CONTENTS
Thursday, April 24, 1997
Bill C-438. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 10143
(Motion agreed to.) 10144
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 10144
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 10146
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 10146
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 10146
Bill C-72. Report Stage 10148
Motions Nos. 1 and 17 10148
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10150
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 10156
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.51 a.m.) 10157
The House resumed at 11.58 a.m. 10157
Bill C-65. Report stage 10157
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais) 10157
Motions Nos. 1 and 63 10157
Motions Nos. 3, 25, 27, 56, 59 and 101 10158
Motions Nos. 4, 58, 62, 90, 98 and 102 10158
Motions Nos. 6, 7, 11, 19, 54, 66 and 87 10158
Motions Nos. 50, 57, 60, 65, 82 to 85 and 89 10159
Motions Nos. 86, 88, 91 to 97, 99, 100 and 103 to 109 10160
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 10162
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10165
(Motion agreed to.) 10172
Bill C-65. Consideration resumed of report stage andGroup No. 1 10172
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 10175
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 10176
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10177
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 10178
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10181
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10182
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10182
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 10182
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 10182
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10183
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10183
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10185
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10185
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10188
Bill C-65. Consideration resumed at report stage 10189
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 10189
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 10190
(Motion agreed to.) 10191
Bill C-65. Consideration resumed of report stage andGroup No. 1 10191
(Divisions deemed requested and deemed deferred.) 10191
Motions Nos. 2, 16, 21, 24, 26, 34, 35, 44, 49,55 and 64 10191
Motions Nos. 17, 45, 74 and 81 10192
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 10195
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 10202
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 10203
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 10204
10141
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 24, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), it is my pleasure to
present, in both official languages, the annual report of the
Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, 1996-97.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to nine
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I present this report with pride. The foundation of any
democratic society is its laws. As a democratic society we are
striving for justice.
In particular I appreciate this since I came to this country as a
refugee from a country which did not have a just legal system.
The report is entitled ``Renewing Youth Justice''. The report
deals with proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act. The
report is a product of a cross-country tour by the justice committee
and of representations made to the justice committee from all
segments of Canadian society.
(1010 )
One of the driving forces behind the report is that we incarcerate
way too many young people in institutions across this country. We
incarcerate 10 times as many young people as Europe, 15 times as
many as Australia and New Zealand. As I studied the information
before us I was shocked to find that we incarcerate twice as many
young people as the United States.
Some adjustments must be made on the other side as well. We
have to respond to and be involved with the community.
Recommendation number four speaks specifically to that. It states
that there should be community crime and justice councils, that the
community should be involved at the grassroots level.
I am proud to present this report on behalf of the justice
committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I want to point out that the Bloc Quebecois produced a
dissenting report for a good reason. After this cross country tour, as
the hon. member said, and after investing tens of thousands of
dollars in this study, the Liberals apparently gave the impression,
after considering how Quebec treated its young offenders, that they
would support an approach that was proposed by Quebec in the
sixties and would fully support the demands of the Bloc Quebecois,
demands which simply reflected the wishes of all Quebecers.
Instead, at the very last minute, the Liberals preferred to pay lip
service to certain principles and make recommendations that were
more like campaign promises, in an attempt to satisfy part of the
electorate in English Canada. One thing I cannot tolerate is that the
government made a concession on the minimum age of young
offenders by lowering it to 10 and 11, with the agreement of the
attorney general. It is up to the government to set standards and
pass legislation that is enforced across Canada. If it does not want
to do so, it should get out of this area and hand it over to Quebec,
which is what we want, or the other provinces.
However, as long as we have a Constitution and certain rules, the
government has an obligation to pass legislation on young
offenders that will be enforced uniformly across this country.
10142
By the way, some Liberals told me I was a whiner because I
was proposing recommendations that reflected Quebec's historic
demands regarding this issue. That is one of the reasons why I
decided to produce a minority report. The government would not
listen.
As far as age is concerned, I do not think the age should be
lowered this way, even with the consent of the attorneys general of
the provinces. In Quebec, attorneys general will certainly not agree
to lower the age and make 10 and 11 year-olds stand trial. In
Western Canada people may think differently, but I think this is
unacceptable.
As far as cost sharing is concerned, one of Quebec's demands
which has been on the desk of the Minister of Justice for many
months and many years, is the $77 million it costs Quebec because
we properly enforce the Young Offenders Act. Before the
government makes recommendations as it has done in the majority
report, I think it should pay what it owes Quebec and write a
cheque for $77 million. But we can get back to that during the
election campaign.
My third item is the federal government's tendency to intrude in
a number of areas where it has no business to be. It is not up to the
federal government to tell the provinces what to do with the money
it pays them for the administration of justice. This is a provincial
matter, and in this case, it is up to Quebec.
I realize that members from English Canada do not like listening
to what I have to say, but I say it with all the facts in hand, and I
have the satisfaction of having done my duty.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Government
Operations, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the third report of the Standing Committee on Government
Operations on public service renewal.
(1015)
[English]
The committee has closely monitored the renewal process in the
public service and has made a number of recommendations aiming
to ensure that the public service is supported in a way to ensure
renewal, the relève initiative, improve accountability and
transparency and that other key initiatives be implemented so that
the public service may continue to serve Canadians with pride and
efficiency.
On a personal note, I am proud to be serving my riding and to be
representing on many occasions in Parliament the interests of the
public servants. I salute our public service.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
dissenting opinion on public service renewal is appended to the
report by the Standing Committee on Government Operations.
The Liberal majority report indicates the need for public service
renewal, particularly since 70 per cent of all public service
executives will be eligible for retirement within the next eight
years. In 1996, only 1 per cent of staff were under the age of 25,
compared to 15 per cent in 1976.
The Liberals could have continued in the same vein and
reminded people that, during their mandate, the government has
made drastic cuts to the public service in the past three years. It was
not smart enough to be concerned with ensuring the transmission of
knowledge and the retention of the collective memory within the
departments. This unfortunate state of affairs is, in large part,
nothing more than the outcome of poor strategic decisions by the
Liberals during their mandate, which thankfully is coming to an
end.
As for the question of the under-representation of young people
within the public service, we again note the incompetency and
shortsightedness of successive federal governments, from Pierre
Elliott Trudeau's first government right down to that of the present
Prime Minister. With the calling of the election only hours away,
the Liberals are feeling a sudden need to act.
The young people of the Outaouais region have borne the burden
of this, no doubt about it. After three and a half years of Liberal
indifference, they now have trouble believing that this same
government has taken a sudden interest in them. When the Liberals
came to power in October 1993, the unemployment level in the
Outaouais for those under the age of 25, was 20.6 per cent; it has
now risen to 21.6 per cent. The Liberal report insists on finding
excuses for the way the federal government has treated young
people in the difficult cuts it has had to make.
According to the government, by 1998-99 the program review
will have had the effect of reducing program expenditures, and the
size of the federal administration, by 22 per cent. It is, moreover,
estimated that, after 1999, the government will save more than $3
billion yearly in salaries. What the Liberal report has forgotten to
mention is that, in the meantime, the provinces have been forced,
because of the cuts in social transfers, to reduce staff by more than
25 per cent in the areas of health, education and social services.
10143
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry concerning
its review of section 14 of the Patent Act amendment 1992, chapter
2, Statutes of Canada 1993.
I would like to take this occasion to thank the members of the
committee for their hard work and also the many witnesses who
came forward.
(1020 )
I would particularly like to take this opportunity, on behalf of all
committee chairs, to thank the House of Commons publications
services which worked very long hours in the last few days to get
all these reports out.
[Translation]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third
report of the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages on
the application of the Official Languages Act in the national capital
region.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, we request a comprehensive
response from the government.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the report
tabled by the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Official
Languages fails unfortunately to mention the considerable
anglicization of francophones in the City of Ottawa. In the past 20
years or so, the figure has increased from 17 to 28 per cent.
Accordingly, in the light of these statistics, the Bloc Quebecois
tabled a dissenting report criticizing the fact that the committee
tried to hide the fact that Ottawa, Canada's capital, is becoming
English and anglicizing francophones at an alarming rate.
Unfortunately, the report looks more at the national capital region,
including the Outaouais. Its recommendations tend in my opinion
to anglicize francophone Outaouais.
For this reason, the Bloc Quebecois has tabled a minority report.
[English]
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth
report of the Standing Committee on Health.
According to the order of reference dated March 21, 1997 your
committee has approved the proposed tobacco regulations with
amendments.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-438, an act to amend the Insurance
Companies Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table this bill, seconded by
my colleague from Portneuf. The bill aims at essentially one thing:
to eliminate the discrimination against provincially chartered
insurance companies in Quebec, which prevents them from
acquiring blocks of insurance from federally chartered insurance
companies in order to strengthen the industry and meet the
challenge of domestic and foreign competition.
It is truly a case of discrimination against Quebec, since, barely
two weeks ago, two Toronto companies, one a British, the other a
German subsidiary, were able to arrange a deal between themselves
involving 12 billion blocks of insurance without a peep or the
batting of an eye from the federal government.
A Quebec company, L'Entraide Compagnie d'assurances, since
we are talking specifics, lost out on a transaction involving 1.3
million insurance policies because of this government and the
Minister of Finance's inertia and lack of political will when it
comes to defending Quebec's interests. This transaction would
have allowed this company to compete with the four major players
in Toronto.
We deplore the decision by the Minister of Finance, who has
arranged it so the four Toronto insurance companies will dominate
the Canadian market and part of the North American market, while
the Quebec companies are left high and dry thanks to the Minister
of Finance and the Liberal Party of Canada. We will remember this
in the election campaign.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be
printed.)
(1025)
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I suggest you seek unanimous
consent to suspend the sitting of the House while an agreement is
being negotiated with the government on a motion it wants to table.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to suspend
the House for a moment?
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We may
be predisposed to suspend the House once we get to Government
Orders and then begin our discussions. I might be predisposed to
that, but on this point of order we would deny unanimous consent.
10144
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: There is obviously not unanimous
consent. We will therefore carry on.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, I move:
That on Friday, April 25, 1997 until members return from a ceremony granting
the royal assent to a bill or bills, the House shall not adjourn for any reason except
pursuant to a motion by a minister of the crown, provided that if no such ceremony
has occurred by the ordinary time of adjournment the sitting shall be suspended to
the call of the Chair, which may come for the sole purpose of attending such a
ceremony, after which the House shall be adjourned to the next sitting day.
[
Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will
please rise.
And less than 25 members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: If I am not mistaken, there are not 25
members, including those who just walked in. Accordingly, I
declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is with emotion and hope that I lay before this House
today a petition signed by more than 37,000 people from Quebec.
(1030)
This petition strikes a chord with everyone, since it concerns the
sexual abuse of children. The petitioners ask Parliament among
other things to review and assess the treatments offered to abusers
serving their sentences, and to ensure that support is available to
sexually abused children and their families.
Violence against children is certainly a significant indication of
how healthy society is. We must give ourselves all the tools we
need to provide adequate assistance to the victims and their
families, and to promote the rehabilitation of those convicted of
sexually abusing children. The challenge is as huge as the problem.
I think that, by making wise decisions, this Parliament can help
reduce violence and its devastating consequences.
[English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in the House today to present this petition on the national
AIDS strategy on behalf of hundreds of concerned citizens in my
riding.
The national AIDS strategy is a vital project that co-ordinates
Canada's efforts to finance HIV-AIDS education and prevention, to
support HIV-AIDS research and to provide care for those affected
by AIDS.
My constituents are therefore calling upon Parliament to ensure
that the national AIDS strategy does not sunset in March 1998 and
that it will continue to fund these very important projects.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from several
electors of my riding and adjoining regions.
The petitioners pray that the Prime Minister and the Parliament
of Canada declare and confirm immediately: first, that Canada is
indivisible; second, that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces,
territories and territorial waters may be modified only by (a) a free
vote of all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, or (b) through the amending formula as
stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of petitions from constituents in the
riding of Kootenay West-Revelstoke and the new area of West
Kootenay-Okanagan.
The petitioners state that they are concerned about the
sustainability of the Canada pension plan, that young people are
forced to pay higher premiums for smaller pensions and that the
recent $10 billion premium increase reduces take home pay. Since
it cannot be sufficiently demonstrated that perpetually increasing
CPP premiums while continually reducing benefits will salvage the
CPP, your petitioners pray that Parliament enact legislation to wind
down the CPP while protecting the pension of current seniors and
that Canadians contribute to mandatory RRSPs of their own
choosing.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two more petitions on a similar subject from
constituents.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that Canada's
seniors have contributed a great deal to this country's political
10145
development, economic growth and sustained prosperity within the
20th century. These citizens have protected Canada's tradition of
democracy and individual freedom through two wars and through
a variety of international peacekeeping endeavours.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament recognize
these accomplishments and sacrifices by not seeking to reform
Canada's national medicare or pension programs in any way that
would reduce benefits for senior citizens living on limited or fixed
incomes.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the GST is the first federal tax in Canadian history to
apply to the Bible and other reading material. The petitioners urge
Parliament to remove the GST from books, magazines and
newspapers. They ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's
repeated promise to remove federal sales tax from reading.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in my final petition the petitioners draw to the attention of
the House that as of October 1996 the German delegation to the
World Health Organization Codex Committee on Nutrition and
Foods for Special Dietary Uses has proposed legislation. We are
well aware of the legislation, therefore I will not go through it. The
petitioners state that these proposals if accepted will lead to drastic
changes in legislation.
(1035 )
The petitioners request that Parliament strenuously lobby the
international community to oppose the above mentioned proposals
for the regulation of dietary supplements in accordance with our
country's decision to vote against these proposals last October.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present on
behalf of people from my riding of Medicine Hat.
The petitioners pray that Parliament will enact legislation to
establish a pedophile registry.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is on behalf of Canadians across the country.
The petitioners pray that Parliament will enact legislation to
wind down the CPP while protecting the pensions of current
seniors, and that Canadians contribute to mandatory RRSPs of their
own choosing.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in
the House to present three petitions duly certified by the clerk of
petitions.
I am honoured to present the first petition on behalf of 75
individuals residing in beautiful British Columbia calling on
Parliament to remove GST from books, magazines and
newspapers.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is presented on behalf of 27 British Columbians
asking that Parliament urge the federal government to join with
provincial governments to make upgrading of the national highway
system possible.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the final petition is presented on behalf of 38 westerners requesting
that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour
and pleasure once again to rise in the House pursuant to Standing
Order 36 and present these petitions.
The petitioners state that Canada was founded on principles
which recognize the importance of marriage and family to society.
The petitioners request the House of Commons to enact legislation
or amend existing legislation to define marriage as a voluntary
union for life of one woman and one man to each other to the
exclusion of all others.
This petition is from residents of London and area.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the second
petition, the petitioners draw to the attention of the House that 38
per cent of the national highway system is substandard and that
Mexico and the United States are upgrading their national highway
systems. The national highway policy study identified job creation,
economic development, national unity, saving lives and avoiding
injuries, lower congestion, lower vehicle operating costs and better
international competitiveness as benefits of the proposed national
highway program.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the
federal government to join with the provincial governments to
make the national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions. The first petition is from residents of North York which
was presented to the Minister for International Trade. Because the
minister cannot table these petitions, he has asked me to do so on
his behalf. Many of these residents are also from Willowdale.
The petitioners ask that tax dollars be allowed to be earmarked
for non-military purposes.
10146
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is from residents of the Burlington area. On behalf of the
member for Burlington, I wish to present this petition asking that
the pensions of senior citizens be protected.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure of submitting two petitions. The first one is signed by 915
people and deals with the preventative withdrawal of women
working in areas under federal jurisdiction.
The Canada Labour Code does not provide adequate protection
to female workers who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Unions,
particularly the FTQ, the CLC and the Public Service Alliance of
Canada, have been asking for a solution to this problem for a long
time. It is time for society to take its responsibilities in this area.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): The second petition is
signed by a large number of people, most of whom are Quebecers
of Colombian heritage.
The petitioners are asking the federal government to undertake
negotiations with Colombia, so as to reach a social security
agreement. Several thousands of Colombians moved to Canada and
to Quebec, and they are seeking social security protection for the
time they worked in Colombia and in Canada.
(1040)
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present petitions from my constituents in
Cariboo-Chilcotin.
The first petition is signed by 259 residents of Williams Lake
and other areas of British Columbia. The petitioners draw to the
attention of the House that regarding Clifford Olson's right to
appeal for early parole, they feel that family and friends of the
victims are once again made to relive the horror of losing a loved
one.
My constituents request that Parliament take action in not
allowing mass murderer Clifford Olson to use the faint hope clause
to apply for early parole.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the next two petitions contain a total of 338 signatures of residents
of Williams Lake and other areas. They feel that the GST on
reading materials is unfair and wrong as education and literacy are
crucial to the development of the country.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to remove the GST from
books, magazines and newspapers. They ask that the Prime
Minister carry out his party's repeated promise to remove federal
sales tax from reading materials.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
addition to the previous petitions, I have another one bearing more
than 7,000 names drawing the attention of the House to the
following:
On November 12, 1996 in British Columbia the hon. Judge
Harry Boyle sentenced Darren Adam Ursel to two years less a day
to be served in the community under section 742 of the Criminal
Code. Mr. Ursel was convicted of a very violent sexual assault.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament exempt all
physical and sexual offenders from the provisions of section 742 of
the Criminal Code.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
also have two other petitions that request the House as follows:
In June 1996 the Prime Minister of Canada announced that he
would work toward diverting the Sable Island gas pipeline to
Quebec City. It is unacceptable for the Prime Minister to decide the
destination of Nova Scotia's natural gas without consulting Nova
Scotians. Therefore, Nova Scotians assert their right to control the
destination of Sable Island gas and demand that the federal
government cease tampering with this issue.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a final petition which urges Parliament to remove the GST
from books, magazines and newspapers. The petitioners ask the
Prime Minister to carry out his party's repeated promise to remove
the federal sales tax from reading materials.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a
petition on behalf of the Friends of the Rideau Canal and residents
of greater Kingston and Frontenac county. They are very concerned
about the damage to the property in Pittsburgh township where a
large construction company without permit or licence is operating
on land belonging to the Rideau Canal at the expense of taxpayers.
The petitioners respectfully request the Parliament of Canada to
ask the authorities to take responsible action.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two sets of petitions which are signed by residents of
10147
Vancouver East and of the lower mainland regarding the high rates
charged on credit cards by banks and retailers.
The petitioners ask that Parliament enact Bill C-351 as
introduced by the hon. member for Davenport which would limit
the interest rate charged on consumer credit cards.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions from my riding of Mississauga South, supported by
hundreds of Canadians from across the country.
In the first one the petitioners draw to the attention of the House
that our police officers and firefighters place their lives at risk on a
daily basis as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians.
They also state that in many cases the families of police officers
and firefighters killed in the line of duty are often left without
sufficient financial means to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts
and bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
second petition, the petitioners draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families who choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition concerns the labelling of alcoholic beverages. The
petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the consumption
of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's
ability and specifically, that fetal alcohol syndrome or other
alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by
avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy. The petitioners
therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation to
require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all
alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the
risks associated with alcohol consumption.
(1045)
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions which it is my pleasure to table on behalf of
constituents in my area.
The first petition concerns an issue of increasing concern to
people in my area, the freedom of choice in health care.
They are quite concerned that the government not interfere with
their choice of dietary supplements and foods for special health
uses. They would like to make sure that foods do not get
reclassified as drugs.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition contains 50 names of people who continue to be
very upset about the closure of CFB Chilliwack in my riding and
the fact that British Columbia no longer has a land forces base.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is about joy riding. The incidence of joy riding or car
theft in my constituency has gone up by 80 per cent in the last two
years.
It has been a big concern in Chilliwack and Abbotsford. Another
230 people are asking Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to
increase the minimum and maximum penalties for the offence of
joy riding and to impose financial responsibility, especially on the
parents of young offenders.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
last petition contains 572 names, which brings the total to 33,500
names that I have tabled of people mostly in my area.
They are concerned about sexual predators. This came about
because of the Bobby Oatway case. People are very upset and
concerned that personal injury crimes and sexual offences
involving children are not treated with the necessary seriousness.
They ask the government to do a series of things including
notification in the community; taking finger prints, DNA samples
and so on; making sure pardons are never given to this kind of
person; and finding some way to prohibit sexual predators from
working with children in our community or in any community.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition given to me by
one of my constituents, Mrs. Kim Dunlop, who is very concerned
about the safety of baby carriers.
This petition is signed by 334 people in my riding of Saint John,
New Brunswick. The petitioners draw the attention of the House to
the fact that personal baby carriers such as baby backpack carriers,
slings and snugglies are not regulated by the Government of
Canada.
10148
They call upon Parliament to urge the government to regulate
these personal baby carriers for the safety of our children.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 66 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 66-Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge):
Can the Government of Canada indicate which Ministers purchased copies of
Stevie Cameron's ``On the Take'' and Paul Palango's ``Above the Law'' from their
office budgets since October 23, 1993, as well as the number of copies that were
purchased by each Minister?
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed as
follows.
On the Take: office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, 1; office of the Leader of the Government
in the Senate, 1; office of the Solicitor General, 1.
Above the Law: no books were purchased.
All other ministers have submitted a nil response to this
question.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 74 could be made an Order for Return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 74-Mr. Robinson:
What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the federal government issued
in the constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway since the beginning of this Parliament,
including the 1996-97 Budget and up to today, and, in each case where applicable,
(a) the department or agency responsible, (b) the program under which the payment
was made, (c) the names of the recipients, if they were groups or organisations, (d)
the monetary value of the payment made and (e) the percentage of program funding
covered by the payment received?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 39 I placed QuestionNo. 108 on the Order Paper on March 3. This was 53 days ago. As
the rules permit I requested the answer be provided within 45 days.
It is my understanding that with all Order Paper questions the
government tries to meet that 45-day period.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell me if I will receive an
answer today? If not, when will I receive the answer as the House
will probably prorogue very soon?
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, the question referred to by my hon.
colleague is a very broad one. While I accept that she would want
to have the answer forthcoming, there are a number of departments.
Her question asks for all departments and agencies. As a
consequence the amount of time involved in answering that
question is significant.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
10148
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1050)
[English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-72, an act to
amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There are 20 motions in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper at report stage of Bill C-72. The
motions will be grouped for debate as follows. Group No. 1,
Motions Nos. 1 and 17.
[Translation]
Group 2: Motions Nos. 2 to 10, and Motion No. 19.
[English]
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 11 to 14. Group No. 4, MotionNo. 15.
[Translation]
Group 5: Motion No. 16.
[English]
Group No. 6, Motion No. 18.
[Translation]
Group 7: Motion No. 20.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
I now propose Motions Nos. 1 and 17 to the House.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.)
moved:
10149
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are at report stage of Bill C-72. Clearly
it is impossible for the bill to pass. Even if the Prime Minister
chickens out at the last minute and does not call an election, it will
be very difficult for the bill to pass.
I will refer to the history in brief of Bill C-72. After the election
in October 1993 there was division on the prairies over how wheat
and barley should be marketed. The minister was very tardy in
taking action. Finally in 1995 he initiated the western grain
marketing panel. It brought a report back on proposed changes to
the Canadian Wheat Board in the middle of 1996.
The minister was not happy with the western grain marketing
panel report. It called for more consultation and a letter writing
campaign. It was not until December 1996, more than three years
after the minister was first elected, that he introduced legislation in
the House.
The bill was given first reading in December 1996 but was not
referred to the committee until late February or early March. Then
there were some whirlwind hearings across the prairies and in the
third week of March the government only allowed three days of
clause by clause discussion.
Finally here we are on probably the second last sitting day before
the House is prorogued and we are at report stage. Yet to occur is
third reading and passage by the Senate. Clearly the House would
have to sit for several more weeks if Bill C-72 were to have the
slightest chance of seeing the light of day.
I want to make clear that the bill is a haywire and bailer twine
attempt to reform a terribly outdated Canadian Wheat Board. The
Liberals, in drafting the bill, have failed to heed the advice of the
industry. They have refused to honestly debate good amendments
put forward by Reform in committee. These amendments are
supported by a broad range of farm organizations and by a majority
of farmers on the prairies.
The Liberals have left no choice for Reform but to oppose the
bill. We do not want it to pass because we do not want to further
disappoint farmers who have been betrayed many times by Liberal
and Tory governments.
We oppose the bill and we will vote against it, but that is not the
reason it will not pass in the 35th Parliament. The real reason it will
die on the Order Paper is that the Liberals and the minister of
agriculture know it is a third rate bill. They are afraid to pass it and
let farmers experience how terrible it really is.
The Liberals could have passed Bill C-72 if they really wanted
to. I am rather astounded that the minister of agriculture has been
publicly saying the opposition has held up Bill C-72. We know
very well in this Liberal majority Parliament the Liberals pass
whatever they darn well feel like passing. They set the agenda.
They place Government Orders. They use time allocation far too
often and they use closure. For the minister to blame the opposition
for not allowing Bill C-72 to pass is beyond stupidity and lying. It
extends to the realm of desperation and bizarreness in the extreme.
(1055)
Let us examine the bill even though it will not pass. Clause 2
says the bill will be binding on all provinces. We asked the
ministers of agriculture of the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta if
they had been consulted on clause 2, the clause we are debating in
this group of amendments to Bill C-72. Both ministers of
agriculture said there had been absolutely no consultation with the
provinces on clause 2.
Clause 10 and other clauses in the bill give the minister an
ironclad grip on the board. All the discussions across the prairies
were to make the board more accountable to farmers and more in
the control or in the hands of farmers. The bill fails miserably in
accomplishing that. I believe Bill C-72 gives the minister more
control over the Canadian Wheat Board than he currently has.
The minister's actions and words clearly say he does not trust
prairie farmers to manage their own Canadian Wheat Board.
Therefore let us see what powers the minister clutches to himself.
The minister will choose the CEO or president of the board over the
heads of the board of directors, even though some of the board of
directors are elected by farmers. The minister will place the CEO
on the board of directors as a voting member, placing him or her in
a powerful conflict of interest position.
Time after time we heard representation from farm groups that
the CEO of the board should be chosen by the board and should be
accountable and responsible to the board, that the board should hire
him or her, that the board should set that person's salary and that
the board should terminate the CEO's employment on the board if
it felt that were proper.
The minister has the power to choose the interim board of
directors in its entirety and to tell it how to chose its successors.
This is not democracy. This is Liberal arrogance at its finest. It is
all pretty cushy.
The minister and his appointees lay all the plans for a partially
elected board. It reminds me of Liberal MPs establishing their own
fat cat pensions. If they call the rules, if they make the decisions,
farmers are left on the sidelines watching to see what kind of a
board will unfold, who the directors on the board will be and what
kind of rules, guidelines and bylaws will be put in place for the
further election and appointment of future directors to the board.
10150
Even more disturbing is the fact the minister can dismiss
directors and employees if they are not serving the best interest
of the corporation in the opinion of the minister. Farmers who pay
for the board are left out in this case. It seems odd employees can
be dismissed in the best interest of the corporation, not in the best
interest of farmers. Therefore farmers have their hands tied behind
their backs. They are not able to adequately make and press for
changes in the board as they see fit.
The minister refuses to bend on the request of farmers for a
voluntary board even for barley. There is a consensus. Poll after
poll indicated the majority of prairie barley producers want a
voluntary Canadian Wheat Board even for organic wheat. We heard
many organic growers and their associations suggest the Canadian
Wheat Board was not the best marketing agency to effectively
market organic products.
The minister went against the recommendations of his own
western grain marketing panel in denying the ability of the board,
at least in a small way, to become a voluntary marketing agency for
some products best marketed through other avenues than through
the Canadian Wheat Board.
The minister moved in this direction against the wishes of
farmers and according to his own Angus Reid poll which indicated
a majority of barley producers called for a volunteer Canadian
Wheat Board. Furthermore, the minister will allow the Canadian
Wheat Board to make cash purchases in a monolithic environment
where livestock producers can be destroyed by artificial feed prices
and international retaliation for unfair trading practices. We heard
this as we travelled across the prairies. The minister has done
nothing to correct this problem in the government amendments to
the bill at committee.
(1100 )
The government is prepared to add crops to the monopoly. This
measure would not go over very well with farmers. In fact, if a few
farmers are crossing the border now, if crops such as canola were
added to the monopoly powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, I
suggest there would be a civil war on the prairies rather than a few
farmers taking truckloads across the border to the U.S. in protest.
Obviously the minister does not understand the needs and wishes
of the majority of prairie producers.
The minister is acting like the captain of the Titanic, so arrogant
as he blindly steams toward the icebergs. His record on the Crow
rate is pathetic. His record on grain transportation is tragic. His
record on the Canadian Wheat Board is dismal and dangerous. He
is responsible for his lack of action over three and a half years. He
is responsible for the division over the Canadian Wheat Board on
the prairies. He is responsible for this comedy of errors entitled Bill
C-72.
Reform has called for constructive changes to the Canadian
Wheat Board. Our vision for the Canadian Wheat Board would not
only give it a fighting chance, it would give it good odds of being a
first class, farmer controlled marketer with a great chance to be a
success story in the 21st century.
The truth is that our opposition in the next election campaign
will be the Liberals and the NDP suggesting that Reform is trying
to destroy the board. That is not true, as are their allegations that we
would hurt medicare and seniors pensions. We have shown in our
fresh start document that they are wrong on medicare, health care
and seniors pensions. They are also wrong on the Canadian Wheat
Board.
Ours are the only proposals that will bring peace to a very
divided farm community. Ours are the only proposals that will
ensure the viability of the board in the future in a climate where
farmers want to market through the board rather than have to
market through the board, such as members opposite are proposing.
This bill cannot possibly pass through the House of Commons.
This is a matter of each party's putting its position on the record,
and I thank the House for the opportunity.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-72, an act to amend
the Canadian Wheat Board Act, commonly referred to as the CWB.
It is important to look at this bill in the current context, but it is
also appropriate to go back in time and look at the historical
context. When the government created the Canadian Wheat Board,
Canada, like every other country in the world, was going through a
major economic crisis. It was in the 1930s, more than 65 years ago,
that the federal government established the Canadian Wheat Board.
At the time, there was widespread famine, and men and women
often worked just to put food on the table. Some people starved
during this period called the Great Depression.
Western farmers had great difficulties making ends meet. They
were often stuck with their crop, because they could not sell it at a
fair price. The government, like a good father, created the Canadian
Wheat Board and gave it a monopoly. All the grain had to go
through the CWB.
At the time, the creation and the existence of the Canadian
Wheat Board seemed justified. It would still be justified today were
it not for the fact that, over the years, the government lost touch
with the grassroots. This is especially true of the current Liberal
government, which is totally out of touch with the grassroots. It
seems this government only listens to financial interests, to those
who contribute to its campaign fund.
10151
Western farmers are very upset. Earlier, I was listening to the
Reform Party member who said: ``If you want war in western
Canada, you will get it with grain producers because they are so
upset''.
(1105)
I think he exaggerated. There will not be war, well maybe a
verbal one, but that will not be all that bad. I can tell you that, of all
the amendments and proposals we put forward in the Standing
Committee on Agriculture, very few were approved, although
some of our motions were very interesting, but the Liberals, with
one exception, after consulting the great one himself, the minister
that is, turned around 48 hours later and passed the motion
requiring the election of 10 farmers, and 10 was the number put
into the bill.
Sixty years ago, there was a need for the Canadian Wheat Board.
I think there still is today, but the government should wake up and
make some changes. A good number of motions have been
introduced, and it could accept a few of them.
It should also be remembered that the Canadian Wheat Board
has a monopoly, in the sense that a grain producer living on the
border with the United States would not have the right, nor did he
before, to sell his crop or a part of it for more than his American
neighbours.
The Canadian Wheat Board undertakes to buy wheat and barley
from any registered grain producer and is expected, obviously, to
get the highest price possible, domestically or abroad, for this
wheat and barley.
All wheat and barley for human consumption must go through
the Canadian Wheat Board. Even in Quebec, if you need an amount
of wheat for human consumption, not for feed, you must go
through the Canadian Wheat Board.
There will be 15 on the board of directors. That is already an
advantage. Before, with four or five, there were always one or two
that had to be reappointed. But the Canadian Wheat Board has
often been directed by three people. Now, there will be 15, 10 of
them because of the efforts of the opposition, of the Bloc
Quebecois, with the support of the Reform Party. Our Liberal
friends did not want to include this in the bill so, after 48 hours of
consideration, they consulted the great one himself, who said: ``All
right, the west is making such a fuss that we will give them 10''.
I myself would have preferred to see 12, of course, as the Reform
Party would have, but the Liberals wanted to hang on to the
possibility of rewarding the faithful, because the five others will be
appointed by the governor general in council. Although the
parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister was naturally
not too happy about it, I asked senior officials: ``Would you tell us
the salaries of those now sitting on the Canadian Wheat Board?''.
At this point, I would urge all my colleagues in the House to listen
very carefully.
Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the president of the Canadian
Wheat Board earns quite a bit more than you do, even though he
does not have to go to the polls? His salary ranges from $115,000 to
$144,000. I guarantee you, and you can check this out, that the
incumbent is not a Conservative, but a Liberal. His assistant earns
between $110,000 and $129,000, as do the commissioners. Indeed,
it is often a choice spot to dump a member in order to vacate a
riding, as will be done in the coming weeks and days, after the
Prime Minister calls an election on Sunday.
(1110)
Someday perhaps the hon. member for Malpeque will be sitting
on one of these commissions, earning $144,000 a year, without
going to the people, because he knows full well that there is a
Conservative wind, and a very strong one at that, blowing on Prince
Edward Island. He might be tempted to take a job like that.
The parliamentary secretary is smiling; I know he once
condemned such appointments, but that is what political patronage
is all about. That is why we in the Bloc Quebecois have always
denounced, and quite vigorously so, these appointments.
Do you know who the chair of the employment insurance board
of referees in my riding is?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): The sister of the Liberal candidate
in Frontenac-Mégantic.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): She is a fine young lady, who was
recently appointed through the good offices of this government.
But the essential qualification, if I may use that word, is to be a
Liberal.
Another problem with the blueprint for change to the Canadian
Wheat Board is that it applies to all the provinces. And the hon.
member for Malpeque supported this, knowing full well that Prince
Edward Island produces potatoes rather than wheat or barley. When
I asked the secretary of state whether he could promise that 25 per
cent of wheat board members would come from Quebec, he said:
``That is out of the question. You grow hardly any wheat and barley
in Quebec''. Why include us on the board if basically there are only
three provinces, plus a small portion of British Columbia-say
three and a half provinces-where a serious effort is made to mass
produce wheat and barley?
We have submitted, and I will conclude on this, very positive
amendments to improve the Canadian Wheat Board Act, not to
10152
give satisfaction to Liberal politicians but to please western grain
producers. Incidentally, the number of elected representatives was
finally set at 10. I should remind the House however that the chief
executive officer, the real boss of the Canadian Wheat board, will
be appointed by the government, and that I will not stand for.
Therefore, while supporting the first group of motions put
forward by the Reform Party, the official opposition will be voting
against Bill C-72 as a whole.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find this debate
a little questionable. I am hearing a debate not with regard to the
merit of the bill or the consultation that has gone on or the efforts
that have been put forward to make sure that everyone involved has
had their voice heard; I am hearing mud slinging on a grandiose
scale. Maybe that is because the election is coming up.
I heard the Reform member a few moments ago suggest fresh
start. Reform members told us when they came to the House of
Commons that they were going to work in some reasonable
fashion, bring their points forward and debate issues on merit.
However, that is the last thing they have seemed to do in the last
year. It has really been sad the way they have attacked and carried
out arguments which may be politically motivated. The reality is
there was major concern about the administration and governance
of the Canadian Wheat Board and changes had to be made within
the wheat board act.
There is no question that we set out to have hearings across the
prairies to make sure that hundreds of organizations and
individuals with concerns were able to come forth to the prairie
panel that was structured to go across the prairies, listen to
concerns, listen to everyone's input, give every organization an
input so that we would have a pretty clear picture of what those
governance changes should be and what changes should occur
within the act. The minister then decided that he would structure
the recommendations, listen to what people had to say and give the
public a chance to respond again. The next step in the process was
to take the recommendations of the panel and give the public an
opportunity to respond.
(1115)
These measures take time. That is why the minister has not
jumped into the frying pan. He has looked at the concerns
expressed to him, dealt with them carefully and formulated a very
good package. In this way the whole structure of the wheat board is
dealt with in a very appropriate way in accordance with the
testimony brought to the grain panel. That was put into a bill which
the agriculture committee of the House took across the prairies,
listening to the concerns of witnesses in Alberta, the Peace valley,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, as well as every major organization in
Ottawa. The committee really did an important job of consultation
and listening to the concerns of interested groups.
At that time the government brought forward several
amendments to take into consideration all of the issues that had
been raised by individuals as well as larger organizations. All were
dealt with. Quite frankly, to go through a process where 7, 8, 10, 12
months are used to listen to people and get their concerns on record
and then formulate a bill is a daunting task. I was very disappointed
when in committee to hear the opposition attack officials who had
rigorously worked to formulate the ideas. Did they attack the
merits of what was being proposed? No. They just did not like it.
I am certain that no matter what was put forward, the Reform
Party would have been against it. That has been their position all
along. Even if very good points are involved, they do not admit that
anything is positive. There was a tremendous amount of political
posturing which I do not think has been the high point in this case.
However, we are dealing with two motions which have been put
forward as amendments. The motion would remove the reference
to the Canadian Wheat Board Act being binding on Her Majesty in
right of Canada or a province. This section of the bill was included
to provide greater clarity, since the legal interpretation is that it is
already the case and the act is binding on the provinces. It remains
important that all participants in the industry be clear that the act is
binding on the provinces. In that way we can make sure the proper
selling arrangements, which have always been with the Canadian
Wheat Board, are maintained. That was the reason it was included.
To remove that portion is against the whole nature of the bill.
Therefore, we cannot support the changes to that clause.
Section 18(1) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act currently states:
The Governor in Council may, by order, direct the Board with respect to the
manner in which any of its operations, powers, and duties under this Act shall be
conducted, exercised or performed.
Currently amendments to section 18 of the act are being put
forward.
(1.1) The directors shall cause the directions to be implemented and, in so far as
they act in accordance with section 3.93, they are not accountable for any
consequences arising from the implementation of the directions.
(1.2) Compliance by the Corporation with directions is deemed to be in the best
interests of the Corporation.
(1120)
The directive power already exists in the Canadian Wheat Board
Act. The powers already conferred on the Canadian Wheat Board
by Parliament are not being diminished by this bill. Therefore there
is a continuing requirement to maintain the government's ability to
give direction to the Canadian Wheat Board. This power has been
10153
used only rarely and there is no reason to expect that it would be
used any more frequently in the future.
The provisions in clause 10 simply ensure that when such
direction is given, it will be implemented and provide that the
directors, officers and employees will not be held liable for
carrying out directions given to the corporation by the government.
According to section 3.93(1)(a) of the bill, directors, officers and
employees must act honestly and in good faith with a view to the
best interests of the Corporation. Section 10 defines complying
with the government directive as being in the best interest of the
corporation.
We have to make certain that people who are working for a
corporation such as this have legal protection as long as they are
acting in good faith and within the law. We cannot support the
amendments brought by the Reform Party on this point.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am here
today to speak at report stage of Bill C-72, the legislation that the
Liberals have brought in to change the Canadian Wheat Board.
Quite frankly, I am surprised that this legislation ever made it to
the House. It should not have. It does not do what farmers in
western Canada want done with the board. It does not even do what
the Liberal government said it wanted to do to the wheat board.
Throughout committee and during clause by clause, it became
very clear that this is extremely bad legislation. It is not legislation
that should ever have found its way to the House. I am disappointed
that it did. It does not do, by the way, what the panel that studied
the wheat board and travelled across western Canada said it should
do. It does not even come close. That panel recommended that the
wheat board become accountable to farmers.
This legislation, if looked at on the surface, does that to some
extent in a very minimal way. Clearly the government and the
government appointees will control what happens to the board.
The amendments that we, the Reform Party, presented would
have done something had they not been rejected by the
government. They would have gone at least a little way toward
fixing some of these problems. However quite honestly, this is a
piece of legislation that cannot be fixed.
As we know, this legislation will never come to a vote in the
House, nor should it. It will be thrown out. Whether we have a
government led by Preston Manning coming back, a government
led by Mr. Chrétien or a government led by somebody else, we will
have to start again. I realize that I have used the names of members
and I will refrain from doing that.
This legislation will not do what farmers want. A study done by
the Saskatchewan government showed that 56 per cent of farmers
want the freedom to either market through the board or directly,
either through a grain company or on their own to another country,
the United States or wherever. It does not do what that study
indicated.
(1125 )
It does not honour the results of the plebiscite held in Alberta.
That plebiscite showed that 66 per cent of farmers wanted dual
marketing, as its commonly called, or wanted a choice to either
market through the wheat board, or through a grain company or
somewhere else as they choose.
That is what the panel that was set up by the government
recommended. It recommended that barley be sold freely and
farmers have a choice either to sell through the board or on the
open market as they choose, whether inside the country or outside.
The government did not honour the recommendations of its own
panel.
In a survey in my constituency of Vegreville done by
TeleResearch Inc. roughly 85 per cent of farmers polled by this
professional pollster-and I tabled the report with the committee
so the government knows what it showed-are in favour of having
a choice, dual marketing, marketing either through the board or on
their own for barley. It was slightly lower for wheat but not very
much. In the Beaver River constituency even a higher percentage
wanted to have that choice and did not want the monopoly.
This bill will not do what farmers in either Vegreville
consistency, which I represent, or in the constituency that the hon.
member for Beaver River, Deb Grey, represents.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has done it again. Will
he please not refer to sitting members of the House by their names,
but by their riding?
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. I do not know
what it is with names today. I have been here three and a half years
and I have never been stopped from using a name before. Here I am
on probably the last day of the sitting of this House and I start using
names. Perhaps I am getting into the campaign mode.
If we are going to have apologies, the apologies clearly should
come from the Liberal government for ever pretending that this
legislation does what farmers want. Members can look at the
amendments that we are debating today and they are not going to
fix this bill and make it something that is acceptable.
Most farmers want a wheat board which is accountable to
farmers. Whether farmers support the wheat board monopoly as a
large portion of farmers do, or whether they support a dual
marketing system where we have the wheat board operating and
farmers who want to market through the board can choose to do
that or those who choose not to can also do that. In either case what
10154
farmers want is a wheat board that answers to the farmers. This
legislation will not make that happen.
The board is partially elected. In committee the Bloc proposed
that 12 out of the 15 directors be elected. The Liberals came back
with 10 and that was put in the bill. The board has 10 members
elected, which is at least a majority. What difference does it make
if they do not have the power to make the changes that should be
made to the board? They are given very limited power. The
government keeps its hands very tight on the board under this
legislation. The directors have virtually no power to make further
changes to what the wheat board does and to give a choice to
farmers on how they market their grain.
The government has prevented this in different ways, partly
through its appointments on the board of the chair and CEO. Partly
through those appointments it keeps control, but also through a
screening mechanism which makes it that any change the Canada
Grain Commission decides is not quite right for some reason would
be prevented.
(1130)
Even if the majority of the board supports these changes, if the
grain commission, under the control of the minister, decides
changes should not happen, they will not happen. Clearly these
changes are not what farmers want and we will find that out during
the election campaign.
This is going to come out I believe very clearly during the
campaign. This is not what farmers want. I believe the Liberal
government will get that message much clearer than it has to date,
obviously, during the campaign.
Other concerns that we worked on at committee are with regard
to the absolution from responsibility that this legislation gives to
the management of the board and even to employees of the board.
If I were an employee for the Canadian Wheat Board, not one of
the commissioners, not one of the appointed board members and
not the appointed CEO or the appointed director of the board, and
we have a lot of competent people who work for the board, I would
be very concerned when I look at this legislation. Legal opinions on
this legislation have not been clear. It seems that this legislation
could easily make it so that the employees could be held
responsible for mistakes made where the directors or the
management of the board normally would be held responsible.
This legislation should have never been here in the House. I am
at least pleased that it will never come to a vote because it does not
deserve a vote, quite frankly.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
representative from the Reform Party tries to accuse me of not
being a western farmer and I admit that. I am not a western farmer.
I have had tremendous experience out west with western farmers
and I feel quite confident in terms of speaking about this great
institution, the Canadian Wheat Board. I take issue with a couple of
points the member for Vegreville mentioned. He alleged that there
is not producer control and we are not giving farmers choice. We
are, and that is what this legislation is all about. It is enabling
legislation giving producers choice and giving the board more
flexibility.
An hon. member: You did not read it.
Mr. Easter: The member says I did not read it. I will quote to
him a section from the act which does show that the board of
directors does have extreme control over the Canadian Wheat
Board. Section 3.9(2): ``The president is the chief executive officer
of the corporation and has, on behalf of the board, responsibility for
the direction and management of the business in the day to day
operations of the corporation with authority to act, subject to a
resolution of the board, in all matters that are not by this act or by
law specifically reserved to be done by the board of directors or the
chairperson''.
That shows the kind of power the board has over the chief
executive officer and president. This is enabling legislation. I am
proud to say as a member of the agriculture committee that we
went out and listened to producers and made changes accordingly.
This has been an exercise in consultation and listening to
producers. Bill C-72 is about changing the Canadian Wheat Board
and giving it the tools to be a better marketing institution for
western grain producers.
(1135)
Since I have been president of the National Farmers Union I
have always held strong views on the Canadian Wheat Board. I
have had the opportunity to study it, to go to the offices. I have
listened to western producers over the past two decades. They have
told me of their support for this marketing institution.
The Canadian Wheat Board is an institution that works, that
maximizes returns to producers in the international marketplace. It
is an institution that sets up a system to allow us to compete with
products from other countries in the international market rather
than have us compete with ourselves. It does this by using the three
pillars of single desk selling, pooling of returns and government
guarantees.
I ask Reform members to listen closely to this. I know they do
not want to listen to the good facts and the good points this
government is moving forward with. I quote Robert Carlson of the
National Farmers Union in the United States when he appeared
before the House of Representatives agriculture committee. He
complained that they do not have a marketing institution of this
calibre: ``From a competing farmer's perspective, we in the U.S. do
not have a vehicle like the Canadian Wheat Board to create
producer marketing power in the international grain trade. We
10155
basically sell for the best price among our local elevator companies
and lose our interests in our grain after that point.
``Our export trade is dominated by a few large corporations that
are interested in buying low and selling high to enhance the
earnings of their owners who are not generally the same people
who produced the grain traded.
``The stated goal of free trade proponents in agriculture is to
have a grain trade without national borders, without internal
subsidies, without quotas or tariffs and without pooling price
enhanced mechanisms like the STEs. That would be a great world
for grain buyers but a grim world for producers who would be fully
at risk economically''.
He added that often producers in various countries tend to attack
each other in the name of free trade when they feel producers
elsewhere have an advantage. He concluded: ``If we destroy the
various institutions that farmers in many countries have built to
help themselves survive economically, we will have nothing left
but producers standing bare among the ruins of structures that once
empowered and protected them in a marketplace dominated by
giants''.
Mr. Carlson has said it all. He talked about this structure, the
Canadian Wheat Board, which empowers producers. As a
government we are looking at the tools to make that board more
flexible. I believe the commissioner approach is the best one. This
involves the appointment of commissioners for their expertise in
marketing. I conceded on that point after I heard from producers
that they want to elect a majority of producers to the board so they
can control their own affairs with this enabling legislation. We have
conceded and 10 producers will be elected to that board.
It is clear when we look at this legislation that we have listened
to and accommodated the wishes of producers. I recommend to
Reform members opposite who constantly attack the board that
they read this document, the annual report of the Canadian Wheat
Board, which table after table shows clearly how the Canadian
Wheat Board lays out all the information. No international grain
trader lays out information like that. It talks about where the
markets are. It talks about the final prices that are paid and clearly
shows that the Canadian Wheat Board compared to any other
marketing institution in the world is clearly able to maximize
returns to Canadian producers.
(1140 )
What this legislation is all about is ensuring that the Canadian
Wheat Board is able to do that into the next century, giving more
power through enabling legislation to those producers in order that
they may control their own destiny with the guarantee and the
back-up of the Canadian government supporting them in their
efforts to build the kind of economy and prosperity which
producers can build in this great country.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to see there are some farmers on the other side
of the House. Not too long ago there was a debate on agriculture in
this Chamber and there were on our side something like 15 farmers.
On the other side there were something like 15 or 18 lawyers.
That is part of the problem we have. The lawyers, the
bureaucrats and the politicians always tell farmers what is good for
them, rather than it being the other way around. That is the root of
the problem.
I want to touch on a comment which the parliamentary secretary
made. He said members of the Reform Party probably would not
vote for this bill regardless of what was in it. When I first heard
about some of the changes with the elected directors I considered
very seriously supporting the bill. I did a survey in my riding which
showed very clearly that the majority of farmers would like to
continue with the wheat board monopoly.
I am happy to be a member of a party in which I can vote for the
wishes of my constituents without repercussions. I considered
voting for Bill C-72 until I started to look at what was in the bill. At
that point my thoughts changed.
I am pleased to know that this bill will not pass during the 35th
Parliament. That is good. I have spoken to a lot of people and
neither side is happy. The people who are on the side of a dual
marketing system think the bill has not gone nearly far enough. The
people on the other side, the Sask Wheat Pool, the NFU and some
of those groups, think it has gone too far.
Obviously the issue is far from settled. It needs to be talked
about and reworked in the 36th Parliament.
The problem in agriculture is bigger than the Canadian Wheat
Board. There are a lot of other issues which need to be tied together
and come to grips with in order to make agriculture a viable
business going into the next century. An example that comes to
mind is transportation.
We could consider what happened this past winter with the grain
tie-ups in western Canada. The minister did very little to solve
those problems. It is another example of where the minister has
been completely lacking.
The Liberal member for Souris-Moose Mountain brought
forward a private member's bill which would give more
responsibility to the railways. That is good. I like that kind of
thinking.
Another problem is that the government has not put in a system
whereby the railways will be penalized for lack of movement and
rewarded for good performance. That is something we must come
to grips with.
10156
I support the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain. Of
course when those things happen the government accuses us of
bickering and being critical of all legislation brought forward.
I would like to speak about consultation for a minute. I find it
interesting that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food set up a
panel to travel the country to consult with farmers and to listen to
farm groups. When the report came back it was not a good report in
the minister's eyes. He did not act on the recommendations of his
committee.
(1145)
It reminds me of so many other committees that have taken place
in this Parliament and in previous parliaments where some good
thinking members go out on the road, listen to people, bring back
recommendations, and the government of the day fails to act on
them. Millions of dollars are spent on all kinds of reports that are
put on shelves to collect dust. That is a serious problem.
As the farmers in my riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and I
see it, the number one concern we would like to see changed about
the wheat board is that it have a fully elected board of directors.
People agree that is far enough for now. We might want to get into
something else later but at least we would have control over the
directors. They will be accountable to us. If they do not do what we
say as a majority we will get somebody else. It is very much like
the House. That is good part of our system.
If on June 2 the people of Canada decide they do not agree with
what the government is doing they will kick it out.
Mr. Benoit: It is a wonderful thing to think about.
Mr. Kerpan: Absolutely. The member for Vegreville is smiling.
He has every reason to.
It is good this piece of legislation will not pass this week. We are
all assuming there will be an election call this weekend. That is
also good. For those of us who come back in the 36th Parliament it
is critical that we as a Parliament, not just as the government and as
the opposition, work together to solve the issues in western Canada
and indeed right across the country.
In the last 3.5 years I have seen very little action on major issues
by the minister of agriculture. Maybe there will be a new
agriculture minister in the 36th Parliament. Maybe it will be
someone from a different party.
I firmly believe there is hope and a bright future for agriculture
but it has to come from the grassroots up.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred. The results of the vote will also apply to Motion
No. 17.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if
we could find unanimous consent to allow Motion No. 2 to be seen
as moved and seconded.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow
someone else who is present in the House to move and second that
motion?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I asked for the unanimous consent of the
House to have someone else move the motion.
[English]
The hon. member for Fraser Valley East asked for unanimous
consent and there was none. Accordingly Motion No. 2 is not
before the House. Motion No. 3 is the same situation.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was agreement on the
government side that we would move at this time to a different bill.
We were to move to debate on Bill C-65, which is why the member
for Kindersley-Lloydminster is not in the House. That is what I
thought was happening.
(1150)
If we are continuing debate on this bill, I would once again ask
for unanimous consent for the motion in the name of the member
for Kindersley-Lloydminster to be moved and seconded at this
time.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow
someone else to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
10157
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have unanimous
consent to suspend the proceedings of the House for about five
minutes to straighten this matter out so that we can proceed
quickly thereafter.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to suspend
the sitting for five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.51 a.m.)
_______________
[English]
The House resumed at 11.58 a.m.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent
to adjourn the debate on Bill C-72 and move to Bill C-65.
I believe my hon. colleague has a point of order as it relates to a
report stage motion under Bill C-72.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Before
proceeding to another point of order, the hon. member has asked
for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I have two points of order.
Because of a miscommunication between the parties, I asked for
unanimous consent that the motion on the Order Paper in the name
of the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster be allowed to be
moved and seconded even though the member was not in the
House. That unanimous consent was denied, which meant that the
motion was removed from the Order Paper.
Although we are not debating that bill any more, I wonder if we
could have unanimous consent for the motion to be allowed to
stand on the Order Paper until we debate that bill again in the
future.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I understand I have to ask for
unanimous consent to deem all amendments standing in various
members' names on Bill C-65 moved and seconded, without
having to move and second each one, regardless of whether or not
the members are in the House. Many members will be speaking to
the different motions.
(1200 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-65, an act
respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from
extirpation or extinction, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I have a ruling
for groups at report stage of Bill C-65, an act respecting the
protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or
extinction.
There are 115 motions in amendment standing on the Notice
Paper for the report stage of Bill C-65.
Motions Nos. 29, 39 and 114 stand on the Notice Paper only in
the same name of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq who has recently
resigned his seat. Accordingly they cannot be proposed to the
House.
The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 19, 25, 27, 50, 54, 56
to 60, 62, 63, 65, 66 and 82 to 109.
[Translation]
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 2, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 26, 34, 35, 44,
45, 49, 55, 64, 74 and 81.
[English]
Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23,
31, 32, 46, 47, 51, 52, 61, 67, 68, 69, 70, 75, 79, 80, 110, 111 and
115.
[Translation]
Group No. 4: Motions Nos. 28, 29, 30, 33, 53, 71, 72, 76, 77, 78
and 112.
[English]
Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 36 to 43, 48, 73, 113 and 114.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 19, 25, 27, 50,
54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89,
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105,
106, 107, 108 and 109 to the House.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
10158
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-65, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 1 with
the following:
``measures to prevent the''
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 22 the
following:
``(h.1) an identification and evaluation of any impact on the communities located
on the land on which the species is found and on the workers on and the users of
that land;''
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-65, in the Preamble, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 1 the
following:
``conservation will be enhanced through an informed public wherein biological
and socio-economic concerns are combined to achieve sustainable development
with an environmental ethic,''
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-65, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 9 the
following:
``(1.1) For greater certainty, for the purposes of subsection (1), ``costs'' include
any cost to a person or organization incurred by way of a business loss suffered by
virtue of the implementation of a program or measure for the conservation of
wildlife species in respect of land owned by the organization or person.''
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-65, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 9 with the
following:
``program or measure and provide for written notice to the persons who will be
directly affected by the program or measure.''
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 21 with the
following:
``technically, biologically and socio-economically feasible and''
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 22
with the following:
``(5) If the recovery of the wildlife species is technically, biologically and
socio-economically feasible, the''
Motion No. 101
That Bill C-65, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 36 with the
following:
``mentioned in subsection 60(3). The court shall take into consideration scientific
and socio-economic concerns when granting any relief under this section.''
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-65, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 2 with
the following:
``aged and supported, community interests, including socio-economic interests,''
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by
(a) replacing line 36 on page 21 with the following:
``technically and biologically feasible and''
(b) replacing line 2 on page 22 with the following:
``technically and biologically feasible, the''
(c) replacing line 11 on page 23 with the following:
``not technically or biologically feasible, the''
Motion No. 62
That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended
(a) by replacing line 21 on page 22 with the following:
``(d) an evaluation of the costs and benefits, including the socio-economic costs and
benefits, of''
(b) by replacing line 38 on page 22 with the following:
``promote cooperative or voluntary efforts for the protec-''
(c) by adding after line 40 on page 22 the following:
``(h.1) an indication of any land that is part of the habitat of the species and may
qualify as ecologically sensitive land for the purpose of a tax deductible donation
under paragraph 110.1(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act;''
Motion No. 90
That Bill C-65, in Clause 60, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line
12 on page 34 with the following:
``(b) caused or will cause significant harm to an individ-''
Motion No. 98
That Bill C-65, in Clause 67, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 36 the
following:
``(1.1) In an endangered species protection action, a defendant is deemed to have
exercised all due diligence if the defendant lawfully engaged in an activity that they
had no reason to believe was likely to affect the individual, critical habitat or
residence concerned.''
Motion No. 102
That Bill C-65, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 36 with the
following:
``mentioned in subsection 60(3). The court must take into consideration scientific
and socio-economic concerns when granting any relief under this section.''
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-65, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 2 the
following:
``actions taken under this Act must take into account the social and economic
consequences of those actions on the parties affected,''
Motion No. 7
10159
That Bill C-65, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 2 the
following:
``the responsible minister must suspend the application of the provisions of this
Act respecting recovery and management plans if it is established to the
satisfaction of the responsible minister that measures are being taken or will be
taken within a reasonable time by landowners or by any other interested parties
for the protection of certain wildlife species, the purpose of a suspension of the
application of certain provisions of this Act is to strengthen co-operation among
the various parties concerned, ''
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-65, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 4 the
following:
````landowner'' includes a person who leases federal land.''
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-65 be amended by adding after line 7, on page 7, the following:
``3.3 Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, no provision of this Act or
any regulation or emergency order made under this Act, with the exception of
sections 31 to 33, applies to a landowner that would result in the expenditure of
money by the landowner or in a financial loss for the landowner.''
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 32 on page 21
with the following:
``(3) Where the responsible minister receives, within twelve months after a
wildlife species is listed as endangered, threatened or extirpated, a request signed by
a majority of the landowners referred to in paragraph 39(b) requesting that one or
more public hearings be held concerning the preparation of the recovery plan, the
responsible minister must
(a) hold at least one public hearing in the place and within the month indicated in the
request; and
(b) advise the persons who signed the request of the time and place of the public
hearing.
(3.1) The recovery plan must be completed
(a) within three months after the last public hearing held under subsection (3) has
been completed; and
(b) where no public hearing is held under subsection (3), within one year after the
wildlife species was listed as endangered, threatened or extirpated.''
Motion No. 66
That Bill C-65, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 19 on page 23
with the following:
``39. The recovery plan must be prepared in consultation with
(a) any persons who the responsible minister considers are directly affected by, or
interested in, the plan; and
(b) any directly affected landowners who have notified the responsible minister of
their wish to be consulted regarding the recovery plan.''
Motion No. 87
That Bill C-65 be amended by adding after line 32, on page 33, the following:
``59.1 The responsible minister must, by order, suspend, for a specified term, the
application of all or any of the provisions of this Act respecting recovery and
management plans if it is established to the satisfaction of the responsible minister
that measures are being taken or will be taken within a reasonable time by
landowners or by any other interested parties for the protection of a wildlife species
that is listed as endangered, threatened or extirpated.''
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by adding:
(a) after line 9 on page 21 the following:
``(1.1) The responsible minister shall hold at least one public hearing in the area
affected by the recovery plan to hear the comments of persons interested in
cooperating in the preparation of the recovery plan.
(1.2) The responsible minister shall cause to be published, in the Canada Gazette
and in a daily or weekly newspaper in general circulation in the area affected by the
recovery plan, at least sixty days prior to the commencement of any public hearing
held by the responsible minister in the area pursuant to subsection (1.1), a notice
containing
(a) a statement that the responsible minister must prepare a recovery plan and hold a
public hearing concerning the plan;
(b) the time, date and place of the hearing;
(c) a statement that any person interested in cooperating in the preparation of the
plan must notify the responsible minister, at least three working days prior to the
commencement of the public hearing, in electronic or other form, of the person's
name and address and of the fact that the person is affected or interested.''
(b) after line 22 on page 21 the following:
``(d.1) any other person or organization that notifies the responsible minister, at least
three working days prior to the commencement of the hearing referred to in
subsection (1.1), in electronic or other form, of the name and address of the person or
organization and of the fact that the person or organization is affected or interested.''
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 21 with the
following:
``technically, socio-economically and biologically possible and''
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 22 with the
following:
``technically, socio-economically and biologically possible, the''
Motion No. 65
That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 15 on page 23
with the following:
``(7) If the recovery of the wildlife species is not technically, socio-economically
or biologically possible, the recovery plan may include measures limited to the
prohibition of activities that directly affect individuals of the species or their
residences.''
Motion No. 82
10160
That Bill C-65, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing lines 42 to 44 on page 28 with
the following:
``(3), during normal business hours, enter and inspect any place in which the
officer believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, there is any thing to''
Motion No. 83
That Bill C-65, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 24 on page 29
with the following:
``a dwelling-place except with the witnessed and written permission of the owner
or tenant of the dwelling place or under the authority of a warrant.''
Motion No. 84
That Bill C-65, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 43 to 46 on page 29,
and lines 1 to 3, on page 30 with the following:
``order, an enforcement officer shall not exercise the powers of search and seizure
provided in section 487 of the Criminal Code in respect of a building without a
warrant or the witnessed written permission of the owner or tenant of the
building.''
Motion No. 85
That Bill C-65, in Clause 57, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 32
with the following:
``57.(1) The responsible minister must acknowledge receipt of the application and
send a copy of it by registered mail to each person alleged in the application to have
been involved in the commission of the offence within''
Motion No. 89
That Bill C-65, in Clause 60, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 43 on page 33,
and lines 1 to 5, on page 34 with the following:
``(a) the responsible minister has not performed the duties of the responsible
minister under this Act; or
(b) there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is collusion
between the responsible minister and the person alleged to have committed an
offence under this Act.''
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 86
That Bill C-65, in Clause 59, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 33
with the following:
``A copy of the report sent to a person whose conduct was investigated must disclose
the name and address of the applicant.''
Motion No. 88
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 60.
Motion No. 91
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 61.
Motion No. 92
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 62.
Motion No. 93
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 63.
Motion No. 94
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 64.
Motion No. 95
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 65.
Motion No. 96
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 66.
Motion No. 97
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 67.
Motion No. 99
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 68.
Motion No. 100
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 69.
Motion No. 103
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 70.
Motion No. 104
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 71.
Motion No. 105
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 72.
Motion No. 106
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 73.
Motion No. 107
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 74.
Motion No. 108
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 75.
Motion No. 109
That Bill C-65 be amended by deleting Clause 76.
(1205 )
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
today marks an important step in introducing Canada's first ever
federal legislation for the protection of endangered species.
Bill C-65 is an important bill. This government believes that
preventing species from becoming extinct is an honourable
purpose, a purpose that will ensure that our children and
grandchildren inherit a country as rich in wildlife as the one we
enjoy today.
Furthermore, by preventing animals from becoming extinct, we
also ensure that we have a healthy environment for ourselves.
While it may seem irrelevant at times whether the grizzly bear
disappears or the loggerhead shrike disappears, they in and of
themselves can become indicators of damage that we are doing that
affects us as human beings and the globe as a whole.
Some people have said that this bill goes too far and that it puts
too high a value on nature. The government disagrees. Others have
said that it does not go far enough in protecting the needs of
endangered species. Again, the government disagrees. The attempt
of the bill is to strike a balance between the various interests on the
planet. The Government of Canada believes that we have the right
balance.
10161
This bill is based on the premise that the needs of the economy
can be integrated with the needs of ecology, that we can protect
endangered species and still have secure jobs and a healthy
growing economy. This reflects the government's commitment to
sustainable development.
This bill also recognizes that nature does not exist in a vacuum.
People and jobs are also part of the equation. If we take away the
jobs, people will build up resentments and defiance. We need their
acceptance to buy into the laws for protecting the environment.
There are five important aspects of this legislation. First, we
have a bill that creates an independent panel of experts, scientists to
give us the facts about the status of endangered species in Canada.
What the bill attempts to do is to take politics out of the
designation of which species are at risk. It is important to note that
science and not politics, hearsay or uninformed opinion will
determine what species are at risk, what species need help and what
must be done to provide that help.
This independent arm's length group of experts is called the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada or
COSEWIC for short. This will build upon 20 years of experience
and provide for legal standing for this organization.
COSEWIC will make recommendations to the government
which will produce a list of species receiving immediate
protection. It will use its expertise and will also draw on the
traditional knowledge of aboriginal Canadians to assess and
identify species to be listed.
Each year the official list of species at risk in Canada will be
made public. In fact, this list was made public last week. The
picture it painted underscores the critical need for this legislation.
COSEWIC told us that the number of endangered species in
Canada has risen dramatically in the past year from 276 to 291, an
increase of 15 species in the space of one year. This situation
cannot be allowed to continue.
Had the Canadian endangered species act been in place when
COSEWIC's list came out, this would have been the basis for
demanding recovery plans for every species identified as
endangered or threatened. These recovery plans would have been
implemented in a timely fashion. All parties affected by the plan,
such as landowners, industries, citizens, government would have
been involved in the development and implementation of a plan.
Without this legislation, the future of these species is in limbo.
Second, the bill recognizes that no single jurisdiction can meet
the needs of all endangered species. Fish swim, birds fly and they
do not recognize political boundaries. This is why we need
partnerships and why it is very important that all governments
agreed to a National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in
Charlottetown in early October 1996.
In October all governments in Canada made commitments to
establish complementary legislation and programs to protect
endangered species. The accord builds upon legislation that already
exists in four provinces: New Brunswick, Manitoba, Ontario and
Quebec.
The bill also establishes a council of ministers as a mechanism
for co-operation among federal, provincial and territorial
governments with the goal of preventing species in Canada from
becoming extinct as a consequence of human activity.
With this bill the federal government is doing its part. The
legislation respects the traditional and constitutional roles that each
jurisdiction has played in wildlife protection and conservation.
New provisions have been introduced to more clearly recognize
provincial and territorial authorities with respect to the
management of endangered wildlife species.
(1210 )
Third, international cross-border animal species are better
protected. The bill recognizes the importance of working
co-operatively with other countries for the conservation of
endangered species.
As part of our committee hearings we learned that the grizzly
bear roams from northern Manitoba into southern Alberta and
southern British Columbia. It is protected in the United States but
would only be protected in Banff National Park in the Canadian
jurisdiction. This bill will help deal with issues like this one. The
bill also gives us the ability to take immediate action to protect
animal species in imminent danger as they move across our
borders.
Earlier this month the Minister of the Environment signed a
framework for co-operation with the United States Department of
the Interior for the protection and recovery of wild species at risk.
This agreement helps us build on the excellent relationship we have
with the United States on the management of wildlife across the
border.
Together our two countries manage several migratory birds and
other species. Our success in the recovery of the majestic whooping
crane is a symbol recognized around the world of co-operation and
partnership between different jurisdictions that share a common
goal.
The two countries agreed to exchange information, to work
together on recovery plans and to build a partnership with all levels
of government, the private sector and the public for the
conservation of wildlife and the ecosystems on which they depend.
A workplan will be presented to the Minister of the Environment
and the Secretary of the Interior by December of this year.
10162
This legislation builds upon the voluntary efforts of a wide
range of people in Canada, many of whom joined the Minister of
the Environment when he tabled this bill last October. The
Government of Canada sees the necessity and the benefits of
working together on behalf of all our fellow creatures. This is very
good news indeed. When it comes to a bird sitting on a rock,
Canadians do not want to see politicians arguing over who has
jurisdiction over the rock. They want us to work to make sure the
bird can live and fly free. We have put nature before jurisdictional
disputes.
Fourth, this bill will generate more public involvement in our
quest for a better protection of species. Canadians can take part in
all stages of the process, from proposing species for listing, to
developing and implementing recovery plans, to participation in
the enforcement of the act.
All information relating to work under the act will be made
available through the establishment of a public registry. This will
allow all Canadians to judge whether species are being protected
from extinction and whether social and economic concerns of
resources users and communities are being fairly considered.
Partners essential to the national effort include provinces,
territories, private landowners, farmers, industry, the
environmental and scientific communities, aboriginal peoples and
individual Canadians. Each has an important and essential
contribution to make. Of particular note are aboriginal peoples
whose traditional stewardship of the lands has always included the
protection of wildlife.
The Government of Canada recognizes the important
contribution that farmers, ranchers and landowners have made to
the protection of endangered species in Canada. Operation
burrowing owl in the prairies is one of many examples of how the
agricultural sector has worked in partnership with governments and
environmental groups to protect species on the brink of extinction.
These types of partnerships are exactly the sorts of agreements that
are encouraged through the Canadian endangered species act.
Individual Canadians can call for investigations and they will
have access to the courts for legal redress if they feel measures are
not being adequately enforced. Civil actions will allow citizens to
take action to ensure that governments live up to their
commitments. It helps to ensure the government's accountability.
We saw in the United States that when a government failed to
enforce its environmental obligations, citizens actions rose and
stepped into the vacuum that was left when governments did not do
their job. However if governments do their job, there should be no
need for citizens actions.
I realize this provision of the bill has been criticized as leading
us down a slippery slope toward the American model. In that
country the public's right to sue over environmental issues has been
blamed for holding up development and a lot of other things. But
comparing the legislation before us with the American legislation
is like comparing apples and oranges.
Safeguards against civil actions which are frivolous or vexatious
have been built directly into the legislation. Before a citizen can
launch an action he has to apply to the government for an
investigation and then prove in court that the government has acted
unreasonably before he can move forward with his own citizen
action. This presents a very high barrier to prevent frivolous civil
litigation.
Fifth and finally, this legislation is a product of over two and a
half years of consultation. Public meetings were held from coast to
coast. Discussion papers were issued and an industry and
environmental task force spent nearly a year developing key
proposals, 80 per cent of which are reflected in this bill. We have
heard from the fishing and forestry sectors. They have addressed
their concerns. In addition, 94 per cent of Canadians support the
legislation. The government has received nearly 80,000 letters and
petitions on the issue. Public involvement has been and will
continue to be a key feature of the legislation.
(1215)
A three-year review period has been built into the legislation to
enable the Government of Canada to review early progress and to
make necessary adjustments to the legislation.
The amendments tabled today help to ensure the protection of
endangered species in Canada remains fair, equitable and balanced.
As we in government are watching for possible threats to our
wildlife and providing the necessary remedies, Canadians will be
watching us. They will not let government or industry slide
backward. Nor should they. They will hold all legislators to
account. We owe it to future generations to make sure the wildlife
existing in Canada in the 20th century is still here in the 21st
century and beyond.
Just last week experts told us that the Monarch butterfly, a
backyard treasure known to every Canadian child, is in danger.
There can be no clearer message to the House. We need the
legislation and we need it now.
The Government of Canada is fully committed to providing
effective protection to species at risk in this country. I call on all
members to support the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to speak to Bill C-65, but I would like to add that I
am speaking on behalf of the hon. member for Laurentides. This
bill was supposed to be passed yesterday, and today, the hon.
member had to go to her riding on business.
10163
I am pleased there was unanimous consent for having the
amendments standing in the name of the hon. member for
Laurentides recorded as such, because she did all the work, and
she did an excellent job.
To get back to Bill C-65, we are now considering the report stage
of Bill C-65, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in
Canada from extirpation or extinction.
This bill comes as a result of a promise the Liberals made in their
red book nearly three and a half years ago. It has taken the Liberals
all this time to draft this bill, although as soon as she was elected,
the Deputy Prime Minister made it one of her pet projects. Today,
the Liberals are bringing back the bill just to show they have some
interest in wildlife and the environment. Why? Because the Liberal
record on the environment is pretty thin, and they must put
something on the table at the last minute, to look good before an
election is called.
The Liberals, who promised us the moon as far as the
environment is concerned, have now stooped to campaign tactics.
On every environmental issue, especially the reduction of
greenhouse gases, the Liberals have been marking time. From the
Deputy Prime Minister to the current minister, the Liberals have
been incapable of delivering the goods. All environmental groups
agree that their record is miserable.
It is all talk and no action on the other side of the House. They
make pretty speeches. They even said at a number international
events that Canada was a world leader on environmental issues.
What a joke. What a charade on the part of the Liberals.
The biggest role they ever played is ``motor mouth'', which also
means all talk and no action. Their record is just words and more
words that have no beneficial impact on the environment. The
reason for their miserable record must be sought-I see the
Speaker is smiling-among senior ministers who have
considerable influence in cabinet. It is clear that ministers who
have connections with the business and financial communities lead
the pack in this cabinet and the result is that the Minister of the
Environment and this whole issue are not even given the time of
day.
We should also consider the influence of lobby groups.
Obviously, environmental groups and the greens cannot compete
with business and industry. Unfortunately, the cabinet ministers
with clout are directly connected with the industry and business
lobbies. They give them their undivided attention.
Recently I saw a documentary on the important issue of reducing
greenhouse gases. Ottawa has set up a representative group which
is supposed to submit proposals for reducing these gases.
(1220)
This task force, which included a number of environmental
groups, literally had a number of avenues of reduction closed to it,
particularly avenues providing for restrictions and a possible tax on
carbon. These proposals were completely ruled out as a result of
industry pressure, which came in the form of a powerful lobby,
known as the Friday Group. There was no further mention of
voluntary measures, and the tax on carbon disappeared.
In the meantime, the Prime Minister was to be seen on Alberta
rostrums in the company of the provincial minister of natural
resources and industry executives. Then came the tax deal of nearly
$6 billion accorded this same industry.
From this report it is clear now why Canada will not achieve its
reduction objectives and meet the commitments it made at the Rio
summit.
Bill C-65 arises from a proposal by the former minister, which
was released in August 1995. At that point, the task force was set
up bringing associations with diverging interests-ecologists and
industry-to the same table for a rare meeting. The group did
important work and produced a bill for the minister. A national
agreement on the protection of species was signed in October 1996
in Charlottetown between the federal minister and the provincial
and territorial ministers.
The minister tabled his bill in the House on October 31, 1996.
This was the start of the Bill C-65 saga, a long tale dotted with the
discontent of everyone and the improvisations and incompetence of
the minister and the parliamentary secretary.
With the tabling of the bill, environmentalists and groups made
it known to the government that Bill C-65 was totally inadequate
and amounted to very little in the way of species protection. Groups
immediately began pressuring the minister to amend the bill to
bring it more into line with their vision. They wanted the federal
government to have all the powers over species and their habitats,
regardless of jurisdictions or ownership.
Environmental groups have this idea that the federal government
must be the national protector and that, with this status, it can
ignore other jurisdictions. These groups should change their view
on this issue, because the federal government is far from getting a
passing grade when it comes to the environment.
Moreover, the cuts made to the department show how little the
Liberals care about the environment. Because it is so far away, the
federal government is definitely not the ideal level. It is not capable
of protecting or preserving the environment.
You realize that for us, members from Quebec, it is difficult to
buy the national approach put forward by these groups. In Quebec,
we have had very adequate environmental laws and regulations
10164
since 1989. The federal government even patterned some of its own
legislation on ours. Anything that results in encroachment,
interference and duplication is unacceptable to us.
In addition to these environmental groups, the industry also
expressed its discontent. People in the mining, forestry and
agricultural industries strongly condemned the bill.
And let us not forget the aboriginal people, who said the bill does
not recognize their skills and knowledge. Finally, the provinces and
territories jointly sent a letter to the minister, condemning the
violation of the national convention principle, and the involvement
of the federal government in their field of jurisdiction. This letter
was not sent by Quebec alone.
Against the background of this widespread discontent, the
committee undertook a clause by clause review of the bill. About
100 amendments were moved by members representing all the
parties. The amendments of the Bloc Quebecois primarily sought
to protect existing jurisdictions. We wanted to make sure the
provinces would be able to manage and to control the species on
their territories.
(1225)
Unfortunately, all our amendments were defeated by the Liberal
majority on the committee. Led by the parliamentary secretary,
who shares this national, Canadian vision of the environment, the
Liberal majority rejected our proposals, falling back instead on
equivalency agreements and bilateral agreements with the
provinces to manage the various species, with the federal
government always having the upper hand.
That is unacceptable to us. While the list of species at risk in
Quebec may not be very extensive at present, Quebec does have
legislation to deal efficiently with this issue. In fact, according to
the premier of Quebec, who strongly condemned the bill, the
purpose of the national agreement was to enable the federal and
provincial governments to agree on which species to protect and
nothing more. That is what the agreement was all about.
From the moment the federal government starts interfering with
essential habitats, it encroaches on areas outside its jurisdiction.
Finally, the amendments put forward by the minister today do not
remedy in any way the encroachment problem. Bloc members will
oppose these amendments and the bill itself, since our amendments
will be rejected by the Liberals as usual.
I thought the Charlottetown accord was about co-operation
between the provinces and the federal government. Once again, the
federal government, which is about to call an election, is
encroaching on Quebec's jurisdictions, and this will not do any
good.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, Bill C-65 is a glaring
example of the prejudice of the Liberal government against people
who make their living off the land. It regards us all as thoughtless,
irresponsible and uncaring people who have to be restrained by big
mama government from despoiling the environment, killing every
living thing, all non-human life forms, and, as an aside, from
shooting ornery neighbours before breakfast with our unregistered
firearms.
Bill C-65 dismisses co-operative effort in favour of coercion by
the urban elites who just know they are morally and intellectually
superior to farmers, ranchers and woodlot owners. Instead of
offering consultation and co-operation to rural people, the
government has opted to threaten them with fines and jail terms.
The abundance of proposed amendments to the bill should give
some indication of its defectiveness. I draw the attention of the
House to Motion No. 86. It refers to a paragraph under section
59(3)(b) wherein the government is prohibited from disclosing the
name of a plaintiff in an environmental action.
This is so appalling that I initially thought it was a misprint. This
is on par with provincial proposals of snitch lines for welfare
cheaters. It is fundamental to a civil society that accusers not have
anonymity except in cases where identifying them might endanger
their lives. I hardly think a farmer accused of killing a swift fox
would take out a contract on his accuser. It is a fundamental
principle of justice that an accused must have the right to face his
or her accusers. Even murderers have that right.
The bottom line is that with guaranteed anonymity there is
absolutely nothing to deter someone, whether an environmentalist
or a neighbour with a grievance, from filing a frivolous complaint,
a vexatious complaint. There is no penalty, no economic sacrifice,
not even community disapproval for making an underhanded move
against someone who may or may not have done something against
the act. I do not understand how this provision managed to slip
through committee.
(1230)
Motions Nos. 88, 91 to 100 and 104 to 109 propose the deletion
of sections 60 to 76 of the act. These are the sections which give
private citizens the right to file civil suits if they believe that the
Canadian Wildlife Service is lax in the performance of its duties.
When the state introduces legislation to protect what it considers
to be the interests of society as a whole, then it should also take
whatever action is necessary under that legislation to ensure its
effectiveness, not delegate the right to individuals who might have
their own agendas.
10165
We do not need U.S. style government by litigation in Canada.
These sections open the door for harassment of land owners by
eco-vigilantes. It is unreasonable and unfair to expect farmers,
ranchers and woodlot owners, many of whom are struggling to
make a living, to defend themselves against well financed
environmental groups, many of which are partly funded by
government.
Within this group I wish to draw particular attention to section
65 which allows third parties to participate in court actions, get
this, ``in order to provide fair and adequate representation of the
private and public interests involved''. Really. This is from the
government whose original discussions of the background material
leading to this bill were held only in cities across Canada.
I quote Nancy Greene Raine on this little exercise in
consultation, Liberal government style: ``It is a sad day when
legislation can be drafted without the input of the people who will
be affected''.
I would like to backtrack a little and comment on section 52.
That section authorizes warrantless search and seizure. This sounds
familiar. I would almost think it was written by our Minister of
Justice with his well known disdain for due process and individual
rights as exemplified in the same type of provisions in Bill C-68.
Perhaps he and this government just do not like rural people or
perhaps the Liberals are on a power trip.
One of the worst features of Bill C-65 is that if a land owner
loses all or part of his or her livelihood due to a government or
private action on behalf of endangered species, a requirement to
fence out water holes for example, there is no firm provision for
compensation. This is also typical of the government's attitude
toward ordinary citizens in other matters.
If a government is going to encourage individual Canadians to
inform on or launch lawsuits against their neighbours in the name
of the greater good, then fairness would dictate that provisions be
put in place for those affected to recover all the costs they incur as a
result of such action if and when the courts rule that they are not
guilty of an offence under the act.
This lack of provision for just treatment of affected people could
actually endanger the very creatures which the legislation is
designed to protect. This House should be aware that there are
already U.S. real estate advertisements certifying that land being
offered for sale is free of endangered species. How can they be so
sure? Why would they want it to be free of endangered species?
Maybe somebody took a bit of underhanded action to see that there
were no endangered species left on the land and maybe the reason
they have made this certification is that nobody would want to buy
a piece of land if they knew there were kangaroo rats on it.
Because of this sort of thing, there is a very strong feeling now in
the United States that its 21-year old environmental protection act
has been beneficial only to one predatory species, namely lawyers,
but not beneficial to endangered species.
(1235 )
In January the hon. member for Davenport was quoted as
follows: ``We have to take a soft approach at first if people are
going to accept this type of regulation''. There is a slip of a Liberal
lip. The scary part of this is not so much the deviousness expressed
by the member but that he probably sincerely believes that Bill
C-65 represents a reasonable and soft approach.
In the moments I have left I would like to read to the House a few
quotes from a brief presented to the standing committee by the
Canadian Cattlemen's Association. This paragraph says it all: ``The
legislation before the committee represents a U.S. approach to
endangered species protection. It relies heavily on regulation and
enforcement and contains very little to encourage voluntary
co-operation and partnerships. In our view the legislation in its
current form will create conflict between land owners and
conservation groups and will be detrimental to the future of
wildlife on private lands''.
Further the brief states: ``This bill erodes the rights of individual
Canadians, particularly with respect to their rights to own and
enjoy property. We believe the erosion of property rights is
damaging to the cause of wildlife and endangered species and the
record of government in protecting species over which it has direct
control and which are not on private land, for example the Atlantic
cod and the Pacific salmon, does not create a lot of confidence in its
ability to maintain and develop long term protection measures''.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
government is playing a childish game only hours before an
election is called.
It is introducing bills in the House that it knows full well will die
on the Order Paper when an election is called, probably on Sunday
afternoon in Shawinigan.
Barely a few minutes ago we were debating a bill apparently
eagerly awaited by western grain producers, Bill C-72, that the
Pinocchio crowd promised would be passed in this 35th
Parliament, and that is going to die on the Order Paper.
A few hours later, in order to look good, the Minister of the
Environment is introducing Bill C-65, which, on the face of it,
seems quite commendable. When we examine it closely, however,
we see that, once again, the government is on the wrong track.
I will read you the title of the bill and you will understand how
very commendable it is: an act respecting the protection of wildlife
species in Canada from extirpation or extinction. Are you opposed
to this? Of course not, neither am I. But a clause by clause
10166
examination of the bill shows that the Minister of the Environment
is on the wrong track, and I will tell you why.
I will begin by giving an example. The government has taken
so-called positive action with respect to certain endangered
species. Listen carefully while I tell you about the case of cod.
Barely three years ago, realizing that cod were declining in the
Gulf and on the Atlantic coast, this government's fisheries minister
took a positive step: a cod moratorium. Exactly what was needed.
A few years later, however, on the eve of an election, the cod
have returned in staggering numbers. They are so large they are
hanging off the edges of our plates. So, with an election about to be
called in a few days, the fisheries minister authorizes cod fishing.
Brilliant if you want to win votes, but for the environment, for the
dwindling cod supply, it is a terrible move.
(1240)
Another example is the peregrine falcon, the swiftest bird in the
world. This is the bird you see in period films which is trained to
attack on a signal from his owner. It is endangered here, and not
because people destroy the nests or kill the birds. The problem goes
much deeper than that; it is the environment, the gases we release
into the atmosphere, the heavy metals, mercury in particular. What
happens is that the female lays eggs whose shells are so thin that
when the parents sit on them they break. It is a problem caused by
pollution.
What did the Deputy Prime Minister do during her 18 months as
Minister of the Environment? She did nothing about this. What is
the new, and always dapper, Minister of the Environment doing
about this? Nothing. He would like to protect endangered species,
but he has forgotten that four provinces are ahead of him in this:
Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick. They already
have their own rules, their own legislation to protect endangered
species. Now he would like to overlap with them, duplicating
departments, duplicating regulations, and then to tell us that this
will cost less. How very clever.
Quebec created a protective agency in 1989, not under a
sovereignist government, but the government of Robert Bourassa
himself, who played on the same team as the Liberals. So here we
go, more duplication. Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick
represent at least 60 per cent of Canada's land mass. Once again,
this is not such a clever move by the Minister of the Environment.
What is even worse is that the federal government will be
appropriating areas that do not come under its jurisdiction. It is not
a rare thing to see the federal government come stomping into the
provinces with the attitude of: ``Gang way and make room for me''.
It will, for example, be responsible for transborder regions.
Let me give an example of an animal that moves between
provinces or between countries, the hare. If you study natural
history, you will see that hares do not range much more than about
a square kilometre. But if a hare lives near the U.S. border, might it
not occasionally cross the border without a visa? Yes. I am taking
the hare as an example, because its territory is very limited.
Now, let us take the case of a wolf. The territory of a wolf or
coyote is 100 times as big, or 100 square kilometres. So a wolf will
tend to cross back and forth from the American side to the Quebec
and Ontario sides. So it could be called a transboundary species.
However, that is impossible, because it is not a migratory bird like
the duck.
I would like to add the following for the benefit of those who are
listening at home. When you go hunting in the fall and you want to
hunt partridge, hare, black bear or deer, you need a Quebec licence.
But if you want to hunt duck or snow geese, you have to go to the
post office-the post office, that is a good one-to buy a federal
licence for migratory birds. I agree migratory birds should be
managed, at least under our present system, by the federal
government. But hares, foxes, wolves, black bears and deer are a
provincial responsibility.
(1245)
Another point that bothers me is those appointments. As you
know, and I see you are smiling again, I am allergic to patronage
and these appointments made by the governor in council or, as it
says so neatly in Bill C-65, on the recommendation of our Minister
of the Environment, who does not know much about saving
endangered species. He only listens to his officials. He will be
responsible for appointing the nine members who sit on this
committee.
Of course they will be remunerated-the same old story-after
being appointed for political reasons, something I saw in my own
riding. The president of the EI board of referees-you know who I
mean because I think I told you that yesterday-is the sister of the
Liberal candidate in the riding of Frontenac-Mégantic. She may
be competent, but she is a Liberal first and foremost.
The former president had to be replaced, for some important
reason. There was no competition, and the same procedure must
have been used to appoint the returning officer in your riding for
the next election, which will be called on Sunday, for June 2.
I repeat, it is truly appalling that the government should use
political appointments to protect endangered species.
Bill C-65 also refers to federal land. I would appreciate it if the
Minister of Environment said ``On my land in Canada''. For
instance, in Mauricie Park or Forillon Park in the Gaspé, they say
no moose or partridge shall be shot on this land, but if the moose or
10167
partridge move out, well, the federal government did not buy the
whole country.
We have deer on our farm. When the hunting season starts, a
friend of the returning officer for my riding goes deer hunting on
my property. If the deer crosses the street and is no longer on my
property, I cannot tell the hunter: ``Go ahead and shoot it, it is over
there''. I will have to tell him: ``You only have the right to hunt on
our property''.
So I suggest the federal government mind its own business. Sure,
it can protect endangered species, but it should first look where the
problem is and then try to deal with it.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-65 to the Group No. 1
amendments.
The amendments in Group No. 1 deal with three of the major
areas of concern. It does not allow for the co-operative approach
but instead chooses the punitive approach in dealing with a threat
to an endangered species.
The second is the area of compensation. There is not any
acceptable form of compensation provided for in this legislation.
Third is the area of search and seizure. It allows an anonymous
accuser to start a process against someone who has threatened, in
their minds, an endangered species.
These amendments deal with all those areas. Many of them were
proposed by myself, others by the member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, our critic in the environment
area, the member for New Westminster-Burnaby, the member for
Skeena and other Reform MPs.
(1250 )
Several of the amendments in this grouping are from the
government. That shows clearly that the bill was not very well
thought out. That was something we found on examining the bill
and the amendments moved by others. This grouping affects the
three major areas of concern with this legislation.
I would first like to talk a little bit about Bill C-65, the
endangered species legislation. I do not think anyone would argue
against the intent of the bill. The government brought in the bill to
deal with concern over endangered species. I believe everyone in
the House shares those concerns.
However, when looking at the bill realistically and thinking it
through, if it passes, even with the amendments that we are
debating today, it would probably make things worse for
endangered species than not having the bill at all. Let me explain
what I mean.
Let us think of a farmer, rancher, someone in the forestry
industry or someone who has commercial property on the outskirts
of a town that finds an endangered species on their property or in a
habitat that could possibly support one of the endangered species
on the list.
For example, an endangered species or habitat that would
support an endangered species is discovered on the property. The
person knows the legislation in place is heavy-handed and would
not allow for the species to be protected in a co-operative way. The
penalties include fines of up to $1 million and even more
important, that person could be forced to cover the legal costs of
the case.
That individual could be forced to spend money to fence off a
portion of property that would support the endangered species with
no compensation. Perhaps the accuser is anonymous, a neighbour
who maybe has a quarrel with that individual, who could go to the
authorities and that neighbour's name may well never be disclosed.
What do members think they would do facing this type of cost,
penalty and breach of normal judicial procedure?
In many cases these people may think, much as they would like
to protect the species, that with the threat that was brought about
because of this legislation they just cannot take a chance.
Supporting their families is more important than providing a
habitat for an endangered species. In many cases, I believe, they
would destroy the habitat and possibly even destroy the species.
That is not what I want and I am certain that is not what the
government wants. However, that is exactly what this legislation, if
it were to pass, would most likely do. It is wrong and we must
protect against that.
Some of the amendments that Reform has brought in would go a
long way to doing that if they were to pass. The amendments that I
propose deal with the issue of a co-operative approach. More than
one of my amendments propose that if the property owners or users
who have the endangered specie or habitat on the property can
demonstrate that they voluntarily will protect those species, along
with others who are interested, then the punitive part of the bill,
which is most of the bill, would not come into effect. That gives
some protection against the heavy-handed approach of the
government in this legislation.
(1255 )
I have put forward amendments in the area of compensation, as
did the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby. Those
amendments would ensure that the land owner or land user would
not have to bear the entire burden of the expense.
The bill includes unusual and unacceptable search and seizure
measures. It also allows an anonymous accuser to turn in a
neighbour. The members for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assi-
10168
niboia, Skeena and others have put amendments which would help
in those areas.
This legislation has not been well thought out. The intent is
good, but it has not been well thought out. The best thing would be
to scrap it. Whichever party forms the next government should deal
with this issue in a much more effective manner. That is exactly
what will happen if the Reform Party forms the next government. I
hope the Liberals will do that if they form the next government.
There are over 100 amendments which will not deal properly
with all of the issues that have to be dealt with.
On behalf of the people who depend on the land to earn their
livelihood, whether they are farmers, ranchers, people in the
forestry and mining industries, or people who have commercial
property on the edge of a town which could lose its value as a result
of this legislation, I say that we should throw it out of the House. If
that does not happen, then let us pass the amendments which have
been moved. At least they will help in dealing with these problems.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take a few minutes to speak to Bill C-65, although
everyone knows obviously that we are simply keeping the House
occupied.
We expect the election to be called at any moment, and today,
yesterday, the day before yesterday and for the past week, the
government has been using every means at its disposal to gain
time, to pass the time. Now they put before us a bill we know full
well will not get beyond the walls of this House. It will never
receive royal assent or come into force.
While it contains a mechanism for inclusion on the list of species
at risk and a recovery plan for species at risk, the bill contains over
100 clauses that should be completely reviewed and returned to the
drawing board, because they bear no relation to the expectations of
those consulted.
The committee consulted many organizations. However, it did
not take the representations and observations of these consultations
into account. This is not the first time the government has behaved
this way. We have seen this behaviour in the case of other bills,
where consultation was simply a matter of form, and served either
to spend money or to expend people's energy. In terms of time, it
cost a lot. Were the opinions considered? Absolutely not.
(1300)
This bill should be totally reworked for other reasons as well. It
is not only a matter of consultation. The bill does not honour a fine
promise the government made as enunciated by the Prime Minister,
who said, in the speech from the throne on February 27, 1996, and I
quote: ``The federal government will propose to the provinces a
much strengthened process to work in partnership, focussing on
such priorities as food inspection, environmental management,
social housing, tourism and freshwater fish habitat''.
The action taken by this government was totally contrary to the
remarks of the Prime Minister. Instead of including provincial
authorities in the process of designating and re-establishing
threatened and endangered species, the government is excluding
them. Yet another broken promise.
Bill C-65 does absolutely nothing in that regard. Worse still, the
actions of the Liberal environment minister seem very suspicious.
First, he convenes a meeting of the provincial ministers of the
environment to get an agreement in principle on the protection of
endangered species. However, just four weeks later, the minister
tables his bill which, in many respects, is totally contrary to the
agreement in principle that he just obtained.
Let me quote Quebec's Minister of the Environment. Even
though he attended the meetings and signed the agreement, the
minister said: ``We could not remain indifferent to the fact that this
agreement opens the door to overlap between some future federal
act and the legislation which has been in effect in Quebec since
1989 and which works very well. We risk creating more red tape
instead of dedicating ourselves to what really matters to us: the fate
of endangered species''. This is what the Quebec Minister of the
Environment wrote to his federal counterpart.
Time proved him right. Just look at the bill before us. It creates
all sorts of overlap. The main objection from Quebec to this bill is
that the federal government keeps changing the rules by extending
the territory where a given species is found. This is important when
it comes to determining the applicable jurisdiction. The federal
government even tries to gain more power by extending the scope
of the definition of ``federal land''.
The bill requires co-operation between the federal government
and the provinces when, in fact, several provinces oppose this
legislation. Once again, the federal government wants to impose its
own jurisdiction, after promising harmonization. Therefore, this
bill directly threatens the jurisdiction of the provinces, under the
pretence that the government wants to meet the requirements of the
international convention on biological diversity. The Liberal
government is trying to interfere in an area of provincial
jurisdiction.
(1305)
This government is increasing overlap. In all areas, particularly
regional development, there is extensive interference by the federal
government. It goes over the provinces' heads. It negotiates
10169
directly with municipalities and with community, humanitarian and
tourist organizations. It has no use for provincial jurisdiction.
This bill is also troubling because it leaves the way open for the
federal government to negotiate directly with municipal
administrations, as I was saying earlier. This gives the minister the
power to interfere in environmental matters because the
implementation, and I do mean implementation, of measures and
programs related to wildlife conservation can cover a wide range of
activities without necessarily respecting constitutional authority.
More specifically, the minister will be able to sidestep provincial
governments by once again negotiating directly with
municipalities. The Bloc Quebecois introduced several
amendments in this regard providing for greater provincial
involvement, but they were ignored by the Liberal majority.
I would also like to speak about the discretionary authority this
bill gives the minister. In fact, the Minister of the Environment
calls all the shots with respect to implementation. He may make
appointments to the Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada. He has the authority to decide whether or not
species are included on the list. He decides whether or not to
implement a recovery plan. All decisions therefore rest with him.
The minister himself is responsible for the composition of the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. We
know that it will have nine members and that the minister may
appoint whomever he wishes. This is another opportunity for this
government to reward friends of the regime, major contributors to
the Liberal Party slush fund, or perhaps to cheer up Liberal
candidates defeated in the election.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-65 and
on the amendments. Before I offer a critical analysis of this bill I
want to say that the Reform Party and I support unequivocally the
responsible protection of endangered species. However, we do not
support Bill C-65 in its present form. When I speak to the bill I
speak also to the amendments that are coming.
Before I outline why we take this position I will tell the House
that there has been a significant outcry from within and outside my
riding in opposition to this legislation.
(1310 )
I quote Mr. Roy Staveley, acting senior vice-president of B.C.
Hydro: ``The next issue I would like to touch on is public
involvement. B.C. Hydro agrees that Canadians should have
opportunities to share knowledge and participate in efforts to
protect and recover species at risk. The most effective way of
doing this is by maintaining an open and transparent process. We
feel that the Canadian endangered species protection act needs
more provisions for consultation with affected parties throughout
the process, from listing of species to preparation and
implementation of recovery plans.
``The protection of species at risk will best be attained through
partnerships with key stakeholders. However, as currently written,
the proposed legislation results in duplication of federal, provincial
and territorial regulatory authorities. This would be inconsistent
with the harmonization and intergovernmental approaches to
environmental protection or the national accord and will likely
result in jurisdictional disputes, duplication, poor enforcement and
administration, public confusion and inefficient allocation of
scarce resources''.
I like very much the way the hon. Stephen Kakfwi, minister of
lands and renewable resources of the Government of the Northwest
Territories summarizes this: ``I suggest that the fundamental
problem presented by the proposed legislation as tabled in
Parliament is that it is inconsistent with both the spirit and the
intent of the hard work done by all jurisdictions, including the
federal government, to establish a co-operative national approach
to protecting the interests of endangered species. The irony here is
that the best intentions have been asserted but this in turn has given
rise to the erosion of the best plans''.
The outcry is also locally heard in my constituency of
Cariboo-Chilcotin. Let me read to the House some of the letters I
have received. A resident in Williams Lake stated: ``This
legislation will do very little to address concerns about endangered
species but goes a long way to starting a war in the courts and opens
the door for groups with no concern for the social and economic
impact or the inviability this act would bring to working people, be
they forest workers, farmers, ranchers or miners. The courts and
lawyers are going to have a heyday with this one''.
From the city of Quesnel, council members passed a resolution
opposing Bill C-65 due to a lack of any requirement to consider
social, economic or community impacts; due to a lack of any
requirement to provide redress for affected workers in their
communities; due to a lack of any guarantee that workers,
communities or other affected stakeholders will participate in
recovery plan design.
From the village of Clinton the council stated: ``Bill C-65 raises
some significant concerns for the major industries of British
Columbia, mainly forestry and mining. These two industries are
the backbone of the economy in British Columbia and will be put at
severe risk with the implementation of Bill C-65. Council believes
that Ottawa should listen''.
I could not agree more with this comment. Ottawa should listen
to what the people of Canada are saying about Bill C-65. The
people and the municipalities from all walks of life that I have just
10170
quoted have legitimate concerns and they are rightly justified in
feeling as they do. They know that Bill C-65 is a bad piece of
legislation and they want this government to listen and to respond
to what they are saying.
Some of the reasons Bill C-65 is a bad bill have already been
mentioned in the statements I have just read but let me elaborate
for the House on some of them. These are the reasons Reform
cannot accept Bill C-65 in its present form.
First, the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in
Canada, a nine member board appointed by the minister, will
decide what species are at risk, how much risk, where the habitat is
crucial and advise the minister on what should be done to help the
species recover.
(1315 )
There is no guarantee that effective stakeholders will participate
in the recovery plan design. This means that private land owners
could be forced to make special provision for some endangered
species. For example, a rancher may have to fence off an area of his
land to protect an endangered species nesting ground from grazing
livestock. Unfortunately Bill C-65 offers no compensation to
rancher for the use of his material and time or for leaving
productive land dormant or for the drop in the value of his property.
Let me tell the House a story of a situation that happened in
Ontario about five years ago that relates to this point.
Mrs. Strumillo-Orleanowicz owned a 100 acre parcel of
undeveloped land near Smiths Falls, Ontario. To start up a business
she planned to sever a building lot. Unfortunately the Minister of
Natural Resources denied her permission to do this. Why? Mrs.
Strumillo-Orleanowicz' neighbour owned land next door to her
property that was inhabited by the endangered loggerhead shrike.
To help protect the bird, the province designated 123.5 acres
around the shrike's home as its critical habitat. As a result Mrs.
Strumillo-Orleanowicz could not sever or develop her land to make
a profit. Her creditors foreclosed on the property and she lost
everything. The government gave her no compensation.
Bill C-65's second flaw is that it jeopardizes the rights and
livelihood of responsible land owners by expanding the rights of
activist groups to go to court to stop resource development. It is
interesting that those who turn in a neighbour can remain
completely anonymous, not allowing the accused to face the
accuser.
For example, under section 60 of the legislation, a bureaucrat or
an eco-vigilante could sue a forest worker, rancher, land owner or
company that he or she thinks has harmed an endangered species or
its habitat. This means that there is a possibility that the courts will
be filled to overflowing with actions against land owners.
How will land owners respond to this possibility of being taken
to court? Their reaction will be a negative one and endangered
species will come out on the losing end. For example, according to
cattle producers who spoke to the environment committee, land
owners will have to seriously consider ways of reducing their
exposure to legislative actions and loss of income and value
resulting from constraints on use. The obvious and cheapest route
will be to eliminate wildlife habitat on their land and specifically
habitat that is attractive to species that could at some point be listed
as threatened or endangered. There is evidence that the American
endangered species law has already had this undesired effect in
some areas of the United States.
The third flaw of Bill C-65 is that it tramples the basic principles
of justice. For example, under the bill authorities could seize
private property and provide no compensation if the property is
considered a critical habitat for an endangered species.
In addition, Bill C-65 allows bureaucrats to search and seize
private property without a warrant if, by reason of exigent
circumstances, it would not be feasible to obtain a warrant. This is
a characteristic of the government which is very frightening where
the government is prepared to thwart the historic rights and
privileges of people to impose its own view of the way things
should be. This provision is completely unacceptable to Canadians.
Reform has put 42 amendments to Bill C-65. These amendments
would require the minister to consider the socioeconomic impacts
prior to recommending what action should be taken. We would like
to have compensation, a commitment to the preservation of
endangered species and we would like the co-operation of all
stakeholders involved.
(1320)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Bill C-65, the Canada Endangered Species
Protection Act.
Although there were a few federal laws allowing the federal
government to intervene in order to protect these species, there was
no federal legislation directly devoted to protecting endangered
species. This was not the case in Quebec, which has had its own
law since 1989, or in other provinces such as Ontario, Manitoba
and New Brunswick, however.
In 1978, a body was created which brought together certain
organizations such as government agencies, the provinces, certain
territories, four federal bodies, and three national conservation
organizations.
Before this bill was tabled, the Minister of the Environment
brought his provincial counterparts together in Charlottetown to
10171
draft this bill. We are often told that there was an agreement in
principle but, four weeks later, this agreement in principle was
obtained without the bill, or the texts per se, being tabled and we
know there was an enormous difference.
The Quebec Minister, David Cliche, made the following
statement on November 26, 1996: ``The federal minister has just
tabled a bill in the House which worries the province of Quebec
considerably. I must place this in its context, for it shows the
difficulties of federal-provincial relations. I recently defended the
interests of Quebec in relation to the environment and wildlife,
while representing Quebec at Charlottetown. We reached
agreement, and even signed a document to the effect, as I have
already said, that if the federal government tabled legislation for
the protection of endangered species under federal jurisdiction, it
ought to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces, and in particular
of the territories''.
Mr. Cliche went on to say: ``We thought we had reached
agreement with Ottawa on the following principle, a simple one
besides, and this is where all of the problem lies in this bill, I
believe: If we agree that a species is endangered, it is up to the level
of government with jurisdiction over the territory and the habitat of
that animal to ensure that it is properly protected in its natural
habitat''.
Once again, we have before us a bill that I might describe, in a
nutshell, as an attempt by the federal government to use the
convention on biological diversity to justify encroaching on a
provincial jurisdiction and centralizing powers at the federal level.
But as we can see, that is not the case. They are trying to enact a
law that goes against existing provincial legislation. Again, in yet
another area, we will end up being governed by two acts, which
will just create more enforcement problems.
(1325)
What major problems are we looking at? There are four of them.
First, we submit that Bill C-65 is a direct threat to provincial
jurisdiction. This is the fundamental problem with this bill. The
government is interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction and,
with this bill, tries to tell the provinces what they should do from
now on.
As I said a moment ago, under the pretence of attempting to
comply with the terms of the international convention on biological
diversity, the Liberal government is trying to interfere in provincial
areas of responsibility. That is the first problem with this bill.
Second, Bill C-65 ignores the distribution of powers provided
for in the Constitution-I will come back to this in a moment-and
the usual interpretation of this provision, because it is based on a
much broader definition of territory and overlooks the fact that,
under the Constitution, the federal government and the provinces
share responsibility for certain species.
The third major problem is that Bill C-65 gives the Minister of
the Environment broad discretionary powers to decide, among
other things, who will be appointed to the COSEWIC. We will
recall that this is the committee established in 1978, whose work
was done on a voluntary basis. With this bill, the members of this
committee will not only be selected by the minister but they will
also be paid.
Finally, the fourth major problem is that Bill C-65 excludes
provincial authorities from the designation and recovery of
threatened and endangered species. This attitude directly
contradicts what was said by the Liberals, more specifically in
statements by the Minister of the Environment and the Prime
Minister and in the throne speech, which were all about
harmonization and partnership.
If we look at the Constitution, the protection of species and their
habitat is not included in the division of powers under the
Constitution Act, 1867, which is to be expected. It is not clearly
defined.
However, under this act, the provinces have jurisdiction over the
management of public lands belonging to the province, in section
92 on property and civil rights,and over all matters of a merely
local or private nature. These powers are sufficiently broad to
enable the provinces to pass legislation on plants and wildlife, both
on provincial public land and private land.
In other words, we see that although the Constitution Act, 1867,
does not clearly define these responsibilities, the provinces have as
much jurisdiction over land as the federal government. Today, the
government wants to pass legislation that would practically
eliminate provincial responsibility and establish federal
responsibility once and for all, as we have seen in so many other
instances. In fact, we have the same problem with respect to
duplication and overlap.
(1330)
In concluding, I want to say, as I said earlier, that the members of
this committee, which has been existence since 1978, at the time
worked on a volunteer basis. They will now be paid, which will be
an additional expense. Furthermore, they will be selected by the
minister.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
previously there were consultations among the parties regarding a
motion that I would like to propose at this time. I move:
That the House agree to split the current Part III Estimates documents into Reports
on Plans and Priorities and Performance Reports and require all departments and
10172
agencies to table, on a pilot basis for the 1997-98 fiscal year, for consideration by the
appropriate committees:
1. pilot development Performance Reports in the Fall timed with the President's
Report on Review; and
2. pilot Reports on Plans and Priorities, including detailed financial information
presented according to appropriate vote structure in a consistent manner, to be
tabled on or before the last sitting day before March 31 and referred to
committees and reported back to the House pursuant to Standing Order 81(4).
For the benefit of the House, I believe there were consultations
with the Reform Party member for St. Albert and the Bloc member
for Saint Hyacinth-Bagot. I have the signed authorization.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent for the motion of the hon. member?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-65, an act to
respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from
extirpation or extinction, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee; and of Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 19, 25, 27, 50, 54,
56 to 60, 62, 63, 65, 66 and 82 to 109.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak on the endangered species act.
In British Columbia, maybe more than any other province in
Canada, environmental protection, endangered species legislation
and legislation concerning everything from the protection of bears
to whatnot are on the political agenda routinely. These issues crop
up in our papers. We have environmental writers. We have quite a
movement in British Columbia of people concerned about the
environment. Perhaps it is because of our ocean habitat, the rivers
or the salmon. I do not know what it is. Maybe it is the salt air.
Whatever it is, people are concerned about the environment.
Mr. Morrison: Are the Liberals endangered out there?
Mr. Strahl: Perhaps they are concerned about Liberals being an
endangered species. Just because we are on the eve of an election
we cannot assume that. I know for sure the Tories are, but I do not
want to get rhetorical here.
I would like to mention two or three concerns of people about
environmental legislation. There is broad consensus in British
Columbia for public information and education on the environment
being near the top of everyone's list of political concerns. Who
knows why that is?
My riding gets 60 or 70 inches of rain a year. Everything from
how manure is handled on dairy farms to the way logging roads are
constructed in nearby mountains are key environmental concerns
because what we see up the road today is likely to be washed down
into our fields the day after. They are political concerns and real
concerns of the people in my area.
There is also the other side. Another group of people have
concerns about this type of legislation being so intrusive and
restrictive on their economic activity that they cannot go about
doing any modern activity without being called down by the
government or being called on the carpet for supposedly harming
the environment. If we take it to the extreme, too many people
breathing in the lower mainland causes some kind of harm to the
environment but we understand we have to deal with it the best we
can.
(1335)
The legislation as currently proposed is not the best way to deal
with the endangered species problems in Canada. It is too intrusive.
It does not take into account safe economic activity on land,
whether it be farming, ranching, logging or whatever it might be.
I will refer to an example from my background. Before I came to
this place I was a logging contractor. I spent my life in the woods
working close to the environment. About 10 years ago the issue of
the spotted owl, an endangered species by definition, became a big
problem in the lower mainland. To those who are not aware, the
spotted owl's supposed territory is all the rain forests of the Pacific
northwest including the United States and extending a few hundred
miles into the coastal rain forests of British Columbia.
The United States has similar endangered species legislation.
The concern there for the spotted owl was so overwhelming that the
forests were shut down. Logging was curtailed. Logging towns
became ghost towns. Tens of thousands of people lost their jobs.
The spotted owl was a happy little owl but the damage it caused
economically totalled billions of dollars.
The spotted owl scare worked its way north into British
Columbia. The spotted owl patrols began. University students,
hopefully biology majors, were hired on summer vacation. Late at
night they would go two by two into the woods, because it was
environmentally safe to do so, where we were logging and would
park their campers. At night they would broadcast tape recordings
of spotted owls hooting. If they thought they heard another spotted
owl respond in the distance, if they heard it hoot in the background,
they would tick on their chart that there was another spotted owl
somewhere. It was close by. Although they did not see it they knew
it was there. They would say they heard an owl hoot in the night
and would therefore shut down the logging in the entire drainage.
Who knows if there were spotted owls? Nobody ever saw them but
maybe they were there.
10173
To show how silly it was, not only did the area extend several
hundred miles into British Columbia but they had on their charts
that spotted owls maintain their nests between 2,500 feet of
elevation and 3,500 feet of elevation. That is prime logging area.
A lot of the logging I did was at those levels of elevation and a
lot was done up to 4,500 feet.
This is true confession time. One day we were building road in a
valley. No one had ever seen or heard of a spotted owl there.
Nobody really knew what they looked like. We came upon a nest in
a tree and, scout's honour, it was a spotted owl's nest. There was
such an animal and it was in the tree. We shut down all the logging.
We shut down the road building and went to the environmentalists
in the forest service office to tell them we had seen a spotted owl.
We had been to the mountain top and saw the spotted owl.
They were pretty excited. Then they looked at their maps and
said: ``Wait a minute. You are building road at 4,000 feet. That is
not the range of spotted owls. They only go to 3,500 feet. That can't
be a spotted owl''. We argued with them that it was a spotted owl,
that we had seen it and that they should come to see it. They looked
again and said: ``No. Our range of spotted owls only goes to 3,500
feet so it cannot be a spotted owl. Build the road right over top of
the tree''. We refused to do that. We managed to get around the tree
and save the spotted owl. This shows how ridiculous it can be at
times to ask a modern industrial society to make allowances for
spotted owls. Then when one is found and because it did not fit into
some imaginary criteria they did not care about it.
(1340)
The other spotted owl site is in a logging area where I spent my
youth with my parents. The universities come to investigate the
spotted owl that has built a nest right beside the main logging road
where 40 to 50 loads of logs go by every day. The university people
drive right up to the bottom of this big tree. They all stand there
with their binoculars and look at this spotted owl who gets along
just fine in an area where there has been logging going on for the
last 40 years.
The legislation should not go through in its current form as it has
too many flaws. In British Columbia the devastation cannot be
overstated. Roads can be built through an entire valley system at a
cost of millions. The company we contracted built the roads. After
the roads were built they came in to check if there were any spotted
owls. After the road is built and the work is done they say: ``I think
I heard a spotted owl hoot so there is no logging allowed in this
valley''. Business cannot be done like that.
I remember saying to them: ``If there are endangered species tell
us and we will work around them, but do not make arbitrary rules
and put us in a position where we spend a lot of money that you
cannot compensate us for''. Reasonable compensation has to be
worked into the legislation so that farmers, ranchers and loggers
are able to do their work while they protect the environment.
I do not believe the legislation does that. That is why the
amendments are necessary. We are grateful the bill will not pass in
this session of Parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take a few minutes to talk to Bill C-65. I think I could
fairly summarize my thoughts by saying, something my colleagues
have said as well, that I consider this another major intrusion by the
federal in areas of jurisdiction of the provinces, and this of course
includes Quebec.
I have looked at two quotes from letters the Quebec minister of
the environment sent to his colleague in the House of Commons,
one of which concerns the section on interpretation. Mr. Cliche
said, and I quote: ``Thus the federal government's definition of
federal land for the purposes of the bill has no relation to reality.
We never understood that the management of fish stocks or inland
or coastal waters navigation meant that the federal government had
jurisdiction over all aquatic ecosystems, along with the seabed and
subsoil below and the airspace above these waters''.
Here is another quote from this same letter regarding the
measures to protect listed species: ``Furthermore, it seems
incongruous for the purposes of the bill to liken the migratory
travel of species from one country to another or their geographic
distribution on either side of a border to the import and export of
goods and services. In introducing a new notion, that of cross
border species, the federal government could be giving itself
extended jurisdiction over the vast majority of species in a
province''.
It seems clear to me that the Government of Quebec does not
support this bill any more than the Bloc Quebecois, since, as I have
just said, it is another intrusion into an area of jurisdiction that does
not belong to the federal government. However, as it always does,
the federal government is trying to find a breach to slip through.
This is what we consider to be the aim of this bill-an attempt to
meddle in provincial jurisdiction.
(1345)
Quebecers are not the only ones to think the bill is not all that
great, native peoples do too. I had the pleasure of looking at the
brief presented by the native peoples. In short, they feel that the bill
does not really take their needs into account and that they are being
largely ignored, as is usually the case.
Finally, I have been made aware of the native approach to
endangered species. Canadians are probably to be blamed for the
10174
disaster as a whole. The natives' philosophy, as told by their elders
and the younger generations, is that the earth is their mother. The
birds, the plants and the animals are their brothers and sisters.
They believe that water and streams are rather like the blood
vessels of mother earth.
They have a philosophy of tremendous respect for nature as a
whole, including the fauna and the flora. They believe this bill
shows no respect for either their culture or their approach to the
environment.
I have noticed that it is the economic development practices,
which can not longer be sustained by the ecosystems, that are
endangering species. It is not native peoples, it is not campers, it is
not nature loving individuals who are endangering species. It is not
people who respect nature who are threatening endangered species,
but rather economic development methods and practices.
I saw some pretty terrible things when visiting aboriginal people
in parts of Canada that are the subject of native land claims. For
example, in Nisga'a, Chilcotin and Carrier-Sekani territory, some
clear cutting is being done and it is extremely destructive. I think
clear cutting is the main reason for the extinction of some species.
My Reform Party colleague was laughing at the fact that we
wanted to save part of a forest just because we heard a owl hooting.
I think there might be a reasonable compromise between the two
extremes, but clear cutting is certainly not contributing to the
protection of endangered species.
The same goes for mining, another area of economic
development which victimizes aboriginal people. I am thinking
here about the Dene in the Northwest Territories, in Nunavut, who
are being squeezed by diamond mines. Mining exploration
endangers plant and animal life. Endangered species are certainly
threatened by this type of exploration.
The same situation exists near Voisey Bay, in Innu territory. The
people there object to the drilling taking place in a region with what
may be one of the richest mines in the world. Once again, their
opinion is being overlooked, the lands they claim as theirs are
being invaded and the natural resources on these lands will be
pillaged. Once the natural resources have been plundered-the
forests cut down and the mines exhausted-we turn to the natives
and tell them: ``Now, we are willing to consider your land claims''.
Mining activities and clear cutting have a major impact on
endangered species.
I could talk about the hydro projet included in the Northern
Flood Agreement, in Manitoba, which was harmful to the Crees in
the province. This week, we passed Bills C-39 and C-40, which
will compensate natives for the flooding of their land, but the
creation of an artificial lake probably ten times too large, for the
purpose of producing electricity, means that groups and species are
certainly being threatened by this uncontrolled economic
development project.
As far as the east coast is concerned, I would also like to mention
the extensive fishing in the area where we find the Micmac, a
people which calls itself people of the dawn. Today, fish stocks
have dwindled and natives can no longer fish, something that has
always been part of their traditions.
These are examples of our disregard for native people. Yet, our
First Nations are very concerned with nature and, consequently,
with endangered species. They do not feel they are to blame for the
disappearance of these species.
(1350)
In fact, I have noticed how some native communities have great
respect for species in general, especially endangered ones. For
example, on the reserve of the Walpole Island First Nation, there
are 37 varieties that are now on the list of endangered species.
These 37 varieties have grouped together, instinctively, in the
location where they are the least endangered, that is, on a native
reserve.
Another example I can mention is Akwesasne. These natives
have invested money to buy an island to protect the great blue
heron. So, we see that natives are concerned with this issue, and it
is unfortunate that the bill briefly mentions first nations here and
there in the first 19 pages and then not at all at the end.
Consequently, we recognize the federal government's style in
this bill; it is often more fiction than fact, full of smoke screens,
saying we must take care of aboriginal people because this is
important. However, the more time passes, the less we take care of
them, and their claims and their importance are totally disregarded
in a bill such as this one.
You know that Quebec wants to achieve autonomy. Every time
one of our jurisdictions is invaded, we protest. It is the same thing
for aboriginal people. They really want native self-government.
What this bill says, basically, is: ``We will make tests and, from
now on, the federal government will have a say on endangered
species. We are stepping in. We do not need you, we are taking
charge''. There have been major clashes with aboriginal people,
who strongly disagree with all this.
It seems to me that, once again, the government's fiduciary
relationship with aboriginal people is being weakened by the kind
of legislation we have before us. Again, in this case as in many
others, Quebec and the aboriginal people find themselves on the
same side of the issue, in the sense that both have very serious
concerns about Bill C-65. Amendments have been put forward but
they have been defeated. As a result, this bill, if passed, will enable
the federal government to encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction while
ignoring the aboriginal communities.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support such a
bill. We like having certain jurisdictions; we really want to hold on
to them and do not want to see the federal government encroach on
them. The aboriginal peoples are in the same situation as us. They
10175
do not want the federal government go over their heads and impose
a bill that does not provide for any distribution of powers.
That is just about all I had to say. For these reasons, naturally, the
Bloc Quebecois will oppose Bill C-65.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam
Speaker, it is with emotion that I address this bill on endangered
species.
As a community, we must be aware of the importance of the
ecosystem. We must also realize that human beings are but one
element of biodiversity, and that it is vital to ensure a balance
between fauna, flora and human beings.
However, statistics show that many species are endangered.
Many are already extinct, and I am quite afraid that many more will
meet the same fate. This truly concerns me because, if we do not
protect the fauna, the flora and all these endangered species, it will
have an impact on our lives, 40 years from now, even though we
may not always know all these species.
Our planet is currently losing 50 species per day. This is
enormous. Given the time it took to reach this point, one might
conclude that the world will end in a few thousand years, which is
really soon.
(1355)
So, we cannot overstate, to the international community, the
importance of wildlife.
Let me go back to policy, and the bill itself. While it is important
to protect endangered species, we must also do so in the
appropriate manner. In Quebec, we have our own approach.
Once again, I have the feeling I am saying the same things as
always: the federal government is interfering in Quebec's areas of
jurisdiction.
I remind the House that the former Minister of the Environment
had created all kinds of working and consultative groups to come
up with a bill that would make the federal government a leader in
that area. The minister introduced her bill in the spring of 1995. It
created an outcry, primarily among environmentalists. One of the
main objections to the minister's bill had to do with the fact that the
legislation would only apply to federal territories.
Environmental groups argued that only four provinces had a law
on endangered species and that, consequently, the federal
government should legislate for the whole country. I want to point
out that Quebec has had an act on endangered species since 1989,
and Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick also have legislation on
this.
One year later, the current environment minister met with his
provincial counterparts, in the hope of reaching an agreement in
principle to harmonize protection and conservation policies on
wildlife. The meeting took place in Charlottetown, on October 2,
1996. Even though he signed the agreement in principle, Mr.
Cliche, Quebec's Minister for the Environment and for Wildlife,
issued an independent press release, in which he said: ``We cannot
remain indifferent to the fact that this agreement opens the door to
overlapping between the future federal act and the legislation
which has been in effect in Quebec since 1989 and which is
working very well''.
The Deputy Speaker: My colleague, you will have about seven
minutes left if you wish to continue after oral question period.
It being almost 2 p.m., we will now proceed to statements by
members.
_____________________________________________
10175
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Atlantic Canadians are very supportive of endangered
species. They know that preventing species from becoming extinct
is an honourable purpose. At the same time, Atlantic Canadians
want to ensure that endangered species legislation does not have an
undue negative impact on our aquaculture and traditional fishing
industries.
I believe that the proposed endangered species act has struck the
right balance between the two objectives. The bill proves that we
can integrate the needs of the economy and the needs of ecology.
The government has shown that we can both protect endangered
species and still have secure jobs and healthy, growing economies.
The product of two and a half years of consultations, with many
additions and changes, the endangered species act is fair, equitable
and balanced. I congratulate the Minister of the Environment and
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who have demonstrated that
working together in order to achieve common goals is always a
formula for success.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is
likely my last statement in the 35th Parliament. I will use it to
speak to farmers about the government's record regarding key
issues affecting them. Reality speaks clearer than words.
To grain farmers: The Crow benefit subsidy was taken away. The
reward? Grain moves even slower than before while farmers pay
twice as much.
10176
To cattlemen, who ask for nothing from government, and indeed
to farmers in the west, in Ontario, in Quebec and in Atlantic
Canada: You get Bill C-65, the endangered species legislation. The
government legislation could impose huge costs and fines up to
$1 million.
To dairymen, many of whom have supported this government:
You may be forced to produce below the cost of production for six
months due to a bungling of implementation dates on subsidy cuts.
On voting day I urge farmers to look beyond the nice words and
to vote based on the policy and the record of each political party. If
farmers do this I doubt that much of the farm vote will go to the
Liberal government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, June will mark
the end of my activities as the member for Beauce in the Parliament
of Canada. During my three terms of office, I have represented with
conviction all the causes commended to me by the citizens of
Beauce. I have carried out my duties dispassionately, but
energetically and with conviction.
(1400)
I thank the members of my staff and my family, who were very
supportive of me. I believe I have been a worthy representative of
the inhabitants of Beauce both in the Parliament of Canada and
elsewhere. I have tried to be consistent in the positions I have
adopted and credible in the actions I have taken. As a member of
Parliament, I did my best, trying always to be visible, available and
accessible. Representing Beauce for 13 years has been a hectic and
eventful experience, but it has also been very rewarding and
uplifting.
I therefore leave with wonderful memories of my 13 years in
Parliament, of all these colleagues with whom I have worked, the
clerk, his team and Hill employees.
To you, Mr. Speaker, I offer my best wishes for success and good
health. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of everyone here.
Vive la Beauce, le Québec, et le Canada. May God watch over us
all.
* * *
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last fall I
had the pleasure of visiting Castle Mountain in Alberta, a sacred
site of the Blackfoot nation.
The Bloc Quebecois takes exception to the treatment of the
Blackfoot in this issue. This mountain is on the point of being
declared a historic site. The problem is that it is located within
Banff National Park, that the Blackfoot nation opposes this plan
and that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
has clearly taken a position, by indicating that he was prepared to
return this mountain to them as reserve land.
It is a shame that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is still
turning a deaf ear to the demands of this first nation. We see this as
one more stain on the already tarnished record of the government
with respect to native issues.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
British Columbia regiment, Duke of Connaught's Own, is
headquartered in my riding of Vancouver East. The armoury is over
100 years old, is a municipal and provincial heritage building and
houses a spectacular museum. The regiment is very proud of
having been the recipient of several Victoria Crosses and having
participated in both world wars.
At present the Duke of Connaught's Own Regiment is
participating in peacemaking and peacekeeping missions and in
training reservists and cadets. Over 100 cadets meet every week
and find an alternative to cruising the often dangerous streets of
downtown Vancouver.
Last week I had the privilege of participating in the St. Julien's
banquet where I met very proud people who contributed a lot to our
country. Among them was Col. John Toogood, the honorary
colonel of the regiment, who retired after 59 years in the military.
On behalf of all of us, I would like to congratulate the Duke of
Connaught's Own Regiment for the work it does, and Col. Toogood
for a brilliant career. I salute them.
* * *
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1914 a
black bear cub was acquired by Dr. Goulbourn from a trapper in
White River, Ontario, a community located in the new riding of
Algoma-Manitoulin. The bear was named Winnie and eventually
made its home in the zoo in London, England where it went on to
become the inspiration for the much loved character Winnie the
Pooh.
The connection between White River and Winnie the Pooh is not
well known. Fortunately, this is about to change. A group of 15
hardworking grade 8 students from St. Basil's School in White
River are about to embark on a journey to England to visit the
London Zoo in order to raise awareness of the real origins of this
world famous bear and to take in the sights as well.
10177
The residents of White River have rallied behind the students
and have supported their ambitious fund raising efforts to make
this trip possible.
I salute the students and organizers of this school trip for their
determination to promote the history of their community. I wish
them a very safe, enjoyable and educational voyage.
In closing, I invite all hon. members to visit the beautiful
community of White River, Ontario to discover for themselves the
place where the Winnie the Pooh story really began.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Portuguese Canadian community living in
my riding of Lambton-Middlesex, I would like to take this
opportunity to express my gratitude to the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration who announced in the House on April 21 that
effective May 1, 1997 citizens of Portugal will no longer be
required to obtain visitor visas in order to visit Canada. I know
there are many Portuguese Canadians in my riding and throughout
Canada who will welcome this announcement which will certainly
smooth arrangements to have their relatives and friends visit.
Over the years the Portuguese Canadian community has
contributed enormously to the social and economic development of
my riding of Lambton-Middlesex and to Canada as a whole. I am
certain that these exemptions for visitors from Portugal will
continue to nurture this relationship to the benefit of citizens of
both countries.
My thanks once again to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the civil
war in Algeria is still claiming innocent victims. Over 60,000
people have already died since this war began five years ago.
Last Tuesday, 95 inhabitants of a small village south of Algiers
were killed by an armed group claiming to be Islamic
fundamentalists. Unfortunately, this barbaric act was not the last,
for we learn today that Tuesday night another 42 people, including
17 women and three babies under a year old, had their throats cut in
a village 100 kilometres to the south of Algiers.
Regardless of the cause being defended, there are no words too
strong to express our abhorrence of such acts of cruelty.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in early 1996 the minister of Indian affairs appointed an
interim band council at Lac Barrière reserve and appointed a
mediation team led by Justice Paul who recently resigned pending
an RCMP investigation.
Doing a 180-degree turnabout, the minister last week reinstated
the band leadership that he rejected in 1996. Having done that, he
then called Lac Barrière the most dysfunctional reserve in Canada.
Meanwhile a forensic audit of Lac Barrière is still trying to account
for $20 million in lost funds and there remain allegations of sexual
abuse.
The minister has re-endorsed the old leadership despite the
problems that developed in the community during its
administration. The minister has abandoned the people in this
community, which is totally disheartening for those who are trying
to end the abuse, unaccountable spending and poverty at the
community.
I beg the minister to do the right thing at Lac Barrière rather than
what is personally convenient.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today is the
82nd anniversary of a tragic event: the Armenian genocide.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois strongly believe that this crime
against humanity must not sink into oblivion. Year after year, we
want to mark this sad anniversary. In fact, the recognition of the
Armenian genocide was the subject of a motion brought forward by
my colleague from Ahuntsic on April 23, 1996. Unfortunately,
Liberal members seemed reluctant to face the facts since they
managed to water down the motion by having the notion of
genocide taken out of it.
The execution and deportation of nearly two million Armenians
under the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923 was the first major
genocide of this century. This day to remember the victims of the
Armenian genocide reminds us of the importance of fighting
against the impunity still enjoyed today by some governments.
10178
[English]
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I am
proud to stand with those the world over to remember the
Armenian genocide on this its 82nd anniversary.
The world community recognizes that 1.5 million Armenians
were massacred in 1915 yet it has not recognized this massacre as a
genocide. The United Nations defines genocide as the direct
physical destruction of another racial or national group.
We might well ask when will justice based on historical truth
prevail.
Succeeding generations of Armenians the world over have not
and never shall rest content until justice is served, nor shall any
person of goodwill.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week's
Time magazine refers to Canada as the new superhero of
global trade and Captain Export on its cover can be none other than
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, the Canadian who conceived and
executed the most-
The Speaker: Please do not use our names in the House.
Ms. Torsney: Mr. Speaker, as members know, Canada is now the
most trade intensive country in the G7. One in three jobs is devoted
to export sales of goods and services. In manufacturing alone,60 per cent of output is exported. One Canadian export expert
described this dramatic shift as the most abrupt in Canadian history
and one of the most significant since World War II.
(1410)
This information is well understood in Burlington, Ontario. Our
economy is leading the way in the emerging innovative economy.
Whether it is environment, water, robotics or information
technologies, Burlington business is competitive in the global
marketplace.
I am proud of my record working with Zenon, CRS, Geomatics
and many other Burlington companies to help them succeed and to
bring jobs to our community.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 82 years ago today, on April 24, 1915, the religious and
intellectual leaders of the Armenian community in Constantinople
were taken from their beds and imprisoned, tortured and killed.
Armenians in the Turkish army were all killed. Men over 15
years of age were gathered in cities, towns and villages, roped
together, marched to uninhabited locations and killed. After a few
days the women and children and remaining men were marched
from Anatolia to the Syrian Desert where they were left to die. On
the way they were attacked by Turkish mobs.
As a result of these atrocities over 1.5 million Armenians were
massacred. We must never forget these crimes against humanity
perpetrated by the Turkish authorities in 1915.
I call on my fellow members of Parliament to honour the victims
of the Armenian genocide. If the killing of 1.5 million Armenians
is not a genocide, then I do not know what a genocide is anymore.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
government leaves the impression of being on the side of farmers
when it discusses the need for supply management of dairy
products.
Recently the agriculture minister agreed to a scheduled phase out
of the consumer subsidy, but now he assures dairy farmers that the
$12 million agreed upon to delay the price pass through until
February is off because he was ``unable to persuade his cabinet
colleagues''. We could blame the minister. Once again he has failed
in a commitment made to farmers. But is the problem not really
greater than the minister himself?
It was the Liberals who were going to protect supply
management, then they signed it away in NAFTA. It was the
Liberals who were going to keep the Canadian Wheat Board, but
negotiated it away at the World Trade Organization talks. It was the
Liberals who were going to keep the Crow benefit, but they
eliminated it 18 months after gaining government.
It is true that the minister has a fatal character flaw: his word
means nothing. But hey, he is only a Liberal.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with an
election call likely hours away, I would like to take this opportunity
to express my gratitude for having had the privilege of serving in
this 35th Parliament and to say a few thank yous.
First to you, Mr. Speaker, and your deputies, I want to say how
much your patience and understanding has meant to a rookie MP.
To my leader and Reform colleagues, my thanks and best wishes in
this coming election to those seeking another term. And thank you
to my staff who have served me so well.
10179
While I have always enjoyed the love, understanding and
support of my family, it has been of great comfort to me during
this term. To my wife Rosemary, daughter Sandra, son Brian,
son-in-law Bradd, and grandchildren Jessica and Nicholas, my
thanks for that love and understanding.
In leaving, it is my hope that I have contributed in some way to a
better Canada for future generations. While we have different game
plans, I am certain this is a goal we all share. I wish the best for
those who will be privileged to serve in the next Parliament.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what we
have learned this morning in
Le Soleil about the federal finance
minister is more disturbing than anything we could have imagined.
According to this newspaper, the trust which is managing the
minister's assets has established no less that seven branches in
Barbados, for a total of 13 branches in various tax havens.
On several occasions, the Bloc Quebecois urged the finance
minister to stem the growing use of tax havens. We even made
recommendations to him that would have made these tax havens
less attractive.
It is with sadness that the Bloc Quebecois realizes that the
Liberal finance minister would much rather cut billions in social
programs and take money out of the unemployment insurance fund
than eliminate tax loopholes that are very useful to him.
That is the perfect example of a finance minister who says: ``Do
as I say, not as I do''.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from the time I was 14 years old I wanted to be
a member of Parliament. This goal in life was achieved on
November 8, 1965 when the voters of Renfrew North first elected
me to the House of Commons.
I thank my wife and family for all they have done for me over the
years. Today I want to thank all the people I have represented
consecutively through nine parliaments, from the Right Hon.
Lester B. Pearson down to the present; seven prime ministers in
nearly 32 years as an MP. I am very grateful to all my constituents
and to all those people who have worked hard on my behalf.
I love public life because it is a calling and not just a job. I love
my country because it is a valued and caring institution. My thanks
go out to the wonderful friends I have made over the years.
It is not what you do in life that matters, it is your purpose in life
that counts. I will be working toward a continuing unified Canada
as long as I live.
The Speaker: I will call you Lenny for the first time but I speak
for all colleagues because after 32 years of service to your country
you have made us very proud and you have done a great service to
this great country and I thank you very much.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too rise in
the House today with a profound sense of privilege, regret and
anticipation, for in a short time my role as the MP for Nepean will
come to a conclusion.
I feel privileged to have had the honour to serve the people of
Nepean in this House since 1988. It is to the Nepean constituents
that I have always felt the greatest responsibility and obligation.
They have been my first priority as a member of Parliament.
I feel privileged to have been instrumental in moving many
issues forward in this House, issues affecting women, children and
health as examples. I believe I have succeeded in speaking out for
the rights and freedoms of individuals. I feel privileged to have
been member of a government that also upholds these ideals.
That is why I feel regret to be leaving the seat of our democracy.
I wish farewell to you, my colleagues, on both sides of this House.
It has been an honour to serve in Parliament along with you. While
our viewpoints may have differed, I have always respected your
dedication to your constituents and to the elements of democracy.
And so to my constituents, my caucus colleagues and especially
to the Prime Minister and members on the other side of the House, I
thank each and every one of you from the bottom of my heart. It has
been the greatest honour of my life to serve as the member of
Parliament for Nepean.
* * *
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, over the past three and half years it has been an honour for
me to represent the wonderful people of my riding. I will have the
dubious pleasure of being the last member of Parliament for Moose
Jaw-Lake Centre.
I want to thank all the people in my riding for their support,
thoughts and input. I will never forget you.
10180
With the calling of the election I will turn my attention to my
new riding of Blackstrap. I am looking forward to the challenge
of meeting the current Liberal member for Saskatoon-Dundurn
in what I am calling the showdown for Saskatoon.
There is no doubt that this government has a lot to answer for in
the province of Saskatchewan. Its lack of action on many issues
and its heavy handed approach on many others are something we
will bring before the people in the next 40 days or so. It is time to
pay the piper.
We have been fortunate in this country that at least every four
years or so we as Canadians can and must evaluate the record of our
politicians. It is high noon. The streets are quiet. Let the showdown
begin.
_____________________________________________
10180
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1420)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I always thought it was the opposition in a Parliament
which had a shadow cabinet, not the party in power.
On a more serious note, yesterday, the auditor general had much
to say about how the government fiddles its financial statements,
but the Liberals turned a deaf ear. They preferred not to hear his
comments. It is understandable that, with the elections
approaching, the government would want to avoid hearing
anything that might cast light on the way the Liberals have
managed the public funds. As they say on the Hill, and how
appropriate it is: ``When the going gets tough, the Liberals go into
hiding''.
By skipping a meeting with the auditor general on the
government's accounting practices, what are the Liberals trying to
hide, to cover up? What are the Liberals trying to hide, when we
see that the auditor general told them yesterday that their
accounting practices were dubious?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has
nothing to hide from the auditor general. The auditor general
looked over our books and he gave us a clear statement that they
were in good shape. The hon. member should be well aware that
there was no reservation by the auditor general on the accounts.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a statement like that is surprising, when we know that the
Liberals did not want to hear it yesterday. It is a bit surprising when
one knows that what the auditor general would have said, if he had
the chance, is: ``I fear that the credibility of the government's
financial statements and of the budget is questionable''. That is
pretty clear.
The Liberals did the same thing last year. They are repeating the
same dubious accounting practice of cooking the books, fiddling
with the deficit, in order to look better on the eve of an election.
That is what they are trying to do.
If they are repeating the same offence and continuing to thumb
their collective noses at the recommendations of the auditor
general, are we to conclude that the government has now acquired
the habit of playing with the figures to its heart's content, ignoring
the most elementary principles of accounting?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon.
member that he should read the auditor general's statements. Take
a look at them.
The auditor general gave us a clean opinion on his audit
statement of the government accounts.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have read the French version, and I have read the English
version; they both said the same thing. It could have been debated
yesterday with our honourable colleague, if he had deigned to show
up at the Public Accounts Committee, which he did not.
And the Liberals are going to seek another mandate by saying
that they have managed our taxes well, while the auditor general
says the opposite, that the Liberals have been manipulating the
figures in order to make their financial statements look better,
adding expenditures that will not even be made until after the
election onto the deficit of previous years.
Let us take the example of the Canadian Foundation for
Innovation, which is used to hide $800 million this year. What
confidence and what credibility can we have in a government
which treats comments made by the auditor general in a totally
flippant and irresponsible manner?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon.
member that this government is not spending today and paying for
it tomorrow. It is setting up a reserve fund and that innovation fund
is going to be paid out over the next little while. We have made that
commitment and acknowledged that at the time we made it.
This government has not followed the example of the previous
governments where we found out some years later that we had a
deficit of $42 billion instead of $32 billion. We are not making
commitments and then paying for them later. We are making
commitments now and we are recognizing those commitments.
10181
The auditor general has stated specifically that our books were in
good order for last year.
(1425 )
I would ask the member about this building which he is sitting
in. When was it expensed? It was expensed in the budgets of 1917
and 1918 when it was built and we have used it for the last 80 years.
We are doing the same thing with the innovation fund. We are
setting it up. We have made that commitment. It is there and it will
be used over the next few years.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
When he left the room where the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts that was supposed to be sitting late in the afternoon
yesterday, the auditor general described the GST harmonization
formula which, as we know, gave $1 billion to the maritimes, as a
political decision. This squares exactly with what we have been
saying about that formula since it was announced. It we fully apply
the McKenna formula to Quebec, Ottawa owes Quebec $2 billion,
which the Quebec government has been asking for, as was
demonstrated in black and white in the last provincial budget.
Why is the government persisting in not treating Quebec the
same way as it is treating the maritimes?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are treating the
Quebec government exactly the same way under those regulations
as we are treating every other province. If the Quebec government
had lost funds on the harmonization of the GST and the QST we
would have compensated it. It did not lose funds.
As I said yesterday in the House, the Quebec government
accounts show clearly that the numbers went from $5.1 billion to
$5.4 billion to around $6 billion. That represents an increase every
year since harmonization. It has not cost Quebec any funds at all.
The Quebec accounts show that.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Mr. McKenna was at the Château Champlain, in
Montreal, at 12.30 p.m. today, no doubt in order to praise the merits
of his province in the taxation area and thus rob us of our
businesses and our jobs.
Does the government find it normal that the premier of a
province should use some of the money paid by Quebecers to come
and draw Quebec's businesses away, businesses that Montreal
needs so badly to counter poverty?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's
question should be addressed to the premier of the province he has
indicated. It is not the policies of the Government of Canada he has
complained about but the policies of the province of New
Brunswick. If he has problems with the provincial politics I suggest
he bring those up in provincial parliaments.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, don't
you just hate getting junk mail? I got some this morning from the
Liberals. Although they would not answer our questions yesterday
I think they are trying to give us some hints about what they are
planning for the upcoming election.
For example, on the cover of their pre-election brochure they
feature six young children. I wonder if this means the government
plans to reannounce its national day care program, the one it
promised it would bring about last time but failed to deliver. Maybe
these kids are some of the hundreds of thousands from families that
have been driven from the middle to the low income bracket
because of this government. Maybe they are supposed to represent
the $20,000 per head of debt that men, women and children bear
because of Liberal-Tory overspending.
Which one of these policies is the government planning to run
on? Which policy will the Liberals bring before the Canadian
people in the upcoming election?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we have found over the years, the selective reading
habits of the Reform Party did not permit the hon. member to take a
look at what is probably one of the most significant initiatives
taken on behalf of children in the last decade, the announcement of
a major investment in a child benefit that will ensure that every
child in a low income family will receive a guaranteed benefit from
the Government of Canada.
It provides a basic income flow for poor children in this country.
It will put income into the hands of their parents so their parents
can make the best choices about their education, their nutrition, and
so on. That is the Liberal way of doing things, giving choice to
people to help their children. That is the real issue.
10182
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, by the
government's own account, over a million children live in poverty
in this country. There is no national day care program after the
government promised it.
I am looking through the Liberal list of achievements page to see
where it says that the Liberals fulfilled their promise on the GST,
but it is strangely absent. I am looking for the section on national
unity, but I cannot find it. Could that be because the government
came within 50,000 votes of losing the country?
(1430)
What about health care? It speaks about $300 million in a new
health care initiative, but it does not mention, for some reason, that
it has cut $7.5 billion.
Is the government planning to hoodwink Canadians once again,
just like it did in 1993, or is my brochure missing some pages?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it exceedingly bizarre that the hon. member, while
he seems to be poring over the literature of the government with a
microscope, totally ignores the literature of his own party.
The last so-called Reform budget was going to totally decimate
the entire pension plan of Canadians. It was going to reduce
payments to the disabled, children and low income families. It was
going to totally and completely rewrite the social structure to give
tax breaks to high income earners and higher taxes to the low
income earners.
I would suggest the hon. member change his reading habits.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party is the only party that has a plan to save the Canada
pension plan.
The chairman of the committee on the government side who
comes from Winnipeg said that in 15 years the Canada pension plan
will be in trouble because of the government's initiative. Is it any
wonder when Liberal MPs secured their own MP pension that they
are not concerned about Canadians' pensions?
The government cannot run away from its record. Look at the
GST promise, the day care promise, the NAFTA promise. There
have been 37 tax increases. The country has the worst jobless
record since the great depression. Look at Somalia, Airbus, the
Krever and the Pearson scandals.
After that pathetic record of incompetence and duplicity why
should Canadians trust the government for another four years?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very proud of having served as a member of this
government. First, it has been able to restore the confidence and
trust of Canadians in government. That is something the Reform
Party has never, in its wildest dreams, had the notion of doing.
Second, unemployment has been brought down from the high
levels it was at in 1993. More than 750,000 jobs have been created.
Interest rates have been brought down to a 30 year low.
We have restructured government and restructured the finances
of the country which has given us a platform from which to launch
into the new century.
We approach these issues with pragmatism and reality, not with
ideology and rhetoric, which seems to be the only stock in trade of
the hon. member.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Canadian Airlines is still having problems despite the assistance
provided by the federal government. If the company cannot sell
Inter-Canadian, it will shut down operations in Quebec in less than
five weeks, killing 500 jobs.
What is the federal government going to do about this potential
closure, after agreeing in the last few months to postpone the last
payment on the $120 million loan it extended to Canadian in 1992,
and after granting Canadian last February a reduction in fuel taxes
of $20 million a year over the next four years.
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the situation with respect to the regional subsidiary of
Canadian Airlines is fairly straightforward. The company has
proposed selling the airline. This happened only a few days ago.
There is, I believe, at least a 16-week period before there would be
developments that would involve the government.
At the present time it is simply a private company offering to sell
a company which has frequently been sold. It was once known as
Quebec Air. It has frequently been purchased by other companies.
It appears to be a normal readjustment within the airline industry
where one company might move from ownership of one group to
ownership of another. At the present time there is no cause for the
government to step in.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
are we to understand from the minister's comments that all Quebec
taxpayers are good for is to pay tens of millions of dollars that the
federal government then gives to Canadian, and that they do not
10183
have the right to say anything when this company shuts down its
operations in Quebec two months later?
(1435)
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member, this is a private offer of
a Canadian company to the market generally. It is not a question of
taxpayers' money being involved.
The hon. member seems to be under the misapprehension that
Canadian is owned by the Canadian government. It is not.
Canadian Airlines is a private corporation.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
appears that the Prime Minister is about to call an election. So far
we have not heard what the issues might be. There are no new ideas
from the Liberal side and no platform.
It is a little bit like the corn flakes commercial. I think Liberals
are going to run on ``try me again for the first time'' to see if maybe
people will buy it. I do not think the people are going to buy $24
billion in tax increases since the government took power, another
$110 billion added to the $500 and some billion national debt and
1.4 million unemployed. With a shameful economic record like
that I wonder what the Liberals are going to run on.
The government should not be going cap in hand asking for the
votes of the electorate. It should be going cap in hand apologizing
to the electorate. What possible reason could the government use
for going to the people at this time in a federal election?
An hon. member: We want to get rid of the Reform Party.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member is trying to use the metaphor of a
cereal box, which I am very glad he has the time to spend reading in
comparison to his hon. colleague, I would suggest that the
appropriate variation for the Reform Party would be crack, pop and
fizzle.
Mr. Speaker, I said crack, pop not crackpot. I just want to make
that clear.
The hon. member is the one who seems to be getting all agitated
about an election. It was his party that rushed out to get its platform
before the people. It is his leader who has been campaigning across
the country. It is his members who are standing up in an apologetic
fashion declaring their mea culpas to their constituents.
We are here governing. We want to make sure that the country is
in good hands and continues to be in good hands. If and when and
how the election is called, we fully expect to have the mandate to
continue as the government.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
maybe their idea of governing is that a goody a day will get the
voter to play. I am not sure whether they will get away with it.
When the Liberals announce their platform I can see it now: The
theme music from Mission Impossible coming on the screen as the
son of red book gets trotted out and they try once again to make
believe that this time they really, really mean it.
Are they going to try to defend the actions of some of their
ministers, while if their outspoken backbenchers speak out they get
kicked out of the party? Will they defend that? Will they talk about
the huge MP pension plan? Will they talk about the Somalia
inquiry? Will they talk about the Pearson airport deal? Maybe the
Airbus pay-off, I wonder if that is what they will talk about. Maybe
it will be free trade. I think it is going to be long term, stable
funding for the CBC.
This is a comedy from Air Farce. Surely they cannot be running
on this. In this literature the Liberals are saying that Canadians are
in good hands. Well, good hands my foot. Why would Canadians
vote for four more years of this kind of a government?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member talks about the observation he makes of
members on the government side. If he took a look around him it
would look like the retreat from Moscow. Never have we seen such
a bedraggled group of people in total surrender and defeat, pulling
themselves back with all the resignations and all the evictions.
We have declared a new party called independent members made
up of the rejects from the Reform Party that their hon. leader has
thrown out.
I would hope that at some point during this question period that
the Reform Party might, in its last gasp here in the House, get down
to some serious questions about the issues at stake, the great
matters really affecting public policy and get off their platform.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
On March 31, the federal government stopped its financial
contribution to the Quebec agricultural day haul transportation
assistance program. So, this year, the government of Quebec will
have to finance all by itself the program, which will be cut by 40
10184
per cent, or $330,000, because of the federal government's
withdrawal.
Since this successful program provides vital transportation
services for some 150,000 person-days a year in Quebec, why is the
minister reluctant to renew the federal government's financial
contribution?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always
interesting to hear members opposite talk about jurisdiction.
This is very much a provincial jurisdiction. The Government of
Quebec and members opposite have asked us to withdraw from
areas of provincial jurisdiction and that is what we are doing.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the hon.
member's information, I would like to point out that it was a
federal-provincial agreement and not a question of the federal
government taking over from the province. An agreement is
usually reached because we want to do business together.
The federal government had already reduced its financial
contribution from 50 per cent to 40 per cent, and now it is down to
nothing.
Does the minister realize that his refusal to maintain the federal
contribution to this program will mostly affect small farmers trying
to recruit help and thousands of low-income seasonal workers?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, we are
aware of that. It is why we have made an offer to the provincial
government and the farming community as a whole. Human
Resources Development is very interested in looking at proposals
for doing this in a different way than it has been done in the past.
Once the proposal is put to us, we will look at the issue and a way
of delivering it in a different fashion than it was delivered in the
past because that entered into provincial jurisdiction which is
against the policy of the party opposite.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister, the new reigning king of political
patronage, keeps claiming that he appoints only good
Liberals-and that an oxymoron if ever I heard one-to all of the
patronage positions he fills.
If all the Liberal hacks in patronage positions are so good, why
are the Canadian taxpayers shelling out $50,000 for VIA Rail's
president to take an eight-week course at Harvard?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, VIA Rail is a crown corporation for which I am
responsible for reporting to the House. I do not have a day to day
responsibility for vetting every decision taken by VIA Rail. The
hon. member has made an assertion which may or may not be
correct, I do not know. I am quite willing to look into it for him,
find out and report back to him.
I would suggest that a party which constantly has supported the
private sector and the concept of government getting out of active
involvement in commercial operations should think twice before it
encourages ministers to take day to day control of crown
corporations or private companies.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what I encourage the minister to do is privatize VIA Rail.
Given that VIA Rail is subsidized in the amount of $600,000 a
day, $50,000 might not seem like much money to the Prime
Minister, his finance minister or the Minister of Transport.
However it represents a four-year degree for a Canadian student
who cannot afford an education because the Liberals cut education
funding by 40 per cent.
Can the Prime Minister or anyone else explain why Liberal
patronage hacks get $50,000 for an eight-week Ivy League course
while thousands of Canadian students cannot afford an education
because of Liberal cuts.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I answered this question the first time around by saying
that I, as minister responsible for reporting to the House for VIA,
do not take every decision of $50,000 or more for the railroad, nor
in fact does the Prime Minister.
(1445)
We have a crown corporation operating at arm's length from the
government whose annual plan is reported through me to the
House. We do not follow every decision prior to it being made.
I will repeat what I have agreed to do, for the hon. member. I will
ask VIA for the details surrounding the assertion of the hon.
member to find out whether it is correct. Most assertions from his
party are incorrect. If it is correct, I will bring information to him
about it and whether there is justification for it.
I cannot expect to answer every $50,000 decision of a
corporation, which he admits has at least a $600,000 daily support
from the state.
10185
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Last Monday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs told us that he
intended to contact his Egyptian counterpart within a day or two to
take urgent action to have Mrs. Robitaille's eldest child, who is
seriously ill, brought back to Canada.
Can the minister inform us of the outcome of the discussions
with his Egyptian counterpart to bring back the Robitaille children
who are still being held in Egypt?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately, a conversation could not be arranged for
now. I have signed a letter to the Egyptian Minister of Foreign
Affairs. I will continue to try to contact him directly, personally, to
share with him the great concern of the Canadian government.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
conclude then that the discussion has not been held yet.
I remind the minister that Egypt is a signatory to the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and, as such, has
obligations to meet.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us if he will invoke the
Convention on the Rights of the Child with his Egyptian
counterpart to convince him to send back to Canada the eldest
Robitaille child, who is seriously ill?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly the responsibilities under the convention are
setting a mandate but they do not have a legal, binding obligation.
That is the difficulty.
Within a matter of a day or two we will be engaged in finishing
our negotiations with the Egyptian government on a new consular
agreement. This would substantially enhance our ability to make
representations on behalf of the Robitaille children.
I understand the frustrations. I feel them as well, but we have to
pursue it through the venues of the international forums we have. I
will keep the hon. member fully informed of each step along the
way.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister.
For several weeks now, people in eastern Ontario have shown in
different ways their total opposition to the closure of Montfort
Hospital.
Since the federal government has assumed the mandate to speak
for linguistic minority rights everywhere in Canada, could the
minister tell the House what the position of the government is,
regarding the closure of Montfort Hospital?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is that linguistic
minorities all across Canada should not only be entitled to basic
services in their own language but should also have the right to
control as many institutions as possible which are essential to any
community, such as schools, colleges, hospitals, co-operatives.
Like some of my colleagues, I informed the Government of
Ontario of my position on the proposed closure of Montfort
Hospital the very first day it was announced. As Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, I will keep asking the Government of
Ontario to take into consideration the serious consequences for the
Franco-Ontarian community of the closure of the only French
language hospital in Ottawa.
Premier Harris has proven to be a great Canadian by giving
francophones of Ontario control over their schools. I do hope that
he will be guided by the same principles in the case of Montfort,
the only French language teaching hospital in Ontario.
* * *
(1450)
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1992 a
17-year-old was convicted in adult court for the murder of a father
of four. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole
eligibility for 25 years.
Thanks to the justice minister and Bill C-41, this young offender
can be paroled after serving a mere 10 years. That is the Liberal
record of getting tough on crime.
My question is for the justice minister. Why send young killers
into adult court for adult sentencing when adult penalties do not
apply?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for the question.
As he is aware, a decision was recently rendered by the court of
appeal. As an appeal could still be possible it would not be
appropriate to comment on it.
10186
The record of the government and the minister is very clear.
There have been more effective changes to the Criminal Code to
toughen it up, changes to toughen up the young offenders law,
changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and
changes to help victims, than have been made in the history of
the nation by any single parliament. That is something we are very
proud of.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how in the
world could the parliamentary secretary claim they are getting
tough on crime when they change the law so that it does not really
make any difference if a young killer is transferred from young
offenders into adult court? It simply does not make sense.
Nevertheless I have a supplementary question. This 17-year old
killer was convicted in 1992, two years before Bill C-41 was
passed. This offender was granted the benefit of a law passed
retroactively. Yet the justice minister claimed Bill C-45 could not
be applied to Clifford Olson because of the principle of
retroactivity.
Why does retroactivity apply to killers only when it is in their
favour?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
have indicated, the government has brought forward many
effective measures to improve efficiency and effectiveness. It has
taken many measures to improve the criminal law. It is far more
effective, efficient and legal than that contained in the Reform
platform, Operation Crime Spank or whatever it is called.
We have worked with the provinces, victims groups, police
organizations, many other groups and individuals across the
country to improve the criminal law. When it comes to the criminal
law the Reform Party reminds me of proud parents watching
10,000 marching soldiers and noting with pride that their son is the
only one in step.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has refused to
grant a visitor's visa to Vedran Smailovic, the world renowned
cellist from Sarajevo. Immigration officials rejected Mr.
Smailovic's request for a visa because he does not have a valid
reason to visit Canada, although he has been invited to come by a
journalist to co-author a children's book.
Why is Immigration Canada refusing admission to this country
to Vedran Smailovich, a man of peace?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member for Bourassa has
not yet understood our immigration laws since 1993, we have a
serious problem here. He is fully aware that the Privacy Act
prohibits any public discussion of a particular case.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): The minister has
discretionary powers in this matter, but this is not all. Canadians
and Quebecers will judge this government harshly because of its
discriminatory policy regarding visas.
Mr. Smailovic has visited several countries and has never sought
asylum there. He has undertaken to not do so when he comes to
Canada. Will the minister reconsider and grant a visa to Mr.
Smailovic?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, I will set the member for
Bourassa straight. The minister has no discretionary powers to
publicly reveal private information. Therefore, I shall not discuss
this case in public.
* * *
(1455)
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of agriculture will know that in a rare spirit of
co-operation dairy producers, dairy processors and the government
agreed that a move to one-price adjustment per year would occur
on February 1. This scenario will leave dairy producers in a
six-month period where they will be producing milk below their
cost of production.
What possible rationale can he give for announcing that the
consumer subsidy phase out would start August 1 rather February
1, 1998?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the provision the hon. gentleman is
referring to was contained in the 1996 budget. Since the budget has
been in the public domain and subject to public discussion, dairy
producers and dairy processors have made the argument, which has
behind it some considerable force of logic, that it would be more
convenient and more economically efficient in our dairy system to
consider any appropriate price changes at the beginning of
February, not on January 1 but on February 1 as opposed to August
1 which has been the tradition over a number of years.
The recommendation of both the processors and producers is
under active consideration by the government. As soon as we are in
a position to confirm the appropriate arrangements we will make
them public.
10187
Given the tenor and tone of the hon. gentlemen's question, I
welcome his very strong endorsement of supply management.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, obviously
the minister did not pick up on my tenor and tone very well.
As I am sure he already knows, producers have agreed to forgo a
2.1 per cent increase in the price of milk which amounts to a $40
million saving to Canadian consumers. I am not talking about an
endorsement of supply management but about keeping up his end
of the deal.
Will the minister agree to do that today? A lot of dairy producers
would like to see him keep up his end of the deal.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the arrangements with respect to
the phasing down of the dairy subsidy over a number of years is a
matter that involves considerable technical consideration. It is not
the sort of proposition that is just scribbled down on the back of an
envelope.
Accordingly I have had lengthy discussions with the dairy
industry. I am scheduled to meet with the dairy farmers of Canada
again later this afternoon. There is a good spirit of positive
co-operation in trying to find the appropriate mechanism that will
accomplish the objective both dairy farmers and dairy processors
have in mind.
May I say that I am sorry to hear the hon. member renege on his
support for supply management.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have always been of the view that job training for our labour force
ought to be designed to meet specific needs closer to the regional
grassroots in Quebec, for the reality is very different in Chicoutimi
than it would be in Montreal, Sherbrooke or Gaspé.
I am pleased the government signed an agreement with the
Government of Quebec to help in active employment measures and
programs to help the unemployed re-enter the job market.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. I need a clarification with respect to the availability
and acceptability of these programs for the English speaking
community. Just how are they to be protected and access ensured
under the provisions of the Quebec-Canada accord and the new
management policy?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with a
great deal of honour and pride that I stand here today to report to
the hon. member that this government and this party continue in
their unwaivering support of the minority language rights of
Canadians.
All five agreements we have culminated so far with the
provinces in the labour market field have extended the language
minority rights of individuals in those provinces.
In the case of Quebec we have the same agreement as we do with
other provinces. Those rights will be protected. The English
speaking minority in Quebec will be able to get the same services
in English as those outside Quebec will get in French.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. He will know, I am sure, that
the committee charged with reviewing Bill C-91 has reported and
the committee has endorsed the acceptance by Canada of the 20
year patent protection.
Given what I know of what the Minister of Health repeatedly
said in previous Parliaments about the undesirability of the 20 year
patent protection, I ask him what he is prepared to do about the
situation. Is he not disappointed in the committee's report? Is he
prepared to say at this time, if the government is not prepared to
condemn the committee's conclusions, that the Liberals have
finally, clearly, absolutely and truly broken their promise to the
Canadian people with respect to Bill C-91?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
not wanting to concur with the preamble of the hon. member's
question, the government has just received a copy of the report on
Bill C-91. Ministers will have an opportunity to examine it at a
subsequent stage.
Notwithstanding the member's strong intervention, the Minister
of Industry and I have given the view of the government as it
relates to the 20 year patent and, in particular, our international
obligations. I think that is clear to the country. I think it is clear to
various health groups. It is certainly clear to provincial
governments, notwithstanding whatever political mischief they
may wish to engage in on this issue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the
Environment.
The Canadian Wildlife Service just announced, in Montmagny,
that it will not issue scaring and hunting permits for snow geese in
1997, even though it did last year, to everyone's satisfaction.
10188
Why does the minister persist in refusing to issue hunting
permits, given that this measure considerably reduces damage to
farm producers without endangering the species?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
A hunt under the migratory birds convention is simply illegal
because the American Congress has not yet ratified the
amendments to that convention. In terms of any hunt, we have to
wait, hopefully sooner rather than later, for Congress to ratify the
amendments to the convention.
A few days ago we announced that last year there was a limited
kill but it was not a successful program. The birds were to be left on
the ground to scare the other birds. What happened was the birds
were not left on the ground and, therefore, none got scared.
This year we adjusted the arrangements. There are three fields
which will hopefully attract those birds as they migrate from the
south to the north in the hopes that the farmers' areas will not be
afflicted as they have been in the past.
It has the support of the round table of interest. It is the
overwhelming consensus. Clearly we should listen to local
interests in trying this method because last year the system did not
work as well as we would have hoped. Then we can, obviously, at
the end of the migration period review the situation for next year.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
October 1993 when this government took office promising jobs,
jobs, jobs, 144,000 Atlantic Canadians were unemployed.
At the end of last month, three and a half years after the Liberals
took office, 173,000 Atlantic Canadians were unemployed
according to Statistics Canada, an increase of 29,000 unemployed,
or 20 per cent.
What does the Prime Minister have to say to these jobless
Atlantic Canadians about this dismal record?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we have to say is that there is still a very significant
task ahead of this country in providing opportunities for people to
work.
(1505 )
The most important way is to ensure the country is strong
economically. That has been demonstrated by the way growth is
now taking place at 3.5 per cent a year by our predictions, by the
fact that we now have very low interest rates, by the fact that we
have now restructured government so we can target where the most
available growth prospects are.
The reality is we inherited a mess from the previous government.
We inherited a substantial and huge problem. We have been
working very hard to bring it down and I think Canadians are just
now on the verge of getting the benefit of that restructuring and that
modernization. We just need another four years to complete the
task.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am not going to take any chance.
In case Aline Chrétien decided to ask her husband to do the
spring cleaning at 24 Sussex Drive, instead of calling an election, I
will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House to tell us what is on the agenda for next
week.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
program for April was generally laid out for us in the business
statement of March 20, and we shall continue in the remaining days
of April to work on this program in a manner determined by
consultation through the usual channels.
It is fair to say that this process has worked very well. It is
appropriate to thank the hon. members opposite as well as
members on this side of the House for their high level of
co-operation which has been forthcoming in managing an
extremely busy agenda.
I wish to mention the constructive role that has been played by
all members, in particular the members of the Reform and the Bloc
and the hon. member for Lethbridge who has demonstrated to all of
us that there is a difference between opposing and obstructing.
Perhaps more important, the hon. member for Lethbridge has
shown us clearly that being an effective adversary does not make
one a personal enemy. He has brought a dignity and a maturity to
the proceedings of the House that all of us should take as an
example.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I have just received a petition
from the clerk of petitions. I know this may well be my last
opportunity to table it. Unfortunately, this petition does not quite
meet the requirements of this House.
I ask for unanimous consent to table this petition in this House,
nonetheless.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Terrebonne
have the consent of the House?
10189
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
10189
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
petition is from Suzie Robitaille, whose five children are being
held in Egypt, and it is signed by 2,423 people.
_____________________________________________
10189
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-65, an act respecting
the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or
extinction; and of the motions in Group No. 1.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean had
seven minutes remaining in debate.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, this is
probably my last speech of this 35th Parliament. It went by very
fast. It was very little time indeed, compared to all my hon.
colleagues.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents in
the federal electoral district of Lac-Saint-Jean. As I said in my
maiden speech, they have put their trust in me. They were not sure,
in fact there was some controversy about it, whether they should
put their trust in someone who did not have any experience in
politics, wondering if it would lead to disaster if the riding of
Lac-Saint-Jean was represented by a young, inexperienced person.
A year later, I am pleased to note that we can trust our young
people, notwithstanding their lack of experience. I think things
have gone rather smoothly this past year.
(1510)
I did not have time to bring certain projects to full fruition,
including Opération Maillage, a networking operation designed to
bring together persons with different skills. It will probably not get
under way before the election, but after, and I am very pleased
because we will have successfully developed a new concept in
Alma. People who have an idea for business, an entrepreneurial
potential, and those who are looking for a business partner could
get together and share their respective skills. Small businesses
should emerge, that will create jobs.
Second, we will recall that, on the evening of December 29, as an
elected member faced with a problem, I called a public meeting
and I said: ``You must take an active part, not only by paying your
taxes and going to the polls every four years, but also by getting
your ideas across''.
As the saying goes, two heads are better than one. I have put my
trust in the people, and they have come up with solutions: a dozen
policy thrusts we have been working on since January. People came
up with a number of concrete proposals. I am delighted with what
is happening in my riding.
Finally, it was a pleasure to work with my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois, and I hope I will be able to continue to do so during a
subsequent term. We hope so, and it is very likely we will, because
we intend to run this campaign with a lot of determination.
Sometimes people ask me: ``Do you really want to start
campaigning again after just one year?'' I think it is wonderful for
an elected representative to get back on the campaign trail just a
year after being elected. During your first campaign, you are not
too sure how everything works, but now, a year later, when I go
back to my constituents, I will be able to tell them first hand about
what happens in the House of Commons.
I wanted to make this little aside since this will be my last speech
in this 35th Parliament. I must say it was a wonderful experience,
and I hope I will be able to repeat it in the years to come.
Now, back to Bill C-65. I started my speech before oral question
period and had to stop because of lack of time. I had started on my
general comments, the reasons we more or less agreed or did not
agree at all with the bill.
Bill C-65 directly threatens areas under provincial jurisdiction.
In fact, the Liberal government is using the requirements of the
United Nations Convention on the Conservation of Biological
Diversity as an excuse to encroach on areas under provincial
jurisdiction.
This comes as no surprise. It is the usual duplication story.
Expertise has been developed in the provinces, including Quebec,
where we already have legislation to protect biodiversity,
legislation that goes back to 1989. The provinces had the expertise.
They knew the field. Everything was fine. However, the federal
government is now intruding on these jurisdictions. In fact, there is
something in the Constitution about this, but unfortunately, they
want the prestige. They want this federal institution to have some
prestige.
Actually, I find it hard to explain. Perhaps our colleagues
opposite could explain the purpose of this intrusion, but I do not
understand it at all.
Furthermore, Bill C-65 respects neither division of powers
provided under the Constitution nor its traditional interpretation,
because it is based on a much broader interpretation of the
definition of federal territory and because the government does not
respect the joint constitutional responsibility it shares with the
10190
provinces with respect to certain species. This is in line with what I
said earlier.
(1515)
Third, Bill C-65 gives the Minister of the Environment broad
discretionary powers, including that of appointing the members of
COSEWIC, listing species identified as threatened or endangered
by COSEWIC and implementing recovery plans.
The same problem arises on the subject of interference in
jurisdictions. The bill provides that the minister will have broad
discretionary powers, including with respect to decisions on
appointments to COSEWIC. It reminds me of a lot of other bills.
When a committee is to be struck, it is always the minister who
gets to appoint his buddies. I listened to my colleague from
Frontenac speaking on this earlier. The situation is an unfortunate
one because the little Liberal family will remain cloistered, not
really open to the public. They appoint their buddies, their pals, to
pay off their debts.
I could go on at length because this really bothers me. What
about all the Liberal candidates who were defeated in the 1993
elections? I think some 40 of them are now working in the
Canadian public service, simply because they had good contacts,
they did the party a favour and are being paid back. That is
democracy for you.
This is all the time I have. I therefore wish you a fine election,
Mr. Speaker. I hope to see you in September.
The Deputy Speaker: That is too kind. The hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Mr. Speaker,
could you determine whether or not we have a quorum?
The Deputy Speaker: No, we do not have a quorum. Call in the
members.
(1520)
[English]
And the count having been taken:
The Speaker: We have a quorum. Debate.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I believe if you seek it you will find consent for the
following:
That all motions at report stage of Bill C-65 be deemed to have been put and a
recorded division requested and deferred once debate is completed for each
grouping.
The Speaker: My colleague, let me understand. This morning
we had a motion, by unanimous consent, that all motions were to be
deemed to be moved and seconded. Do I understand the hon.
member correctly that he is adding something to that? Is there a
word in there that I have missed? They are deemed to be moved and
seconded.
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Mr. Speaker,
you will have to bear with me. I am following instructions. They
have been deemed to have been put and a recorded division
requested and deferred once debate is completed for each of the
groupings.
The Speaker: I understand. Does the hon. member have the
permission of the House to put the motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question. We
might agree to the motion being moved, depending on its content.
But I believe that in the motion, my hon. colleague is asking that
the motions be deemed moved and the divisions deferred.
If the divisions are deferred, to when will they be deferred? If it
is later today, that is one thing, but if it is Monday, that is altogether
different. I would like the motion to specify when the divisions will
be deferred to and then we will see if we can support it.
The Speaker: To answer your question, dear colleague, usually
all divisions are deferred to the end of the debate. If this is today,
fine, if it is another day, this is fine too. Usually, it is at the end of
the debate. Does this answer your question?
(1525)
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, in that case, I believe my colleague's
motion is useless. He moved that the divisions be deferred. When
the debate ends, we will ask that the divisions be deferred. Does
this motion still serve any purpose then?
The Speaker: My dear colleague, it is not up to the chair to
decide when the debate will end, it is up to the House.
Mr. Laurin: We could ask my colleague.
The Speaker: We will put the question to our colleague and we
will see if he has an answer.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just for
clarification for the House and the Bloc members opposite, what
we are trying to do here is precisely what we have done in the past,
with Bill C-44 for example. We can speed up debate on this
particular issue, but at the same time group these amendments so
that these amendments can be dealt with at the end, rather than
individually throughout the whole period. We are speeding up
debate so that everyone will have a chance to speak and then we are
grouping these at the end of the day so that we can deal with them
at once at the end.
10191
The Speaker: I would put a question to the hon. member for
Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso. Do you, my colleague, want to
put it to a specific time? I think that is what the question is. If
you could indicate this to me, we could get this straightened out.
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Mr. Speaker,
my understanding is it is until the next sitting day. Does that make
sense to you?
[Translation]
The Speaker: At the next sitting of the House.
Mr. Laurin: If the motion moved by my colleague means that he
wants to defer to the next sitting, then we support it.
[English]
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put the
motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): To be even clearer, I understand that we
have to vote, but the final vote can be deferred, this is fine. I still
would like to understand the motion moved by the member for
Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.
There are five groups of motions. Does this mean that the
divisions on Group No. 1, Group No. 2, Group No. 3, Group No. 4
and Group No. 5 will only take place at the end? There will be no
need to have five members rise to ask they be put to the vote.
Mr. Laurin: That is right. They will all be deferred to Monday.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely
correct. We will move all those to the end of today when the
Speaker will call for the bells to ring and then at that point we will
defer the vote until Monday.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: You understand the terms of the motion. Do you
agree to the terms of the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Speaker: Before we get into debate, I must take a point of
privilege from the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, that is April 23, in this House the member for
North Vancouver made a statement during question period and
made reference to a householder that I had published.
(1530 )
First correction, it was not a householder. It was a 10 percenter.
However, there is a mystery involved here. I demand that there be
some attempt to solve this mystery.
There were only two places where that 10 percenters existed
yesterday on the Hill. One of them was in my office and the other
was in boxes in the post office on the first floor of the West Block.
It may be just a coincidence that the member for North
Vancouver has an office right next door to the post office and
somehow obtained a copy of that publication.
The Speaker: I do not want to bog the House down in
technicalities, but did the hon. member notify me prior to this that
he would be raising a question of privilege?
Mr. Dromisky: Yes, I sent you a note, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I understand there is a mystery here. I will tell you
what, to the extent that I can I will look into this mystery. I will try
to get the information and return with this information to the
House. Is that agreeable to the hon. member?
Mr. Dromisky: That is agreeable, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-65, an act respecting
the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or
extinction, as reported (with amendments) from the committee;
and of Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 19, 25, 27, 50, 54, 56 to 60,
62, 63, 65, 66 and 82 to 109.
(Divisions deemed requested and deemed deferred.)
[Translation]
The Speaker: The question of privilege always takes
precedence. That is why I did what I did.
Resuming debate.
[English]
Pursuant to an agreement made earlier, all motions in GroupNo. 2 are deemed proposed and seconded.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-65, in Clause Preamble, be amended by replacing lines 27 and 28 on
page 1 with the following:
10192
``levels of government in this country and that under the National Agreement on the
Protection of Endangered Species it is essential for them to work together to''
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-65, in Clause 3.1, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 13 on page 6
with the following:
``3.1 Where a provincial minister advises the Minister that the government of the
province does not wish a provision of this Act or a regulation made thereunder to
apply in the province in respect of wildlife species and their habitats in so far as
individuals of those species are found on lands in the province that are not federal
lands, that provision or regulation, as the case may be, shall not apply to those
species and their habitats until such time as the provincial minister consents to its
application to those species and their habitats.''
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-65, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines
28 and 29 on page 7 with the following:
``disparition des espèces sauvages et à per-''
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-65, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 33 on page 8 the
following:
``(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), no responsible minister may enter into an
agreement under that subsection with an organization or person in a province unless
the minister advises the provincial minister of that province of the responsible
minister's intention to enter into the agreement with the organization or person, as
the case may be, and the provincial minister informs the responsible minister that the
government of the province does not object to the responsible minister entering into
such an agreement with that organization or person.''
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-65, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 9 the
following:
``(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), no responsible minister may enter into an
agreement under that subsection with an organization or person in a province unless
the minister advises the provincial minister of that province of the responsible
minister's intention to enter into the agreement with the organization or person, as
the case may be, and the provincial minister informs the responsible minister that the
government of the province does not object to the responsible minister entering into
such an agreement with that organization or person. ''
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-65, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 13 with the
following:
``tion of COSEWIC and with the approval of the Council, make regulations estab-''
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-65, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 15 with the
following:
``COSEWIC and with the approval of the Council, may restrict the release of any''
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-65, in Clause 33, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 16 the
following:
``(1.1) Where a provincial minister advises the Minister that the government of
the province does not wish subsection (1) to apply in the province in respect of a
wildlife animal species in so far as individuals of the species are found on lands in
the province that are not federal lands, this subsection shall not apply to the species
until such time as the provincial minister consents to its application to the species.''
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by (a) replacing line 1 on page 21 with
the following:
``38.(1) With the assistance of the Council, the responsible minister must''
(b) by replacing line 9 on page 21 with the following:
``recovery plan together, with the assistance of the Council.''
Motion No. 55
That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 21 with the
following:
``advice of COSEWIC and with the assistance of the Council, must determine
wheth-''
Motion No. 64
That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 23 with the
following:
``recovery plan, the responsible minister, with the assistance of the Council, must''
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-65, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 39 to 41 on page 5
with the following:
``habitats.''
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-65, in Clause 3.1, be amended
(a) by replacing line 3 on page 6 with the following:
``42 or 45.1 apply in respect of wildlife species and''
(b) by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 6 with the following:
``habitats mentioned in paragraph 3(a) or (b) or section 33;''
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-65, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 16 with the
following:
``equivalent provision. Despite the order, subsection (1) continues to apply on
federal land.''
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-65, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 25 on page 25
with the following:
10193
``activity affecting a listed species, its residences or any other part of its critical
habitat.''
Motion No. 81
That Bill C-65, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 27 with the
following:
``(b) in the case of a project outside Canada, its continental shelf and its exclusive
economic zone,''
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to participate in this second round of debate on the
amendments.
This bill is one which presents a topic that most Canadians are in
support of, the protection of endangered species. However, this bill
as it is crafted creates many problems, problems for land owners
and users, problems for those who have a sincere concern for those
endangered species, because it not only threatens the land owners
and the users and people who enjoy that land, it is also an
endangerment to the species that are threatened themselves.
This is a bill that clearly has not been carefully thought through.
I would like to begin by reading a short statement from Mr. Jack
Munro, chairman of the Forest Alliance of British Columbia. He
says: ``Firstly, you have an approach in this bill that does not pay
nearly enough attention to social and economic impacts. I am not
suggesting that the protection of threatened species is not worth
paying a price, but I am saying that we should assess that price and
be sure that we come up with a fair way of deciding who pays. The
furthest this bill goes is the reference in clause 38 to the need for an
evaluation of costs and benefits of research and management
activities. Presumably that includes social and economic costs such
as lost jobs if timber harvest is no longer allowed in a particular
area. But where something as crucial as people's jobs and way of
life is concerned, we should not have to presume anything. The
government should have to do much more than merely a general
evaluation of costs and benefits''.
(1535)
In my mind the great difficulty of this bill is the lack of thought
that has been put into it. Unfortunately the Minister of the
Environment has not given any thought to how much Bill C-65
would cost land owners and taxpayers as a whole. When asked at a
committee meeting in February what cost he would be willing to
impose on an individual or society, the environment minister
replied: ``I have not thought of that threshold''.
No wonder Canadians are worried about the impact this
legislation will have on their lives. The minister responsible for
Bill C-65 has not even considered their needs. He has not even
taken time to think through the possibility that Bill C-65 may have
enormous negative effects on the lives of Canadians, as well as the
economic effect on our nation as a whole. This kind of tunnel
vision is characteristic of this government as it attempts to legislate
for the benefit of one special interest group after another, without
keeping in mind the Canadian people as a whole and their needs
and the benefits that they deserve and the enjoyment that they are
entitled to.
There is a flavour of the legislation from so many areas that this
government presents that is of deep concern to me. I am concerned
about a general attitude of moving responsibility of matters from
the House, from Parliament, to the cabinet table with the increasing
amount of discretion that is built into legislation for ministers and
avoiding accountability to Parliament, to the elected
representatives of the people.
What I have just outlined are several flaws in this endangered
species legislation, Bill C-65. For these reasons Reformers, while
we are favour of the protection of these endangered species, cannot
support this bill. It needs to be changed. It has to be changed to
receive the support of the Canadian people. This bill needs to be
entirely rewritten. It needs to go beyond the interests of special
interest groups and their agendas.
Therefore Reform has put before this House 42 amendments to
Bill C-65. These amendments would require the minister to
consider the social and economic impacts prior to recommending
what action should be taken regarding endangered species. The
government should ensure fair compensation to land owners and
users. The government should ensure co-operation by all those who
are concerned and there should be a commitment most of all to the
preservation of endangered species. That certainly is not in this
bill.
(1540)
There is a threat to land owners and users who make their living
and derive their income from these sources. If they are told that
their land may be subject to being cut off or protected for an
endangered species and their economic benefits may be taken away
from them, what would be their reaction? The ranchers and the land
owners have said the reaction would be simply to plough under, to
destroy, to get rid of it so the threat would be taken away.
That is not what we are trying to achieve. What we are looking
for is a legitimate and fair means of protecting the endangered
species of this country.
I encourage the House to pass these constructive, fair and even
handed amendments which the Reform Party has brought to Bill
C-65.
To state it briefly, we have three things in mind. We might
consider them the three Cs for the endangered species. The first is
there should be a commitment made by all to the preservation of
endangered species. The second is there should be fair
compensation for those who suffer a loss or who are deprived for
some reason
10194
in the course of the protection of endangered species. The third is
there should be co-operation.
There should be a commitment, there should be co-operation and
there should be compensation. If these three Cs were adhered to,
and if these objectives were written into the bill, Reform would
have no difficulty in supporting it.
I remind the House that Reform supports the responsible
protection of endangered species but it does not support Bill C-65
as it is written. This bill needs to be entirely rewritten. Therefore if
the government refuses to pass Reform's 42 amendments, I will be
voting against Bill C-65.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened attentively to the comments of the opposition parties and I
want to make a few comments about the first group of
amendments.
Members of the Reform Party made two main points. First, they
felt this legislation was similar to the legislation in the United
States and that we would have major upheaval similar to the
upheaval the Americans have had in their forest communities
because of the owl. I want to point out that this legislation is not at
all like the legislation in the U.S. It is actually more similar to the
legislation in Ontario and other provinces, where there have not
been major disruptions. There has not been a major infringement
on land owner rights.
Members of the Reform Party should stop whipping up all of this
misinformation regarding the bill. They should read it for what it
is, do their research and appreciate that we are not in an American
jurisdiction and the laws are applied quite differently.
The other point they make concerns compensation. If they knew
anything about Canadian law they would know that the right to
compensation when a public authority takes away a private right is
well founded in law and that people would be eligible for
compensation, regardless of whether it is in this bill or not. It is a
well founded principle in common law.
The point more generally is that the protection of species can
only be met through co-operation and partnership, since no single
jurisdiction acting on its own can meet the needs of all endangered
species. The beluga whale, the whooping crane and the horned owl
do not recognize political boundaries.
We will be able to protect species at risk only through a
partnership with the provinces, the territories, municipalities,
private land owners, farmers, the environmental and scientific
communities, aboriginal peoples and individual Canadians. The
co-operative approach has had many successes. The peregrine
falcon, for example, last year nested in Toronto for the first time in
over 40 years. It is making a comeback, thanks to the dedicated
work of hundreds if not thousands of people at all levels of
government and in communities across the country.
(1545)
Biologists from Timber West Forests and MacMillan Bloedel
have been working with provincial governments to relocate the
Vancouver Island marmot to the Nitinat alpine tundra. The handful
of marmots in the Nanaimo watershed represent the entire world
population. The relocation project is an effort to restore the species
to an area it may have once occupied. These are examples, and
there are many more, of what co-operation has done and can do.
In the Canadian context, we must begin with the understanding
that species protection is a shared jurisdiction. It is not exclusive to
either provincial governments or the federal government. All levels
of government see the necessity and the benefits of working
together on behalf of nature. There is a long history of co-operation
with the provinces and territories to protect endangered species.
Continued co-operation among all levels of government will be
essential to the success of species recovery efforts.
In Charlottetown last year agreement in principle was reached on
the national accord for the protection of species at risk. The accord
recognizes that co-operation and collaboration are crucial to the
conservation and the protection of species at risk. Conservation of
species at risk is essential to conserving biological diversity in
Canada.
Governments must play a leadership role in providing sound
information and measures for conservation and protection.
Complementary federal, provincial and territorial legislation and
programs are needed to effectively address species conservation.
Last but not least, Canadians must be involved.
The accord commits governments to providing complementary
legislation and programs that provide for an effective protection of
species at risk in Canada. The accord recognizes the Committee on
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada as a source of
independent advice on the status of species at risk nationally.
Finally, the accord establishes a ministerial level council for the
conservation of Canadian endangered species. This council will
provide the political direction and energy necessary to make the
accord a success.
Four provinces, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario
currently have endangered species legislation. Nova Scotia has just
recently introduced an endangered species bill and the sky has not
fallen. Other provinces and territories have programs specifically
aimed at the protection of species at risk.
10195
The government, through Bill C-65, will meet its commitment
under the national accord for the protection of species at risk. This
legislation meets our international obligations on the Convention
on Biological Diversity.
In the same vein, the Minister of the Environment recently
signed on behalf of the government a framework for co-operation
and protection of the recovery of wild species at risk that occur in
both the United States and Canada.
The framework for co-operation will encourage partnerships
with all levels of government in both countries and the private
sector in endangered species recovery efforts. Both agencies will
develop a joint work plan and an initial list of shared priorities
species by December 1997. I say bravo to the governments in both
the United States and Canada for making such an historic
agreement.
In recognition of the continental nature of endangered species
and their habitat, Canada and the United States also intend to invite
the participation of Mexico in the framework for co-operation. This
cross-border co-operation is very important. For example, the
monarch butterfly, added to our list at risk only last week, faces
ongoing threats to its wintering habitat in Mexico. The monarch
butterfly launches from two points in Ontario, one being in Long
Point in my riding and then to Mexico where oftentimes it faces the
danger of insecticides as well as a variety of other dangers. It is
only through shared co-operation between Ontario and Mexico that
we can properly protect the monarch butterfly.
Bill C-65 reflects the importance of federal leadership in the
protection and recovery of our international cross-border species at
risk. The federal government will ensure that these species receive
immediate protection on listing and will lead recovery planning
efforts, both within Canada and with our international partners.
This legislation is truly an example of co-operation. It does not
replace action at the provincial level, it enhances it. It does not
replace existing provincial frameworks, it enhances it.
The bill represents the traditional and constitutional roles that
each jurisdiction has played in wildlife protection and
conservation. New provisions have been introduced to more clearly
recognize provincial and territorial authorities with respect to the
management of endangered wildlife species.
In fact, in a letter to provincial governments, the federal
government indicated its willingness and active interest in
negotiating an equivalency agreement for the protection of
international cross-border species. The bill recognizes that habitat
protection is a fundamental requirement for the protection of a
species.
(1550)
We have difficult challenges to face. Our wetlands have been
reduced by 70 per cent to 80 per cent in some parts of Canada. Old
growth forests are down by 85 per cent to 90 per cent in some areas.
Tall grass prairie has diminished by 99 per cent since the earliest
settlements. The less natural habitat we have, the more important it
is to protect what is left.
Under this bill, when a species is listed, anything that causes
damage or destruction to its residence, whether a den, a nest or a
burrow, will be prohibited. The legislation also goes beyond the
protection of just the immediate residence of a given species.
Recovery plans must address all threats to the survival of a species,
including threats to critical habitat.
We will rely on scientific experts to tell us what constitutes a
critical habitat and what measures are necessary for its protection.
We owe it to future generations to make sure that the wildlife that
exists in Canada in the 20th century is still here in the 21st century
and beyond.
This is an important bill. I believe that preventing species from
becoming extinct is an honourable goal, a goal that will ensure that
our children and grandchildren inherit a country as rich in wildlife
as the one we enjoy today. I call on all members of the House to
support the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great
pleasure to speak to the motions in Group No. 2 on Bill C-65.
The Bloc Quebecois moved some motions in this group. First of
all, I would like to draw the attention of the members, and of our
viewers, to some points. I see members from the other side waving
at me, so I will reply with a similar motion.
The Bloc moved several motions in this Group No. 2: Motion
No. 2, Motion No. 16 on Clause 3, Motion No. 21 on Clause 5,
Motions Nos. 24 and 26 on Clauses 7 and 8, Motion No. 44 on
Clause 33 and Motions Nos. 49, 55, 64 and 68.
The main purpose of theses motions is to repeat for the
government, and enshrine in the legislation, the principle stating
that there should be some joint action by the provinces and the
federal government instead of a supremacy like the one the
Minister of the Environment seems to be going after in Bill C-65.
Let me remind the House that when the present environment
minister developed Bill C-65-although develop might be too big a
word-I see some of my colleagues turning around, but we never
know how the environment minister might interpret something. Let
me rephrase this. The minister initiated the process leading to Bill
10196
C-65 during a meeting of provincial and federal ministers which
took place in September 1996.
That meeting resulted in the signing of an agreement in
principle, a national agreement as they called it.
Mr. Bellehumeur: More like sweating.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Yes, I am told that the minister and his
colleagues sweated out an agreement in principle.
I will come back to my own train of thoughts. This resulted in
Bill C-65. It was presented as a national agreement, whereby they
all agreed on a system to come up with a list of endangered species
in Canada.
The provincial environment ministers almost fell off their chairs
when they learned, at the end of October 1996, a mere 30 days after
the so-called national agreement, that the minister had brought
forth a bill.
(1555)
In just thirty days, he came up with legislation that will allow
him to decide how the list of species will be drawn up and which
measures will be used to protect these endangered species.
When it comes to protecting the environment, or threatened
wildlife, everybody is in agreement. The Bloc Quebecois agrees
that endangered species should be protected. The Quebec
environment minister is also of the same opinion. However, what
we disagree with is the process followed by the minister.
In Quebec, we already have legislation to protect endangered
species and regulations to protect them. Why is the Minister of the
Environment in Ottawa giving himself the power to act on our
territories? We were prepared to work in co-operation with him.
Why does he want to go over the heads of the provinces? That is the
rub.
I have a few quotes I would like to share with the House. Bill
C-65 came about because Canada wanted-and I think Quebec, as
a future country, will do likewise-to comply with the UN
international convention on biological diversity signed in 1992.
This convention calls for signatory states to develop and enforce
the legislation and other statutory provisions required to protect
threatened species and populations. I am referring to article 8(k) of
the convention.
Was it necessary for Canada to have Bill C-65 apply from coast
to coast, when four provinces already have provisions and
legislation protecting their environment and threatened species?
They already have regulations providing for the protection of these
species. I think that, once again, Ottawa is looking for
confrontation with the provinces, which do not want anyone
interfering in their jurisdictions.
In their red book, the Liberals said they had, and I quote: ``a
vision of a society that protects the long term health and diversity
of all species on the planet''. We could live with that, since Quebec
and other provinces, like Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick,
already had their own legislation. All they had to do was to urge
their provincial counterparts who did not have similar legislation to
pass some or at least to exclude those provinces which had
legislation. But that is not what is happening here. You will
understand that the Bloc Quebecois cannot accept that the current
Minister of the Environment is grabbing that much power.
To make it quite clear what I mean when I say we represent the
interests of Quebecers, I would like to quote the Quebec
environment minister, Mr. Cliche, who signed the agreement
establishing how the list of threatened species should be drawn up.
But this was an agreement in principle basically indicating that the
signatories agreed with the idea. It was then up to each of them to
enforce it at home.
On October 2, 1996, Mr. Cliche said: ``We cannot remain
indifferent to the fact that this agreement opens the door to overlap
between the future federal legislation and the act that has been in
force since 1989-he is referring to the legislation in Quebec- an
act that works well and has already proven useful. We risk creating
more red tape instead of dedicating ourselves to what really matters
to us: the fate of endangered species''. As you can see, whether it is
the Bloc Quebecois, or the Parti Quebecois which currently forms
the Quebec government, everyone wants to protect endangered
species.
However, we do not agree with the powers the minister is
seeking with Bill C-65. If he wanted to make this legislation
acceptable to the provinces and to the Bloc Quebecois, why did he
not accept our amendments in committee, and why will he not
accept the amendments that we are moving today, at report stage?
(1600)
Again, these amendments only seek to obtain some assurances,
because there is a legal provision whereby none of this is formally
spelled out. In other words, there is a procedural defect. The federal
government is trying to interfere, to take responsibility over a
greater territory on environmental grounds, but Quebec, Ontario,
Manitoba and New Brunswick are not happy about this, because
they already have their own legislation in place.
In short, Bill C-65 gives very broad powers to the federal
government regarding the protection of species and, to make things
worse, this bill was concocted 30 days after an agreement was
reached with the provinces. This about-face by the federal
government irritated a number of provincial ministers.
Again, after expressing his support for harmonization at the
Charlottetown meeting, the current environment minister came up
with an all encompassing bill that has too much impact on
provincial jurisdictions. We ask members opposite to come to their
10197
senses and to support the amendments proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
today we are debating Bill C-65 which attempts to bring in
measures to protect endangered species.
We have a rich natural environment in Canada, one of the richest
in the world and we are very proud of it. It is an important part of
our high quality of life. It is a wonderful heritage that must be
preserved and protected for our children.
The Reform Party's founding principle number five states: ``We
believe that Canada's identity and vision for the future should be
rooted in and inspired by a fresh appreciation of our land and the
supreme importance to our well-being of exploring, developing,
renewing and conserving our natural resources and physical
environment''. In addition, Reform policies include a number of
measures in the area of environmental reform including:
sustainable development, co-ordinated action, pollution control,
and environmentally sensitive zoning.
Since environmentalists, forestry workers, farmers, ranchers and
many other citizens play an integral role in the protection of
endangered species, a variety of needs and interests must be
respected and wisely balanced by our legislators and legislation.
Bill C-65 gives the minister the power to make an emergency
order to protect a species. Where this results in limiting the social
or economic activities in an area, the losses and corresponding
costs or financial burdens must be justly allocated.
Many present land users want to have their rights and concerns
fairly addressed concurrent with the implementation of measures to
protect our natural habitat. These include lost property values,
curtailment of recreational opportunities, and withdrawal of land
availability for economic activity. I am not satisfied that Bill C-65
is at all adequate on this important point. We need to find ways to
ensure proper compensation for citizens who lose current land use
rights. This will require close consultations with interested
stakeholders from all parts of the country.
It is very interesting to note that a framework agreement was
worked out, as other speakers have referred to, with some of the
provinces with respect to protection of endangered species. In fact,
the agreement was worked out among federal, provincial and
territorial governments about seven months ago and here we have
Bill C-65 which absolutely violates the framework agreement
which was worked out among all levels of government.
(1605 )
We have to ask ourselves how we as federal legislators can retain
trust, credibility and co-operation within the federation if we enter
into a framework agreement and seven months later attempt to pass
a bill which violates and ignores the agreement that was put into
place.
I have in my hand two letters from environment ministers. In as
nice a way as possible they point out the outrage and concern of
provincial governments at this repugnant action by the federal
government and by the federal environment minister.
In a letter dated January 24, 1997, Mr. Graham, the environment
minister for New Brunswick writes to the federal environment
minister:
I have been requested, on behalf of provincial and territorial ministers responsible
for wildlife, to pass on to you our comments respecting Bill C-65.
He goes on to talk about the co-operative work that has been
done over the last 25 years between all levels of government to
preserve and protect endangered species, and in fact all species of
wildlife in Canada. He then writes:
Through continued co-operation and hard work over the past two years of all
provincial, territorial and federal agencies responsible for wildlife, the National
Framework for the Conservation of Species at Risk in Canada was developed. This
was a landmark achievement considering the biological and political complexity of a
country as large, and as diverse in species and lands, as Canada. Political support for
this framework and a clear commitment to improved endangered species
conservation in Canada was formalized with the endorsement of the National Accord
for the Protection of Species at Risk by all ministers responsible for wildlife in
Canada at a meeting in Charlottetown, P.E.I. on October 2, 1996.
The letter goes on to say that Bill C-65 violates the provisions
and intent of this accord and sets out specifically where it does so
and where the concerns lie. If other members wish to review this
letter, I would be happy to table it in the House. The letter ends:
We believe the National Accord and Framework are the model of what we can
achieve co-operatively together. Surely this opportunity should not be lost because
we were unable or unwilling to work together and resolve our differences. We
understand that the standing committee will complete their review in early February.
Obviously, there is urgency in addressing these issues.
Unfortunately the concerns that were so clearly and so
specifically brought to the attention of the environment minister
and members of the environment committee were unaddressed.
I have a letter dated March 26, 1997 from the environmental
protection minister of the province of Alberta. The minister writes:
I am writing to you to express my growing concern about proposed Bill C-65, the
Canada Endangered Species Protection Act. All provincial and territorial ministers
responsible for wildlife in Canada have identified several major concerns in the bill.
The Hon. Alan Graham recently wrote to the Hon. Sergio Marchi on behalf of my
colleagues and myself outlining these concerns.
10198
Minister Graham's letter is the one to which I just referred.
The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has
completed its deliberations, and unfortunately, the majority of the concerns raised
were not resolved.
The minister asked that the outstanding issues and concerns
brought forward by the provincial and territorial governments be
resolved. The minister points out the need to pursue a co-operative
and harmonious approach involving provincial and territorial
wildlife agencies in a collaborative effort to amend this legislation.
Unfortunately again these agreements and discussions and the
results of them have been largely ignored in this legislation.
(1610)
The point of my intervention and to tie together and sum up the
material I brought forward is simply that there are two different
approaches at the federal level to issues relating to the interests of
Canada and Canadians. This protection of endangered species is
only one example of the two approaches.
The old approach and unfortunately the approach practised by
this Liberal government has been a father knows best, made in
Ottawa, we will decide approach. It does not matter that other
stakeholders have concerns. It does not even matter if clear
agreements are simply tossed aside. The approach is that somehow
this federal government and its ministries can just ignore the
wishes and even discussions that were agreed to by other levels of
government and put into place its own framework.
There is a better approach. The Reform Party believes that the
federal government needs to focus its efforts on 10 clear areas of
federal endeavour and otherwise co-operate with the provinces. It
must allow the provinces to order their affairs to meet the unique
opportunities and needs of their own areas. It is very clear from the
material I put forward that this approach can and does work well.
I urge the federal government to respect the jurisdiction and the
involvement of the provinces and territories and withdraw this
legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill that
concerns my riding to some degree.
This bill may, at first glance, affect my riding since
Berthier-Montcalm is located between Montreal and
Trois-Rivières. This riding includes all the islands of Sorel and
Berthier where, every year, many migrating birds, some of which
are endangered, come to spend a few days or a few weeks before
leaving for other places.
Unfortunately, even though it deals with endangered species, I
have to say I am not in favour of this bill. It is not because its
subject matter is not important, not because it is not dealing with
fundamental issues, but simply because I feel Bill C-65 does not
respect provincial jurisdiction.
It is not the first time the federal government has tried to
interfere in this area of jurisdiction, probably because it wanted to
keep its 1993 election promises, its red book promises. This will no
doubt remind you, Madam Speaker, of the time when the minister
talked about ``a vision of a society that protects the long-term
health and diversity of all species on the planet''.
I am sure you remember that phrase from the red book. Although
that vague commitment on endangered species can be interpreted
in a number of ways, the red book contained more specific
commitments which the government has not met. I would have told
the government to forget about its promise, since this is an area of
provincial jurisdiction. But, once again, the government has
decided it wants to legislate in this area.
(1615)
Hon. members will remember that, in Spring of 1995, the kite
and flag lady, the current Deputy Prime Minister, then the
environment minister, introduced a bill along the same lines as the
bill before us today.
At the time, there was such an outcry in the environment
community and also in the provinces and among the people who
have to enforce the law that a year later, after a cabinet shuffle, the
new environment minister decided to call a meeting of
environment ministers to try to reach an agreement.
Indeed, on October 2, 1996, in Charlottetown, a famous city
which has often left its mark on Canadian history, an agreement in
principle was reached. However, if you were to compare the
provisions of Bill C-65 with the so-called agreement in principle
reached on October 2, 1996, you would soon realize that they are
completely different.
Either we do not speak the same language in this country or we
do not understand the same things. However, a bird is a bird and a
whale is a whale, but we do not seem to understand the same things
when a bill has to be drafted to ensure the agreement comes into
force.
This is so true that on December 2 of the same year, the Quebec
environment minister, David Cliche, wrote to the current federal
Minister of the Environment to indicate that there were in fact
some inconsistencies between the agreement in principle that was
reached and the bill. I will not read the whole letter, because I know
the minister has a copy, but for our viewers and the many Liberal
members who are carefully listening, I would like to quote parts of
the letter sent by Mr. Cliche.
It says: ``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
10199
the treaty''. The purpose of the treaty is still to protect endangered
species.
Further on, he adds: ``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''. This is a minister of the Quebec
National Assembly writing to the federal Minister of Environment
to tell him: ``Listen. There are several differences between what we
agreed upon and what there is in the act, in particular a marked
difference in jurisdictions.''
He says a little further: ``Thus the federal government's
definition of federal land for the purposes of the bill has no relation
to reality. We never understood that the management of fish stocks
or inland or coastal waters navigation meant that the federal
government had jurisdiction over all aquatic ecosystems, along
with the seabed and the subsoil and the airspace above these
waters''.
The federal government took advantage of this legislation to
provide more than was necessary and to try once again to go
against Quebec's views, even on issues that I think are quite
neutral, on which we could easily agree if people would truly
respect the agreements in principle that have been hammered out
and the Canadian Constitution. This is a minimum and this is not
asking too much but, at this stage, it seems to be extremely difficult
to agree on these factors.
On Bill C-65, the Bloc Quebecois will be true to its mandate to
protect Quebec's interests and those of the true Parliament in
Quebec, that is, the National Assembly, since that is what all men
and women of Quebec identify with. It was quite natural for us to
propose amendments to the bill that would reflect that.
(1620)
One motion requires co-operation between all levels of
government. I understand that a migratory bird landing in the
riding of Berthier-Montcalm can take off and land again in the
riding of Beauséjour. I can understand that and I think it requires
co-operation between all levels of government.
Motions Nos. 16, 24 and 26 call for the recognition of provincial
primacy. Why? Simply to respect the Canadian Constitution.
Nobody can accuse us, as members of the Bloc, sovereignists,
nationalists and all the other ist-words, of not wanting to respect
the Canadian Constitution in this House, the Constitution the
Liberals across the way signed in 1982 and whose 15th anniversary
they celebrated not too long ago. We did not celebrate that
anniversary for other reasons.
I think it is just normal to want to respect the Constitution which
gives each level of government certain responsibilities, but it
seems to be difficult.
I will read to you Motion No. 24 so you understand that what we
are asking is really not complicated. Here is what it says:
``(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), no responsible minister may enter into an
agreement under that subsection with an organization or person in a province unless
the minister advises the provincial minister of that province of the responsible
minister's intention to enter into the agreement with the organization or person, as
the case may be, and the provincial minister informs the responsible minister that the
government of the province does not object to the responsible minister entering into
such an agreement with that organization or person.''
It is crystal clear. In other words, we are saying to the federal
minister that, if he wants to enter into agreements with
organizations in Quebec, for example, he must simply inform the
environment minister of that province.
Madam Speaker, I could have spoken all afternoon about these
important motions, but you are indicating to me that my time is up.
Am I right? May I have the unanimous consent of the House to
conclude my remarks? I need five or ten more minutes to finish my
argument on these motions, if the House agrees.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I knew what I was saying
was so interesting that I would easily have the unanimous consent
of the House. I thank my colleagues, particularly the member for
Beauséjour who is smiling. For a minute I thought he was going to
start applauding.
Mr. Robichaud: We are holding back.
Mr. Bellehumeur: You are holding back, are you not?
I was saying that with Motion No. 24 that we introduced, when
all is said and done, it was very clear that the Government of
Quebec had a say in all sorts of agreements that the federal
government could conclude with respect to the bill on endangered
species.
There is another motion that is extremely important and that is
along the same lines. I understand that the Chair has grouped the
Bloc Quebecois's Motions Nos. 2, 16, 21, 24, 26, 34, 35, 44, 49, 55
and 64 together because they are all similar. That is the logic we are
using in the amendments to make it clear that provincial
legislatures have the last word on agreements concluded with
respect to endangered species.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out the excellent
work done by the member for Laurentides, who examined the issue
in extraordinary detail. I think she had an extremely good grasp of
the problems. She showed great initiative throughout. She took the
time to consult her colleagues in the National Assembly so as to
have a very clear position, to truly represent the greater interests of
Quebec.
10200
(1625)
When we defend the interests of Quebec, they are always
paramount in our eyes because they affect us deeply. That is why
we are here. The day after the election, we will still be here to
defend the interests of Quebec, and all the more so, considering
how things will be after the election.
That being said, Motion No. 44 says:
(l.l) Where a provincial minister advises the Minister that the government of the
province does not wish subsection (1) to apply in the province in respect of a wildlife
animal species in so far as individuals of the species are found on lands in the
province that are not federal lands, this subsection shall not apply to the species-
So, here again, the purpose of the proposed amendment is to
allow the provincial government to exclude species that the federal
government would perhaps like to protect, but that the province, for
all sorts of reasons, would not, or vice versa. All the motions we
introduced are really along these lines, that is they seek to make it
possible to establish very clearly the provinces' jurisdiction in this
sector, which, in any event, comes under provincial jurisdiction.
Yet the federal department wants to pass legislation in this area. We
will allow it, with some extremely important modifications that
will set things out clearly so that the agreement will be a good one.
Immediately after sovereignty is achieved, Quebec will want to
have agreements with the federal government and with the other
provinces. I believe we are capable of demonstrating this with a bill
such as the one we have before us at present.
I do not want to take too much advantage of a good thing this
Thursday, so I shall finish with this, a quote from the Quebec
Minister of the Environment, David Cliche, who put Bill C-65 into
its proper perspective with a concrete example. A bill which seems
very ordinary at first glance, with which everyone ought to agree in
order to protect little sparrows, can have some effects that are
extremely important for the economy of Quebec when it is put into
application.
On November 26, 1996, David Cliche said the following: ``With
Bill C-65, the federal government, under the pretext of protecting
the harlequin duck-to take but one example-could intervene
directly in our energy policy by saying that, in order to protect the
harlequin, the Minister of Natural Resources could exclude a given
river from hydro-electric development and rational use. This is a
flagrant example of federal intervention in our areas of jurisdiction,
an inconceivable intervention, and an unacceptable Canadian
interference in our jurisdiction''.
You see, this is just an ordinary little bill on which everyone
agrees. We must protect the little sparrows, the whales and so on,
from extinction. However, the government could use this to
encroach upon jurisdictions which are even more clearly provincial
and even stall a sector of Quebec's economy, like the example I
gave, for hydro-electric power.
I have almost finished. He also said: ``The federal minister-I
will not name him, because he does-has just introduced in the
House of Commons a bill which has raised concerns in Quebec. I
want to put this into context because it illustrates the difficulties of
federal-provincial relations. Recently I represented Quebec in
Charlottetown and I defended its interests in the area of
environment and wildlife. We had an agreement. We had even
signed an agreement whereby if the federal government introduced
legislation on the protection of endangered species under federal
control, it ought to respect provincial jurisdictions, especially
territorial jurisdiction. We thought we had an agreement with
Ottawa on the following principle, which is simple: If we agree that
a species is endangered, it is the responsibility of the government
which has jurisdiction over the land on which the endangered
species is living to take action to protect its habitat and, hence, the
species itself''.
The minister added: ``The main problem Quebec has with this
bill is that the federal government is changing the rules of the game
completely by no longer establishing that the territory on which a
species lives is also important for determining which jurisdiction
applies. Instead, the federal government is trying to grab more
power by extending the scope of the definition of federal land''.
I could have quoted the minister more extensively, but this short
excerpt allow us to clearly see that there is a problem. It shows
especially that the presence of the Bloc Quebecois in this House is
useful to make the connection between what happens in Quebec
and what happens in Ottawa. Again, the Bloc Quebecois is here to
defend Quebec's interests. We do so very well and we will continue
to do so after the elections.
I thank you for your co-operation and also for your smiling
attention. I believe it was a smile of approval and I thank you for it.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the Group No. 2 amendments to Bill C-65.
In my opinion, the amendments in this second group will not do
very much to fix this legislation, which is clearly flawed. I would
like to present some of the questions that I have received from
farmers and ranchers in my part of the country and from outside of
Alberta as well. I have grouped the questions which I think should
be asked before the bill goes any further.
I will refer to some letters, including a letter from the Alberta
minister of environmental protection, Ty Lund, as well.
10201
What is Bill C-65? It is the government's new endangered
species legislation. It is an attempt, and I think a very sincere
attempt, to protect endangered species. As I go through my
presentation, I am going to comment on what is likely to happen
if this legislation, even as amended, is put in place.
How was the bill born? Where did it come from and why? The
groundwork for Bill C-65 was laid by the Mulroney government at
the Rio conference. In 1992 Canada signed a global agreement that
in part agreed to protect endangered species. Canada agreed to put
some type of legislation in place that would protect endangered
species. I believe this is a response to the commitment made by the
Government of Canada.
However, several things in the process that brought this
legislation to the point it is now really are not acceptable to many
Canadians. Some of them have been expressed by the Bloc
members who feel that the government has really ignored the
wishes of the province of Quebec. That has been backed up by the
Alberta minister of environmental protection, Ty Lund.
I want to read part of the letter he wrote to me regarding this bill.
``I am writing to express my growing concern about the proposed
Bill C-65, the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act. All
provincial and territorial ministers responsible for wildlife in
Canada have identified several major concerns in the bill''.
The Hon. Alan Graham recently wrote to the Minister of the
Environment on behalf of my colleagues and myself outlining
these concerns. I have a copy of that letter. It was referred to earlier
by my colleague from Calgary.
(1635)
The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development has completed its deliberations. Unfortunately, the
majority of the concerns raised were not resolved.
The amendments tabled on March 21, 1997 by the federal
government do not address the issues and leave us with a bill which
destroys the national approach outlined in the national accord for
the protection of species at risk.
The Alberta minister makes clear what is happening. The group
of amendments which we are debating do not answer the questions
and the concerns of the environment minister.
The environment minister went on to say that Alberta is
committed to fulfilling its role, as outlined in the national
framework for the conservation of species at risk. The minister
fully expects to honour the commitments that he made on behalf of
the people of Alberta in that agreement.
He states: ``I believe that the approach of co-operative programs
and the complementary legislation proposed in the framework is
the only way to ensure endangered species conservation''. He goes
on to say that the co-operative framework has not been followed in
the development of this legislation. That has to be a concern. Bloc
members have indicated that it is a concern to them. The New
Brunswick minister who wrote on behalf of all the ministers to the
federal Minister of the Environment made it clear that they are not
happy with the process or the bill. The Alberta minister has
supported that view.
The government has taken a heavy-handed approach. It is the
federal government and it will say how things are run in the country
and to heck with what the people in the provinces feel. This is one
more demonstration of that approach. I understand why Bloc
members are upset. We in Alberta are every bit as upset.
Western Canadians have revolted against the approach taken by
past Liberal and Conservative governments. That is the reason the
Reform Party is here today. We expect the provinces to have more
say in more areas. We expect the federal government to not take
this heavy-handed, interventionist approach which it has taken in
so much legislation, including Bill C-65.
Why are my constituents and others complaining about Bill
C-65? There are many reasons, some of which I outlined this
morning.
Canadians want to protect endangered species with a
co-operative approach. That co-operative approach has worked
very well in the past in dealing with protecting certain species. For
example, it has worked in the burrowing owl project. The Ducks
Unlimited program has done much to build up the duck population.
It has been a co-operative effort. It has not taken heavy-handed
legislation. It has not taken the threat of fines. In this legislation the
fines run up to $1 million. They can be levied against a land owner
or a land user. The co-operative approach has not involved
legislation which would require a land owner to spend money to
fence property which happens to be the habitat of an endangered
species. It has not taken that for Ducks Unlimited to work well or
for the burrowing owl operation to work and other projects like
them. Those people have taken a co-operative approach. This
heavy-handed, interventionist approach is wrong. That is one of the
major reasons people are complaining about this bill.
Another reason is that there is very little allowance for
compensation.
(1640 )
It is totally inadequate. That again could force land owners or
land users to spend money out of their own pocket to fence off an
area to protect an endangered species. Land owners or land users
could lose the productive capability of property with no
compensation. In other words, they can be required to set this
property aside.
10202
They could be kept from using the property yet there is no
compensation.
What kind of country is this where people can be denied the use
of property, lose economically and receive no compensation? That
is unacceptable. That is another thing that the people who I have
talked to are revolting against.
As well, because of the way this legislation is set up, people can
launch anonymous complaints. They can have their identity kept
anonymous, the complaint lodged and action taken against that
landowner or the land user.
Even someone committing a crime as violent as murder has the
right to face the accuser in court and to know who the accuser is.
Yet under this legislation Canadians are being denied that same
right. It is completely inappropriate. That is another thing
Canadians are revolting against when it comes to this bill.
Further, there are the search and seizure measures which are very
similar to those in Bill C-68, the so-called gun bill, which are
unacceptable and which really put aside some of the basic, judicial
procedures we accept in our justice system but that really are not in
this legislation.
This package of amendments in Group No. 2 will do nothing to
deal with any of these concerns in a meaningful way.
The best thing the Liberals could do with this legislation is to let
it die. However, they should learn from it. Should they be
government after the election, they can come forward with new
legislation. If the Reform Party is government, then we will bring
in legislation that will take a much different approach from this
heavy-handed one.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Madam Speaker, my colleague for Beauséjour seems to be
speculating about my chances to be back here, in this House, after
the election. I would like to reassure him. I know he is about to
leave us to assume other duties we do not know anything about yet.
I wish him well. I suspect we will soon have a new Senator
Robichaud in the other place.
That said, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-65 dealing with
endangered species. It is a very serious bill that interferes in areas
of provincial jurisdiction. I will get back to this.
It seems quite fitting to be discussing endangered species just
hours from an election call. I want to draw a parallel with this
absentee government, whose mind is elsewhere these days. One
only has to watch Oral Question Period to realize that the ministers
would rather be doing something else than answering questions.
(1645)
Considering the way this government's piecemeal approach, I
can say, like my colleague from the Reform Party, who just
announced that his party would form the next government, that the
Liberal government opposite is certainly an endangered species
nowadays.
Our fellow citizens across Canada, and particularly in Quebec,
are in a position to know we must get rid of this government. In
fact, I would say the greatest threat is not that this government
could be out, but that it could come back for another mandate, since
we see, as I mentioned earlier, that the main concern of this
government these days is to announce good news that the official
opposition had been demanding throughout its mandate.
This week there was the manpower agreement announced by the
human resources development minister, after 32 years of
negotiations, I might add. If this is not a record in terms of
stretching out negotiations, it is certainly a good average. At this
rate, not many colleagues in this House will see the results of the
next negotiations dealing with who knows what, endangered
species perhaps. At the rate negotiations are going, the very future
of this federal government, of this institution, is in danger.
Consider the intergovernmental affairs minister's attitude when
the Quebec government asked for an amendment to the
Constitution establishing linguistic school boards. The contempt of
this government is obvious as election day nears.
When it is not delaying a decision it should be taking now, such
as the one on linguistic school boards, the government is
announcing amendments to a bill that has yet to receive royal
assent-and I am referring to the tobacco bill. The Prime Minister
has succeeded in this incredible feat of announcing, even before
Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act, received royal assent, that it would be
amended next fall. It is quite an achievement. If ridicule could kill,
we would no longer have a Prime Minister.
That being said, I would like to deal briefly with Bill C-65 to
point out how this bill is right in the tradition of this government. In
their speeches, government members and the Prime Minister, who
is here occasionally for question period, keep harping about how,
these past few years, their government has been most open to the
decentralization of our federation.
But each time the government introduces a new bill, it proves
otherwise. Back home we have an expression for that. We say the
Prime Minister talks from both sides of his mouth. On the one
hand, we are being told the government is more open to
decentralization, but, on the other hand, whenever the government
introduces a bill, like Bill C-65, it tries to centralize even more.
The official opposition objects to this intrusion in a provincial
jurisdiction. In
10203
the area of the protection of endangered species as in many others,
Quebec has already taken its responsibilities.
(1650)
Since 1989, there has been a law concerning endangered species.
There was a consensus in Quebec and all stakeholders asked their
government, the Quebec government, to take action, which it did
by adopting a bill that satisfied the aspirations and desires of the
Quebec people.
It was the same thing in Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick,
the province you are from and of which you are justifiably so
proud, Madam Speaker, which all adopted legislation on
endangered species.
But the federal government, as it usually does, decided not to
take into account the desire of the provinces to take things into their
own hands and solve their problems by talking to each other to
ensure that their respective laws are in sync. But no, the federal
government decided to barge in and take this area of jurisdiction
away from the provinces so it could impose its own views and
decisions.
That is the essence of that bill. That is why the official
opposition will take its responsibilities and defend Quebecers'
interests as it always does when Quebec's jurisdiction is
questioned, when Quebec's interests are threatened. And I know,
Madam Speaker, that you are proud of the official opposition. We
will vote against this bill and ensure that it will die on the Order
Paper, so that we will not hear about it anymore, not only during the
election campaign, but ever again.
I would also like to point out that the government, by invading
this field of jurisdiction, is creating more problems than it is
solving, as is usually the case. It would have been much more
productive and efficient if the government had simply asked the
provinces to reach an agreement in this matter, if it had recognized
that a lot of work had already been done since similar laws have
been adopted in Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick and of course
Quebec, in 1989. The enforcement of these laws takes necessarily
into account the needs of the people.
Madam Speaker, you are indicating that my time has expired.
Since I respect the rules of the House, I will comply with your
order and end my speech.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak to Bill C-65 and the Group No. 2 amendments
before us that reference habitat and other necessities to protect
endangered species across the nation.
The bill is asking for a balance in legislation across the country.
It is also asking for co-operative federalism where provincial
government, municipal governments and local agencies are able to
work with our national government and at the same time co-operate
with other countries touched by bird migration across the
continent. That may even involve the rest of North America, South
America and other adjacent lands that form part of the bird
migration patterns of the world.
When I think of one side of the balance where we must do
everything possible to protect the endangered species, in terms of a
cause it is good and noble we are working toward that. When we
consider the aspect of protecting endangered species, we must
ensure we take into consideration the players that will be involved.
Private land owners, provincial lands, federal lands and adjacent
nations need co-operative agreements.
(1655)
I have looked at the legislation and have considered some of the
content of the amendments in terms of habitat. Recently I saw a
discussion of the specific bill on television. The person on the side
of protecting all endangered species made a noteworthy comment
at the time. He said that the legislation provided for protection of
birds if they land in national parks, on federal buildings or on
Parliament Hill. I thought maybe that was the way it was.
Subsequently I received a letter from the Minister of
Environment, as have other members of this assembly, in which he
outlined the concerns of the provinces. He indicated that Bill C-65
was more encompassing than just federal lands, national parks,
federal buildings across the nation and Parliament Hill. The
legislation was actually intervening, overlapping and interfering
with provincial jurisdiction and responsibility. That is a major
violation by the federal minister.
The federal minister signed an accord with the provinces on
September 25, 1996 called ``A National Framework for the
Conservation of Species at Risk''. The accord was signed with the
idea provinces would be able to administer, take the major
responsibility and be independent from the federal government for
writing legislation that would take away from the autonomy of the
provinces or their responsibilities. An agreement was reached by
all the provinces.
They agreed to participate in the Canadian Endangered Species
Conservation Council to co-ordinate activities and resolve issues
for the protection of species at risk in Canada.
They agreed to recognize the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada as a source of independent advice
on the status of species at risk nationally and to establish
complementary legislation and programs that provide for effective
protection of species at risk throughout Canada.
The agreement listed a long list of specific kinds of things the
provinces would commit to doing. They would refer any disputes
that may arise under the accord to the Canadian Endangered
Species Conservation Council for discussion.
10204
The provinces agreed, with the expectation that federal Minister
of the Environment would write legislation to facilitate that kind
of co-operation. That did not happen.
Subsequently we received letters from the Minister of the
Environment, as mentioned by my colleagues from Vegreville and
Calgary North, indicating that the federal government did not live
up to its commitment and has written legislation that duplicates and
adds to the legal tangles or actions to be put in place by regulations
to protect endangered species. That is unacceptable.
In a time when provinces have matured to a point where they can
take on responsibilities such as these, we should decentralize and
give them the responsibilities. If there needs to be umbrella
legislation to facilitate co-ordination or to fill in some of the
blanks, the legislation would be acceptable.
(1700 )
As the chairman of the provincial ministers, the minister from
one of the maritime provinces points out very clearly that Bill
C-65, even with the amendments of groups one to four and those
introduced by the government to try to deal with matter, falls short
of co-operative federalism. It is just not there. The minister, the
government and the Liberal caucus have missed the point being
made by the provinces.
Recently there has been similar legislation to try to foster
co-operation between the federal Minister of the Environment and
the provincial ministers of environment. The legislation dealt with
a variety of developments that would take place on the rivers of
Alberta or on any other river across this nation.
The province of Alberta wanted to put a dam on a river. We went
through about 20 years of studies and hearings. Finally we decided
to build a dam on the Oldman River in the Three Rivers area. At the
point when the decision was made and construction had even
started, the federal Tory government found a piece legislation to
allow it to intervene and start the whole process of hearings again.
It cost a lot of money and delay. Fortunately the provincial
government was able to work through that and proceed with the
building of the dam, which will be a great asset to our province for
many years ahead.
The lesson we learned was that the federal government had
duplicate legislation that added difficulty to the process. It
complicated and delayed the project, and it cost many dollars for
the province of Alberta to answer interveners and so on and
delayed construction. We learned a lesson. The legislation was
changed.
The federal government was able to write legislation that
avoided overlap and duplication. We thought the House of
Commons learned something but I guess it has not. With Bill C-65,
the federal government has written legislation that infringes on the
rights and responsibilities of provinces. I do not know if the
bureaucrats are at fault or who it is. You would think we would
have learned something and would not do that again.
I recommend in my remarks, which are probably my final
remarks with regard to this legislation, that the government rethink
its position. If it really wants to work with the provinces, as it says
clearly in this supporting document which was passed around to all
members of Parliament, then it better back off and put in place
some kind of umbrella legislation that facilitates the provinces in
doing their job. Then there would be no overlap or intervening
process to take away from local autonomy.
How can this kind of thing work for farmers who are affected? A
major concern of my constituents is that if an endangered species is
found on a piece of land, no compensation is listed here. The
government only promises that a person who provides land for
conservation will be recognized for that. It will be a donation of
environmentally sensitive land and a partnership.
My final statement is this. Why should one individual landowner
have to take all of the cost to provide the land? That is the
responsibility of all Canadians when endangered species are being
protected.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask you to please check if there is a quorum.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Regan): Quorum call? Ring the bells,
please.
(1710 )
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We have
quorum.
(1715)
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-65.
I want to point out right off that the bill before us exemplifies
this government's approach to all legislation. Having sat here for
some time now, we in the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois,
have accumulated a fair amount of knowledge about parliamentary
life. We are more experienced. This is the result of three and a half
years of parliamentary debate. And now we have a new ability: the
ability to assess, based on facts, to what extent the legislation
passed by the Liberal Government of Canada complies with the
provisions of the Constitution and respects provincial jurisdiction.
Since it took office, this Liberal government tried repeatedly,
through several bills tabled in this House, to meddle in areas of
provincial responsibility, ignoring their respective jurisdictions as
well as the terms of federal-provincial agreements. In addition, as I
was able to see for myself while participating in several debates on
10205
the reorganization of the Department of Industry, the Federal
Office of Regional Development, the Federal Business
Development Bank, now the Business Development Bank of
Canada, this government took every opportunity, every time a bill
was introduced, to give itself, the department or the minister
responsible more powers, thereby gaining more and more control
in recognized areas of provincial jurisdiction, without going
through the federal-provincial consultation process.
You will understand that, with the legislative experience it has
gained, the official opposition now knows how to get in the way of
the government's efforts to take powers away from the provinces
by disregarding provincial jurisdictions.
What does the government propose today? Bill C-65, the Canada
Endangered Species Protection Act. I want to make four general
observations before dealing more specifically with the bill.
First, when we read the bill, we realize that, as usual, the
provinces' jurisdiction and responsibilities are completely ignored
and overlooked.
Later on, I will point out some major contradictions by referring
to statements made in the red book, and also by the environment
ministers, both the former one, who is now the Deputy Prime
Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, and the current one.
This government, which always claims to want to co-operate and to
establish partnerships with the provinces, does just the opposite
with its bills. This government tries to get its hands on power. It
gives itself special powers, at the expense of the partners it claims
to respect.
Second, this bill does not take into account the sharing of
powers. The sharing of powers in areas that come under provincial
jurisdiction has always been a burden for the federal government.
(1720)
Even though the government tries, as it has always done, to
convince Quebecers of its desire to create a partnership with them,
it invariably comes up with bills that give increased power to its
ministers, or that confirm such power.
The provisions of the bill make it clear that the minister is giving
himself a very broad discretionary power. This from a government
which always claims to seek partnerships with others. Yet, it gives
itself, through its own mechanisms, its department and its minister,
very broad discretionary powers. In fact, after the talks on the
internal trade agreement, this government went so far as to add to
the bill things that had not even been mentioned in the discussions
with the provincial ministers.
But such is the way of this government. We all know that.
Everyone knows the federal Liberal government, particularly in
Quebec, given its pattern of the last 30 years, which consists in
promising one thing but doing just the opposite once in office.
This bill provides that the minister will appoint COSEWIC
members. Later, I will define the COSEWIC, this committee set up
to protect endangered species. The minister alone will make these
appointments. It gives himself the power to do so. This government
shares everything but, in the end, it always includes a little clause
saying that ``as a minister, I will appoint those who will sit on the
committee''. In discussions between the ministers and the
provinces, they always say ``we are acting in good faith, we will
make sure that everyone is represented, that there is representation
from all parts of the country and everyone is included''.
So what happens? They table a bill in which the minister has the
authority to appoint people without consulting his partners. Is that
partnership? Is that respect? They said in the course of discussions
and negotiations that they would reach an agreement on committee
membership. So the bill is tabled, and what does it say? It says the
minister will appoint the members himself.
Mr. Robichaud: While respecting all parties concerned.
Perhaps Bloc members are not mentioned, but that does not mean
that-
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): The minister will determine
his own powers. I heard my Liberal colleague react, obviously,
because the truth is not always pleasant to hear. Earlier, the hon.
member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead welcomed our
colleague, who will probably be appointed senator one of these
days. The Liberals need people to get a majority in the Senate and
ensure they control the proceedings. They need people who are
dedicated, and our colleague, this very lively Acadian, will
probably be one of several future senators, and more power to him.
Not only will the minister determine who will be appointed, but
the bill on threatened and endangered species also says that the
minister even has the power to decide which species will be
designated as threatened or endangered. No ifs or buts. Some
provinces and organizations across Canada have been involved in
this for a long time, since 1978, but I will get back to that. And the
minister proposes federal legislation that did not exist before.
Provincial legislation exists in Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick
and Manitoba. But for the first time, the federal government goes
and walks all over an area which, as far as jurisdiction is
concerned, belongs to the provinces. So what does it do? It not only
tables legislation but gives the minister the power to circumvent
everyone and decide for himself which species will be designated
threatened or endangered.
10206
(1725)
He will also have the power to decide whether or not to
implement recovery plans once species are designated. He will
have the decisive vote.
Madam Speaker, you are signalling my time is up, although I
thought I had 20 minutes. May I have the unanimous consent of the
House to finish my speech? If there is unanimous consent, I would
like to continue my speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Does the hon.
member have unanimous consent to proceed? I remind the House
we have only five minutes left.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): I can finish my speech in
five minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There is no
unanimous consent.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Democracy has spoken on
the other side; the name of democracy on the other side is no.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Cheap!
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Theirs is a no society, a
negative society.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I thought it would be appropriate to say a few words on
the endangered species act. I am tempted to make references to
those across the way, with the election coming and so on. I could
get into it for ages and we would all have great fun with it.
This is a very serious bill. It is always difficult when there is a
certain amount of emotion involved. We want to protect animals,
wildlife and various endangered species in the country. We do not
want to see anything being harmed or eradicated, not even
members over there. We have to keep a few of them around. I
cannot keep myself away from it.
There are problems with a bill like this one. The government
may have intended to come out with something very meaningful
and something very worthwhile in terms of protecting endangered
species. However, either because it was ill conceived or because for
some reason it was put out the way it was, we have problems with
it. People in communities, business, different organization and
sports groups have problems with the bill.
In a lot of other government legislation I have discovered
through the committees I have sat on that there seems to be a very
bad tendency. It is a style of government that caused me to get into
government to hopefully see some change in it. There are
committee meetings to study legislation at that level and to get
input from people who say what they like or do not like and what
they want included, yet the government is not prepared to listen.
I have participated in a couple of studies by committees when
the input from the population, the voters, the taxpayers, has been
overwhelming and the government for whatever reason chose to
ignore it. I do not know why the government spends the money it
does for consultation with the public if it is not prepared to listen.
We heard a lot of concerns raised by industry, ranchers, farmers
and people who go into the woods for recreation. Even they feel
they may have problems.
We put forward a lot of amendments. We want to support the bill
but we simply cannot do so in its present form. We get into a real
conundrum when the government says it is doing this to protect
endangered species and anybody voting against it does not want to
protect them. That is not true.
In their heart of hearts members know that. It might be a little
difficult for them to admit it on the eve of the election but they
understand it. When we return to the House after the election in
whatever make-up it is, maybe we can learn to work a little better
together. I hope government, whichever government it is, will
bring forward legislation and will listen to people. Hopefully it will
listen to the points raised by the opposition and the public but it
does not mean they will be automatically accepted. Sometimes of
course there are at least two points of view in the public domain.
These things have to be considered.
(1730)
There were a lot of good amendments brought forward on this
bill and they were rejected out of hand. That is very unfortunate.
Had the government made these amendments to the bill, it would
have found support. We could have moved the bill through the
House quickly, even on the eve of the election.
I hope when we return after the election that those members
opposite will have learned to co-operate, perhaps with the
opposition or perhaps as the opposition. I shall look forward to that.
_____________________________________________
10206
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.) moved that Bill C-375,
an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
10207
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-375,
which would allow the completion of the agreement on internal
trade.
The agreement on internal trade was signed in 1994. At that time
several deadlines were set by the legislation. Almost all the
deadlines have passed and agreement has not been reached. Clearly
there is a problem which must be dealt with. It is important that we
complete this agreement.
I would like to explain what this bill would do. First I will give a
little background on the events which led to the agreement on
internal trade and the implementation bill, which is the legislation
that Bill C-375 would amend to allow the completion of the
agreement on internal trade.
If we take a look at the sequence of events we will see that the
committee on internal trade is comprised of trade ministers from
federal, provincial and territorial governments. The agreement on
internal trade, as I mentioned, was signed in 1994 by the federal,
provincial and territorial governments. The agreement states that
all governments will commit to work together to break down
barriers to internal trade. That is the basic principle of the
agreement on internal trade. The barriers which prevent free trade
between the provinces will be brought down.
We live in a country which has free trade agreements with the
United States and Mexico. Goods move relatively freely between
the countries, yet we have barriers between provinces which do not
allow the free movement of goods. Clearly that is unacceptable.
The present formula that the committee uses to reach an
agreement, whether it is an agreement on completing the deal or an
agreement on the dispute settlement mechanism, is a formula of
unanimity. In other words, the agreement on internal trade
stipulates that a consensus is required. However, consensus is not
defined. The way this committee has chosen to interpret consensus
is unanimous consent. Most areas are left incomplete after almost
three years. To complete any area it requires unanimous consent
from the federal government, the representatives from the
provinces and the representatives from the territories.
(1735)
When was the last time we had unanimous consent on any type
of an agreement like that in this country, a consent which in some
cases may cause some difficulties with certain groups in the
provinces? Although, all provinces and territories have agreed that
completing the agreement on internal trade will make things better
for those living in every province.
Unanimously all governments involved have agreed that
completion of the agreement on internal trade will make things
better and yet the completion has not happened.
Clearly this unanimous consent formula is not going to work.
My private member's bill, Bill C-73, simply changes the formula
and puts in place the Reform policy on this issue. Instead of
requiring unanimous consent it will require consent of at least
two-thirds of the provinces and territories which includes at least
50 per cent of the population.
Then when the provinces are negotiating settlement in any one of
these areas that are left incomplete the impossible task of getting
unanimous consent will be removed and instead the requirement
will be there for agreement from a majority of provinces and
territories including a majority of Canadians, which is a much more
reasonable formula and a formula which I believe if implemented
would lead to the completion of the agreement on internal trade in
all areas. There are many experts who agree with that, as I will
demonstrate later.
I would like to read through the actual Reform policy on this
issue. The policy is that in order to break the deadlock which has
prevented the completion of the agreement on internal trade and the
removal of internal trade barriers, the Reform Party proposes to
amend the approval formula of the committee on internal trade,
used to approve sections of the agreement on internal trade and the
dispute settlement mechanism, by replacing the requirement for
unanimous consent with the following. First, allow the current
unanimity base voting formula, eight months, to resolve the
deadlock experienced in completing the agreement on internal
trade. Let us give the unanimous consent formula another try but
limit it to eight months.
Second, if sections of the internal trade agreement remain
unresolved after eight months, then the unanimous ratification
formula will be replaced by a formula which allows ratification on
the basis of at least two-thirds of the provinces and territories
representing at least 50 per cent of the Canadian population.
Third, if sections of the agreement are not completed within one
year of implementing the two-thirds/fifty formula, the federal
government shall move unilaterally to use its constitutional powers
to complete the agreement on internal trade.
Clearly the change proposed in my private member's bill will
lead to the completion of the agreement on internal trade in all
sectors. The impact of that will be dramatic indeed.
I will speak a little on the possible impact. I will refer to several
experts in this area and different groups which have found this to be
such an important issue that they have written substantial
documents outlining what they feel the impact of removing the
barriers would be on Canadians.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce in a substantial document
released approximately a year ago said that just by increasing trade
10208
between provinces by 10 per cent would lead to 200,000 new jobs
in Canada.
(1740 )
We know the Liberal government has failed on its promise to
deliver jobs. The unemployment rate has been above 9 per cent for
so many months that people have lost count, the highest level since
the Great Depression.
We have had this situation where the unemployment rate has
stayed above 9 per cent and the government has not done what it
should to complete the agreement. I know that the Minister of
Industry would like to see the agreement completed. I believe he is
sincere in wanting that. It is so hard to figure why it has not
happened when the agreement was signed almost three years ago.
I think 200,000 jobs would be some incentive for the
government to get serious about completing the deal. However, it
has not happened. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is
disappointed.
The Fraser Institute put out a substantial paper on the issue. It
said that trade barriers between provinces costs Canadian families
$3,500 a year. Again, it is so difficult to understand why the
government would not work hard to remove the barriers. As we
know, since it came to power in 1993, the average Canadian
household income has dropped by $3,000. If this agreement had
been implemented in 1994 after it was signed by the provinces the
$3,000 that was lost to these Canadian families would have been
replaced with increased income resulting from the removal of these
barriers.
It is difficult to understand why the government has not taken
this more seriously.
Other think tanks and groups that have studied the issue have
determined that these interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadian
companies and Canadians between $6 billion and $10 billion a
year. That is a lot of income because of a problem that should not
be there and which really makes no sense.
We have the agreement that was signed in 1994, a formula that
clearly does not work. However, after three years nothing has been
done about it.
On speaking to representatives from the different provinces I
know many provinces are absolutely committed to the completion
of the agreement. Granted, most provinces have certain areas they
are really concerned about because the province may be a net loser
in a particular segment of its economy. But each province has
recognized that overall the people would benefit from the removal
of the barriers. There may be some losers in each province, but the
numbers and the amounts lost would be very small compared to the
net gain in each province.
What have the Liberals said on this issue? We can look at their
red book where this was mentioned. In both throne speeches it was
said that it was important to remove barriers to interprovincial
trade. The 1996 prebudget report from the finance committee had a
section on the removal of interprovincial trade barriers which
acknowledged the impact on the economy and on jobs by removing
these barriers to trade. Yet what has been done? Clearly not enough.
The barriers are still there.
The industry minister introduced Bill C-88, an act to implement
the agreement on interprovincial trade. The act passed third reading
in the House in June 1996.
(1745 )
I do not know why the lag in time between the agreement being
completed in 1994 and the implementation legislation being passed
in 1996. It does not really show a commitment on the part of the
government that match the words it used in the red book and in its
throne speeches. Clearly the two do not gibe. I cannot answer why.
However, it does show a huge failure on the part of the industry
minister.
If I were running against the industry minister in his Ottawa
riding I would be out talking about the barriers to the free
movement of labour into Quebec. Quebec labour has a lot more
freedom to move people to work in Ontario but it is pretty much a
one way street. I would be telling all the potential voters in the
minister's Ottawa riding about this and about the failures of the
industry minister in this area.
He spoke the words, signed the agreement in 1994 and finally in
1996 got around to passing the implementation agreement.
However, that is where it stalled. Deadline after deadline has
passed, deadlines that were supposed to lead to the completion of
the agreement, but it has not happened. I do not know why but I
would be out there bringing that up in the minister's riding.
Why are barriers to interprovincial trade so harmful? Why does
it cost who knows how many jobs? It is enough that 200,000 jobs
would be created if trade increased by 10 per cent. There are
several reasons. Just imagine being a company in Canada. I have
talked with the CEOs of several companies in Canada that want to
do business with people and businesses in other provinces.
However, they find the barriers to trade between the provinces and
the territories do not allow that to happen freely.
In fact, they say that they have far more access to companies and
people in the United States than they do with people and businesses
in other provinces. Some top notch companies in this country, high
tech in some cases, have told me that they should be moving to the
United States because if they operated there they would have free
access to all provinces, something they do not have operating from
one province of Canada. Is that not absurd? However, that is what
we have.
10209
I have also spoken to the owners of companies that have moved
to the United States. They just gave up. They wanted to do
business with all of Canada but there are too many barriers under
the current system. By moving their companies to the United
States they were able to do business much easier and in a less
expensive manner with all provinces freely. That is the kind of
absurdity that these barriers produce. We are losing jobs as a result
of these barriers being in place.
A second way that these barriers really have an incredible
negative impact on companies is on the small companies that want
to do business internationally so they can grow. I have companies
like that in my constituency. A prime example is a company that
manufactures tanks in Lloydminster, Universal Industries. It has
complained it is so difficult to do business in Saskatchewan.
Lloydminster is a border city. The business is in a city that
straddles the border between Alberta and Saskatchewan. To do
business in Saskatchewan it has to jump through so many hoops
that it is hurting its business. It would be able to operate a lot more
effectively if it went to the United States where it would have open
access to all Canadian provinces.
We have to get rid of these barriers. Canadians can no longer
afford the jobs that are lost. They can no longer afford the $6 billion
to $10 billion that is lost each year as a result of these barriers being
in place. They can no longer afford the loss in family income of
$3,500 a year. That income would replace the $3,000 per family a
year that has been lost as a result of Liberal policies. This one
change would go an awful long way to removing these barriers and
to allowing the benefits of jobs, the benefits of added income, the
benefits of added take home pay and the benefits of businesses
growing in the country so that they can compete better in other
countries.
(1750)
These benefits are being denied due to a lack of action on the
part of the government. I have taken the action necessary here. This
private member's bill, should it ever be enacted, would go a long
way toward the elimination of these barriers.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-375, an
act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.
I would like to thank the hon. member for his hard work in
presenting his case to support this.
This bill reflects worthy intentions and concerns which I am sure
the hon. member will share. Most of us in the House are very
directly aware of the importance of trade to Canada. Each of us
represents constituents who are in some way involved in trade, be it
business, banking, retailing, agriculture, construction or some
other exchange of goods and services, capital or labour. Canada is a
trading nation.
Trade, the efficient exploitation of our natural resources and
effective use of our innate abilities and skills, has enabled us to
grow and prosper both as individuals and as a nation. We trade,
both internationally and internally.
Internationally, we operate in an increasingly exciting world
market, one that is continuing to become more and more open,
dynamic and demanding. We have benefited, and will continue to
benefit, from the opening of that market and the opportunities it
gives us to sell and to make the best of ourselves and what we have.
Internally, we are blessed with being an economic union that has
a high degree of coherence and integration. The relative openness,
freedom and efficiency of our domestic market, compared to
international markets in many other parts of the world, has served
us well. Our internal trade is worth over $300 billion a year and
accounts for 1.9 million jobs.
In many, indeed most, areas or sectors of economic activity, our
internal market has made it possible to develop the abilities and to
increase the areas of competitive advantage, expertise and
experience. It has given Canadians, business and industry the basis
on which to become strong and effective competitors in both
foreign markets and against foreigners and foreign suppliers here at
home.
That said, it remains evident that our domestic market is not
quite perfect. In the past, national business, industry and
professional associations have cited numerous examples of
companies, businesses or individuals being unable to invest or
supply goods or services in certain parts of the country.
Many individual workers have found that their ability to work
anywhere in the country is hampered by the fact that some local
authorities refuse to recognize their qualifications, skills or
experience. Such problems are not unnatural where jurisdiction
over trade, commerce and economic matters are shared between
different levels of government.
That was one of the reasons why the federal, provincial and
territorial governments negotiated the agreement on internal trade
in 1994. That agreement reflected the readiness of governments in
Canada to try to deal with the problems of conflict, overlap and
duplication of their measures without entering into discussion of,
or affecting, their respective constitutional powers. The substance
of that argument treats how governments agreed to exercise their
respective powers. It does not change those powers.
The agreement on internal trade, as the minister of industry
emphasized in 1994, was a consensual agreement. It is important to
remember in considering this bill that the basis of the agreement on
internal trade was voluntary acceptance by each of the
governments that signed it. That is the main reason for the
weaknesses and shortcomings of the agreement and perhaps why it
has failed to
10210
live up to the expectations of many since it came into effect in July
1995.
Those weaknesses have been analysed and reported a great deal
in the last year. The hon. member who proposed the bill before us
has elaborated on several at length and on numerous occasions.
What he has said is not without basis and many of his criticisms of
the agreement are backed in very respectable and respected
quarters.
(1755)
When they testified before the House committee concerning the
Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act, the Canadian
Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association,
the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada and
others all identified a range of problem areas: the decision making
process; the dispute settlement mechanism; the exceptions and
exemptions; the putting off of issues to future negotiations; and the
failure to meet the deadlines set for those negotiations.
The intent of this bill is to correct at least one of those problem
areas, the decision making process. Unfortunately the proposed
changes cannot accomplish that. Indeed, no action by this House
alone can change that agreement.
The question might be asked then, why did the government
introduce the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act last
year and why was it passed into law? The short answer is that the
legislation the House passed was necessary to give the government
the tools it needed to meet its own responsibilities, obligations, and
commitments under the agreement.
The fundamental flaw of the bill before us is that it fails to
recognize that simple fact. The legislation could not and did not
pretend to make the agreement binding on any of the other parties.
The provinces and the territories are bound to the agreement on
internal trade by their acceptance of and signature to that accord.
Changing the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act, as
the bill proposes, could not affect how the agreement works.
This bill is inappropriate because it fails to recognize that the
agreement on internal trade is a consensual agreement and not just
a federal creation. Besides that, the proposed amendment is
unviable because it is based on simplistic analysis and cloudy
assumptions regarding constitutional powers. It unwittingly mixes
apples and oranges where it joins the exercise of federal
constitutional powers with proposals being negotiated among the
provinces in the context of the agreement on internal trade.
Many, if not most, matters under the jurisdiction of the
agreement are sectors or areas where jurisdiction is shared with the
provinces. Some areas are exclusively within provincial
constitutional power. Where provinces are negotiating a proposal
but one or more do not agree, this bill would have the federal
government impose a majority view on all.
If the matter under negotiation were clearly or even arguably
within provincial jurisdiction, the ability of the government to
impose a solution would at best be open to challenge in the courts.
Instead of being a way around the impasse, this amendment is more
likely a recipe for protracted legal wrangling. It could make
matters worse, but the intention of the person submitting this bill
are honourable.
Even if, suspending all critical faculties, we were to allow that
the kind of action envisaged by this amendment might be legally
sustainable, it is not necessary. The government already has the
power to regulate under sections 91 and 121 of the Constitution Act
where it considers that doing so would be desirable and practical.
Not only would the amendment be unnecessary but it would have
the perverse effect of restricting government's ability to act in the
national interest by limiting its powers in two ways.
First, the amendment makes the exercise of that power
contingent on a majority of the provinces being in favour. The
government's record in consulting interested parties before taking
action speaks for itself. However, limiting our ability to take
actions in areas within our jurisdiction to the approval of the
majority of provinces as this bill would do is an unreasonable and
unnecessary constraint.
Second, the amendment would further constrain the
government's ability to take action in circumstances where both
sections 91 and 121 of the Constitution Act would be invoked.
Given the intent of the bill, the specific linkage would limit even
further the practical scope of the kind the government action
envisaged. It is difficult to determine whether that particular
linkage is intentional or inadvertent. It is certainly poor drafting.
It is clear that there are several reasons this bill does not merit
the support of the House. First and foremost it is not viable. It is
inappropriate. It is unnecessary. It is poorly conceived and drafted.
But the intent is honourable.
(1800 )
There is another reason this bill is wanting. It is coercive and
divisive in a context where co-operation is necessary to achieve
practical results for workers and companies.
In summary, this bill would amend section 9 of the Agreement
on Internal Trade Implementation Act, the section that gives the
government authority to make orders pursuant to the dispute
settlement procedures of the agreement on internal trade. The
intent is to fix unilaterally a major AIT weakness by applying to or
in all provinces any measure under negotiation in the AIT on
which the provinces cannot reach consensus but for which there is
10211
majority support, that is, two-thirds of the province and 50 per cent
of the population.
The bill misconstrues both the nature of the AIT and the real
scope for unilateral action under federal constitutional powers.
New personnel and financial resources would probably be required
to enforce any regulations made under the agreement.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to see you in the Chair. It is now my turn to speak to Bill
C-375, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade
Implementation Act.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that amendments can be
made, even if they do not have the approval of all the provinces, by
having a system in which at least two thirds of the provinces
representing 50 per cent of the population would be enough to
make these amendments.
It is a bit much to see that, on the one hand, they say no to a bill
promoting trade between the provinces, something that should
benefit the provinces, and that here in Ottawa, they want to pass a
bill to impose interprovincial trade on the provinces against their
will. There is something wrong here. Obviously, it smacks of the
old logic that Ottawa has a monopoly on truth: ``We know what is
good for you, and we will make sure that is what you get''.
What is worse, this is not the only sector in which this refrain
comes up. We know very well that, when you talk about seven
provinces and 50 per cent of the population, seeing how a
consensus is arrived at in Canada, Quebec is often left standing on
its own and often gets a raw deal.
I am surprised to see a Reform member sponsoring this bill.
Three and a half years ago, when we first arrived here, I recall
meeting these members at a luncheon designed to help us get to
know each other's respective positions a bit better and being told
they were for decentralization.
I think they are getting ready to deliver the same message during
the next election campaign, but it is not very consistent with what
we see here: ``Yes, Canada must be decentralized, the provinces
must be given more power, and so on. The provinces are in the best
position to decide what is good for their future''.
On one of the very last bills in private members' business, we
heard a member of this same party say: ``No, in the end we are
changing course and siding with the Liberals''. It is unbelievable
how Ottawa can change people in a few years. This seems to be a
dynamic that runs through all of the federal machinery. For us, this
is a highly centralizing trend, one with no consideration for the
provinces. Once again, there is talk of putting in place clauses in
favour of domestic trade.
It is common knowledge today that, in the world of politics, the
world of economics, and the world in general, people know that
this is an era of opening up borders and encouraging the free
circulation of goods and services, of capital, or of individuals.
When it is good for economic activity, people reach agreement and
liberalize trade.
So why would this be done against the will of some people? Why
at some point would it be said: ``No, some provinces do not agree,
but we are still going to impose this decision upon them, because
Ottawa has decided it would be a good thing to do''?
How could the federal government decide something is good,
and a province decide otherwise? What gives it more right to
decide what is good and what is not?
This represents a return to that political paternalism that exists in
Ottawa, that supremacy some people want to give this Parliament
over the provinces.
(1805)
This bill is hard to accept. I am certain that this desire for
centralization which we often see expressed here will be one of the
issues openly discussed in the coming weeks, and will go beyond
domestic trade.
I come from a region of Quebec, Témiscamingue, in Abitibi, a
magnificent region I would invite you to visit if you have the
opportunity. The people in the regions are increasingly anxious for
decentralization, and not just toward the provinces. For us, when
we in Abitibi-Témiscamingue speak of decentralization, we think
of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, not necessarily of decentralization only
toward the provinces.
We know, for instance, that all federal regional development
agencies have become agencies for political propaganda. They say
they are there to help businesses become more competitive. In fact,
the provinces already have similar structures. In the regions we are
trying to have our own tools. We want to control these tools for
economic development and we want to see them used by people, by
our businesses where they are needed.
There are regions in Quebec and Canada which specialize in
certain fields. In the agricultural sector this varies considerably.
Some provinces are much better in the dairy sector and in poultry
and egg production, while other provinces are good in beef and
there are even different regions within these provinces.
The point is that the decision making power should be much
closer to the grassroots. We have natural units and territories that
have formed over the years. That is where the real power should be.
They are close to the people. It is normal for national policies to be
determined in parliaments. We hope that will be the case in the
Parliament of Quebec, obviously. Everyone knows we are
sovereignists and that we believe the national Parliament should be
the
10212
Parliament of Quebec, but we must decentralize to let our regions
manage their own development.
So we have a measure that goes in the opposite direction. Ottawa
is going to decide how interprovincial trade will be conducted, if it
is to implement provisions that promote trade. However, there may
be major differences of opinion. What about construction or
government procurement?
In fact, there is quite a discussion going on in Quebec around this
bill. We have dairy producers challenging the provisions on
margarine colouring and butter. This is quite an issue. There are
provincial authorities which are also accountable to the voters and
as a result under pressure to do something.
I do not understand why people who are profoundly federalist
and say they want to decentralize want all this to be decided here in
Ottawa. We should leave it up to the provinces. When the provinces
think it would be useful, they can conclude bilateral trade
agreements. They can also enter into agreements among
themselves. When all this has been done, then the government can
go ahead but it should not impose such agreements, and this applies
to both economic issues and constitutional issues.
The seven and fifty formula, which involves imposing on others,
is certainly not the way to build and develop a country. This is what
will happen in the coming years to bring us back to the situation
that has long existed. Canada and Quebec will be two different
entities, but imposing things against the will of one of the two
founding peoples will mean political catastrophe for Canada.
I therefore do not recommend this route, except for Canada's
own future within its own provinces. If it obviously works for
everyone, people will agree at that point.
In conclusion, I simply want to mention as well that it is
important to understand Canada's trade dynamic, which is much
more along north-south lines now than east-west. So trade is
developing more toward the south now. I know there is a certain
nostalgia. Some want trade to go along east-west lines, even force
it to do so to some extent. This is perhaps the desire underlying all
that. We all know that trade is now naturally developing much
more between north and south.
(1810)
I close by expressing my great disappointment at the 180 degree
about-face taken by a member of the Reform Party. I can hardly
wait to watch these members explain their support for
decentralization in the upcoming elections, when the aim of this
bill is totally the opposite.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could make a ruling
from the chair as to whether it is all right to call you Mr. Speaker
while you are in the chair because Mr. Speaker is Mr. Speaker. Is it
all right to address you in that manner, Mr. Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge)): On the hon.
member's point of order, I want to make it very clear that Mr.
Speaker is Mr. Speaker and I hope the hon. member will adhere to
that understanding.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to address you as the Speaker today. It is a temporary
honour, but I must say you do look good in the chair.
I want to talk for a few minutes about this private member's
initiative by the member for Vegreville. He has put together the
essence of the Reform Party's position on internal trade barriers
into one neat package.
This bill will not become law and we are not going to have a
chance to vote on it. However, this bill is important because it
details what we would do if we were to form the government, or
perhaps I should say when we form the government.
The Reform Party says there are 10 roles the federal government
must maintain and in fact should strengthen in order to encourage a
strong national government. One of the areas in which it should be
strong is in the ability to strike down internal trade barriers.
The federal government should be involved in 10 essential areas.
If we are going to have a nation, then we have to have a strong
federal government. One of areas is the ability to regulate
international trade or to enter into international trade agreements.
Other areas are national defence, customs, the justice system and
so on. Some areas are obvious but one many people do not think
about is the ability to strike down internal trade barriers. If we
cannot have a common trading market in our own country, how can
we keep our country together? Economic ties will help us keep this
country together.
One of the disappointments has been the inability of the Liberal
government to conclude an internal trade agreement. The
framework agreement is there and it sounds good. We were all very
excited when in 1994 the government brought forward this internal
trade agreement. We supported it. We thought that good, this is
what we have been saying all along. The Reform Party has been
firm on this from the beginning; it never changed its view. We must
have a strong ability to strike down internal trade barriers.
But what do we see? All the easy ones are done right away. It is
easy to talk about a few parts of the trade agreement, but when it
comes to the tough stuff, the ones which grate between provinces,
look what has not been signed. There are blank pages on the energy
10213
side. There are blank pages on the agriculture side, another
contentious issue. There are blank pages when it comes to
municipalities and academic institutions, the so-called MASH
group. There are blank pages in the natural resources sector.
There must be a free trade zone between the provinces but the
federal government allows these trade barriers to stand. What is the
cost of that? A lower standard of living and less trade between
provinces. It is ironic that it is sometimes easier to trade north and
south, as far down as Mexico in my part of the country, than it is to
have free trade between the provinces. What a sad development.
Is it any wonder that the federal government relies almost
exclusively on the export market for job creation. And I do too. I
love export markets. It is a great opportunity for export companies.
There is a danger in that. All job growth, for example, has been in
the export market. There has been no job growth in Canada of any
kind in the domestic market.
(1815)
What kind of a message does that send down the road? What if
there is an international downturn? That can happen and will
happen. It is inevitable that it happens from time to time. The
country would become totally reliant on international trade. If the
country still has its own trade barriers, has not developed a strong
national economy and has an export based economy only, when the
downturn comes it will hurt and hurt a lot. This is why the federal
government should adopt the step by step proposal of the member
for Vegreville on what we should enforce as our national trade
policy.
They should be given another little shot at it and told to listen up.
All provinces should be told that we will have a national free trade
economic zone. They have agreed to it. They have the framework
agreement. They have been squabbling among yourselves for three
years, which is not good enough. They should be given another few
months to get it settled. They should think of Canada now instead
of their own neighbourhoods. They should get with it and sign it.
The second proposal would be to change the ratification formula
from unanimity, which is very hard to get when they are protecting
their own turf, to a formula where two-thirds of the provinces and
territories representing at least 50 per cent of the Canadian
population would be used to pass sections that are contentious.
Why is that important? I have talked about job creation. The
member for Vegreville talked about the cost per family of some
$3,500 as a result of the trade barriers and the inability to trade
freely between provinces. It causes poor business decisions to be
followed and endorsed by the government.
In times past a brewery would be put up in one province because
it could not sell in the next one. In those kinds of decisions they felt
it was better to have a company headquartered in one province and
another one headquartered across the river in the next province
because it helped to get jobs, grants and business influence. That
should not be the case in Canada.
We should say we are a free trade zone. The labour market
should move freely to where it can find work and the best jobs. We
have intellectual property that travels freely between the provinces.
We have standards that keep us together as a nation. We should
make sure in the energy sector, a valuable part of Canada domestic
trade, that there are no barriers to trade. As we enter into the North
American power grid with the provinces and the Americans, one
province should not be pitted against another trying to sell at a
cheaper rate and undercutting.
It should not be like that. We should be free to trade energy in
Canada. When we get on the international power grid there is no
use back biting one another. We should work together because we
are a small player in the big scheme of things. We should work to
protect our agricultural industry. It is amazing to me that one of our
most valuable industries, the agricultural community, does not
have free trade between provinces.
I remember earlier in Parliament asking members of the Bloc
Quebecois what they thought would happen if Quebec separates.
What will happen to the dairy industry, one of the most important
agricultural industries in the entire province of Quebec? National
agreements allow for trade of milk products from coast to coast.
They had better get in on the agricultural deal. If they think they
will get a better deal by pulling Quebec out of the country, they
should think again. The dairy farmers in my region will say if
Quebec is not part of the national scheme it does not get to sell
them industrial milk.
(1820 )
I hope Bloc members tell their farmers the truth in upcoming
federal election campaign. They are far better off staying in Canada
and trying to work out a good deal with all the provinces than going
on their own and finding out that the butter they are shipping to
British Columbia will not get past their border because we will
produce our own.
I am just saying in general that it is better for those in agriculture
and energy to be part of a strong national system and a strong
national government that protect their rights internationally and
allow them a huge trading bloc within Canada. I hope they are
paying attention and are telling that to their farmers.
Overall the reason this matter is important is that it is one of the
10 key areas the Reform Party says we need to have a strong
national government. We cannot weaken the federal government by
taking away its ability to control the common economic market and
farming it to the provinces. It is something that must be maintained
in Parliament.
10214
The ability to strike down barriers to trade is something that
we will strengthen. We will take advantage of our constitutional
right to do so. The federal government needs to flex its muscles
a little to try to get an agreement. The provinces need to know
that a Reform government will make sure the common economic
market will be maintained in all of Canada.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to private
member's Bill C-375.
The bill serves as a timely reminder of how important trade is to
Canada, not only international trade but domestic trade. From its
very beginnings Canada has been a trading nation. Trade is the
lifeblood of the country. The well-being of all Canadians depends
on our ability to create and profit from competitive trading
environments, both internationally and at home.
For this reason the federal and provincial governments during
1993 and 1994 negotiated the agreement on internal trade. The
purpose of the agreement was to create a framework for continuing
co-operative efforts among governments to open up the domestic
market.
It established a set of rules and a work program aimed at
ensuring the free flow of goods, services, people and capital, and at
more generally governing trade and trade disputes between
provinces and territories.
The agreement on internal trade came into effect on July 1, 1995.
It is no secret there are problems with the agreement. From the start
the government recognized that the agreement was only a first step.
We have accordingly consistently sought to bring other
governments to agree to make it a more effective instrument for
economic growth.
The Minister of Industry at every meeting of the committee on
internal trade pressed his provincial colleagues to ensure the work
mandated by the agreement was done within the deadlines set. He
has repeatedly challenged the other parties to the agreement to
consider seriously ways to improve both its scope and the way it
operates.
Recent studies and reports by business organizations such as the
Chamber of Commerce and by other observers have underlined
many of the agreement's weaknesses. They have pulled few
punches in identifying the reluctance of various provincial
governments to live up to the spirit or the letter of their
commitments. Most of the observers identified the decision
making process of the agreement. that is its requirement for
consensus as a major impediment to progress.
The bill reflects an attempt to address that issue. The intent is
understandable. The bill unfortunately is neither realistic nor
practical.
As most hon. members will recall, last year we considered and
passed the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act which
the bill proposes to amend.
The government introduced legislation in 1995 because we were
then and remain today firmly committed to making the agreement
work. The agreement enables the federal government to meet its
obligations under the agreement on internal trade. That legislation
was necessary to give the government the appropriate authority and
specific tools to act within its own areas of direct responsibility.
However it is most important to recognize that the Agreement on
Internal Trade Implementation Act and the agreement on internal
trade are quite different and distinct instruments.
(1825)
One is legislation by and for one government within its own
jurisdictions and powers. The other is a collectively achieved
accord on how all the government parties to it will exercise their
respective powers within their own jurisdictions.
The agreement on internal trade was the outcome of a difficult
process of negotiation among the federal government, the
provinces and territories during 1993-94. It was, however,
successful, with a consensual outcome which all the governments
accepted and which all signed.
The authority of the agreement on internal trade does not derive
from federal legislation. Rather, the authority of the agreement on
internal trade derives from the commitments, obligations and
undertakings which all governments accepted when they signed it.
That is a fundamental point which the bill before us fails to
recognize.
Simply put, no one party to the agreement on internal trade can
on its own amend that agreement. That is what this bill is
attempting to do and that is why this bill is flawed.
There are therefore two main reasons why this bill is
inappropriate. First, it cannot accomplish what it wishes to do.
Second, it directly conflicts with the fundamental basis on which
the agreement was negotiated.
The Canadian business sector has a legitimate expectation that
the agreement on internal trade should deal effectively with
internal trade barriers and impediments. It has a legitimate
expectation that the agreement should also deal with the burden
and extra costs imposed by conflicting, overlapping and duplicate
regulatory requirements. Dealing definitively with internal trade
issues is not a simple task.
It is easy to read sections 91(a) and 121 of the Constitution and
conclude that what is needed is bold and decisive action by the
federal government; easy but simplistic and ultimately ineffective.
10215
It is simplistic because unilateral federal action could not
address some areas that are exclusively within provincial
jurisdiction like labour market mobility or local government
spending on subsidies and other incentives. It is ultimately
ineffective because it fails to recognize how this country works
best.
Permanent, practical and effective change is best achieved when
based on acceptance and co-operation among government, not on
the basis of legalism and coercion.
All governments in Canada must work together to ensure that the
national economy is strong and efficient, producing new products,
services, jobs and growth opportunities. It is important to that end
that all governments be pressed to make the agreement on internal
trade work better.
The agreement belongs to all its parties. Its implementation is
the responsibility of all its parties, not just that of the federal
government.
While I cannot support the bill before us for the reasons I have
outlined, I hope its message will not be lost on other governments.
This government certainly can be counted on to continue to try to
co-operate and work with others to strengthen and improve the
agreement on internal trade. We look to others to work with us.
This bill is not viable. It is inappropriate. It is unnecessary. It is
divisive and it is poorly drafted. I stand as a member not being able
to support this private member's bill.
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, there are a couple of minutes left
in the hour. If I could get unanimous consent, I would like to make
a couple of wrap-up remarks.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Does the
House agree?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, I would like to make clear that this
is consistent with what Reform members have said all along, that
we believe in decentralization in many areas. We have talked about
those over the years.
One of the Bloc members intimated in his speech that we were
changing our direction. That is not true.
From the time this political party started in 1987, the leader of
the party and others have said that there are certain areas where we
have to strengthen the role of the federal government. The member
for Fraser Valley East mentioned some of those areas. One of them
is certainly the area of freeing up trade between the provinces.
Government members who have spoken recognize the need for
freeing up trade and yet, curiously, they said that we do not really
have to do anything to make that happen. They feel that it is just
going to happen. I suggest that it will not happen. I also suggest
that the Canadian Constitution allows the federal government to
take a stronger role.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The period
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has
now expired. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, the item is dropped
from the Order Paper.
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m.
tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24 (1).
(The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.)