Debates of Feb. 27th, 2001

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The division on the motion is deferred.

The House resumed from February 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Species At Risk Act

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Madam Speaker, although I have addressed the House on a few occasions and have asked some questions, this is the first opportunity I feel I have had to recognize the results of the November election: the support and confidence that was placed in me by the constituents of Windsor—St. Clair.

I acknowledge their support and all of the work my supporters did for me, the canvassing and phone calling. It is difficult to put that into words. There are certain specific groups I would like to acknowledge as well. I will start with my family, my wife of 31 years and my three children who were very active in my campaign and have been strong supporters of mine both in this past election and in the two previous times that I ran. I acknowledge that publicly.

A couple of other groups were of particular support to me. The labour movement in the city of Windsor is very strong and a great deal of those members came out and supported me, both on election day and in the campaign leading up to the vote.

There is another group I specifically want to mention. I promised that I would give it credit as one of the significant groups that made the difference in the outcome in my winning or losing since the results were very close in my riding. That group is the citizens who at one time worked in the United States but then came back to live in Canada in their retirement years. They were faced with a significant change in the tax regime put in place by the government. They feel very keenly about this travesty of justice and intend to pursue it. I will also pursue it on their behalf until that travesty of justice is remedied. I wish to acknowledge those people who supported me throughout the campaign and voted for me on election day.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-5, which in common parlance has become known as the endangered species legislation. This is not the first time the legislation has been before the House. In fact the original bill was put before the House in 1994. The government in both its red books and throne speeches has constantly promised the legislation. Here we are seven years down the road, in fact eight years from the time it was first elected, and we still do not have the legislation.

This procrastination and inaction unfortunately is all too typical of the government's record on the environment. It is not a good record whatsoever. We have not seen any new environmental legislation since 1993. There have been some amendments but no dramatic changes in the regime governing and protecting our environment.

We have absolutely no legislation right now that in any meaningful way protects our endangered species. That is interesting. If we look at the polling the government has done, there is extremely strong support in Canada for legislation to protect our endangered specifies. A recent poll conducted by Pollara, which was commissioned by the federal government, found that 94% of Canadians in all regions support federal endangered species legislation. More important, one should note that 74% of people living in rural communities support mandatory, not discretionary, habitat protection legislation.

In spite of the fact that we have broadly based support from environmental groups, labour unions, scientists and industry spokespeople calling for strong and effective endangered species legislation, we still have none as of right now.

The bill before us in the form of Bill C-5 is basically, with minor changes, the same bill that was before the last parliament as Bill C-33. Interestingly both Bill C-5 and Bill C-33 are substantially weaker than Bill C-65 which was introduced by the government back in 1996.

Based on good, solid scientific evidence at the present time we have 354 endangered species. It is a stark reminder that our natural heritage is under threat. The rate at which species disappear is historically at an all time high.

Worldwide we are experiencing more extinctions of natural species at any time in our history since the disappearance of dinosaurs. The current extinction rate is over 10,000 times the natural rate. To put it another way, historically an average of two to three species per year became extinct due to natural causes. Currently this year and in the previous few years about two to three species disappear every hour, all because of human causes. At the present rate scientists are telling us that we could lose 25% of the earth's species in the next 30 years.

Let us take a look at Canada. We have our own problems. In the past 150 years 27 species have become extinct. Let us compare that to the figure I gave earlier. At present 354 endangered species or at risk of extinction are on our list. The list is growing every year. An additional 40 species have been added in the last two years, since 1999.

As a country we have been waiting for almost a decade for the legislation. In 1992 at the earth summit, Canada committed to establishing legislation that was specifically aimed at protecting our vulnerable species. Canada was one of the first signatories to that accord. Yet here we are in 2001 and we are still reviewing the legislation.

In addition, the bill before the House is fundamentally weak. Let me turn to one of the major weaknesses of the legislation. We were promised by the Liberal Party and by the government that the legislation would protect the species at risk. What we have now is not a shall bill, that is we shall protect, but a maybe bill, that is we may protect them.

The bill contains rampant discretion in favour of the minister and the cabinet. All that it requires the government to do is to consult and report. It does not require it to protect when push comes to shove even one species. They could take these consultations from the scientific community, from the rest of the country, and could ignore them. Given their history, that is likely what they will do.

Bill C-5 is much weaker than the legislation of our partners in the United States and even in Mexico.

I will go back again to some of the public surveys on what the country is prepared to accept in the legislation. Most Canadians have told us that they are prepared to accept economic consequences in order to protect our natural species. Eight out of ten Canadians advocated placing restrictions on industries that pose a threat to endangered species and they are willing to accept the limitation of activities, such as forestry, mining and even tourism.

I will digress for a moment and talk about my own region. In the riding beside mine we have the smallest national park. About 10 years ago it became obvious that we had to limit the number of people allowed into that park. We had to cut the number in half because of the danger it posed to some of the fauna in the park. The public accepted that. There was an educational process and the general community understood the risk the park was at and they accepted the fact that they would have to curtail their activities in the park and the number of times they could go there. It was not easy for them to do but they did accept it. I suggest that is true for the rest of the country. We are prepared to take those losses.

I will now go to the three points that I wish to cover in terms of the weakness of the legislation. The first and foremost weakness is the lack of habitat protection. It is estimated that humans are responsible for almost all the species extinctions that occur, but that within that framework habitat loss is responsible for over 80% of the species' decline in Canada.

If this legislation is passed it will not protect habitat at all. I will compare that situation to the United States and Mexico. In both cases they have passed legislation that not only protects the species but also protects their habitat. Our legislation is simply proposing to make that protection discretionary in the hands of the minister and the government. If species are deemed worthy of protection then we should be protecting them.

[The Speaker]

When consideration of the bill is resumed the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair will have approximately seven minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

Order Of Canada

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize two distinguished people from my community who will be receiving the Order of Canada tomorrow. They are Mr. Howard Dyck and Professor John English.

Howard Dyck is the conductor and artistic director of the Kitchener-Waterloo philharmonic choir. He is in demand as a clinician, lecturer and adjudicator. As host of CBC Radio's Saturday afternoon at the opera and Choral concerts , he ignites in his fellow Canadians enthusiasm and curiosity about the broad spectrum of vocal music.

John English is a professor of history and political science and director of the Centre on Foreign Policy and Federalism at the University of Waterloo. He has, through his writings, contributed to the knowledge and understanding of our rich cultural heritage.

Besides reporting on history, Professor English was an excellent member of parliament for Kitchener from 1993 to 1997. His contributions and collegiality are greatly missed by his former constituents and those of us who worked with him.

On behalf of this House, I congratulate Howard Dyck and John English on their induction into the Order of Canada.

Reproductive Technologies

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, later this year Dr. Severino Antinori and his team of American and Japanese surgeons will proceed with the first human cloning experiment, the first of a planned batch of 200.

These experiments and the results will have serious, far-reaching implications for humanity. The question of human cloning raises some fundamental scientific and ethical questions for us as human beings in general and as citizens of Canada in particular.

Canada simply does not have the necessary regulatory framework to establish parameters for this type of research. It has been eight years since the royal commission on reproductive and genetic technologies recommended the establishment of a national framework for the support and regulation of these technologies. It has been five years since the Liberal government attempted to introduce poorly drafted legislation on this subject and was obliged to withdraw it.

I call upon the government to introduce legislation immediately to deal with issues of human cloning and other reproductive and genetic technologies.

Bibi Zaman

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House to recognize an outstanding Canadian and a constituent of mine, Ms. Bibi Zaman. Ms. Zaman founded the Canadian Centre for Women's Education and Development. With the help of 10 volunteers, the centre offers a range of services that assist women in getting back on their feet, including helping them escape abusive relationships.

Bibi says “I want to empower women to take their lives into their own hands for the benefit of their children. This is my life”. Bibi has run this organization on a volunteer basis since 1990 and has spent thousands of dollars over the years to cover the expenses of this organization, which also offers a medical clinic. The clinic is also staffed by volunteer doctors.

She also hopes to set up a free legal clinic in March. Bibi has been chosen, along with 59 other Canadians, to be recognized by the Governor General with the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award. As Bibi's member of parliament, and more important her friend, I wish to congratulate her.

Aquatic Hall Of Fame

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to invite all members of the House and indeed all Canadians to the Aquatic Hall of Fame and Museum of Canada. It is located at the PanAm Pool, one of North America's finest, on the rather appropriately named Poseidon Bay within my riding.

Vaughan Baird, the chairman of the museum, recently reintroduced me to the facility. Over the years he has thoughtfully acquired a variety of objects depicting the art and history of aquatics in Canada and around the world. The collection includes items ranging from the celebrated Cutty Sark collection of sailing ships and nautical memorabilia to the swim trunks of Olympic gold medallist Mark Tewkesbury and even those of the late Right Hon. Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

Items of interest from all aquatic sports can be found there: swimming, water polo, synchronized swimming, and of course Mr. Trudeau's favourite, diving. The total of all exhibits is valued at nearly $4 million.

I congratulate Mr. Baird and his team at the Aquatic Hall of Fame on assembling and maintaining such a singular collection.

Urban Transit

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the number of automobiles and trucks on Canadian roads has doubled in the past two decades. The Canadian public is becoming increasing alarmed at the deterioration of air quality and the quality of water and the relentless urban sprawl that is causing higher levels of congestion and road rage and is seriously eroding the quality of environmental and economic life.

Public transit not only provides a cost effective means of transportation but also plays a crucial role in sustainable development for all communities, urban and rural.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association serves as a representative of urban transit service providers, industry suppliers, government agencies and related Canadian transportation organizations. Its endeavour is to promote the pivotal role that urban transit plays in enhancing mobility and contributing to a more sustainable environment for all Canadians.

Members of the Canadian Urban Transit Association have come to Ottawa today to meet with members of parliament to address the issues of the public transit crisis and to facilitate discussions on potential solutions. I rise in the House to commend and congratulate CUTA.

Trade

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister was in Washington to talk about trade issues with one month to go until the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement expires.

Naturally the rhetoric is turned up and the American lumber coalition is acting aggressively in opposition to Canadian lumber exports. The Americans are threatening countervail and anti-dumping measures.

The Canadian industry has worked diligently to develop a solidified position in favour of a return to free trade in lumber.

Lumber producers in the signatory provinces of B.C., Quebec, Ontario and Alberta have largely learned to accommodate each other's significant differences. This consensus has benefited Canada.

Everyone's resolve will be tested in the difficult days ahead. I appeal to all political parties and all provinces to pursue what is best for Canada: free trade for all.

Immigration

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every MP in the House knows or should know how often people walk into a member's constituency office and ask for assistance on immigration matters. It happens every day. It is part of an MP's job.

Riding offices in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver easily receive 2,000 to 3,000 requests per year. It is a well known fact that constituency offices of ministers of the crown receive even more requests than ordinary MPs, often from neighbouring ridings.

It is also well known that inquiries with a MP's constituency office on the status of an immigrant file are processed as a routine matter and hardly ever brought to the attention of the MP, who is usually busy in Ottawa.

It is therefore most unfortunate that some opposition members' lack of familiarity with this aspect of a MP's regular constituency function has led to a smear campaign against the Minister of Public Works and Government Services who, as we all know, is a hard working parliamentarian, deeply committed to his constituents.

Bay Of Beauport

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, recently, we were delighted to discover that three Liberal MPs from the Quebec City region supported the position of the Bloc Quebecois in the matter of Beauport Bay.

No doubt, rather embarrassed at failing to block the municipal amalgamations, an important plank in their election platform, they are supporting the position of the Bloc Quebecois. Big deal, welcome to the side of common sense.

The Quebec City port authority has for the past 20 years blocked the development of an exceptional site for recreational and tourism purposes, one of the rare places Quebecers still have access to the St. Lawrence, Beauport Bay.

Worse yet, in December, this agency stated quite seriously that it wanted to turn the existing beach into a terminal for bulk carriers and recreate the beach a little further along by encroaching on the river. This announcement caused a public outcry and mobilized public opinion.

The port authority will reveal its final plan for the use of the land soon. Let us hope that it will note the regional consensus over the future of Beauport Bay.

Agriculture

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the national Liberal rural caucus is meeting with farmers and farm organizations from across the country to discuss the serious challenges facing family farmers today.

As chair of rural caucus I would like to express my appreciation of, support for and commitment to Canada's agricultural producers.

As a government we need to focus our attention on agriculture, particularly now that our producers are experiencing difficult times. Canada's future food security depends on the action that we take today.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the evidence that the problems of inadequate housing, poor water supply, crumbling infrastructure, economic underdevelopment and substandard education are causing aboriginal people across Canada unneeded pain and suffering.

Now the auditor general confirms what band members and the official opposition have been saying for years. I quote:

Regardless of program devolution, the department remains accountable for the way federal funds are used and for ensuring the results are acceptable.

He goes on to say that this minister and his department have a wide variety of problems including poor accountability and unacceptable results.

Why does the Sagkeeng Band not have a decent school for its children? Why cannot members of the Sturgeon Lake Cree have their education and health needs met? Why do the Kanesatake Mohawks question the validity of recent votes on the reserve? All of these issues are without adequate responses from the department.

I call upon the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to listen to these band members and be accountable. The auditor general has made it clear that these issues need to be resolved. I join with the auditor general and call for the government to clean up this mess.

Agriculture

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet again today to remind each member of the House that we are less than three months from this spring's planting and our farmers are in trouble. In many cases, without immediate and substantial help there will be no seeds planted in the soil this year.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, I would again point out that years of unfair subsidies from the United States and Europe have placed Canada's agricultural sector at a severe economic disadvantage. When we couple that reality with an increasingly high cost of production and ever shrinking commodity prices, our once flourishing industry is failing fast.

Canada is a nation that was and is built firmly upon our rural and agricultural sectors. Farming is our foundation and that foundation is crumbling around us.

A temporary fix is no longer an option. We need to act immediately to repair the existing damage and to take the steps necessary to ensure a prosperous tomorrow for our farmers. Support delayed is support denied.

Versatile Tractors

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with the 250 Canadian auto workers at Versatile manufacturing in Winnipeg, who have been on strike for almost four months, in support of their efforts to keep open Canada's last agricultural tractor facility.

Since Versatile Tractors was taken over by John Buhler, 350 workers have been laid off and the remaining 250 employees have been on a bitter strike over basic job security issues. Worse than that, Buhler now threatens to relocate the plant to Fargo, North Dakota, taking with it a $32 million loan from the federal government.

Why would the government allow a company to assume such a loan without requiring repayment if the company leaves the country? Are we to stand idly by and allow $32 million of Canadian taxpayer money to create jobs for Americans in Fargo, North Dakota?

I call it economic treason to abandon Canadian workers in this way. I demand that the government recall the loan before John Buhler steps across the border to Fargo, North Dakota, and save those jobs at Versatile Tractors for Canadians.

Women

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, International Women's Day will be celebrated on March 8 under the banner, in Quebec, of “Clicking on our powers”. On this occasion, we must all recognize the very dynamic contribution women make to the economic development of Quebec and Canada.

Women have always worked, regardless of their origin, their age, their culture or their status. In Quebec, like everywhere else, they have headed schools and hospitals, when they were not heading very large families. They have worked in the fields, cared for the animals, taken over in factories during wartime and done a thousand jobs, well.

To all these women, who still today, are fighting for equality and social justice, the Bloc Quebecois promises its unconditional support.

Trade

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the cavalier attitude of the department of international trade is causing great concern and grief to Canadian businesses.

The softwood lumber issue is drifting like a barrel heading for Niagara Falls. The government has not even established consensus across this country, much less made a deal with the Americans. Instead, we will be in crisis on April 1 when the Americans will surely apply countervail and anti-dumping charges to Canadian softwood lumber.

P.E.I.'s potatoes are being banned from the U.S., its major market. The government has failed to even begin to address this issue, and coming soon will be negotiations regarding energy issues, dairy and wheat.

Going back to softwood lumber, I ask the trade minister to start gaining consensus now across the country and to especially consider the request of the four Atlantic premiers to renew the maritime accord.

Hepatitis C

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the victims of tainted blood continue to get tainted justice. After a three year investigation into the destruction of government records, the RCMP has decided there is not enough evidence to lay charges. It is the latest sad chapter in this story.

Government negligence mortally harmed tens of thousands of innocent Canadians, and how those Canadians have struggled tirelessly to get justice. Despite the obvious moral obligation, the government still refuses to do what is right and follow Ontario Premier Mike Harris' compensation of all those victims who were infected.

The Liberal government should not count those victims out yet. I have been able to work closely with them for five years. I know they will continue to fight for what they and all Canadians know is right: full compensation for their plight and justice for their cause so that such a tragedy can never happen again.

The Economy

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Atlantic Canada took another slap in the face from the federal government in a response from the finance minister.

Atlantic Canadians want to advance their provinces from have not to have status, but the finance minister is intent on holding Atlantic Canadians back by not allowing them to go ahead, and by continuing to claw back the natural resource revenues at close to 100% rates. Yesterday he told the three Atlantic ministers that there would not be any changes to this transfer payment until 2004.

Why is the finance minister making Atlantic Canada wait almost four more years for economic growth?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mixing apples and oranges. I suspect he probably does not realize it so rather than go into the details I would be delighted if he would speak to the government of Alberta and ask it if it is prepared to treat natural resources in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland differently than in Alberta. I would appreciate it very much if he would speak to the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and indeed the province of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and ask them if they are prepared to do the same thing.

We are very open regarding this but it requires provincial consensus. I can tell the member that consensus does not exist and did not exist when he was the provincial treasurer of Alberta.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, he needs to talk with his own Minister of Industry who, when he was premier of Newfoundland, wanted the discussion opened on this. That is who he should be talking to.

Has the minister asked these other provinces individually if they are willing to have a discussion about economic hope and opportunity for Atlantic Canada? He may be surprised with the response. Has he done that, will he do that or has he decided on his own that the future economic hope of Atlantic Canada will just be based on the whim of federal Liberals?