Betty Hinton

[Leadership Campaigns, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it seems the Minister of Canadian Heritage is not above mixing government business with partisan activity at taxpayer expense. The minister needs to explain why her fundraiser and long time organizer, Joe Thornley, was under contract to her department at the same time he was collecting cash for her leadership campaign.

Why did the minister think it was acceptable to put her fundraiser on the public payroll? Was the conflict of interest not apparent to her?

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Not opaque; I agree.

The other part we have that I mentioned earlier is race based law. Race based law is not the answer. When we talk about fairness, and when I mention the phrase “race based law”, there is a reason for the concern. It seems however that in this piece of legislation we have race based law which applies to non-aboriginal people but does not apply to aboriginal people. Therefore, we may find ourselves in a position where private land sits next to reserve land and each piece of land has a different set of rules to follow based on its owner's race. Everyone can see what the danger is here. We have to have something that applies to both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. The current legislation does not address that adequately.

I wish this legislation actually protected plants and animals in danger of dying off. Unfortunately, the serious flaws in the bill make the animals safer now than they will be if the bill passes.

Putting the burden of criminal liability and land appropriation on Canadians who happen to live next to a species in danger is bad enough. When it is coupled with a lack of compensation, consultation, information and a race based, two tier system, we have a bill that is dangerous to law-abiding citizens and that is dangerous to plants and animals.

The government is asking landowners to assume significant responsibilities and is threatening them with criminal sanctions for even inadvertent errors, yet refuses to offer tangible assistance or even relevant information. Criminal liability must require intent. The act would make criminals out of people who may inadvertently and unknowingly harm endangered species or their habitat. This is unnecessarily confrontational and it makes endangered species a threat to property owners.

If the legislation is put through with its bias, its unfairness and its lack of compensation, we can expect the list of endangered species to grow by leaps and bounds.

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise once again to speak to Bill C-5. Let me begin by confirming that the Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species.

The bill, as drafted, has serious flaws which could ultimately work against the goal and the intent of the bill which is to save endangered species and plants. Not only that, but the bill contains numerous flaws in the way the public and property owners are to be compensated, consulted and informed if at all in some cases. If that is not enough, it legislates segregation that will put Canadians under different rules depending on who their parents are. It has no place in a country such as Canada.

The government has failed miserably with the softwood lumber agreement and innocent victims are paying for that cost across this country. We cannot afford to let that happen again. The endangered species bill must be treated very seriously, not just rewritten and changed on the whim of the PMO.

Let us start with respect. First, the PMO's draft makes this flawed bill worse. In addition it flies in the face of parliamentary democracy. For example, in Motion Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20 relating to Bill C-5, the standing committee wanted to create a national aboriginal council. The PMO instead wants to call it a committee. It is changing the words in various clauses.

The idea of an aboriginal committee is acceptable. Clearly in many places, especially in the north, natives have a kinship with the land and so consultation with them is appropriate, just as it is with other stakeholders such as property owners and resource based industries. However the name change from council to committee reverses the standing committee's work without justification. The government, in a contemptuous manner, is showing complete disregard for the hard work and the expertise of the parliamentary committee and its own MPs. How does this top-down control from the Prime Minister's Office help protect endangered species?

I would like to address the area of compensation. What upsets me most about the bill is that landowners risk losing the use of their land to save a species and there is no commitment from the government to compensate. The act will not work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation to property owners and resource users who suffer losses. Farmers, ranchers and other property owners want to protect endangered species but should not be forced to do so at the expense of their livelihoods.

The shift in the cost to the landowners is inexcusable. It creates a disincentive for them to protect the endangered species. That is what this is supposed to accomplish. There must be guaranteed compensation to landowners for the loss of their property so that we can be sure that both the interests of the species and the people who live alongside them will be accommodated.

Government Motion No. 25 removes any recognition that property owners face hardship by protecting endangered species. The legislation not only fails to see reality but also fails to recognize the financial burden this act would potentially place on landowners.

We are projected to spend $45 million for species at risk, a small amount of money when we consider we are trying to protect animals and plant life that may disappear from this earth forever. The government has deemed fit to spend over $700 million for gun registry. It has not worked. It will not solve the problem. We spent $101 million for luxury jets we did not need. Now, according to today's auditor general's report, we are writing off $1 billion a year in taxes.

One has to ask what the government is thinking when we see such twisted priorities. Perhaps a better use for taxpayer money would be to aid the landowners for the loss of their property. We need to protect endangered species and in preventing their extinction, we also must protect the rights of landowners before they too become extinct. We must give adequate compensation. Until that is addressed within the bill, I will not support it and neither will my party.

Consultation with the public on bills and issues that concern them is a hallmark of our democracy. Instead of working together with the provinces and property owners to protect endangered species, the federal government is introducing uncertainty, resentment and distrust with its refusal to conduct real consultation with the public and affected stakeholders.

It is of fundamental importance to make consultation as wide as possible. The government must not only listen but heed what is said by stakeholders and ensure that consultations have a real impact on the administration of the act and are not just simply done for show.

Given the harsh criminal sanctions contained in the bill, it is completely unacceptable for the minister to possess information about the presence of a listed species and withhold that information from the landowner. Under these guidelines, due to government imposed ignorance, people can be guilty of a criminal offence if they unknowingly harm a species or its habitat.

Therefore, our second amendment requires that regardless whether the minister publicly releases information about the presence of a species or not, he must in all cases advise the affected landowner. Given the criminal sanctions involved, this is only fair.

Sadly, the government is treating the Canadian public with the same respect it afforded the parliamentary standing committee. Any consultations that do take place will not be in good faith since it has already made up its mind on all the key points and is unwilling to listen to other points of view.

There is a systemic problem with the secretive government in releasing information. This unfortunate quality applies to Bill C-5 as well. There are severe criminal sanctions contained in the bill, yet the government does not want to release relevant information to affected stakeholders. Does that make any sense?

Government Motion No. 126 deletes the requirement for “all ministerial reports including listing decisions” to be entered in a public registry. This reduces transparency and public access to important documents giving insight into how the list of endangered species is developed. In the interest of transparency, all relevant documents should be made available through open channels instead of forcing citizens to go through the loops, the hassles and the delays of access to information requests.

We support putting maximum information into the registry so that interested stakeholders may see what is happening. The fact is the implication of an agreement between the government and one person may have far reaching consequences on his or her neighbours. Transparency is essential. Transparency is defined as being able to see clearly, not translucent where one can sort of see but cannot tell what is going on.

[Haldane Elementary School, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the staff, students and parent volunteers of Haldane Elementary School in Chase, British Columbia will be holding their 12th annual Earth Day on April 19. The event has become a tradition.

Haldane Elementary conducts activities in the community which foster fellowship and environmental awareness. The nearly 300 grade 4 to 7 students involve themselves in many activities such as studying animal habitat, building and locating bird and bat houses, planting trees along Chase Creek, conducting community environmental awareness sessions, and painting images of fish on sewer drains to remind people that what they send down the drain ends up in the water system. The entire school dedicates this day to environmental awareness. It takes it one step further by contributing directly to improving the environment of Chase and the surrounding area.

I ask hon. members of the House to join with me in congratulating these young Canadians on their dedicated efforts to make our earth a better place for all of us to live.

[Criminal Code, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I have a very different point of view from that of the member for Vancouver East or I would not have seconded the motion by my colleague, the member for New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby.

I have witnessed some things in the last few years that I find very disturbing. I believe this private member's bill will help to rectify those things.

One of those was the government's decision a few years back to drop the bona fides as they are referred to on refugee claimants or immigration claimants for exotic dancers. As I recall at the time the reason given was that it was too much paperwork.

It is a very easily proven fact that a lot of the women who were brought in for positions as exotic dancers were in fact brought in for the sex trade. That has continued and there has been nothing done to stop it.

If my colleague's private member's bill were to pass and the government could obtain fingerprints, it would solve a lot of problems. Not only would it solve a lot of problems for those women who are being brought in for the sex trade, but it would also solve a lot of problems for many parents in this country.

As a mother I have been very fortunate as my children have never caused me any difficulty at all. I cannot imagine being put in a position where my child has run away from home. If my child had run away from home and I was one of these parents wondering what had happened, knowing that my child was out there somewhere probably involved in the sex trade, the fact that my child could be fingerprinted under this proposed legislation would give me great comfort. There would be a way to trace the child. There would be a way to find out if the child had been arrested for prostitution or where the child was. That would allow for intervention.

I have very few concerns about the points made by the parliamentary secretary of the possibility of the sentence going from one year to five years. If we look at the way sentencing is being done for horrid crimes, the sentences are very light and inconsequential. I do not really think we are going to have problem with the judicial system suddenly deciding that if a person has been picked up for prostitution and is fingerprinted, that the person is now going to get a sentence of five years. In some cases if that were to happen it actually might be a life saver for the women. They would have an opportunity to be educated to do something other than prostitute themselves when they went back out into society. However, I do not think that is going to be a concern. I think the sentencing will remain at one year or less.

Going back to what I was saying about the children, that is the reason I support the bill wholeheartedly.

My colleague from Vancouver East mentioned the 50 women who have been found in her riding. What a horrid tragedy. The bill probably would not have prevented those women from being killed but it might have.

If the women had been arrested and fingerprinted and one of their friends had gone to the RCMP and said “Mary is missing”, the RCMP could have started to look for Mary long in advance. They could have ruled out a few things and perhaps Mary and many of her friends would not have been killed. That may be stretching it a little, but I like to think that there would have been some sort of mechanism if the bill was in place to help protect those women from what happened to them.

Regardless of the outcome, I am going to support the bill. In my opinion, the fingerprinting and the photographing of prostitutes who are picked up would be a great help to parents. That is why I will support the bill.

If we can do anything to help parents find children who have run away and maybe give the children the opportunity to turn around and make a life for themselves, then I support it.

[Johnny Lombardi, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a second world war veteran and a son of Italian immigrants who died Monday in the city where he brought multiculturalism to new levels of awareness.

Johnny Lombardi, long time broadcaster and a prominent Torontonian, started out by convincing CHUM radio that it needed an hour long program devoted to Italian music. That was 36 years ago. The self-made entrepreneur ended up owning CHIN, a community ethnic radio station, that today serves more than 30 cultural communities in Toronto and southern Ontario.

Mr. Lombardi was a Canadian success story. He started life with little but his determination, his heritage and a strong work ethnic. When he did find success he shared it with others through active fund raising on behalf of charities and hospitals. He built bridges with his smiles, his enthusiasm and his love of life.

Mr. Lombardi's life can and should be a role model for all of us who believe that Canada's immigrants and our diversity can be a mix that strengthens us all.

May he rest in peace.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not actually hear a question, but I will address some of what was said. My understanding is that European countries signed the Kyoto agreement under the understanding that Canada was to use these sinks. That is what they are using, but just because Europe went that way does not make it right. It does not change anything that I talked about with regard to the sinks. It is the wrong way to approach this. The fear is that we will be using old growth to keep these levels up to meet the protocol. It is the wrong way to do it. We need to use common sense in this entire issue.

Yes, there are all kinds of carbon dioxide producers, including breath, but what we have to concentrate on is what is happening in the major cities in transportation. We need to look at research and development for alternative fuels. Those are the kinds of things on which we should concentrate our energy if we really want to change this world and make it better.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. The city of Edmonton actually is addressing some of the concerns he has raised today.

On the subject of methane gas, we are in partial agreement. I believe that the member's government should be helping out. It should be giving grants for that kind of research. That is the key here: research and development. We need to find solutions and they need to be practical solutions.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Southeast.

During negotiations at the Kyoto protocol, Canada fought to have carbon sinks included in the wording. Apparently it wanted the 6% credit it can claim for sinks to offset the 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions our country has to implement by 2010. Once again the Liberal government has jumped on the easy way out with little thought as to how this would affect the people in the fields and the forests of this country. Is this yet another example of exploiting the rural areas to compensate for urban sprawl, for the pollution spewing transportation and industrial equipment of large urban areas? Perhaps.

What is a carbon sink? It is not some place in the kitchen where one's better half does the dishes. A carbon sink is a method of using plants, soil and trees to sequester, store and absorb carbon. Many environmentalists and scientists are saying it is the biggest loophole to be found in the Kyoto protocol. Why? It avoids the main issue the protocol was designed to address: reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons.

The Liberal government concluded quite cavalierly that carbon sinks are found in existing forest and prairie lands anyway and are encouraged by agricultural practices such as low tillage. Apparently, the thinking of the Canadian negotiators was that if they are there already let us take credit for them.

Yes, they are there already and they may not be a problem when they occur as a natural course of events, but what costs will there be if creating carbon sinks becomes the prime focus on our lands and forests? How much is too much when it comes to storing carbon in large amounts? Do we know? Does the government side of the House care?

When Bill Hare, climate policy director of Greenpeace International, talked of the inclusion of sinks in the protocol, he said:

If the rules of the Kyoto Protocol were to allow this kind of loophole, its environmental integrity would go out the window.

I agree.

Are we not just a little embarrassed that Canada was the country pushing for the inclusion of this so-called loophole? We did not have the nerve, as our cousins to the south did, of dropping off the protocol altogether. Instead we asked for an out without fully researching what that out might do to the future use of our lands.

Some scientists have indicated that the maintaining of carbon sink forests for long periods will be difficult. David O. Hall says that although trees and other forms of biomass can act as carbon sinks at maturity, they must eventually be used as a source of fuel or timber product as the carbon will be lost through decay or naturally occurring forest fires.

Where will the drive to create these carbon sinks stop? Will the government encourage clear cutting of old growth forests so that it may claim extra carbon credits from the resulting reforestation? With everything else that has been thrown at our forest industry, what is one more environmental component to deal with? Is that the thinking?

With regard to our farmers, what reward will they get for participating in the storage of carbons on their lands? Many farmers out there, as the agriculture committee heard in its travels across the country, are dealing with an increase in pressure from a variety of sources. Whether it is encroaching urban development, difficulty with crown land issues or adhering to the strict fisheries and oceans codes regarding streams, it is all time taken away from the production of the food necessary to feed this country. When they try to help the environment by such methods as organic farming and integrated production, both of which are good for the environment, society and the economy, are they rewarded? No. We slap more regulations on their operations.

The whole concept of sinks was hotly debated at the Kyoto negotiations. In 1999 the topic closed down talks being held in the Hague. The idea was objected to by those countries that believe we need to do something to eliminate the greenhouse gases that are being created by all of us. Canada chose to support the sinks, thereby creating a way to bypass the intent of the protocol. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister even associated the ratification of Kyoto with the importance of clean air. This is a ridiculous argument.

Kyoto is designed primarily to control CO

2

emissions. Unlike nitric oxides, sulphur dioxide and soot, CO

2

is not a pollutant. Indeed, it is the very elixir of life. It is the primary nutrient of plants, and without its warming effect earth would be stuck in a perpetual ice age. A far better way to control real pollution would be to expand upon targeted and far less expensive pollution control programs, or in other words, use some common sense.

No one seems sure what stockpiling of carbon dioxide in plants and soil eventually will do to our ecosystems. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, volcanoes and rotting vegetation as well as breathing. Carbon dioxide pollution has been on the rise since humans moved away from the rural lifestyle and embraced the industrial age.

Now we are asking those in rural communities to fix the mess urban sprawl has created. Considering how we treat our farmers when they ask for assistance or how we treat our forest workers when they are attacked by foreign lobby groups, do we now have the nerve to ask them to rescue us?

In addition to asking the hewers of wood and the tillers of the land to carry the burden of stored carbons, there is also the concept of storing carbons under the sea, an idea that could have a great impact on our fish farmers. Science News magazine says that many of the proposed biological storage schemes may have short term benefits at best and some may actually spawn huge problems of their own.

If we decide to use the oceans as a large carbon reservoir, what happens to the micro-organisms called phytoplankton? These tiny creatures live near the surface of the ocean and form a broad base of the ocean's food supply. They also serve as a biological pump. They take in carbon dioxide as they grow. Those that do not get eaten carry the carbon they have absorbed to the bottom of the ocean when they die. There, if undisturbed, they form a layer that eventually turns into limestone sediment. Has anyone researched what the addition of 10%, 25% or 50% more carbon will do to this delicate balance?

As my colleagues have indicated, the Kyoto protocol is not the answer to our environmental woes. We need to address the gas emissions, not avoid them by sweeping the offending gases under the rug.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the old adage that there is nothing certain except death and taxes is something every one of us as Canadians has been able to say in equal measure. Now of course there will be a qualifier: unless one is a native.

Once again the courts are driving a wedge between native and non-native people of Canada with their questionable decision making. The recent federal court decision to exempt one group of people from paying any taxation, at any level, is bound to be rejected by all other Canadians. An exemption for natives covered by Treaty 8 will further alienate our aboriginal people from the mainstream of society and marginalize the natives themselves.

Clear thinking Canadians realize that reasonable levels of taxation are required to provide services to all citizens. Why does the government not realize that we can never build equality by dividing people?