House of Commons Hansard #59 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was information.
Endangered Species Sanctuaries ActPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
Does the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca have the consent of the House to make the bill votable?
Endangered Species Sanctuaries ActPrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
A motion to adjourn the House deemed to have been moved.
Philip Mayfield Canadian Alliance Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC
Mr. Speaker, last Friday I rose in the House to question the Minister of the Environment about the serious issue of red tagging a herd of northern Caribou in the Itcha Ilgachuz Mountains in the western part of my riding.
Healthy growing herds of these caribou have been lumped in with an appropriately red tagged mountain caribou herd in the eastern part of my riding near the Wells Grey Provincial Park. There is over 500 kilometres and the mighty Fraser River separating these two regions and there is no cross-migration between these two areas and these two separate species of caribou.
The issue is not the health of these northern caribou in the Itcha Ilgachuz Mountains, but the size of the ecoprovince established by the federal government that includes viable herds with endangered herds, thus creating two separate problems.
The first problem is that the planned transfer of caribou from the Itcha Ilgachuz Mountains to establish and support small herds in the east Kootenays is stopped. The second problem is that with this red tagging, guides and outfitters are having to consider refunding deposits from clients who are already booked for hunting expeditions this fall because this herd has been red tagged since the bookings were made.
In October 2002 a letter from the British Columbia department of water, land and air signed by Nancy Wilkins was sent to Environment Canada to the attention of Karen Brown, requesting that the Itcha Ilgachuz northern caribou be excluded from this red tag listing. I am told by B.C. department officials that despite repeated requests, this letter has not yet been answered.
The federal government has ruled that the Itcha Ilgachuz herd cannot be hunted this year, even though it is healthy and growing. The hunt for next year is also doubtful. This will have dire social and cultural impact on the region. A constituent of mine who wrote to the Minister of the Environment and copied to me about this problem points out the situation quite well:
Some of the operations have been in existence for 50 years and these people have been the ones who have looked after the caribou population to ensure that their clients would have successful hunting opportunities. Some of their clients have made reservations for their next outdoor opportunity many years in advance. The guides who have territories in that area now have to refund all that money.
This is no small consideration, particularly in an area that is suffering from double digit unemployment. Numerous hunting associations have written to the minister about this situation without a reply to date. Years of work by local wildlife biologists have identified that there is a difference between the herds. The federal government says that an exemption has to be applied for, but with respect, that exemption has been applied for and there has been no response.
I would like an answer to the following questions: Why has the letter from the government of B.C. requesting exemption not been answered? Why is the healthy western blue tag herd of caribou being lumped in with the red tag herd and classified in the southern ecoprovince and listed as a threatened species by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada when the classification of the blue tag explicitly says in the B.C. list status the following:
Blue tag: Includes any indigenous species or subspecies considered to be of special concern in British Columbia... but are not extirpated, endangered or threatened.
Endangered Species Sanctuaries ActAdjournment Proceedings
York South—Weston Ontario
Liberal
Alan Tonks LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Cariboo—Chilcotin, for raising this issue in the House. To answer the two questions, I think it would be instructive for the House to know what the species at risk legislation is, or more important, how it will be implemented.
I would emphasize that the species at risk legislation calls for a stewardship model that is a progressive relationship between the provincial, territorial and federal governments to protect species that are endangered. The act is triggered when a species is identified. In order to be totally objective with respect to an action that is taken, it is incumbent on the parties to the act, the provinces, the territorial governments and the federal government, to take the advice from an arm's length group called the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC. The arm's length relationship looks at the science of the issue and advises whether the species should be protected.
In this case, the member is absolutely correct. The mountain caribou herd has been suggested as being endangered and it is the intention of the federal government to act with respect to its authorities under the legislation.
However, it is the federal government that acts only in the last instance as a safety net where the rehabilitation or recovery plan that is provided by the province or the territorial government is either not followed up or is insufficient in the minds of COSEWIC and the federal government as being in keeping with protecting the species. Inasmuch as we are breaking new ground, it is instructive not only for me but I hope for the House to understand how the act will be implemented.
With respect to the two issues that have been raised, first as to why there is no answer, I have given every assurance to my colleague that in fact as to the request from the province with respect to an exemption, that correspondence will be answered and answered forthwith. With respect to why part of the herd is blue tagged and the other is red tagged, as I indicated, we have an arm's length relationship with COSEWIC, which looks at the science and makes the recommendation. It is only on that basis that in this case the mountain caribou herd has been red tagged.
I do, however, appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by the member, and we will be continuing to follow up on this matter.
Endangered Species Sanctuaries ActAdjournment Proceedings
February 13th, 2003 / 6:30 p.m.
Canadian Alliance
Philip Mayfield Canadian Alliance Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the parliamentary secretary. It is paradoxical that the stewardship model that he refers to is exactly what has been followed for these northern caribou in the western Itcha Ilgachuz Mountains.
It is interesting that while I asked the minister to seriously consider and to grant the request of British Columbia, this is a growing and healthy herd of caribou. It is estimated to be between 2,800 and 3,400 strong in 15 separate herds.
It also is interesting that disease is not the problem in these animals, but the natural predator is wolves. I have been there and have seen how cutting patterns for forestry have been modified to provide protection for the caribou while they are feeding so that they are not obvious either to hunters or to wolves while they are feeding. It is also interesting that in the stewardship pattern, while the roads are open for logging, as soon as the logging is completed the roads are closed so one can only go in by foot or by horseback.
I do request the minister's serious concern and I thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention.
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, there is just one additional point that I did want to stress. Under the accord for the protection of the species at risk in Canada, the responsibilities obviously are a partnership in that the best available science should be applied.
The member has indicated some of the exceptions with respect to the herd that separate it from the broader herd. I simply would emphasize that while the matter is still with the province, and the trigger has not been pulled to where the federal jurisdiction clicks in, we continue to work with the provincial government and bring all of the encouragement we have to bear in order to get a positive resolution of the issue.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise tonight to try to have some form of discussion with the parliamentary secretary.
After 10 years in this House, I am always a little disappointed to see that, even though we are all trying to make things better for our fellow citizens, when we ask questions, this place looks more and more like a stage where everyone is trying to steal the show without making any effort to respond to the issues raised in our questions.
I am particularly interested in the softwood lumber issue. I believe that the government, which had known for a very long time that the softwood lumber agreement would expire on March 31, 2002, did nothing to ensure that the free trade agreement with the United States would be honoured.
As a result, the United States imposed a 27% tax, which is hurting us and especially those who work in the industry.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, have decided to travel to the main regions of Quebec to see with our own eyes the problems facing these people. We have to acknowledge once and for all that some industries are seasonal in nature. There is nothing they can do about it. And every year, workers in these industries go through some tough times because of their seasonal jobs.
A reform of the employment insurance program was carried out. Just last week, the minister was telling me “Employment insurance was reformed. Now, every hour counts, and so on and so forth”. There is one thing she seems to be forgetting and that is the infamous divisor rule determining the number of work weeks required. Not only the hours, but the work weeks also count.
We have people working for a while and then becoming unemployed every year, at about the same period of time. The number of benefit weeks they are entitled to depends on the number of hours they have worked. But then they also encounter what we call the gap, which is the 5 to 10-week period when they have absolutely no income.
What we need to do is to recognize the problems linked to this gap and seasonal work and then we might find a solution so that these workers do not have to face the same situation year after year.
By making changes to the EI boundaries, we ended up encouraging fraud. For instance, villlage X and village Y may be on opposite sides of the EI boundary. On one side, the limit is set at 420 hours and on the other, it is 565 hours. So, a worker may be tempted to use an address from the village where 420 hours are required because he or she works for the same employer.
A reform was carried out, but now we need to reform the reform. That is what the government would do if it were serious and really cared about the interests of the people.
Diane St-Jacques LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis for her question, which provides me with the opportunity to reiterate that the government is concerned with what happens to workers.
This is why it has promised in excess of $246 million in support in order to help communities, companies and workers affected by the softwood lumber dispute. This will, of course, be over and above the employment insurance benefits of $450 million paid yearly to unemployed forest industry workers.
The announced measures guarantee that the workers will have the skills they require to find and retain employment, whether it be in a revamped softwood lumber industry or some other sector of the economy.
These initiatives take into consideration the fact that workers in regions with high levels of unemployment run into unique obstacles when trying to get back into the work force.
Regions where the unemployment is at least 10% will be eligible for these programs. By directing the assistance measures available under the EI program to regions of high unemployment, the government is ensuring that help gets to the workers and communities that need it most.
These initiatives are over and above the measures already in effect under the employment insurance program, which makes available to laid off workers employment benefits and access to active employment measures. The EI program is in place to help people when they need help, including those who are at risk of losing their jobs, or have already been laid off, because of the softwood lumber dispute.
What is more, we are also investing $2 billion, $600 million of that in Quebec, to help Canadians find and retain jobs. This amount will enable the provincial government to provide targeted wage subsidies and to support self-employment and skills upgrading.
Employment insurance is not, however, the only solution for seasonal workers.
The creation of new jobs is the true solution to unemployment, and we continue to work in conjunction with key stakeholders in looking at ways of opening up more opportunities.
As for the pilot project for older workers, we are making available more than $11 million in order to test innovative approaches to helping older workers in Quebec find and keep employment.
We are here for Canadians and we will continue to be here for them.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am almost tempted to say, “This has been a paid message brought to you by the Department of Natural Resources”.
It is ridiculous to respond like this to a very serious problem. We are constantly being told that the government has invested $240 million for softwood lumber workers. That is not true. They invested $40 million for the bug problem in British Columbia. They invested $20 million for a research centre in Trois-Rivières, and they invested the rest to help workers across the country experiencing employment problems, not just in the softwood lumber industry, but any workers who were unemployed.
It is wrong to say that there is a specially designed program for softwood lumber workers. It is completely false. We have been out there, we have been to these places. We did not see any money. I would like the people of Baie-Trinité to hear what the member for Shefford is saying. I would like them to hear her little speech. They lost their jobs one year ago thanks to the negligence of this government, which has done nothing to solve the softwood lumber problem.
Now, she is telling us that they have something to help them. That is not true. There is nothing to help the workers of Baie-Trinité. Soon they will be on social assistance because their employment insurance is drying up. The mill has nothing in terms of new work.
This cannot really be considered a program designed for people suffering as a result of the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States.
Diane St-Jacques Liberal Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis by telling her that her statements are false. I repeat once again that the Government of Canada is concerned about the fate of these workers.
She is fully aware that we have invested $246 million to assist workers affected by this dispute. There is also $450 million in employment insurance benefits that are paid out to forestry workers. Another $600 million is paid to Quebec under a labour market development agreement that establishes active measures to help people find and keep a job.
The federal government has provided more than $2 million in contributions to the province of Quebec for innovation projects in the Lower Saint Lawrence, North Shore, Charlevoix and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean regions.
Furthermore, in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, for example, we invested more than $1 million to extend the tourist season. This allowed more than 120 workers to extend their employment.
I would like to assure the House that the federal government will continue to work with all stakeholders to come up with solutions to these employment problems.
Endangered Species Sanctuaries ActAdjournment Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:45 p.m.)