Debates of April 18th, 2002

Species at Risk Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of Canadians, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development devoted considerable effort to hearing from witnesses across the country and carefully reviewing Bill C-5.

One of the standing committee's significant contributions is the proposed establishment of a national aboriginal council to provide advice on the implementation of the bill and to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.

Aboriginal peoples in Canada manage a considerable amount of the habitat on which species at risk depend. Many in turn depend on wildlife for sustenance and for making a living. As a result of their unique relationship with the earth, aboriginal peoples also possess knowledge about the biological status of species and about measures that can be taken to improve this status. This information is critical to achieving the goals of Bill C-5. For the first time in wildlife legislation, Bill C-5 recognizes the value of aboriginal traditional knowledge by requiring that it be considered, together with scientific and community knowledge, in the assessment of species at risk.

I would like to pause here for a moment and talk about the aboriginal working group on species at risk. This group includes representation from Canada's national aboriginal organizations. The aboriginal working group participated in the development of Bill C-5 and continues to provide advice to the federal government on the development of species at risk legislation. We do not want to lose access to the kind of advice and input from the aboriginal working group that has helped to inform the policy behind the bill. We need a mechanism to ensure that it continues.

I am pleased that the record will show the importance of the efforts of the aboriginal working group. The establishment of a national aboriginal council on species at risk is consistent with the Government of Canada's commitment to strengthening its relationship with aboriginal peoples. This is a great step forward.

By establishing the national aboriginal council on species at risk, we are recognizing and putting into law the importance of the relationship of aboriginal peoples to land and wildlife. The establishment of this formal advisory body puts into law what has been happening in practice, thereby strengthening the government's commitment to aboriginal involvement. With this council, with this legislation, and with the incorporation of aboriginal traditional knowledge into the assessment and recovery of species, we are moving forward.

We have said for nearly nine years that we all share in the responsibility of protecting wildlife. Perhaps no group demonstrates a commitment to that responsibility more than Canada's aboriginal peoples. The national aboriginal council on species at risk will set into law a partnership that has already produced many positive results. It is a partnership we are also working hard to foster with others, with landowners, farmers, fishermen, conservation groups and those in the resource sector, which will be aided by the proposed species at risk legislation.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your recognizing me, because if it goes to a vote it does not always work out that way.

I am glad to rise on Bill C-5 and talk about the problems--

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if it is in order for the member for St. Albert to be heard at this time when the House voted against hearing the member for St. Albert.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Procedurally it raises a very interesting question, but I am quite prepared to rule in favour of the member for St. Albert.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

It certainly helps when you know who your friends are, Mr. Speaker.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

As we would say in common talk, “Don't go there”. The hon. member for St. Albert.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Bill C-5, species at risk, and I am not talking about myself, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the bill and the issues within it.

One of the issues that has been raised by our critic is that this is a new piece of legislation that is breaking new ground. We would like to see the legislation brought back to the House after a five year trial period to find out how well it worked. One would think that would be appropriate. It affects a large number of people in this country, a large number of landowners. Every Canadian has an opinion on species at risk and we would certainly want to ensure that our species at risk are preserved, but not at the cost of individuals. They should not be required to pay for public policy. There are many other aspects that would encroach and intrude into people's lives, especially the lives of landowners and the way they manage their property.

I would have thought it would have been quite appropriate and that the government would have agreed that after five years a committee of the House would be asked to review the legislation. However the government said no.

This concept of democracy, listening to the opinions of the House, unfortunately has no effect on the government today. I cannot say how disappointed I am that the government would not listen to a request that five years after the legislation is introduced, an all party committee of the House would be asked to re-examine the legislation to see the impact it had on our society and on the people it specifically affected, and to see whether the regulations, as they were written, are appropriate and fair. Is that asking too much? I did not think it was asking too much. My colleagues did not think it was asking too much. Unfortunately, an all party committee to examine this five years down the road is too much for the government.

We do live in an open society. Transparency and openness should be the order of the day. Democracy means that people's input and people's opinions should be heard. However, like so many other bills and legislation around this place, the government has the first word and the last word. What the opposition and Canadians have to say does not seem to be very relevant. It is a rather unfortunate situation.

One of the things the bill deals with in significant amounts is property rights. If a species at risk is on somebody's land it means the owner can no longer use the land for his or her enjoyment. The owner must ensure that the species at risk on his or her land is protected and there is no compensation for that. Why should a few people in Canada carry the burden and the cost of public policy? I cannot understand why the government would adopt that type of attitude. It seems absolutely and patently unfair that it would take that position.

I think back to the hepatitis C scandal. We paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation because the government did not follow appropriate practice and people died or became very sick because of the hepatitis C situation. We also had the AIDS situation where again the government was culpable on that issue too and it paid out. We have the residential schools situation with our natives, which is a very unfortunate circumstance, and the government is paying out for that too. The government pays and rightly should pay for problems that it causes and for the implementation of public policy but on species of risk it will not.

I do not know why the government will not provide compensation. Should it? Of course it should. I want to emphasize this point. Why should one individual or a few individuals in the country cover the cost of public policy?

We did have an all party committee of the House look at the legislation. It proposed numerous amendments. All the parties agreed that the amendments were appropriate. Government members, who also sit on that committee, agreed that the amendments were appropriate and the bill would be enhanced by these particular amendments, so that when it came back to the House for report stage and third reading the bill would be improved by the debate of the committee members who had a particular interest in that particular subject, who had heard from witnesses with expertise in this particular area and from witnesses who would be affected by the legislation. The amendments were then introduced here and the government said that it was not the way it wanted to go. It wanted it done its way.

What is the point of having committees? What is the point of having debate in the House if no one listens? The species at risk legislation, recognizing our responsibility to protect species at risk, is something every Canadian knows would enhance our stature in the world, but the way it is being done, the heavy-handedness, cannot be condoned.

I am rather appalled that the government would do this. This is surely a non-partisan affair because we do want to protect our environment. We do want to protect these multitude of species, some of which are at risk, but the way the government does it turns off the opposition in the House. We are the ones who are supposed to form the debate. We are the ones who are supposed to have input into public policy, advise the government on what it should be doing and approve what the government wants to do. However, as we can see, the party whip on the other side cracks the whip and the result is preordained. Everyone knows before the vote is even taken what the results will be.

The points that really concern us are: no review of the legislation after five years even though it enters a whole new area of Canadian and legal jurisdiction; the heavy penalties; not knowing how it will be administered; and not knowing how it will work. Parliament should be reviewing that but the government has said no. Property rights and public policy should not be at the expense of a few Canadians.

We must let the committees of the House work. As the chairman of the public accounts committee, we feel that we do a fair amount of good work. We work closely with the auditor general. We bring out waste, mismanagement, accusations and allegations of corruption, and so on. I would like to think that every other committee in the House would feel that their contributions are making a difference, but when their recommendations are ignored by the government when they get into the House, we wonder why it would be all worthwhile.

It is disappointing. It could have been good legislation. It could have enjoyed all party support. It does not because of the attitude of the government.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, personally, I am very happy to speak today, April 18, 2002, the day after the 20th anniversary of the patriation of the Canadian constitution, which resolutely and wittingly denies the existence of the Quebec people. As a result, Canada still fails to recognize the existence of the Quebec people, in addition to other dishonourable measures when it comes the Quebec people. This a patriation and a constitution that no Quebec government has ever recognized, regardless of its political colours.

This event, which we do not hear nearly enough about and which thankfully was discussed a great deal yesterday, is a very serious event in the recent history of Canada and Quebec. As we saw yesterday, the current government is trying to gloss things over, referring to the charter of rights instead of to the real event, which was the patriation of the constitution, of the unilateral move made by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, this pseudo-democrat who had risked his head, and the future of his party, to make changes following the no result of the referendum. It is important to remember this.

The changes made were contained in the charter, the patriation and the new constitution, which not only failed to recognize the Quebec people, but which weakened the powers of the National Assembly then, and still now.

Indeed, it is in the same vein that Bill C-5 was introduced, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. It is important to view the introduction of this bill in its historical context.

This is an outcome of the Rio convention on biodiversity, signed at the time by the Government of Canada. The government wanted to follow up on it in 1995, then again in 1997. The bills were strongly opposed throughout Canada, and all died on the order paper. The government came back this year with Bill C-5.

In Rio, and this is an important element in the debate and in the underlying constitutional issue, the government made a commitment to, and I quote:

—develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations.

There is a commitment made to develop new provisions; this was done in this case as with others. Canada is signing treaties, not only without the consent of the House, which means that those elected to represent the people are not involved in the decision because there is no debate, but also without consulting the provinces.

In Rio the Canadian government made some very significant commitments in this area, without consulting the provinces, and Quebec in particular, which had—as I may elaborate on later—legislation in place since 1989 to protect endangered species.

Bill C-5 replaces Bill C-65, which was introduced in 1996. One of its key points dealt with the creation of COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife Species. In a report dated April 11, 2000 by Environment Canada, the following statement was made:

To date, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, has designated 340 wildlife species in Canada as being at risk. Of that total, 12 are extinct, 15 others are extirpated in Canada, 87 are endangered, 75 threatened and 151 vulnerable. Of the 97 species whose status has been recently reassessed, 26 are headed toward endangered status.

The problem is therefore a real one. The governments and other stakeholders must intervene, but the rules must also be respected. Here we have the federal government creating a very unwieldy structure in which those mandated to do so, termed in the legislation competent ministers—nothing personal here, that is what the law says; we will identify no one, we will make no personal judgments—are the ministers responsible for Canadian heritage, fisheries and oceans, and the environment. One important point is that clause 10 reads as follows:

A competent minister may, after consultation with every other competent minister, enter into an agreement with any government in Canada, organization or wildlife management board with respect to the administration of any provision of this Act.

Whereas clause 11 reads:

A competent minister may... enter into an agreement with any government in Canada, organization or person to provide for the conservation of a species at risk.

This says a lot about the role that the Canadian government has decided to play in the lives of Canadians from coast to coast. Quebecers must be increasingly aware of this. Something very important is happening here, in this place, and in the Langevin building. It was decided here, following the 1995 referendum, which Quebecers almost won when they came so close to giving themselves a country, that Canada should never live again the intense hours that it experienced on the evening of October 30, 1995. Canada does not want to go through this again. It has decided to take the bull by the horns and to make this government the Government of Canada.

This is what underlies this bill and clauses 10 and 11. This is clearly stated in the social union agreement. The Canadian nation building is being carried out at the expense of Quebecers and Quebec, where legislation had been in place since 1989, and with total disregard for all existing laws. This is happening in every sector. We saw it with the millennium scholarships. Today, we are seeing it with the protection of species at risk. We saw it with parental leave and with marine areas.

There is no need to mention the government's shameless propaganda. It is so bad that even dromedaries in Africa display the Canadian flag. The government has a problem with visibility, or else it is obsessed with it. Sixty five per cent of the propaganda budgets, including for summer festivals, are spent in Quebec.

This government is present everywhere. Quebecers must realize that the federal government has decided that it would call the shots in every sector, thus showing its contempt for the constitution, for the history of Canadian federalism and for the National Assembly and government of Quebec.

I hope that Quebecers will keep this in mind. This government made a decision to patriate and use the 1982 constitution without a mandate, without consultations and without a referendum. Quebecers must take note of this and they must think about it, because there is no future for them in the Canada that is being built.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure to get up in the House and speak to such an important topic.

I have had the privilege of being in the House since 1997. Every day we deal with legislation that is important to Canadians. I can think back to the Newfoundland Schools Act, the Quebec school act and when we brought Nunavut into existence on April 1, 1991. There have been significant pieces of legislation.

The bill before the House of Commons today is very important for Canadians.

There is no question that nature is part of Canada's identity. We flock in record numbers to our national parks. We boast about our wide open spaces. We revel in our reputation as a country of the outdoors. We are the envy of many countries around the world. While nature is part of the Canadian identity it is at the core of the way of life of Canada's aboriginal peoples. They are people of the land, with vast and rich stories and a vast knowledge of nature.

The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development worked long and hard in its study of the proposed species at risk act. Its work must be praised and is of great value. It has added a great deal to an already sound and well considered approach.

At report stage we are dealing with what would seem to be a number of motions, but most are housekeeping motions. They would clean up the text to ensure consistency in wording throughout the bill while maintaining the intent of the hard and valuable work of the standing committee in drafting amendments.

We accept in principle the standing committee's proposal to develop a stewardship action plan under Bill C-5. Work is already underway on the development of a federal, provincial and territorial Canada wide stewardship action plan. There have been meetings and discussions. Much progress has been made in this area.

However we want to avoid legislating mandatory federal government programs which add to the complication of making future resource commitments in law. We want to ensure we have sufficient time to develop a plan in co-operation with others including landowners, resource users, aboriginal people, provinces and territories. That is why the government motions would remove a one year deadline and provide the minister with the authority to develop a stewardship action plan in consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.

The federal commitment to stewardship has already been reinforced by the Habitat Stewardship Program. Under the program $45 million over five years has been targeted to stewardship activities. The program is now entering its third year. It has fostered many new partnerships and allowed old ones to accomplish more. It has brought new partners into the fold of stewardship across all regions of Canada.

For the $5 million in the first year of funding the program attracted non-federal funding of over $8 million. In other words, for every $1 spent by the federal government under the Habitat Stewardship Program $1.70 worth of non-governmental resources was contributed to the projects.

In the second year of the stewardship plan $10 million for more than 150 projects has already been allocated. For example, the Habitat Stewardship Program includes projects that focus on improving the habitat of the threatened spiny soft-shell turtle in the Thames River. It has contributed to carrying out field propagation and release programs for the endangered eastern loggerhead shrike and protecting the native prairie habitat on which the endangered burrowing owl depends. I realize these species are of great import to the Speaker because he read out all the names in English, French and Latin.

Throughout the outreach and public education, and these are important initiatives, more than 25,000 landowners and nearly 50,000 people have been directly contacted to raise their awareness of their local area. We have also provided more favourable tax treatment for the contribution of ecologically sensitive lands. Over 20,000 hectares have already been donated as ecological gifts.

The federal government is a steward in the protection of species at risk and their critical habitats in Canada. Landowners, farmers, fishers, aboriginal people, conservation groups, workers in the resource sector and many others are stewards. They all deserve credit for the stewardship work they do. Bill C-5 would encourage us to do more. It deserves our support.

Just as we cannot underestimate the importance of conserving and protecting species at risk and their habitats, neither can we underestimate the importance placed on Bill C-5 by Canada's first peoples. The formation of the proposed legislation has involved aboriginal peoples in a variety of ways. They have been at the table for many rounds of discussion. They have provided a significant advisory capacity by helping us fully understand the issues, needs and capacities of aboriginal peoples to help in the protection of species at risk.

The role and importance of aboriginal traditional knowledge would be entrenched in Bill C-5. These are the people whose traditions tell us about the habits and patterns of birds and animals. These are the people who know because they have been told by their parents and the parents of their parents that certain plants can survive in certain places. This knowledge would help us protect species and plan effective recoveries. We would incorporate traditional aboriginal knowledge in our assessment and recovery process in a formal way. This is quite unique.

I spoke about the intense involvement of representatives of Canada's aboriginal peoples in the development of Bill C-5. This became part of a formal process through the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk, a group which has provided advice to the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Parks Canada Agency and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for a number of years. Its advice is invaluable. We want to continue to benefit from its advice and input which has helped inform us so well in making the policy behind Bill C-5.

I acknowledge the invaluable contribution of my colleagues the hon. members from Churchill River, Nunavut, Western Arctic, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I also commend my hon. colleagues from the north for their effectiveness in ensuring the voices and viewpoints of Canada's aboriginal communities are reflected in the legislation. The standing committee has said we need a mechanism to ensure this continues. We agree.

I am heartened by the interest that has been shown by members on all sides of the House. Many members of the official opposition have been moved to speak to the legislation. I commend the critics on the opposite side of the House for the interest and productive activity they have given to the committee's work.

However it saddens me to hear things repeated because many people who watch the proceedings on television do not have the benefit of being able to read the act or the committee transcripts. In clause 129 of Bill C-5 the government has set out a review mechanism which would take place in five years. I would hate Canadians to be misled into thinking we have in any way ignored the transparency and accountability the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development worked so hard for.

Bill C-5 would be effective. It would work on the ground. It is what Canadians have said they want. We as a government have responded.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the parliamentary secretary talk about the bill it would seem everyone in the House is saying what a wonderful piece of legislation it is. It could be if the government listened to the recommendations made by a number of members on both sides of the House, in committee and otherwise. The basis of the bill is good but a number of the clauses are not.

There are two ways of looking at the issue. First, we could look at the bill itself with its strengths and weaknesses. Second, we could look at what a piece of legislation like it is supposed to do. In looking at the second part we should question how well the government would look after species at risk. Would it only panic when a species was in such a state that recovery was impossible? What would the government do to identify species that were potentially at risk to make sure they did not reach the critical stage?

I will look at the issue both ways, starting with a look at the bill itself. There are a few clauses in Bill C-5 that cause tremendous concern. First, there is concern about the government's commitment to look after species on land the government controls. The government's commitment in this regard is weak and not clear at all. However that is the typical commitment of the present government.

Second, the people who own land on which we find species determined to be at risk have a lot of concerns about this piece of legislation. There is absolutely nothing in it to guarantee they would be compensated for any portions of their land. In some areas significant portions of their land could be designated as habitat for certain species.

Let us imagine we have a nice piece of farmland anywhere in the country on which we have nice ponds where we like to walk, swim or boat. Let us imagine a nice country cottage overlooking a lake with lawns and pasture land. We get a knock on the door and a guy says the words we always fear: “I am from the government and I am here to help”. He tells us we have a beautiful piece of land and there is a valuable resource on it: a species at risk. We say that is wonderful. Then the government official proceeds to tell us that because it is a species at risk and the habitat cannot be disturbed we can no longer control our own piece of property.

Unless we get clear and distinct definitions as to what compensation would be available for land declared an area of protected habitat, it would be foolish for anyone in the House to support such a piece of legislation. It would leave constituents across the country holding the bag. It would allow the government to take credit for protecting species when doing so at someone else's expense.

There are several other problems in the bill including the review process. However I will come to the other side of the issue: What would the government do to protect species that were potentially at risk?

I am glad to see we are joined by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He knows better than anyone in the House that in the waters over which he has jurisdiction, and perhaps in waters slightly outside his jurisdiction, there are species that are certainly at risk. One of the ones we have not yet talked about a lot is the Atlantic salmon.

In his own province of Nova Scotia and certainly in Newfoundland and Labrador and other areas there are many groups and agencies very concerned about the environment and the fisheries, They are concerned about the potential this fisheries provides for the economy of the region, both in commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries, and in keeping the species alive as a basis of sustainable development.

One of the things each group mentioned as we talked to them about the future of the stocks, particularly Atlantic salmon, is the effect of the growing seal herds on species of fish, whether they be trout or salmon. We ran across this as the fisheries committee visited Nova Scotia and we have seen it in Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to not only salmon but cod stocks as well.

The seal herds have multiplied tremendously and are certainly not at risk. However the species upon which they feed are at risk. If six or seven million seals eat one pound of fish a day, that is 365 days multiplied by one, multiplied by six or seven million. Imagine the amount of fish being eaten. Multiply that by 40 and the amount is horrendous. We cannot have sustainable development of our cod and salmon stocks or other fish in the ocean unless we control other species that are growing above and beyond the accepted norm.

Seals are now seen around river mouths where they have never been seen before and eating salmon going up the river to spawn and smaller salmon coming down. In the spring and through the summer there are numerous seals in these regions. That is providing a major concern and certainly one the minister will have to deal with.

The FRCC in its report released a couple of days ago talked about the cod stocks in the gulf. This affects the member's province and my province as well. The seal herd was again highlighted as a problem.

I am sure others will pick up the challenge of informing the government to change the legislation to ensure it is acceptable for the majority of people in the country.

Middle East

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, anyone who has watched the images of human suffering, both Israeli and Palestinian, cannot help but feel the human pain, leaving aside issues of blame and moral equivalence.

What is needed at this point is the resolve and recommitment on both sides, in an acknowledgment of each other's pain, to the following: an end to all incitement, terror and violence; withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian cities and towns; proclamation of a ceasefire and termination of states of belligerency; and respect for human rights as a code of conduct.

It includes mutual confidence building measures, involving on the Israeli side withdrawal, settlements freeze and lifting of curfews and closures; and on the Palestinian side, an end to incitement and terror, an end to the glorification of suicide bombers, and education for peace.

It also includes comprehensive humanitarian assistance to Palestinians under international supervision; implementation of the Tenet plan and Mitchell proposals; revival of political negotiations with a view to the ultimate establishment of an independent, democratic Palestinian state living in peace alongside, and in recognition of, the right of Israel to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, just a few short weeks ago moms and dads, and children were saying their goodbyes to each other. There were hugs, tears and prayers for safety as our brave soldiers left home for service in Afghanistan. A number of people in my riding were saying Godspeed to their neighbours, members of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

Today we share with them their sadness and grief upon hearing the news that four of them have lost their lives in that service and that eight more have been injured, some very seriously.

There are no words which are adequate to express our deep felt sorrow and grief for the families of the victims of this unfortunate accident. Our hearts go out to these families and we share their profound grief.

Arts and Culture

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the performers, organizers, leaders and adjudicators who participated recently in the maritime music festival which was held last week in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.

Many choirs and bands from all maritime provinces came to Charlottetown to perform in this concert. The Confederation Centre of the Arts hosted performances of more than 40 bands. The Delta Prince Edward had over 20 jazz groups and there were many choral performances at the First Baptist Church.

After each performance each band or choir, as the case may be, met with a nationally recognized adjudicator to be assisted with their individual performance. It is opportunities like this that truly showcases maritime music and encourages local talent.

In addition to being a showcase, it was also an educational opportunity for regional musicians to interact with each other.

Summerside

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 125th anniversary of the incorporation of the city of Summerside.

The contribution the citizens of Summerside have made over the past 125 years is incalculable. Whether in the field of politics; medicine; sports; industry, such as shipbuilding, machinery construction or the silver fox industry; the military or the export of island products, Summerside and its citizens have contributed to the island way of life to such an extent that because of them Prince Edward Island has been enriched beyond measure.

Indeed Canada has been enriched beyond measure. The celebration begins tonight. We wish the city of Summerside, the most progressive city in Canada, a happy anniversary.