Karen Kraft Sloan

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to think about some of the experiences he has had, open his mind and his heart and really listen to what people are telling him. He should investigate what it is like for people in native communities and the kinds of relationships they have right now and really explore what self-government is all about.

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I am somewhat puzzled by the statement of the member from the other side.

He said that he has worked with First Nations' people as a medical doctor and has talked to them. It seems to me that he really has not listened to them, nor has he learned anything about them. He talked about self-government but he has talked about it in a somewhat befuddled way. If he were to truly

understand what self-government is about, he would change a lot of the statements that he just made.

I had the honour of sitting in a meeting with a group of chiefs from across the country. A very articulate chief from the west spoke about self-government. He spoke about his relationship with the Department of Indian Affairs. He spoke about the problems that native people have because they do not have the same rights that many Canadians take for granted.

Moneys that are generated through leases and economic activity in their communities goes to the department. They have to apply for moneys through budgets. These budgets can be turned down. He gave a very eloquent and poignant description of this life and he looked to me and said: "Self-government is just a way of having the same basic rights that other Canadians enjoy".

I am really at a loss to come up with a question for the member on the other side. I only have a suggestion and that is to open your mind and your heart-

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister had said that she was hurt to see the Leader of the Opposition lay a wreath, but she defended his right to do so because she believes in a democratic country. I shared her hurt and pain when I went over to the war memorial on Monday and the first group of MPs I saw were the Bloc, the separatists.

Yes, separatists lost family during the war, but it was a war in which Canada fought as one united nation to preserve one united nation. While I have defended the right for the Bloc to be the party of the opposition in my riding, it hurt me to see the people who would destroy this country.

I would also like to suggest that the leader of the Reform Party must feel very pleased with what he has wrought today. I wonder what goes on in the lobby of the opposition side, the collusion, the strategy, the working together, the flip side of the coin, the Quebec without Canada, the Canada without Quebec. Madam Speaker, I would suggest that when you watch the news tonight you will see the member from the other side as he raises his voice and his face turns red and he yells and screams "more rights, more rights for Quebec," and I tell you how difficult it will be to defend his right to sit in this House in my riding.

We can thank the leader of the Reform for being irresponsible in heating up the rhetoric in this debate. If the member on the other side is respectful of people's rights then my question to you is why do you ignore and why do you choose not to respect the rights of the native people in Quebec in their path toward sovereignty and self-government.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, while the hon. member on the other side suggested that this was not a form of physical abuse, I would suggest that there are many forms of abuse such as psychological abuse. It does sound very severe.

The member also suggested that these individuals were changed for life. I would suggest that people who are subjected to severe forms of psychological abuse would be changed for life. We all know what happens when we beat a dog regularly and the kinds of things that can happen with that.

There is very strong evidence that is well substantiated that many of these young children who get in trouble with the law had trauma at birth, are suffering from severe learning disabilities, and I am not entirely sure what this kind of treatment would do to help these children who are not loved and not healthy.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

He probably has some understanding of my background which is in education and not directly in the agri-food industry. It is absolutely crucial that those Canadians who live in the densely populated urban areas understand the impact of our agri-food and rural communities on their health and well-being.

The area of connection is around food. When we talk about the quality and sovereignty that this nation must have over its own food, when we talk about the right kind of price, fair pricing for our food, that is a point on which rural and urban communities can connect.

There is a bit of a misconception out there that farmers are somehow benefiting greatly because of the price charged for food. If you look at what is actually given in terms of the farm dollar at the farm gate it is quite low in terms of all of the hands that this money flows through.

When consumers go to a grocery store or a restaurant they may be concerned about the price of food, but that is an important area to start talking about, what actually happens within the processing food management, food growing system. That is one area of interaction.

Another area of interaction is understanding the way our rural communities support our urban communities economically. What are the things our farmers need to have in order to have effective farms in agri-food businesses? What kinds of equipment and other supplies do they need? Also, there is the fact that they contribute to our towns and villages because they come into the larger centres and they shop and they buy.

I think if we take a look at food, that interface and the economic contribution even though there are fewer and fewer Canadians who are directly involved in the agri-food industry we will see what a tremendous benefit it is indeed to Canada.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. I would like to be assured with the fact that the Bloc is not working toward separation in Quebec.

As far as the member's comments about having processing done locally, if we think of what community economic development is all about, it is ensuring that we have healthy local economies. By that I mean economies that serve the local community and do not contribute to environmental degradation but contribute to the ability of people to work locally so that they can spend money and spend time with their families locally.

It is also very important when we are thinking of the agri-food industry to think of the effects of hauling raw materials over long distances and what that means for the quality of our food. That is a consideration as well.

However, as the hon. member knows, it is not government that dictates the policy of the private sector. Therefore while we can look at measures that encourage local community economic development it is not the federal government's place to tell the private sector where it has to produce and how it has to produce.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Malpeque.

I have been listening to the most recent comments. While some members of this House feel that separation is a fait accompli, I can assure members that members on this side of the House do not share that point of view.

I believe that the number one priority of government is the health and well-being of its people. This government is committed to promoting and sustaining the health and well-being of rural communities through agricultural policy renewal. Our agri-food industry is at risk and we must stop its erosion by using agricultural resources more effectively.

This government is committed to rebuilding our rural communities by ensuring a more equitable share of the food dollar for farmers and their families. A healthy community is one that is not only economically viable but is also environmentally sustainable.

One of the measures that this government will undertake toward this end is rural renewal. Rural renewal is a multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral challenge that must be addressed through a multi-departmental approach. The challenge is to form effective partnerships to bring about healthy rural development.

To encourage this the minister of agriculture has established a rural renewal secretariat that is working in partnership with all branches and levels of government as well as the private sector. The objectives of the secretariat are: to assist rural people in the realization of their developmental goals; to provide collaboration among various government programs and farm community organizations; and to promote and facilitate improvement in the economic, social and environmental conditions of Canada's agricultural communities and rural areas so that they may be sustainable and self-reliant contributors to Canada's economy.

This rural renewal secretariat is being developed through a reallocation of government resources. No new money is being used. We are not reinventing the wheel. A myriad of approaches has been tried in the past with questionable results. What most of these initiatives have clearly discovered is that rural Canada cannot be sustained by government transfer payments and cannot be rejuvenated by top down policies and programs.

The approach that shows the most promise is one which will promote and facilitate bottom up initiatives, recognizing that it is at the grassroots level where the ideas are found and the drive and dedication to make things happen occur.

The role of the federal government must be to provide the policy environment and the tools for community driven rural development. This is the course of action this government has already embarked upon and this is the course of action that will bring results.

The people who live in rural Canada must be the driving force. They are the key to building healthy rural communities. There are success stories out there, stories of people starting with an idea, creating a local business and providing employment for local people. It is the objective of the rural renewal secretariat to share these case studies to assist others in turning their ideas and their resources into sustainable businesses.

The challenge this government has taken up is to create an environment which provides rural Canada with the necessary tools to give it the opportunity to succeed.

In the red book this government committed itself to stabilization programs to reduce the impact of fluctuating markets. I am glad to report that this government has embarked on a consultative process to refurbish Canadian farm safety net programs.

This government is also actively pursuing several research and development initiatives. The government realizes that research is a key component to competitiveness in the agri-food sector of Canada. Programs include the oat research program and the PSE pork research program; not only programs but also the actions and attitudes of the minister, his parliamentary secretary and my colleagues who are actively involved in the rural caucus.

One thing is very clear. Members of the rural caucus, whether they are from the west, north, Ontario, Quebec or the maritimes, are dedicated and determined to ensure a high quality of life for the members of our rural and agri-food communities.

While the agri-food industry is not part of my own background, I live in a small village, Mount Albert, which derives its existence from the surrounding farmland. As a member of Parliament I have had the wonderful opportunity to get to know individual agri-food producers.

In the riding of York-Simcoe which I represent the First Nations people laid the foundation for our agricultural traditions. Later the United Empire Loyalists and Quakers were among the first settlers to break the land and till the soil. To this day the riding of York-Simcoe retains its agricultural heritage.

The close proximity of the Toronto market contributes to the prosperity of local agri-food producers. Since the York region is the fastest growing area, the market for York-Simcoe agri-food producers is continuously growing. The wonderful infrastructure of highways enables local agri-food producers to reach their markets.

In addition, the close proximity of St. Lawrence Starch provides an excellent opportunity for corn producers to sell their corn.

Potatoes grown in the Mount Albert region and the Alliston area are arguably the finest in the land. Although my colleagues from P.E.I. may differ, I believe York-Simcoe potatoes are superior.

The geographical position of the riding and the nature of the soil enable farmers to cultivate a variety of crops. Lake Simcoe is an undeniable drawing factor to the region and part of the watershed that helps to sustain farms in the surrounding regions.

The tourists and cottagers will note the large number of dairy and beef farms that grace the landscape of York-Simcoe. There is also the world renowned Holland Marsh. Despite its small size, the Holland Marsh produces 85 per cent of Ontario's celery, 75 per cent of its onions, 95 per cent of its lettuce and 60 per cent of its parsnips.

The Muck Research Station is also located in the Holland Marsh. This station researches all aspects of vegetable production on muck or organic soils. Extensive weed, insect and disease control research trials are conducted in co-operation with industry, Agriculture Canada and the University of Guelph.

In the Bradford district there is also the integrated pest management program which continues to develop and evolve. IPM encourages responsible crop management and a sustainable, quality food supply for Ontario. The IPM program now includes onions, carrots, celery, lettuce, potatoes and sweet corn. As a result of its implementation insecticide use in onions has been reduced by 80 per cent.

With the assistance of Agriculture Canada, this program has become a leader in IPM development in Canada and North America. It is partnership programs like the Muck Research Station and the IPM program that Agriculture Canada needs to continue to sponsor in order to further world development.

This government is tackling the rural renewal challenge in an open and honest approach based on consultation and fostering partnerships. Success or failure rests not in Ottawa nor in our provincial capitals. Rather, it rests within our rural communities so that they can become sustainable and self-reliant contributors to Canada's economy. If rural Canada prospers then all of Canada prospers.

[Canada Wildlife Act, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, over two decades ago Parliament passed into law the Canada Wildlife Act. This was a key piece of legislation in the effort to protect our country's wildlife. It enables the federal government to carry out wildlife research and, in co-operation with the provinces, to undertake a wide range of conservation interpretation activities for wildlife and its habitat including the protection of endangered species.

Since 1973, however, we have seen far-reaching changes in our approach to environmental issues. These changes necessitate updating of the act. We have come to see the crucial importance of the interrelationships between these issues and the need to integrate the environment and the economy. We also recognize that the issues we face are complex. To address them successfully we need co-operation across jurisdictions and even across borders.

This new understanding lies at the heart of sustainable development or sustainability. Sustainability recognizes the need to keep human activities within the limits of the ecosystem's capacity to sustain. It means integrating economic and environmental goals. It also means building a wide network of partnerships to achieve these goals.

At the United Nations earth summit in 1992 the world community gave its support to sustainable development. In the area of wildlife it adopted the convention on biological diversity. Canada was one of the first industrialized countries to sign this unprecedented agreement.

Signatories to the convention must regulate or manage biological resources to ensure their conservation and sustainable use and must establish a system of protected areas to conserve biodiversity. The convention calls for conservation efforts to consider all species within an ecosystem and requires countries to develop legislative provisions to protect endangered species.

We have welcomed the new international commitment to maintaining biodiversity because wildlife has a special importance to our country and to the vast majority of our people. Canada is indeed fortunate in still having natural spaces largely untouched by development where wildlife abounds in a free state. We all take pride in our vast wilderness areas and the creatures that inhabit them. They help to define the identity of our country.

As well, Canada's living natural resources make a major contribution to our economic well-being. According to a Statistics Canada survey on the importance of wildlife to Canadians in 1991, expenditures associated with all types of fish and wildlife related recreational activities contributed at least $11.5 billion to our gross domestic product. They generated $4.4 billion in tax revenues and provided 250,000 jobs.

The same survey shows that over 90 per cent of Canadians took part in wildlife related activities during 1991, devoting to them a total of 1.3 billion days and $5.6 billion. Those figures indicate that wildlife plays a major part in Canadians' recreational life. Further, 86 per cent of Canadians support wildlife conservation.

For all these reasons we must ensure the health of Canada's wildlife. The amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act will help achieve that goal.

The bill under consideration will broaden the scope of the Canada Wildlife Act to apply not simply to non-domestic animals but instead to all wild organisms. That shift will bring the act into line with the biodiversity convention.

The bill will also make it possible to create marine natural wildlife areas, not only within the 12 nautical mile limit as at present, but all the way out to the 200 nautical mile limit. This will allow much greater protection of the Canadian marine ecosystems important to wildlife.

The amendments establish regulatory authorities for marine protected areas. They strengthen enforcement related provisions. They will help deter illegal activities such as poaching by setting a maximum penalty of $25,000 and/or six months in jail for serious offences.

These changes will help ensure that future Canadians enjoy the same benefits we do from flourishing wildlife populations. However protecting Canada's wildlife is not a task for the federal government alone. To a large extent managing wildlife is a responsibility of the provinces and the territories. Only by working with them can the federal government promote our national wildlife objectives.

Canadians can be proud that the different levels of government have a record of strong co-operation on wildlife issues. In 1990 the federal and provincial governments adopted the wildlife policy for Canada. This calls for effective legislation conserving wild animals and plants and ensuring that all uses are sustainable.

It also calls for penalties that pose effective deterrents to the illegal use of wild species. More recently federal, provincial and territorial governments together have been developing a Canadian biodiversity strategy that will set out the manner in which Canada will implement the 1992 global biodiversity convention.

That same co-operation is central to the Canada Wildlife Act. For example, the act provides for co-operative management areas on provincial lands. While the federal Minister of the Environment will have the authority to appoint provincial officers as wildlife officers, these appointments will be made only with the agreement of the provinces concerned.

The amendments define the authority and powers of those officers and provide for inspection and search and seizure procedures in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Federal and provincial governments will also continue their co-operation on the management of endangered species. That co-operation dates back to 1988 when the responsible government agents launched the RNEW organization and strategy.

RNEW stands for recovery of nationally endangered wildlife. Its goal is to have all agencies and organizations work as a team to rescue species at risk from extinction and to prevent vulnerable species from becoming at risk. The need for such teamwork is all too clear because the list of species designated as endangered is growing ever longer while the list of recovered species remains all too short.

RNEW brings together the directors of federal, provincial and territorial wildlife agencies plus the heads of three major national wildlife organizations: the Canadian Nature Federation, the Canadian Wildlife Federation and the World Wildlife Fund Canada. These officials set up a team to prepare a

management plan for the recovery of a particular endangered species, a plan eventually to be carried out by the responsible governments in co-operation with universities and conservation organizations.

Successes achieved through the RNEW program are gratifying, but they must not make us complacent. There are more cases by far in which Canada's wildlife populations are suffering from the effects of such problems as loss and degradation of habitat, overharvesting, poaching, disease and the impact of toxic substances. Yet the few successes are invaluable because they clearly show us the way forward. That way is through co-operation of the different levels of government and concerned groups outside government.

The amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act reinforce that co-operation. They will enhance protection for Canada's wildlife and help us advance the goals of sustainability.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening with great interest and following the direction of the debate. It appears the Reform argument is coming from two possible areas. One is that we should have a very simple income tax form which I certainly agree with, but also that social policy measures should not be part of our income tax system.

If I were to go back to my constituents they would be appalled to learn the Reform Party is advocating banishing registered retirement savings plans. So many Canadians find this as the only way they can contribute toward their retirement years.

If you look at a registered retirement savings plan, as has already been noted, there is some complexity with it. If we did not have them on our forms it would indeed be a very simple form to fill out. It is clearly a direct social policy measure that the Canadian government is looking at helping Canadians save for their retirement.

I am appalled and I think my constituents would be appalled that the Reform Party is advocating something like this.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill to amend the Migratory Birds Conventions Act. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the House for their sensitivity and support of the bill. In particular I support my colleague from Davenport who has examined the bill carefully and has put forward some very sincere concerns.

Along with the Canada Wildlife Act, this act urgently needs updating to come into line with current environmental legislation in both Canada and the United States. Many provisions of the act as it now stands are ineffective or are simply not in harmony with related federal, provincial or territorial legislation.

Today I would like to focus on how the bill will affect one particular group that is following the updating process very closely, and that is Canada's First Nations. In fact the bill now before the House is only one of three initiatives in this area having particular importance for First Nations. The other two are the effort to amend the Canada-U.S. migratory birds convention of 1916 and the implementation of an interim policy on enforcement, especially the provisions on water fowl harvesting by aboriginal people.

The 1916 convention is a binational agreement governing the conservation of migratory birds in Canada and the United States. In our country the Migratory Birds Convention Act is the enabling legislation for the implementation of that agreement.

Regulations under the act control the hunting of migratory game birds during certain periods of the year. They also establish closed seasons to protect breeding, nesting, brooding and moulting birds at other times of the year.

These and other provisions complement measures taken by the United States, the provinces and territories, wildlife groups, the private sector and individuals to conserve this valuable wildlife heritage.

In many cases the different authorities and sectors have worked in close co-operation toward that common goal. One outstanding example of such a partnership is the North American water fowl management plan.

In some areas of Canada, especially the north, migratory birds have traditionally been an important food source for aboriginal peoples. First Nations continue to rely heavily on this source at different times of the year. In certain cases activities that are protected by aboriginal rights are not covered by the provisions of the Migratory Birds Conventions Act. For example, the hunting by natives of migratory birds during the closed season from March 10 to August 31 or the collection of eggs. Of course aboriginal people also hunt birds during open seasons. Hunting migratory birds does more than provide food to First Nations. Traditional hunting activities have a great significance in aboriginal culture. Preserving that culture means preserving Canada's wildlife resources.

In its present form the migratory birds convention fails to provide for closed season harvest and egg collection by aboriginal people. That omission can be rectified only by amending the convention itself, a step that requires negotiation between the United States and Canada. As I mentioned we are seeking to initiate the necessary negotiations. They should take place later this year.

First Nations take a significant proportion of the migratory birds hunted in Canada. The latest estimates suggest that aboriginal people harvest between 250,000 and 750,000 ducks and roughly 350,000 geese each year. For ducks that represents 13 per cent of the Canadian harvest and 6 per cent of the total North American harvest. For geese the figure represents 32 per cent of the Canadian harvest and 12 per cent of the total North American harvest. Geese constitute a major food source for some aboriginal communities, notably along the Ontario and Quebec coasts of James Bay.

Given the magnitude of the annual harvest and our desire to safeguard the subsistence harvesting needs of First Nations we must work in co-operation with aboriginal communities. We need new partnerships to achieve the shared goals of conservation and management of ducks and geese.

An amended convention will promote such partnerships, particularly in the form of co-management agreements, self-government agreements and the wildlife management provisions of comprehensive claims agreements.

Already co-management with aboriginal people is being implemented for the conservation of caribou, polar bear and other species. The approach is generating the needed data on harvest which can serve as a basis for agreement on harvest objectives. We wish to build on this success in our future efforts to amend the convention.

Earlier at workshops organized through Canada representatives from government, aboriginal communities, wildlife groups and others discussed options for closed season harvesting. These consultations provided valuable guidance for the coming negotiations with the United States on amending the migratory birds convention to allow for hunting and egg collection by natives.

Of course the amendments to the convention and to Canada's legislation and regulations must respect aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt migratory birds. To ensure that they do, thorough consultation is a must. That is how we will achieve the best possible provisions for addressing aboriginal concerns.

Consultations are now under way on such changes to the convention with the full participation of aboriginal organizations, the provinces and territories, and environmental and conservation groups. It will not happen overnight, but discussions to this date have been encouraging. What is more, Canada and the United States are now working on convergent tracks as we prepare for formal negotiations.

Among the changes now under consideration by hon. members to the Migratory Birds Convention Act, one provision concerns the procedure for amending the convention itself. The bill before the House will allow the schedule to the act setting out the convention to be amended by order. The change will ensure that Canada can promptly fulfil its obligations to the United States, the convention and all those affected by an amended convention, in particular aboriginal peoples.

Until such time as the convention is amended an interim enforcement policy governs our application of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canada Wildlife Act in the areas of closed season hunting and egg collection by aboriginal people. This policy gives top priority to conservation. It will remain in effect until after passage of the bills modernizing the two acts and until the convention itself is amended.

The interim enforcement policy also stresses consultation and co-operation, two very important elements in any effort to build partnership for conservation with the First Nations.

There are pressing reasons for proceeding with the present amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. It requires time to lay the groundwork for amending the migratory birds convention so that it takes into account the needs of aboriginal peoples.

While we continue to do that, however, we must safeguard the resources themselves. We must ensure that they are used sustainably. To do this Canada must act at once to update its wildlife and migratory bird legislation, strengthening enforcement and modernizing administration.

Any delay could jeopardize Canada's ability to ensure sustainable population levels for migratory birds and other wildlife. Let us consider the need to deal with the illegal commercial sales of murres and other migratory birds. That is only one reason we cannot afford to postpone these amendments.

For the benefit of Canadian wildlife Canada must proceed with the updating of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and its companion, the Canada Wildlife Act. At the same time we must continue extensive consultations with aboriginal people to meet their needs and concerns. The proposed amendments to both acts will in no way prejudice the outcome of these broader initiatives.

Canada's wildlife needs protection and it needs it now. That is why the government has introduced the bill now before the House to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and that is why the bill deserves swift passage.