collaboration
on that.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I see now why they call this question
period and not answer period.
I would like to suggest that maybe the problem is not that he
does not care but that he does not know what his constituents are
going through paying the price at the pumps.
[Translation]
Can the Prime Minister tell us what the price of gasoline is
currently in his riding of Saint-Maurice?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
everyone knows that the price of oil has increased considerably
over the summer. Everyone realizes that this is a problem.
1440
At this point, the Minister of Finance and the government want
to meet with provincial governments and discuss a collective
solution with them, while at the same time making sure that the
system works well and that the government can continue with its
agenda to promote economic growth and reduce taxes.
Reducing taxes will help consumers afford goods whose costs have
unfortunately gone up in recent months.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Justice hesitated yesterday to use every means
possible to criminalize membership in a criminal organization.
I ask her today if she would agree to define a criminal
organization using section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms?
If she believes that this method would not pass the charter
test, could she proceed by reference to the supreme court?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me make it absolutely
plain that section 1 of the charter, which speaks to reasonable
limits on otherwise guaranteed rights, is very much in use.
Let me report to my colleagues that this morning my officials,
the solicitor generals and officials from Quebec had a very
co-operative and constructive meeting. We are looking at all
aspects of organized crime. We are looking at a reform of the
existing provisions in the criminal code in relation to organized
crime. We are looking at provisions around intimidation of those
involved in the justice system. We are looking at the issue of
recruitment of people into criminal organizations. We will be
working with the police both in Quebec and elsewhere to talk
about law enforcement.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
would the minister agree and acknowledge that denying the right
of association to groups of recognized criminals in no way
prejudices the right of association of democratic organizations
in our society and that, therefore, no means must be excluded
should the means chosen fail to pass the test of the charter and
an opinion were given by the supreme court?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I made plain yesterday, we
are looking at all possible measures in terms of dealing with the
challenges of organized crime. I made it plain yesterday that we
believe there is much we can do both on the enforcement side and
on the legislation side that does not involve us using the
notwithstanding clause.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, article 20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration
of Human Rights provides for the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and association.
Would the Prime Minister take a page from the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and make it illegal to
belong to a biker gang?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as far as we are concerned, we have a charter of rights that
protects the rights of everyone.
But, as the Minister of Justice has just said, a legislative
solution to this problem is possible. It is not just a question
of legislation, but also of police activity.
Section 1 of the charter provides for certain freedoms, but
immediately invoking the notwithstanding clause would, in my
view, be completely out of the question. To date, the Canadian
government has never used the notwithstanding clause and I do not
think it is a good idea to start doing so now.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, despite what the Prime Minister has said, yesterday in
the House the Minister of Justice said that the legislation would
be amended if necessary.
Will the Minister of Justice assure us that she has succeeded in
convincing the Prime Minister and that the government will take
action accordingly?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I said yesterday, and I repeat today, that if legislative
amendments are possible, we will be very pleased to make them.
That is why the Deputy Minister of Justice and the Deputy
Solicitor General are now in Quebec City to discuss the
possibility of amending the legislation. I have nothing against
that.
But I would like to repeat that all other legislative and
administrative solutions will have to be exhausted before the
notwithstanding clause is resorted to.
* * *
[English]
FUEL PRICES
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Over the last few days we have heard a lot about the GST from
the friends of big oil over there. It is clear that consumers
are hurting. It is also clear that oil companies are racking up
unprecedented profits.
1445
In the spring session the NDP tabled legislation to get some
accountability over oil companies, to gain some control over
energy price gouging.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the government
follow the NDP lead and establish an energy prices review
commission?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has already moved to try to achieve
greater transparency with respect to the functioning of the
marketplace and the pricing trends within Canada.
We have commissioned an extraordinary study to be conducted by
the Conference Board of Canada as a totally independent body that
can shed some light on the situation so that all Canadians can
know exactly what is happening in that marketplace and why.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think
Canadians already know what is happening in the marketplace and
what is happening with energy price gouging. The problem is if
one feigns impotence once too often, one is bound to end up
permanently impotent.
We have a national problem which requires national leadership.
While consumers are being gouged, oil companies are getting the
lion's share of the energy price hike. Why is the government
refusing to stand up for consumers?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is very anxious to have the information
that can be provided by the conference board so that all
Canadians, those in government as policymakers and those in the
private sector who run various industrial parts of our economy as
well as individual consumers, can fully see in a transparent way
the exact trends in those markets so that when, for example,
there are those inexplicable price spikes before long weekends
people would be in a position to act.
* * *
HEALTH
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Last week's health agreement
delays for another 18 months the full restoration of federal
health funding to 1994 levels. That delay costs Canadians more
than $3 billion, a $3 billion gap between what the Prime Minister
promised and what he has delivered.
Will the Prime Minister agree in the House right now, today, to
restore the full 1994 levels right away?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. leader of the Conservative Party should know
that if we had kept the formula introduced by his government, the
restoration would not be a restoration to 18.7. The cash
payments today would be $11 billion, because the formula was
based on the premise that if the tax revenues were to increase
the cash payments were to decline.
We stopped that and that is why today we are in a position to
give more cash than ot would have ever been if the Tories had
remained in power.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): I take it, Mr.
Speaker, that the answer is no.
[Translation]
The unilateral cuts made by the Liberal government have
devastated this country's health system. Even Monique Bégin has
said that this has “deprofessionalized” nursing. It is
impossible to create a new health system without the assurance of
stable funding.
Will the Prime Minister make a commitment today to introduce
legislation to guarantee the stability of federal health funding?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the right hon. member ought to know that, in the agreement we
have signed with the provinces, we guaranteed them stable funding
in the coming years. All provincial premiers were very satisfied
and signed enthusiastically.
At one point, I proposed a return to the formula used by the
Conservative government. One of them replied “Maybe”, then
consulted his officials and immediately came back with “No, I
prefer the Liberal regime”.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, fishermen on Miramichi Bay are angry.
More than a thousand traps are in the water now, not 40. More
than a half a million pounds of lobster have been harvested. That
is over ten times what the minister allowed for.
1450
He caved in to threats and allowed the fishery in the first
place. He caved in to threats and refused to haul the illegal
traps. Time has run out. The jig is up. The minister's back is
against the wall. When will he do his duty and haul the illegal
gear?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member we believe
that it is through dialogue and co-operation that we can resolve
these issues.
That is why we have 29 agreements with the first nations that
are working extremely well. We have an eminent Canadian, Mr. Bob
Rae, who is working extremely hard to bring the parties together.
The party over there wants to divide Canadians. We want to
bring Canadians together and solve the real problems of the
nation.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister's dithering has created
the problem. The crisis on Miramichi Bay was created by the
minister. He was ill prepared for the Marshall decision. He
ignored the Marshall clarification. He has refused to make
conservation his priority. He has refused to enforce the law.
Will he once and for all do his job, uphold the law and get rid
of the illegal traps?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has made a
tremendous amount of commitment to make sure that we abide fully
with the supreme court ruling with an initial investment of $160
million for the aboriginal people to fully participate in the
commercial fishery.
This is working extremely well. We have two bands, Indian Brook
and Burnt Church. We are trying to work with them so that they
too can participate fully. We provide them with opportunities
for access into the fishery, but we need to make sure that we
take every avenue to bring the parties together.
At the end of the day, I want to assure the hon. member that the
law of the land will be upheld.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today the government is preparing to use exceptional means in
order to get its bill to make adolescents into criminals through
at all costs, despite the opposition of all those involved in the
field in Quebec.
How can the government explain its haste to throw 14 year olds
in prison while it expresses concern about the rights and
freedoms of known criminal groups?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have said many times in the
House that our new youth justice legislation is about
accountability. It is about responsibility and about providing
provinces like Quebec with the flexibility to continue the
programs they have in place to work with young people in their
provinces.
I find it interesting that today the Quebec Human Rights
Commission indicates that there is room for improvement in the
youth justice system in Quebec. Therefore, with new federal
resources I look forward to working with the hon. member to
ensure that even in Quebec we are working together on behalf of
Canada's youth.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I think there is something the minister does not understand in
this matter.
How can the minister explain her logic? When everyone in Quebec
wants to see anti-gang legislation, the minister is hesitant. On
the other hand, with her bill making adolescents into criminals,
she is rushing ahead, and what is more ignoring the consensus in
Quebec.
How can the minister explain the double standard of her logic in
the area of justice?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard.
In both cases we have listened and we have consulted, not only
with the province and people of Quebec but all provinces and
territories and all people in the country who have an interest in
this area.
Let me again extend an olive branch to the hon. member. We know
that the youth justice system in the country is not serving our
young people well enough. I ask the hon. member and all members
of the House to work with us to ensure this new youth justice
legislation is passed.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on August 28 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development issued a statement in which he said:
My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I have
complementary roles to play in addressing the aspirations of
first nations on the east coast.
Two weeks later the minister was touring a museum on the west
coast, 6,000 kilometres from the action.
I do not believe that the minister of Indian affairs has a
complimentary role or one of any other kind.
1455
Would the Prime Minister please confirm for the House that the
minister of Indian affairs has no role to play in the Burnt
Church crisis?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that
both the minister of Indian affairs and I are working together on
the east coast fishery and the first nations issue in terms of
the supreme court ruling.
We have been working hard on the fisheries file and there are
long term issues that we are working on together. He has been
very active and involved in the Atlantic Policy Congress to look
at the long term issues of the treaty rights in regard to
Marshall. Together we are coming forward with a plan in the fall
to make sure that we address some of those long term issues. We
will continue to do that.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans answered
for the Prime Minister.
Last year the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development made this statement about the effect of the Marshall
decision right off the cuff:
Any fishing rights recognized in the Marshall decision are
extended to other resources such as forestry, oil and gas.
I would still like the Prime Minister to answer the question. Is
it comments like these from the minister that are the real reason
for the escalation of events in Burnt Church?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is comments like
that which are the reason why first nations people are taking to
the blockade to bring their grievances to the government. It is
the fearmongering that the member opposite is dealing with that
relates to first nations rights, treaty rights in particular.
It is a well known fact that the government has offered the APC,
the first nations in Atlantic Canada, an opportunity to talk
about treaty relationships which form a larger picture than just
fish. That offer has been made. We are waiting and standing by
for the first nations and our partners to come to the table.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUSES
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance is about to announce the real budget
results for the last fiscal year and finally admit that he was
off by 300% in his surplus forecasts, something unheard of in
Canada.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that his refusal to provide
real figures when he makes forecasts is just a strategy to avoid
meaningful debates and to justify the drastic cuts to social
programs and employment insurance, in spite of the huge
surpluses?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member must know that I will deliver my economic statement
tomorrow. I will then provide the figures.
I can assure the hon. member that, indeed, the surpluses will be
greater than anticipated. Canada is doing really well.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it just so happens that we expected the surplus to be very close
to $12 billion.
While the Minister of Finance was making decisions based on
forecasts that were off by 300%, taxpayers continued to pay too
much tax.
Will the minister admit that this deliberate and hypocritical
error in his forecasts has had consequences—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Members should choose their words
very carefully.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Will the minister admit that this deliberate
error in his forecasts has had major social consequences and that
it is the sick and the unemployed who always end up paying for
his incompetence?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have surpluses because we are enjoying an incredible economic
growth, because we have a great job creation program and because
things are going really well in Canada.
I can certainly understand why the opposition member may not be
pleased, but Canadians are.
* * *
[English]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the attorney general of Ontario yesterday wrote to
the justice minister.
In part, this is what he said: “Ontario has repeatedly urged the
federal government to improve its anti-gang legislation. I ask
you to immediately introduce the necessary amendments to the
criminal code”.
1500
I ask the justice minister whether the changes to the criminal
code will come a little faster than the Young Offenders Act which
we have been waiting for now for seven long years.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, let me say on behalf of
everybody on this side of the House, it is great to have the hon.
member for Langley—Abbotsford back.
In response to the hon. member's question, I have obviously
discussed the issue of organized crime with my colleague, the
attorney general of Ontario. We have meetings today with
representatives from the attorney general of Quebec and the
public security minister of Quebec. We are going to be talking
to other provinces and territories.
In fact, it is fair to say and I have already said in the House
that we will be in a position to make changes to the anti-gang
provisions in the criminal code that reflect many of the concerns
raised by the government of Quebec, the government of Ontario,
police forces—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is that the justice minister says she
is going to look at it and discuss it. This is not a problem
that occurred yesterday. Over 400 people died of drug overdoses
in Toronto and Vancouver last year alone and years before that.
When is the justice minister going to get on with this? Will it
be before the election or does she want the Canadian Alliance to
do it after the election?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc says we move too
quickly on youth justice and the Alliance says we move too slowly
on youth justice. At the end of the day we are going to do the
right thing.
For the party that talks the language and the rhetoric of
provincial rights and provincial autonomy, it is interesting that
it does not want to consult with the provinces and the
territories. On this side of the House we understand that justice
is a shared jurisdiction and we will do that work before we pass
a law.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is
demonstrating unacceptable insensitivity to seasonal workers and
their families, particularly when she says:
We will implement changes to the boundaries of EI regions
gradually over the next three years, so that workers in the
Lower St. Lawrence and North Shore regions can adapt.
When the minister says that workers will have to adapt, does she
mean that she is condemning these workers to poverty and misery?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again last week, we announced measures that
will help seasonal workers adapt to the changes over the next
four years.
But all levels of government must also work with them and with
employers in order to create new opportunities for these
workers.
Unlike the Bloc Quebecois, we on this side of the House want to
work with employers in order to help improve the situation of
these seasonal workers.
* * *
[English]
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Canadians are concerned about the loss of species and their
habitat. They are pleased to see legislation to address this
issue but there are still substantive concerns.
Given that the standing committee will soon be hearing from
witnesses with a wide variety of views on how best to protect
species at risk, can the minister assure us that amendments put
forward by the environment committee will not simply be dismissed
out of hand, but met with a genuine open mind by the government?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to assure the hon. member that the
recommendations of the committee and the presentations before the
committee will be looked at very carefully by the government.
Obviously the bill is at second reading and until it leaves the
House the committee cannot start its work. When it does and the
witnesses are heard and the committee comes forward with
carefully considered suggestions for the government, we will look
at those with great care.
* * *
1505
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, farmers are in the middle of harvest
and desperately need cash flow. In order to maximize the grain
farmers' returns, Canada must market and export as much grain as
possible during this period. Disagreements between the Canadian
Wheat Board, the grain companies and the railways are impeding
the movement of grain at the farmers' expense. The grain
industry itself has asked the government for a mediator to help
resolve these disagreements and disputes.
Will the transport minister today appoint a mediator to assist
in this issue?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the end of August the grain companies indicated that
in their view they thought the discussions with the Canadian
Wheat Board had arrived at an impasse. Although they did not
provide any detail at that time of what that impasse might
consist of, the government immediately asked the grain companies
to provide more detail. That detail arrived during the course of
last week. Their position is being carefully examined at the
present time and we intend to respond in an appropriate manner
very shortly.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it cannot respond any too fast for
farmers' needs. These disagreements could lead to a complete
system failure just like in 1993-94 and 1996-97. Those disputes
damaged Canada's reputation as a reliable exporter and cost
millions in demurrage and contract penalties, all at the farmers'
expense.
The Estey and Kroeger reports recommended removing the wheat
board from negotiations between the railways and the grain
companies, yet the minister chose to ignore those
recommendations.
I ask again, will the minister appoint a mediator to resolve
this mess that he is partially responsible for?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I just indicated, the Minister of Transport, the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and myself will be
responding to the grain companies very shortly with an
appropriate considered reply.
Let me simply say to all of the players in the grain handling
and transportation system that neither the farmers nor this
government will take lightly any behaviour that puts an excess
burden upon farmers in these difficult times.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
while the finance minister is patting himself on the back for a
huge revenue surplus, tonight there will be thousands of
Canadians, including children, who have no place to go except the
streets and emergency shelters.
How can the finance minister feel good about engineering this
massive surplus on the backs of so many Canadians who are denied
the basic necessities of life including shelter and housing? How
can he do that?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada has a strategy to deal with the matters the
member just raised. CMHC makes mortgage loan insurance available
across Canada with over 376,000 units insured in 1999. It
provides about $1.9 billion annually in housing assistance to
some 640,000 low income households.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
is interesting that the government gives the same stock answer
that denies the reality of what is going on. The fact is the
homelessness crisis is growing as evidenced by the call by
provincial and municipal representatives who are meeting today in
Fredericton.
I want to go back to the finance minister with a simple
question. Will the minister do what is right and share the
wealth with homeless Canadians and commit federal dollars for a
national housing supply program? That is the right thing to do.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member is quite right. The federal, provincial and territorial
ministers of housing did meet today. In fact, I have their joint
communique in which the ministers advised that they discussed the
lack of affordable rental housing and agreed to work on a plan
which would involve a common research agenda and multisectoral
consultations with stakeholders to discuss and formulate action
plans on social housing.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
government has confirmed that it does not have a plan B if
negotiations at Burnt Church fail. The people living around
Miramichi Bay deserve a plan. What is it?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have always said, we prefer
the avenue of co-operative negotiations. I have said right from
day one that we will enforce and make sure we uphold the law. The
commercial fishermen have been very active and their views have
been taken into consideration. They have been very much a part
of what Mr. Rae is doing. He is meeting with the commercial
fishermen making sure that their views are taken into
consideration. We will monitor the situation very closely. We
will make sure that we respond to make sure that the law of the
land is upheld.
1510
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, in 50 minutes Bob Rae could be walking out of the
negotiations. The tension in the communities in the regions of
Neguac, Burnt Church and Baie-Sainte-Anne is critical. It cannot
go on. The government was not ready for the Marshall decision.
Is it telling us today that it is not ready with a plan to make
sure that there is no confrontation in the communities of Neguac,
Baie-Sainte-Anne or Burnt Church today? We need an answer.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was members of the
Conservative Party who said that I was doing too much when we
bought vessels to include the aboriginal people. They were
saying I was doing too much when we brought them into training.
Now they are saying we are not doing enough. What they should do
is be constructive and not try to divide Canadians, not try to
inflame the situation but bring Canadians together to make sure
the problem is solved at the community level. That is exactly
what we are doing.
* * *
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many Canadians and NGOs have asked us to focus CIDA's
attention to ensure that vulnerable populations are provided with
the assistance they need to make their lives better. I know that
the Minister for International Co-operation has recently
announced a major change in CIDA's priorities. Could the
minister tell us how this change will help the most vulnerable
around the world?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on September 5 I launched a five year
plan to strengthen CIDA's program in four key areas: health and
nutrition; education; HIV and AIDS; and child protection. The
increase over five years will be $2.8 billion. In fact, that
will take programming in the basic human needs area from 19% to
38%.
I did this to ensure that we are using the money to maximize the
impact on the ground as these are the fundamental blocks of
development.
* * *
VIETNAM
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the government has sent tens of millions of dollars to
Vietnam supposedly to improve its justice system but last spring
that justice system unfairly executed a Canadian citizen. Now
only five months later, the government is already in the process
of normalizing relations with Vietnam.
Why are we restoring relations when there is not a shred of
evidence that sort of travesty will not happen again?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first let me welcome the hon. member to his very
distinguished critic's role. I promise to work with him very
closely to retrieve Alliance foreign policy from the office of
the senator from North Carolina as quickly as possible.
In answer to the question, I point out to the hon. member that
Canada did take very severe measures when the execution took
place. It was a very tragic event. We insisted on a series of
very clear responses, such as the return of the mother, that the
Toronto police would be allowed to go and undertake proper
negotiations on drug trafficking, that we would promptly have the
returns placed. Those conditions have now been met. We have not
restored normal relations but we have started communicating,
dialoguing and engaging with the Vietnamese to make sure it does
not happen again.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with help
from various parties, including an officer in the Department of
Human Resources Development who felt that the undertaking
qualified under the job creation program, 21 workers from
Confection Haut de Gamme, located in Vanier, in Quebec City,
formed a co-operative.
Following an error of interpretation by the department, the
expected contribution of $105,000 was withheld.
Is the minister prepared to review her department's decision in
order to be fair to these workers and save 21 jobs?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I accept that the hon. member agrees that
the Government of Canada has a role to play in areas where we
want to help find opportunities for employment for Canadian
citizens. I am unfamiliar with this particular circumstance but
I would be glad to take it under advisement.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
British Columbians are deeply concerned about air pollution, not
just from noisy jet skis but massive pollution from the proposed
Sumas II power plant.
1515
In view of the very serious threats to health and the
environment and the already heavily polluted lower Fraser Valley,
will the minister now finally join with local communities and
with the government of British Columbia to oppose this plant?
Specifically, will he use his powers under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act and the Canada-U.S. air quality
agreement to try to stop this disastrous plant from proceeding?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a bit behind the times. In fact,
on May 2 we presented to the Washington state site evaluation
committee the analysis of the proposal of the Sumas II power
plant. At the time we listed deficiencies. We are waiting, as I
understand it at the present time, to get the full response. In
that period we have also done a joint study with the province of
British Columbian and the GVRD, the greater Vancouver regional
district, on air quality.
The hon. member has to remember that the major threat to air
quality in the Fraser Valley is in fact automobile emissions. He
must also remember that the provincial government in the same
proposal along with Sumas permitted two other power plants—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fundy—Royal.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, give me
a fuel tax break. Will the finance minister lower the tax on low
sulphur gasoline? The minister knows that when we did this with
lead Canada increased its pace to unleaded fuels. Will the
minister lower the tax on low sulphur gasoline to improve the
environment, human health and give Canadian taxpayers the break
at the pumps that they deserve?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in co-operation with the Minister of the Environment of
course we have been examining a number of options. The fact is
that the Minister of the Environment has been very clear on the
importance of low sulphur gas in this country. We will continue
to follow those options and take a decision.
* * *
COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Could the Minister of Industry indicate whether the competition
bureau will investigate the recent media acquisitions, including
the CanWest Global Communications acquisition of Hollinger
newspapers and other media assets, which may result in massive
concentration of power in the media at the expense of the public
interest in the regions and nationwide?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this transaction is reviewable under section 92 of the
Competition Act.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Right Hon. Peter Mandelson MP,
the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also draw the attention of hon.
members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Dato Haji
Abdul Rahman, Minister of Industry and Primary Resources of
Brunei.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1520
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
BILL C-3—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That in relation to Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal
justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, not
more than ten further hours shall be allotted to the
consideration of the committee stage of the bill and, at the
expiry of the time provided for in this Order, any proceedings
before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on the
said bill shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of
this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal
of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and
successively without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1605
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to
on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Folco
| Fontana
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 142
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clark
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Day
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Harvey
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 120
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
1610
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, an
act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in
Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and
of the amendment.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, just to recap what I was saying
earlier, we have now entered a period of one of the greatest and
largest extinctions of species in history. In fact, the sixth
greatest extinction is ongoing right now at a rate that is 1,000
times faster than the normal rate of extinction, so much so that
we have about 350 species in Canada, as we speak, that are in
danger of becoming extinct. This number is increasing with time.
The primary thrust of extinction is habitat destruction through
various sources, primarily agriculture and also industry, the use
of pesticides, clear-cutting, forestry practices, human
habitation and human activities.
How we actually protect sensitive habitat is the crux of the
problem. We have proposed that the government, rather than put
forth a weak bill in the form Bill C-33, which I might add is the
third attempt to bring in such a bill, needs to start addressing
the problem in a pragmatic way. Indeed the private sector would
very much like to work with the government, as we would, in
trying to develop a plan that would be fair not only to the
species at risk but to landowners and other stakeholders.
We can do it by buying in. We need stewardship. Groups can work
with the government in order to steward or shepherd sensitive
habitats willingly.
If land is to be taken away or use is to be compromised, private
interests simply have to be renumerated at free market value for
the costs incurred. Those costs need to be given to those who
are suffering a loss as a result of their private land use being
compromised. We also need to look at existing forestry and
agricultural practices and stop them while using other tools to
accomplish the same objectives.
1615
Habitat protection is important. Listing is also important.
Listing must take place for endangered species on the basis of
good science. The government does not do that in this bill.
COSEWIC, a group of scientists, are very effective at doing this.
It will give the government a list of species in danger of going
extinct on the basis of good science. In this bill the
government should be obligated to listen to what this group has
listed and follow its lead in protecting those species.
We must also enforce the law. Many Canadians would be shocked
to learn that we are one of the major conduits in the trafficking
of endangered species' products in the entire world. The reason
for this is that while we have long borders, we have done an
appalling job of protecting those borders, not only for
endangered species' products but many others.
The fact that the government has not supported our hardworking
men and women on the front lines at our ports means that our
country is known as a safe haven for people who are willing to
break the law in an effort to traffic in these endangered
species' products.
The result internationally has been that many species, from
tigers and big cats to birds and indeed plant species, are being
felled and are becoming extinct. It is a sad thing when a
country like ours, with its wild spaces and which prides itself
on being in favour of endangered species' legislation, has been
unable to get workable federal legislation and do our part
internationally.
I introduced Bill C-475 on April 11, 2000 which dealt with how
we can have an effective endangered species bill in a very
pragmatic way. My bill would essentially do the following:
First, it would obligate the government to protect species that
are on COSEWIC's list, i.e. the lists that are there, the species
that are endangered are based on science, not politics.
Second, it would obligate the government to work with private
stakeholders and the provinces to protect habitat. This is not
an option. This has to be an obligation on the part of the
government to protect habitat. Failure to do so will ensure that
these species will become extinct.
Third, it would obligate the government to work with the
provinces to remunerate private landowners at fair market value
where a negotiated settlement simply cannot take place, rather
than putting all the power in the hands of the minister who will
remunerate private landowners on the basis of what he or she
wants.
The last thing I want to talk about is a personal experience I
had. The best model in the world for protecting species is the
province of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. It has saved species
such as the white rhino, which went from 24 animals up to several
thousand in a matter of 50 to 60 years. The reason it did this
is that it used the private sector to husband these species. It
convinced them that they would get more money from their land by
ecotourism, by hunting excess animals and by other land uses,
including harvesting plants in a responsible way that had
medicinal uses.
The outcome is that the money drawn from these lands is poured
back not only into conservation, but also poured back into the
surrounding areas to benefit the people. We need to have the
assistance of local people if we are going to protect habitat.
The best way to do that is to demonstrate to those people that it
will have a direct benefit on their own lives.
If we merely argue on the basis that it is nice to have habitat
protected, it will fail, for habitat and animal species,
unfortunately, have to pay for themselves if they are going to
survive. Where this was done in KwaZulu-Natal, they were able to
save many animal and plant species from extinction. They have
also managed to benefit the surrounding populous. The outcome
has been that animals have been saved from the brink of
extinction, an expanded habitat that has been protected, expanded
wild spaces and a sustainable use of those areas for other
purposes.
The outcome of that is that KwaZulu-Natal is now the
international leader in conservation. I can only say to the
minister and to the government that our party will be very happy
to work with them to this end, but they have to have effective
legislation that will protect habitat in the ways that I have
mentioned. This is not only a legacy that we have been given,
the endangered species in our country, it is also our
responsibility to give that to our children and to our
grandchildren.
1620
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
pleasure to speak to Bill C-33 on endangered species.
I see that the federal government is very concerned about
endangered animal species. Unfortunately, it is not as
concerned about French Canadians, a species which has been
assimilated for the past 150 years, with the result that it has
now dropped from 50% of the Canadian population to approximately
25%.
I know that for certain members across the way who are recent
arrivals to Canada, this means very little.
But I can tell the lady who is gazing charmingly and wide-eyed in
my direction that, in case she was unaware, at the time of
Confederation there were as many francophones as anglophones in
Canada.
Unfortunately, we see the federal government wishing to
intervene so that endangered species will have the opportunity
to grow, multiply and survive, something, I repeat, that it has
always refused Quebecers, whether my colleague likes it or not.
I think that the intention behind the bill is good, except that
what we have here is duplication and overlap. What was
needed—even the preamble to the bill points this out—is for the
bill to pave the way for consultation with the provinces
precisely so that this duplication can be avoided.
Six Canadian provinces, namely Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan have legislation on
this, and a list compiled by scientists and their governments
establishing which species are endangered or at risk in the
province.
The federal government is going to encroach in a heavy-handed way
on an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. I know that,
for the member who earlier was yelling like someone caught in a
barbed wire fence, this kind of debate on respecting legislative
jurisdiction we have on a regular basis is plain gibberish and
makes no sense at all.
To say in the House of Commons, in this very parliament, that
constitutional law and the constitution are nothing, when in the
mind of members of the Bloc Quebecois the constitution is the
basic law which governs the relationship among provinces and
among private citizens, is to show contempt to a degree that
would not have been thought possible on the part of today's
politicians.
The constitution is the law of the land. The Fathers of
Confederation decided to balance powers. The federal government
was to have authority over international relations, the post
office, national defence and the telegraph, which transmitted
communications from one province to the next.
However, precedent after precedent, change after change,
including legal rulings and mainly the abolition of referrals to
the Privy Council in London, have turned it into the
quintessential joke.
1625
The Supreme Court of Canada, which has always leaned to the same
side, has started to set out principles of constitutional law and
the related rules of interpretation, and as a result our
constitution has more or less lost all meaning.
I will give you a few examples. We had sections 91 and 92, which
gave effect to the powers of the federal government and to those
of the provincial governments respectively. The Supreme Court of
Canada came up with all kinds of wild theories, such as that of
unoccupied fields in estate law.
For a long time, the federal government said “The province is
not exercising its right to collect taxes on inheritances in
estate law”. It is the unoccupied field theory, which means that
the federal government can interfere as long as the provincial
government is not exercising its jurisdiction in that field. But
it so happens that it is a province's prerogative not to exercise
its jurisdiction in a particular area.
Look at what is happening. Recently, a decision was handed down
regarding federal interference in areas under provincial
jurisdiction, such as property and civil law, including estate
law, with the reference on the gun control legislation. The
Supreme Court of Canada invented yet another theory by saying
“Yes, the federal government can still interfere in areas under
provincial jurisdictions in matters of public safety for
instance”.
The construction of high-rise buildings also has an impact on
public safety.
Transportation, be it by tractor trailers, trucks, ships or just
plain surface transportation, can have an impact on public
safety. One thing leading to the other, the provinces are losing
all the jurisdictions they kept for themselves when the
Confederation agreement was negotiated in Charlottetown starting
in 1864.
Today, we have this bill on endangered species. The habitat of
species that are endangered and on the way to becoming extinct,
be it a seabed or wetlands, often comes under provincial
jurisdiction.
Bill C-33 says that harmonization between provincial and federal
scientists is desirable.
Unfortunately, clauses in the bill indicate that the federal
government is grabbing almost manu militari, proprio motu, the
right to oversee the whole thing and is asserting its primacy in
the field of endangered species protection.
This is unfortunate, because more confrontation is looming. The
hon. member opposite, who is a champion of confrontation, will
certainly be involved. Quebec is being told that it cannot look
after its own resources and the habitat of endangered species.
I think that moderation and conciliation are preferable. The
federal government should have provided in its bill that,
following consultations with the provinces, a list of endangered
species could be drawn up in co-operation with the provinces.
Mr. Réal Ménard: They went about it ultra petita.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: My hon. friend from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
who has been studying law at night, really seems to know his
stuff. He is using Latin words now. He said they went about it
ultra petita.
We asked the federal government to get involved and, as usual
and as was pointed out by the brilliant member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who will get a score in his law courses
that will put the Minister of Justice to shame, the federal
government went overboard and used its prerogative to interfere
in the protection of endangered species.
1630
It is unfortunate. There will be overlap and duplication, with
double the costs, double the number of departments involved and
all the bureaucracies around them. The Bloc Quebecois cannot
support such a process, which is why we will be voting against
this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member
for New Brunswick Southwest, Employment Insurance.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-33. This is the
third time the government has brought forward endangered species
legislation. I was the environment critic when some of the other
bills came through. The last bill was so weak that even
government backbenchers could not support it. This legislation
is not much better. It would appear that the government is still
going to ram it through and that is wrong.
This seems to be the whole impetus of the government. Rather
than talk about voluntary measures, rather than trying to get
people to work together to get endangered species legislation
that is going to work, it chooses another way. The government
has chosen the big hand.
There are penalties in the act that are criminal code penalties.
This means, for example, that a logger is in trouble if while
doing his normal work of felling a tree and an endangered bird or
a bug is in the area. If a farmer drives his tractor over some
habitat or a rancher allows his cows into an area where there are
endangered plants they too would be in trouble. The penalties
are severe.
I talked to a number of people who said that if they found an
endangered species on their land it would be gone. They would
not allow the government to see it because it would take away
their property without compensation. They cannot afford that.
That is wrong.
For the greater good, we all recognize that. There may be an
area of land for example that has endangered species on it. We
all agree we should keep it. However the person who owns the
land has to be fairly compensated. They cannot be expected to
walk away. This legislation says that the government may
compensate, not will compensate. That is absolutely wrong. That
is why it has people running scared and understandably so.
This legislation also steps on provincial jurisdiction. It was
interesting to note what the justice minister said during
question period about how much the government consults with the
provinces. The government has not consulted with the provinces.
The provinces need to be right in with this. They need to have
either parallel legislation or they have to be onside. Right now
they are not.
One point that is weak is how a species gets on the list. What
about polar bears for example? What is the criteria to get them
either on an endangered or on an at risk list? We need to have a
scientific body to establish this. COSEWIC is that body and it
can do a fairly incredible job if it has the criteria. The
situation is worse when politicians get involved.
One species that will never make it on the endangered species
list as long as politicians are involved is Atlantic cod.
Members know that cod stocks are down the toilet. The stocks are
well down and fishing should not be allowed. What happens? An
election is called. There was a cod fishery on the east coast
which was just about on its knees. That is what happens when
politicians get involved.
1635
There has to be endangered species legislation that is arm's
length from the politicians. It has to be on a scientific basis
and not able to be manipulated by the politicians.
I was in the forest industry and spent 25 years as professional
forester before going into politics. There was an issue south of
the border in Washington and Oregon that dealt with the spotted
owl. Hon. members may remember that. However, the issue was not
the spotted owl. It was simply a vehicle for people to use to
stop logging. That was the issue.
I am not sure how we get it into legislation, but we need to
have legislation to protect the species, not for manipulation
which is what happened for years years in Washington and Oregon.
It did not have a lot to do with the spotted owl. It had a lot
to do with stopping logging.
We also need habitat protection. That is not in the bill. How
can we possibly say that we are going to protect a species yet we
are not going to protect where it lives? That is nuts.
In summary, there are a number of holes in this bill, so many
that it has to go back to the drawing board. During question
period the minister said that he preferred that it go to
committee. I suspect that this bill is so flawed that it needs
to go back to the drawing board. The environment committee will
clearly have its work cut out for it.
The bill is so flawed from the beginning that the actual
direction needs to be rethought. I said earlier that impetus of
the bill is whether it is through voluntary measures by getting
the provincial and federal governments together with the farmers
and ranchers and saying this is how we are going to do it or
having the big heavy hand of criminal justice. The latter is not
going to work. People are just going to plough them under.
This bill is bad. It is so bad that it needs to be redrafted
and our party and my constituents do not support this
legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the issue of
wildlife species at risk or on the verge of extinction is
certainly important. It is an issue that warrants our finding
solutions that are both practical and in keeping with the
constitutional arrangements existing between the provinces and
the central government.
The problem with the bill before us is that in several respects
the effects it will produce are not necessarily what we might
hope for. In addition, it lands squarely in provincial fields
of jurisdiction.
A number of members of the House and especially those on the
government side have the impression that the federal government
is in the best position to decide what is good for the people,
for resources and for wildlife. It has been my experience since
my arrival in the House, in 1994, that the government has shown
itself consistently incompetent in all these areas.
It is not enough, to resolve the problem, to introduce a bill in
the House that is supposedly going to protect wildlife species
on the verge of extinction. First and foremost there must be a
complete strategy in place to ensure that what the right hand
wants to do will not be undone by the left hand.
1640
Let me give a few examples of a left hand that is particularly
gauche in certain areas. Allow me to remind this House that
about a year ago, the auditor general announced, after tabling
his report and researching the matter, that many wild species,
both flora and fauna, had disappeared from national parks
managed, as we know, by Parks Canada.
This was not a fortuitous occurrence. It was not a matter of
chance. It was poor ecological management in the practices of
Parks Canada. A commission made recommendations and a new law
was passed. We can only hope there will be no other such
occurrence.
All this goes to show that, with its bill, the federal
government has not proposed anything that guarantees that the
objectives pursued will be reached. In fact, there is every
reason to believe that this bill will not solve anything, since
the problems often lie elsewhere.
Here is another example of a problem lying elsewhere. We are
going to talk about genetically modified organisms. The idea is
not, in principle, to genetically modify plants or wild
organisms. But here is what could and will, for all intents and
purposes, happen.
Let me remind the House that the whole biological evolution of
our planet is largely based on genetic mutations orchestrated by
nature itself through cross-breeding, particularly through
pollination. What is cross-breeding?
Everyone knows what a plant is, what a flower is, and everyone
knows that, at some point, the pollen of the flower will travel
and fertilize another flower to create a seed that will ensure
the survival of the species. I am, of course, referring to
plants.
Sometimes, cross-breeding will occur and a new species will be
created. This is how the diversity that surrounds us came about.
Nature, through selection, has created a balance that allows us
to benefit from an environment that is healthy, provided we
protect it adequately.
Let us get back to genetically modified organisms. I will make
up a little horror story which, when we think of it, is not
really a figment of my imagination. Some companies are currently
marketing graminaceous plants. The farmer plants the seeds, so
that they will grow and produce fruits. However, while the fruit
can be consumed, it cannot replicate itself because the seed is
sterile.
I would rather not think about what could happen if that
sterility feature was somehow transmitted to another species in
the wilderness. That species would slowly stop reproducing as
pollen spread that undesirable feature. Some might argue that
this is unlikely. But nothing is impossible with nature.
1645
Our very presence on Earth as human beings is a strong
demonstration of nature's capacity to yield highly improbable
results. Nothing proves that if we manipulate genetically
modified organisms we will not obtain results that are both
unexpected and unfortunate.
I will talk about salmon. There is a genetically modified
species of salmon endowed with an incredible growth capacity. It
rapidly becomes a big salmon. Of course, this salmon is kept in
fish farms. As long as it stays in its tank, there is no way it
can reproduce in the wild, in our waterways or our oceans.
However, fish have often escaped from fish farms and gone into
the wild. So, I would not see why the genetically modified salmon
should be unable to escape, as so many other fish have.
The day the salmon escapes and reproduces, given its incredible
capacity to grow rapidly and to be bigger than the other fish, it
will, as the saying goes, eat the smaller fish, the smaller
salmon, and eventually, wipe out wild salmon, and take its place.
The government is not acting responsibly to protect our
environment. This bill will not change the course of events. Much
more important measures need to be taken.
In closing, I will give the example of Ducks Unlimited, an
agency which was not set up through legislation like the one
before us, but which has done wonders for the preservation of our
natural environment, and which can be found everywhere in
America, even in my riding. Its positive action has led to the
protection of habitats, environments and species. Its initiatives
should be given help and support on a larger scale, instead of
the government introducing a bill which, for all intents and
purposes, is going to upset everybody and most certainly will not
yield the expected results. The government should withdraw this
bill.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents
of Calgary East to speak to Bill C-33, an act respecting the
wildlife species at risk in Canada.
The title of the bill is the species at risk act. There is no
Canadian who will not agree to do something about the risk to
endangered species. I have received numerous letters from my
constituents saying that they are concerned and would like me to
support the bill. Why? Because the term species at risk raises
the spectre that we are in danger of losing a species. I do not
think any Canadian would accept that and Canadians would like to
see something being done about it. When constituents write to me
they are asking their member of parliament to do something about
it.
I come from Calgary which is very close to one of the best
national parks in the world, Banff National Park. Its natural
wilderness is very dear to Albertans as it is to all Canadians.
People have seen in the past the joys that nature and species
bring and hence their concern about this issue.
1650
I grew up in a land which has some of the best national parks in
the world, the Ngorongoro crater and the Serengeti national park.
Over the years I have seen the decline of the wild species
habitat in those national parks. It pains me that they were
roaming there in numbers but today they are on the endangered
list. There are many reasons that they are on the endangered
list. Primarily the loss of habitat has been through hunting,
poaching and other illegal activities which put those species in
danger.
It would be extremely shameful for humankind that we would be
responsible for species being extinct. Many species around the
world, even in the Amazon forest and other places, are in danger
because of the reasons I have stated and it raises the question
of what do we do.
In Canada the issue has been brought up. Many species are on
the endangered list and Canadians would like us to take action.
Naturally when the bill on species at risk came forward,
Canadians felt they should support it.
In principle I do not think anyone in the House could not
support the bill when it says species at risk. However the
Canadian Alliance, as my colleagues have indicated previously,
has a serious problem with the bill, not with the intent of the
bill but with the way the bill has been drafted. We would like to
make our position very clear. We are not and I repeat not
opposing the bill for any frivolous reasons. We support the
intent of the bill which is to protect the species at risk.
However, we feel there is a different approach to achieve that
result and not what the government is proposing in the bill.
I would like to highlight some points. Most important is that
the bill gives the government the power to expropriate land. Down
the road it may also give the power to the government to lay
criminal charges against private landowners.
The government has gone one step further and said that in order
to protect species it is trampling on other rights instead of
working with a co-operative attitude. The problem with the bill
is that when the government tries to do something it adds on
something and it creates a situation where suddenly people are
opposed to the bill.
It was the same with Bill C-68. We agree with the intent of
Bill C-68 in that we want to keep guns away from the criminals,
but the government came along with legislation that will make
ordinary law-abiding citizens potential law breakers. That is
where there is a serious problem with Bill C-33. It is similar
to Bill C-68.
The government will come along and expropriate the land. The
government will say to the landowners that it needs to take the
land because it needs to protect the species and it leaves the
compensation blank.
There is nothing in the bill stating how the government is going
to expropriate the land. What is it going to give? Is it going
to give fair market value?
1655
Property rights in our country are fundamental rights.
Constitutionally we have the right to own property. However with
this bill, while the government recognizes that there are
property rights, it will expropriate. The bill does not go one
step further to say that there is a fair compensation process.
That creates a problem because in order to maintain their land,
at the end of the day the landowners may not be in a co-operative
mood.
There is a serious flaw in the bill. We would like to support
the bill but it is our intention and that of our critic to bring
forward amendments to the bill. I hope the government will
listen to Canadians and amend the bill in such a manner that is
acceptable to everyone.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to take part today in this debate at the second
reading stage of Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of
wildlife species at risk in Canada.
As we all know, industrial development in our society has had
and continues to have disastrous and often irreversible effects
on the environment.
Numerous plant and animal species have disappeared, particularly
since the beginning of the 20th century. However, it was not
until the last few decades that the need to protect our
environment and to preserve our environmental heritage has
become obvious, forcing governments to pass appropriate
legislation.
As members know, I represent an urban riding, Laval being the
second largest city in Quebec. On the initiative of certain
individuals who understood the importance of protecting the
diversity of our fauna and flora—and I will gladly take this
opportunity to salute Jean Lauzon and Michel Aubé for their
vision and their extraordinary commitment—an organization in my
riding, Éco-Nature, has worked hard to preserve wildlife in the
Mille-Îles River area. In co-operation with the Quebec department
of the environment and wildlife, Éco-Nature has played an
important role in the protection of endangered species for more
than 15 years.
The part of the greater Montreal area where Laval is located is
already heavily urbanized and development continues to grow. In
fact, 75% of the north shore of the Mille-Îles River is
developed, whereas in Laval, on the opposite shore, the figure
is 65%.
Of course what relatively intact habitat remains must be
protected.
Since 1998, the Mille-Îles River Park includes approximately 10
islands that have wildlife refuge status. The Mille-Îles River
Park is a protected habitat in the heart of greater Montreal.
Every year it is host to tens of thousands of visitors.
Thanks to the enthusiasm and skills of many naturalists, the young and
the not so young get reacquainted with the habitat of turtles
and the great blue heron. In an idyllic setting throughout the
seasons, visitors can see beaver dams and species of deciduous
trees hard to find elsewhere.
This is an example of the kind of results produced by threatened
species legislation such as Quebec's.
Earlier I mentioned the Quebec environment and wildlife
department. I must add that since 1989 it has as protection
tools the Act respecting Threatened or Vulnerable Species and
the Act respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife.
Quebec uses these tools to identify species at risk, list them
as threatened or vulnerable, protect their habitat, and develop
and implement recovery plans to adequately protect species and
habitat in a precarious situation.
1700
One might well wonder why have federal legislation. What is
this legislation going to add to the administrative measures
already in place in Quebec? Nothing.
Moreover, it is not the first time the federal government has
tried to slip through legislation dealing with this area. Here
is a brief historical overview of the legislation.
In 1995, the Minister of Environment of the day, now Minister of
Heritage, announced her intention to pass legislation on
endangered species. This raised a general uproar, from both
provincial governments and environmental groups.
A year later, her successor called a meeting with provincial
environment ministers.
This was on October 2, 1996, close to four years ago now, the
location, Charlottetown, a city with a certain myth attached to
it as far as agreements are concerned. The hope was for the
ministers of the environment to reach an agreement in principle
on endangered species. Thus the agreement on the protection of
endangered species.
Yet, when Bill C-65 was introduced, which is sort of the ancestor
of the bill we have before us today, the Quebec minister of the
environment and regional minister for Laval, my friend David
Cliche, rightly found that the federal government's bill did not
fully reflect the agreement that had been entered into.
As usual, the federal government is proclaiming the necessity
for co-operation between the various levels of government, but as
usual when it comes time for action it knows but one way of
implementation: blundering in over the lines of provincial
jurisdiction.
In a letter dated December 2, 1996, the Quebec minister of the
environment wrote the following to his federal counterpart:
Nor was it ever agreed that ratification of a treaty by Canada
changed anything in the distribution of jurisdictions and gave
the federal government exclusive jurisdiction to implement the
treaty.
Under the pretext of protecting species at risk, the bill is in
fact an attempt to rewrite or reinterpret the Canadian
Constitution and the way it gives certain powers to various
levels of government.
At that time, the Bloc Quebecois opposed this bill because it
intruded in provincial jurisdiction.
Bill C-65 died on the Order Paper in April 1997, when the
election was called.
Bill C-33 is almost a carbon copy of the defunct C-65. With the
same pre-election climate to boot, we could even ask ourselves
whether this bill too will die on the Order Paper for electoral
reasons.
The bill ignores provincial jurisdictions and existing laws,
such as those in Quebec. This is new useless duplication in a
field in which the government of Quebec has proven its mettle.
As an example of these intrusions, let me point out that clause
34(2) provides that:
The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the
Minister, by order, provide that sections 32 and 33 apply in
lands in a province that are not federal lands.
Federal lands mean lands of the federal crown. The intent is
clear. The prohibitions contained in clauses 32 and 33 of the
bill can apply to lands under provincial jurisdiction simply by
ministerial order.
In addition, if the minister feels that the laws of a province
do not properly protect a given species, the minister may
recommend the governor in council make an order in this regard.
If this is not meddling in the way the provinces carry out their
environmental protection responsibilities, I do not know what it
is.
1705
We all realize that the protection of the environment and
particularly of the threatened species is a key issue. However,
the federal government cannot take action in that area while
denying the role that the provinces are already playing. As the
Quebec minister of the environment, Paul Bégin, said:
Quebec has always behaved in a responsible and appropriate
manner regarding the protection of the most threatened fauna and
flora species and it intends to keep on exercising its authority
in this matter. We will never accept an umbrella piece of
legislation covering all the initiatives in this area.
Bill C-33 only duplicates what certain provinces such as Quebec
are already doing, instead of harmonizing what each level of
government could do in its area of jurisdiction. Unfortunately,
we all know that this is the federal government's way of doing
things. To believe that a tempered federalism, a federalism
respectful of the existing jurisdictions is here is just an
illusion and Quebecers will not be fooled.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
as an outdoorsman, a guy who spends a lot of time in the
wilderness, I have a personal interest in this topic and I will
approach it from that perspective.
I spend many hours in the wilderness. I have hiked, climbed,
hunted and fished in spots that do not see very many individuals.
I believe that Canadians have an interest in and a public need to
protect species at risk. That is certainly the case in my
riding, a riding that extends from Calgary down to the U.S.
border and from the mountains out to the southwest corner of
Alberta.
I will give an example of a rancher, a landowner, who in my view
typifies the somewhat typical western perspective on this. This
individual lives west of High River. His name is Francis
Gardiner. He is a big, tall, raw-boned rancher, a guy with a
cowboy hat and boots. If you met him on the street you would not
sass him, but inside him is the softest perspective when it comes
to species at risk.
He has a large, beautiful tract of land in the foothills, land
that has very diverse countryside. Beaver, deer and elk roam the
hills to the west. He has whitetail and mule deer on the
grasslands. He and his family have been there a long time.
He has been recognized for some of his achievements with species
at risk. He has tried to be very natural in his stewardship on
the land. It is titled land but he looks upon himself as a
steward of that land.
In the old days there used to be fires throughout the country
regularly and the fires took care of the brush. There have not
been fires lately. We are good at preventing fires. We take
fire prevention measures there so he has brought in animals that
will eat some of the vegetation to maintain the grassland because
the diversity requires that. His land would have been overtaken
by brush. To bring in a bulldozer and push the brush aside and
smash all the undergrowth is against his beliefs. This sounds
kind of corny but he brings in goats for certain periods of the
year to eat the vegetation and maintain the grassland. The
grassland is specific to species that might be displaced.
Francis Gardiner, in my view, is a trustee or a steward of the
land. Has anybody forced him to do that? Has anybody pushed him
with legislation? Has anybody rammed it down his throat? Not
for a second. He has done this co-operatively and eagerly. As I
say, he has been recognized and has just received some of that
recognition here in the House.
One other thing that is not often mentioned is that species are
not static. There is a change with species. Raccoons were
unknown in my part of the country until a few years ago when they
moved in. Raccoons have had an impact on other species, for
instance pheasant. I enjoy pheasants but the raccoons have had
an impact on them.
Here we have interspecies activity. I think we sometimes from
our human activities miss that.
1710
I believe that the interests of many of the individuals merge. I
have said that I am an active outdoorsman. I believe my
interests merge with those of the industrialist who wants to do a
sustainable harvest of some of the forests. I believe that
unless those individuals and industry look after some of these
species they will get shut down completely and the harvest will
not take place. Of course, the harvest of a forest, if it is
done properly, results in new growth and that new growth sustains
and supports species sometimes at risk.
Co-operation is what is necessary. I will not criticize the
bill specifically, but I do not believe that co-operation is
given the highest profile in this legislation. The co-operation I
look at is the co-operation of a fellow like Francis Gardiner.
Surely, if there is a species at risk on his property and if he
is given the opportunity, he will do what he can do to prevent
that species from being pushed aside. If he cannot do
enough—remember I said that this was an overall societal
good—and it is determined that his land must be taken from him,
either through the use being taken away from him, or actually
purchasing the land from him, or maybe even expropriating it, if
he does not get fair market value compensation it turns this
steward of the land into an enemy of the species.
If there is one thing that I urge my colleagues across the way
to do, it is to change the clause in the bill that says that
compensation may be provided. Compensation must be provided, if
the public good says that the land is no longer available to a
farmer, a rancher or somebody building an apartment building in a
city, it does not matter what the land is designated for, even if
it is a a grazing lease. I cannot stress this strongly enough.
To my colleagues opposite who put blinkers on and say that
species at risk is the only issue, they know that in other
jurisdictions there has been the shoot, shovel and shut up
mentality. As soon as a species at risk is found, it is shot and
buried and nobody knows about it. It is totally against what I
believe the trustees of the land would do if they felt they would
be treated properly.
The scientific process is important when it comes to species at
risk. We have a big panel that will decide which species do in
fact require protection. That panel should also be given the
task of looking at how the habitat should be protected. It
should also be given the task of coming up with the cost to the
community at large to protect that species at risk, and when do
the numbers allow us to back away from the program that is so
specific for that species at risk.
There have been some remarkable successes. Canada has had a
part to play in some of those successes. I think of the whooping
crane. We knew how many of them there were in the world but we
did not know where they nested or where they went for migration.
Early on in these conservation efforts we used tracking methods
that were quite primitive according to today's tracking methods
and we also made some moves in capturing and raising whooping
cranes and then releasing them into the wild. This was a
success story and it was done co-operatively.
Luckily, the whooping crane did not have a huge impact on
landowners because they did nest far away in the north where
there was not very much impact and most of the impact was from
accidental killing and activity that was inappropriate as they
went through their migration patterns.
There is hope for species at risk. There is an increased
awareness of species at risk. The Alliance will vigorously
oppose some of the principles in this bill, especially the one
with regard to the lack of compensation. If the government
thinks that it can take this issue and do it by regulation, it is
be sadly mistaken because it will lose the goodwill of many of
the individuals, certainly in my riding of Macleod.
1715
The criminal powers in this legislation get completely away from
the co-operation I believe is necessary. A person should be
encouraged to be trustee of the land and given recognition. That
is the way we will go. If land must be taken away, it must be
taken away in the public good in the larger sense with fair
market compensation.
I could go on much longer about the bill. It is an important
one to people like me and to people in my part of the country.
It is a privilege to speak briefly in this regard. I encourage
the government to look at the issue of compensation because
surely that is where the bill will fail.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise as parliament begins the September
2000 session. First I want to congratulate the two new leaders
who were elected and who were introduced in the House today.
They were elected with a rather strong majority, which means
they represent two important schools of thought in western and
eastern Canada. They will have to make their opinions known in
the debates we will have in the coming months, debates that can
be heated at times while being respectful of every member who
sits in this House.
I think that the arrival of these two leaders from two different
ridings, one in the east and one in the west, may help the
government realize that it is not on the right track in many
areas.
On the economic side, there is a strong demand for a reform of
the personal income tax system for middle income Canadians. We
can also see that the government is making economic decisions
that are not at all in the best interests of Canadians and
Quebecers.
In the area of health, the provinces have fought hard to obtain
an agreement, and yet it was reported in the media today that
the federal government is still trying to say that this
agreement does not say what it should say. It could simply have
restored funding at the 1994 level, as the opposition had been
requesting for a long time, and that would have solved the
problem.
The government has been making one blunder after another in the
arts, in the area of health, as I just mentioned, and in various
other areas. I hope these new forces in the House will show the
government that it has to rethink a lot of its legislation,
including the bill before us today, which deals with species at
risk.
Once again, the federal government is clumsily interfering in
areas under provincial jurisdiction.
We, who are members from Quebec, are proud mainly because the
Quebec government has, especially since 1989, made extraordinary
efforts to protect these species, requesting zoning changes in
some areas and environmental changes to prohibit the dumping of
some undesirable substances in specific rivers.
The Quebec legislation is really helping to protect endangered
species and supporting the environmental community, which claims
to be very satisfied. Of course, they want more, they expect
more, but they have someone to whom they can turn.
There is a way for the federal government to get involved, if it
wishes to do so, in the protection of endangered species not
under its jurisdiction.
But why has it, once again, decided to meddle in a provincial
area of jurisdiction? It is like a disease the leader of the
Liberal Party has and is now passing on to his members, where he
gets the urge to forget about the constitution and to infringe
upon provincial areas of jurisdiction. In this case, it is so
obvious.
It is a shame to see the government members say nothing while
the Bloc members, all from Quebec, stand up for the interests of
their fellow Quebecers. We have heard the member for Chambly as
well as the member for Portneuf talk about the legal issues. We
all heard of course the brilliant speech made earlier by the
member for Laval East.
1720
These members are telling us how important it is to look at this
bill very seriously in order to achieve a greater respect of
jurisdictions, the provinces' and Quebec's. The fact that we are
asking this government to respect the constitution it enacted is
nothing new. It is clear and simple. However, every time we have
to go back to square one. We have to repeat the same thing over
and over again.
The worse part is that today as we are demanding respect
for provincial jurisdiction and the Canadian constitution, the
Quebec members on the other side are not saying a thing. They
hang their heads in shame. I can see them across the way.
They are ashamed their party is not allowing them to speak on
the issue. They have to keep their mouths shut to be able to
serve in a government, but one that is working against Quebec's
interests.
I am surprised to hear that the two new members who crossed the
floor of the House said “We are crossing the floor to better
serve Quebec”. Did they change sides to tell the Liberal caucus
“You are going to change your methods, you do not understand,
you are going to have to respect jurisdictions, you will respect
Quebec”. No, they did not. They only crossed the floor of the
House a few days ago and already they have become meek little
sheep who wait for a signal to raise their arm and speak, and no
longer think for themselves. Since they crossed the floor
somebody else is doing the thinking for them. They now belong to
the silent party.
I believe the Liberal party should change its name to the
“Muffler Party”, as its members' voices are very muffled.
I think this name would suit them very well.
I therefore appeal to the members from Quebec across the way who
say they are defending Quebec's interests. Ministers of the
government of Quebec, whether members of the Parti Quebecois or
the Liberal Party, have always stated clearly that in this area
the legislation that Quebec has had since 1989 serves Quebec's
interests very well. According to Mr. Bégin, who was quoted
earlier by the member for Laval Centre:
Quebec has always behaved in a responsible and appropriate
manner regarding the protection of the most threatened fauna and
flora species and intends to keep on exercising its authority in
this matter. We will never accept umbrella legislation covering
all the initiatives in this area.
This is the statement quoted by the member for Laval earlier.
The message is simple: the government of Quebec is telling the
government in Ottawa that if they each mind their own business,
everyone will get along. But who is still promoting discord,
unnecessary debate and wasted energy? The answer is this
government, which has made this its trademark, its raison
d'être.
I see the members from Quebec across the way, including the
member for Shefford who has just, as I mentioned earlier,
crossed the floor to announce that she wanted to defend Quebec's
interests, but who is mum on this issue.
Worse yet, she is getting ready to vote against Quebec in her
first official action as a member of the Liberal Party when
occasionally, as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party,
she voted for Quebec's interests. In the case of Bill C-20, for
instance, she showed courage. But now that has all gone. She
has lost her nerve. The election is approaching and it must be
won. But do voters feel the same way? We shall see.
The same is true for the members from Quebec for
Pierrefonds-Dollard, and Beauce. What does the member for
Beauce, who is caucus president, have to say? As president of
the caucus in Quebec, he must defend Quebec's interests. How is
it that he is silent in the face of such a major assault on
provincial jurisdiction? What do the members for Brossard—La
Prairie, and Lac-Saint-Louis think? The latter was a former
minister of the environment in Quebec.
Never, as Quebec minister of the environment, would he have
allowed such an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. He was
its staunch defender at the time and, moreover, the one that saw
the legislation passed in 1989.
I do not know what kind of shot they give people when they
become Liberals, but it always has an extremely good sedative
effect.
It renders people speechless, they never rise again to defend
interests, they draw their salary and hope for the Prime
Minister's help in getting re-elected.
1725
Now for the hon. members for Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe
Saint-Charles, for Gatineau, for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, I call upon
you all as MPs for Quebec. Stand up with us to tell the
government to mind its own business and to leave the provinces
to administer this jurisdiction as they have been doing,
efficiently and effectively.
Where are the hon. members for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, for
Brome—Missisquoi and for Laval West when it comes time to speak
up? The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of
Public Works, the Minister of Amateur Sport, the Minister of
Revenue, the Minister of Finance, the Minister for International
Trade, who are all Quebec MPs, please understand that it is in
the best interests of Quebec to oppose this bill, to make
amendments to it if necessary. At least, have something to say.
Do not remain silent, earning the label of members of the
“Muffler Party”. No, you will surely be something other than
that, I trust.
In closing then, I appeal to you all to wake up at last. Wake
up, work with us, so that this provincial jurisdiction will be
respected and we can avoid yet another federal-provincial
squabble provoked by this government.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I
would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who is an excellent
parliamentarian. We are of course very pleased to have him with
us in the Bloc Quebecois. He is a man with a lot of experience
and a sound judgment.
The hon. member clearly showed us how sad the situation is, with
the people across the way not speaking up.
I am thinking of the government House leader, the member for
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. I am not ruling out the possibility of
going door to door in his riding with my Bloc Quebecois
colleagues to tell his voters about the real nature of this
House leader.
Let us not forget the prowess of the House leader and the
current Minister of Canadian Heritage. I understand that, like
her House leader, she does not support the Minister of Finance, but
supports the Prime Minister, which explains why she is still a
member of cabinet.
Let us not forget how, when they formed the opposition, these
people felt about non-confidence motions. They desperately asked
for parliamentary reform and for freedom of expression within
the political parties. But where is that freedom of expression
when Quebec MPs must protect the higher interests of Quebec?
It is always the same predictable scenario. They cave in, they
show no political courage, they let the steamroller go over
Quebec, at the expense of our province's higher interests. This
must end. Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is here. Which party
is leading in the polls in Quebec? It is the Bloc Quebecois.
What will be the strengths of the Bloc in the next election? We
will always be there to protect the interests of Quebec.
Does my colleague, the government House leader, wish to say
something? No. Just like his own party, he remains callously
silent when the time comes to stand up for Quebec.
I say this in a very cordial way, because here in the House,
friendship must prevail. However we cannot let the federal
government interfere once again in an area outside of its
jurisdiction.
I want the government members to tell me something. Who is
supporting such a bill? The Quebec government is against it. The
environmental community is against it. Why is the government so
determined to use such a tool when it could be acting within its
own jurisdiction?
The government is acting as if it has taken some very positive
measures to protect the environment. But what has the auditor
general had to say about the decontamination of federal lands
and sites? He said the government is dragging its feet. What has
the auditor general had to say about the ratification of the Rio
Convention and especially its regulatory framework? He said the
government has been tardy in doing so.
I know my time is running out and that is unfortunate, because I
still have a lot to say on this issue.
1730
As the previous speakers and my colleagues from the Bloc have
said, we will not let the government interfere once again in an
area outside of its jurisdiction. I really hope the House will
let me continue with my speech at the next sitting of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of private members'
business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance) moved
that Bill C-289, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child
adoption expenses), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you back after the
summer. I know you had a busy one. I appreciate the opportunity
to speak to Bill C-289, my bill that was drawn not long ago. I
appreciate it being before the House. Unfortunately, although we
made a very heavily supported recommendation to the committee
from people right across the country, the bill was not deemed
votable. However I appreciate this hour of debate in the House.
I know many who are interested in this topic are watching today
on the network.
The bill states in its own summary that its purpose to enact an
allowance for taxpayers, a deduction for expenses related to the
adoption of a child that does not exceed $7,000 when computing
his or her income for a taxation year. The expenses must have
been incurred in that taxation year or in the previous two years.
That is the summary of the bill.
Essentially the bill would recognize that adoptive parents make
a significant social contribution to our society by adopting
children that have a need for parenting, and that this activity
should be encouraged and supported for the good of children and
for the good of society as a whole.
I submit that this is a very important bill and worthy of being
deemed votable. Unfortunately we did not get that, but I would
hope that in the future parliament would entertain doing more for
adoptive parents. I think we can all agree that adoption is a
gentle option to ensure that a child can be placed with loving
and generous parents.
However adoptive parents often face significant upfront costs
when they embark on adoption, and out of pocket adoption expenses
are not tax deductible. This bill would be a first step toward
addressing some of the concerns of adoptive parents.
Adoptive parents have unique challenges and expenses when they
adopt a child. Even in public adoptions where provinces have
traditionally covered the related adoption expenses, we are now
starting to see adoptive parents faced with new fees and ever
increasing costs such as $1,200 for home studies, et cetera.
In the case of a private or international adoption, couples may
face costs in the thousands of dollars in legal fees, home
studies and a number of other studies that they must cover off.
Such upfront costs may result in the discouragement of couples
even thinking of adoption. It would thus serve a larger public
interest to allow adoptive parents to deduct expenses related to
the adoption of a child to better facilitate and better encourage
this act of generosity and love that serves us all so well.
Bill C-289 is essentially an adoption expense deduction bill
which proposes to allow a taxpayer a deduction of up to $7,000
for expenses related to adoption.
The introduction of the bill follows consultation with a number
of adoption organizations as well as individuals who have
personally adopted children. Statistics Canada's national
longitudinal survey of children and youth has clearly shown us,
in empirical terms, clear measurables, that an environment where
there is a mother and a father is an environment where children
thrive. Children without parents are at a disadvantage. I
believe we should do all we can to encourage families who have
the desire to adopt children instead of making adoption a
difficult alternative.
1735
We need to send a message of appreciation for the social
contribution that adoptive parents make and recognize the
inequities that adoptive parents face.
Adoption is under the control of the provinces, but Bill C-289
is a means by which this important institution could be
encouraged and supported at a federal level through the means of
a federal tax deduction format. Bill C-289 therefore is
constitutional and fulfils another of the guidelines that the
subcommittee required for a bill to be deemed votable.
Here are some details of the bill. As I said, it would cover
off the legal expenses related to adoption. Any kind of illegal
adoption or surrogate parenting arrangements would not be
covered, but the legal adoption expenses that relate to adoption
would be tax deductible up to a maximum of $7,000. The $7,000
figure was used so that it would be the same as the maximum
amount deductible for the child care expense deduction currently
in the tax code, the CCED, which is essentially a deduction that
recognizes the costs of third party care.
If the state can recognize these costs, I believe it is
appropriate to recognize that there are costs specifically
related to adoption which adoptive parents face. The adoption
expense deduction would be available for both domestic and
foreign adoption. It would include expenses for pre-adoption
home study as well as birth parent counselling and travel
expenses related to the adoption of the child. All these are
incurred regularly by adoptive parents today with no recognition.
It would be available for the adoption of any child under 17
years old, again matching the CCED provisions. If any expenses
are to reimbursed by an employer or by the government, they would
not be eligible for this tax deduction. We thought out those
aspects of the bill.
The numbers of adoptions are difficult to attain but the Library
of Parliament indicates that the total number of domestic
adoptions in 1990 was about 2,800. The most recent figures
available indicate that some 1,800 international adoptions
occurred in 1997. The province of Quebec estimates that the
average cost of an international adoption for adoptive parents is
$20,000.
The paper that the Library of Parliament prepared for my office
used the assumption that Bill C-289 would not come at a high cost
to the treasury. The estimated cost to federal tax revenues for
this bill, using a $7,000 adoption expense deduction, is
approximately $5 million at the current estimated adoption
levels.
In addition to sending a message of appreciation and
encouragement that parliament could send to adoptive parents
through the bill, allowing adoption expenses to be tax deductible
would make the tax system more equitable for adoptive parents for
two reasons.
First, biological parents have the pre-natal and post-natal
costs of having children covered under medicare, but adoptive
parents have to pay out of pocket expenses related to adoption
costs directly out of after tax income.
Second, currently fertility treatments are tax deductible.
According to the Library of Parliament fertility treatment
expenses are eligible for the existing 17% federal tax credit for
medical expenses provided for in section 118.2 of the Income Tax
Act. Thus it could be argued, and this is straight from the
document prepared by the Library of Parliament for my office,
that among those taxpayers who are unable to have children
naturally the current tax law favours those who seek fertility
treatment over those who adopt. Yet it could be said that
adoption is more socially beneficial since it aims to provide a
family for children who already exist.
It is inherently unfair and poor public policy for expenses
related to in vitro fertilization to be tax deductible while
adoption expenses, which by definition relate to a case where a
child has already been born and is in need of parents, are not
tax deductible.
1740
In the end I also submit to the House that adoption saves the
taxpayer money as many children in need of parents would no
longer be under the care of the state with the related expenses
that are all paid by the state. It would result in a permanency
for the child, which would also result in a stronger society and
as a whole more healthy child development with a two parent
family.
This topic has been in the media. I just make reference to some
of the statements that have been captured in the media concerning
this issue. The Winnipeg Free Press on January 4, 2000, in
an article by Leah Janzen indicated:
Faced with a critical shortage of loving homes for older children
and those with special needs, Child and Family Services is
offering paycheques to adoptive parents.
It is not something we are advocating here, but we are
advocating through the tax system the recognition of the social
contribution made by adoptive parents. Ms. Janzen went on to
say:
But so far, with about 700 needy children on their waiting list
and only 125 prospective parents in sight, the gap is still
heartbreakingly wide.
In the Ottawa Citizen on April 3, 1999, Derek McNaughton
wrote:
Between 1997 and 1998, the adoption rate for children from
overseas countries jumped by at least 30 per cent. For China,
the number of adopted children has rocketed upward by 73 per
cent.
He went on to say:
Currently, Quebec is the only province providing tax relief for
adoptive parents. And in its recent budget, the Quebec
government raised the allowable tax deduction for adoptive
parents from a ceiling of $2,000 to $3,000.
A lady whom I have had some contact with on this topic, Judy
Grove, executive director of the Adoption Council of Canada, says
that the issue of tax relief is rooted in how this country values
children. She says that politicians from both federal and
provincial governments are long on rhetoric about the needs of
children but short on action. She states:
It's very shortsighted, adoption, from the view of the state, is
a cost effective process because kids that are adopted are not on
the child welfare budget. If you look at the effect of allowing
tax breaks, it makes adoption easier and therefore it saves the
state money.
She makes a very valuable and valid point. The Adoption Council
of Canada has also sent a number of letters to my office. In one
of those letters on this private member's bill it points out that
there are more than 70,000 children in foster care in Canada.
More than 20,000 of these children are available for adoption.
One of the main barriers, they pointed out to me, to the adoption
of these children is the financial burden adoptive parents face.
Most adoptions of Canadian newborns and infants are facilitated
through private adoption agencies which have fees that range
anywhere from $6,000 to $10,000, and in some cases even more than
that.
This proposed tax deduction will make it more feasible for lower
income families or those concerned about the costs to adopt and
care for children. That just makes sense. This bill would be a
public recognition or a statement on the value of the
contribution those parents are making.
What about public support? Do Canadians want Bill C-289 to
pass? I would submit that public opinion is very supportive.
Since I first introduced the bill in the first session of the
36th parliament petitions of support have steadily been coming
into the House of Commons. I have received many e-mails and many
letters of support with really no media play or public promotion
on my part at all. I was actually surprised by the overwhelming
support I have had on the bill without really publicizing it or
promoting it in the least.
In parliament there have been about 4,000 signatures on
petitions in support of the bill already presented to the House
of Commons. I have another 1,000 signatures waiting. I have some
petitions that I wanted to present here today but I plan to do
that tomorrow, all in support of the bill.
1745
I thank the many Canadians who supported my office and supported
me in the endeavour of bringing this bill forward to the floor of
the House of Commons. I thank the Adoption Council of Canada,
Judith Grove and Connie Premont who created an e-mail list and
communicated the intent of this bill to many supporters right
across the country. I would also like to thank the many adoptive
parents who sent me pictures and letters and encouraged me to
contact other members of parliament to support this initiative.
This is good legislation. I urge all members to strongly
consider making a bill of this kind something the government
would develop legislation for and that we move to recognize the
contribution of adoptive parents, especially when we so regularly
say how important children are and how legislation needs to be in
the best interests of children. Recognizing the contribution of
adoptive parents would go a long way to us taking a step in that
direction.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill
proposed by the hon. member for Calgary Centre would allow
taxpayers to deduct expenses related to the adoption of a child
to a maximum of $7,000. While I am sure that the member opposite
from Calgary Centre has been motivated to present this bill to
the House of Commons for all the right reasons, a basic principle
of our income tax system is that tax relief is not generally
provided for personal expenses, such as adoption costs.
Although the government is aware that parents adopting a child
incur relatively high costs, these and other personal expenses do
not qualify for tax assistance because they are incurred at an
individual's discretion in widely varying amounts and types
depending on the individual's tastes, lifestyle and economic
status. The higher the socioeconomic status of the taxpayer, the
more likely he or she is to incur larger and more varied personal
expenses. If these expenses were made deductible, a portion of
the personal expenses incurred by some taxpayers would be
financed by taxpayers at large.
[Translation]
When tax assistance is provided with regard to expenses, it
applies to expenses incurred to earn an income, for example
child care expenses, union dues or job related moving expenses,
or to largely non-discretionary expenses, such as higher than
normal medical expenses.
[English]
Let us take the example of child care expenses. As hon. members
know, eligible child care expenses are deductible in computing
income. The purpose of the child care expense deduction is to
recognize that taxpayers who need to incur child care expenses to
earn employment or business income, to attend a recognized
educational institution or to take an eligible vocational
training course have a lower ability to pay taxes than taxpayers
with the same income who do not need to incur such expenses.
The child care expense deduction provides a tax deduction of up
to $7,000 annually for expenses related to the care of a child
under the age of seven and of up to $4,000 for a child between
the ages of seven and 15.
[Translation]
Since it would be difficult to separate the personal and
non-discretionary components of child related expenses, tax
assistance is provided to families with children in the form of
a benefit, the amount of which is predetermined, rather than in
the form of tax credits or deductions for specific expenses.
[English]
As the House may know, the government provides considerable
financial support to families with children through the Canada
child tax benefit, the CCTB. More specifically, the CCTB has two
components: the base benefit and the national child benefit.
Under the base benefit families currently receive up to $1,020
per child. In addition, supplements of $213 for each child under
the age of seven where no child care expenses are claimed and $75
for the third and each subsequent child are added to the base
benefit.
Additional assistance is provided to low income families with
children under the national child benefit, the NCB.
1750
As of July 1999 NCB benefits are $785 for the first child, $585
for the second and $510 for the third and each subsequent child.
Therefore, the maximum CCTB benefit is $1,805 for the first child
and $1,605 for each subsequent child.
Over the last few years our government has proven that it is
committed to investing the future of our children. In fact, even
before the budget was balanced, the government committed $850
million to the Canada child tax benefit to start building the
national child benefit in 1997. In the 1998 budget the federal
government enriched the NCB by an additional $850 million. The
design of this enrichment was set out in the 1999 budget which
also proposed an additional investment of $300 million to extend
benefit enhancements to modest and middle income families.
[Translation]
Moreover the budget tabled in the House on February 28
contained a five year plan to increase benefits under the Canada
child tax benefit by $2.5 billion annually by 2004. That means
that the maximum Canada child tax benefit has increased to
$2,056 in July 2000 and will reach $2,400 by 2004.
[English]
In the three budgets preceding the 2000 budget, the government
invested a total of $2 billion a year in the Canada child tax
benefit. With the additional investment of $2.5 billion a year
proposed in the 2000 budget, by 2004 over $9 billion will be
devoted each year to helping families with the cost of raising
children.
Before concluding, I also want to emphasize that the significant
tax reduction measures proposed in the last four budgets were
especially beneficial to families with children. By 2004-05, the
measures in these budgets will translate into a 30% reduction in
the tax burden for families with children, compared to 22% on
average for all Canadians. The measures presented in the 2000
budget alone will mean a 21% reduction in the tax burden for
families with children, compared to 15% for all taxpayers.
The five year tax reduction plan announced in budget 2000
proposes to restore full indexation of the personal income tax
system. This will protect families against automatic tax
increases and erosion in benefits caused by inflation.
In addition, the plan proposes broad based personal income tax
reductions. For the first time in 12 years, a reduction in a tax
rate is being proposed. The middle tax rate will be reduced from
26% to 23% by 2004. As well, it is proposed that by 2004 the
amount Canadians can earn tax free will increase to at least
$8,000, while the income levels at which the middle and top tax
rates begin to apply will increased to at least $35,000 and
$70,000 respectively. It is also proposed that the 5% surtax be
eliminated.
In total, the 2000 budget proposes a minimum of $39.5 billion in
personal income tax relief for Canadians.
It was announced at that time that the government hoped to
accelerate the five year tax reduction plan. Well, the
government is now able to guarantee that it will do so.
[Translation]
In conclusion, the government believes that parents should
receive financial assistance to help them meet the needs of
their children, and we are giving it to them.
[English]
However, it would not be appropriate to ask taxpayers at large
to subsidize adoption expenses through the tax system because of
the largely discretionary nature of these personal expenses.
Therefore, I ask that all hon. members not support this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-289, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act (child adoption expenses), introduced by
my colleague from Calgary Centre.
1755
The purpose of this enactment
is to allow a taxpayer to claim a deduction for expenses of up to
$7,000 related to the adoption of a child when calculating his or
her income for a taxation year.
I remind the House that in 1998 my colleague from the Bloc, the
member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans,
introduced a bill similar to this one. I believe the only
difference was that we were asking for a deduction of $10,000
instead of $7,000. It is the main difference between the two
bills.
It is therefore a bill my party, the Bloc Quebecois, and myself
support.
As we know adoption is a provincial responsibility. However the
lack of participation on the part of the federal government
creates a grey area for adoptive parents.
A federal tax deduction would not only be a welcome incentive
for adoptive parents, but also would make the tax system fairer.
Biological parents are covered under the health insurance plan
for prenatal and post-natal care whereas adoptive parents must
pay out of their own pocket the full cost of an adoption.
It is odd that the costs of in vitro fertilization are
deductible when the costs of adopting a child are not. This is
neither fair nor wise on the part of the federal government.
Children of the World, one of the largest Canadian adoption
agencies, estimates the cost of adopting a child in China at
$17,270 per couple.
Two years ago, my colleague, the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, adopted a little Asian girl. He has
confirmed to me that the adoption expenses were over $20,000
Canadian. These figures include expenses in Quebec and in China.
At this point, I would like to tell the House about a small
expense chart that Children of the World sent me.
It must not be forgotten that when one wishes to adopt a child
internationally, there are administrative expenses, expenses for
psychological testing, for parents' birth certificates, marriage
certificates, letters from physicians, notaries' fees, legal
expenses, law stamps, the embassy, contacts with foreign
countries, enrolling with the Canada-China adoption association, translation
of files into Chinese. This mounts up to $7,422
before leaving Canada to actually adopt a child. To this must
be added the expenses incurred abroad: donations to the
orphanage, the fees of a notary in China, passport fees for the
child one wishes to bring back, airfare and accommodation,
totalling $17,270.
The federal government should recognize, as Quebec does, the
important social contribution of adoptive parents in our
society.
It has been observed that half of Canadian adoptions are to
Quebec families. This is in part due to the fact that Quebec's
family policy is far more progressive than that of the federal
government.
Adoptive parents face special expenses, particularly in the case
of private and international adoptions.
I know whereof I speak. Thirty-two years ago, my wife and I
adopted a child, Richard.
1800
Many couples who want to adopt a child think about it twice
because of all the expenses it entails, which is where this bill
comes in.
For almost nine years now, Quebec has undergone a change quite
unique in the western world: every year, 700 to 800 children
from all over the world finally find in Quebec a family to adopt
them.
It obviously would have made adoption easier if the adoptive parents
were able to deduct from their income, at the federal level, the
child adoption expenses, not by an amount not exceeding
$7,000 as is stipulated in this bill, but by double that amount.
We cannot talk about adoption without talking about family. In
Quebec, we are proud to have an integrated and comprehensive
family policy. The policy includes among other things a tax
credit for adoption expenses, family allowance benefits and the
development of educational services and day care for young
children, what is commonly known as the $5-a-day day care.
Quebec is also developing a parental insurance program based on
the needs of families in Quebec.
In short, it is obvious that the federal government is 20 years
behind in this area and by quickly passing this bill, it would
at least be taking a step in the right direction.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to this bill, which introduces adoption expense
deductions.
I am surprised at the argument from the Liberal member across
that categorizes this as a personal expense. I think adoption is
probably one of the most impersonal expenses anybody can put
forth. People will be adopting a child of parents whom they do
not know. They will not know the child and they will not know if
the child is going to be troubled. If it is an international
adoption the child could have been denied love, stimulation and
care. They will be facing the problems of integrating that child
into their home and their community. They could be adopting a
child that has fetal alcohol syndrome or other problems as a
result of the parents' actions. So it is an incredibly
impersonal expense that a family makes when they decide to adopt.
We are talking about families and the incredible struggle they
go through to adopt.
I have seen some of my friends go through five years of trying
to adopt. What they submit themselves to, no biological parent
has to. They have to do a home study in which they are asked the
most personal, intimate questions one could ever imagine. No one
would even want to answer them, but they have to answer them
because they want to adopt a child.
They need letters of reference so they have to go to different
people of good standing in the community and ask if they would
consider them to be good parents and then get them to write
letters for them. They need psychological assessments which at a
minimum are probably about $90 an hour. Their religious
standards are scrutinized. Their income is scrutinized. Their
age, are they too young or too old. Their health, are they
healthy and what their family history is when it comes to mental
health. I was certainly never asked those questions when I was
young and having children. I have four children.
My big expense of having children was to buy a crib that lasted
for all four of them. If I had to pay out $20,000 or $10,000 or
even $1,000 per child at that age, I certainly could not have
done it. However, we are expecting these people, who will be
making a contribution to our community and who will be raising
other people's children as their own, to do so without any kind
of break.
I am again really disappointed at the Liberal approach of
categorizing adoptive parents' desire to have children as a
personal expense. It is shocking and hurtful to anybody who is
willing to go through the expense and the gruelling ordeal of
adopting a child.
As has already been mentioned, there are public and private
adoptions in this country but they both involve huge expenses. As
I have said, the family has emotional expenses as well as
financial expenses to go through. I do not think we should
promote this bill just because it would save the government
money.
I think we should support it because it is the right thing to do.
We should support it because it would support families and it
would be a good addition to any children's agenda.
1805
If we are going to put forward something seriously it is
critical that we recognize parents who are willing to adopt. Not
everybody is capable of adopting or of seeing those children
through all the years of adoption. It is not always easy. These
families are different.
I was just talking to a woman today who has adopted three
children. It was an international adoption. It is difficult for
families to adopt a child who may come from a wartorn country and
has been traumatized. Adopting families do not know the child's
history or what life holds for them. I do not have to face those
questions with my children but we are not willing to give people
who adopt children from anywhere, who look after them, love them,
care for them and do all the things that we would do for our own
children, a leg up or a boost, even in this small way of
recognizing the initial financial costs of an adoption.
In a lot of ways we can not ameliorate or lessen the
psychological and emotional impact an adoption has on people. It
is a gruelling test of their character. Anyone who does adopt
should be applauded rather than penalized.
This is a private member's bill that is worthy of support by all
MPs in the House. They should stand and say “Yes, we will
support you in every way we can because your struggles are
different than ours”. It would be another addition to our
criteria as a family and there is just no way that what they do
could ever be considered as just a self-serving personal expense
because it is not self-serving. They have been serving other
people for decades by including adoptive children in their
families.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this bill proposes a tax deduction for the costs relating to the
adoption of a child, up to a total of $7,000.
Despite the bill's good intentions, I believe that the problem
of this country's children is far more serious. Amending the
Income Tax Act by adding another clause does nothing but
complicate still further a piece of legislation that is already
overly complicated and does not solve the real problem. There
are 2.5 million children living in poverty in Canada.
The problems that are being experienced by low income families,
particularly single mothers, require examination by this
government.
Living in poverty is not easy. Being unable to provide one's
children with the necessities of life sometimes pushes certain
people into making hard decisions.
I believe that this country needs to ensure that a favourable
environment is created to acknowledge the good will of those who
choose to be parents. Parenting is not always easy, especially
in the year 2000, with the high cost of living, and the many
challenges our young people have to deal with: drugs in the
schools, finding jobs, even if their parents can manage to find
enough money for their education.
Becoming a parent involves many costs. As parliamentarians, we
have a duty to ensure that parents, that single mothers with
children can choose. People must first be able to choose to have
children, but they must also be able to decide to keep their
children. It is often for economic reasons that young parents are
forced to give their children up for adoption. We are very lucky
to always find parents who are prepared to adopt these children,
to give them a good life, to see that they live in a healthy and
safe environment with all the necessities of life.
Clearly we have a duty as parliamentarians to make sure that
Canadians have the necessary tools to provide what is needed.
I wonder if the hon. member for Calgary Centre really believes
that the solution to the problems facing children in this country
lies in tax cuts.
1810
To listen to Canadian Alliance members, one would think that all
the problems in this country are tax-related.
[English]
Having been been a single mom for a few years, my son and I
certainly know, as we all know, that we need some form of tax
reduction. We also know that there are many single parents out
there who need a lot of different help. Far too often the reform
alliance feels that the solution to every problem in Canada is to
reduce taxes. I do not believe that reducing taxes solves every
problem. We have to address problems in many directions.
Because of the changes to the unemployment insurance program
introduced by this government in 1996, many single parents have
had difficulty over the last four years because it targeted
families at the lower end of the scale when it came to income and
jobs. We know it has also targeted families living in
communities dependent on the seasonal industry.
Cuts to the provinces' social transfers have dramatically
increased the cost of post-secondary education. What is more
devastating than to cut off from a teenager the chance to get an
education which would permit that young person to get job and
have a future? As parliamentarians we do have a responsibility
to make sure that when legislation is passed in the House that we
are not targeting the ones who do not have a way to defend
themselves. It has happened too often in the House that policies
are made, legislation is passed and we are targeting groups,
especially women and children, and that is not right.
I must recognize parents who have chosen to provide good and
safe homes for children across the country. Choosing to become a
parent is not an easy task. Every one of us who either has
children or who knows parents who have children know it is not an
easy task in today's society with all the challenges that our
children are facing. Sometimes both parents have to work whether
they want to or not. It is a must today in order to make ends
meet. If both parents are working in a region where the minimum
wage is $5.50 or where there is only a seasonal industry, we can
just imagine what the children are living on in winter. I
believe 2.5 million children living in poverty is way to many.
It is 2.5 million children too many as far as I am concerned.
We can address some of the barriers through tax reduction but we
also need to see a commitment on the part of the government that
will truly address the real problems of the country: too many
hungry children living in this very rich country.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege as a Canadian
Alliance member to support my colleague's bill, the member for
Calgary Centre.
I have the privilege of having several adopted nephews, four to
be exact, and an adopted niece. In a counselling role, I have
worked with couples who were sterile or could not conceive a
child in the normal way. It was a big concern to them to have
the adoption option. It would also have been a big concern to
those people to have some kind of support. Some of them did not
have a lot of financial means. They came from lower income
groups and would have found it to be a a great drain on their
resources to adopt children.
Nevertheless, many parents do proceed at great sacrifice because
children are dear, special and precious to them, but I do believe
that it would be of great assistance to have the kinds of measure
that are in the bill before us today.
Bill C-289, as has been said, is essentially an adoption expense
deduction bill. We are not talking about an infinite amount of
dollars that would be allowed as an income tax deduction, as my
Liberal colleague across the way inferred at a point. It is
capped at $7,000 for expenses incurred as a result of adopting a
child.
As members on this side of the House have said, I would also
agree that this is not a simple purchase of a car or some other
luxury item. This rates as an altogether different kind of
thing.
These are couples who want to adopt because they are in some
cases sterile or for various other reasons cannot have children
by the normal way. It is not purely a discretionary issue or
choice as was implied by my colleague across the way.
1815
The deduction would be available for the adoption of any child
under 17 years old, matching the child care expense deduction
provisions. Expenses to be reimbursed by the employer or by
government would not be eligible for the tax deduction.
As has been stated by colleagues in the House in response to the
bill thus far, without doubt adoptive parents would face a huge
financial burden. It does not matter whether the adoption
process is public or private or whether it is in Canada. When it
is international it involves travel and involves a great deal
more in costs as well. Sometimes these costs are considerable.
Sometimes they are prohibitive. Let us consider a few of these
costs. Some have been referred to, but I will just reiterate
again.
There are expenses for pre-adoption home study undertaken by a
couple hoping to adopt. That first base is as far as some of
them may get because of the rigours of the whole process. There
might be agency fees involved in private adoptions. Even in
public adoptions where provinces have traditionally covered
expenses relating to adoption, we are now seeing adoptive parents
faced with new fees and ever increasing costs.
There might be costs for counselling for the birth parents who
must grieve the loss of the baby if the child to be adopted is an
infant, or in the case of a mother who is giving up her baby.
For international adoptions my Bloc colleague noted considerable
travel expenses, transportation, meals, lodging and other
expenses related to the child's immigration into Canada.
Then there are the judicial expenses. We know that lawyers are
not cheap. There is the adoption order, whether it is a Canadian
one or a foreign one. On top of that, international adoption
orders may require that the couple obtain a recognition order in
Canada as well so that the foreign adoption order will have the
same force and effect as a Canadian adoption order.
This means that some couples will have two judicial expenses,
one in each country. Let us not forget the legal fees that will
change hands if there are several lawyers involved in the whole
process. I think hon. members get the idea that significant
amounts of money can change hands in an adoption, especially in
the case of private and international adoptions.
The province of Quebec estimates that the average cost of an
international adoption is at least $20,000. I believe that it is
unacceptable that these expenses are not tax deductible. What is
unacceptable is that expenses associated with adoptions are paid
with after tax dollars. The tax system in my opinion is quite
unfair in this regard. It does not provide a tax deduction for
adoption expenses, even though it provides tax relief for couples
who become parents through means other than adoption, and I will
get on to citing some of those.
In other words, the Income Tax Act is unfair in its treatment of
new adoptive parents. I want to look at some of the
inconsistencies and the unfairness in the Income Tax Act.
First, the Income Tax Act makes provision for parents of
children who are born naturally. Such parents have the pre-natal
and post-natal costs of having a child covered under medicare
across our country. Adoptive parents, however, do not have
either the direct assistance of public funds or even the direct
assistance of a tax break, as we are talking about here today.
While society pays for the cost of a parent's birthing of a
child, an adoptive parent has to pay for the entire cost of
adopting a child.
Second, as was said before but I think bears repeating just to
show the unfairness or the inequity, the Income Tax Act makes
provision for parents whose children are conceived and born as a
result of fertility treatments which are tax deductible.
According to the Library of Parliament, fertility treatment
expenses are eligible for the existing 17% federal tax credit for
medical expenses provided for in section 118.2 of the Income Tax
Act.
Thus it could be argued that among those taxpayers who are
unable to have children naturally, the current tax law favours
those who seek fertility treatment over those who adopt. Yet it
could be said that adoption is more socially beneficial since it
aims to provide a family for children who already exist.
1820
It is inherently unfair for expenses related to in vitro
fertilization to be tax deductible while adoption expenses are
not tax deductible as things stand. There is really no logical
reason for it. There is no consistency at all in its approach.
Third, the Income Tax Act does allow parents to deduct child
care expenses. My colleague referred to that. It does not
distinguish between adoptive parents and parents who have given
birth naturally, or between adoptive parents and couples who have
used fertility treatments. They all are allowed that expense
under the Income Tax Act.
All parents who use day care receive the deduction. There is
another matter of parents who provide care at home and are not
given the deduction, which is unfair, but that is another matter
for another date.
Therefore it is inconsistent for the government to treat
adoptive parents and natural parents the same when it comes to
the costs involved in parenting by way of the deduction for child
care expenses, yet differently when it comes to the costs
involved in becoming parents. I think my colleague, in weighing
the logic, is thinking he can understand that there is an
inconsistency in that whole approach.
There is no justification for this inequity since new parents
contribute equally to society regardless of how they become
parents, whether by adoption, whether biologically or whether by
in vitro fertilization.
If there were a good reason for this unfair treatment then
perhaps we could justify it, but there is no reason. No reason
exists. New parents contribute equally to society regardless of
how they become parents. A child, its needs and its potential
for contributing to society are the same, whether there has been
an adoption, in vitro fertilization or a natural birth.
Therefore the logic would suggest that a tax deduction for
adoption expenses makes as much sense as medicare spending in
maternity wards and as much sense as the current tax deduction
for infertility treatments.
Let us think of the benefits of adoptions to society. Children
who would otherwise grow up without parents gain parents to love
them, discipline them and teach them, parents committed to them
for the long term. The likelihood of positive outcomes for such
children would be much greater. It translates into better
physical and mental health, better grades in school, and a
greater contribution as adults in the workplace and in the
community.
Parents who adopt love their children. They make deliberate
choices and deliberate sacrifices. Adoption is a positive thing
for society and it makes sense to encourage adoption by use of a
tax deduction.
What loss is there to government tax revenues? Not very much at
all. In fact public coffers would be offset by reduced
government expenditures in several ways. It costs money for the
state to provide care for unadopted children. Adoptions
therefore save taxpayer money as the new parents assume financial
responsibility for the children. There would be reduced mental
health costs, criminal justice system costs and prison system
costs.
There would also be increased sales tax revenues from the
parents spending on adopted children. Once grown, those children
would be healthy, contributing members of society who would pay
taxes themselves.
This is an important bill. I would move at this point that it
be made votable by unanimous consent of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Wanuskewin has asked for unanimous consent of the House that the
private member's bill now before the House be made votable. Is
there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am encouraged by the debate today. I thought there
were some good points made, in particular on this side of the
House. I hope they registered with the government.
I am struck by the fact that in the House we hear a lot about a
children's agenda. We hear a lot about “the best interests of
children”.
The bill we are debating talks about children in need of
adoption. Some 70,000 children are wards of the government and
20,000 of them are ready for adoption today.
1825
We talk about the best interests of children, yet we have a
government that will not entertain incentives or recognize
legislation that shows appreciation for the contribution adoptive
parents make.
We have a government that talks about $2.2 billion for school
programs and for children to be cared for in state run
institutions. We talk about the child tax credit. There is
lots of money through the child tax credit. I am not knocking
that. We talk about child tax recognition for infertility
treatments. We talk about child tax credits and recognition for
child care expense deductions for those parents who choose to go
out and work.
However, we will not consider tax recognition for parents who
probably make one of the largest social contributions possible by
adopting children who otherwise would never have the benefit of a
mother and a father. They are stuck as wards of the state and
shifted from one foster home to another. Many of us know that
the social costs of that kind of damage to a child go on and on.
We could do something about it with a piece of legislation like
this one.
I encourage making it easier for loving parents who want to
adopt but are faced with financial burdens and financial
hardships to do it. We could do something about it in the House
today if we were to embrace legislation of this type.
That is what the House should be about. I am tired of the
rhetoric about best interests of children and a children's
agenda, yet we ignore something as simple and as straightforward
as this legislation. It is an absolute no brainer.
I heard a consensus on moving in this direction from colleagues
in the NDP. I heard it from the hon. member of the Bloc. I
heard it from members of my own party. Without too much hard
work we might even get the PCs on side.
I ask members of the government to think about the opportunity
they are missing. We have had enough of their rhetoric about the
best interests of children and a children's agenda. Let us see
them demonstrate it in something as straightforward as this piece
of legislation which would give a child a mother and a father to
love them in a family environment.
In that light I would like to seek unanimous consent of the
House to refer the subject matter of the bill to the HRDC
subcommittee on children and youth at risk. There could not be a
more appropriate place for this item to be discussed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Calgary Centre has requested that the subject matter of the bill
be referred to a standing committee. Does the hon. member have
unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of private members' business is now
expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item,
the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in April of this year I raised a question in the House
of the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning the impact of
economic sanctions on the people of Iraq. I asked the minister
to finally speak up for the security of the people of Iraq where
over 500,000 children have died since 1990 as a result of
inhumane UN sanctions.
Some time after that question the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade issued a strong, powerful and
unanimous report on the issue of sanctions in Iraq.
1830
In its report the standing committee, which again I emphasize is
made up of members from all parties, strongly and unanimously urged
the government to address on an urgent basis the ongoing
humanitarian tragedy in Iraq.
It noted as well that notwithstanding the adoption of security
council resolution 1284, the committee urgently pursue the
delinking of economic from military sanctions with a view to
rapidly lifting economic sanctions in order to significantly
improve the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people while
maintaining those aspects of the multilateral embargo necessary
to satisfy security requirements and contribute to the overall
goal of regional disarmament.
As well the committee called for the establishment of a Canadian
diplomatic presence in Iraq and the continuing pursuit of the
broader issue of the reform of the use of sanctions in order to
allow a clearer targeting of military forces and regimes instead
of civilian populations.
It has now been some 10 years since the imposition of sanctions
in Iraq in August 1990. They have had a devastating impact on
the people of Iraq. The foreign affairs committee noted that a
United Nations panel established by the president of the security
council said this:
The country has experienced a shift from relative affluence to
massive poverty. Infant mortality rates in Iraq today are among
the highest in the world. Chronic malnutrition affects every
fourth child. Only 41% of the population have regular access to
clean water. The gravity of the humanitarian situation of the
Iraqi people is indisputable and cannot be overstated.
I want to appeal again today to the government to finally
respond positively to this plea from the foreign affairs
committee, this unanimous call from the committee that includes
members of the Liberal Party, such as the hon. member for
Brampton West—Mississauga who has been particularly eloquent in
speaking out on this issue.
[Translation]
“Ten years of cruel sanctions is enough”. This is what a group
of Quebec NGOs that includes Églises du Québec, Artistes pour la
paix, the Association québécoise de coopération internationale
and many other well respected groups have said.
[English]
I want to appeal today once again to the parliamentary secretary
to rise in his place and tell Canadians why we are prepared to
co-operate in this genocidal policy, a policy described as
genocidal by none other than the former humanitarian co-ordinator
for the United Nations in Iraq, Denis Halliday, who indeed will
be speaking in Vancouver this Saturday night.
The genocide must end. The death of children must end. The
barbaric bombing killing innocent civilians must end. We must
seek regional disarmament. We must certainly seek democracy and
human rights. This is not support for Saddam Hussein, but there
are many other dictatorial governments in that regime. I want to
appeal to the government to adopt this report, end the sanctions
in Iraq and do it now. Too many innocent human lives have been
taken as a result of these sanctions.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I want to
congratulate all the members of the foreign affairs committee
for their outstanding work, including on the Iraq file.
Canada worked diligently throughout 1999 to re-engage the UN
security council on Iraq in order to bring about humanitarian
improvements and the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq.
As you are aware, it was a Canadian idea to create three panels
in January 1999 to examine the humanitarian, disarmament and
Kuwaiti POW issues to review the status of these issues. The
panel reports were instrumental in the development of a UN
security council resolution to address the thorny Iraq problem.
On December 17th, 1999, the UN security council passed the
omnibus resolution on Iraq. The resolution calls for the
re-establishment of a disarmament agency, the UN Monitoring,
Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace the
Special Commission (UNSCOM) which left Iraq at the start of the
bombing campaign in December 1998.
The resolution also invokes changes in the scope and delivery of
humanitarian goods allowable under the current sanctions regime
and sets clear disarmament conditions for the suspension of
sanctions.
Passage of the resolution began the clock ticking on a number of
key humanitarian provisions which can be implemented without
requiring reciprocal Iraqi concessions.
1835
These provisions include the lifting of the ceiling on oil
exports, the addition of a cash component to humanitarian
contracts to help with local implementation, and a streamlined
approval process for humanitarian goods.
The humanitarian provisions of Resolution 1284 provide practical
measures aimed at addressing the situation facing the people of
Iraq. The resolution also provides a road map for the suspension
and lift of sanctions as well as for increased investment in the
Iraqi oil industry.
This is a step in the right direction.
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am on my feet tonight on a question on EI changes
which I asked the minister before the House rose for the summer.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, our party has led the cause and the
fight on that.
Basically the government changed the EI eligibility rules in the
western part of New Brunswick and other parts of Canada. The
government changed the rules where people would have to work 595
hours instead of 420 hours. In other words they would have to
work an extra month to qualify for benefits. Many people would
not qualify for benefits because in my part of the country there
has been a downturn in the fisheries, in tourism and even in
agriculture this year. If they did qualify, they would have
received benefits for 18 weeks and not 28 weeks, which would mean
that come winter, most people would have no benefits at all.
Our caucus fought it and about a week ago the minister admitted
that the government had made a mistake and changed it back to the
old rules. The only reason the government did that was that we
fought it right here on the floor of the House of Commons. The
government took a position it could not sustain. It could not
live with the decision it made to go to a new set of rules.
The fight is not over. The government wants to gradually
implement changes within a four year period and go back to the
draconian changes which we were successful in overturning.
A number of things could happen between now and that time. One
would hopefully be a change in government. If that does not
happen, there is no question we are going to have a change in the
ministry. The minister proved on the floor of the House of
Commons that she does not understand the rest of Canada. Let us
assume she does understand industrialized Ontario but she
certainly does not understand Atlantic Canada and resource based
economies and seasonal workers.
The government was punishing seasonal workers. Where were the
members of the reform party, the Canadian Alliance Party, on
this? They could not be heard. They never showed up in southern
New Brunswick or in any other part of the country to defend
seasonal workers, the poorest of all workers.
We fought this with reason and well argued positions. I called
a public meeting in my riding. We were successful in bringing all
the politicians, regardless of political stripe, into the same
room. All the provincial MLAs who represented the people in my
riding of New Brunswick Southwest came. We brought employers and
employees into that public meeting. All of us were in the same
room with officials from the department. Believe it or not, the
minister herself did not show, but the message was clear that
neither she nor her department understands seasonal workers and
the importance of a seasonal workforce.
I want to publicly thank everyone who came out to help me on
that issue. I want to thank the MLAs, the mayors, the
councillors, the employers and the employees. It shows what
people can do when they all sing from the same song book. It
shows what governments are forced to do when they make a mistake.
We will continue to raise these types of issues and
debates here on the floor of the House of Commons where they
should be raised.
1840
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the new EI
economic regions reflect the growth in our economy, and an
improved labour market.
But we can understand that seasonal workers in certain
communities are worried about these new boundaries and we are
sensitive to their concerns. That is why we have been flexible
before taking action.
On September 13, the government announced measures to gradually
phase in changes to the boundaries in the Lower St. Lawrence
region of Quebec and in northwestern New Brunswick.
The reactions to these changes have been favourable. Normand
Carrier, the spokesman for the Comité d'étude sur le travail
saisonnier au Madawaska, had this to say in the September 15
edition of L'Acadie Nouvelle:
But the challenges facing seasonal workers call for more than EI
benefits. Governments, employers, communities, unions and
individuals will have to join forces in order to improve work
opportunities.
That is why we are working at the local level and with our
provincial and territorial counterparts to develop lasting
solutions. A number of directions are open to us, the first
being improved access to training for seasonal workers; the
second being—and I urge the hon. member for New Brunswick
Southwest to encourage his constituents to discuss this—greater
economic diversity in the region; and the third being to develop
communities.
We must work together in order to come up with effective,
long-term solutions.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.)