Clifford Lincoln

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Sir, I did not interrupt when you had the floor. You could at least extend the same courtesy to me. Your are always harping on-

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, what we should do is make a recording of the Bloc members' speeches and just play it over and over. This way, there would be no need for Bloc members to rise in the House after a speech. We could switch on the recording. It is always the same old story: centralization and the federal government are the root of all evil. Of course Quebec has no responsibility at all for what happens. It is all the federal government's fault. They make it sound as if once Quebec is independent, all their problems will disappear like magic and people will be trained for the jobs they will get in all those specialized plants.

The social security reform proposed by the Minister of Human Resources Development is an attempt to ensure that many more people have access to the education system, training, student loans and a one-stop system for manpower training. The minister has said many times that he is open to any kind of reform that provides for complementary input by the federal government and the provincial government. Tabling this reform paper as a set of proposals for consultation is a way to involve people from all provinces, people across Canada, in a constructive reform process.

For instance, in my own riding, I intend to conduct public consultations on this proposal. I hope my Bloc colleagues will do the same in their ridings and work on ways, not just to break up Canada and separate Quebec from Canada, but to ensure that people find their place in a community where there is work for all. Anything but this endless refrain that centralization and federalism are the root of all evil.

Nobody is talking about centralization. We are talking about co-operative and constructive federalism, that will enable people to find jobs. That is what they are looking for, not your same old stories. You are all the same. It is always the same old story. The words never change. You will never be satisfied. How can you support a reform of the federal system if you want to break up the federal system?

This is the reason for all your problems. It is the idea you have that if you erect walls around you, it will be heaven on earth. But this is not the way. Nowadays, in our competitive world, we have to live together. Even Europeans are uniting to work co-operatively.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have been in Canada for very close to 34 years. I started working when I was young in British Columbia, then I worked in the province of Quebec, in Montreal. In those days, the Canadian economy depended on the big traditional industries, based on our natural resources.

Our society was almost exclusively white and Christian. Drastic changes have taken place in the last 40 years, in Canada as well as in all industrial societies. Because of those changes, the present economic structure is totally different.

In fact, the whole of society has changed. Today's society is not the one that I found when I arrived in Canada. Accordingly, we must look to a sweeping reform of our entire social security net which, in some areas, has been in place for the past 50 years.

Today in North America more people are working in the computer industry than in the automobile, steel and heavy industries combined. The software industry alone represents a total output of $42 billion. More Canadians today are working in the electronic industry than in pulp and paper, our biggest industry to date. There are as many Albertans working in the financial sector today as in oil and gas.

Today, more Quebecers are working in the health technology industries than in textiles, which used to be Quebec's basic industry. There are more Americans working in the film industry today than there are in the entire automobile industry.

The tragedy of Canadian society, as indeed it is a tragedy of every industrialized country today, is that our social infrastructures, our services, have not kept up with the immense changes in our economy over the last 35 years.

The paradox is that there are jobs in the new industries but these jobs cannot be filled because the skills do not match the jobs that are open. There is a huge jobless pool of people who cannot access available jobs in new industries because of the lack of proper skills.

I represent a riding in which a great number of high tech industries are located, industries in communications, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, software and others. I have spoken to many company executives.

One company, which is highly prosperous and almost unique in the world, exports 97 per cent of its products. This company cannot find enough workers inside Canada to fill 50 per cent of its demand. Of its skilled workforce 25 per cent come from Quebec and 25 per cent come from the rest of Canada. It has to import 50 per cent of its skilled workforce from England, Germany, the United States and other places. This is not peculiar to my riding. There are similar stories all across Canada in all the new industries.

The reform we are talking about today is to empower Canadians to keep pace in this new world in which sadly there is no longer a place for school dropouts or people without suitable training. If we compare our rate of school performance with that of Germany, Japan, or Korea, of all the emerging countries where skills are at a premium and are being used day by day, we find ourselves sadly lacking.

That is why this reform is so important to us today. This reform is almost a call to Canadians to take up the challenge, to find in the reform an opportunity to reshape our collective skills so as to enable our citizens, especially our younger ones, to find a place in this very different yet very exciting world.

Today Canada will depend more and more on new technologies and new sectors, including communications, aerospace, broadcasting technologies, health technologies and indeed, the environmental technology sector.

These are our new industries, our new challenges. Tomorrow's opportunities await. And this is the attitude the Minister of Human Resources Development would like to see us adopt, one of taking responsibility for our actions, of discussing tomorrow's challenges together, so that we can build a social security system that will carry us into the 21st century.

In reviewing the options for the Axworthy reform, we have the opportunity to think about what is at stake, to face today's realities, to reflect on our 50-year old social security net, and to give Canadians, our young people in particular, confidence and dignity, in the knowledge that tomorrow's families will have lasting jobs, jobs that will make them competitive in today's competitive world.

This is what this reform is all about. The reform will most certainly have a financial impact. We can no longer afford our existing overly expensive social security net. We must think of more creative, more innovative approaches: this is the goal the minister, Mr. Axworthy, is trying to reach in his reform.

I hope this will give us all a chance to discuss in a constructive spirit this essential need to reform our social security system so as to make us competitive and give us the qualify of life for the next century we all aspire to have.

[Canada Labour Code, September 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the hon. member that the minister met on Monday with several CNTU officers representing Ogilvie Mills workers. He assured them that he was taking a close look at this whole issue of Canadian anti-strikebreaking legislation, an issue which will be considered as part of the in-depth reform of the Canada Labour Code, and that he will give this problem the urgent and serious attention it deserves.

[Young Offenders Act, June 16th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is rather significant that on the one hand, we have the Reform Party telling us that the justice minister's proposal is nothing more than a cosmetic measure, while on the other hand, we have the Bloc telling us that the bill is far too repressive. Perhaps it is the happy medium.

I have listened closely to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, answer countless questions in the House about his views on young offenders and crime. He has said that his philosophy consists of cleaning up some of the outdated provisions in legislation, and at the same time focussing on the issue of crime prevention.

In our red book, we promised to take a look at provisions in the legislation as they pertain to certain violent youth crimes and to strengthen the act which is now ten years old. At the same time, however, we made it very clear that we would try to find ways to curb crime, and this is where prevention comes into play.

Just the other day after the Stanley Cup riots, all of us expected the riots to take place in New York City which is a city where crime has become a way of life. Yet New York City was quiet. It was lawful. The riots happened in Vancouver, a quiet peaceful city in normal times.

Last year it happened in Montreal, my own city, which is again extremely quiet and peaceful. We have to ask ourselves what the reasons are for lawlessness, violence and crime. We have to go back to the hopelessness in which youth sees itself.

I heard my colleague from Reform say that 17 years ago when he was 17 he went to bush camp and 20 years ago he knew what right and wrong were, as if today we do not have youth going to bush camps and other ways of work, as if today the youth does not know what is right and wrong. The great majority of youth in Canada are outstanding citizens, highly qualified, desirous of working. There is crime because there is hopelessness. We do not give them a chance.

A few years ago I had the sad privilege to serve on a committee with some other people about an ethnic group in Montreal who did not have the French language skills. They had very few educational skills and no work training skills. They could not find work.

The elders were saying because of that those people would resort to crime. They would rely on drugs and crime because there was no other open way for them. This is why in our electoral commitment we call it creating opportunity. Unless we create opportunity we are going to have to resort to more and more laws which will solve nothing. The more hopelessness there will be, the more crime there is going to be and then the more repressive laws we are going to be looking for.

What we need to do is to look at an integrated approach to society that looks at crime in its very sources. They say that an adult is born when a child is born. This is why we have addressed the question of day care for all the poor, single mothers that have to go to work leaving their children at home without adequate day care. So we have tackled day care. There is a correlation between day care and eventual crime.

Today we have a rate of drop out rate in our schools of something like 40 per cent. Sixty per cent of young Canadians have no vocational skills or no post-secondary skills. How can they approach the workplace in a competitive economy where work has to be more skilled than ever?

We graduate 24,000 apprentices a year compared to 600,000 in Germany. In proportion to our population we should graduate 275,000. How can we hope for these young people to find work, to find a dignity of life if we do not give them the chance?

This is why our program addresses itself to all the various causes of hopelessness.

Literacy, youth programs, the Youth Service Corps, apprenticeship programs and the reform proposals which my colleague the human resources development minister is now working on: this is the integrated reform which will affect all sectors of society and foster a climate in which job training will be a much more positive experience.

We have to restructure our industries toward the new industries of tomorrow; environmental technologies, broadcast technologies, information technologies, health technologies in which we can shine so that added to our thrusts to train young people into apprenticeships, into post-secondary education that is geared to these new areas of excellence, we can find them work, we can find them an opportunity, a chance.

We have wonderful young people in Canada, some of them highly qualified. Most of our youth are wonderful people. Those that resort to crime and hopelessness are those that do not find a chance.

We talk about prevention and we say that we have not addressed prevention. Yet our Minister of Justice pointed out that we are going to create very soon a national council for prevention of crime. I know some will say another council.

We intend to consult with Canadians, provincial and municipal governments, police forces and communities with a view to developing, not a short-term, hastily conceived strategy, but a comprehensive, long-term strategy, one that addresses all aspects of crime prevention, including long-term rehabilitation.

There is a saying that if we cherish the child and give him or her hope then we do not have to punish the man or the woman in later life. I believe in this fundamentally. What we need in our society is to give our young people, whether they be 12-year olds, 15-year olds, 17-year olds or 20-year olds a chance. To believe that the world has not changed since the 1960s or the 1950s is to delude ourselves. It is a new world today with instant communications. The world is very different.

Sure, there is more crime. There is more crime in Canada as there is more crime in France or England, in places which heretofore were very peaceful. That is the way of today's world. In all of these countries there is one common link, lack of opportunity for young people and for adults. When despair and hopelessness set in, people resort to any way to earn a living, to acquire dignity of life. That is what we must attack.

To say that 20 years ago all was sweetness and light when we all went to bush camps and everybody was nice is illusory. Today I find we have more frank young people than in my generation. We have young people who are far more committed to society, to truth, to integrity, to the environmental cause than we ever were in my time. We believed that you had to cane children and use law and order in our families. Today it is a more enlightened world where we rule by consensus and work together to try to form partnerships within our families, within our communities. It is a far more challenging world.

We have to resolve to effectively create opportunities so that our young people get back to work, find hope and dignity and then they will not have to resort to crime and violence.

[Canada Wildlife Act, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in introducing the debate on third reading of Bill C-24, I would like to quote from Life in the Balance by David Rains Wallace: ``Yet wildlife and wilderness are not the cause of poverty. Humans would hardly be better off were the last forest logged, grassland ploughed, mountain mined, desert irrigated, tundra drilled, river dammed, wetland drained, ocean depleted and islands stripped of native flora and fauna. Scientific evidence and simple logic suggest that civilization cannot deface the planet with impunity''.

I think this is at the basis of the wildlife act that we are trying to pass today.

I am pleased to present the bill to amend the Canada Wildlife Act at third reading. At a time when the health of the economy is the number-one concern of many Canadians, some may ask why we are looking at the issue of wildlife protection. My answer is this: "Protecting wildlife and the Canadian environment is essential to our country's long-term prosperity in the broadest sense of the word".

For Canadians and for people around the world, our wildlife is part of our country's identity and uniqueness. Wildlife remains at the centre of Native Canadians' traditional way of life. It can offer still undiscovered treasures; some species could be used in various ways in the interest of human beings. Wildlife is an essential evironmental, social and cultural resource.

Wildlife-related recreational activities are important in Canada. They inject billions of dollars into the economy and create tens of thousands of jobs. In fact, a vast majority of Canadians want our wildlife to be protected so that future generations can enjoy the same abundance. According to a recent Statistics Canada survey, over 90 per cent of Canadians say they have a sustained interest in wildlife conservation. They are not motivated only by feelings but by a realistic understanding.

They heard and they support the sustainable environment message: that the health of the environment and economic development are interdependent, that no economy is possible without the environment and that we cannot have quality of life if the economy is not built around the environment. Canadians are willing to do their part for sustainable development and they are asking the government to do its part.

In 1990 the Wildlife Ministers Council of Canada comprised of federal and provincial ministers responsible for wildlife wrote a wildlife policy for Canada. The Canada Wildlife Act was enacted in 1973 to enable the federal government to carry out wildlife research and in co-operation with the provinces to undertake a wide range of wildlife conservation and interpretation activities for wildlife and its habitat, including the protection of endangered species. The act allows the minister to acquire any lands for the purposes of research, conservation, and interpretation in respect of migratory birds and if international interests and with the support of the provinces other species including endangered species.

Areas of key significance to Canada's wildlife are protected through regulations under this act. There are currently 45 national wildlife areas in Canada comprising 287,000 hectares. Traditionally wildlife conservation has focused on particular species or species groups and has generally been limited to the higher orders of animals. It is now widely recognized that a broader approach to conservation is needed, an ecosystemic approach that considers all ecosystems, factions and values including all animal and plant species and the full range of their habitat requirements.

This is the approach recommended in the policy of the provincial and federal ministers in wildlife policy for Canada to which I just referred.

Conservation of wildlife often requires protection of habitat critical to the survival of a species. Traditional habitat protection has focused on terrestrial wildlife species and the habitats. The marine ecosystem and its biodiversity remain largely un-

protected from the habitat perspective. At present application of the act is limited to the territorial 12-mile limit.

Critical wildlife habitat, including areas with significant concentration of seabirds and breeding and feeding grounds for whales exist or extend beyond the territorial sea. Such areas include polynyas, openings in the ice cover, and sea mounts, upwellings of nutrients in the ocean and other areas associated with Canada's continental shelf.

We therefore have a provision to allow for the establishment of protected areas within the area bounded by the territorial sea and the 200-nautical mile limit so that this would contribute to sustaining the biodiversity and associated benefits of the marine ecosystems.

In introducing this bill the federal government is meeting the demand of Canadian citizens, reflected in the red book, that we follow the path of sustainable development.

We appreciate the implications of that commitment. It means adopting an ecosystemic approach, tackling problems in their broad context. It means working in partnership with other governments, with other sectors of activity, with individual Canadians toward our common goals.

This is how we will make sustainable development happen and this is how the federal government is now addressing the issue of wildlife. Amending the Canada Wildlife Act is not an isolated gesture, it is part of a co-ordinated strategy to give our country effective wildlife legislation, reflecting the latest science and meeting the needs of our times.

Other components of that strategy are the bill to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act which we just passed, Bill C-23, the drafting of regulations for the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of Interprovincial and International Trade Act, and the forthcoming negotiations with the United States in amending the binational migratory birds convention.

The Canada Wildlife Act is a vital piece of legislation. It provides a framework for the federal government's effort to promote wildlife and habitat conservation programs. It enables productive partnerships and implementation of wildlife programs and policies with provincial governments and with the private sector.

Since the act was passed in 1973 however we have come to recognize certain limitations in its legislation. Bill C-24 has been brought before Parliament to address these limitations. Following second reading, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development conducted a thorough review of Bill C-24, including public hearings and submission of briefs by a broad range of witnesses. This review has lead to additional changes that reflect the concerns and views expressed in the committee.

Bill C-24 will replace the definition of wildlife found in the old act, which seems much too narrow. Instead of non-domestic animals, the amendments will include all wild animals and plants in the definition of "wildlife". This broader definition will allow us to adopt an ecosystemic approach to wildlife protection; in an endangered habitat, we can therefore work to help all of the different species which, together, support life, and not just the well-known birds and mammals.

The new definition also brings the act into line with the federal-provincial policy on wildlife in Canada, adopted in 1990, and the Biodiversity Convention, which Canada signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

Another important change brought about by Bill C-24 is that Canada will now be able to protect wildlife habitats in marine areas. The bill presently before the House makes it possible to establish protected marine areas anywhere within the 200-nautical-mile zone, outside the previous 12 nautical miles. This zone includes vital breeding areas and feeding grounds used by whales, sea birds and other species. The extended coverage to these areas will make it possible to provide far more complete protection to many species.

Another change will make the act more effective by improving its administration and enforcement. The amendments will give more teeth to the act by raising the penalties faced by potential offenders, thus making the penalties real deterrents. The maximum fines for serious offences would be $100,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation, with provisions making it possible to increase fines for a second offence or for continuing offences. At the same time, the amended act will give enforcement officers and the courts more flexibility in respect of offences and punishment. They will now be able to choose the most appropriate punishment in response to an offence, even community service or payment of the cost of damages caused to a national wildlife area.

The amendments concerning provisions related to punishment, powers and enforcement procedures and a clause safeguarding ancestral and treaty rights are similar to those described in the third reading of Bill C-23.

Therefore I will take this opportunity to discuss some of the broad aspects of wildlife conservation which this legislation supports.

Bill C-24 will enable Canada to meet its commitments and international agreements. One such key agreement is the 1975 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance which Canada signed in 1981. This is one of the most widely adopted conservation treaties in the world and over 80 nations

have agreed to promote the conservation and wise use of wetland habitat, particularly for waterfowl.

Wetlands are of special importance to Canada. They provide a large proportion of our fresh water supply. They filter out pollutants from the ecosystems. They protect against flooding. They enhance water quality and they are essential wildlife habitats. They also make a significant contribution to our economy, estimated at over $10 billion a year. That figure covers a wide range of recreational activities, both commercial and non-commercial.

Canada's wetlands have a global importance as well. Within our borders lie roughly 24 per cent of the world's total wetland resource. This gives us a special responsibility for using our share of the resource properly. Unfortunately we have not always done so. Though we still have 127 million hectares of wetland we have allowed over one seventh of our original wetland area, most in southern Canada to be converted to other land uses.

Since signing the Ramsar convention we have been working to improve our record. Canada now has a total of 32 designated wetlands of international importance, a network spanning all our provinces and territories, and many of these are also national wildlife areas established under the Canada Wildlife Act.

Canada's Ramsar wetlands cover 13 million hectares which is over 30 per cent of all the wetland areas designated under the convention. In addition since 1992 we have had a federal policy on wetland conservation which fosters the conservation of Canada's wetlands to sustain the ecological and socioeconomic factions for both now and in the future. Many provinces have or are developing complementary wetland policies and the private sector and non-government organizations continue to play a significant role in wetland conservation.

Today wetland conservation in Canada is a co-operative undertaking of different levels of government, different sectors and individuals, with the federal government playing a key role. The North American waterfowl management plan, which I described during the third reading of Bill C-23, is an excellent example of this co-operation. This is a sustainable way of managing our wetlands.

Better wetland conservation will lead to many direct benefits for Canadians, the most obvious, of course, improved wildlife habitat and the higher population levels for waterfowl.

There are other benefits as well. Among them, reduced soil erosion, improved ground water quality, less degradation of farmland, less damage from flooding and storms, and extended protection against the effects of drought and climate change.

The Biodiversity Convention is by far the most important international wildlife agreement to come along in many years. It is one of the major achievements of the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil. It was not an easy task to get such a large number of parties to find an acceptable common ground and Canadians should be proud of their efforts to obtain widespread approval for the Convention.

We have also demonstrated our commitment to the Convention by moving quickly to sign and ratify it. Furthermore, the federal government has begun working with the provinces and territories to formulate a Canadian biodiversity strategy which will enable us to meet our commitments under the convention.

Under the terms of the convention, countries are required to regulate or manage biological resources in such a way as to ensure their conservation and sustainable use and to establish a system of refuges to preserve biodiversity. Moreover, as part of the conservation process, all species of an ecosystem must be taken into consideration and countries must draft legislative provisions to protect species threatened with extinction.

Bill C-24 will help Canada fulfil the requirements of the convention. The Biodiversity Convention and the other international agreements I mentioned are important not for what Canada brings to them, but for what they bring to Canada. They establish a framework for our actions. They set global objectives. They recognize the importance of fragile habitats in Canada and in at least one case, that of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, they channel funds for habitat protection. But above all, these agreements advance concepts on which our actions aimed at protecting Canada's wildlife should be based.

It is in this context that the federal government is proposing amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act and to the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Times have changed since this legislation was enacted and we must move with them. We must conform to higher environmental standards domestically and globally. We must integrate the latest scientific understanding into our programs. We must deal with changing environmental priorities. Most of all, we must respond to the demand and expectations of Canadians, young and old.

Across the country Canadians have recognized the need for sustainable wildlife policies and practices and they are calling

on government, especially the federal government, to take the lead on this issue. That is why we have brought forward the amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act.

Today there was an article in the Gazette about the St. Lawrence National Institute of Ecotoxicology. Dr. Pierre Béland, who started the institute 11 years ago is somebody I know well. For many years he has been recovering the belugas in the St. Lawrence that die on our shores. He has carried out autopsies on these belugas, 69 of them since 1983.

The Gazette article described the plight of the belugas. The St. Lawrence institute scientifically dissected 69 belugas which were found to have 100 parts per million of PCBs in them. The industrial norm is 50 parts per million of PCBs. The norm is two parts per million of PCBs for edible fish. Yet 69 of these belugas were found to have 100 parts per million of PCBs in their bodies. Dr. Pierre Béland joked, and I am sure it was a very bitter joke, that the belugas in the St. Lawrence should have permits to swim there because they are so toxified.

Among those 69 whales they have dissected since 1983 they found: 28 had tumours, including malignant tumours; 37 had very bad lesions in their digestive systems; and 31 of the females had lesions on their mammary glands. This is a terrible indictment on all of us for having neglected our heritage to the point that we have allowed toxins to fester our lakes, our rivers, our land and our air. It is to the point that today the animals, the innocent residents of the ecosystem, suffer the ills of our guilt and our fault.

We should reflect on what is happening to the belugas of the St. Lawrence. What would Canada be without the polar bear in the Arctic? What would Canada be without the black bear or the grizzly in the Rockies? What would Canada be without the belugas in the St. Lawrence or the northern seas? What would Canada be without the snow geese and other birds? Would it be a heritage of nature or would it be a dead heritage, a silent heritage?

That is why we are so intent on seeing that Bill C-24, the Canada Wildlife Act, as well as Bill C-23 which we just passed, become essential legislation. It fortifies our resolve to preserve habitats, the ecosystem and the environment which is at the base of the quality of life and living for all of us.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are two questions that I would like to answer.

The first one relates to the process. In fairness to the person the hon. member is referring to, the representative of the environment minister, who suggested that the law be passed on that day, I can, knowing this person well, confirm that there was no hidden agenda, no intention to steamroll the thing.

First of all, the person in charge of the legislative agenda for the minister had been advised that the timetable for legislation was getting much shorter and that it was very important to get these two bills through before the session recessed.

More than that, the fact is that under a review of the powers of regulation and the regulations of the Ministry of the Environment in 1993 which I referred to in my speech, an extensive consultation had been carried out on a very broad basis of all the stakeholders, including a review of the migratory birds convention, which included representatives from aboriginal peoples, from the various stakeholders involved and interested in this bill.

Further, amendments have been discussed for four years now with regard to the convention itself involving representatives of the aboriginal peoples. In complete objectivity it was felt by the people who advised the legislative assistant to the minister that we could proceed because consultation had been extensive all along.

Seeing we did not have a consent, we recognize because we found out there would be time that it was a better process to have gone to the committee. I can assure the House that the person concerned backs this up 100 per cent.

I can assure the member there was no hidden agenda there, no need to sort of steamroll the House or anything like this. It was a genuine attempt to complete the process, having taken into account that consultations had been extensive in the past.

With regard to the second question, the aboriginal treaties and rights under the Constitution, what we want to do in the act is really confirm the position that exists today, that the aboriginal people hunt and harvest during the closed season for other hunters. That does not mean to say that they are not subject to all the penalties of the law should they infringe any of the provi-

sions of the act, except that the season is open as far as they are concerned.

That has been the tradition for thousands of years. It is a fact of life that we want to enshrine in the law. Even if it were not in the law they would still have this right. What we wanted to do as a very important symbolic gesture as required by Chief Coon-Come to sort of enshrine it in the law here. Certain legal advice obtained differed according to whether we did or did not recognize the rights of aboriginal peoples. They must be recognized anyway in actual practice. This is the position, whether we do or do not recognize their rights. We felt it was very important that we do.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in his book The Living Planet , David Attenborough, the British zoologist, tells the story of an ecosystem off the coast of Peru. Several decades ago, two islands, Chincha and San Gallan, were home to about 5.5 million guanay, a type of cormorant. The guanay lived within this very rich ecosystem, feeding on small anchovies that were abundant in the area.

The guanay produced guano, the accumulated excrement used by Indians and others as fertilizer. Excrement fell into the sea and fed the plankton which, in turn, fed the anchovies. It was a perfectly balanced ecosystem.

When chemical fertilizers were developed, the Peruvians decided it was easier to buy fertilizer at the store instead of harvesting it on the islands. The birds were no longer needed. And meanwhile, the Peruvians started harvesting more and more of the small anchovies. In one year, they caught 14,000 tonnes! As a result, hundreds of thousands of guanay died, and guano production dropped to zero. The plankton were no longer fertilized, and their numbers deteriorated to the point that the anchovies practically disappeared.

The moral of this true story is that the ecosystem maintains an almost perfect natural balance. However, when one link is removed, the whole chain is destroyed.

I guess this is the reason for Bill C-23. We are trying to preserve the ecosystem by doing our utmost to preserve our species in Canada. Therefore I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on the amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention Act and to commend fellow members of Parliament for the interest they have shown and for their tremendous contribution in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development to strengthening this legislation which protects these important species.

Bringing this bill before the House for third reading is an appropriate follow-up to Environmental Week. Bill C-23 is part of the current effort to improve federal wildlife and habitat legislation, including amending the Canada Wildlife Act. These amendments will lead to the proclamation of the wild animal and plant protection, regulation of international and interprovincial trade as well as consultations which will lead to negotiations with the United States on amending the migratory birds convention itself.

On April 25 Bill C-23 was introduced in the House of Commons on behalf of the Minister of the Environment. It will replace and repeal the current Migratory Birds Convention Act which was enacted 77 years ago in 1917.

In the early 1900s, exploitation of birds led to the drastic declines in their population, particularly in eastern North America. The migratory birds convention was therefore signed by Canada and the United States in 1916 committing each country to protect migratory birds from indiscriminate slaughter and to sustain their populations.

The Migratory Birds Convention Act was enacted in 1917 to implement the terms of the convention in Canada by managing the harvest of ducks, geese and of other game birds and by protecting migratory non-game birds.

Provisions of the act are designed to regulate hunting, prevent trafficking and commercialization, control the uses of migratory birds through permits and allow for the creation of migratory birds sanctuaries in order to control and manage areas important for the protection of the birds. There are currently 101 migratory bird sanctuaries in Canada which together protect approximately 11.3 million hectares.

The act has remained relatively unchanged over the last 77 years with only minor additions and amendments. In the context of the 1990s natural resource management must incorporate not only the environmental objectives but also must meet social, cultural and of course economic concerns.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-23 are designed to ensure the sustainable life of migratory birds and their enjoyment by Canadians. They also address our international commitments to the wise management of an internationally shared resource, and are consistent with the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The Convention on Biological Diversity is one of the most tangible and important results of the earth summit in Rio two years ago. It was ratified by Canada in December 1992 and requires that countries regulate or manage biological resources to ensure their conservation and sustainable use and that countries establish a system of protected areas to conserve biodiversity.

A comprehensive review of Environment Canada's regulations was conducted in 1993, including a review of the regulations adopted pursuant to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. The consultation process involved a broad range of stakeholders including hunters, aviculturists, taxidermists, farmers, members of environmental and wildlife groups, representatives of aboriginal peoples, researchers, provincial and territorial wildlife agencies, outfitters and representatives of industry. The findings of the review suggested improvement to streamline the administration, to modernize procedures and make the regulations more enforceable.

A process not related to this bill is currently under way to amend the migratory birds convention in order to address aboriginal and treaty rights, harvest birds during the closed season as well as harvest eggs. That process involving extensive consultations with aboriginal people's organizations will lead to negotiations with the United States to amend the convention itself. In the meantime, special measures that allow continued pursuit of traditional harvesting in the spring and early summer are in place to address the closed season harvest of migratory birds.

Preparing amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention Act has required extensive consultation on the federal regulations designed to protect these birds.

After second reading, there was another opportunity for consultation on the proposed changes when the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development carried out a thorough study of the bill, with some excellent comments by a wide range of witnesses. Several changes proposed by the committee have been included, and I am therefore confident that the bill now better reflects the interests of all Canadians and will help us protect migratory birds effectively, now and in the future.

Many of these amendments are so-called housekeeping amendments to update and clarify existing provisions. Major changes include much higher fines for offences, greater flexibility in sentencing for the courts, better protection for migratory birds and stricter and more efficient implementation procedures.

In using its power to legislate on these issues, Parliament reflects the values of Canadians and their interest in protecting our wildlife heritage. These changes will be compatible with other federal acts that regulate natural resources and the environment. Implementation of this legislation will be flexible, while acting as a major deterrent to unlawful activities.

The poaching and smuggling of migratory birds is a lucrative and growing business. Growing demand for Canadian species of migratory birds and eggs is increasing their value and could put some species at risk.

A serious offence under the act is one in which an illegal activity is detrimental to the survival of a species, as such is the case when the activity involves an endangered species or a large quantity of specimens of a threatened or other species.

Based on these factors, the committee decided to increase substantially the penalties for offences beyond what was proposed in the original bill. It must be recalled that the original bill, passed in 1917, is now 77 years old and what used to constitute significant fines then are completely insignificant today.

For serious offences, the maximum fine will be increased from $300 in the existing bill to $100,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a corporation with provisions for increasing fines for a continuing or subsequent offence.

The courts will also have greater flexibility in imposing sentences by providing court authority for special orders. Such orders can be particularly effective in the case of environmental legislation where those convicted can be ordered to remedy the harm, pay for their remediation, avoid activity which could lead to repeat offences, publish the facts relating to the case or perform community service.

They allow the courts to take into account not only the nature of the offence but also the particular circumstances of the person convicted. Therefore it allows for constructive and creative sentencing.

Amending the Migratory Birds Convention Act has given us an opportunity to consider how, in the future, we can react to activities that are a threat to migratory birds. In accordance with the Biodiversity Convention, the sperm, embryos, and tissue cultures of migratory birds will now be included under the act. Eggs are already protected under the legislation. Although there is no immediate threat to migratory birds in this respect, there are constantly new developments in the use of biological materials.

Instead of preventing such uses, the act, as amended, is designed to ensure that these developments do not threaten the conservation of migratory birds and the many benefits they bring to Canadians. Activities associated with tissue cultures and the use of sperm, eggs and embryos of migratory birds will be regulated and managed through licensing programs.

As I mentioned previously, natural resource management must incorporate not only environmental and economic concerns but social and cultural values as well. Canada's aboriginal people have lived in harmony with the land and its wildlife for many centuries, for thousands of years as they say. Their heritage and even their survival have been linked to the sustainable use of wildlife resources.

Migratory birds have had a particular significance to aboriginal peoples with a great tradition of knowledge developed over many generations, engendering both respect for the birds and an ability to ensure their sustainable use.

In response to testimony from several witnesses, the standing committee amended the original bill to better reflect aboriginal concerns by including a non-derogation clause in the bill. It states: "that nothing in this act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982".

This in itself is not sufficient to accommodate and respond to the traditional practices of Canada's aboriginal peoples. For this reason, a separate process is under way, as I mentioned earlier, to address aboriginal and treaty rights to harvest migratory birds during the closed season as well as the harvest of eggs.

Consultations with aboriginal peoples have been intensive over the past four years and will lead to negotiations with the United States later this year to amend the migratory birds convention. In the meantime special enforcement measures that allow continued pursuit of traditional harvesting in the spring and early summer are in place to address the closed season harvest of migratory birds under the existing and amended act.

The standing committee believes that Parliament must be given the opportunity to examine any changes to the convention following these or any future negotiations. For this reason, the committee added a provision to Bill C-23 which states that any amendment to the convention shall be submitted to both houses of Parliament and be debated here in the House of Commons.

A number of enforcement provisions have also been updated and strengthened in Bill C-23. These include provisions relating to inspections, searches, seizures, forfeiture and disposal of property as well as others consistent with the Criminal Code, the charter of rights and other federal enactments respecting the environment and natural resources.

The Minister of the Environment may also designate any person or class of persons to act as game officers. If these persons are employed by the government of a province, the appointment must be approved by that provincial government.

I mentioned the enforcement provisions at the end of my summary of the more substantive changes to the act. The reason for this is that it brings up an issue extremely important to the conservation of wildlife. Neither the federal government nor a provincial government, or for that matter the governments of other countries, can hope to effectively conserve biodiversity in isolation. Co-operation and partnership are the keys to achieving this goal and other goals linked to sustainable development.

From a point of view of both practicality and effectiveness the issue of enforcement is one in which a co-ordinated federal-provincial approach makes the most sense. There are many other areas for which this approach generates benefits, where the objectives and concerns are shared and where building on each other's strengths through co-operative action improves environmental results.

An excellent example of such a partnership is the international North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The plan, originally signed in 1986 is an initiative to protect and enhance wetland and upland habitat on a continental basis so as to stem the decline of waterfowl. The NAWMP has evolved from a plan focused on waterfowl conservation to one that incorporates benefits toward biodiversity conservation.

The plan exemplifies sustainable development in action by involving private land owners and resource sectors to integrate wildlife conservation practices with sustainable economic development, particularly through soil and water conservation initiatives.

Partners include the United States federal and state governments, NGOs and certainly all Canadian provinces. As well Mexico is now a full partner, making the North American Waterfowl Management Plan a truly continental conservation plan.

On June 9 of this year the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment signed the update to the plan extending Canada's commitment for another five years.

As the minister pointed out, the success of the plan in the last six years has been to arrest the destruction and the loss of wetland habitat for migratory birds. Our common goal for the next five years is to set aside more breeding grounds and to see our skies filled with an annual migration of 100 million birds.

This co-operative approach offers some advantages for several other facets of wildlife conservation, some of which will be dealt with on third reading of the Canada Wildlife Act.

Bill C-23 which amends the Migratory Birds Convention Act represents a major step forward in the protection and conservation of migratory birds and in the fulfilment of our commitments under the Biodiversity Convention.

This year, 1994, another three species of birds were added to the endangered species list of Canada. In April 1994 the list was made public and we learned that the bobwhite, the king rail and the Acadian flycatcher were added to Canada's list of endangered species.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada stated:

Again this year, we are finding that we are designating species particularly from southern Ontario and the Okanagan area of British Columbia-

It stressed that the big problem for many species is that they were running out of places to live. The Acadian flycatcher, for example, is a songbird that needs large tracks of forest which are increasingly scarce.

I quote from one member of the committee:

You can immediately see that as we cut up the forest into smaller and smaller patches there have been smaller and smaller numbers of these birds, and now it's down to a critical level of just a few dozen pairs.

This is the story as we deplete habitats. I know some will say this act is not important in itself, that it only concerns birds, and what are birds at a time of economic downturn when people are out of work and Canada faces a tremendous economic crisis. At the same time I would suggest that birds are part of the whole.

We have to look at the broader context of our heritage as a country and as a people. There can be no heritage without nature and all its components. Can we imagine Canada without the snow geese? Can we imagine Canada without its wildlife, without all its birds? Our heritage has been bestowed on us; we are blessed that way. We have to make a special effort to conserve, to preserve or to maintain that heritage for future generations.

There are good signs. The peregrine falcon had almost disappeared, and due to the efforts of volunteers all across Canada and a tremendous dedication by our wildlife services, including the federal wildlife service, the peregrine falcon is thriving again.

We must resolve ourselves to take very seriously matters that touch environment, quality of life, our ecosystems and habitats that preserve our birds and our wildlife. They are essential parts of the fibre of our land, of the way we live and of our heritage. I urge all members to join with me in supporting the bill unanimously and reinforcing that resolve among us.

[Environment, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues.

In the last 50 years since the end of the war, that is, in the latter part of this century, man has conquered space, broken the sound barrier, walked on the moon and plumbed the depths of the oceans. In a few brief seconds, we can send documents around the world. In our homes, our televisions give us a front row seat to global events.

Truly remarkable, even extraordinary, technological advances have taken place during the second half of this century.

And yet, according to an eminent scientist from Harvard University by the name of Edward Wilson, during this same time span, the earth's environment has suffered the most damage since the dinosaur age.

Each year, 27 million acres of forests, an area twice the size of Nova Scotia, are devastated. Desertification swallows up 15 million acres each year, an area slightly larger the Nova Scotia. Some three billion inhabitants of this planet do not have adequate sanitation facilities. More than one billion people do not have clean drinking water.

In 1930 the world was producing 7 million tonnes of chemicals; in 1950 just after the war, 7 million tonnes of chemicals; in 1970, 63 million tonnes of chemicals; and in 1985, 250 million tonnes of chemicals. In this decade of the 1990s the world will be producing 500 million tonnes of chemicals. According to UNEP statistics this figure is likely to double every decade from now on.

All of us enjoy the benefits of the use of chemicals. Our telephones, our appliances and our homes contain all sorts of products derived from chemicals. What we failed to do as a people, as a society, as all societies around the world, was to assess the impact of the use of chemicals before we started to produce them. The objective of CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is to control the management of toxic substances from their creation right through to elimination. The act is now five years old.

After five years we must address the following questions. Is the act as effective as it could be? What must members of the House and of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development recommend and do to eliminate the 11 critical toxic substances flagged by the International Joint Commission as the most harmful and hazardous to human health? What must we do to deal with the hundreds and thousands of other toxic substances that bioaccumulate every day in our streams and ecosystems and that destroy our environment?

I would suggest that we need a two tier approach. First we need to control and to eliminate gradually and as soon as possible existing toxic substances that have accumulated and continue to fester our lakes, our streams, our air and our land. At the same time as these exist, all over our countryside there lies toxic waste at the bottom of our streams and on our land. We have to prevent disasters from arising.

Sadly enough I experienced a disaster in Saint-Basile-le-Grand a few years ago. For three weeks thousands of people had to be moved from their homes because of a PCB fire. We have to make sure that environmental catastrophes arising from toxic substances already produced are controlled and that disasters are avoided.

We must make sure above all not to add to what is already in our ecosystems and in the atmosphere. We must use all our laws in an intelligent way through co-ordinated action. We must use impact assessment clauses intelligently enough to assess our programs, our policies, our activities and our advance planning to arrive together at prevention because prevention is the cure.

We must use the act intelligently so that a national prevention policy takes place that ensures our industries use clean technologies and closed loop technologies in manufacturing processes to prevent toxic substances from reaching the atmosphere and the ecosystems.

Above all, we must have an integrated approach and muster all resources in the system. We must realize that we cannot do anything about the environment without talking about health, we cannot do anything about the economy without talking about the environment and we can do nothing at all without talking about education, since education forms the very basis of any action in our society. All the elements of a societal policy are tied together, and the environment, the functioning of the ecosystems, is at the root of all this. We must therefore have an ecosystemic approach and involve all those concerned, not only the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government but all stakeholders in our society, including industry, academics, environmental groups and the public.

That is why I want to strongly support this initiative of the hon. ministers of health and the environment who are giving us, in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, considerable leeway to consult all Canadian stakeholders to upgrade this act which is the basis of our environmental policy regarding toxic substances.

Together, we must work relentlessly to successfully eliminate toxic substances from our environment because the environment knows no political boundaries. This is a golden opportunity for all of us, from the various political parties, to co-operate to achieve a common goal.

The environment after all is a matter of equity.

In closing, I would like to quote the great British theologist, David Attenborough: "As far as we are aware we are the only human beings in the black immensities of the universe. We are alone in space. And the fate of our planet and indeed of all of us is in our own hands".

I suggest that these hands must be caring hands, must be helping hands, must be hands that work very hard to build a society where equity and environmental justice are synonymous, where we build, we conserve, we preserve, we enhance nature, the ecosystems that provide life and living and not destroy them because the environment from start to finish is a matter of living and of quality of life.

We owe it not only to ourselves but especially to generations to follow that we do a very, very positive, concerted job among all of us to reform CEPA in the most effective way possible.

[Environment, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my address to the House I want to thank my colleagues from Terrebonne and Fraser Valley for having graciously accepted to cut their time so that some of us on the Liberal side could speak at least 10 minutes.

I notice that it is 1.05 p.m. Would I be able to ask for the consent of the House to extend the debate by just a few minutes after 1.30 p.m. so that the three of us could have 10 minutes each?