House of Commons Hansard #145 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was compensation.
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that both at the international level and at the domestic level we spend a lot of time discussing credit for early action, which is exactly what he has put forward here. I can assure him that there will be appropriate credit given for early action both domestically and on the international plain.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, the species at risk bill transfers most of the costs of protecting endangered species on to the backs of farmers and other landowners. Some property values will drop, use of land will be restricted and even forbidden in some cases and extra compliance costs will be imposed.
Will the Minister of the Environment please provide the House with what he estimates the cost will be of enforcing the species at risk bill for property owners and what sort of compensation does he plan to provide them?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, before the committee examining the bill, of which the hon. member is a member, we went into some detail on the $45 million a year which the Minister of Finance generously made available for species at risk activity. This was done two years ago. It is ramping up. We are getting there now.
I will give a full breakdown to the hon. member in due course, if he wishes, as we see how this legislation works when it comes into being.
On his preamble, I can assure him that the very basis of our bill is to ensure we have the most rural Canada friendly bill that we can possibly put forth.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, had the minister paid any attention at all to the environment committee, he would know that protecting endangered species requires the co-operation of property owners. For example, both industry and environmental representatives begged the minister to recognize that “provision for compensation helps to balance the effect of effort to protect species at risk”.
If the Sierra Club and the mining association can agree that compensation is essential, why can the minister not?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me yet again the opportunity of pointing out how much I value co-operation with people who work on the land, trappers, farmers, ranchers, and with people who work in the woods or fishermen. These are the people who are at the forefront of the battle to protect endangered species and they are the people we want co-operating with the governments, federal and provincial.
With respect to the mining association, I am sure that it would like to have unlimited compensation for many things that we think it should not do. We do not think that when it operates on crown land that it has given the right to eliminate endangered species. We think that is something that should not be in--
Species at Risk ActOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for Terrebonne--Blainville.
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, in Nigeria, a young woman, Safiya Husseini, stands accused of having sexual relations outside of marriage. According to the charia, the Islamic law enforced in the Nigerian state of Sokoto, the sentence for such an offence is stoning. This situation is totally unacceptable.
With such a barbaric act about to take place, has the Minister of Foreign Affairs made representations to the government of Nigeria to prevent such an atrocity?
Denis Paradis LiberalSecretary of State (Latin America and Africa) (Francophonie)
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is very concerned about these sentences of death by stoning. The Canadian government's position on the death penalty is well known.
We continue to exercise pressure on all countries, via the UN, for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty.
This is totally contrary to the human rights treaty of which Nigeria is a signatory. We are therefore going to continue to put pressure on the Nigerian government in order to make it see reason.
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government must do everything in its power to save this young woman.
What we are calling upon the government to do is to make a commitment to summon the Nigerian High Commissioner to Canada in order to make our formal objections to this execution known to him, as well as to intervene with Nigeria's Commonwealth partners in order to enlist their support.
Denis Paradis LiberalSecretary of State (Latin America and Africa) (Francophonie)
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we will continue to bring pressure to bear in order to ensure the application of these international conventions of which Nigeria is a signatory.
We are, however, pleased that certain members of the Nigerian federal government have spoken out against this type of sentence. We shall continue with our pressure.
Lynne Yelich Canadian Alliance Blackstrap, SK
Mr. Speaker, a violent sex offender with a lengthy criminal record was deported from the United States. He was granted refugee status after slipping into Canada. This individual was deported from the United States for convictions that included sexual assault and drug trafficking, yet he received refugee status while in Toronto Police custody.
Refugee status should be for people fleeing persecution not sex offenders fleeing prosecution. How can the minister explain to Canadians that he has allowed criminal sex offenders to claim refugee status?
Denis Coderre LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, because of the Privacy Act, I cannot comment on specific cases but I am taking note of it.
Lynne Yelich Canadian Alliance Blackstrap, SK
Mr. Speaker, we do not need to examine the specifics of this case to find out what went wrong with refugee policy in Canada.
What federal policy, what regulation, what law determined that a foreign sex offender deported from the United States should have been eligible for refugee status in Canada?
Denis Coderre LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, again I will not comment specifically. However, my predecessor created a tremendous process that I fully support, which is through the standing committee. We look through all the regulations. The hon. member is part of that. She should give me her proposition.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB
Mr. Speaker, today the President of the Treasury Board announced a new policy to create alternative service delivery arrangements.
Could she explain to the House what kind of impact this new policy will have on Canadians, and on linguistic minorities in particular?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, this new policy will encourage innovation in service delivery, while maintaining quality and public interest criteria. Guiding principles have also been added to strengthen the government's commitment to the Official Languages Act.
Prior to adopting an alternative method of service delivery, all departments will be required to consult with official language minority communities and file an impact study with the Treasury Board. This will ensure that we continue to provide services in English and in French to our minority communities.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the finance committee we saw the type of contempt that we get from the government as far as the democratic process. Even worse is the contempt it has shown for the work the environment committee has done over the last nine months on the species at risk act, the contempt it has shown for the input of dozens of environmental groups, business organizations and stakeholders, and the contempt it has shown for 60,000 Canadians who signed petitions supporting those amendments.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit today to allow those amendments to stand and let the House vote on them as is?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I had always understood, given my knowledge of constitutional law, that it was the House and the Senate that were the deciding body for democracy in Canada. It was not committees, not 60,000 people who signed a petition and not pressure groups. It is the House and the Senate, of course with Her Majesty's or her representative's signature. That is how we make laws. I suggest that the hon. member goes back and looks at the books.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON
Mr. Speaker, if he really believes that, will he commit today to allow Liberal Party members who want to vote in favour of those amendments passed by the committee to stand without being punished by the government if they do so?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, not too long ago we had an election in the country, another example of the democratic process. This party went on record to put forward a species at risk act and told the public what would be there.
We are fulfilling our duty as a government from our red book promises to our throne speech promises. That is what we are doing. It is this government's policy that we are bringing forward and that is why his suggestion is ridiculous.
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have in my possession access to information documents revealing three Technology Partnerships Canada projects that were announced before they were approved by cabinet. It was announced that Bombardier would get $96 million in October 1996 yet cabinet approval was not received until March 1997.
It was announced that Ballard Power Systems would receive $30 million in November 1996 but that cabinet did not approve that until March of the following year. The same thing goes for CAE Electronics.
Could the minister tell the House just when the cabinet did approve these projects?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I made it clear yesterday that in each one of these projects cabinet approval was in place before any of these investments were announced. I also made clear yesterday that on two occasions in the last few years the auditor general has looked into Technology Partnerships Canada and, on each occasions, found that we had used due diligence before making investments and fulfilled our responsibilities as a government.
This program is good for Canada, good for innovation and it creates jobs. It has been a success and will continue.
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has to look into it because the minister will not table the annual reports.
The Technology Partnerships Canada advisory board was formed in September 1996 and had 14 members. Now it appears as though six of the board members are with companies that have received grants from TPC. In fact, the companies associated with these six board members have received just shy of half a billion dollars in TPC funds. That is nearly half of the $947 million that was doled out under this program.
Could the industry minister tell us exactly what guidelines were in place to make sure that there was no conflict of interest on the advisory board?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I can do no better than to quote the auditor general who found that we had exercised due diligence before making investment decisions, and to stress to the House that program is intended to provide pre-competitive research and development funding to allow opportunities to be pursued in the country which would otherwise be lost, creating jobs, economic growth and prosperity. It is a program of which we are very proud.
John Williams Canadian Alliance St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the minister of defence claimed cabinet secrecy and the document is already in the Globe and Mail . Last week the government was blocking the release of expense reports under the Access to Information Act when they should be made public. In the Post today it is blocking 12 year old salary information by claiming cabinet secrecy. The Langevin Block is getting more like the Kremlin every day.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Has the government given up on democracy, openness and transparency, or does it really have something to hide?