Debates of Nov. 18th, 1996

Great Lakes Region Of Africa

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I obviously cannot answer the question in 30 seconds because I would have to go into such detail. No one plans a war. No one plans to have 400,000 people cross a border in one day. Nobody plans on training people and how long that will take. That is something we react to.

I am sure the member for Calgary Centre was very supportive of our rapid deployment capabilities, as he supports this mission which he has indicated. He knows that no conflict can have a time limit. It depends on the need of the people at the time.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak on this motion. No matter how many times we are confronted with the armed conflicts of the world, the decision to send Canadian forces into the dangers of civil strife is a most difficult one to make.

Many Canadians are rightfully concerned about the risks of peacekeeping in this particular situation. But I believe that as Canadians we must remember how fortunate we are to live in the country we do, that the majority of citizens of this planet are not so fortunate. The decisions we make today affect our constituents, our fellow Canadians as well as people beyond our borders around the world.

The age old question is am I my brother's keeper? I am very proud of my country, that we have decided yes we are. Globalization is much more than a question of using the resources of developing countries, the poorest areas of the world, and seeing them as customers for our trade.

Globalization also recognizes that the deprivation of the majority of the world's population is not only their problem but our problem. Causes of strife like starvation, lack of basic health care, lack of the ability to grow, produce, consume and distribute your own food are problems for the entire world and not only for the people who suffer from them.

We know that around the world at any time there are a million people who want to come to Canada. One of our biggest obligations in the world is to help make it possible for people to live safely with some basic standard of living in their own country as well.

The question we are debating today goes to the very heart of whether a country like Canada, which has been chosen several times by the United Nations as the best country in the world in which to live, should have set an example for the world to follow or should have turned its back.

As in the past, we have to decide whether to act to stop the suffering in the great lakes region of Africa or to ignore the cry for help. I am immensely proud that we decided not to walk away and that our Prime Minister and our government recognized the unique leadership role that Canada could play in this. I am extremely proud that we played that role very well. Generations of Canadians have worked to build in this part of the world a prosperous and just society based on fundamental democratic principles. We also have built a reputation as being one of the foremost promoters of these values around the world. And the way that we have responded to this crisis I believe has sent a clear message to the world about the kind of country Canada is and why we are looked up to as an example of a responsible international country.

In so doing, we will be showing the refugees in the great lakes region of Africa that we are concerned about what happens to them. We will reaffirm Canada's lead role as an intermediary, and will be maintaining our country's reputation as a negotiator and peacemaker.

Given the region's history, clear and prompt action by the international community is necessary, if we are to avoid the situation in the great lakes deteriorating into a repeat of the bloody massacres in Rwanda two years ago.

In recent years Canada has called on the international community to work together to deploy peacekeeping forces more rapidly. A couple of weeks ago the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke of the need for increased peace building and reconciliation in the relations between countries.

Canada's leading an active role in this mission will ensure that the plea for help from the displaced people of this region will not go unanswered.

Our involvement will open critical lifelines of food and medicine to the refugees and the injured civilians. It will help people return to their homes and settle in some measure of safety and security.

Our mission is clear. It is to ensure that much needed aid reaches the afflicted civilians of the region and to provide safe passage to those refugees returning to their communities.

In taking the leadership in both the establishment and the mandate of the multinational troops, Canada will once again set an example to the world that as a nation we will not shirk from our duty in this world. We will help restore peace to a region that has suffered for too long and we will continue to fight for the dignity and safety of the less fortunate citizens of our world.

This is an evolving situation. None of us can predict exactly how it will evolve. But I am confident that we have sent troops who are trained, capable and who will for the first time be able to use their specialized training for this kind of situation.

The member for Calgary spoke about how often we do this without getting recognition or credit. That is one strengths of our country, to do what is right and to do it in the most difficult of situations. We have demonstrated time and time again that for a country of our size, with our resources, we are able to make a global contribution far beyond what could reasonably be expected of us.

I say again I am very proud of what the government and the Prime Minister have done. I know we all wish those troops being sent to this very troubled part of the world our best wishes for a successful and safe mission.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question which arose today when I spoke to a group of over 100 university students in the West Block. They were here viewing Parliament and how it works. In the question and answer session one asked me: "How come we are spending so much money in other countries when we have such a high level of child poverty here in Canada and when we have our own problems here in Canada? Yet it seems we send more money elsewhere and do not look after our own here in Canada". I gave my answer and I would like to know how the member would have answered that question.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my answer to that frankly is that tonight in Canada there are not hundreds of thousands of children in danger of dying. That is what is happening in the great lakes region of Africa. We are dealing with poverty of children at home. It is a desperate situation in our country and it is getting worse, not better.

I think the meeting which our minister is going to have with provincial ministers in the very near future is going to bear results along those lines.

However, there is no such thing as problems that belong to only one country anymore. A problem of this magnitude, of this severity, affects Canada and affects the developed and rich countries of the world. That is why we have an obligation to be there and to prevent the kind of suffering and death that would happen without our being there.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, does the hon. member know what the exact mandate is in Zaire? Does the member know how long the troops are going to be there? Does the member know what the ultimate costs are going to be? Under what terms and conditions will she consider this mission to be a success?

I understand the humanitarian aspect of it, but now there seems to be a lot of controversy over whether we should even be going. This was a Canadian initiative by the Canadian government, by the Prime Minister himself, and all of a sudden the borders were opened and a lot of the prisoners were let go. Now they are on hold and there was the big debate on Thursday.

It is nice and wonderful to be saying that we care and we want to help, which we do, but on what basis will the member consider this a success and still in light of the problems we have here at home, why do we not address some of those?

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could read the member a long list if I had several hours of what we are accomplishing here at home. Those university students the member spoke to earlier today are a very good example of how well we are managing to educate our young people. It is just one small example.

Obviously the situation in the great lakes region is evolving by the hour. That is why it is so important that we have people there on the ground who can keep us apprised of the changing situation. Even when the Prime Minister took his initiative last week I do not think any of us could have predicted the massive movement of refugees that has happened since then.

Has that return of people to their homes out of the refugee camps, has the break-up of the domination and terrorization of those refugees by forces ended as a result of Canada's initiative? I hope so. I would love to take credit for it.

I do not think any of us know how that situation is going to evolve in the next 24 hours, much less in the next week. If the member from Calgary wants a guarantee every time he takes a step out of his front door on what is going to happen to him on that day, I think he is living in the wrong world.

We are there to do something extremely important, to adapt with our allies as the situation develops and to make the best possible use of our resources without undue risk to our personnel.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the House in the debate on the motion presented by the Liberal government. It is vitally important, given the situation that exists in the great lakes region of

The situation in eastern Zaire and on the border with Rwanda changes hourly and it is now important to act with great speed in order to save lives, while ensuring that our soldiers will be able to work within the safest framework possible.

At this point, I would like to state that it was normal for us to decide to become involved. I feel somewhat the same as the United Nations special envoy to the region, Raymond Chrétien. We could not have remained insensitive, inactive, watching all of this barbarity without taking action, without losing part of our souls in the process.

Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois applauds the motion finally presented to us today. The media has been giving us daily reports on the deterioration of the situation in eastern Zaire. Since then, the Bloc Quebecois has asked many questions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in order to encourage him to take the initiative at the international level, but all of the responses came back to the idea that Canada was prepared to offer its assistance, but refused further involvement.

It may be that the internal situation currently prevailing in Quebec and in Canada, in which the Liberal government is actually already fully launched into its pre-election campaign, could explain why, finally, the government has decided to go ahead on this.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to believe that current initiatives are being taken for humanitarian reasons and to promote international peace, not for the kind of petty political motives that we have come to expect from the federal Liberals.

We must point out that Canada did not acquire its reputation on the international scene by simply engaging in trade, as the Liberal government keeps suggesting.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested earlier that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be given daily progress reports on the situation. How can we believe him, since this is the same minister who took advantage of the fact that members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade were away on a mission in Europe to sneak legislation through the House, Bill C-61 which implements a free trade agreement between Canada and Israel?

How can we believe the minister, since the Government of Canada took this initiative regarding Zaire without even taking the trouble to reach members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade abroad? And now the government would have us believe it is interested in their views and in providing information for committee members. This is outright hypocrisy. In its famous red book, the Liberal Party said, however, that: "A Liberal government will also expand the rights of Parliament to debate major Canadian foreign policy initiatives, such as the deployment of peacekeeping forces, and the rights of Canadians to regular and serious consultations on foreign policy issues".

To some extent, the debate we are having today in this House is a farce, since obviously one cannot disagree with this kind of initiative or mission.

In fact, is the government really concerned about the opinion of this Parliament? Unlike what happens in Europe, the government is under no obligation to take into consideration the views of parliamentarians. And even if it were, considering the British parliamentary system, it is clear that the government is formed by the majority in Parliament, which means that consulting Parliament to give some democratic legitimacy to these international initiatives is just window dressing.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs also said that Canada had shown political initiative by mobilizing the international community around the problem in the great lakes region.

I would ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to be a little more modest, because the initiative did not come from the Canadian government, as he claims, but from France, which for many days had tried to pressure the international community to set up this intervention force. However, France was disqualified from the start by its colonial past, and that is when the Canadian government took the initiative to lead the current mission to Zaire.

And this is par for the course. We warned the government in recent months that the situation was deteriorating in Burundi. And the government replied: "Of course we take note of your comments and we are very concerned, but we want the community of African countries to deal with the situation that is now developing in Burundi", with predictable results, which means it is always more costly to intervene after the fact than to take preventive action.

But the government did not understand that. It waited until the situation deteriorated to take the "initiative", as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said this morning. It is too late. Many people have already died in the region of the African great lakes, a situation which we could probably have prevented if we had acted earlier, as the Bloc Quebecois has already been suggesting for several months.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois believes it was high time the Canadian government finally took the decision to adopt France's position and unite the international community so that it would not ignore the situation in central Africa. Let us not forget that since the assassination, in 1994, of the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, we have witnessed, dumbfounded, petrified, helpless and paralysed, the massacres of civilian populations so huge that it defies the imagination.

In the last two years, the international community has not really done anything to find a durable solution to the situation which now prevails in central Africa. Yet, the massacres were only the beginning of the plight of those civilian populations who had to flee to neighbouring countries and were crammed into refugee

camps, some of which held hundreds of thousands of people. Mugunga, the largest refugee camp in the world, had more than 400,000 refugees.

A representative of the Department of National Defence told us this morning that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has estimated that 500,000 refugees are headed back to Rwanda. You will certainly admit that this situation is very alarming and precarious. If you add to this number the 12,000 to 15,000 people who have been entering Rwanda every hour for the last several days, it is obvious that we must help Rwanda to absorb and receive this flood of people.

It must be pointed out that the current crisis in the Great Lakes regions is essentially a political one. Many dictators, like Mobutu Sese Seko, who is now estimated to be worth more than $10 billion, contributed nothing to the development and stabilization of their country and area in general.

When you look at events in this region, perhaps the most deplorable is the fact that these dictators have often had the support of western countries, which, in the pursuit of their own interests, have allowed them to do whatever they liked. Now the leaders of the various factions within the central African countries of Rwanda, Zaire, Uganda, Burundi and Tanzania have to try to set aside their claims and particular interests in favour of humanitarian considerations.

We have already heard the statements of the main leaders in the area. The leader of the Zairian rebels, Laurent Désiré Kabila, has already said that there is no justification for this international intervention. Zaire has denied landing rights to Canadian planes.

Rwanda has tried to restrict the movements of the Canadian troops that arrived in Kigali yesterday. The President of Rwanda, Pastor Bizimungu, has said he did not consider this operation relevant.

With the latest developments in the region, some countries taking part in the mission, including the United States and Great Britain, are now having doubts about its relevance. As we can see, General Baril, who will be leading the international force, will have no easy task of bringing all those involved together, especially since events are moving very quickly.

Most of the refugees have already moved from eastern Zaire to Rwanda. The international force will therefore have to refocus its mission in order to adapt to the continually changing situation, to the point where some members of the coalition question its relevance.

I see you are smiling, Madam Speaker, and I wonder why, because the current situation is serious, and there is no reason to smile at the events unfolding.

One important point: the mission is to end no later than March 31, 1997, in four and one half months, approximately. This short time frame will severely limit medium and long term approaches to lessening the suffering of the people and stabilizing the situation throughout the region.

The new minister of defence expects this operation to cost about $100 million.

As regards this significant amount of money, allow me, Madam Speaker, and I hope you are not smiling at this again, to make a suggestion. Since-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I hope the hon. member will stop attacking the Chair in his comments to the House.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

May I continue, Madam Speaker? Since this humanitarian mission comes under the responsibility of the department of defence, would it not make sense for all the amounts necessary for this mission in the great lakes region of Africa to come out of that department's budget?

Given that the Canadian International Development Agency is already operating with a very modest budget, because of the successive cuts it has suffered at the hands of the Liberal government in recent years, surely it would be appropriate for the department of defence, which, let it not be forgotten, has an annual budget of $10 billion, to defray the total cost of the operation.

With respect to what needs to be done, short term measures are already clearly laid out in the resolution. Soldiers in the multinational force already have a very clear mandate. They are to facilitate the return of humanitarian organizations, assist with the distribution of food and help refugees return to their homes.

How will Canada contribute to the implementation of a lasting peace after March 31, 1997? Will action be taken to help these people return to normal life? The Canadian command in place should seize the opportunity to try to rally all parties involved in order to try to find possible solutions to the problems that will arise, and there will be problems.

Let us not forget that there is a very strong likelihood of conflict when refugees who left their country months ago try to recover their land and homes. There is a risk of violence in the villages, and the manner in which refugees return to their villages must be monitored.

At first, the role of the multinational force will be to find and distribute food and drinking water. But for the time being, one of the priorities will be to help local men and women farm land they have been away from for more than two years. Communications, roads, airports and transportation systems will have to be restored. This means that, in all likelihood, the civilian population will need the support of the international community.

Of course, financial means remain limited, but the international force's action could focus exclusively on implementing these specific projects. We know that the Liberal government is already on the campaign trail across Canada. We hope that the proposals before us are not merely smoke and mirrors directed at voters in Quebec and Canada.

At a time when our armed forces need to regain confidence and prove their effectiveness, we must be careful not to make the same mistakes as in 1994. We are greatly concerned that this operation might be a ploy to make us forget the flop in Somalia.

Major-General Dallaire did a great job there but, unfortunately, he did not have the necessary resources. This time, the situation is totally different and we are convinced that our troops will do an excellent job.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the men and women who will have to work in conditions that could be extremely difficult. It goes without saying that it also supports this mission, even though some questions remain, and we pointed them out.

In conclusion, and given that the holiday season is just around the corner, we should congratulate and thank the men and women who will leave their homes to help the needy populations in Africa's great lakes region.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was embarrassed to see my hon. colleague take advantage of this situation to make a personal attack on the Chair which was not called for.

I have a question for the hon. member. This morning at ten o'clock in Room 209 of the West Block a briefing was held. The member was not there. If he had been there he would have known the kind of support we are providing to the army, how many aircraft we are shipping there and what kind of aircraft we are shipping. He would have received all the information he asked for in his questions today when he was addressing the issue.

The member mentioned the red book commitment to consult Parliament. We have been doing that. I believe this is the fourth time we have consulted Parliament on important issues, specifically on human rights and peacekeeping issues.

Can he name any other institution in the world in any country which provides a peacekeeping force where they consult the opposition members before they send in the troops? I urge him to elaborate on that so we can be informed of his point of view and can carry on the discussion of this issue in a similar fashion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The time provided for consideration of the motion has now expired. It being 6.30 p.m.-

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The hon. member for Verchères on a point of order.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to have at least the opportunity to answer the question that the hon. member was kind enough to ask me.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

There is no unanimous consent.

The House resumed from November 8, 1996 consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements and Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act, be read the third time and passed.

Divorce Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the third reading motion of Bill C-41.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, land mines are an inexpensive, easy way to terrorize enemies, as they cost less than $3 each and can be dropped by the millions from helicopters.

There are more than 110 million land mines scattered throughout some 69 countries and about as many in stockpiles around the world. In addition, another five million are sold each year.

It is an estimated 25,000 people who are maimed or killed by land mines each year. Nearly one-third of these people lose one or two legs in the accidents. Land mines have also turned huge areas of agricultural land into no man's land in Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Bosnia, Croatia and many other countries throughout the globe.

International Red Cross officials also point out that land mines increase the cost of delivering food and medical aid by hundreds of thousands of dollars than ordinarily would be necessary.

We had parliamentarians from South Africa in this House visiting this government a few weeks ago. Those parliamentarians told us that in the little country of Mozambique alone at least one child every day is maimed or killed by a land mine while they are walking to school. The cost to the health care system and the cost to children is abhorrent.

Our Minister for Foreign Affairs held a summit in this country a few weeks ago. What did that summit conclude that Canada and the whole world could do to eliminate this human tragedy of killing children inadvertently?

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

The Ottawa conference brought together 50 states and numerous international organizations and non-governmental organizations.

They were willing to meet in Ottawa because they shared the common objective of achieving a global ban on anti-personnel mines.

The Ottawa conference was highly successful and will have a concrete impact. The aim of the conference was to develop a strategy to achieve a global ban on anti-personnel mines. We now have such a strategy in place in the form of an action plan which outlines numerous concrete activities which states, international organizations and NGOs are willing to undertake to build the necessary political will to achieve a ban.

We were also successful in achieving an agreement on a conference declaration which represents the views of 50 countries on how best to work toward an international ban. One of the most important elements of this declaration was the obligation it placed on state participants to seek the earliest possible conclusion of a legally binding agreement to ban these mines.

In his closing speech to the conference, the foreign affairs minister invited the international community to return to Canada to sign such an agreement by the end of 1997. The timeframe will ensure that the unprecedented international momentum behind the movement to ban mines will be maintained and effectively focused on building the political will necessary to sign such a treaty.

The minister's initiative to achieve such a treaty by the end of 1997 enjoys the support of numerous states and international organizations as well as the secretary general of the United Nations and the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Our initiative is also fully supported by a wide number of NGOs, including the international campaign to ban land mines and Mines Action Canada.

I would like to point out that Canada is leading by example. Last week the Minister of National Defence announced that we now have in place a plan for the complete elimination of our stockpiles of anti-personnel mines beginning with the immediate destruction of two-thirds of our stocks, the remaining one-third to be eliminated in the context of international negotiations which, as the minister has stated, will conclude by the end of 1997.

We believe that establishing the end of 1997 as a deadline for such an agreement is realistic and necessary, particularly given the horrible social and economic costs associated with inaction on the part of the international community.

Canada is willing to work with each and every other like minded country to move the process forward.

Every week over 500 people are killed or maimed by land mines around the world. Canada has taken the lead in calling upon the world to stop the carnage caused by anti-personnel mines.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has tabled legislation which puts in front of all Canadians this government's plan to protect endangered species and habitat in Canada.

To his credit, the minister has made some significant changes to the proposals which were circulated for discussion last year. I have to thank all the groups, organizations and individuals who responded to those proposals. Without their input the legislation in front of us now would have been laughable.

But the bottom line today is that while no longer laughable, the legislation is still inadequate. For me the trouble lies in the simple fact that for effectiveness the federal government will continue to rely on the willingness of the provinces to co-operate.

When I asked the minister a question relating to this on October 31, he chose to ignore the specifics and instead concentrated on the generalities. Therefore I am trying once again to secure a more specific answer. Today I am looking for a hint that the Liberals are even considering the subject matter of my question in two parts.

The first part of the question dealt with the idea of a habitat inventory for species currently on the list. I acknowledge that habitat protection is the most critical part of the legislation. We have a list of species considered endangered at this moment but we do not have a specific list of their habitats.

There is a legitimate fear out there expressed by workers in resource companies, by farmers and ranchers and by people living and working in rural communities that this legislation is one day going to jump up and steal away their incomes. We can best deal with protecting critical habitat as well as these fears by doing an inventory of the habitat specific to the species on the endangered list. We can best devise and structure recovery and management plans if we have an inventory. I want to know if the minister is giving any consideration to this matter.

I am also concerned that without an inventory the only way we will know that habitat protection needs to be undertaken is if an environmental assessment on some project tells us that something needs to be done. We should not need to be always reacting to project proposals in these matters. We should be acting in advance of proposals being considered and an inventory will aid in this process.

The second part of my question dealt with the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms. As I have already said, the legislation recognizes the national accord for the protection of species at risk signed by the provinces in which each of the provinces agrees to establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for

its effective protection of species at risk and for the protection of their habitat.

However, there is no clear understanding of what happens should one or more provinces fail to provide adequate protection. If this were health care and the federal government truly cared about health, the Canada Health Act provides for penalties when the provinces do not live up to the standards set at the national level. Those penalties are financial penalties but on environmental matters, in particular the protection of endangered species, there is no similar penalty. There does not appear to be even the threat of a penalty that the federal government can make.

My question was for the minister to tell us what enforcement powers he has at his disposal to ensure the provinces establish adequate companion protection.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out to the constituents of the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake that he works very hard on environmental initiatives in this House. In responding to his questions I would like to say that Bill C-65, the Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act, is the first ever federal legislation to protect endangered species in Canada.

The purpose of this act is to prevent Canadian wildlife species from becoming extinct as a result of human activity and to secure their recovery. This act along with provincial and territorial co-operation in ensuring complementary legislation and programs will afford protection to endangered species across the country.

The provinces and the territories have agreed to a national accord for the protection of species at risk. Under the terms of the accord the provinces and the territories are co-operating with the federal government to ensure that complementary legislation and programs are put into place.

The act formalizes the existing process by which we identify those species that are endangered. The committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, comprises a group of independent scientific experts who review and report on the status of wildlife species in Canada.

The bill now provides a legal basis for the committee and formalizes its work under Canadian law. This bill recognizes that habitat is fundamental to the protection of species. On the official listing of an endangered species, activities causing damage or destruction to its residence, such as its den, nest or burrow, will be prohibited. We also recognize that we need to go beyond the immediate residence of a given species in order to protect its critical habitat.

The mandatory recovery plans will address the threats to the survival of the species, including threats to critical habitat as defined by the scientific experts. As far as federal lands are concerned, the minister and his colleagues will be made aware of species listed annually by COSEWIC.

This bill gives the federal government the authority to create regulations needed to regulate or prohibit activities that will adversely affect the species or its critical habitat. The act also enables regulations prohibiting activities that wilfully harm species at risk that cross Canada's international boundaries in the absence of equivalent action by the provinces.

It also provides for emergency orders in the event that immediate action is required for the protection of a species. Where loss of habitat is identified as an imminent threat, emergency orders will include measures for its protection.

Under the national accord with the provinces and territories, all jurisdictions are publicly accountable for their actions and decisions. If a province chooses not to provide species protection, that decision will be on the public record. Further, the accord provides for a mechanism to address any such disputes that may arise.

Governments have a duty and a responsibility to work in partnership with one another, and with concerned citizens across the country and around the world, to prevent species from becoming extinct.

This act, along with complementary provincial and territorial legislation and programs, does just that by putting the needs of nature first.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m.)