Debates of June 11th, 2002

Species At Risk Act

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Souris--Moose Mountain.

Before I get into the issue at hand, we have an environmental situation in my riding right now. We have been under a torrential downpour for two or three days. Pritchard Creek has received 280 millimetres of rain. Rivers and homes have been flooded. Cities have had problems maintaining their waste systems. I would like to let the people back home in southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan to know that our thoughts are with them and that all members of the House of Commons certainly wish them well.

Getting to the species at risk act, Bill C-5, we have heard some debate today and certainly in the past about the different issues of the bill. The one thing that everybody maintains, and certainly we in the Canadian Alliance do, is that we need strong legislation to protect endangered species. We would support that if it was brought forward. We do not feel that what is being presented here will do the job.

We have to remember that the ultimate goal of the legislation is to protect species at risk. I think other members have alluded to that. Let us ensure that the end result of everything we do and everything we put into the legislation will be for the protection of species at risk and their habitat. Canadians want that. We have seen presentations. We have had people come forward from all aspects of Canadian society, whether it is in the resource sector, agriculture, the environment community or whoever, in urban centres and rural centres, and they want and have asked for species at risk legislation that works. I am afraid that we have not received that.

As I mentioned yesterday we had an opportunity a month or so ago to meet with some of our counterparts from the United States. The species at risk act was one of the items of debate. I feel that some of the things that were pointed out to us about the shortcomings of the legislation in the U.S. have been extended into this legislation. Some disagree with that, but we need to have full market value compensation in the legislation. In the legislation it states “that the minister shall make regulation”. However if it is to be done, why is it not in the legislation so that we can all support it and move forward feeling that the bill will do what it is supposed to do.

We have been told that the endangered species legislation in the United States has been used not to protect endangered species, but as a zoning law. It has been used as a law to stop development. That has become the scope of the bill instead of the aspect of protecting endangered species. People who want to stop certain developments have used the endangered species legislation to do that. We certainly want to avoid that here. We want to ensure that what is put forward is what is needed. If it is not effective, then all the time and energy that has been spent over the last number of years will go for naught.

Will the legislation work to protect one endangered species? I feel that if it is not properly mapped out in the legislation and if we have put too much emphasis on what will be in the regulations to follow as far as compensation and habitat protection are concerned, then we have failed.

There are a number of unanswered questions. We tried to get the minister to answer some yesterday but we did not get those answers. The big question is the compensation issue. It is an essential part of the protection of endangered species. I think we all agree with that. The species at risk act will not work unless fair market value compensation is guaranteed for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. That guarantee is not in the legislation.

Where is the assurance that property owners and resource users will receive fair market compensation for any property that is rendered unusable by the bill? We do not see that. Can the minister guarantee that any individual losses garnered by the bill will be fully compensated so that individual Canadians will be encouraged to protect species at risk rather than covertly avoiding the act out of fear of unreasonable economic loss? That is a key aspect.

All Canadians want endangered species protection laws. However the majority of Canadians would not be affected by any of the mitigation programs or any of the habitat programs that would be put in place. It would be the stewards of the land who right now are protecting species at risk on a voluntary basis. We must commend those who have. I have seen programs that people have put in place because they appreciate the environment and want to help protect it completely on a voluntary basis, Those programs have to be recognized, supported and encouraged.

If ranchers or resource companies feel that they will somehow be put at risk through the bill, and I believe they will, then they will want to stop some of those practices which will be an absolute shame.

The other issue is with respect to socioeconomic concerns, which have not been taken into account in the bill. There has been no effort to determine what those socioeconomic impacts will be and what the bill will mean to all Canadians. I think everybody agrees that all Canadians have to be a part of this. All Canadians want to protect endangered species. Therefore all Canadians should help foot the bill for that.

We want to ensure that is done, but we have not seen any numbers on what that will be. We have seen some money put into the bill for stewardship programs. Our concern is most of that will be used up by legal wrangling once the bill is challenged. Once some of the issues in the bill are challenged in the courts, a lot of the money will be used up through that aspect and the bureaucratic structure.

Can the minister assure Canadians that no individuals or sectors will be unfairly burdened with the cost of implementing the bill? No, he cannot, not the way the bill is structured. No provisions have been provided by the minister for a full socioeconomic analysis.

What will the compensation plans be? Regulation, regulation, that is what we hear. We have seen nothing definitive in the bill that would clarify some of the questions that have come forward.

I will quote an article by Tracy Wates. The last paragraph pretty well sums up the situation. The article states:

Many Canadians are very concerned about species at risk. However, if species are indeed at risk and need protecting, the solution is not federal legislation that employs command and control techniques while paying lip service to the concept of voluntary stewardship. Rather, a system of directed conservation that engages landowners and resource users while providing a complete system of compensation wold be much fairer and more effective.

It is unfortunate that this is the last chance we will have to speak to the bill before it leaves this place and goes to the Senate because we are working under closure today.

Before I conclude, I wish to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “Canada” and substituting the following therefor:

“be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for the purpose of reconsidering all the clauses with a view to ensure that the legislation provides guaranteed compensation to land owners and provisions to protect farmers by ensuring that it would have to be proven that a person actually intended to destroy a protected species before there can be a conviction under the law.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The debate is on the amendment.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we need to do here and why the amendment was brought forward was to send the bill back--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Lethbridge in moving the amendment is deemed to have spoken on the amendment. The hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lethbridge has identified the two main issues that are troubling the small percentage of people who will be directly affected by the bill. We think it would be good to go back and look at those two main areas in which we are more than likely to find contention.

When the bill came to us in the first place, it was not a perfect bill. It is a better bill now, there is no question about that. However, in doing this, we could take a look at those two areas of possible contention from coast to coast to coast. That is why I seconded the amendment of my colleague from Lethbridge. It is an amendment that is deserving of consideration.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you clarify for me if I am on questions and comments on the amendment or on the speech of the previous speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

We are now debating the amendment. Speeches are 20 minutes with 10 minutes of questions and comments. We are on questions or comments presently.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we have heard repeatedly in the House, and certainly it has received wide media attention and has been the subject of many polls across Canada, species at risk legislation is something that around 98% of Canadians do support. I am looking across the floor at some colleagues who were members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I know the public message they have given, and the evidence of the people who participated as committee members, is that they support species at risk legislation.

The reason for compensation and the wording in the bill, namely the Minister of the Environment and the government “shall” make regulations, is that the government believes it is one of the necessary tools in its kit as it goes forward in implementing the legislation.

Members of the Alliance are often quick to point out the American experience. Its legislation is about 10 years ahead of ours. We have learned from that legislation. We have learned that if we make the legislation too commanding and controlling, we could end up spending all our resources and staff time in committee rooms or, in the American case, many courtrooms. Lawyers would make a lot of money but it would do very little to protect species at risk.

The Canadian approach, which the government has taken, in trying to protect species at risk is by enlisting co-operative participation and enlarging on the existing goodwill of farmers, ranchers and fishers.

We heard from mining industry and large forestry users--

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we need some clarification from the Chair. I believe my colleague from Souris--Moose Mountain thought he was speaking on the amendment and has therefore missed his opportunity to give his speech on Bill C-5 at third reading. Could you clarify that?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

First, the hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain would have had 10 minutes for his speech. I do not know if he knew then that we were on debate and not on questions or comments.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

No, I did not know.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

To rectify the situation, the hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain will have approximately nine minutes left in his speech. However, since I have just given the floor to the parliamentary secretary, if he wishes to answer her comments, with my indulgence, I will let him do so. Then we will go back to his speech. Is this fair?

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, did you say that the hon. member opposite would be given her time and I would follow her in that order?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I have just said that the parliamentary secretary made a comment and asked a question of the hon. member. If he wishes to answer, I will let him do so and then we will go back to debate.

However, as the member does not wish to answer the question, we will resume debate. The hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain has nine minutes.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us which we voted on last night is a better bill than it was when it first came from the government. A lot of the credit must be given to all the members on the committee, including the members in the opposition in that committee. There was very little friction in the committee. No one in this House nor anyone in the committee can say that the party which I represent is against protection of endangered species. That would be a grossly false statement for anyone to make across Canada.

Make no mistake that the changes that did take place were necessary and were because of the co-operation in that committee. In particular I would pay tribute to the committee chairman who led us very carefully and intelligently through days of debate. I was a standing member on the committee. I would be very insulted on behalf of my party and myself to hear anyone say in the future that we were against the species at risk legislation.

There are concerns. Many of my constituents are concerned about the possibility of losing income and benefits that they now have. For example, last summer we were plagued with an infestation of Richardson's ground squirrels which destroyed millions of acres of crop worth millions of dollars. The government would not allow us to use the same type of pesticide that had been previously used. The question that comes to my mind is, was there compensation from the government because of that tremendous loss? The answer is, no. We have been criticized for trying to control that infestation but not one of the organizations has come up with a suggestion as to how it would contribute to the losses of the farmers and ranchers.

I want to make it very clear, as have many of the previous speakers, that this is not a rural-urban issue in itself. This legislation directly affects less than 10% of the people. The last census indicates that the number of people who are actually engaged in farming, in the timber industry and so on is now in the single digits. They are the stewards of the land. In Canada, the people are mainly concentrated in the large urban centres. As a result, they do not understand the concept of compensating people when they lose part of the control of provincial land or how that affects their operation in the industry.

This bill has to be handled very carefully by the government. It has had the same effect as the gun registry legislation, Bill C-68 which divided the country between rural and urban centres. The majority of people are concentrated in large urban centres. They could not possibly see why rural Canada objected to the bill.

Recently there was Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals bill. I talked with people in the large urban centres, some of whom are relatives. They asked what was wrong with the bill. They have never seen the practices on the farms regarding calves and therefore they supported the bill.

Now there is Bill C-5. One question that has not been answered is if 10 sections of land are lost under this plan to protect the species at risk, there is nothing in the bill that says the government would provide not only compensation to the person losing control of that land but also to the local government body that loses the land as a tax base. The issue is much bigger than what we think it is. The governments that will be affected are mainly the local and perhaps provincial governments.

All Canadians must understand that compensation must be there. We would not ask someone to give up 10% of his or her salary. The bill is designed to benefit all Canadians. Therefore, it does not bother me in the least when I hear the figure of $180 million being in the bill for compensation for those who would lose their income because of preserving habitat or anything else. The government must tell people that the money is there to protect those few Canadians who are the tenants and protectors of the species and who must be paid for their loss of income.

I also want to deal with something that I feel is terribly important. The bill says there must be a review in five years. I see nothing wrong with that. However, what if in the process of what this bill is designed to do there are real flaws regarding identifying species or regarding the provincial governments or tenants which cause all sorts of disagreements? Of course we cannot wait five years because if the problems are severe, five years will kill the whole bill and its effectiveness. We have to give serious thought to a procedure by which the committee or the government can come back and say that this part of the bill will be reconsidered before it self-destructs.

There is one province which brags, and rightfully so, that it is the only province in Canada that is rat free. That is Alberta. It is true that it is rat free. There are no rats, except the few that are not the four-legged ones.

The reason is that the province took a concentrated look at the damage the ordinary Norwegian rat causes which was in the millions of dollars. The provincial government embarked on a program to stop the loss of this agricultural waste and the province is now rat free. Some people would immediately say that Alberta has upset the ecosystem for years. That is ridiculous.

If and when the bill runs into that type of difficulty the flexibility has to be there because we will need to make some changes. I am sure of that.

The endangered species bill is all inclusive. It includes the federal, provincial and local governments as well as everyone else. Speaking for myself, I hope it is successful and that people understand that we are all for endangered species.

I hope the government realizes that the bill is not some kind of holy writ. If there is something wrong with it, it is hoped the government will move very quickly to remedy it through amendments in the House and in committee.

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

The species at risk legislation has been a very long process dating back to 1996 with Bill C-33, and then Bill C-65 and now Bill C-5. Since 1996, 93 days and 246 hours of parliamentary time have been put into the legislation. Committee members have put thousands of hours into the legislation since 1996.

I want to congratulate all members of the committee. They did a wonderful job in working together to bring the legislation forward. Canadians have been calling for this legislation for nine years and finally it is coming to fruition. I am very proud to have played a part in the making of it. I commend specifically the committee chairman on the job he did. He has been an advocate for this legislation.

I had many concerns on the environment committee in dealing with species at risk when I was elected on November 27, 2000. I grew up in a farming community in a very rural area. I worked on farms when I was growing up. After receiving an engineering degree I began my professional life and went into the environmental business for 10 years. As such, I felt I could see both sides of the equation with regard to this issue.

First and foremost, I have always viewed farmers as the ultimate environmentalists. They are the people who live off the land. They show us how to use the land. They provide nourishment from the land.

One major concern which resonated when I started to discuss species at risk with my colleagues had to do with command and control. I heard testimony from various individuals and witnesses but one really resonated and stuck with me.

Someone presented me with a copy of a magazine for ranchers from the southern U.S. In it was a for sale ad for a cattle ranch with some 300 or 400 hectares of land. There was a wonderful picture of it. At the bottom of the ad it said that the land was guaranteed not to contain species at risk. It was guaranteed not to contain species at risk because of command and control legislation in place in the U.S. That caused me great concern.

We have done a lot of work on Bill C-5 and it is time to move the legislation forward.

The proposed species at risk act before us today is one component of the Government of Canada's overall strategy to protect species at risk. During the nine long years that this legislation has been in the making, we have not been sitting still and it is a good thing too, because this long process could have brought us to a standstill in our efforts to protect species and habitat and in taking action.

Through stewardship, recovery planning and partnerships with provinces and territories, there has been an overall strategy at work for some time now for the protection of species at risk. For instance, we have worked for years with the provinces and territories under the accord for the protection of species at risk. A number of provinces have brought in new or amended legislation to protect species at risk as a result of this accord. Ministers meet regularly and have directed numerous actions.

A third pillar of the strategy is stewardship. Through stewardship and recovery efforts we are taking action on species at risk where it matters most, on the land, in our streams, oceans and forests. Stewardship is the first line of defence to protect critical habitat. It is through these actions that we are protecting habitat by encouraging landowners in voluntary conservation measures. They are both formal and informal. They often involve governments, but just as often volunteer organizations, businesses and industry.

There are incentives for stewardship. We know this approach works on the ground to effectively protect species' critical habitat. Stewardship is nest boxes for birds. Stewardship is setting aside a spot where the Vancouver Island marmot has its den. Stewardship is patrolling the beaches of Lake Diefenbaker to protect the eggs of the piping plover. Stewardship is a farmer who does not plant right up to the edge of the stream, but protects the riparian zone between the field and the water.

Stewardship is informal activity. It is also part of a formal approach added to over two years ago by the Government of Canada. The habitat stewardship program was established to help start partnership projects with local and regional organizations and communities.

Funding was announced in budget 2000. Much has already been done. Projects are underway all over the Missouri Coteau landscape in southern Saskatchewan. This is the prairie pothole region of the province. It is some 23,000 square kilometres and is home to species at risk such as the piping plover, the burrowing owl, the loggerhead shrike, the ferruginous hawk, the northern leopard frog and the monarch butterfly.

Stewardship is a key element of the entire species at risk strategy which includes the bill before us today. It also includes the accord for the protection of species at risk, an agreement between the federal government, provinces and territories. The agreement has produced a number of results while we have worked on the bill. Stewardship and the accord have a fundamental premise that co-operation produces the best results. That is why we have worked so hard and why we have insisted that the proposed species at risk act contain that same approach.

Canada's approach to stewardship and conservation is the envy of our neighbours to the south. Some critics have suggested that we need legislation like the endangered species law in the United States. Let me tell members the real facts. The Americans wish they had our co-operative approach. They wish they had stewardship and co-operation because what they know now, after 25 years, is a backlog of court cases and a lot of ill will.

I would like to tell members a few things about the habitat stewardship program which has been moving forward while we have worked on the species at risk act. There are already over 70 partnerships with aboriginals, landowners, resource users, nature trusts, provinces, the natural resources sector, community based wildlife societies, educational institutions and conservation organizations. So far more than 200 species identified at risk in Canada, as well as over 80 provincially listed species at risk, are benefiting from the projects under this program. Many species and habitats that are not yet at risk will benefit at the same time but others have joined in the effort.

In its first year, the habitat stewardship program attracted non-federal funding of over $8 million, compared to the $5 million contributed to habitat stewardship program funds. For every one dollar spent by the federal government under the habitat stewardship project, $1.70 of non-federal resources were contributed by project partners. The second year saw more than $10 million for more than 150 projects. We are monitoring the population of the right whale. We are assessing the leatherback turtle and the rare ginseng plant.

The habitat stewardship program is not all, however. We have also made it easier for Canadians to donate ecologically sensitive lands and easements by reducing the capital gains from donations through an eco-gifts program. Over 20,000 hectares have been donated already as ecological gifts. There is authority in Bill C-5 to establish stewardship action plans.

We all share responsibility for protecting wildlife. If the bill is passed, the federal government, in active partnerships with provinces, territories, landowners, farmers, fishermen, aboriginal peoples, conservation groups, the resource sector and others, will be a leader in protecting species at risk and their critical habitats in Canada. We are using what works and providing more tools to make it work better.

Individual Canadians, conservation organizations, industries and governments are working together every day to conserve and protect species at risk. These are the actions that make a difference.

Our preferred approach to protecting species' critical habitats is through voluntary activities by Canadians. We respect the authority of other governments but we also expect them to bring in critical habitat protection measures if needed. If they do not we will be ready to provide the needed protection.

The bill will compliment existing or improved provincial and territorial legislation, not compete with it. We have all acknowledged that protecting species at risk is a shared responsibility. It is time for us to ensure that the federal responsibility is met completely, and that includes legislation. We have designed an approach that works.

Through nine years of consultation, examination, writing and rewriting, we have come to the time when we must act. The time has arrived for the species at risk act to take its official place alongside the accord, and stewardship is one of the three pillars of the strategy for the protection of species at risk.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today stems from the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

In 1994, I was parliamentary secretary, when the minister at that time presented framework legislation to protect endangered species and respect our commitments under the convention on biodiversity.

This eventually led, under subsequent ministers, to Bills C-65 and C-33 to protect endangered species. Unfortunately, both bills died on the order paper when elections were called. This is what led to Bill C-5 today.

Bill C-5, like its predecessors, has had its ups and downs. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere congratulations to all of the members of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, particularly the members for Davenport and York North, who did remarkable work in order to build consensus among all members of the committee.

At the outset, the legislation was far too discretionary. However, thanks to the enormous efforts made by the committee, many improvements were made and the results of the committee's work were contained in the report tabled in the House in December 2001.

Unfortunately, most of these recommendations and amendments were overturned by the government as a result of amendments made in the House during consideration at report stage.

However difficult it was at the time, following the rejection of the committee's work, a number of us decided to vote against some key provisions of the legislation proposed by the government.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. member for York North, who managed to achieve a consensus on many elements within the Liberal caucus. My colleague felt that the act had to be improved, in light of the amendments presented by the government at report stage.

Negotiations with some government people took place and I congratulate them. I also congratulate the Prime Minister for getting involved in these negotiations, which proved successful.

By removing the discretionary provisions regarding listing, the listing provisions have been much improved. We now have a mandatory habitat provision on federal lands, including aquatic species and migratory birds. This is a huge improvement to what there was at report stage.

As some members know, I was born on the very small island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean. At one time Mauritius was a habitat for 29 unique species of wildlife never known anywhere else in the world. Most of them have disappeared. Of course everyone knows about the dodo which was peculiar to Mauritius. However, other species, such as the Mauritius kestrel, the Mauritius parakeet and the pink pigeon, had almost disappeared in the wild. I believe there are nine pairs of kestrel, four pairs of parakeets and a few pink pigeons left.

Thanks to the Durrell Institute in the Jersey Islands, these were recaptured from the wild and bred in captivity. Now they have been reintroduced into the wild in Mauritius, the only place they can live. I was really moved a few years ago when I went there and saw a pair of kestrels nesting in a tree high in the mountains. It was something I had never been able to see as a child.

Many of the species that were taken for granted a few years ago have now disappeared. I remember visiting India and talking to the minister of the environment. He was telling me how they were trying to save the Indian tiger. Who would have known that the Indian tiger today would be almost a relic of the wilds?

I am glad this law has improved consultations with aboriginal people because they understand the juxtaposition between the ecosystem, habitat and living species. They know there is no difference. They know there is an interdependence, an integration between ecosystems, habitats and living species.

A recent study by professor Margaret Palmer of the University of Maryland established that when ecosystems go down or are affected, so are living species. When living species are affected, so are ecosystems because they are totally interdependent. Ecosystems and living species need each other to survive and be enhanced.

A few years ago, I had the honour of presenting the bill on endangered species in the Quebec national assembly. Earlier, I heard the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, for whom I have a great deal of respect, refer to the whole constitutional issue, overlap, duplication and so on. This saddened me, because it seems to me that, whether we are on the federal or provincial side, we should find a way to work together, so that the objective of these acts, which is the protection of endangered species, can be achieved on both federal and provincial lands, through legislative measures that complement each other. In this regard, I think we share the same view and we should remember—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, but he will have three minutes left to complete his speech and he will also have five minutes for questions and comments after oral question period.

Saskatchewan Sports Hall of Fame

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great Canadian, a towering figure in Canadian sports and a true humanitarian: W.D. “Bill” Hunter.

Tomorrow Mr. Hunter will be inducted into the Saskatchewan Sports Hall of Fame, recognizing his tremendous lifetime contribution to both professional and amateur sports, particularly the great Canadian game of hockey.

A “Hound” of Pere Murray's Notre Dame college, Bill Hunter was a key founder of the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League, the Western Hockey League and the World Hockey Association which led to the hugely successful expansion of the NHL. He has owned, managed and coached numerous successful sports franchises including the Edmonton Oilers which he prepared for its glory years.

Bill is also a passionate Canadian patriot, having fought during World War II as a fighter pilot in the RCAF and contributed to Canadian society through his leadership in business and charitable endeavours. In recent years Bill has continued to show his greatness of character and largeness of life in a tenacious battle against cancer.

On behalf of the whole House I wish Bill and his wife Vi hearty congratulations on yet another recognition of his lifelong contribution to the country that he loves.

Jean Cloutier

[Gérard Binet, Liberal, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the entire population of Frontenac—Mégantic, I would like to pay tribute to a great volunteer and a great Canadian.

Jean Cloutier, who is from the Lac Mégantic region, has recently been named “volunteer par excellence” by the annual general assembly of the Quebec figure skating federation.

He has earned the respect of Canadian figure skaters through his remarkable involvement and contribution to the sport.

He was with our olympic athletes at Nagano and at Salt Lake City, where his commitment to figure skating had a positive impact on the sport.

Without Jean Cloutier's determination, the Salé-Pelletier affair would most certainly not have ended with the final impartial decision we were so anxious to see.

The contribution of a volunteer of this calibre merits recognition and I wish to thank him publicly here in the House today.

Frontenac-Mégantic is proud of you, Jean Cloutier.

Government of Canada

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we parliamentarians are faced with a choice as the spring session winds down: stay in the House of Commons each day debating the important issues facing the nation, or return to our ridings to deal with pressing local matters and reconnect with our constituents and our families.

If I were a Liberal I know what choice I would make: “Get me out of here, Mr. Speaker.” Each day there is another punishing question period. Each day there is another damaging headline. The stories and the questions expose the government and its web of connections, collusion, cover-up and corruption.

Not being a Liberal and being a very proud member of the Canadian Alliance, I and my colleagues are here to both serve the taxpayer and show Canadians the many failures of the government and the Prime Minister. We will do so until our scheduled recess day, June 21.

When the government begs for an early recess to escape the scrutiny, the probing and the questions, I will vote no.

Forest Industry

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, according to National Geographic magazine Alberta's forest management is a prime example of the deleterious effects of oil, gas and forestry activities.

A University of Alberta study demonstrates the negative impact on forests and wildlife of some half a million miles of roads, pipelines and 15-foot corridors for testing for oil and gas deposits. Yet in a publication entitled “Are Canada's Forest Shrinking?” the Forest Products Association of Canada claims that Canada's forests are increasing and on a sustainable path. However forest inventories are compiled by the provinces and industry, with inconsistent definitions and unverified data possibly leading to overestimates and incorrect forecasts.

If we are to ensure the sustainability of our forests, rather than catchy slogans and empty declarations by industry we need a national forest strategy with reliable inventories, reliable annual growth estimates and verifiable annual cut data.

Northern Canada

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Russia and the U.S. have agreed to further reduce their arsenals of intercontinental nuclear weapons. This should have received more attention in Canada as we lie on the track of such weapons.

Only a few years ago we were very aware that we are the buffer between the U.S. and Russia. In those days we were very conscious of the strategic significance of the Canadian north.

That north is just as important today. Those who live there are proud and important Canadians. Their roles as custodians of the human, biological and physical resources of the north are even more important today. As global warming proceeds and arctic sea routes open up, their role for us with respect to the Arctic Ocean becomes increasingly important.

Fewer nuclear weapons is good news for Canada but it should stimulate us to take a greater, not lesser, interest in northern and circumpolar affairs.

Canadian Labour Congress

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the triennial convention of the Canadian Labour Congress is being held in Vancouver. This powerful labour organization has 2.5 million members, including the FTQ. We pay tribute to the members and executive of the CLC, including president Ken Georgetti, and his FTQ counterpart, Henri Massé.

The CLC has always demonstrated the greatest of respect for Quebec and has an open mind toward the aspirations of the people of Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois and the CLC have fought together on a number of occasions, and there is no doubt that our joint efforts have provided millions of workers with a brighter future.

One of our battles is not yet won: employment insurance. This must be continued and the Bloc Quebecois will fight alongside the workers for as long as it takes.

We also wish to pay tribute to a great union man, who worked for the postal workers for 15 years, and has spent another 10 on the executive of the CLC working to improve the working and living conditions of workers, Jean-Claude Parrot.

Congratulations to the CLC and thank you, Mr. Parrot, for the quarter century you have devoted to the workers.

Groupe Savoie

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to tell you how proud I am to be a representative of Atlantic Canada, and of the Madawaska—Restigouche area in particular.

Entrepreneurs in our area are among the most dynamic and resourceful in New Brunswick. The Government of Canada has played a major role in helping stimulate the province's economy. In fact, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has helped create opportunities and employment. The agency has long been an important element in the success of small businesses in New Brunswick. Groupe Savoie is a good example.

In 1978, when Hector and Jean-Claude Savoie purchased two mills in St. Quentin, they employed approximately 25 workers. Today, they employ 400 and use start of the art equipment.

Groupe Savoie has also been successful internationally. Some 20% of its product is shipped overseas to Europe and another 30% to the U.S. market.

Groupe Savoie is just one example of the New Brunswick companies that are creating employment and making Atlantic Canada an ideal place to live and invest.

This should make all Canadians proud.