Debates of Feb. 21st, 2003

Questions on the Order Paper

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that most of the MPs principally responsible for Bill C-13 and particularly the Group No. 2 amendments could not be here today. Consequently there have been deliberations among the parties as a result of which I believe you would find, Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, unanimous consent that the House move directly to private members' business.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Calgary Southeast have the consent of the House for his proposal?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent to see the clock as being at 1:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, after consultation among all parties in the House, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, should debate on Bill C-280 be concluded today, all questions deemed necessary to dispose of second reading of the bill be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie have consent to put the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, let me follow on the agreements that have been concurred in thus far and inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, government orders has been extended by 26 minutes. Accordingly, we will see the clock as being 1:56 p.m.

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

On the matter of private members' business let me also share with the House that I have received notice from the hon. member for Manicouagan that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Monday, February 24.

Since it was not possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence, I am directing the clerk to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.

Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and government orders will begin at 11 a.m.

The House resumed from December 4, 2002, consideration of the motion that Bill C-280, an act to amend the Criminal Code (selling wildlife), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill C-280, an act to amend the Criminal Code (selling wildlife), put forward by my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley. This is my second time speaking on the bill because I view the bill to be of the highest importance and I would like to commend my colleague for bringing forward this private member's initiative to address this issue.

Her major concern has been the selling of wildlife, especially bears, which impacts Canada in regard to the parts of bears that are illegally sold all over the world. I was reading a publication by an investigative network of the Humane Society of the United States and the Humane Society International about the global underground trade in bear parts. It gives a pretty terrible picture of what is happening in Canada and around the world in the illegal trade of bear parts, which are traded for medicinal purposes.

The headline of this document is “Forest to Pharmacy: Canada's Underground Trade in Bear Parts”. It outlines in detail the laws of other countries to stem this terrible tragedy that takes place in our forests and with wildlife across the world. Based on this book, this trade is not specifically restricted only to North America. It takes place all over the world, but because we have a large bear population this has a major impact in Canada as well. As recently as about a week ago, a documentary on television indicated that there is poaching and killing of grizzly bears in Alberta. Forestry roads allow access to the bears and so also give access to those who are illegally trading in bear parts.

In my last speech, I talked about having grown up in a country that has wildlife as one of its natural resources and where poaching plays a major role. Around the world there have been attempts to stop this trade when animals become endangered. We have seen some successful programs, especially in Africa in dealing with the elephants, and with other animals, for example, the tigers in Asia.

Now we have to look at this and see what is happening with the bears and this illegal trading. In my point of view, we need to take two levels of approach. One level of approach is what my colleague is doing in trying to strengthen the laws so that our conservation officers have the tools and the mechanism to fight this illegal trading in bear parts. It is commendable that my colleague has brought forward the bill and it is to be hoped that the government sees why my colleague brought it forward, because there is a heavy, heavy concern.

I think that Canadians in general do not seem to recognize or to know that there is a vast illegal trade in bear parts going on around the world. If they did, they would rise up in anger. They would demand that the government take some action. That is why this has been brought in front of the House of Commons to be debated: so that government can take some action on the legislative front to give our officers the tools they need to bring to justice those who are breaking these rules and engaging in this horrible crime where bears are killed, killed only for their gall bladders and for their paws, because there is a perception that it gives some kind of vitality to life.

For our part, we need to work hard to ensure that laws are there. On the other side, too, we need to get on to the educational front. I am glad that the humane society and the animal welfare people are bringing this issue to Canadians.

Also, the other aspect is for the government to work more closely with other governments, and in this particular instance, the governments in Asia where these parts are in demand. Asia has a market for them, and as other previous experiences in wildlife management have shown, if there is a market for these parts it is difficult to stop the poaching and the killing. The only successful programs are those which have gone to the root cause, the market. In this case, we have to do the same thing. I think we need to talk with governments in countries where markets are thriving. We need to go on an educational spree in that part of the world and we need to let them know that they are not taking the right approach, that this is killing wildlife. We need to ask them what benefits they are deriving out of this.

A two-way approach needs to be worked out. If we go on an educational spree, people will start to look at this issue and the market will start to decline. If the market declines and it is no longer profitable to kill a bear for its parts, for example, then we will have done a tremendous justice.

That is not to set aside the fact that we are trying to bring in a bill in this Parliament dealing with this issue. I am happy to note that the bill is a votable bill, so that all members of Parliament who look at this will recognize why this legislative assembly needs to give tools to our officers to stop this trade. Again, as I say, it does not mean that at the end of the day we do not try to stop the market. With the combination of these two approaches, the bill and the education, we will have done justice to our future generations by protecting our wildlife species.

With that, I again congratulate my colleague from South Surrey--White Rock--Langley for bringing forward the bill. I hope that when it comes to the House for a vote it will receive the unanimous approval of all members of Parliament and we will act on this.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to acknowledge the hard work of the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley and thank her for bringing this very important issue to the attention of Parliament.

While we are not here to debate the importance of dealing with poaching, the issue is whether the bill in its present form is the most appropriate mechanism for addressing poaching. In my view it is not. The bill takes existing offences and essentially duplicates them in the Criminal Code.

Bill C-280 does not have the appearance and elements of a true criminal law scheme. The scheme in Bill C-280 proposes what is essentially a regulatory scheme and drops it into the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is not an appropriate statute for this kind of law. This is especially so where there is a range of existing federal and provincial laws that directly and indirectly regulate the same subject matter.

Even in the absence of all these other relevant inapplicable laws, the measures in the bill would be best dealt with by regulation rather than by amending the Criminal Code.

The bill expressly provides that the offence provisions in respect to wildlife that is not a threatened or endangered species do not apply to persons who act in accordance with a licence issued pursuant to a federal or provincial statute or regulation. This is usually associated with regulations. The essence is that if we have authorization we can do something but we are in violation of the law if we do it without authorization. This is often what regulations look like, but the Criminal Code does not work the same way. The application of a criminal offence provision does not normally rely upon whether a licence to conduct a prohibited activity has been issued by federal or provincial authority.

Another feature of the Criminal Code offences is that they almost always apply to everyone. It is extremely rare for the Criminal Code to specify exemptions for criminal liability in respect of particular offences. The exemptions set out in sections 204 to 207 inclusive of the Criminal Code relating to the gaming offences and part of the code are notable exceptions to the usual rules against exemptions. We can see the contradiction between the two. On one hand we want to deal with one specific problem, but by doing it through the code, we are brushing everybody with the same brush and making that exemption become quite problematic.

Nonetheless, it is extremely rare to specify exemptions that depend upon the exercise of discretion by a member of the executive branch of government. However, subclause 447.8 of Bill C-280 would grant discretion to the Minister of the Environment to issue an order exempting “any person or class of persons” from “application of all or any” of the offence provisions in respect to threatened or endangered species. In my view this feature is highly unusual and highly unheard of.

It is also rare in a Criminal Code context to have a member of the executive confer with an advisory body in order to determine whether the subject matter of the offence, in this case wildlife, falls within a particular category. I note that subclause 447.7(1) and (2) respectively would give the Minister of the Environment the discretion to determine whether a species of wildlife is an--

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is nice to see you in the Chair. I thought I would give you a little practice standing up and sitting down in working as the Speaker. I want to congratulate you on that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gerry Ritz)]

That is actually not a point of order. We will continue on with debate.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member thought he was going to derail my train of thought, he has failed to do so. However I commend the member for standing and making notice of the Chair.

I want to move on to say that subclauses 447.7(1) and 447.7(2) respectively give the Minister of the Environment the discretion to determine whether a species of wildlife is an endangered or threatened species. Before making a designation of this nature, however, the Minister of the Environment must consult with the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. Again, this kind of provision is entirely in keeping with a regulatory scheme that has a broad public welfare goal, such as preserving wildlife, as is the case with the intent of my colleague.

In order to achieve that goal, it is necessary to have a flexible formula for determining species at risk. As I noted a little earlier, this scheme is moving away from the usual formula in the Criminal Code of a prohibited, morally reprehensible conduct that is sanctioned by a penalty.

Further, I would suggest that the maximum penalty for offences in relation to threatened or endangered species would be four and eight years respectively. These maximum terms are unknown in the Criminal Code. There is no precedent for this kind of maximum penalty. This is another example of the inconsistency of these provisions with other provisions in the Criminal Code when it comes to penalties.

In closing I would like to reiterate that there is a distinction between the objectives of legislation and the mechanics of the legislation itself to achieve an objective.

As I said earlier, the intent, as my colleague is trying to establish here, is to protect endangered species. It is a good intent but the way he is getting around it is not the most appropriate or efficient way, because it cannot be dealt with through the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code would not make it workable. Rather, it should be done, as it is now being done, through the regulatory process.

There is another important point that I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues. At the provincial level there are a number of mechanisms where provincial governments, through their regulatory processes as well as through legislation, can deal with some of those issues that exist within their jurisdictions.

I did not want to touch on the fact that we would be duplicating and infringing on provincial jurisdiction, but I will leave that for some of my colleagues who might be speaking to this issue later on.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part today in this debate on Bill C-280 put forward by my hon. colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley. The purpose of this bill is to criminalize the selling of wildlife.

Every effort must be made to prevent this activity, which is unacceptable, both environmentally and socially. I find however that the Criminal Code is too often used to raise the issue of criminalization.

What is the consequence of using the Criminal Code to penalize certain activities, whether environmental or other? It gives the federal government both an opportunity and the legislative means to step into areas of provincial jurisdiction. As my hon. Liberal colleague said earlier, and I agree with him, legislation and regulations exist in the provinces to effectively manage this activity.

That is the problem, because the bill before us is an infringement upon provincial jurisdictions according to the distribution of legislative jurisdictions under the Constitution Act, 1867.

I believe it is important to remember that some provinces, including Quebec, already have a special regime to control the sale of animals. In Quebec, I will quote among others, the Act respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife. Section 69 says:

No person may sell or purchase an animal the sale of which is prohibited by regulation. Authorized sale. However, the government may, by regulation, authorize the sale of an animal referred to in the first paragraph according to such norms and conditions as the government may determine.

“No person may sell or purchase an animal the sale of which is prohibited by regulation.” That is what section 69 of the Quebec Act respecting the Conservation of Wildlife says.

The danger is that through this private member's bill the federal government will, under the Criminal Code, intrude into areas of provincial jurisdiction while some provinces, including Quebec, have already been proactive in this regard. Quebec has also been proactive through its legislation to protect species at risk.

Back in 1990, the Quebec National Assembly passed a bill to protect species at risk on its territory.

[An hon. member]

It was under a Liberal government.

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

That is correct. It was under Robert Bourassa's Liberal government that Quebec passed that bill.

What did the federal government do 13 years later? It passed Bill C-5. Some of my colleagues here in the House voted for it. I will not name their ridings, but some of them were once ministers in the Quebec government. They agreed to a federal statute overlapping and duplicating legislation passed in Quebec in 1990.

Today we do not need a bill which, through the Criminal Code, will give more power to the federal government to regulate the sale of wildlife. Why? Not because we do not want the sale of wildlife to be regulated, but because Quebec, in some respects, has been proactive and already has distinctive legislation in this regard.

I can understand that some provinces have not been as proactive in this matter. But when a province has been proactive, it must be understood that the Criminal Code is a powerful tool, a powerful instrument for imposing measures on some provinces, among other things, for the sale of wildlife.

Depending on the infraction, under sections 165, 167 and 172 of An Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, there can be fines ranging from $500 to $16,400, prison terms of up to one year, and administrative penalties that could result in permits being suspended for up to six years.

Clearly, with the Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, Quebec is not simply banning the sale of wildlife, and that is made clear in section 69 that I just quoted. The act also provides for penalties, fines, prison terms and administrative penalities, to ensure that for the sale of wildlife, this is not just some obscure principle, but a principle that is strictly enforced when certain individuals decide to break the law.

In Quebec, there is a law with this objective. We fear that the federal government is interfering—as if it were not interfering enough—in an area of provincial jurisdiction. This is not necessary. This should be left up to the provinces.

Essentially, the bill's purpose is inconsistent with what the federal government has always said; the government opposite has always preached full partnership with the provinces in terms of enforcing environmental legislation, be it the Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act, or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

When it comes to practising what you preach, however, the opposite happens. Take the example of the sub-agreement on environmental assessment or even the Canada-wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization. There are partnership principles, but why did Quebec not sign this accord?

When we consider legislation from the House, we realize that Bill C-280 contains essentially the same things as Bill C-5. This is unacceptable. The principles in the agreements must be reflected within bills from the House of Commons.

When we see that Bill C-280 on the sale of wildlife seeks to duplicate, to make it a crime, under the Criminal Code, to sell wildlife, when provisions already exist at the provincial level, we are led to question the wishes, not only of the federal government, but of this Parliament, since this motion and this bill were introduced by the opposition.

As we can see, it is not just the federal government proposing provisions which would duplicate existing legislation. On this side of the House, there are also members and political parties that share this vision of Canadian nation building.

If Quebec had not done its homework in this regard, I could almost understand the desire of the federal government to step in. Quebec was the first to adopt legislation on endangered species, and that was in 1990. It has taken the federal government an additional 13 years to adopt similar legislation. The difference is also noticeable when we look at our legislation on environmental assessment.

I will conclude by saying that we cannot accept a bill which, through the Criminal Code, would give more power to the federal government, when the work is already being done in Quebec and things work fine. We are not interested in setting aside the existing system.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to briefly participate in the debate on Bill C-280, a private member's bill addressing concerns about the selling, killing, capturing and possessing of wildlife, especially endangered species.

My colleague from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore would surely have wanted to participate in the debate, however, he is in Halifax representing all the Nova Scotia members at the funeral of a beloved Nova Scotia leader, Dr. Ruth Johnson. She was committed to her community, her church, and most of all to her beloved Africville. She has inspired literally generations of Nova Scotians, both in the Afro-Nova Scotian community and beyond. The member is sorry for not being here this afternoon. Knowing that he is there expressing the condolences of myself and my party I am happy to speak in his stead in this debate.

I wish to congratulate the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley on bringing this private member's bill forward again. I know she had done so previously but it expired on the Order Paper. She has demonstrated that she has a real concern about unacceptable practices that are too apparent, not just in Canada, but in other parts of the world as well regarding the handling of wildlife organs, wildlife parts and so on. She has taken it upon herself to bring this issue out of the shadows and into the light of day, and that this is a concern that must be taken seriously.

There are many citizens who are concerned about this. The purpose of this private member's bill is to place this issue higher on the public agenda and demand the kind of action that is called for from governments.

I have noted in the previous debate and again in debate this afternoon that there have been concerns raised about whether the manner in which the member proposes to address the problem is the appropriate one, acknowledging that jurisdictionally this is a matter that belongs primarily at the provincial and territorial level. I think there is no question about that.

I know the member herself, in responding to some of those questions, has indicated in the past that it is not her intention in any way to crowd the jurisdiction of provinces and territories, or in some way displace them regarding the handling of wildlife. Rather, the intent would be to strengthen at the federal level, in the most extreme cases the Criminal Code, provisions that might in fact back up the regulatory measures and existing laws at the provincial level.

At the end of the day, it is not clear to me whether the justice ministry, for example, would be prepared to see this as an appropriate way to go. The member is to be commended for bringing the concern forward once again to the House of Commons.

There are some member, and I am not alone in this, who represent urban ridings. Those of us that represent urban ridings are not inclined to get involved in this kind of debate because there are not great numbers of wildlife, endangered species or otherwise, that may be at risk from the poaching and preying on our wildlife that is contemplated by the legislation.

I have the privilege of representing the city of Halifax. Although Halifax is very much an urban riding, because of the foresight of our pioneers in Halifax about the importance of public space and wilderness space, we happen to be blessed with wonderful Point Pleasant Park at one end of the city. On the north end of the peninsula of Halifax there is Seaview Park and on the outskirts of the mainland of the city of Halifax there is a great deal of green space that aims to achieve the same objectives set out by the member: to improve habitat, and protect and enhance wildlife in our constituencies.

Am I aware whether there is poaching for this purpose happening in my riding? Frankly, I am not. I have not heard from constituents about it. However, I know that whether this is happening in my backyard or not, there is a proud tradition in Halifax, and throughout Nova Scotia, of citizen-based initiatives, community-based initiatives and non-governmental organizations that have shown a lot of leadership around issues of natural habitat, and have focused on the preservation and enhancement of wildlife and so on. The member must be commended for addressing this concern in the bill that is before us.

I am not aware whether this member has consulted directly with aboriginal leaders and aboriginal Canadians throughout her own province on this issue. There is no group of Canadians which has more expertise and more demonstrated commitment to the responsible use of our wildlife and responsible management of our habitat than first nations and other aboriginal Canadians. All too often that expertise is not consulted.

We do not recognize often enough the available resources of aboriginal Canadians, particularly when they have had so little support from the government around the kind of sustainable practices that would help them lift their own communities out of poverty. They are not brought in often enough as the experts and advisers that could give the best possible advice to the Government of Canada and to any one of the 301 members who share concerns about these issues.

In closing, it is important for us to be addressing this issue. I will listen with interest to the debate because, while I support the spirit of the bill, I am not entirely persuaded that the bill that is now before the House is one that will be truly effective in the manner that the member would wish.

I listened with interest to the comments from the member for Ottawa Centre. He too indicated that he shared the spirit in which the bill was introduced. However, speaking as a private member, and I know he did not pretend to be speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada, he showed a certain amount of chutzpah by saying he was not sure that it would be the most efficient way of dealing with this problem.

After the embarrassment of his own government's handling of the endangered species legislation and the manner in which the national firearms registration has been handled, it is good to know that there are some members on the government side who are genuinely focused on the question of the most effective and efficient manner of dealing with issues that concern Canadians.