Debates of Oct. 4th, 2002

Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. We are here to make Parliament work. That member should now take his own instruction and henceforth, instead of voting according to the command, vote according to the wishes of his constituents.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I also want to compliment the member for Elk Island. I found him to be at first attacking the points that attack this institution. I do not mind if he attacks the government. It is his job.

This is not new. As the member for Elk Island knows, I do not use notes very often, but in 1999 the opposition agreed to a similar motion to proceed without debate to a vote at the start of the session. The House has been doing this on an informal basis for over 30 years and is quite prepared to continue with that. For some reason the opposition is now saying that it does not want to go along with that and that it will force the government to use closure.

This is maybe the second time since I have been in Parliament that closure has actually been used. There has been a number of instances of time allocation. Time allocation is brought in by the British House with every bill. We are more British than the British. We do not use time allocation all the time. However there are times when the opposition wants to oppose a bill strenuously for some reason or other and that is not a bad idea. It would then allow us to overcome that with the motion of time allocation.

The difference this time is closure. I was hoping that the government would never use closure. Quite frankly, it is against my nature to think that we would have to use closure.

However the identical procedure that we introduced for reinstatement of private members' bills the House agreed in the last Parliament to enshrine it in the Standing Orders. Yet the opposition has voted against allowing the private members' bills to be reinstated. I find that to be contrary to what I would think was fair.

When we look at the bills that we will reinstate, there are a number of them which have gone through various stages. Let us look at the species at risk act, for instance. It has been debated for 15 years probably, over and over again. Finally we get to a point where the species at risk act can be brought back in at final stage then sent back to the Senate, but the opposition is against that.

The opposition is opposing the Criminal Code, regarding cruelty to animals and so forth. We have the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Copyright Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the physical activity and sport act, which the member for Elk Island and I both need, the assisted human reproduction act, which we do not need, the specific claims act and the first nations governance act.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Lord knows what we need.

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

Who knows? I know it is Friday. I can get away with a lot on Friday.

I will pass on the comments being made by my good friends on the other side because it may lead me into something that I would have to explain later.

When we reached prorogation in 1970, 1972, 1974 and 1986, the House adopted amendments to the Standing Orders to carry over legislation to the next session in 1977 and 1982. The House adopted reinstatement motions on division in 1991, 1996 and 1999. The 1996 motion included provision to reinstate private members' bills. I am concerned that private members' bills are being pushed off to the side when sometimes it is the only way private members on either side of the House can actually send a message to the government as to what concerns them and the people of their riding.

In 1997 a private member's bill was reinstated after dissolution. Standing Order 86.1 allows private members' bills to be reinstated. That order was adopted in 1999.

If we look at previous legislation in 1996 and 2000, Bill C-5 was introduced on February 2, 2001. At second reading, it had six hours of debate over five days then it was referred to the committee. Are we to bring that back and start all over again?

As much as I think closure should not be necessary, in this particular case I agree with it because I want these bills brought back.

I want all the work that has been done by committees, by members of the House, and the people that have come in as witnesses to be worthwhile. Are we to waste all their time and start all over again?

We have to consider that the environment committee held 42 meetings on Bill C-5, totalling over 90 hours. The committee heard from over 100 witnesses. Are we going to throw that out? Is that fair to over 100 witnesses? That is we are bringing it back.

Why would we spend 12 days of debate at report stage and third reading, and 50 hours of debate? Why would we throw that away as members of Parliament? What would be the advantage of taking all that valuable work done by members, committees, and all those witnesses brought in at great expense, and not bringing the bill back? Most of the witnesses were very sincere and wanted to have their evidence as part of the legislation that would be passed by the House.

The total time that was spent on Bill C-5 was 17 days of debate, 42 committee meetings, and 146 hours of debate in committee and the House. That amount of time cannot be thrown away.

I have great respect for the traditions of the House. I have worked as hard as anyone with my colleagues to improve the general pay scales, the insurance policies and all the things that affect members of Parliament. I have been fairly successful doing that and I feel good about it. I never made the headlines doing it which is even better. Every member of Parliament is benefiting from that hard work.

Members try to modernize Parliament and the way we act as members of Parliament. I accept that there are some things that I will never be able to change. I accept the fact that there are certain things that are out of my league or my prerogative. I recognize that. I have had a lot of help from opposition members. I have met with almost all opposition members one on one to ask them what improvements could be made to the House and the way we are treated as members of Parliament.

Most opposition members think the only way change can be made is if they become the government. That is never going to happen. We must deal with the people that are the government and try to make improvements. Forcing the government to introduce closure is not the way to go.

We should be meeting. Why has not one member of the opposition been brought forward as a committee member? There is no list from the opposition. It does not want the committees to meet. Why is that? Is there a reason why the opposition does not want committees to meet? I find this very difficult.

We are ready to begin. Our committee members are all in place. We would like to begin and then the opposition says no, it wants a secret ballot or something. How undemocratic that is for other members. The opposition wants to control the government, but it is not the government.

How do we best operate for the people of Canada? How do we give the people of Canada the best economy for their money? It is done by passing the legislation that the government was elected to pass.

I look at the traditions of the House and they should be followed. The traditions should be discussed and we should reaffirm our own personal respect for honoured traditions. Those traditions are shared by the government and the party with which I am a privileged member.

Respect for Parliament and its traditions has been demonstrated again and again over the last couple of years as the government has spearheaded a number of changes to the practices of the House in a methodical and carefully thought out manner yet mindful of and respecting past parliamentary privileges and practices.

This being the case, it should come as no surprise that the provisions contained in the motion also reflect and respect the best practices, the past practices and the traditions of the House. To illustrate this, let us look at the motion and how it corresponds to our past practices.

Under the motion, any minister who introduces a bill during the first 30 sitting days of a new session of Parliament in exactly the same form as a bill in the previous session, and which has been at least referred to a committee, would be able to request that the new bill be reinstated at the stage to which it had progressed at the time of prorogation. Does that not make perfect sense?

Should the Speaker be satisfied that the bill is in fact the same as the previous one, he or she could then order it reinstated at that stage. As members will no doubt recognize, this indeed is in accordance with the past practice of the House. All we are doing is carrying on the tried and true traditions of the House as has been carried out since Confederation.

In October 1999, when the second session of the 36th Parliament began, the House adopted a similar motion as the one before us today. In March 1996, when the second session of the 35th Parliament began, the House also adopted a similar motion. Previous Parliaments have adopted similar motions including one that passed under a previous government in 1991. Members all know who that was.

A number of other precedents exist for this motion as well. For example, page 330 of Marleau and Montpetit cites a number of precedents for the reinstatement of bills following a prorogation. In 1970, 1972, 1974, and 1986 the House gave unanimous consent to motions to reinstate bills. In 1977 and 1982 the House adopted amendments to the Standing Orders to carry over legislation to the next session.

Such a long string of precedents testifies to the long-standing practice in the House of allowing the reinstatement of bills at the same stage as the motion proposes. The procedure contained in the motion is almost identical to the Standing Orders for private members' bills. It leads us to the conclusion to reinstate private members' bills at the same stage. It must also be reasonable to follow the same procedure in the case of government bills.

Members should take note that the UK Parliament, from which our own parliamentary traditions flow, is considering amending its rules to allow government bills to carry-over from one session to the next.

What we are suggesting in the motion is not some piece of wild-eyed radicalism. It does not represent a revolutionary break with the past. Rather it is very much within our own parliamentary tradition and that of the mother of parliaments in the UK.

The motion is not just a good idea because it is based upon precedents, rather it represents a proposal which is logical and can stand on its own merits. It is clear that many of the bills which would be reinstated following passage of the motion are worthy of our most serious attention and worthy of being passed into law.

The passage of bills takes time. As a parliamentarian, one of the things that probably bothers me the most is the amount of time it takes to pass something. I know we must give it a lot of consideration and that we have to work on it very hard, but the government presents many bills during a session of Parliament and not all of these are tabled early in the session. Bills take a long time, a lot of thought, a lot of consultation, and a lot of development. Some are tabled very late and leave us with a rush at the end. We should not allow bills to die because of the timing of when they are introduced. We should look at what makes sense as parliamentarians.

Closure is being brought in so that the motion can be dealt with, so that we can allow many important bills and committee work to continue at the same stage of consideration at prorogation.

I spoke earlier of the hours and hours that committees put in. We all sit on committees and we all spend a lot of valuable time. I do not want my time to be wasted. I have spent a lot of time on committees and I have listened to a lot of witnesses. I would like to carry on with any legislation that is before that committee at the stage it was at just before prorogation.

For this reason, and many more I will be supporting the motion and I will be supporting the closure motion. I feel that it is our parliamentary duty to not waste a lot of time and money, and to get on with the business of the House, not talking about adjournment but talking about the business that we must do here.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I need to respond to what this member said.

He said we ought not to ignore the work of committees. The House was in session and committees were struck. They were in place. There was as much need for this prorogation as there was for the election in the fall of 2000. It was redundant. Yet the government has called these things.

The member said he did a lot of work in committee and he did not want it to be lost. I recommend to him that if he does not want his work in committee to be lost, then he ought to listen to what the witnesses said. The committee heard witnesses who strongly urged amendments to Bill C-5, which we support and which ought to be done for the good of Canada. If he does not want to waste his time in committee, then let him listen to the witnesses, support the amendments that would correct and improve the bill, and then his time would not be wasted.

Instead, we hear the witnesses saying one thing and the government agenda coming in with something else. The government whips the vote in committee and forces everything through. It comes back to the House and we land up here in debate. We try to amend the legislation but those amendments are turned down. In the end we simply say that it is indeed a waste of time.

What we need to do in this particular place is to work hard in committees, we need to listen to the witnesses, and we need to ensure that our amendments reflect what the witnesses are telling us. The best example that I have is when I was on the finance committee. We had every witness, without exception, unanimously say that the security tax of $24 per round trip would kill small airports and small air service providers. Every witness who came to the committee said that. Yet what did the government do? It did it anyway. That is what I call a waste of committee time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would hate to miss answering the member's question although it was framed more as a statement. The fact is the government introduced prorogation and in doing that asked to follow that with a throne speech which is normal.

The opposition members had indicated earlier that we had run out of ideas, I think is what they said, that we were not functioning, that we were just putting in time. That is what the opposition was saying. When we prorogue, what follows is a Speech from the Throne. It is a way to not dissolve Parliament. It is a method that allows things to continue and yet reintroduce the Speech from the Throne.

The Speech from the Throne is a blueprint. The blueprint is laid out in the throne speech and it is debated in the House. Then new legislation is introduced that flows from the blueprint in the throne speech. Ministers are obligated now to bring forward legislation that lays out a new plan if there is a certain redirection of the government.

That is not a bad thing. I think it is a good thing. It is a rejuvenation. However I do not feel that we can as a government allow all the work that was done previous to prorogation to be wasted. That is exactly what happens if the bills are not allowed to be reintroduced at the stage they were at. We do value the witnesses and our colleagues and the work they have put into the committees, the hearing of witnesses and the travelling that was involved. If the member does not believe in that, then I cannot help that but I do believe that it was valuable work and it should continue and the bills should be brought back at the stage they were at prior to prorogation.

That has been done over and over again. It is not new. It is not something that members should be unfamiliar with. They have already been through it, unless they were not here before the last election and previous to that when I would understand that, but the hon. member was here.

I think the member is drawing at straws. He would just try to attack the government, which is fine, but the institution that is here and the rules that we follow are there for a purpose. They are there to allow for the orderly procedure of this Parliament to proceed. The only way the opposition can change that is to elect enough members to become a majority. That is the tradition of the House since it was instituted. If the member has no hope of doing that, then I obviously understand his frustrations.

I have a great obligation as a member of the government to make sure that I hold the government's feet to the fire, that I work at trying to make sure that government introduces legislation. The member for Malpeque agrees with me. He also is a bit of a rebel in here sometimes. We will continue to do that as members of the government. We will try to work as hard as we can for the taxpayers of Canada and to make sure that the traditions of the House are followed.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, particularly with respect to committees. He talked about the laws being there for a purpose but having been around here for a few years now myself, would he not agree that we should and could be doing much better when it comes to committees?

I appreciate the point that he was making about the length of time it takes for a bill to get through, however, if the committees had more independence from the government, from the executive of cabinet, would it not be more beneficial for legislation and for the feeling that we are here for a purpose and with the ability to do something more than to be a talk shop or to have busy work going on in committees?

As a member of the agriculture committee, I have had a fairly good attendance record at committee meetings, and I appreciate that there are good witnesses that come before us on a fairly regular basis and we hear from them. I am sure other committees operate in the same fashion. The point is that we could be a lot more effective if those committees were given additional powers.

We talk about the democratic deficit. Surely that is an area that is in need of major change. I would like to get the member's comments on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the member for Palliser but I differ with him. I think about the clerks of the committees, the table officers, the people who put together the witness lists, the people who do all the work in the background and who bring together witnesses who are relevant to the business at hand.

Some witnesses give extremely good evidence. We as parliamentarians have to sort out whether a witness is a lobbyist, whether a witness will benefit from giving evidence, or whether it is a company the witness works for or someone the witness is lobbying for. Our job is to make sure that witnesses have credible credentials and have all the necessary tools at their disposal to make their presentations and to be examined.

In my short stint as chair of the subcommittee on HIV-AIDS studying poverty and discrimination, we had expert witnesses from the health field, from caregivers, from families that have been affected and from individuals who have been affected. I felt that the evidence given at that committee was from the heart, and I believe the government acted on that evidence.

I am now a member of the defence committee but I do not believe, as parliamentary secretary, that I should be on that committee. I think parliamentary secretaries should be there to help steer through certain legislation, or to give expertise, or to work hand in hand with the minister who is trying to put legislation through, but I do not think they should be influencing what committee members know or do not know.

I do agree with my hon. colleague on some points. I think of the defence committee, which travelled across Canada and to other parts of the world when we were working on the quality of life report. That committee brought in 89 recommendations. The former minister of defence had the backbone to initiate that quality of life report and make it work. Some 39 or 40 changes I think were relevant. The changes were brought in because the committee listened to the witnesses who had expertise, the people who were in the military. They gave us reasons to make those changes. The member for Lakeland came on that committee a bit later but he also agreed that the quality of life report--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Resuming debate.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part today in this debate on Government Motion No. 2. I must also express my opinion and indicate our intentions with regard to the motion brought forward by the Canadian Alliance member for Macleod. That motion would exclude from the process two bills, namely Bill C-15B on animal cruelty and Bill C-5 on species at risk.

First, I will talk about the purpose of Motion No. 2. For those who are listening to us, this motion is being brought forward so that bills that had been considered or adopted at various stages in the previous session may be deemed to have been considered or adopted at these same stages in this session. This means that we will resume consideration of bills at the stage where we left them, whether in committee or in the Senate, at the time of prorogation.

We have nothing against the process but I feel obliged to take part in the debate because I feel there is something rather paradoxical here. Taking just one example, the environment, for which I am my party's critic, there are three bills. There is the endangered species bill, the environmental assessment bill and, most particularly, the pesticides bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health is responsible for the latter, which did not get through all the stages of the legislative process. Now the government is announcing its intention to introduce another. Also, it intends to introduce, again, legislation relating to the Endangered Species Act. And it intends to introduce, again, a bill on environmental assessment.

The throne speech is somewhat of a paradox. Today they are telling us that they intend to reintroduce legislation that was introduced two years ago, or more recently than that.

So one may well wonder: why have a throne speech? Why such a hollow throne speech that does nothing but rehash old legislation? This Parliament is engaged in a pure waste of time.

I have just been listening to criticism from the other side of the floor, about some MPs wanting to waste money as well as members' time. Is it not making us waste time to announce legislative measures, bills and legislation already with the Senate? That too is a waste of time.

We agree in principle with having bills that have already been examined picked up where they left off, but with the exception of certain bills, such as Bill C-5 on endangered species, in connection with which the official opposition presented an amendment.

There are three reasons why we are opposed to this bill being reinstated at the stage it had reached. First of all, it is flagrant interference in areas that are under Quebec's jurisdiction. There is no greater interference as far as the environment is concerned than this bill, C-5. I would remind hon. members that Quebec had its own endangered species legislation as far back as 1992. This government came along with a bill indicating that it was creating new positions of authority over endangered species.

We were presented with this bill that they tried to ram through, a bill that shunted aside Quebec's legislation respecting endangered species, Quebec's legislation respecting the conservation of wildlife, and Quebec's fishing regulations, to introduce the federal legislation on species at risk and give it overriding powers.

I do not object to the species at risk bill. I think that we do need such legislation. Canada must have such legislation. In fact, this government should even be criticized for the amount of time it has taken to pass such legislation.

However, could this bill not have been limited to areas of federal jurisdiction, namely Crown lands and areas involving migratory birds? If that had been the case, we would have supported it. This bill interferes with and duplicates what is being done in Quebec. We are entitled to want to re-examine the situation and we will use every means available in the House to block this legislation, which would interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

In the last ten years, since 1991, Quebec has developed expertise that is envied throughout Canada. Quebec was the first province to pass legislation on endangered species in Canada. And today, the federal government is introducing a comparable bill that might override Quebec legislation.

We are willing to re-examine this bill if need be to stall for time. We are prepared to improve Quebec's legislation, of course, but we will never accept a federal government that acts as a political watchdog, when Quebec has democratically expressed itself by passing an act respecting endangered species at the National Assembly. This legislation was supported by members opposite. I remind the House that the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who is on the other side of the House today, had this legislation passed in Quebec in 1991. He was Quebec's minister of the environment at the time when it was passed.

Today the Liberal members from Quebec are prepared to have a federal statute that will override legislation they themselves supported. This is nonsense. If Quebeckers and Canadians are to be able to trust the political system, politicians must be consistent. With respect to endangered species, this government, and in particular the members from Quebec, especially those who were members of the Bourassa government and who sponsored Quebec's endangered species legislation, have shown a flagrant lack of consistency.

There is a second reason why my colleagues and I will be supporting the Canadian Alliance amendment. Inevitably, both sides of the House will be engaging in an important debate on the endangered species legislation. I need hardly remind anyone that the Liberal caucus was divided on this issue, that they had more discussions about the endangered species legislation than we had in this Parliament. Some Liberal members did not accept the legislative measures of this government and of the Minister of the Environment.

There were negotiations within the Liberal caucus. This is a good reason why the Liberal members should support the Canadian Alliance motion—precisely so that the issue can be re-examined. Bill C-5 is no more acceptable to members on this side of the House than it is to certain members of the Liberal caucus, who lobbied all the way up to the Prime Minister's Office to have the endangered species bill scrapped.

On the contrary, these Liberal members should make sure that we take another look at this legislation, so that their legitimate wishes can be included in the new endangered species legislation that we would have an opportunity to look at together. But instead, these members have refused. Suddenly, they are completely in favour of the fait accompli. They have a golden opportunity to re-examine this bill and to have their legitimate wishes heard in committee and in the House, but they are passing it up. They still have time to reflect on this issue. They have time, because we are at debate stage and there will be a vote next week on the Canadian Alliance motion. I would like them to listen to what I am saying.

They have a golden opportunity to ensure that what they asked for, and will not be in the bill, can finally be included in the act.

The third reason why I will support the Canadian Alliance motion is that, as everyone knows, the issue of compensation remains totally vague in the bill. We do not know where we are headed, what financial compensation will be given to farmers, what impact the clauses will have on compensation, because all this will be covered by the regulations, which have yet to see the light of day. The government did not follow up on the findings of the Pearse commission and now it wants to ram the bill on Canada's endangered species through Parliament. This makes no sense.

The fundamental and critical aspect debated by members in this House is the issue of compensation to landowners. We had major debates that ended with this side of the House not getting real answers, because the government could not provide answers. The clauses of Bill C-5 were just too vague.

Today, we have another opportunity, thanks to the Canadian Alliance motion, to get some clarification on the bill. Who knows? Perhaps public officials worked on this issue during the summer. Perhaps we can get some clarification on the clauses dealing with compensation, and perhaps this clarification could not only be provided in the regulations but also in the clauses of the bill. So, this is the positive aspect of the motion before us today.

Therefore, there are three reasons that lead me to support the Canadian Alliance motion. There is, inevitably, the fact that Bill C-5 is a complete intrusion in provincial jurisdictions. Also, following the debate that took place within the Liberal caucus, this is an opportunity provided by the Canadian Alliance to the Liberal Party of Canada to amend the endangered species legislation, something the caucus of that party wanted.

But now, that same caucus is refusing to have this debate again. This speaks volumes about the ability of the members of the Liberal caucus to represent those who voted for them. Why do we have to re-examine Bill C-5? It is because the issue of compensation is not clear. Perhaps we will finally get some answers to our questions.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, talk about Bill C-5, with respect to this motion before us and to the related amendment.

Throughout his comments, he referred to the part of Bill C-5, the bill on species at risk, dealing with compensation. I believe that it is important that he tell us more about it and elaborate on this topic.

I would like him to elaborate and explain what Bill C-5 involves when it comes to compensation to educate the members of this House, particularly the members opposite, to whom he referred in his speech. I think this is a good opportunity because he is very knowledgeable and we could learn more about the stakes involved in this issue.

Once again, could he repeat why he supports the proposal made by the Canadian Alliance that we are presently debating?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises an important point.

I am a member from Montreal, and I have not had repeated requests from my constituents about the impact that the Species at Risk bill could have in certain ridings on real estate. I am sure that the government members have gotten many calls on the financial impact that the Species at Risk Act could have, both from outfitters and from farmers.

Madam Speaker, like you, I represent a riding in Montreal; you likely have not received many calls about this either. However, the members opposite no doubt have. We have been told that citizens are prepared to protect the species found on their land, but this comes at a price. Quite often, farmers and landowners must bear a significant portion of the cost of implementing the Species at Risk Act. They believe, and I think that their request is legitimate, that there should be some type of financial compensation and they want this to be clarified in the Species at Risk Act. However, the government has refused to respond.

The matter was addressed, and government reports were produced. I am thinking of such documents as the Pearse report, which proposed a form of compensation that was fair for some but not in the least fair for others. As a protector of the taxpayers' financial interests, the government ought to have been made to reach a decision, but it has always refused to do so.

The Liberal members on the other side have been one of the major lobbies in this Parliament. They have put considerable pressure on the government, threatening even to bring it down if certain amendments presented by the Minister of the Environment himself were not passed by the House.

Today, the Alliance is proposing to reopen the debate, and some members have a unique opportunity to make their ideas known. I seem to see some of them looking at me as if to say that I am right and that they refuse to support this process.

When it comes down to it, our fellow citizens, the property owners and the members of Parliament who represent the regions of Canada would very much like to see the Liberal members over there revisit this issue in order to give the government a chance. Who is to say that, over the summer, some public servants have not found a solution that is fair and balanced and what the public wants? Perhaps they have. The government would therefore have a golden opportunity to again introduce clarifications on compensation.

I believe this approach is democratic, legitimate and respectful of the wishes of our fellow citizens. The Liberals ought to commit to supporting and adopting this motion, which has really but the one objective, which is to ensure that we are, as elected representatives, attuned to the needs of our fellow citizens.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to congratulate you on your appointment and I wish you an excellent session.

As regards Bill C-5, I was the Bloc Quebecois critic on the environment for several years, and already back then the endangered species legislation was controversial. We could not support the bill, because we felt that it had not been drafted properly. There were huge complications regarding the implementation of the act. Already back then, we felt that, from a legal point of view, there would be constant disputes between Quebec, which has its own act to protect endangered species, and the federal government.

I remember that we asked that Quebec be allowed to opt out of this act, because it already had an act to protect its endangered species, but the federal government refused.

As we know, when bills are drafted, they are not always perfect. We currently have two bills that are very flawed—as was pointed out by the Canadian Alliance, and we agree with it on that—and this would give us an opportunity to re-examine them, to reorganize them and perhaps to even rewrite them.

Let us take a look at Bill C-15B dealing with animal protection. This bill was originally Bill C-15, but it had to be split in two, because it had become a catch-all bill that included all sorts of provisions, and it just did not work. So, the government split it in two. However, at the time, the government did not take into account the fact that the act might no longer work, like that. This is an opportunity for us to go back to the drawing board. These two bills are among the most complex ones currently before the House.

We have an opportunity to re-examine them and I would ask the hon. member to elaborate on Bill C-15.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is giving me a fourth reason—I was listening to her comments and her speech—to review Bill C-15. Indeed, there is still the threat of legal action in response to Bill C-15.

Some believe that is it unconstitutional and that it violates provincial jurisdiction.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, from what I can hear from the member opposite—I do not know if starting the debate on Bill C-15 over again within the Liberal caucus is causing a reaction or not—it is an excellent idea. That is what this motion provides us with, an opportunity for the members opposite to have their say as we re-examine Bill C-15.

It must be acknowledged that the members opposite have not had much say in the last few years. However, with respect to Bill C-15, they did have something to say, and they put pressure on the Minister of the Environment. Eventually, they got fed up with taking calls in their offices, and realized that the bill went against what people wanted.

So this is an opportunity for these members to engage not only their caucus, but also the House of Commons in debate, so that the farmers and landowners, whom they are here to represent, can end up receiving fair and balanced financial compensation.

Today, Liberal members are really toeing the party line and refusing to enter into a debate on a matter that affects taxpayers. I listened to them during the debates on the Speech from the Throne. It sounded like they were reading from scripts handed out to them by the Privy Council, as though one by one they were simply repeating what certain people had recommended they say. We must be critical in this House. The Liberal members must be consistent with stands they have taken in the past and vote in favour of the Canadian Alliance amendment so that we can have a real debate, one which will meet the needs of Canadians.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I too wish to congratulate you on your appointment. It is very nice to see you back in the Chair. I am pleased to participate in the debate today, which seems to have struck quite a chord among members from all sides of the House.

I have been listening to the debate and it struck me that some of the opposition members were challenging the government side as to why it was necessary to have the House prorogue. We were informed, from the government's position, that it wanted to come forward with a new throne speech, new ideas and a new direction. That is what it believes that it did in the throne speech.

However I guess it sort of begs the question: If that is the case, if one believes that, then if there is a significant new direction that has come forward why is it that all this business has to continue?

One would think that as a result of a new throne speech there would be an opportunity to look at some of the issues that had been before the House that the government is now trying to reinstate. It is pertinent and legitimate to debate where these pieces of legislation or other House business fall in light of the fact that the government chose to prorogue the House and chose to come back with a throne speech.

From the point of view of the NDP caucus we have significant concerns with some of the legislation that is now contained in one of these motions. One in particular that I could bring forward implies a new direction being put forward in the throne speech, however one would have to question why the legislation was coming forward, why it was being continued and recycled? I am referring of course to the first nations governance legislation.

Our aboriginal affairs critic, who has worked closely with first nations organizations and who has done an enormous amount of consultation and received feedback from people, has heard repeatedly from every part of the country including first nations communities, that people are extremely concerned about what the long-term impact and consequences of this legislation would be.

When we look at the throne speech, we hear the Prime Minister say that he has a strong interest in the plight, and the social and economic conditions of aboriginal people in this country. In response, we would say that one really has to question why after 10 years of Liberal government we still face a political, social and economic environment, where aboriginal people are living in appalling conditions. Will the legislation that the government is now bringing forward again be the legislation that will address the pressing and desperate concerns that exist in those communities?

The first indication of that would be from the first nations communities themselves. When the legislation was first introduced before the end of the last session, they sent a strong message to government members, indeed to all of us, that the legislation was something that they did not see as moving these communities forward, as being inclusive, as being a way to address the fundamental concerns that exist.

I can say with certainty that we have serious considerations, and we are opposed to this legislation coming forward. We would wish that the government would withdraw it, particularly in light of its statements contained in the throne speech, where it has outlined a desire and an agenda that apparently addresses aboriginal issues.

I would like to spend a few minutes discussing another aspect of the motion that is before us today, something that I have been involved in. I believe there is an indication to move forward with an agenda and that is the reconstitution of the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs.

The history of this committee is actually quite interesting. It was the idea of an opposition member from the Canadian Alliance, which was approved in the House. The former health minister agreed with the idea of setting up a special parliamentary committee that would look at the very urgent issue of the non-medical use of drugs.

As the member who represents Vancouver East, I want to say that we probably have the most serious crisis in the country on the issue of the non-medical use of drugs. People are literally dying on the street. From the very day that I got to the House I have been raising this issue and trying to draw attention to the fact that the leading cause of death in British Columbia for men and women between the ages of 30 and 44 is drug overdose. People find this hard to believe but it is factual. These deaths are not due to car accidents, heart attacks, strokes or some fatal illness, as horrible as those things are. These are preventable deaths that happen in the street because of the policies of our country around drug prohibition.

The special committee heard from witnesses right across the country and indeed even from as far away as Europe, Washington and New York because we also heard witnesses in those locations. The first thing I wanted to bring forward to the committee was that it is the prohibition policy that actually now creates the greatest harm. We drive people who are dealing with addiction issues and who, for whatever reason, are taking drugs that are illegal, into a criminalized lifestyle. I am not here to cast judgment one way or another but just to state that this reality exists. That can run the gamut from a fairly middle-class person who has resources and a good dealer, but for whom it is still an illegal thing to get a supply of maybe a few joints of marijuana for personal use, all the way to the other end of the spectrum in the downtown east side, which is an open drug scene of hundreds of people who are shooting up in doorways and back alleys in appalling conditions and sharing needles. The consequences of the prohibition and the criminalization have led to what has been described as a health emergency in Vancouver's downtown east side.

Today in question period I raised the issue, the tragedy, of the 63 women missing from the downtown east side. I have to say that these two issues are linked, because all those women were drug users. The issue is around addiction and criminalization and the fact that they had become so marginalized and were involved in the sex trade for survival. These women are out in the street in incredibly high risk circumstances, subject to violence, exploitation and, as we have seen, death.

I raise these issues because I think the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs, which I hope will be reinstated with the same membership, would be a very good thing. It is something that I would certainly support and I know that our House leader and members of our caucus support it. This committee has done some very good work and we heard testimony right across the country. I would say, although we have not yet produced a report and I obviously am not going to speak about it, that if there was a common thread that I heard while on this committee it was that people, no matter what their point of view, said that the present policies, the status quo, are not working, whether it is in our large urban centres of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, or even in smaller rural communities where maybe there is not a pandemic of HIV and AIDS from injection drug use but other issues like the abuse of prescription drugs, which is something we heard very strongly when we visited Atlantic Canada.

So the work of this committee is very important and the members of the committee have begun to find a common understanding about what it is we are dealing with. I am very much looking forward, as the NDP representative on the committee, to continuing this work. As the motion before the House states, I believe the committee is to report on November 22. I know there is a lot of interest in the report because of course we have seen the Senate committee report that just came out, which I thought was a very courageous report. It actually comes forward and proposes ways in which we can take steps to legalize marijuana for personal use.

I think this has been an interesting debate. As I have said, the NDP has some serious reservations about some of the government business that would continue, but certainly in the case of the non-medical use of drugs committee I hope very much that the committee will continue its work and that we will produce a good report that all members of the House will look at seriously.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member will have 9 minutes and 38 seconds remaining when we return to this order at the next sitting of the House.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)