37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 030
CONTENTS
Friday, March 16, 2001
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1010
1015
1020
1025
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1030
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1035
1040
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1045
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1050
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1100
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| COLOMBIA
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| COMPUTING DEVICES CANADA LTD.
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. James Moore |
| ST. PATRICK'S DAY
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1105
| OXFORD AGRICULTURE AWARDS
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| ST. PATRICK'S DAY
|
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| ST. PATRICK'S DAY
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1110
| SOCIAL PROGRAMS
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| STUDENT JOBS
|
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
| JAMES GRANVILLE JOHNSON
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| BILL C-286
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1115
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1120
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
1125
| TAXATION
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1130
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1135
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| FOOD INSPECTION
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1140
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Shawn Murphy |
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| COAST GUARD
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
1145
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1150
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
1155
| MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Mr. Dominic LeBlanc |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1200
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Notice of Motion
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Official Languages
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1205
| STATISTICS ACT
|
| Bill C-301. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| PETITIONS
|
| Canada Post
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| STARRED QUESTIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-14. Second reading
|
1210
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
| Mr. James Rajotte |
1215
1220
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1225
1230
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1305
1310
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1315
1320
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1325
1330
| Division on motion deferred
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-240. Second reading
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1350
1355
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1400
1405
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1410
1415
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1420
1425
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 030
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 16, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife
species at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-5, which is before the House today, is a very
significant bill, a bill that I think we would all do well to
look at very seriously, because it attacks and has within it a
consideration of some of the basic principles that govern and
underlie democracy.
I wish to address two parts of the bill. The first has to do
with the concept of how the selection of the endangered species
at risk is done. The second has to do with the right of private
property and how the bill deals with that particular aspect.
I would like to have the members of the public who are out there
watching this debate understand exactly what it is we are talking
about here this morning: Bill C-5, which is here to protect
endangered wildlife species.
I will focus on the purpose of the bill as it is stated in this
particular legislation. It reads:
The purposes of this enactment are to prevent Canadian indigenous
species, subspecies and distinct populations of wildlife from
becoming extirpated or extinct, to provide for the recovery of
endangered or threatened species, to encourage the management of
other species to prevent them from becoming at risk.
I wish to completely endorse the purpose of the bill. Clearly
one of the things we want to be very concerned about in our
society and in Canada is that we do protect our wildlife. We do
want to create an environment in which wildlife can prosper, live
and provide enjoyment for each of us.
It is important to recognize our support of the intent of this
particular bill. I want to be sure that everyone out there
recognizes that the Canadian Alliance, myself in particular, and
its constituents support the protection of wildlife.
What we need to recognize here, though, is how the bill will be
handled. I wish to refer to certain provisions in the bill. The
first provision of the bill is the selection of the list of
species and endangered wildlife that will be registered and
protected by the bill.
Clause 14 deals with this particular part of the activities, so
I will refer, then, to clause 14, which suggests that a committee
be established. It is called the COSEWIC committee and many of
the listeners will wonder what in the world we are talking about.
That is an acronym for a long title, Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada. As shorthand we say COSEWIC. This
is really what we are talking about. The committee is
established by this particular bill.
I am so happy that there are at least some members opposite in
the House listening to the debate, because it is really
important. Some of the points we will make are points that the
Minister of the Environment in particular should recognize and
change in this legislation, and we want the minister and all
members opposite to know that the idea of protecting endangered
species is indeed an area and an action that we support.
With the establishment of the committee, we need to recognize
who its members are. This committee shall carry out its
functions “on the basis of the best available information,
including scientific knowledge, community knowledge and
aboriginal traditional knowledge”.
That is what the committee is supposed to do. This is a major
issue.
1010
Who are these people? The committee is to be composed of
members appointed by the minister after consultation with the
Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council and with any
experts that the minister considers to be appropriate. I would
like to underline the word experts. The second part of the
clause, subclause 16(2), is extremely significant:
Each member must have expertise drawn from a discipline such as
conservation biology, population dynamics, taxonomy, systematics
or genetics or from community knowledge or aboriginal traditional
knowledge of the conservation of wildlife species.
That is a blue ribbon membership for the committee. These are
very significant and very powerful people. They are people who
understand the reality of science and understand what it is to
use knowledge and to make observations that others can verify.
They are not subject to political interpretation or the vagaries
of somebody's imagination. They are based on facts and on
observations which can be replicated by other people.
The people who are supposed to comprise this committee are
independent and objective. This is very desirable and highly
commendable. I support the minister in identifying this as the
way the committee should be comprised.
One might say that the blue ribbon committee will go about doing
its business, but what is the principle involved in creating the
list of Canadian endangered wildlife? What are the decision
making principles underlying this committee of scientists? The
principles involved are truth and integrity.
What are we talking about when we talk about truth and
integrity? Truth concerns a clear knowledge of the facts. I am
speaking of things that are commonly accepted as being true in
fact. They can be believed and acted upon with confidence and
courage, recognizing that what has happened before will happen
again because the basis on which the decision is made is
verifiable by an independent person in an objective and
independent manner and the findings can be replicated.
Integrity means that the people on the committee will actually
say what was discovered, what has been put there, and that the
basis on which those decisions are made is indeed one that is
verified by the various observations that have been taken. On
the committee we will have scientists who are objective and reach
conclusions on the basis of verifiable interpretation,
experiments and observations that could carried out by other
people.
There is no problem with the committee or with the intent of the
bill. Why then is there a problem with the bill? There is a
problem with a provision in another clause of the bill. Subclause
27(1) makes a very interesting observation:
The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the
Minister, by regulation, establish the List of Wildlife Species
at Risk and amend the List by adding a wildlife species to the
List, by reclassifying a listed wildlife species or by removing a
listed wildlife species from the List.
All the work of the committee, all the science involved,
suddenly becomes subject to whatever the governor in council
decides. This puts into question the whole integrity of
establishing a committee in the first place. In this clause we
have a group of scientists who are ignored and whose integrity is
at least insulted if not denied. The governor in council can do
this.
However, subclause 29(2) is an even more difficult area.
It follows subclause (1), and I think for clarity I should
probably read subclause 29(1) as well:
1015
The section refers to the minister now, not the governor in
council.
The section goes on:
It is interesting to note here that it is not that the minister
may, but that he must.
It goes on:
Notice they are all ministers.
There is no reference here to the committee at all. Subclause
29(2) reads:
The Minister may arrive at that opinion on the basis of his or
her own information or on the basis of COSEWIC's assessment.
This really creates a dilemma for the scientists and for
Canadians who are to place confidence in the Minister of the
Environment and cabinet itself.
There is no attempt in this criticism to suggest that we should
not have legislation of this kind. That is not the purpose of my
criticism. The purpose of my criticism is to recognize that the
principle of truth and scientific integrity needs to be observed
throughout the legislation. It should be there in a consistent
fashion all the way through. I submit to the House that clause 29
does not allow this to happen.
We need to move from there to the next step in the debate, which
has to do with why it is so important that we have this truth.
The hon. members opposite are all Liberals and they had a leader
at one time by the name of Trudeau who initiated and passed in
the House a constitutional amendment called the charter of rights
and freedoms. At the end of the charter of rights and freedoms
this is what he wrote:
We must now establish the basic principles, the basic values and
beliefs which hold us together as Canadians so that beyond our
regional loyalties there is a way of life and a system of values
which make us proud of the country that has given us such freedom
and such immeasurable joy.
Those are wonderful and great words. We are now establishing
one of those principles. Surely the right Hon. Trudeau, at the
time he was Prime Minister and wrote that paragraph, recognized
that one of the foundational principles of a democracy to
function properly and adequately is that of truth and integrity.
I will now move into the next step of the legislation. That has
to do with the recognition of private property. The bill
recognizes clearly that there is such a thing.
Our charter of rights and freedoms does not grant that right in
the constitution to individual Canadians, but the basis of
liberty is the ownership of private property. It is not just the
amassing of property that is the issue. The ownership of
material things recognizes the dignity of human beings. It
recognizes the basic integrity and beauty of human creativity and
the ingenuity and innovativeness of human beings.
That is what private property does. Think about real property,
intellectual property, all the novels that have been written, the
poems that have been written and the songs that have been
written. These are all matters of private property.
That does not mean, however, that the right to private property
means we can do whatever we please with that property. Neither
do we have the right to amass private property based on cruelty
or intimidation or on things of that nature.
It means we must use private property to the interests of the
people around us. It does not mean we can use private property
to destroy endangered species. The bill makes that clear. If
that is the case then the implications of the bill must be looked
at.
Does the enforcement of the provisions in the bill have
implications for private property? The bill clearly identifies
that yes, it is probably true, there probably are implications.
1020
Let me look at subclause 64(1). Subclause 64(1) of the bill
clearly indicates:
The Minister may, in accordance with the regulations, provide
compensation to any person for losses—
Again I draw to the attention of those listening and of our
colleagues in the House, both on the other side and on the
opposition side, that the operative word here is may. It is not
that he shall compensate; it is that he may compensate.
An hon. member: It does not say how much either.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: No, it does not, so it is very
significant that we recognize this point. Not only that, but it
says:
Then it goes into specific details as to where he may or may
not. The government, in its wisdom, appointed Dr. Pearse who
presented a report. That report suggests that if somebody
experiences a loss of 10% the compensation should be 50%. That
is a very interesting report. If an individual has a loss of
more than 10% he can get compensation for 50%.
Let me put into perspective what that could mean in one economic
sector. I refer to the forestry sector. It is critically
important to Canada. It produces nearly $60 billion of products
every year. More than one million Canadians depend on the
industry for their jobs and it contributes more to Canada's
balance of trade than any other sector.
Some will ask what that has to do with the bill. It has a lot
to do with the bill. Forestry is critically important to B.C. It
generates more than $15 billion annually and nearly 300,000 jobs.
Thirty-one out of thirty-seven regions of the province are
dependent on forestry. Across Canada there are 53 forest
dependent species at risk. Out of the 53 forest dependent
species at risk, 32 are of concern and 21 are endangered or
threatened. Of the 53 species, 26 are located in B.C. Ten of
these are considered endangered or threatened.
That is a clear indication of the potential loss that will be
experienced by a major sector not only in British Columbia but in
Canada as a whole. If people have a loss of 10% and are only
compensated at 50% of that loss, how would they be able to
continue their operation? How would they be able to employ the
people who are supposed to be employed?
Those are very serious implications and that is only in one
sector. We must deal with the agriculture sector. We must deal
with cattlemen. We must deal with a whole host of other
businesses directly affected by the implications of the bill.
The Canadian Alliance position is very clear. We take the view
that private property ought to be recognized and honoured. Our
policy statement is very clear. We believe the right to contract
freely and to own, use and benefit from private property,
including labour and real, intellectual and personal property,
lies at the very heart of our legal and economic systems. I
suggest that it lies at the heart of a democratic system in
Canada and that it distinguishes a free society.
We will therefore seek the agreement of the provinces to amend
the charter of rights and freedoms to include this right as well
as a guarantee. Referring to the ownership of private property,
here is the guarantee that applies directly to the bill:
That is, the ownership of private property without the due
process of law and full, just and timely compensation.
That is the key under which we operate. I reiterate that it is
not the position of the Canadian Alliance to oppose the bill
because it wants to protect endangered wildlife in Canada. We
want legislation that will protect endangered wildlife. We want
democracy protected. We want that protection to take place so
that the integrity of scientists will be recognized and applied
in this case, not political vagaries that are subject to
political interference from special pressure groups or special
interest groups.
We want to make sure everybody understands that we support the
protection of endangered wildlife. However at the same time we
recognize that the minister ought to include an amendment in the
legislation that requires full compensation for those who
experience loss and that the decisions based on science of
COSEWIC are recognized and applied and not subject to the
vagaries of cabinet or of the minister.
1025
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's
presentation and he made a couple of key points. I wonder if he
could comment on the area of compensation, which I think he
explained very well.
I will comment by saying that at committee, when asked directly
whether he would compensate and whether the legislation would
ensure that loss of property or loss of the use of property would
be compensated at full market value, the environment minister
would not say that would be the case.
I think what my colleague said is absolutely accurate. We can
fully expect that the legislation will not compensate at fair
market value people who lose their property or the use of their
property. Surely in a society that believes in people's right to
own property we would expect that compensation would be paid at
fair market value.
On that issue I would ask my colleague if, under the study that
was done, there is no compensation if the loss is less than 10%.
I know of many cases in agriculture and probably in forestry
where there is not a margin of 10%. I know of many cases where,
if the damage and the loss is above 10%, only 50% of the loss is
compensated.
Is my colleague really saying that under the study that was
done, and the government has not said it would do anything
different, it is likely that if people lose their property or the
use of their property they would be compensated for only half
the loss? I know as a farmer that half the loss on any
significant amount of property could cause me or other farmers to
go out of business. I would like the member to comment on that.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that I and
my party believe there should be full compensation at the full
market price at the time. That is what it ought to be. This
whole business of proportions is simply not acceptable. The level
of compensation ought to be full and complete at the going rate
in the market.
However I think the more significant point is that the
legislation does not say that there will be or must be compensation.
It says that there may be compensation. Hence, the minister,
regardless of what the conclusion is, may still deny
compensation. That is one part. The other part is that it is
subject to regulation. The rate of compensation, or even that
there will be compensation, is not part of the legislation.
There is a fundamental amendment that ought to be made to the
legislation to indicate that there will be full compensation and
that the minister will not only be required to pay that
compensation but to pay it in a timely fashion. That is very
important and it should not be delayed unduly.
I hope that allays the fears of my hon. colleague and other
people out there because every person could be affected either
directly or indirectly by the legislation, not only the people in
the lumber and farming industries.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, as you may know, my constituency is an urban core
riding. This whole issue can become an urban-rural split on the
way people approach the legislation. There are people in urban
ridings who do own two or three acres of land. They may own
cottages or properties near the lake.
Could the member comment on how the legislation could impact
those of us who live in urban ridings? It is not necessarily
just something to be looked at in terms of agriculture and farms.
1030
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely
correct. It does not have to be a two or three acre plot. It
could even be a 30 by 100 foot lot in the city. It is
technically possible but not likely.
We need to be very careful. That is all the more reason the
legislation which declares and creates the COSEWIC committee is
very good. It could deal with this issue in an objective and
independent fashion, which is neither rural nor urban, and on a
scientific basis.
It reminds me of a story I cannot resist telling. There was a
kindergarten teacher who had a show and tell day. One of the
pupils brought a rabbit to school. The child was really excited
about the pet rabbit. The pupils were looking at the rabbit and
describing its features. One of the kids in the back of the room
asked whether it was a boy or a girl. The teacher looked at the
rabbit and did not how to analyze whether it was a male or a
female. Again one of the pupils asked whether it was a boy or a
girl, and the teacher said “Let's vote on it”.
The sex of a rabbit cannot be determined on the basis of a
majority vote. That is the nonsense of putting it into the hands
of a political vagary to decide which way things go. It could be
determined in an objective and verifiable way. It does not
matter who looks at it, no one can determine the sex of a rabbit.
The situation in this regard is similar, and that is the point
that has to be made.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the same
person would not want to be candling eggs either, I am sure,
because he or she would be in real trouble.
It is a pleasure to speak to the species at risk act. My
colleague from Fundy—Royal has spoken eloquently on the bill and
clearly laid out the PC Party position respecting the
legislation. I should like to address some of the specifics of
the legislation and how they may be applied to those of us who
live in the rural and urban areas of Canada.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.
I am sure everyone in the House will be waiting patiently to
hear his words of wisdom on this legislation.
I have spoken in the House on previous occasions to highlight
the plight of wild Atlantic salmon. When we are discussing
species at risk legislation, I realize that all species
encompassed by the legislation are in need of more support. There
are many more species in need of support than just the wild
Atlantic salmon.
However there is a need for more support not just from Canadians
but also from government organizations at all levels, or wild
Atlantic salmon and other species at risk in Canada will become
extinct. Wild Atlantic salmon are decreasing in alarming numbers
and the problem is that we do not know the cause. The salmon go
out to sea but fail to return. What we are seeing as the years
go on is fewer and fewer wild Atlantic salmon returning to our
rivers.
We knew for a long time that many of them were being caught by
commercial fleets off Greenland. Today the numbers have
diminished to the point where they are not actually able to go
out to sea to breed and produce enough smolts to return. We have
few grilse and very few multi-sea winter salmon coming back to
our rivers in eastern Canada.
The Atlantic Salmon Federation has been vocal in its efforts to
highlight the problems facing this important species and to
initiate more research into what is happening to prevent the
return of more salmon.
At the same time a number of factors are contributing to the
decline in general numbers: climate change, the corresponding
warming of ocean temperatures, acid rain, pollution, the escape
of farm salmon and predators. This is why none of these species
should be looked at in isolation. There are many overlapping
factors that need to be examined if we are to ensure that these
species exist for future generations.
1035
Bill Taylor, president of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, sums
up very clearly and concisely the issue at stake:
We need a comprehensive, five year research, restoration,
protection and community watershed management program dedicated
to the wild Atlantic salmon and its habitat.
The legislation before us would be a step in the right direction
except for the major flaws the bill entails. My colleague from
Fundy—Royal clearly explained these limitations, and I would
like to repeat two points.
First, the legislation does not require the protection of
habitat. Second, by allowing the decision on which species are
endangered to be made by cabinet and not by scientific experts,
the effectiveness of the legislation has been severely
constrained.
The Speech from the Throne on January 31 mentioned the need to
protect species and stated that the government would be
reintroducing the bill. What is disappointing is that the
government did not take the opportunity to learn from its
previous discussions on the subject.
Suggestions and recommendations from interested and affected
stakeholders were not incorporated into the legislation. If
changes proposed by stakeholders had been incorporated into the
legislation, we could have had a more meaningful discussion on
the real merits of this legislation.
There is one more thing that I would like to mention with regard
to wild Atlantic salmon. The species is seen as a barometer that
indicates the health of our oceans. If the habitat has become
unsuitable for wild Atlantic salmon, it is also negatively
affecting other species. They too will soon be listed as
endangered, threatened or otherwise at risk.
It tells us that we do not have much time to deal with the
problems affecting the species and its habitat. Yet the
government has delayed making any effective changes. It has
talked the talk since 1993, but we have yet to see any real
meaningful steps taken to help endangered species in Canada.
Being from Nova Scotia I will focus my attention on a couple of
other species that are threatened in the province. The Nova
Scotia Nature Trust recently identified more lakes in Nova Scotia
that have some of Canada's rarest plants along their shores.
Shingle Lake, Ponhook Lake in Queens County and Harpers Lake in
Shelburne county are a few lakes that have been recognized as
having rare plant species along their shores.
Now that these rare plants have been identified, appropriate
measures should be taken to ensure that they are protected. The
trust plans to expand its landowner outreach program and public
education program to make more people aware of these rare plants.
The first step is to disclose to the landowners that such rare
plants exist on their property.
Originally these plants were found on many lakes in Nova Scotia
between Digby Neck and Mahone Bay. However the use of all
terrain vehicles, damming and development have been contributing
factors in their decline to the point where they need to be
protected today. I would hope the legislation would protect
these types of plants in the section on endangered species and
threatened species.
I seriously stress and support the idea of encouraging
landowners to help in this endeavour and to be adequately
compensated for their assistance in protecting such species for
all Canadians.
In no way should the financial burden be placed on an individual
when all Canada benefits from the protection of these species.
That is the trouble with this piece of legislation. It is
certainly not the landowner's responsibility and it cannot become
the landowner's responsibility to protect endangered species. All
Canadians benefit from the protection of species and must somehow
contribute to the continued protection of the species.
There are a number of birds, plants and animals in Nova Scotia.
A few years ago we had a small mammal called the sea mink. It
was completely different and did not interbreed with the inland
mink. It was larger and lived in coastal areas. That animal is
extinct today.
We have a number of birds that live in very small and isolated
groups. The ipswich sparrow on Sable Island is a prime example.
There is the piping plover which I have been fortunate enough to
have actually seen. There are 50 or 60 breeding pairs left in
the world.
They breed upon the shores and the beaches of the south shore of
Nova Scotia. It is these types of animals and birds that we have
to protect. We have to find a way to protect them.
1040
The legislation is simply wrong-headed. What is even more
disappointing is that the government had ample opportunity to
listen to the dialogue of opposition parties, the Sierra Club,
landowner groups and big industry, but it did not hear what those
groups were saying.
It refused to change or alter the bill. It refused to take it
out of the hands of government, members of cabinet and privy
councillors. It refused to list rare and endangered species in a
meaningful way so that we could do something about the protection
of these plants and animals. We have ended up with legislation
that is kind of warm and fuzzy and sounds good but in reality
will not work.
I will give an example. I have a number of cousins who are
loggers in Sonora in northern California. Their logging
operations have been shut down because of the spotted owl. They
log mostly on government land and they simply cannot get timber
contracts. They cut wood that is diseased, and that is the only
wood they are allowed to cut. If there is a diseased tree on
government lands in northern California they are allowed to cut
it. Their own timber tracts are severely restricted and it is
just about impossible to cut on public land. I will just take a
couple of more seconds because I know—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure someone will ask the hon.
member a question that would allow him to finish what he intended
to share with all of us.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, as
I understand it, my hon. friend and colleague from South Shore
has a number of relatives in the industry in California who
unfortunately do not have the opportunity to expand their
livelihood because of implications with respect to endangered
species.
Could he tell us exactly why these individuals have been
impacted? What in the legislation would cause the same problems
in Canada?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the point I should like to
get across is that our legislation very much mirrors the American
legislation. The American legislation did not involve the
landowners, loggers or farmers. It very much pitted landowners
against land users.
What they have ended up with in the States is that when people
find a rare or endangered species on their property they shoot
it, bury it, and do not tell anybody. That is the type of
legislation that we are looking at today.
If we want to protect endangered species, especially plants and
animals, we must find a way to compensate landowners. If as a
landowner I had to exclude 10, 20 or 100 hectares because of a
rare or endangered plant or animal which needed protection, I
would want to be compensated for that. I am more than happy to
allow for the protection, but if agricultural or forestry land is
being taken out of production, all the onus cannot be upon the
shoulders of the landowner. There has to be some sharing of that
responsibility.
The legislation does not do that. It did not do it in
California. It put people out of work south of the border. It
caused animosity between people who depend upon the land to make
a livelihood and people who simply want to enjoy the benefits of
walking and looking at a beautiful piece of real estate. We
cannot afford to do that in Canada, and unfortunately that is
what the bill would do.
1045
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague from South Shore for allowing me to share his
time on Bill C-5. I will not be sharing it with my colleague
from Richmond—Arthabaska. He does not want to speak, so we are
okay on this one.
I pay special tribute to my colleague from Fundy—Royal who has
taken the lead. He has basically acted as the official
opposition with respect to the legislation. He has been
extremely effective. He is very knowledgeable about the
legislation and in face put forward a white paper that has been
more accepted by the stakeholders than the legislation presented
by the government. He has spent an enormous amount of time and
energy on the legislation and has spoken with great eloquence and
great knowledge of the subject.
His white paper was accepted by a rather large stakeholder group
encompassing the Canadian Pulp & Paper Association, the Mining
Association of Canada, the Sierra Club of Canada, the Canadian
Nature Federation and the Canadian Wildlife Federation.
When we look at the people who came forward as part of that
group we realize that it is a rather diverse group. It contains
representatives from industry as well as environmental activists
who sometimes do not get along very well with industry. They
said they had to put together an effective piece of legislation
that would work, not something that was warm and fuzzy and on the
surface looked like the government was doing something. They
presented some very good recommendations to the government and,
lo and behold, none of them were incorporated into the
legislation.
I will talk about some of the deficiencies of the legislation
and about why the government has failed miserably in trying to
protect something that Canadians want to protect. Since 1993 the
government has said that there must be endangered species
legislation. It was identified in the 1997 red book. Also the
government mentioned it in the last three throne speeches in
1996, 1999 and 2001, but it is still not on the floor in the way
it should be in order to protect all endangered species.
Let us talk about a couple of areas in which the legislation
falls down quite dramatically. As my colleague mentioned,
landowner rights would be impacted quite dramatically by the
legislation.
I come from an area that encompasses an urban and a rural
community. About 50% of my constituency is rural. The economic
backbone of the area is agriculture. Farmers and producers of the
area are stewards of the land. In most cases they accept
responsibility for stewardship, not only of the land but of the
habitat on the land and the endangered species.
Landowner rights are not reflected properly in the legislation.
We in the PC Party agree that there have to be more carrots than
sticks.
That comment was made by my colleague from Fundy—Royal. If we
think about it, there have to be more carrots out there than
there are sticks.
1050
There is no compensatory opportunity under the legislation to
allow producers with endangered species and habitat on their land
to continue their operations to the benefit society. People in
Montreal, Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver and other urban centres are
demanding that producers, ranchers and landowners make sure that
the habitat and species are retained, but they are not prepared
to pay anything for that to take place. That is absolutely
wrong. If landowners are not able to farm, ranch or do what they
wish with their property, the species will be endangered even
further.
Right now the Americans refer to the three esses: shoot, shovel
and shut up. That does not solve the problem. Nor will the
legislation. We must make sure that fair compensation is
provided to landowners, that the necessary dollars are provided.
The legislation would result in an inability to work with the
provinces. It deals with federal lands but unfortunately only
deals with about 40% of the problem. Some 60% of endangered
species and their habitat will not be affected by the
legislation. We should work with the provinces to make sure that
the legislation is effective, not simply something that would be
thrown out by producers or landowners.
Carrots and sticks, protection of critical habitat, partnerships
with the provinces and scientific listings are some of the
issues. It was mentioned earlier that responsibility for the
identification of an endangered species would be given to the
cabinet. Politicians, as much as we would like to think
otherwise, are not terribly well respected in their abilities to
put forward the truth and the necessary intelligence to ensure
that the decision is a proper one.
We are suggesting the decision should be based on information
from the scientists, the people who know the issue better than
politicians. We are asking for decision making to be taken from
the cabinet table and put into the hands of the people who know
the issue. We should let them make the decisions on the listing
of protected species. It is a very important issue.
There must be an accountability mechanism for citizens to ensure
the government enforces its own act. If the act is to include an
accountability mechanism, the PC Party believes there should be
an independent process for the public to ensure the act is being
effectively implemented. The process should allow citizens to
challenge the federal government and not other citizens. We
believe very seriously that it is the citizens who will enforce
Bill C-5.
I believe and Canadians believe there is a need for endangered
species legislation. The legislation that we are debating right
now would not solve the current problems. It will go forward to
committee where I ask the government to listen with an open mind.
A number of stakeholders are prepared to come forward with some
interesting amendments to the legislation. When it goes to
committee, I ask the government not to handle it as it does other
pieces of legislation.
It is too important for that majority government to ramrod it
through. We must make sure that the legislation comes forward
for final reading in the House in the proper fashion and is the
proper piece of legislation. I look forward to the legislation
coming back from committee in a different form.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
listened intently to the hon. member's discussion on Bill C-5. He
added a lot to the debate by providing the PC Party's position on
the legislation.
1055
I would like to hear an additional comment from the member,
especially on the one issue that I see as a major flaw in the
legislation, which is the lack of compensation for landowners. As
other opposition members have mentioned, that contributes to the
rural-urban split.
I can give an example of that. We in Nova Scotians used to like
to say that we had landowners and land users. For years I took
that attitude as well. I learned over time, actually about 25 years,
that those land users could be our friends. Whether they
were birdwatching, hunting or skidooing on our property, if
we had a good relationship with them they would be our
friends. They would make sure that our cabins were not being
broken into, fires were not being set, no one was stealing our
Christmas trees and they were not causing a problem.
The legislation will force many of us who are landowners back to
resenting the land users because we will be the people who will
be paying the bills. I would like the member to comment on that.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I would correct one thing
that the hon. member for South Shore said. It may have taken him
25 years to learn this lesson but he is not quite as slow a
learner as he may have indicated to the House. He is actually a
very astute individual and has a background in farming and in
the stewardship of the land. He knows of what he speaks.
With respect to the compensation factor of the land itself, I
could not agree more. They are stewards of the land and, as I
said earlier, not everything is perfect in this very imperfect
world but in most cases the owners of the land believe in the
stewardship of the land. They make sure to protect the habitat
and the species that enjoy that habitat. They certainly utilize
the land in the best interest not only of themselves, because
that is their livelihood, but also in the best interest of
people outside the rural area.
The issue I would like to point out is that urbanites within our
country wish to make sure that they have access to other lands.
They also want to make sure those lands will be available to
them. I sincerely believe that they should be required to pay
some of the costs of that stewardship. It means the carrots
instead of the sticks that we talked about.
There should be proper compensation built into the legislation
to allow producers to access compensation for the impact on their
properties. It is essential that compensation be in the
legislation. If it is not there then some of those stewards of
the land may not be quite as co-operative as we think they should
be in order to make the legislation work.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
despite much effort, there are still too many Canadian children
living in poverty.
This past November, Campaign 2000 released its ninth annual
report card on child poverty in Canada. The report is positive
about the role social policy can play in addressing child poverty
issues. This includes recent government initiatives, such as
increases to Canada's child tax benefit, extension of employment
insurance parental benefits, agreement on early childhood
development and enhanced tax measures for children with
disabilities.
The report also indicated improvements were evident over the
previous two years. Societal improvements include the national
child benefit, which has injected millions of dollars back into
low income family budgets and has enhanced programs and services
for these families.
The condition of children in poverty will improve because of
strong government initiatives. We must sustain these efforts to
give children the good start they deserve. Children are a
priority of the government.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
farmers are struggling for their very survival. Many are facing
the loss of their homes and their businesses to the banks and the
federal Farm Credit Corporation. Some of these farms have been
in the family for close to 100 years and these people desperately
want to keep them but cannot because they are not being paid for
their work.
What these farmers need is simply a fair return on the sale of
their product. They need to cover all their costs and to make a
reasonable living for their families. They are asking for the
payment which they have already earned.
1100
Would a lawyer work for only one-half to one-third of his fees?
Would an accountant accept $500 when he bills for $1,000? Would
a labourer whose collective agreement calls for $18 per hour
accept $8? Would a doctor take a second job so he can keep on
practising medicine?
Our policy is to end subsidies when other countries stop theirs.
The Liberals stopped the subsidies first and let the farmers take
the hit.
Why not give the farmers their pay? They have earned it, they
deserve it and they need it now.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we will soon see the first telltale signs of spring and our
thoughts will turn to greening lawns and blooming gardens. I
rise today to recognize an exciting local initiative that is
providing useful alternatives to urban pesticide use.
With the assistance of Environment Canada and the city of
Kitchener, Get Rid of Urban Pesticides, known as GROUP, recently
launched a two year campaign to help homeowners wean themselves
off pesticides. In response to rising local concerns on the use
of pesticides on urban lawns, 24 homeowners who currently use
pesticides will become pesticide free.
The homeowner commits to kicking the pesticide habit and GROUP
provides expert advice and assistance with lawn work. Over the
next two years, these eco-lawn conversion kits will divert
approximately 8,720 kilograms of pesticides from entering the
environment of Kitchener—Waterloo.
I look forward to seeing traditional lawns transformed into
healthy and beautiful gardens of wild flowers—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Mount Royal.
* * *
COLOMBIA
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
although Colombia is one of the oldest democracies in Latin
America, and until two years ago had the strongest economic
record on the continent, its history of chronic political
violence, accompanied by massive human rights violations, has
never been worse.
Witness the following: there were 5,000 deaths and 3,000
reported kidnappings in the year 2000 alone; Colombia has one of
the highest homicide rates in the world; over 1,000 Colombians
have been displaced in the last five years; and massacres of
civilians by both paramilitary and guerrilla forces continue.
This week, representatives of the Invisible Popular Struggles
Tour in Colombia brought their witness testimony to Canada and to
parliament, putting a tragic human face on this horrific
situation, including the following: the number of human rights
defenders, trade unionists, journalists and other representatives
of civil society targeted for assassinations and disappearance is
increasing; most of the victims of the political violence are
unarmed black, indigenous, Campesino, women, labour and other
popular leaders and civilians; and worst of all, there is total
impunity for political violence.
I trust that the forthcoming summit—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.
* * *
COMPUTING DEVICES CANADA LTD.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier today I joined the Minister of National Defence and the
hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean at a press conference
announcing the awarding of a $58.6 million contract to Computing
Devices Canada Ltd.
The contract to replace the acoustic system for Canada's 20 year
old CP-140 Aurora aircraft will mean the creation of
approximately 40 to 80 highly skilled, well paying local jobs.
The awarding of this very important contract to Computing
Devices is further evidence of the depth and breadth of our local
high technology industry. This is a company which has over many
years consistently shown itself capable of producing some of the
most advanced defence technology anywhere in the world.
I am particularly pleased that Canada's long range maritime
surveillance aircraft will once again be the envy of our allies.
Whether it is performing search and rescue functions, watching
for drug traffickers or illegal immigrants, monitoring foreign
fishing fleets and environmental violations or engaging in
humanitarian operations, this contract provides a—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, British Columbians have six
seats in Canada's Senate and, of the six, there is one vacancy.
Two of B.C.'s senators have announced that they will resign and
run in elections if the Prime Minister will commit to appointing
the winner of any future Senate election.
In 1998 Albertans elected two senators in waiting but the Prime
Minister did not commit ahead of the election to appointing
Alberta's two elected senators. He appointed his choice instead
of that of Albertans.
The lesson learned from Alberta's experience is that until the
Prime Minister makes the commitment to respect democracy in the
Senate, real reform will remain out of the grasp of Canadians.
If the Prime Minister is serious about addressing western
alienation, if he is serious about democracy, fairness and
openness, he will commit today to allowing the democratization of
50% of B.C.'s Senate delegation today. British Columbians are
ready to take a step in the right direction toward a new
beginning.
Is the Prime Minister ready to demonstrate that step as well?
Let us hope so.
* * *
[Translation]
ST. PATRICK'S DAY
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, March
17 we will be celebrating St. Patrick's Day, the national day of
the Irish people, whose struggle to take their place among the
nations of the world remains a source of inspiration to the
Quebec people.
1105
In the early 19th century, Louis-Joseph Papineau and the
patriotes of the day were inspired by the nationalist
convictions of Ireland's Daniel O'Connell.
We are told that 40% of Quebecers, many francophone, may have
Irish ancestry, so there is a good explanation for the tenacious
character of the Quebec people.
The beauty, richness and open-mindedness of the Quebec people and
its culture is due to the contribution of all the immigrants who
have settled here, each bringing with them something of their
own history.
Today I and the Bloc Quebecois wish everyone a happy St.
Patrick's Day.
* * *
[English]
OXFORD AGRICULTURE AWARDS
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March 8
the agricultural community in my riding came together to honour
innovation and achievement at the first Oxford county
Agricultural Awards of Excellence.
Oxford county producers are known far and wide for their
efficient, innovative and environmentally responsible farming
practices. This year several were rewarded by their peers for
these efforts.
I was honoured to be present at this gala event and would like
to recognize the following winners: in large agribusiness, Cold
Springs Farm; in small agribusiness, Vincent Farm Equipment Ltd.;
in farm innovation, Blythe Brae Farms; for the family farm,
Munro's Ornum Farms; for food processing, Otter Valley Foods
Inc.; for conservation, Oxford Soil and Crop Improvement
Association; and the president's technology award went to
Canada's Outdoor Farm Show.
I congratulate all this year's finalists as well as the Oxford
County Federation of Agriculture and President Nancy Walther for
their foresight and hard work in organizing this premiere event.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two days ago I and some of my colleagues
attended a farm rally at Lansdowne Park to try to get the extra
$400 million in support that farmers need this year.
I want to congratulate the leaders of the NDP and the
Conservatives for making agriculture their lead questions that
day. At the farm rally the Leader of the Opposition told farmers
that agriculture was his number one priority, but was agriculture
his lead question in the House that day? No. Was it his second
question that day? No.
If agriculture is a priority for the Canadian Alliance, why was
it question number eight? The leader of the Canadian Alliance is
crying crocodile tears for farmers. This is the party that said
no subsidies. He should be ashamed.
Let all of us make agriculture our number one priority.
* * *
ST. PATRICK'S DAY
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is St. Patrick's Day and I rise today to
pay tribute to St. Patrick, to honour all sons and daughters of
Ireland and to extend greetings to all on this blessed day.
St. Paddy's Day conjures up images of shamrocks, leprechauns and
green beverages. I encourage everyone to partake in these
festivities, but I also want people to reflect on the character
of the person for whom this day is named.
Patricius was born in Roman Britain sometime in the 5th century.
When he was 16 he was carried off into captivity by marauders and
sold as a slave to a local warlord in Ireland. For six years
Patrick tended his master's sheep, during which time he developed
a deep and abiding faith in God and a virulent hatred of slavery.
These passions inspired him to dedicate his life to serving God
and ministering to the people of Ireland. He also became a
strong voice against slavery and for the equal dignity of human
beings.
He did not chase the snakes out of Ireland, and he may never
have plucked a shamrock to teach the mystery of the Trinity, yet
St. Patrick deserves to be remembered and honoured for the
example of his life—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
* * *
ST. PATRICK'S DAY
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
we have noted, tomorrow is St. Patrick's Day. As early as the
17th century, the Irish were in Canada, in Newfoundland and in
New France.
By 1867 and Confederation, fully one-third of the population of
the country was Irish, including the visionary father of
Confederation, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, who, if he were alive today,
would be speaking for the continuation of Canadian unity and the
continuation of the federation as we know it today, including the
province of Quebec as part of the Canadian family.
This Chamber has the symbols of the Irish everywhere. The very
ceiling above us is fine Irish linen, for those who are not aware
of that fact. Above your chair, Mr. Speaker, is the Canadian
coat of arms, including the Royal Harp of Tara and the Irish
shamrock.
To the four million Irish Canadians who have made a great
contribution to this country and to all Canadians, I want to wish
them a happy St. Patrick's Day tomorrow: Beannachtai na Feile
Padraig oraibh go leir.
* * *
1110
SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
Statistics Canada study released this week shows the rich are
getting richer and the poor are getting poorer in this country.
The richest families saw their net worth grow by 39%, while the
poorest saw little change in their wealth. Half of all families
hold 94% of all of the wealth, leaving the other half with only
6%.
We are a very divided and polarized society.
The government has made things worse by slashing our social
infrastructure to pieces, thus undermining social housing,
unemployment insurance, health and education.
Thanks to this government, families are falling further behind
in their efforts to save and to access education, decent housing
and security for their future.
It is time that the government woke up and recognized the role
that it has played in making the wealth gap worse. It is time to
reinvest in the programs that are essential to bringing about
social justice and greater equality in the country.
* * *
[Translation]
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, where
regional development is concerned, it is clear that Ottawa is
more concerned about its image than about developing the regions
of Quebec.
In 1996, Quebecers paid close to $14.6 billion in personal
income tax to Ottawa, which in turn, in 1999, made capital
investments of a mere $652 million, a reinvestment in the order
of 4.5%.
In addition, the federal government has had a negative impact on
the regions of Quebec.
As far as transportation is concerned, it has failed to provide
the regions with affordable and accessible air service, and the
employment insurance program contains inequities, particularly
for seasonal workers, and this is in large part responsible for
our young people moving elsewhere. For example, in my region of
Saguenay—Lac-Saint Jean, they are leaving at the equivalent of one
bus-load every week.
The crumbs distributed by the secretary of state to the 56 CFDCs
of Quebec will do absolutely nothing to change the situation.
Quite simply, the regions of Quebec do not derive sufficient
benefit from Canadian federalism.
* * *
STUDENT JOBS
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, now is the time for Canadian students to explore the
avenues open to them in the labour market for the coming summer
and for businesses to analyze their staffing needs.
In order to give both students and businesses support, Minister
of Human Resources Development and the Secretary of State for
Children and Youth have launched the student summer job action
2001 program.
Under this program, the federal government provides salary
support to businesses hiring students during the summer. It
grants loans to students establishing businesses and it gives a
number of young people the opportunity to work in the federal
public service.
The summer career placements program is also very popular with
business and students. It gives students an opportunity to work
in their field of study.
I invite students and businesses to take part in these programs.
They will find them very useful.
* * *
[English]
JAMES GRANVILLE JOHNSON
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on February 28, 2001, at Loch Katrine United Church
in Guysborough county, a community turned out to mourn a native
son, James Granville Johnson. His wife Carole and children Dana,
Diane and Debbie were joined by family and friends to mourn and
pay tribute to this remarkable man and his life well lived.
The former warden of St. Mary's district had a heart as big as
Guysborough and an intellect as deep as the waters off Sable. Jim
found great joy in befriending and helping others. He loved his
family, the land and its politics and of course the sea and its
creatures such as wayward whales. His big callused hands were
always busy, reaching out, fixing, holding, creating for the good
of all. Unselfish random acts of kindness were his trademark.
He was a robust man of action who loved and lived life to the
fullest. Nautical adventurer, crewman on the Bounty,
photographer, storyteller, artisan and scuba diver are but some
of the hats he wore on his imposing brow.
The words of Rudyard Kipling's If describe him well:
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings—nor lose the common touch;
It was my good fortune to know Jim. He will be missed by all
who knew him and even by those who did not, because for Jim there
were never strangers, just friends he had never met.
* * *
BILL C-286
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
encourage all members of the House to strongly condemn the
private member's bill, Bill C-286, an act to amend the Official
Languages Act, introduced by an hon. member of the House.
The bill would take away the right of every Canadian to receive
service from the federal government in either official language
and eliminate the use of French in the public service.
It is yet another thinly veiled attempt by some members of the
Alliance to break up our country through institutional
intolerance.
This bill will put discrimination in legislation and
deliberately destroy Canada's linguistic heritage.
I therefore call on all members of the House to stand firm for
Canada and vote down this misguided and divisive bill.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1115
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the matter of the mystery shareholder
of the Grand-Mère golf course could all be so simple. Yesterday
I again asked the Prime Minister to say a few words about his
potential ownership of the Grand-Mère golf course but he kept
dodging the question. He has refused to answer the very simple
question about who the mystery fourth shareholder of the golf
course was between 1996 and 1999.
If he was not a shareholder, and I am not saying he was or he
was not, he raises the curiosity by not answering it directly.
I am simply asking him today, if he was not a shareholder
between 1996 and 1999, who was the fourth mystery shareholder?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday that he had divested
himself of those shares before he became Prime Minister in 1993.
It follows that he was not the so-called mystery shareholder and
therefore it also follows that he would not have the information
sought by my hon. friend.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is avoiding
something here. The Prime Minister phoned the ethics counsellor
in 1996 because he got the shares back. I hope he remembers that
when I ask my question. He got the shares back, by his own
admission, after about a year and a half of us asking him that
question.
I want to know something. We know the names of three of the
shareholders. We know the fourth name could be that of the Prime
Minister. Now there is only one blank left to fill in.
Since privacy is not the concern in this case, will the Prime
Minister commit to releasing the identity of the fourth
shareholder after the officials examine the records? They are
looking at those records. Will—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is simply wrong. The Prime Minister did
not take back the shares. As recently as yesterday the ethics
counsellor said:
I am satisfied, and have been for an awfully long time, that the
Prime Minister sold his shares in 1993. I am absolutely certain
that (the Prime Minister) did not own those shares between 1993
and 1999...I've gone through this very, very carefully, seen the
original sale documents from 1993, seen the documents from 1999.
If there is a blank anywhere, it is in the mind of the Leader of
the Opposition.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wish he would read all the
correspondence. The ethics counsellor has said that, because
there may be more information, he has now asked the director
general of the corporations branch of Industry Canada to examine
the books, a little fact that the Deputy Prime Minister left out.
When the minister's officials examine the books, they will know
whether in fact the Prime Minister was in conflict of interest or
not.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of Industry share
the results of the examination of the books and will they show us
the name of this fourth mystery person? The Prime Minister—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is repeating something that is not
accurate. The Prime Minister did not own the shares in 1996. If
he did not own the shares in 1996, he does not have jurisdiction
over the documents. The jurisdiction over the documents depends
on the requirements and wording of the Canada Corporations Act
and that act I am certain will be lived up to in its entirety.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the blank that the Deputy Prime Minister talks about is
1996 when the Prime Minister talked to the ethics counsellor and
told him that he had a problem because he still owned the shares.
The Prime Minister talks about the shares as being in a blind
trust. If those shares were in a blind trust, he would have no
idea whether he got those shares back or not. That is the issue.
There is an ethical obligation here to find out if the Prime
Minister actually owned those shares in 1996 and was in a
conflict of interest when he was lobbying for grants and loans.
The Minister of Industry, hopefully, although he is trying to
protect his boss, will get to the bottom of that. The question
is, who is that fourth secret shareholder and will he name that
person?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat what the ethics counsellor said yesterday, I
think to Canadian Press:
I am absolutely certain that (the Prime Minister) did not own
those shares between 1993 and 1999...I've gone through this very,
very carefully, seen the original sale documents from 1993, seen
the documents from 1999.
With respect to the documents filed with the industry
department, the ethics counsellor when on to say that he was
certain that the minister and his officials would comply with the
relevant law and that certainly, to the extent the law permits,
information would be made available.
However, I repeat, the Prime Minister insists he—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
1120
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, how do we even know that? As for the ethics
counsellor, what do we expect him to say except that his boss is
the best?
We are not getting straight answers here. The government
obviously has something to hide. Again, we know that there were
three shareholders. The Prime Minister claims that he was not a
shareholder and the ethics counsellor says “yeah, you bet”,
although why in the world would they have this conversation in
1996 then? That is a moot point. There would have been no need
to even have that discussion if it was in fact in a blind trust.
The industry minister, through this investigation, will soon
know who that is and the Canadian public demands to know—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that the relevant law would be complied with. I
assure the House and the Canadian public that I and the
government are providing straight answers even though we are
obviously not getting straight questions.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, Le Devoir contained a damning report on the integration
of women into the Canadian armed forces.
It reveals that, despite promises and all of the propaganda that
has gone into recruiting women, they represent a meagre 11.1% of
the force.
How does the Minister of National Defence explain this miserable
failure of his policy on integration?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, 11.5% is actually one of the highest in NATO, but I
think we can do a lot better. We put in place an employment
equity program about a year ago that will help lead us toward
doing that. It will help make women more welcome, not just in
the administrative part of the Canadian forces but also in the
combat area, if they are qualified. We are not reducing our
qualifications one iota. It is not about that. It is about
removing barriers, and we are determined to do that. We are
determined to increase the number of women in the Canadian
forces.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, now is the
time to act. Apart from what the Minister of National Defence
is saying, he has a damning report in his hands.
It refers as well to comments made by military personnel in a
position of authority. It reports misogynous, contemptuous and
racist comments about women.
How can the Minister of National Defence allow such comments,
which is totally repugnant to modern society?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. Some of the
comments quoted in the report were absolutely appalling. They
did not correspond to the values of Canadian society nor of the
Canadian forces. They did not represent what the vast number of
men and women of the Canadian forces believe.
People will be expected to follow the values of the Canadian
forces in terms of their behaviour and will be held accountable
for doing that. There will be better and more effective
education and more accountable leadership within the forces to
help ensure that we do in fact make women, visible minorities and
aboriginals more welcome in the Canadian forces.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the same report condemns some comments made by military
personnel about women such as, and I quote:
There is obviously a major problem with DND's policy to
integrate women.
Does the minister realize that there is a total lack of
awareness among military personnel regarding the place of women
and minorities in society?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, I think those comments
were absolutely appalling and unacceptable.
At the same time, I must say that they did not represent the
values of the vast majority of the men and women in the Canadian
forces. People will be expected to follow those values. They
will be expected to exhibit behaviour that is acceptable, not
what those kinds of comments represent.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we also learned that the military personnel responsible
for recruiting women, members of visible minorities and
aboriginals in the Canadian forces does not know anything about
the meaning of employment equity.
Will the minister pledge to set up a true action plan to change
the very culture of the Canadian forces?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there has been great change in the Canadian forces
over the last few years. Over 300 recommendations that came out
of such reports as the Somalia commission and various other
studies are in effect changing the culture of the Canadian
forces.
1125
What the report the member cited also said was that a sound
employment equity plan was put in place a year ago. They
supported that, I supported that and we will implement it. We
will make sure we remove those barriers and make the Canadian
forces more reflective of society as it is today in Canada.
* * *
TAXATION
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A recent Statistics Canada study suggested that the wealthiest
half of Canadian families have 94% of the wealth and the poorest
half of Canadian families have some 6% of the wealth. In other
words, the gap between the rich and the poor is widening and
moving further away from the Trudeau vision of a just society.
In light of that, could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House
why the government chose to cut capital gains tax a few months
ago when it clearly favoured the rich over the poor, further
widening the gap between the rich and the poor in this country?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to give a fair and balanced picture, the hon. member
should also have talked about the billions and billions of
dollars we have added to the national child benefit, a most
important new social program in a generation especially focused
on low income Canadians. He should also have mentioned the $2.5
billion that we committed last fall to early childhood education.
Yes, poverty is a serious problem, but we are working on it. As
far as the government and I are concerned, we are making
progress.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Statistics Canada says exactly the opposite. It says
that the gap is widening between the rich and the poor and that
the government's tax package will widen that gap even further.
Some corporate executives in this country have saved millions of
dollars because of the cut in taxes and capital gains. My
neighbour in Saskatchewan, John Keen, told me this morning that
he saved $25 on his $500 capital gains on a small mutual fund.
In light of this kind of evidence from Statistics Canada, will
the minister now consider a wealth tax in this country at a
similar level to the United States? The American government is,
of course, admired by both this government and the official
opposition.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
member should remember that since we took office, we have taken
almost 800,000 low income Canadians off the tax rolls. We have
introduced full indexation, which helps those at the bottom end
the most. Thirty-five per cent of our personal tax cuts went to
low income Canadians and Canadians with families.
In addition, our tax relief of $1.3 billion for energy costs
went to low and middle income Canadians and the homeless received
$753 million.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
today desperate farmers are occupying the legislature in
Manitoba. Yesterday they were burning the minister of
agriculture in effigy. What does the minister do? Does he go
and find more money for these desperate farmers? No. His
department decides to do a media blitz and advertises how
wonderful his government is doing in agriculture.
Could the minister tell us how much that media blitz cost? Could
he also tell us whether it would not have been better to spend
that money on agricultural programs than in Mr. Asper's
newspapers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a government has an obligation to inform
Canadians on what it does. The hon. member often reminds us that
we should tell Canadians what the government is doing.
What we did was explain to farmers and to Canadians the support
and the increase that the government has provided. I do not need
to take the time of the House to remind everyone that we have
gone from $600 million to $1.6 billion. There will be $2.66
billion dollars made available to farmers in income support this
spring.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
still do not know how much the media blitz cost but I am sure we
can do that through access to information.
I think we should tell Canadians what this minister has not
done. He said in the House that his government since 1995 has
been putting more money into agriculture. Could he tell us why
in 1993 there were $4.4 billion in federal funding and today
there are only $2 billion in federal funding? What happened to
the difference? Before he talks about the $42 billion deficit,
we know there is money there. The finance minister has told us
that there is surplus. Could the minister tell us why he cannot
find another $400 million for agriculture?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member answered his own
question. When we formed this government, the Government of
Canada was taking in $120 billion a year and spending $162
billion. We cannot do that on a farm or in any other business.
That is a $42 billion deficit. We had to put the fiscal mess
that the Tories left us in order before we could help farmers.
Now that we have it in order, we are helping farmers.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on June 28, 1999, Gaetano Amodeo and his wife submitted
an application to Immigration Canada for permanent residency.
As an applicant of Italian origin, Mr. Amodeo was required to
include documents certifying he did not have a criminal record
and was not under investigation by the police. Given that there
was a warrant for Mr. Amodeo's arrest, he would have had a hard
time producing these documents.
1130
My question is for the minister of immigration.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Every immigrant, not just Italians.
That's racist.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Did Mr. Amodeo include the required
police check with his application?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, Mr.
Amodeo's name was removed from the original application. I also
want to say very clearly to the House that there was no meeting
between Mr. Amodeo and any immigration official.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there are two alternatives. Either the minister and the
department of immigration waived the requirement for Mr. Amodeo
to provide a certificate showing that he had no criminal past or
the department of immigration knew that he was a wanted fugitive.
Did the department of immigration receive a certificate of good
conduct from the Italian police with Mr. Amodeo's application in
1999? Yes or no.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me try again because the premise of
his question is completely wrong. Mr. Amodeo was not a party to
the first application because his name was removed by a legal
document.
Let me say very clearly, he was not granted permanent resident
status. As soon as we had sufficient evidence he was arrested.
He is now in jail and awaiting a deportation hearing. He is not
a permanent resident of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in its report,
the committee states that “there was a resistance to any data
gathering”.
It is obvious that the absence of any measures to evaluate the
results and the efforts of military personnel in positions of
authority contributes to their lack of interest for any
integration program.
Will the Minister of National Defence admit that not assessing,
in the evaluating report of military personnel in positions of
authority, the achievement of equity objectives for women
removes any incentive to take the department's objectives
seriously, with the result that all the fine rhetoric becomes
meaningless?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there have been failings in the past in terms of how
these issues have been dealt with. There is a data gap. There
is no doubt about it. Much of the information in the report that
was published is based on anecdotal information.
We are determined that we are going to cover that gap in terms
of data collection. We are going about doing it in a much better
way now so that we can have the kind of measurements for progress
year in and year out to show that we are in fact implementing our
employment equity plan. We are determined to do that.
[Translation]
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the
minister prepared to periodically report to the House on the
results obtained by military personnel, so that we can evaluate
their performance and, if necessary, decide on corrective
measures or sanctions?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Yes,
Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services announced in the House that the maritime helicopter
contract would not be signed until next year; that is 2002.
That puts the delivery of the Sea King replacement to 2007,
maybe even 2008. That is another delay in a 30 year project.
There is something wrong here.
The minister has told the House and the military repeatedly that
we would be getting new choppers in 2005. Does the minister
still actually have a plan—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of National
Defence.
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding with the procurement for maritime
helicopters to replace the Sea King. It is our priority
purchase.
I am still hopeful that we could have them by the end of 2005. I
talked with the assistant deputy minister in charge of
procurement and insisted that we do everything possible to speed
up the procurement process so that we can get those helicopters
just as quickly as we can to meet our needs, and to get them at
the best possible price for Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister should get together with the minister
of public works. This is the only country in the NATO alliance
that has divided up a major defence procurement into two
projects: avionics and airframe. There is no prime contractor
either.
What happens when something goes wrong? Who is responsible?
1135
My question is for the minister. Who dreamed up this scheme to
divide the contracts? Which minister was it: the public works
minister or the national defence minister? Is he prepared to
stand in the House today and take the blame for this mess?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no mess and there is no difference among
the minister of public works, myself and the cabinet on this
matter.
That shows that the member really does not know what he is
talking about because there is a prime contractor. It will be
the mission system integrator. There will be two competitions so
we can get the best price and the best product to meet our needs.
* * *
[Translation]
FOOD INSPECTION
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the House, the Minister of Agriculture stated that
he was confident that the Starlink contaminated feed corn would
be found, and that he was also confident that it had not gone
into the feeding system.
A few minutes later, outside the House, he stated that the
shipment had been located.
Can the minister solemnly affirm in this House that the shipment
has been located, and will he commit to providing a list of the
locations to which the contaminated grain was delivered before
the Food Inspection Agency issued a recall notice?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said outside the House yesterday that I
was confident the product had not entered the food chain. I was
informed that some of the product of the one shipment, which was
totally detained, did get into the animal feeding system.
Health Canada says that there is an unlikely possibility of any
damage or any effect as far as it going through an animal and
then into the food chain. Some of it did get into the feeding
system but not into the food chain.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know if the minister realizes this, but his words are cause
for considerable concern. We are dealing with pure
improvisation on the part of the government here, and this is a
concern for the health of the Canadian public.
Yesterday, a scientist from the Food Inspection Agency said “It
is very possible that it has got in before and that it continues
to do so”.
Is the minister of agriculture going to continue telling us that
everything is fine, or is he going to take concrete measures to
ensure that such a situation never repeats itself in Canada?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the record of the Canadian food
inspection system is one of which we can all be very proud.
Any food products that came in from the United States which
contained the StarLink corn were taken off the market. Other
tests have been conducted, and to date no positive tests have
shown that the StarLink is there. If so, they will be dealt with
accordingly and taken off the market.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the agriculture minister has responded in a cold and
callous way to farmer rallies by placing ads in big city
newspapers saying that he is right and farmers are wrong.
All farmers are asking for is compensation for their prices
being driven down by unfair trade in other countries. This
minister responds by putting propaganda ads in the city sections
of big city newspapers.
Why is this minister more concerned with protecting his own
image than with protecting the family farm?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the comment very interesting
coming from a party that wants the government to tell Canadians
where we spend money and how we spend money.
With that information we inform Canadians on how we spend money.
Nobody said anything about who was right and who was wrong. We
simply stated what the government was doing and continues to do
and builds upon in order to assist agriculture producers.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the answer quite frankly sounds quite a bit like a
continuation of the propaganda ads. Farmers are not suffering
from a lack of Liberal rhetoric; they are suffering from a lack
of government action.
Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explain why he
thinks it is more important for him to spend money on his
faltering image than it is to spend money on protecting farmers
and saving the family farm?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear members from
that party talk about image.
It is a party that not many months ago said it would remove
subsidies to farmers. It is a party that has finally seen the
light of the value of supply management in Canada. It is a party
that said it would cut funding to agriculture and agri-food.
1140
Contrary to that, the government has been there, will be there
and will always be there for our farmers to give support and
resources to grain farmers, supply management and other primary
producers.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Revenue. Whether or not we like it, the time has now
come for some 23 million Canadians to prepare and file their
income tax returns for the 2000 taxation year.
What has the new Canada Customs and Revenue Agency done to make
this annual obligation easier to fulfil?
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question. This year as a new option the agency invites
Canadians to file their income tax return by the Internet using
certified commercial software. Internet filing is easy, is
secure and is available seven days a week. Clients will receive
their receipt very quickly.
There are two other filing options available. One is using—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Dartmouth.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, two major
studies released this week show the deplorable state of
prescription drug coverage. There is a patchwork of coverage
from province to province. People with chronic health problems
who live in the maritimes are the most poorly served, as are
those with certain illnesses, such as diabetes, MS and
schizophrenia.
Four years ago the National Forum on Health called for a
national plan to provide all citizens with access to medically
necessary drugs. When will the government keep its 1997 election
promise to bring in a national pharmacare program?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the representation of the hon. member. This
is something we are looking into. Certainly as we develop the
implementation of the national health accord, I am sure there
will be further progress in this area.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the
last budget 13 months ago, the Liberal government gave a tiny
fraction of what the nation needs for roads and infrastructure,
but this will not touch the surface of the problem. Bad roads
are still responsible for hundreds of deaths.
Provinces and municipalities across the country cannot keep up
since the Liberal government abandoned infrastructure funding.
Many are saying that without federal assistance they will have no
choice but to resort to toll roads.
Will the Liberal government table a budget this year with a
significant investment in public infrastructure, or does it think
more toll roads are the answer?
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
for her question. I guess she has not been paying attention to
the fact that our infrastructure spending program encompasses
$600 million for new roads.
This has been implemented through negotiation with our
provincial partners. We look favourably toward the input of the
people of Manitoba from her riding as well as those from other
ridings across the country. The program has been very
successfully received by municipalities and we look forward to
implementing it.
* * *
COAST GUARD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the Canadian coast guard
maritime region has left up to $250,000 worth of seasonal buoys
in the water this winter, potentially losing or ruining them for
future use.
The coast guard cuts have resulted in a reduction of fixed and
floating aids in the water, thus jeopardizing safety. The news
of the negligence of seasonal buoys only exacerbates public
frustration over the government's mismanagement of the fishery.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirm that this
irresponsible act occurred, and will he investigate to ensure
that it is remedied and discontinued?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that the coast
guard's priority is the safety of Canadians. It will do
everything possible to make sure that those buoys are properly
maintained and protected.
We have a program to improve our coast guard response teams. I
announced last year a major investment in the coast guard so we
could ensure that we provided the service to protect Canadians.
Safety is our number one priority.
* * *
1145
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government has granted hundreds of licences and bought boats and
gear for natives in eastern Canada, yet only a handful of these
licences are actually being fished by band members.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to a moratorium
on these royalty charters for the chiefs until the hundreds of
licences already granted are being fished by aboriginals on the
east coast?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that we have
purchased under the volunteer retirement program as his party and
other parties recommended.
However, the vast majority of the licences are fished by
aboriginal people. There may be exceptions where they may not
have the equipment and may not have the training to do that, but
our objective is to make sure that aboriginal people have the
equipment, have the training and the skill to fully benefit from
the licences they purchased and the right to go out and fish
commercially.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a repeat sexual offender who showed no remorse and
has a lengthy criminal record will serve no jail time, despite
being found guilty last week of sexually assaulting a native
woman in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.
The judge cited the government's change to the criminal code
when he allowed the aboriginal offender to remain at large in
their small aboriginal community. Is this what the government
calls justice?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when individuals are convicted of
criminal offences they are sent to prison and evaluated by
Correctional Service Canada as to where they should serve their
sentences. That is how it is done.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is a repeat
offender.
The government has turned aboriginal women into second class
victims by encouraging such race based handling of aboriginal
male attackers. When will the government end this affront to
aboriginal women?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government and Correctional Service
Canada treat all Canadians equally. The fact of the matter is
that if individuals commit an offence and are convicted, they are
sent to prison and evaluated. It is decided as to where they
will serve their sentences. There are rehabilitation and
punishment in the correctional services system.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs took a position
squarely on the side of those who oppose Cuba's participation in
the Summit of the Americas, saying that Cuba showed little
respect for democracy and did not allow dissent.
How can the minister explain, on the one hand, the inclusive and
tolerant policy of his government towards countries such as
China and Indonesia, where human rights and democracy are being
violated and, on the other, the policy of excluding Cuba?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs
made it clear that Cuba's participation in the Summit of the
Americas had not been possible because a hemispheric consensus
had not been reached, in light of that country's refusal to
engage in certain democratic reforms.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is a double standard.
On March 18, 1994, in speaking about China and various other
countries, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
Why is it that this same reasoning does not apply to Cuba?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the case of China, we will not enter into
a agreement that in any way resembles those we are contemplating
with the Americas. We wish to consolidate democracy in the
Americas, to negotiate a free trade agreement which will
reinforce that democracy.
We believe that we must maintain relations with China in order
to encourage it along the road to democracy. We support China's
entry into the World Trade Organization, but this is not a close
relationship of the sort that would exist with a free trade
agreement.
The Bloc Quebecois must open its eyes to this basic reality of
foreign policy.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is in
charge of the residential school file. To date all we have heard
on this topic has been unsubstantiated news reports about the
government being liable for amounts ranging from $2 billion to
$10 billion.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House how much the
government will pay to settle these lawsuits?
1150
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has not taken a decision on a formal
proposal or plan to discuss with the church organizations
involved or the victims about a way to resolve this matter more
quickly and more cheaply than if we relied principally on the
litigation process.
However, as the government's special representative in this
matter, I have undertaken a new dialogue which I think is going
well. Once decisions are made by the government on the formal
plan, they will be made known to all concerned.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for
pushing this issue forward.
In addition to money, are there any other means that the
government is considering to acknowledge the suffering of victims
and to help them experience healing and reconciliation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, some years ago the federal government set up the
Aboriginal Healing Foundation run by native people at arm's
length from the government. It has a budget of $350 million and
it is carrying out projects dealing in reconciliation.
It could be that as a result of the discussions I am undertaking
there could be further action in that regard, but we are already
taking important steps with regard to facilitating healing and
reconciliation.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade. It
concerns the sale of ice wine to the member countries of the
European Union.
Since 1989 Canada has been struggling to gain access to European
Union markets for its flagship wine. Canada has been impeded by
a ruling which prevented importation of wines exceeding 15%
potential alcohol without special permission from the union.
Could the minister inform the House what changes have taken
place that will allow ice wines to be sold in the European Union,
and could we expect changes in the exporting of VQA wines to
Europe?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank and congratulate the member for
St. Catharines on his great effort in terms of the wine industry.
He has been doing very good work.
Years of co-operative effort among the government, the minister
of agriculture, the governments of the provinces and our Canadian
wine industry have finally paid off. We expect the European
commission to adopt in the next few weeks necessary legislative
changes to allow imports of Canadian ice wine.
This marks an important step in Canada's ongoing discussions
with the European Union on resolving a number of issues related
to wine and spirits, including—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton
Centre—East.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canada went to war in Korea 50 years
ago to fight the communist threat. Today that war is still not
over. It is still a war on hold. Over 500 Canadians died in
Korea in defence of freedom, never to return home. China was the
main supporter of that terrible conflict.
Our Korean war veterans are shocked by the way the government is
now cozying up to this communist superpower. Could the minister
explain why we are now teaching winter warfare tactics to a
country that is clearly not one of our allies?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are not cozying up and we are not training them.
We are entering into a dialogue with the Chinese. The Chinese
military is an important part of the elements of security and
defence in the Pacific. Engaging in constructive dialogue is a
good thing to do.
The United States, which also has many Korean war veterans, and
other countries all do the same things including constructive
dialogue. It also gives us the opportunity to show them how we
operate in Canada and how our values of democracy work well. We
are given that opportunity when we have constructive dialogue.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it has been 10 years since the end of
the gulf war conflict. Canada's gulf war veterans want only
pride and respect through official recognition as war veterans
for serving in that war zone.
Our allies recognize their gulf war veterans as war veterans.
Why do we not? Will the minister give Canada's peacekeeping
veterans respect and official recognition as war veterans, and
when?
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the redefinition of
war veteran is actively under consideration. We certainly value
the contribution of all members of the forces to our country.
* * *
1155
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday's edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail
contained a letter by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
In his missive, the minister said clearly that Quebec is a
nation.
Should the minister not admit now clearly that, despite his fine
words and hollow rhetoric, he is unable to get his arrogant and
centralizing government to accept this fact, which he himself
accepts, the fact that Quebec is a nation?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Quebec is a nation in the sociological sense of the
word, but, in the opinion of the Quebec Premier, there are a
number of nations in Quebec, since he refuses to consider the
aboriginal nations part of the Quebec nation.
I am pleased to be a part of Quebec and Canada. I see no
contradiction in belonging to the two, and if I could at the
same time have native membership, I would be very happy.
* * *
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today's workforce is changing at a very fast rate.
Employees and employers require labour laws that are modern and
keep pace with these changes.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Labour. Could she tell the House what the government is doing
to ensure that the Canada Labour Code would continue to protect
workers in federal jurisdictions?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite.
The government has been very responsive to the growing needs in
the workforce.
In 1998 we amended part I of the labour code. In 2000 we
amended part II. Currently there is a tripartite review of part
III of the labour code to ensure that we indeed meet the changing
realities of today's labour force.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government has neglected the ongoing maintenance and development
of highways and infrastructure for the last number of years and
we are now at a critical point. The longer the delay, the
greater the costs.
I ask the parliamentary secretary why the government is forcing
the provinces and municipalities to consider toll roads to ensure
that we have safe highways and the proper infrastructure that the
country needs?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the
government has announced a $600 million federal contribution
toward the national system.
Discussions have been ongoing. Formal negotiations will
continue shortly. Those negotiations will include the potential
for private-public partnerships. If toll roads are included
appropriately under this program, they could be included as a
part of the improvement to the national highway system.
* * *
INDUSTRY
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last week the industry minister announced a $10 million
loan to Sierra Wireless. He seems to be doing his part in
spending the surplus before the end of March. He is working
hard, overtime, to get rid of that surplus. At the same time
Sierra announced fourth quarter revenue profit increases of 221%
or $22 million.
What does the Minister of Industry mean when he said “Anybody
who is looking to me as a minister to advocate subsidies, I am
not interested; I do not believe in it; I am not interested any
more; I do not think its productive; I am not having relations
with those subsidies?”
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is not spending
money. The government is investing money. It is investing in
the new economy and that is why Canada is leading the pack. That
is why we are attracting the best and the brightest for the new
economy of tomorrow.
* * *
1200
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, during question period, while the member for Wild
Rose was putting a question to a government minister, I heard the
member for Waterloo—Wellington very distinctly use quite odious
remarks that were profoundly unparliamentary. He referred to
members of this party as being racists. This is a term that he
frequently uses.
We have brought this to the attention of the Chair in the past.
I would ask that the Speaker bring to order people who use
scurrilous remarks which clearly are totally unparliamentary and
uncalled for and which bring disrepute on himself and this place.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Waterloo—Wellington
is in the House and I certainly would want to give him the
opportunity to respond.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
often I hear a number of things from the opposition, especially
the reform alliance people, to which I yell, rubbish.
The Deputy Speaker: The matter raised by the member for
Calgary Southeast of course is taken very seriously by the Chair.
I have heard from both parties. It is my intention to review the
blues and, if necessary, I will report back to the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means
motion respecting amendments to the Income Tax Act, the income
tax application rules, certain acts related to the Income Tax
Act, to the Canada pension plan, to the Customs Act, to the
Excise Tax Act, to the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations
Act, and another act related to the Excise Tax Act.
This notice of ways and means represents the incredible amount
of work we have done in terms of the budgetary process, working
closely with members from all sides of the House. I ask that an
order of the day be designated to debate the motion.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
* * *
1205
[English]
STATISTICS ACT
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-301, an act to amend the Statistics
Act (ethnicity question).
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on
behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to introduce my
private member's bill in the House today. The purpose of the
bill is to ensure that no questions can be asked in the
Statistics Canada population census to determine a person's
ethnicity.
Ours is a great country that respects equal rights and equal
opportunities for all Canadians. Laws, programs and services
must be available for all. Our nation is blessed with people
from all around the world. The one common thread that holds us
all together is that we are all Canadians.
I hope my colleagues recognize the intent of the bill, which is
to promote equality, because we are and will remain always
Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CANADA POST
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to
present a petition.
The undersigned residents of Canada, many of them from the
Edmonton area, draw to the attention of the House of Commons that
rural route mail couriers often earn less than the minimum wage
in working conditions reminiscent of another era. They have not
been allowed to bargain collectively to improve their wages and
working conditions like others. The private sector workers who
deliver mail in rural areas have collective bargaining rights, as
do public sector workers who deliver mail for Canada Post in
urban areas, and they have a problem with that.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to repeal
section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
* * *
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 6 and 7.
The government has answers to both of these questions and I ask
that those answers be printed in Hansard as if read.
.[Text]
*Question No. 6—Mr. Guy St-Julien:
What is the unemployment rate for students aged 15 to 24 in
Abitibi-Témiscamingue for the month of January 2001, according to
the labour force indicator?
Mr. Derek Lee: For the month of
January 2001, the youth unemployment rate, students and
non-students, was 21.1% in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. All the
estimates are based on a three month moving average using
non-seasonally adjusted data.
For data reliability reasons, Statistics Canada does not release
the unemployment rate for students by region on a monthly basis.
*Question No. 7—Mr. Guy St-Julien:
Concerning the distribution of 2000-01 summer career placement
service funding for the Quebec region, is the variable showing
the full time student population between the ages of 15 and 24
years calculated over a 12 month period or the actual academic
period, excluding the months of June, July and August?
Mr. Derek Lee: The distribution of 2000-01
summer career placements funding for the Quebec region was based
on an allocation formula which used, among other variables, the
full time student population aged 15 to 24. This variable uses
Statistics Canada data and is calculated based upon a four month
average for the period of May to August. The survey question from
which this data is derived asks the location of permanent
residency defined as residency for 30 days or more during the
course of the year.
The allocation formula for summer career placements 2001-02 and
the funding allocations are presently being finalized.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001
The House resumed from March 14 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-14, an act respecting shipping and navigation and to amend
the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and other acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare the motion
carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing
Committee on Transport and Government Operations.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
1210
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion
that Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife
species at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I should note that I will be splitting my time
with my hon. colleague in front from Surrey Central, one of the
most loquacious members in the House.
I am pleased to rise today and speak on Bill C-5, the species at
risk act. The government describes the purpose of the proposed
act as follows. It aims to protect wildlife at risk from
becoming extinct or loss in the wild, with the ultimate objective
of helping their numbers to recover. The act will cover all
wildlife species listed as being at risk nationally and their
critical habitats.
The goal of the legislation is certainly a laudable goal. We in
the official opposition recognize that there is a need for
effective endangered species legislation. In fact, this
recognition is reflected in our official policy statement. Our
policy statement states:
The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving
Canada's natural environment and endangered species, and to
sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the
use of current and future generations.
Furthermore, our farm policy states:
For any endangered species legislation to be effective, it must
respect the fundamental rights of private property owners.
This entails including just compensation for landowners if
habitat must be taken out of production. It also means that the
government should strive to be as co-operative as possible with
farmers and ranchers rather than using threats and criminal
sanctions.
We in the official opposition support effective endangered
species legislation. However, we have some concerns with regard
to this particular legislation. We do not disagree with the
government's goal but we do have some difficulties with the
message it is employing to achieve that goal.
Following the lead of our member for Red Deer and the member for
Edmonton—Strathcona in the last parliament, who have done yeomen
work on the bill, we have attempted to be as constructive as
possible in our criticisms.
The following are the criticisms that I would like to highlight.
First, the final listing of endangered species should rest not
with the federal cabinet, but with the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
Second, the voluntary co-operation and incentives already in
Bill C-5 should be stronger.
Third, the bill must include a clearly outlined full
compensation scheme.
Fourth, socio-economic analysis should be conducted prior to the
development of species recovery plans to ensure that they do play
a prominent role.
Fifth, the bill must respect provincial jurisdiction and apply
equally to all Canadians.
This is a substantive list of criticism, many of which have been
thoroughly covered by my colleagues here in the opposition.
I would like to focus in particular on the need to protect the
private property rights of landowners and include fair
compensation for landowners if habitat must be taken out of
production. The effectiveness of the legislation directly
depends on whether or not it respect those fundamental rights.
The bill fails to clearly spell out what compensation will be
provided for stakeholders who are forced to lose financially in
the implementation of the bill.
The environment minister has indicated that he will spell out
these compensation provisions in the regulation of the bill after
its passage by parliament. That is simply unacceptable.
Furthermore, the Pearce Report, which the minister seems to be
considering at this point, suggests that landowners would only
receive compensation if economic losses exceeded 10% and that
compensation would be limited to only 50% of losses. This is
neither full nor fair compensation.
There are therefore two specific requirements that we would
propose for compensation. First, the compensation provisions
must be clearly indicated in the bill before members of the House
so that we as parliamentarians and Canadians can determine
whether these provisions are just.
Second, those who incur increased costs or reduced income as a
result of the requirements of the bill must have full
compensation. Saving endangered species is a benefit to all
Canadians. The cost should not be excessively borne by a few
landowners, farmers, ranchers, they should be shared by all.
Those are the specific compensation requirements.
I would now like to address the more general issue of the need
for the government to respect private property rights. It seems
to me that the government, through many of its bills, has
encroached further and further into the realm of private property
rights. This is a disturbing trend, one that we as
parliamentarians ought to watch very carefully.
1215
It is interesting that since the beginning of the session we
have been very much occupied with the whole question of
parliamentary reform, which is a smaller issue within the larger
question of how we pass the laws that govern us.
However, as the famous philosopher Isaiah Berlin pointed out in
his seminal essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty”, there is another
question which is equally, if not more, important. That is the
question of what activities government itself even ought to be
making decisions about. It involves that very large question of
to what extent we as individuals, citizens, families and
communities require or even desire a government to involve itself
in our lives.
It is a fundamental question for any political community and yet
it strikes me how rarely we in the House even address it. We
spend hours debating specific amendments to certain bills, but we
spend precious little time debating the larger question of
whether the government ought to be expanding its influence in the
first place.
This is particularly alarming for me, because I generally
believe that those communities which function best over the long
term have governments that operate within clearly defined
constitutional limits. In these communities, these limits are
best set by a constitutional recognition of genuine, classical
rights such as the right to own property and not be deprived
thereof without just compensation.
Many great thinkers have expounded on the importance of private
property and its relationship with liberty and justice. Even the
great philosopher Aristotle mentioned it in his works in ancient
Greece. The great orator of Roman times, Cicero, is actually
responsible for the word property being transferred down to us
today. One only has to think of John Locke and his “Two
Treatises of Government” and his important discussion of private
property rights there, or John Stuart Mill, or even the great
American philosophers in the American revolution.
I would like to quote another thinker. Earlier today I was
referring to a saint, so I would actually like to employ the
words of another saint. These are very good quotes because they
have a sort of sanctified presence about them. I would like to
quote the patron saint of politicians, St. Thomas More. He
linked the foundation and endurance of a civilized community with
the proper respect for property, saying “Security of property is
the first and all-essential duty of a civilized community”.
In relation to property and the proper limits of governance, St.
Thomas More warned that the worst which can happen to the law
itself is its overextension, its expansion into fields in which
it cannot be competent. What happens then is that disrespect for
law in all its capacities will increase.
He stated that:
You may to a certain extent control property and make it
subservient to the ideal nature of man; but the moment you deny
its rights, or undertake to legislate in defiance of them, you
may for a time unsettle the very foundations of society, you will
certainly in the end render property your despot instead of your
servant, and so produce a materialized and debased civilization.
I should bring this debate back from this abstract discussion
and finish in terms of the practical effects of the bill.
However, I hope that all parliamentarians would consider the
general nature and profound importance of property rights and the
need for this legislation to properly respect the property rights
of individual landowners. It can do so in specific ways, first,
by working with private landowners on a voluntary basis, and
second, by clearly indicating in the bill full and fair
compensation provisions for those who incur increased costs or
reduced income as a result of the requirements of the bill.
I also encourage my fellow parliamentarians to consider
carefully the notion of property rights and the limits of
government in general.
1220
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my hon.
colleague and friend from Edmonton Southwest and thank him for
his flattering remarks.
I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate
in the debate on Bill C-5, the Liberal government's proposed
endangered species protection act.
I would like to point out at the outset that I am currently
seeking the input of the people of Surrey Central concerning this
controversial bill. I am certain that the people I represent are
in full support of protecting our environment and endangered
species at risk, but I am not certain that we will support this
legislation as is.
The government's previous attempt at passing this kind of
legislation was a discriminatory and punitive bill, Bill C-33. It
was very unfair to Canadian landowners. In the previous
parliament I wanted to support that weak and confused legislation
because of its intent, but I had such serious reservations about
the strong arm tactics the government was using against Canadian
landowners and farmers in order to protect species that I did not
support the bill. The government was playing politics with our
endangered species. It was not paying attention to the science
involved and it was not going to properly compensate Canadians
who also wanted to protect our endangered species.
In the new bill it seems that most of the flaws of the old bill
are still in place. In anticipation of that, I have sent a
message to my constituents asking them to advise me whether we
will hold our noses and support this smelly bill or oppose it
because of its undemocratic nature.
I have decided to oppose it until after the committee hearings.
In the meantime we will see if the Liberals adopt any of the
suggestions from the witnesses appearing before the committee or
from the official opposition and the other opposition parties.
We will see if the government conducts hearings on this bill once
it has passed second reading and if witnesses will be given
enough chances to come forward and express their positions.
I will briefly outline the chief concerns I have about the bill
so far. First, we want to see effective legislation. That means
we want to see a full review of the bill by the House and the
committee. We do not want the Liberals to resort to using
closure or to stifling debate so they can have the legislation
passed by June.
Second, we need to see an emphasis on voluntary initiatives and
partnerships. While the current bill is a slight improvement
over the punitive American endangered species act, it can be made
better. We know the American legislation has failed miserably.
We need our legislation to be not only better but much better
than the American legislation, which the Liberals are using as a
template for what they are offering Canadians with the bill.
Third, we need to see science, not politics, used as the basis
of the legal list of endangered species. The legal list must be
left not to the discretion of the cabinet but to scientists.
Fourth, we need to see compensation regulations that are fair.
These compensation regulations must be clearly spelled out in the
bill. There should be provisions for full compensation, not just
the 50% or the formula promised by the Liberals so far.
1225
Fifth, we need to make sure the bill recognizes that protecting
spaces is critical for protecting species, and species recovery
action plans must consider socio-economic studies before recovery
plans are developed.
Sixth, we need to see that transparency and accountability are
improved, through the suggested round table in the bill being
truly representative of all stakeholders and through equal
application of the law to all Canadians regardless of race or
creed.
Finally, we need to see that there are mechanisms in the bill to
resolve disputes with the provinces. The Liberal government has
never paid attention to developing relationships with provincial
governments.
All Canadians want to help the environment. They want to
protect biodiversity. We in the Canadian Alliance care about
protecting species at risk and protecting or recovering critical
habitat. Canadians recognize that we need a proactive approach
to protect species at risk, one that is based on respect, respect
for the species that inhabit our lands and waters and respect for
those who own those lands. We want a common sense policy that
considers the needs of all stakeholders.
The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving
Canada's natural environment and endangered species and to the
sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for use
by current and future generations. The Canadian Alliance
maintains that for any endangered species legislation to be
effective, it must respect the fundamental rights of private
property owners.
The people of Surrey Central, whom I represent, are from largely
metropolitan or suburban areas. While we are not running the
risk of having our land confiscated without compensation or
without reimbursement of fair market value, we do not want any
Canadian subjected to such unjust treatment.
In fact, far from working in a democratic way to help Canada's
ranchers contribute to our nation's efforts to save our
endangered species, the Liberals are promising punishment for
those ranchers. My heart goes out to the farmers and ranchers,
who are already overtaxed by the government and who are already
suffering. They have huge input costs that are the fault of the
government and its lack of vision. They have to compete at a
disadvantage on world markets thanks to the government's poor
record on international trade.
From what I have been told, the Liberals are now planning to
take sometimes thousands of acres of land from individual
Canadians without a fair process of compensation and under the
threat of criminal charges.
In conclusion, the Canadian Alliance has two main concerns to be
addressed in regard to the bill. The first is scientific
integrity. Species listing must be determined by scientists, not
by politicians. It should be determined by scientists and based
on scientific fact. Our second concern deals with fair
compensation. The Canadian Alliance believes there are a number
of areas that can be strengthened in the bill in order to make it
more accountable and transparent to the public.
At this time I feel strongly that the government has more work
to do on the bill and I would like to see that work done before I
support it, but again, I am not above voting the way my
constituents want me to vote on this bill on their behalf.
1230
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, Bill C-5
concerns the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.
I would like to briefly put the bill in context.
Biodiversity as a whole is the result of the evolution of the
earth over more than 4.5 billion years. This process created a
wide selection of living organisms and natural environments on
our planet. Together they form the ecosystems that we know
today. Each one plays a specific role in the food chain and
contributes to the biological balance of the planet.
However, in recent years scientists have been warning about the
disappearance of certain species in increasing numbers, as well
as the rise in the number of species facing extinction or
extremely vulnerable species.
It is appropriate to have a debate on this legislation just
after the list of species at risk of extinction in the country
has grown to an all time high. In Canada the number of wild
animals, plants, insects and marine organisms at risk of
disappearing now stands at an all time high of 354. This is a
stark reminder that our country's natural heritage is under
threat. The rate at which species disappear from our planet
speaks volumes to the overall health of our environment and
ultimately our own human health. As we know, when species
disappear from our planet it means that we could also disappear
if we are not careful.
Worldwide we are experiencing the largest extinction epidemic
since the time of the dinosaurs. Down through the ages an
average of two or three species disappeared each year for
natural reasons. Two or three species are now disappearing
from the planet every hour. This is alarming and it is entirely
due to the actions of human beings.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are aware that all Quebecers and
Canadians are concerned about the protection of species at risk
and about protecting and preserving the environment as a whole.
We recognize that the fragile balance of the ecosystem must be
protected and preserve.
In the past few years there has been a worldwide attempt to
halt this phenomenon. Since the 1970s international agreements
have been signed with a view to limiting trade in certain animal
and plant species in order to protect them from extinction.
Cases in point include the 1971 convention on wetlands of
international importance especially as a waterfowl habitat,
better known as the RAMSAR convention, the 1973 convention on
international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and
flora, and the 1979 convention on the conservation of migratory
species of wild animals.
In 1992, at the Rio summit, many nations of the world, including
Canada, signed the convention on biological diversity and made
the commitment to “develop or maintain necessary legislation
and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection of
threatened species and populations”.
Soon after that, the Liberals promised, in their red book, to
ensure long term protection of species that live on our planet.
In 1995 the Minister of the Environment introduced a bill in
that spirit.
The bill gave rise to an incredible amount of criticism and
protest, mainly from environmental groups. One of the main
objections to the bill had to do with the fact that the
legislation would apply to federal territories only.
1235
In 1996 the federal government proposed a Canada-wide agreement
to the provincial and territorial ministers of the environment,
the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. In October
1996, the ministers responsible for wildlife gave agreement in
principle.
At the time although the Quebec minister of the environment
signed he issued an independent press release in which he made
it clear he could not ignore the fact that the agreement would
likely pave the way for overlap and that developments would have
to be monitored very closely.
Members will tell me that it is a common event to have overlap
between Quebec and the federal government.
At that time, the provinces were very vocal in their criticism
of the federal government for giving itself such broad powers on
the protection of species.
Pollution and migration know no borders, so a concerted effort
is required worldwide. Canada needs to better protect its
species at risk.
To date, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada, COSEWIC, has designated 340 species of wildlife in
Canada as being at risk. Of that total, 12 are extinct, 15
others are extirpated in Canada, 87 are endangered, 75
threatened and 151 vulnerable.
With the increasing rate with which species are disappearing,
the situation is serious. Effective action is therefore
necessary.
But has this bill really made a contribution to improving the
protection of our ecosystem and of the endangered species in it?
Unfortunately the government and the minister are wrong about
what their real role is in designing a realizable plan to
provide such protection.
The government is but one of the many stakeholders, and it has
not yet figured out that its true role is to build bridges
between the various stakeholders, not walls. I must say that
the federal government is far more interested in promising to
build bridges when it is electioneering than in building bridges
between stakeholders. It is extremely good at building walls,
however. So that is what the true task of government is when it
comes to endangered species, a task it has failed.
The bill on species at risk the Liberals have introduced will
polarize and divide stakeholders much more than it will unite
them.
Every action plan to protect species at risk must be based on
respect, that is on respect for species living in our waters and
our lands, and for those to whom they belong.
This bill is full of provisions providing discretionary power,
to the point that, if it passes without amendment, it will be
the weakest of its type in North America.
True to the Liberal style, Bill C-5 establishes officially the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada as the
ultimate authority in determining endangered species.
At the same time the bill prevents this committee, which makes
decisions based on scientific data, from determining which
species are in fact protected by law. The committee determines
which are the endangered species, but will not be allowed under
the bill to take steps to protect these species and to draw up a
list of them.
1240
The day the bill becomes law, there will be no more endangered
species in Canada, at least officially. Not one species at risk
today will be protected under this legislation, until the
minister has established his list.
The current list of species at risk, the product of 23 years of
work by COSEWIC, will not be considered a given and will not be
automatically included in the law. When is an endangered
species an endangered species? When the minister so decides, it
seems.
What threatens species most is the loss of their habitat, where
they live, reproduce and feed.
Habitat loss is responsible for 80% of species decline in
Canada. Passing a law that does not protect habitat is really a
waste of parliament's time. Again Bill C-5 fails in this regard.
I mention as an example an issue I raised this week about what
the Canadian forces are doing right now in Lake Saint-Pierre, in
Quebec. We know that the government is still thinking about
cleaning up Lake Saint-Pierre, which would indeed come under
federal jurisdiction.
Under the provisions of this bill a species will be
protected at the discretion of the Minister of the Environment.
Not only does the bill give broad discretionary powers to the
Minister of the Environment, but it does not respect the
division of powers as stated in the constitution and as
interpreted over the years. This bill truly interferes in an
area under provincial jurisdiction and excludes the provinces
from any real and direct input into the process.
The main problem with this bill, which seems to be raised by all
environmental groups, is the fact that the decisions on the
designation of species will be taken by the minister and his
cabinet, and not by scientists.
Considering the increasing rate of species extinction, the
situation is serious. It is true that we must take effective
measures, but does this bill really provide an additional protection that
is enforceable? Will it really do something to improve the
protection of our ecosystems and of the threatened species that
are part of them? In our opinion the answer to these two
questions is no.
In fact we are opposed to this bill because it constitutes yet
another direct intrusion into many areas of Quebec's
jurisdiction. It even overlaps the act passed by Quebec in 1989,
which works just fine and has already had a significant impact
in our province. The federal government is again engaging in
overlapping.
The bill could very well increase paper burden, instead of
allowing for an efficient use of already scarce resources.
This is what the federal government is currently specializing
in: creating paper burden, instead of respecting everyone's
jurisdictions and working more efficiently with less money.
Moreover, what the federal government calls a double safety
net, that is two levels of government operating in the same
jurisdiction, waters down the accountability of both and seriously
complicates the assignment of responsibilities.
In conclusion, we recognize the need to improve the protection
of our ecosystems and the endangered plant and animal species
that constitute them,
but we do not believe Bill C-5 is the way to go.
1245
The Bloc Quebecois is opposing the principle of this bill today.
However, we will examine it more thoroughly in committee and we
will then be able to better define our position on this issue.
[English]
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is extremely important for me to speak today on this
piece of legislation. It is certainly important to people in my
constituency: farmers, ranchers, people in the oil and gas
business, people who have cottages at lakes and even those living
in towns who may run into serious problems in the ownership and
use of their property through this legislation.
I owe it to those people, who supported me so well in the past
election, to speak on their behalf.
I do not believe there is any party in the House that does not
take seriously the issue of protecting species at risk, although
I wonder why it has taken the government seven years to finally
bring in the legislation. Of course, it has not passed yet and,
I would suggest, should not pass without some serious amendments.
However, we will work on that by offering some of our
suggestions, which is what I am here to do today.
Speaking quite openly and honestly, I think every member in the
House wants to protect species at risk and endangered species.
That is not the issue. The issue is whether Bill C-5, the
legislation presented by the government, will in fact do that.
I will approach the issue from two points of view and deal with
two key parts of the legislation which would determine whether,
as it is, it would protect even one species at risk or endangered
species. I suggest that it will not. I will use evidence from
other countries to back that up. However, I will not leave it at
that. I will also offer a positive approach to fixing the bill so
that it will work.
The first point I want to make concerns the issue of fair market
value compensation. The second point concerns using a
co-operative approach to saving species rather than a
heavy-handed approach. As I go through those two points it will
certainly show that the legislation can be changed to make it
work.
I just want to read what the Canadian Alliance has to say about
species at risk, endangered species and the environment
generally. It is just a short statement. The Canadian Alliance
says:
We are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural
environment and endangered species, and to sustainable
development of our abundant natural resources for the use of
current and future generations.
Is that not what the endangered species legislation is supposed
to be about?
The Canadian Alliance maintains that for any endangered species
legislation to be effective it must respect the fundamental
rights of private property owners.
That is the issue I will deal with first. I will approach it
not only from the point of view that the legislation tramples on
private property ownership rights but also that taking that
approach will cause the legislation to fail. I believe it will
cause it to fail to save even one species. I will use evidence
to indicate that.
We are asking that if a piece of property, be it farmland, a
cottage at the lake or a piece of commercial property being
developed, is taken from someone in the name of protecting a
species at risk, which in some cases makes sense and must be
done, then compensation should be made at fair market value.
1250
What principle could possibly lead the government to suggest
that compensation be anything less than fair market value? It
seems to me that most Canadians respect that as a value on which
to base legislation.
If the use of property, be it a cottage at the lake or farmland,
is curtailed in some way in the name of saving a habitat or a
species at risk, then let it happen within reason. Let us ensure
that compensation for the loss of the use of that property is at
fair market value.
If the government would change the legislation and put in it
clearly that compensation would be at fair market value, it would
have gone a long way to making the legislation work.
I will look practically at a couple of things that are likely to
happen and that have happened in other countries where
legislation has not offered fair market value compensation. I
would like everyone to think of a farmer, for example, who has a
piece of property where a habitat for a species at risk is found.
The farmer loses part of the property or the use of part of it
without fair compensation.
If farmers or ranchers know that if a species at risk is found
on their property they will lose the property or the use or
benefit of it without fair market value compensation, what are
they likely to do? I suggest they would do everything they could
to ensure the species or habitat was never found. Does a piece
of legislation that would lead to this type of action sound
productive? I suggest it is not. That is why it must be
changed.
The legislation must be amended to have a guarantee of fair
market value compensation. A farmer, rancher or someone who owns
a cottage at the lake will respect and protect species if they
know the legislation ensures compensation at fair market value.
That is a fundamental issue which is key to making the
legislation work.
If the government continues to push the legislation through
without making that amendment, then it will fail. We can point
to examples in the United States. A lot of Americans and
Canadians are shocked that this government has tailored its
legislation to the American endangered species legislation.
I will use a couple of quotes. The first is about the American
endangered species act. It is by Bruce Vincent, president of
Alliance for America, and he cares about protecting endangered
species. He said:
That is from an American on his shock that Canada is using as a
model American legislation which has failed miserably.
The next quote is from the U.S. National Wilderness Institute.
It said:
Though unmeasured, the costs of implementing the Act as currently
written are in the multi-billions, yet in over twenty years not a
single endangered species has legitimately been recovered and
delisted as a result of the Endangered Species Act.
That quote is from the U.S. National Wilderness Institute. It
cares about protecting wilderness and species.
Clearly, they understand that the American legislation will not
work. They also understand that the Canadian legislation, which
is modelled after the American legislation, simply will not work.
What I am doing today is offering suggestions that would change
the legislation to make it work. That is the bottom line and it
is what all of us want here. We want legislation which will work
to protect endangered species. These changes will help that.
1255
Let us start by ensuring in legislation fair market value
compensation for property loss or for property where the benefit
is lost. That is the first fundamental principle that is not
respected in the legislation and which must be respected.
Second, a far more effective type of species at risk legislation
would be one that used a co-operative approach rather than the
heavy-handed approach the government has used.
I will refer to a few examples from around the world where
co-operative approaches have worked. In western Canada, we have
Operation Burrowing Owl, a voluntary operation that does not take
a heavy-handed approach. Ranchers and farmers across
Saskatchewan and parts of Alberta have voluntarily and willingly
participated in the operation because they care about the
environment and about protecting endangered species.
About 500 farmers have agreed to have their land kept in a state
that will protect the habitat of the burrowing owl. That is a
co-operative way of ensuring we save species at risk. It works.
This legislation will not work.
A second example is the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan. Whether these species are at risk or not, the principle
works the same. It is a co-operative way where people across
North America have protected habitat or waterfowl using the
voluntary approach. It is extremely effective.
Ducks Unlimited has proven that its program works and works
well. I have not heard much complaining from farmers who have
been asked to take part. They willingly take part. There is
compensation involved. It works because it is co-operative and
because they care about species at risk.
Putting in place a piece of legislation that encourages and
allows a voluntary approach will cause species to be saved, which
is the bottom line.
One more category of voluntary approach that works involves
private ownership of property. Private groups and individuals
have taken initiatives, that are allowed under their legislation,
that have really worked. The first is in limited areas of
Alabama and Florida where private groups and individuals can
create their own reefs. Because it is a private thing, guess
what? It really does protect and develop the reef habitat, and
it has been extremely effective.
There are lists of examples of voluntary approaches from almost
every continent. I do not know of any from Antarctica but I know
of them from every other continent, and they work.
In 1980, land was purchased by a privately owned nature
conservancy in California to form the Kern River Preserve. This
preserve harbours one of the rarest ecosystems: a riparian
habitat with a number of rare wildlife species dependent on
riparian forests. The managers of the preserve have worked to
develop the trust of neighbouring landowners. They do not
enforce or use the heavy hand of the law. They do not say that
they will take away property without fair market value
compensation. They have worked to gain the trust of neighbouring
landowners to make the project work and it has worked. Species
have been saved.
1300
In spite of this fact, in spite of this evidence and in spite of
the government knowing this evidence, has it altered this
legislation to include these two important issues?
The first issue deals with compensation of fair market value,
not just some broad statement that there may be compensation at
some level. That is no comfort to someone who may have their
property taken away or the use of it denied.
The second issue is the use of a co-operative approach without
the heavy hand of the law hanging over them. I would suggest
that if the government were to focus this legislation more on
these two areas it would work.
Evidence from other countries around the world shows that this
type of legislation will not work. In the name of protecting
species at risk, I ask the government to amend the legislation to
include the two important points I brought up today.
I am proud and happy to speak on behalf of my constituents and
other people right across Canada whom I have heard from over the
past five years, since I have been dealing with government
legislation to protect endangered species. I am proud to stand
on their behalf to propose these changes which will lead to the
protection of endangered species and species at risk right across
Canada.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to enter into this debate on behalf of my
constituents in Elk Island. As the House knows I have a number
of people in my area who are very interested in this legislation.
Most of the concerns expressed to me deal with some of the things
which my colleagues have already mentioned.
I remember growing up on a farm in Saskatchewan where we had the
delight of having a dugout right in our yard. When I was a kid
preserving water was one of the greatest things. With the dugout
came all sorts of different animals such as birds, ducks and
occasionally some geese. They would live right in our yard and
we enjoyed them so much.
I should point out, in terms of a personal commitment, that my
dad, my brother and I were always very careful not to interfere
with the lives of these animals unless they declared war on us,
which they did occasionally. For example, we had an ongoing war
with rats which caused a lot of damage to our buildings, grain
storage bins and so on. I know that when we buy a loaf of bread
we do not want it to be infested with rat droppings and other
things like that, so we had to take measures to fight them
varmints.
There were other animals which gave us a lot of pleasure like
the ducks that swam around on our pond. We watched mother duck
raise her little ones.
On occasion we would accidentally disturb or sometimes even
destroy, what is called under Bill C-5, the natural habitat of
birds. We never did that deliberately. Whenever we saw a nest
we would drive around it even though it meant perhaps not seeding
that portion of the field. Sometimes we were not aware of it
until we had driven over it and then it was too late. There was
nothing we could do about it.
In Bill C-5 when that happens to a farmer maybe the penalty
given to them will take into account the fact that there was
nothing the farmer could have reasonably done to prevent such a
loss. Yet the farmers in my area are very concerned that they
may be subject to prosecution if they make an error like that.
1305
My wife and I now live on an acreage east of Sherwood Park. I
had a very interesting experience a couple of years ago. I was
cutting my lawn with my little garden tractor. We have about an
acre of lawn so it is a nice, fun project. I was driving along
and I noticed this killdeer running around. I am aware that when
a killdeer has a nest in the ground the mother does everything
possible to try to distract a person away from it. If we are
walking and that mother runs in that direction, we know that the
nest is somewhere behind her.
I did everything possible to see whether I could find the nest
before I proceeded to cut the grass. I could not find it.
Eventually, I drove over it. Fortunately, I perfectly straddled
it with the wheels of the tractor so that the nest was left
undisturbed. Once I was able to determine where it was, it was
protected until those little babies grew up and left home.
That is just the way we westerners are. We do not deliberately
go out and kill animals whether they are endangered or not. For
the Liberal government to bring down heavy-handed legislation
which threatens all sorts of penalties and jail sentences to a
farmer is really very offensive. We voluntarily do everything
possible to prevent that, as I have indicated from my own
personal experience.
However is there need for some legislation? I suppose there is.
There are some who would deliberately destroy the lives of
endangered species. Perhaps some restraints for them is a
legitimate process of legislation, and I am not against that.
However, the legislation should specifically say that if a
specific move is made to destroy that life, then there should be
penalties. We are very concerned about the application of the
laws as they are going to be used.
Just as a little aside, where we live there is a lake with some
exotic ducks. I have forgotten their name. Every year we have
observers from all over North America who come and set up their
little booths to watch this particular breed of duck. It is a
very special thing. We enjoy the visitors, especially from the
United States.
One day my wife and I were sitting at the kitchen table looking
out on our backyard. There were probably 250 or 300 Canada geese
that landed just right behind our house. It is one of their
staging areas in their annual migrations. We saw a coyote coming
out of the trees. It was very fascinating to watch. He put his
tail way down and sort of slunk along because he was having goose
for breakfast that day.
When he got close, he was not aware that every time there is a
flock of geese, there are always two, three or more scouts out
there while the others are busy looking for something to eat.
There are always some geese with their heads up. They are
looking and watching to see if anything is coming toward them.
When he was probably about 15 to 20 metres away from the geese,
somehow they must have given a signal and they all took off. It
was so fascinating to see the coyote sitting there on his hind
legs looking up and watching his breakfast disappear into the
sky.
My wife was cheering for the geese. I, of course, was lamenting
the coyote who was going hungry. We really enjoy wildlife in
that way. It is definitely worth preserving. It is a policy
with which we agree.
Coming back to the issue of rights and property, we want to let
it go to committee so that the committee can deal with these
things and bring in the amendments. We talked about amendments
regarding the definition of endangered species and taking the
politics out of that definition. Some of my colleagues have
spoken about some of the other issues.
I want to talk specifically for a few minutes now about the
right to own property. This is one of the high points of the
Canadian Alliance policy. We believe that we should have assured
in our charter of rights the right to own and enjoy personal
property.
That is not given to us in our present charter of rights and is
something which the Liberal government seems dead set against
because it means it would lose control over every citizen's life,
if it could ever stop controlling every little thing that someone
does.
1310
I always thought it was an oxymoron or at least a contradiction
in terms that the Liberals use the word liberal because it comes
from the same root word that I think means liberation, freedom
and liberty. Yet the Liberal government is more intent on
controlling every aspect of our lives than any other government.
It is a contradiction in terms.
I speak now on behalf of a number of residents in my riding who
have expressed their concern with respect to compensation. They
say that if portions of their land, where they make their
livings, very meagrely these days I might add, have to be taken
out of production, surely they should be entitled to full
compensation for it. Bill C-5 does not permit that.
Bill C-5 says if their loss is more than 10%, it would be
considered, but they would only get up to 50% of that. Which one
of the Liberal members would accept it if someone came to his or
her house and said the going value of the house was $200,000 but
he or she would be given $100,000 for it. It was not a matter of
take it or leave it, the member had to take it. There was no
option. This is what is being offered to farmers for their
property, their land and their source of livelihood. That is not
good enough.
This has nothing to do about animals but it is about the
government confiscating property. I remember when I was a kid on
the farm. The government came along and said it was going to put
a high tension power line through the property. The government
actually said this to my brother who farms in Saskatchewan.
There was this big dual pole property line and the soil was
sterilized for about 30 metres in diameter from each pole,
probably even more, diagonally across a field.
My brother had to work his machinery around those posts, and all
that land was taken out of production. He did not get a fair
value for the land nor for the production.
One of the big issues right now is that farmland is almost being
given away because of the depression in the agricultural
industry. If land which usually sells for $500 or $600 an acre
is now selling for $200 because of this temporary, we hope,
depression in the agricultural industry, what is fair market
value? According to the bill, if we take half of it we are down
to $100 an acre. That is not acceptable. That must be amended.
I for one am going to vote against the bill, unless there is an
amendment.
I could go on longer but I am going to terminate my speech out
of deference for my colleagues who also wish to add some comments
on the bill.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the time to speak on this
issue. I will be sharing my time with the member for Medicine
Hat.
I would like to take this opportunity, as it is my first chance
to speak in the House of Commons since the election, to thank my
constituents of Wild Rose for their overwhelming support by
returning me to this place. I certainly appreciate their strong
support. My appreciation for the Wild Rose people is certainly a
good opening for the speech which I am about to make on
endangered species.
As I looked through the constituency polls throughout most of
Alberta, and particularly Wild Rose, the counts for the Liberal
government were very low, so I can see why it would be anxious to
get some kind of endangered species act in place. I can assure
the hon. members across the way that if they are looking for more
support in the west, they had better not even think about passing
a bill of this nature.
They must recognize those individuals who work hard and produce
all kinds of good things for the nation. They work very hard to
look after our environment, to look after our wildlife, and to
look after the many things the bill is supposed to be addressing.
For their own initiatives they should receive a lot of applause
from that side of the House.
1315
It is absolutely abhorrent the government introduces legislation
that suddenly indicates to these same people that they are
criminals if they do not shape up and follow the legislation. How
in the world could it come up with legislation that points the
finger at individuals who have worked hard all their lives
protecting wildlife and endangered species and say that they are
the people it will go after if they do not follow the Liberal
law?
I do not know why the government left property rights out of the
charter of rights. I have no idea. It is a disgrace that it
did. It would be very beneficial if the House would consider
some kind of legislation or amendment to get property rights back
into a national constitution in some manner. Seeing it is not
there, we have to do everything we can to protect these
individuals from draconian legislation that simply says “obey us
or become criminals”.
I immigrated to Canada some 30 years ago having spent a lot of
time in the western part of the United States where I was born
and raised. I saw legislation go through various governments
there that was very similar to what I am holding in my hand
today.
Each summer I have a chance to visit some of my relatives and
friends in the United States I notice that various chunks of land
are held in reserve under land management of the state of Idaho,
the state of Wyoming or other states.
All this land used to be privately owned productive land. Some
of the people who owned it and produced on it for years were
friends of mine. They were removed from the property and were
never compensated. After all the years of working their
property, they are gone. They do not own it. It is now under
land management of a particular state, the government, and they
received no compensation. That is a devastating move to make.
What has happened as a result of that kind of legislation? Those
who remained in ranching, farming and doing whatever they could
to make a living, have adopted their own policy. It is called
shoot, shovel and shut up. In other words, they do not worry any
more about endangered species because the government will attack
them if they announce that they need some assistance in helping
to protect a certain species.
Out of fear alone they simply will not disclose any information
to the authorities indicating that there might be a need for some
good scientific work to preserve some species at risk. That is
what that kind of legislation leads to.
Living in the little town of Sundre in the foothills of Alberta,
I cannot say what a joy it is to go around that particular neck
of the woods. I never know on any day what I might enjoy seeing
in terms of wildlife or flocks of certain species. In our home
one night my wife and I heard a rumbling in the furnace. We
thought a mouse could have been caught in there.
The next day we decided we should get brave enough to get at the
furnace to see if we could get this mouse out.
1320
An hon. member: I hope it was not a skunk.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes, we hoped it was not a skunk or
something, but the noise kept going on during the night. The
next morning when we got up we began to take the furnace apart,
piece by piece, so we could locate the noise.
It so happened a bird got down our chimney, ended up in the
furnace and fluttered around all night trying to get out. I did
not realize it was a bird until I finally opened up the right
area. It immediately flew out over my head and shoulders and
enjoyed flying around our house for the next half hour as we
attempted to get it outside. To this day we have no idea what
kind of bird it was. I had not seen a bird like that for a
long time. It was not covered with soot or anything and it was
certainly an interesting beast.
I am wondering if I had called the government to help me in that
situation whether I would have been charged for endangering the
life of an endangered species. We thought it was a mouse and we
were tempted to put poison in there to get rid of it.
My point is this. People in Canada, people in the land where I
live, Alberta, really and truly enjoy wildlife and really and
truly enjoy living in the foothills, where we never know from day
to day what we might encounter. They certainly do not need
legislation and direction from the mighty powers in the ivory
towers of Ottawa on how to maintain their land and how to look
after the kinds of things that we are talking about today.
Instead, the government will force through legislation that will
make criminals out of good, honest people who love wildlife and
who love this country. Once again the Liberals will go way down
in the polls, and if I am fortunate enough to run again I am sure
I will get an even bigger majority, so maybe I should thank the
government for this kind of stupid legislation. In the meantime,
welcome to Canada, the land of shoot, shovel and shut up.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise today to address the
legislation. I wish to begin by acknowledging the efforts of
some people in my riding who have really done a lot to draw
attention to the problems with this piece of legislation. They
represent the Brooks and District Chamber of Commerce and brought
forward a resolution dealing with concerns over the government's
endangered species legislation to their Alberta chamber and
ultimately to the Canadian chamber.
I would like to mention some of them by name: John Nesbitt,
Mara Nesbitt, Don Bruce, John Petrie, Clint Hendrickson and Terry
Magnussen. They have all served on the board of the Brooks and
District Chamber of Commerce and have really worked hard to try
to improve the bill. At one point I believe they even had a
meeting with the minister and urged him to consider some of the
things that were just mentioned by my friend from Wild Rose and
by others who have spoken today.
One of the things that concerns me most is the government's
know-it-all attitude. For 100 years, people in Alberta have
settled the land and have gone out of their way to protect the
environment. I just cannot emphasize that enough. My friends
have referred to that, but I want to say it again.
When one drives through our part of southern Alberta, one see a
lot of farms and ranches. Invariably on those farms and ranches
one can see where farmers have put up shelter belts, where
animals now have habitat, and one can see, especially in my part
of the world, a lot of irrigation. That irrigation ends up
creating all kinds of habitat on the corners of fields. We see
sloughs which would not otherwise exist that are full of cattails
and full of pheasant and the animals that feed on pheasant, such
as coyotes and all kinds of foxes. There are a lot of foxes
coming back into the area.
People want to preserve that. They like the wildlife just as
much as the people do in the big cities and in those parts of the
world that will not be as heavily affected by the legislation as
the people in the rural areas will be.
It is critical the people understand that.
1325
We have a number of Ducks Unlimited projects in the area where I
live. Every year at the Brooks Ducks Unlimited dinner, $70,000
is raised by auctioning prints and all kinds of different donated
items. It has created an unbelievable string of sloughs, or
marshes which is the term people here use, that go for miles
through our part of the world. As a result, deer and antelope
have access to water. There are all kinds of ducks, geese,
muskrat and beaver that are able to enjoy that as habitat. That
is something people voluntarily do.
We have a program called Operation Burrowing Owl. We preserve
pieces of land voluntarily so that burrowing owls have a place to
establish a habitat.
My point is that for many years people in Alberta, and certainly
in my area, have gone out of their way to protect habitat. What
bothers me is that, although there have been consultations this
time, the minister was not listening. The fact that these groups
went out of their way to protect this habitat is simply not
reflected in the legislation.
The other element that is critical to people is the issue of
compensation. According to one report that was requested by the
minister, there was a suggestion that the government should pay a
compensation of up to 50% of the losses for people who would have
their land set aside for habitat. Fifty per cent is absolute
theft.
What happens when it is the law makers who break the law? There
is a natural law that should guide this country which says that
if we take something from somebody then we pay them full
compensation, not half. We are in a situation where the
government is effectively saying that it is going to take
people's livelihood.
I want to remind people that, while we are having a debate in
this place, farmers are going through one of the roughest periods
in their history. It is a terrible time, where they are
struggling to make it.
The government is adding insult to injury by saying to the
farmers, as they struggle with some of the lowest commodity
prices in history, that it will be putting in place legislation
that would limit the compensation they get to half of what they
actually deserve, according to fair market value. That is
ridiculous. It leads to the sort of consequences my friend
mentioned a minute ago, where farmers will say that if it comes
down to their survival or the survival of these animals, then
these animals will have to go. We then get this perverse
situation where we get completely the opposite results of what
was intended.
I will wrap up by acknowledging the work of people in my riding
who have done so much. There are many cattlemen in the riding
who have gone to great lengths to point out some of the flaws.
Tom Livingstone who is a cattleman has pointed out some of the
problems. I would urge the government at this point to consider
some of the things that have been raised and not push this
forward over the objections of the people who actually have to
live with it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1330
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until
the usual time of adjournment on Monday, April 19.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Discussions have taken place between all parties and there is an
agreement pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) to further defer the
recorded division requested on second reading of Bill C-5 until the
end of government orders on Tuesday, March 20.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 1.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to consideration of private members'
business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance)
moved that Bill C-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(prohibiting certain offenders from changing their name), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, Bill C-240 would prohibit serious
offenders from changing their names, provided of course that they
get direction from the courts.
One would wonder why on earth this is a particular issue. It is
unfortunate, by the way, that the bill is not votable because I
do believe it would pass. I guess the issue of private members'
business not being votable and yet being debated is a subject for
another day. What the final outcome of that will be, I will
never know.
The reason this issue has been raised for several years now, in
fact for about eight years, is that I have been working with
people throughout the country, starting with a lady by the name
of Rosie in Windsor, Ontario, who was assaulted by an individual
and left for dead. The individual was put in prison. He
promptly changed his name and all his ID. He was released from
prison, unbeknownst to her. She was not told anything. He came
back to town with a new driver's licence, new ID, new everything,
and began once again to stalk her.
I looked at that situation with her and found it to be accurate
and true. When I made a bit of noise about it in the House of
Commons, a number of letters started to trickle in about similar
circumstances. Then lots of letters started to come in, so I did
a fairly intensive bit of research and found that it was actually
becoming common practice in the country. My findings show that
the people who are doing it more often than not are sex
offenders.
Next week I will be making a national presentation on all
individuals who will be eligible next year for section 745 early
release. They are first degree murderers looking for the old
faint hope clause. We have done a fair bit of research on it, as
we have every other year since the beginning. I find from
looking at the first page of the list that two of the four people
have applied for name changes in anticipation of moving into our
society again.
One of them is Darren Andrew Kelly, a.k.a. Ryan Scott Brady.
Anybody who knows about this fellow knows he is one dude who
should not be out on our streets, much less have a name change
and the opportunity to have his identity hidden while he is out
in our subdivisions and communities. He is serving a life
sentence for the rape and murder of a three year old girl in
Sechelt. The girl was abducted from a motel room, molested and
then murdered. Kelly is also considered to be the person
responsible for the beating death of young Aaron Kaplan of
Vancouver.
Kelly is believed to have also molested the Kaplan boy before
killing him by bludgeoning him about the head and chest with a 40
pound chunk of concrete. He sought the name change while in
prison in Saskatchewan.
1335
I sincerely hope that the individual who is no doubt going to
speak against this from the Liberal side does not rag on isolated
incidents and look for the extreme cases. I can assure the other
side that is not the case. I have list upon list of all of these
individuals, or many of them. In fact, I could not spend enough
time tracking all these people down because there were so many of
them. Suffice it to say that some of Canada's worst sex
offenders, oftentimes not murderers but serious sex offenders who
have done all sorts of things, are on this list.
I want to talk about Robert Gordon Stevens. The logic in this
case is absolutely beyond me. Robert Gordon Stevens was a very
serious sex offender who abused children. He went to prison. He
met a fellow in another prison who was also a serious sex
offender and who had changed his name from Willoughby to Oatway.
Stevens and Willoughby-Oatway met in another prison and had
themselves a little arranged matrimonial ceremony while in
prison. Stevens then changed his name to Oatway, which meant
that Robert Gordon Stevens became Bobby Gordon Oatway and
Willoughby was also named Oatway. Bobby Oatway is the result of
this. Bobby left prison and admitted to the public that not only
was he a serious sex offender, a well known fact in British
Columbia, but also that he was in his crime cycle.
A lot of things happened and he moved back in, but while we were
dealing with this issue under the name of Bobby Oatway I had a
call from a lady in Quesnel who said she did not think he was
Bobby Oatway. She said that she had been one of his victims and
his name was Gordon Stevens. We traced it and found out what had
happened.
It is far too easy for serious sex offenders to hide in our
society as it is, much less to allow serious offenders to change
their names while in prison, while in the custody of Canada.
The bill makes provision for the courts to disallow individuals,
where the circumstances involve serious crime, from changing
their names or hiding their identities for a certain period. That
way we can give some assurance to the public that if these
offenders are out in public they are at least not disappearing as
easily as the present kinds of technicalities allow.
I hope that some day the bill will come to the House of Commons
and be voted on, because I find it passing strange in this
country and in the House of Commons that the bill would not be
passed and that we are having a change of heart on the national
sex offender registry as well. The government says yes, it will
develop a registry, but then says it already has one, which is
not the case.
An hon. member: That's not what the police say.
Mr. Randy White: It is not what 30,000 police say. It is
not what virtually everyone in the country says.
By now we have hundreds if not thousands of letters that say we
need a national sex offender registry. We need to register the
people. We need to have them mandated to report. We need to
give them penalties if they do not report. They need to report
in person. Deterrents need to be added. The public needs to
know where these people are. What makes it doubly difficult is
the system itself allowing them to change their names while in
prison. The system has a difficult time tracking them.
1340
Time and time again I have heard of cases. I will mention a
couple to the House. In one case, a convicted murderer who was
sentenced to 15 years in prison changed his name to Michael
Francis Blais. In another case, that of Robert Noyes, who was a
very violent sex offender in British Columbia, I got a call from
a parole board person who said that this offender had changed his
name. I was told that I could not get his name because someone
else might find out. After getting off the phone I telephoned
the prison and was told that it was private information. No one
could tell me.
Come on, I said. This guy had sexually assaulted many children.
He was a teacher. If he changed his name and went to another
province—which he did—what was to prevent him from leaving
prison in B.C., changing his name and address, getting a new
driver's licence, changing his name on his teaching certificate
and, using a bit of jargon used in the teaching discipline,
getting on as a substitute teacher in a new community, getting
seniority and getting back into the classroom?
If hon. members think this is some kind of fearmongering, it is
not. This is what these individuals do. This fellow preyed on
children in the classroom. It is not above and beyond the
mindset of these individuals to do such a thing.
The situation now is not a punishment for these individuals. It
is yet another situation whereby individuals go into a courtroom
or a prison and basically nothing is done to prevent another
occurrence of the situation. In fact, the system aids and abets
it.
What I am asking for in this bill is a bit of common sense. Not
only do we need a sex offender registry, but we also need the
ability, at the discretion of the courts, to prevent serious
offenders from changing their names while in prison. I am not
saying it should apply to everybody. Everybody has different
circumstances. However, surely in Willoughby's case and Gordon
Stevens' case it applies. I know some of Stevens' victims rather
well. They were chained to logs in his basement, and he charged
a fee for people to sexually assault these children. This is the
kind of individual who is changing his name.
I just do not think that allowing people to change their names
is a very good idea and neither do the many people I have worked
with. In fact, they are watching this today and hoping that
there is some kind of reasoning from the other side, that the
government will take a second look at this and maybe bring it
back to the House for a vote.
Jamie Munro changed his name. He, along with his brother, is a
convicted killer of police officer Michael Sweet. He served 12
years, was released on parole and legally changed his name. Peter
Patrick Bender changed his name to Peter Asher. He has a long
history of convictions dating back to 1979. He was also
convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in
prison, but applied for a section 745. The hearing is coming up
now.
Changing names is as common as walking into a parole board
hearing, which I have done many times, and hearing the same four
things from prisoners. Virtually every time one attends a parole
board hearing, one hears the same four things. A guy walks into
the room and says, one, he has found Jesus, two, he has a woman,
three, he is sorry for what he did, and four, he has taken some
courses in prison and now wants to get out. They get this
ability from inside the system. When questions start coming from
parole board members, they go into meltdown because they really
do not know what they are saying and they really do not know how
to persuade or convince somebody of those statements.
However, the word gets out to sex offenders in prison that if
they are getting out they are going to be watched, so for
everything to be copacetic they should change their names, their
IDs, their addresses and everything else. They can become
obscure and live in a house beside someone and everything will be
copacetic.
1345
The problem is that when children or women are re-offended by an
individual who has gone through all that, it is because we have
permitted, aided and abetted it in our system.
Since the government will not allow this to be votable and since
this will not become law here for at least four years, I ask
government members to reconsider what I said. I also ask them
not to stand and degrade the situation by saying that it is some
kind of erratic response to an isolated incident. I assure
members opposite that it is not isolated. It is in fact becoming
commonplace.
With the number of sexual offences on the rise, we must do
everything we can, not only in our courtrooms and with a sex
offender registry, but we must also convince judges to do
everything in their power to prevent the reccurrence of crime.
All of us know that sex offenders are the most difficult, if not
impossible, to rehabilitate and get ready for the street.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to speak today to private member's bill, Bill
C-240, respecting the rights of offenders to legally change their
names.
[Translation]
The ability to propose measures that are not among the
government's priorities is an important element of parliament,
one that can from time to time lead to constructive changes that
have been hoped for. The government is open to suggestions from
those who sincerely believe they are proposing positive and
significant changes.
[English]
In this case, the sponsor of the bill has brought an idea to the
wrong legislative body. The process and the policies that govern
legal name changes reside within the mandates of the provincial
governments. Each province has an official registrar or
equivalent that grants or denies name changes and registers these
changes in official records. The federal government does not
have jurisdiction in this area.
That said, I think the goals of the bill are of interest to all
members of the House. We all would agree that the need to keep
track of convicted offenders is an integral part of the public
safety equation on which the government stands firm. It is
especially a concern if an offender changes his or her name in an
attempt to hide from authorities.
It is of course critically important that government and police
agencies across the country have the ability to track offenders
released from our penal institutions. That cannot be
overemphasized, and the government stands firm in its resolve to
ensure that is the case. That is precisely why the government
has invested in important and useful tools to keep track of
offenders.
We need only look at the Canadian Police Information Centre,
CPIC, and the national DNA databank as examples. The Canadian
government has a national database containing information on all
individuals who have been convicted of an indictable offence in
Canada. It includes birth names, names chosen later in life,
aliases and any other pertinent information with respect to the
individual.
That database is called CPIC and it is maintained by our
national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is
available to all police agencies across Canada. I can assure
this House that CPIC has been a national success story in law
enforcement since it first began operation in 1972. We continue
to provide the necessary resources and tools, and it has become
the envy of police forces around the world.
1350
Let me tell the House why. CPIC is the primary tool used to
identify suspects, to access outstanding warrants and restraining
orders, to screen out sex offenders from jobs involving contact
with children and to flag files of dangerous offenders. It is a
database that serves over 60,000 law enforcement officers in each
province and territory and it handles over 100 million queries
from 15,000 points of access.
CPIC is linked to over 400 criminal justice agencies in Canada
as well as internationally, and the government has committed
millions of dollars to upgrade and renew CPIC to ensure it
remains a valuable resource, which it is.
The government has also put in place another mechanism to
identify some of Canada's most serious and repeat offenders: the
national DNA databank. This is a tool that has, in my view and
in the view of the government, revolutionized the way police work
is done in Canada today. It is already proving to be a very
valuable tool with respect to public safety.
The DNA databank is maintained by the RCMP. It contains a crime
scene index that includes DNA profiles from unsolved crime scenes
as well as a convicted offenders index containing DNA profiles
from serious and repeat offenders. It has been in place since
last June as a result of the wisdom and foresight of our
government. It has already had an unprecedented number of
matches between crime scenes and convicted offenders and it is
helping police conduct their investigations more effectively and
efficiently.
As you can see, Madam Speaker, the national DNA bank is yet
another example of how the government is keeping tabs on
criminals.
My point, and the reason the government has invested in these
tools, is simple. Because of leading edge technology at our
disposal, like CPIC and the DNA databank, we effectively keep
track of offenders in a number of ways and not only through their
names. We also use fingerprints and even their DNA. We do not,
I repeat, do not, simply rely on criminals to tell us their
proper names. That would be pretty naive.
The reality for criminals in Canada is that they can run but
they cannot hide. This is especially important for victims of
crime. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, and all members in the
House, indeed, all Canadians, that it is the victims who are our
first concern.
I have an enormous amount of sympathy for victims. I worked
with them when I was chair of the Waterloo Regional Police
Service and I can tell members that because victims are involved
in our criminal justice system through no fault of their own, we
should be there for them. While it is true that many wish to
hear nothing further from their perpetrators, there are also
countless victims who wish to be kept informed of what happens to
offenders once they enter a federal penitentiary. In those
cases, then, victims are most certainly brought into the process
by Correctional Service Canada as well as the National Parole
Board. Each of these agencies has active victim outreach
programs which, upon the victim's request, provide information
about the location of the offender, upcoming hearings, transfers,
conditional release dates and other details.
It is important to realize that the agencies within the criminal
justice system also talk to each other. Correctional Service
Canada, for example, and the National Parole Board work closely
with the RCMP to provide information that is relevant, important
and of interest to the CPIC people.
It is the practice of Correctional Service Canada to provide
information in each instance where an offender succeeds in
formally changing his or her name. What that means is that all
authorities who have a key role to play in the administration of
an offender's sentence have access to information about the
offender which is continually updated with important information
the police authorities need to know.
On the other side of the issue are those offenders who make an
effort to rehabilitate themselves and who want to put their
troubled pasts behind them. These are the offenders who
participate in programs that are available to them in the
criminal justice system. These are the offenders who participate
in mental health programs, literacy programs and educational
opportunities. These are the offenders who try to make, and
hopefully do make, an honest effort to put their pasts behind
them, move on to a new and law abiding life and reintegrate into
society.
1355
I speak of the majority of offenders when I mention those
people. Upon their return to the community some of these
individuals seek anonymity to break the ties with their past so
that they can make a fresh start. Regardless, the appropriate
authorities still have a record of those people.
It is important to realize that even if offenders succeed in
changing their names through a provincial government registry,
that information is added to our existing federal government
databases. The information is maintained by our national police
force and shared with local police services across Canada.
In conclusion, it is my belief and the belief of the government
that with the DNA databank, CPIC and the co-operation of the RCMP
and municipal and provincial police services across this great
country, we already have the tools to ensure these efforts are
maintained in a positive way.
I point out again, as I did at the beginning, that it is beyond
the jurisdiction of parliament to deal with this issue. For
those reasons, then, I do not support Bill C-240 and I ask all
hon. members in the House to do the same.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
thank the previous speaker for his foray into the language of
Molière and assure him it is always appreciated on this side of
the House.
I do not think we can support the bill introduced by my
colleague although we acknowledge the worthiness of the
concerns he has shared with us today.
We think all Canadian parliamentarians are concerned about
public safety and want us to live in a society where those who
represent a threat to public safety or may be sexual offenders
or may commit other types of offences punishable under the
criminal code may be known to the police. We think that the
means proposed by this bill do not go far enough.
Let us begin by saying that the sponsor of the bill spoke as if
the bill was to apply just to sex offenders, when the bill
clearly provides that it applies equally to people who have
committed first or second degree murder.
It seems to me there are fairly significant distinctions to be
made between the ability of someone who has committed second
degree murder to be rehabilitated and that of someone known
nationally as a sexual predator.
I think that in the bill, as section 727.1 appears, this
difference is not very clear.
Second, the identity of the criminals covered by the bill cannot
be sanctioned or the subject of interventions by this House,
since the various civil registers are not under federal
jurisdiction. It would be difficult, through a change to the
criminal code, to ask the courts of justice to be responsible
for this application.
In Quebec, for example, the provisions on name changes would be
found in the civil code. It is hard to imagine how we could
reconcile having a common law court apply the criminal code and
a judge issue orders relating to the civil code.
What I find disturbing in a bill like this one is that, in a
way—and the sponsor of the bill mentioned this several times—it is
as if the rehabilitation of people who have been found guilty of
criminal offences is simply not possible.
Let me give an example to illustrate my point. In my riding
office in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I met a 17 year old who comes
from a dysfunctional family.
His mother had remarried to a man who beat her up and who
displayed extremely violent behaviour. This young man killed his
stepfather.
1400
I believe he had turned 18 when he committed that murder. This
makes it first degree murder. He killed the man because he was
living in a home where family violence prevailed. He claimed he
did it to protect his mother.
Of course, there can be no excuse for such an action. But with a
bill like this one, this young fellow citizen is in jail for 10
years. If he becomes eligible for parole after serving 10 years,
he will then be 28. He will not even have lived one-third of his
life and he may well want to reintegrate society.
The member who sponsored the bill would have us believe that
people who are incarcerated are not required to undergo any sort
of rehabilitation program. I believe that it is comments such
as these that show that our Canadian Alliance colleagues lack
the judgment we are entitled to expect from parliamentarians.
They must know—particularly with respect to Quebec, but I have
been told that this is true in the case of other provinces—that
those who are incarcerated are periodically evaluated. And
programs exist to help them develop their social and behavioural
skills.
The various federal penitentiaries offer a cognitive skills
training program, a living skills program, and a sex offenders
program. There are therefore a number of programs to help
individuals try to improve.
Do these programs produce results in all cases? Of course not.
Some people are offenders through and through. It is in their
genes and they will never change. It is the role of the
government and of legislators to ensure that these people do not
come into contact with the public.
The bill, as drafted, is much too general. Interpreting it
would pose quite a challenge for judges and it does not go into
the detail we are entitled to expect.
If I follow the bill's logic, my constituent who, at the age of
18, killed his stepfather in the circumstances I recounted,
would not be eligible to change his name. I do not think this
would be desirable in his case. It is possible for someone to
have made mistakes in one's life and to be rehabilitated. It is
possible to have committed first or second degree murder and
subsequently become a good citizen.
In this connection I am not sure that the right means are being
taken to attain this most desirable objective. I do not, I
repeat, want to see sexual predators or serial killers moving
about freely in my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve any more than
the hon. member wants them in Ahuntsic. That is obvious.
It is a long jump from that to asking us as parliamentarians
to pass a bill that would provide the courts with an
interpretative framework that disregards the constitution. This
creates difficulties. It is not possible for a court of
justice, which has to reach a decision on an offence covered by
the criminal code, to make interpretations relating to the
identity of individuals since that involves provincial civil
records.
Next month the Minister of Justice will be introducing a bill
that will review the important provisions on organized crime and
the criminal code. If I had one well-meaning criticism to make
of my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, it would be that they
do not always differentiate between criminals in general and the
worst type of criminals.
Take for example Mom Boucher, the leader of the Hell's Angels,
whose stomping grounds were my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
I have no hopes that he will be rehabilitated now that he is
behind bars. I hope that we, as parliamentarians, will bring
more severe provisions into the criminal code so that it will be
unlawful to even be an ordinary member of any of the 38
motorcycle gangs known to the RCMP and to the criminal
intelligence service.
1405
I am not prepared to support a bill providing that a person
found guilty of first degree murder, under the circumstances I
have mentioned, is to automatically be denied an identity
change.
In a debate on criminal law, rehabilitation and protection in
society, there are nuances to be made. Unfortunately, things
are not always as black or white as members of the Alliance
would have us believe sometimes.
Once again, I am sure than our colleague, the sponsor of this
bill, is motivated by the very noble reason of public safety,
but I am not sure that the means and the route he advocates are
the right ones.
I would like to quote statistics which, I think will
illustrate my remarks once more. We know how the parole system
works. Eligibility for parole does not come automatically.
When sentencing provides for the possibility of parole, it comes
after 25 years if a life sentence is involved, and after one-sixth
of the sentence has been served in other cases.
Madam Speaker, I know that these concepts are familiar to you
because you have served as Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice.
In conclusion, when we study our colleague's bill I hope we
will find it contains harsher measures for criminals, but the
possibility of rehabilitation for those who would seem to have
the potential for it.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, a happy St. Patrick's Day to you and other
members.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-240. This is a bill that brings
forward the discretionary powers of a judge to expand upon
conditions that can be put in place to protect the public
generally. It is a bill that would prohibit certain offenders
from changing their names.
The discretionary powers that currently exist in terms of the
sentence a judge may mete out, include such things as putting in
place prohibitions on the possession of firearms, weapons or
explosives, or the use of drugs or alcohol, or prohibiting an
offender from associating with known criminals or associating
with children. These are obviously protective measures that a
judge in his or her wisdom has deemed necessary to continue with
the rehabilitative process and, more important, to protect the
public.
The purpose with this bill quite clearly is the prevention of an
individual who has been convicted of a serious violent offence,
whether it be of a sexual nature or violence, from changing his
or her name either during or after incarceration so that the
public might be informed and there might be an ability to
recognize this individual by name. Banning the ability to change
name I would suggest does enhance the ability to protect the
public, so there is a very rational purpose behind the bill
brought forward by the hon. member.
The revelation, or the heightened public awareness, came about
quite recently that Karla Homolka might be planning to change her
name. This certainly alarmed a lot of people around the country.
There was a sense of fear and frustration on the part of many
that a person convicted of such a heinous crime could somehow be
released and live under an alias. It is very similar to the
reason in which persons will often cloak themselves or wear masks
to hide their identities.
Although in this notorious case it did not occur, there was an
excellent point behind the rationale of the bill. Violent
offenders often attempt to change their names and successfully
change them while in prison. Although media publicity would make
it virtually impossible in the case that I referred to for that
individual to go unnoticed, the reality is that there are many
violent offenders who are successful in hiding their identities.
Then, subsequent to their release, blend into communities.
I realize the importance of rehabilitation and the ability of
offenders, having paid their debt to society, to come back and to
try to contribute in a productive way. However, there is also
this ongoing threat in the case of certain types of offences.
1410
I believe the hon. member would not take any umbrage with
possible amendments to the legislation he has proposed. The bill
calls for discretion. It is not the be all and end all answer to
the problem. It calls for discretion on the part of judges to
exercise whether they would impose this ban. It is, as well,
enunciated that it is for a scheduled list of offences. A judge
would obviously take into consideration certain circumstances as
to whether it would be appropriate. This is not to be used in
every case.
I understand the argument that once people have served their
time that they want to get on with their lives. The greater
purpose of public protection sometimes warrants that the
knowledge exists that these individuals involved themselves
previously with violence or in the worst of cases involving
sexual violence with children. I would suspect that those
vulnerable persons in our society must take a priority when it
comes to protection.
The priority of the Conservative Party has always been with the
rights and safety of the public. We sadly acknowledge that there
are individuals who continue to pose in some instances a life
long threat to children in particular. I am referring to
pedophilia where it has been diagnosed in many cases as an
affliction that remains with an individual. Sex offenders in
particular continue to pose that threat even after release, if
there is no follow up or treatment.
The parliamentary secretary gave the House a particularly odious
self-congratulatory speech. He droned on about the ongoing
dubious accomplishments of the Liberal government. The reality
is when it comes to the CPIC system, we were on the verge of
collapse just a few short years ago. We heard the
re-announcement time and time again of the $115 million that went
into the CPIC system.
The Canadian Police Association told Canadians it needed double
that amount to make the system really work. It was only a few
short years ago that it was described by a member of the police
association as being held together with bubble gum and barbed
wire. That was a bit of a different slant on things than we
heard from the parliamentary secretary. This was coming from an
individual more in the know.
The parliamentary secretary also spoke about the communication
and the exchange of information between departments. I want to
speak very briefly on that. It appears that there is increasing
evidence that there is a breakdown sometimes in the communication
between departments, whether it be CSIS, the solicitor general's
department, Corrections Canada, the RCMP and the parole board.
Our RCMP on occasion do not share information with the department
of immigration.
There is a very recent example of that. In the Amodeo case,
this debacle where an individual wanted by Italian authorities
was in Canada, there were communications from the Italian
authorities to the RCMP and to the Department of Justice. There
were applications under way for extradition. We know that on
June 10 the immigration department received an application from
the wife of this notorious individual that contained the name of
Mr. Amodeo.
For some reason, and the minister has referred to legal
documents and one can only assume this means the individuals were
separated, it had the name in its possession. Surely someone in
the department of immigration must have run a check either on the
wife or Mr. Amodeo himself. It would have found the name red
flagged on the CPIC system if it was operating properly. The
system is also linked to Interpol. There is a question as
to whether the CPIC system was working or whether this was a
human error.
This communication break down can be very fatal when we are
dealing with individuals like Mr. Amodeo who is suspected of
involvement in three murders and Mafia connections in Italy.
That demonstrates the fact that this system is not foolproof.
It is certainly subject to human frailties if the information is
not entered. It also demonstrates that there is a need for
protection. The use of that information is extremely important
in law enforcement in this country. The bill would enhance the
ability of law enforcement communities to use information
successfully to protect the public.
There are other examples where the current system has failed us.
The refusal of the government to eliminate the statutory release
from corrections and conditional release. This allows even the
most unco-operative offenders who continue to pose a threat and
who have refused rehabilitative efforts, to be placed back in the
community.
1415
This often comes after serving less than two-thirds of their
time. It is a sad reality that Canada has consistently seen
violent criminals being released without proper rehabilitation.
It is good proof that systems anywhere are not always perfect,
but we have to do everything that we can to try to enhance the
law. It is incumbent upon us to examine approaches such as the
one put forward by the hon. member.
I have an example that would demonstrate how this would work. A
not so notorious killer, or a rapist, or an unrepentant,
unrehabilitated offender from Nova Scotia was released upon
warrant expiry. He changed his name, moved to British Columbia,
received a new driver's licence, new identification and set up a
new life for himself, which he was entitled to do. What if that
individual then applied to become a Boy Scout troop leader, a Big
Brother or a coach?
That type of situation could put a child in serious jeopardy
given that individual's past. It could be prevented possibly by
the type of system that is envisaged in Bill C-240. There is no
guarantee but it would be a step very much in the right
direction.
The consequences of lack of knowledge can be tragic and at the
very least it is entirely possible that this type of offender, if
he committed a crime in British Columbia under a new name, would
be given the benefit of extra judicial measures. It is a
subterfuge to change the name or mask a person's identity. There
needs to be responsibility. The purpose of the bill enunciates
the type of crimes for which it would be appropriate.
The bill does not oblige judges to act. It simply allows the
courts to make these types of prohibition orders. It may be a
prohibition for life or for a short duration. The courts can
consider the desirability and applicability of the circumstances.
A court now makes prohibition orders on similar circumstances. As
well, the penalties are tied into indictable offences. I
cautiously support the bill, or a variation thereof, and I
congratulate the hon. member for bringing it forward.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, my comments will be very
brief. First, I commend my colleague from the Tory party for his
comments. It is reassuring to know that there was someone in the
House who was listening with full attention today.
I am very upset with some of the comments that were made. There
is a very distinct reason for the legislation that we are putting
in front of the House today. It is to protect children. It
cannot be emphasized too much that this would be at the call of a
judge. There would be a chance for a judge to determine whether
the person was trying to change his or her name for the wrong
reasons. In the case of sexual offenders against children, there
can be no right reason to change his or her name. We need to be
able to identify those people across the country to keep
children, our most sacred natural resource, safe.
The national screening system, CPIC, is another thing that has
been raised. It only serves to prevent sex offenders from
working or volunteering within organizations involving children.
CPIC only contains the criminal records of sexual offenders. It
does not inform police that a dangerous sex offender is living
within their jurisdiction. That is what the legislation would
also do. It would inform a community that it had a dangerous
offender in its area.
If we are going to do the things that we are expected to do in
the House, and if any errors are made, we should always err on
the side of the child. I will support the legislation fully.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I commend the member for putting forth the proposed
legislation. I too regret, as he mentioned in his speech, that
Bill C-240 is not votable.
1420
It is great to be able to talk about issues in this place called
the Parliament of Canada, the place of speaking, the place of
words, but the ultimate purpose should be to put our words into
action in a practical sense so that our goals as members of
parliament representing our constituents are actually met.
Our primary goal with legislation like this is, as has been
mentioned over and over again, the protection of children and
women. We are talking about the ability of serious criminals to
change their name.
The other day we spoke at length about the need for a national
registry of sex offenders, those who prey on women and children.
The purpose of things like that is very clear. We know we cannot
make people good just by passing a law, but we also know that the
function of law is to restrain those who are evil. That is why
we are here and why motions and bills like this should be
votable. We should be able to actually implement ideas that will
make our society safe and restrain those who would do very bad
things.
I am very concerned that there is almost a passive response to
these initiatives on the governing side. I know our current
rules of debate will be subject to revision and we need to really
seriously ask the question whether we should be even able to have
such a debate without bringing it to a vote. The second and the
more important issue here is that, with the parliamentary
secretary having given a speech that said basically the Liberals
do not favour the legislation, it would mean that even if we were
able to vote, it would go nowhere because they would tell
their people to vote against it and that would be the end of the
matter.
We are suffering from a lack of a democratic environment in the
House. We are in a situation where we need to change some of
these laws.
I would like to address another issue in the bill, the issue of
jurisdiction. It has been pointed out that the keeping of vital
statistics is a provincial matter, and I believe that is
correct. When our children were born in the province of Alberta,
we registered their births in Edmonton, not in Ottawa. I should
not say they were all born in Edmonton because we also had a
daughter born in southern Alberta, in the little town of Brooks.
However, their births were registered in Alberta. I personally
have a birth certificate from Saskatchewan, the province in which
I grew up.
However, the fact of the matter is that we are dealing here with
a criminal issue. We are dealing with people who can change
their names, move to a different jurisdiction and, consequently,
by changing their identity can become an unknown danger to people
around them.
The member from the Bloc made a very good point when he said
that we ought not to put a wall in front of people who are
genuinely rehabilitated, who want to get on with life and who,
from this point onward, want to be good, law-abiding citizens.
However, I think we err when we buy into the argument that a
person convicted of a crime and having paid the penalty to
society, as it is often said, is then off the hook. In our
country we often find people only serving two-thirds of their
sentence because the government does not enforce the full rule of
law.
The fact of the matter is that all of us have obligations. I
have never been convicted let alone even charged with a crime and
yet I have an obligation. When I walk down the street at night
and there are other people sharing the sidewalk, I have the same
obligation not to attack them as the person who has served time
in jail for having attacked someone.
1425
I submit that our obligation to society does not end when we
have fulfilled a sentence for having broken the law. All of us
carry an ongoing obligation to society to maintain our
surveillance and protection of others around us.
It boggles my mind that there is such resistance to many of the
measures that we are trying to implement and promote, which would
enhance the safety of Canadian citizens. We should have a number
of really good laws like the one being proposed that would
improve the safety of Canadians.
We can say that it is too harsh but I do not believe that it is.
I do not believe that some of the penalties we are proposing, for
example, serving consecutive sentences for crimes that are
committed rather than concurrently, are too harsh. If people
think that is too harsh, let them simply not break the law. The
law will never apply to them, and they will have freedom for
life.
Let us say they break the law, violate the safety and violate in
some cases the property of other people. In the case of
property, there should be restitution. In the case of personal
violence against individuals, there should be time penalties and
incarceration. There should be no discount for consecutive
offences. There should be rules that tell us that if we do
certain things there are consequences, and then we should stick
to it. I do not see why that is difficult.
I have always said that I personally do not care whether there
is capital punishment for murder or not because I am not going to
commit murder. Therefore, I do not expect to face a charge which
will lead to capital punishment. For people who are
contemplating it, hopefully it would restrain them. That would
be the overriding purpose.
I have drifted a little from the purpose of the bill, which
would disallow offenders from actually changing their names in
order to hide behind the cloak of anonymity when they re-entered
society. We need to help these people all we can. Knowing that
they have committed a crime, I do not think is a hindrance to
their rehabilitation. I do not think it is not as useful for
them to be able to hide and pretend that they did not commit a
wrong, as it is for them to face up to the crime, admit they did
it and ask their new neighbours to help them to be strong, to do
what is right and to fix their life. It is an ongoing process.
It is like alcoholics. When they go to Alcoholics
Anonymous, even though they may not have drunk liquor for a
number of years, they still begin their speeches by saying their
names and that they are alcoholics. They recognize that there is
an ongoing temptation and that it takes great inner strength and
the strength of those around them to support the positive changes
and not reoffend in that sense.
Yes, it may be difficult for a person who has committed a crime
to live with that identity. I am aware of several individuals
who have committed crimes of a lesser level. I am their friend
and I help them. They are doing fine. We do not shut our eyes
and pretend it never happened. We have to realistically admit
that it happened and work together toward the goal that will
guarantee it will never happen again in that individual's life.
I believe in the whole basis of taking responsibility for what
one does. That is the missing link in a lot of what leads to
criminal behaviour in our society these days. There are
youngsters in school. They could be youngsters who go home, the
parents are absent, certain things happen and they are allowed to
do whatever they want without being personally held accountable
for it. That develops and eventually we have the commission of
these crimes. I urge all members to support the bill.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)