Rahim Jaffer

[The Environment, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the government has abandoned its disastrous plan to ratify the Kyoto treaty before the G-8 summit in Kananaskis in June.

Alberta's environment minister says that the deal will cost the Canadian economy $25 billion to $40 billion per year and that Alberta will pay a disproportionate share. What a gift to Albertans this would be on the eve of the G-8 summit.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the government will not mar the Alberta summit by ratifying a treaty that would be a death warrant for the Alberta economy?

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak once again to Bill C-5. As all members in the House are aware, this bill is supposed to protect endangered species. The motions in Group No. 2 deal specifically with jurisdiction and criminal intent.

The last time I had the opportunity to speak on the bill, it was with regard to the motions in Group No. 1 and the idea of compensation. As many of my colleagues have, I talked about the importance of obviously putting together legislation that brings together all the stakeholders involved in protecting endangered species. Why should we even deal with the bill if it does not create the atmosphere in the country of all the stakeholders coming together to protect endangered species.

Those stakeholders are various groups. They are landowners, ranchers, others have agricultural backgrounds and some of them are basically enthusiasts of nature, environmentalists or people who are interested in various forms of wildlife. All of them have an interest.

It is clear that even when Canadians are polled on this issue and even if endangered species does not rank at their top priority, over 90% of Canadians have expressed the interest in putting together some form of legislation that would protect endangered species.

In going through the bill and trying to deal with the legislation that hopefully will be effective in protecting endangered species, the question is can we get all Canadian from all those sides that I have mentioned working together. This is where the government has failed.

We have identified where it has failed over and over again in trying to bring stakeholders together. Instead, its mentality has been a divide and conquer mentality which refuses to bring all stakeholders together and jeopardizes the future of the protection of endangered species no matter what we do in this place.

We identified the idea of compensation. I will take a moment to repeat those concerns. Landowners who currently are stewards of the land, who make efforts usually on a voluntary basis, because they care so deeply about their land and about the endangered species that may be present on their land, make an effort to try to protect those habitats specifically on their lands without any involvement or legislation by the government.

How can we continue to do that in light of the government saying that if there are particular types of endangered species found on their land that this land could be confiscated without any form of compensation? The compensation question is still not clear. To get landowners on side and people involved in the agriculture industry, we have to give them the confidence that the government will respect private property rights. In fact, the government has no commitment to private property rights. This is the fear behalf of a lot of the landowners. If they are actually making the effort to be stewards of the land now and in future if the bill is passed and the compensation question is not clear, they are at risk of losing often generations of livelihood and generations of tradition on some of these lands because the government has not clearly put into the bill a mechanism or equation for compensation. This is outrageous.

I went on to talk about various communities in Europe that have actually outlined ways to deal with that compensation question. I wish the government would take that seriously. That is one other area that will pull apart the stakeholders when it comes to dealing with endangered species.

Group No. 2 motions talk about the area of jurisdiction and criminal intent. The Bloc is very concerned. I know Bloc members have many interests in the environment. They are pushing on many fronts to ensure the federal government respects the environment. We saw that with Kyoto and with a number of environmental bills. I am sure their commitment to endangered species is no less.

However the idea of jurisdiction in this case brings forth a lot of questions of how this relationship that is managed by the federal government will bring in the partners, the provincial governments.

When I talk about the stakeholders in the area of compensation, here is another example of trying to bring the stakeholders together, outside of the people who are directly related to the land, which are obviously the different levels of government. We can all be shooting on the same cylinders: co-operating together in this place and in the provinces to ensure that the paramount importance is put on endangered species. The government is refusing to even look at the way it will be trampling on provincial rights.

We have seen it time and time again from this government in health care, education and in a host of other areas where we know the government has no real commitment to working with the provinces. If anything, it would run roughshod over the provinces and invoke its own types of laws, when in fact those responsibilities may be of a provincial nature.

My colleague from Edmonton East, who spoke before me, talked about the idea of a national accord when it comes to environment, especially in the area of endangered species. This is an area where the government has lacked leadership in trying to bring those stakeholders together. I mentioned health care and education.

There has been talk of trying to bring the stakeholders from the provinces together in other areas. Let us face it, being federal representatives, we have to respect the provincial jurisdictions, but there are ways we can work better together if leadership is shown at the federal level to engage those provinces in the areas of health care, education and obviously the environment.

In creating a national accord, there would not be the duplication that we see in so many areas because the government has grown so large and tries to get involved in so many different things. We would try to eliminate the areas of duplication and obviously work in better co-operation with the provinces. The government has failed to do so and refuses to deal with the areas of jurisdiction that may be unacceptable to the provinces, where they may feel there is duplication. It obviously would not be in the best interests of taxpayers unless we address the jurisdictional issue.

That is why the idea of a national accord, such as in areas of education and health care, is something on which we should try to work together to allow provinces the flexibility to take care of its citizens and allow better co-operation and co-ordination with the federal government.

My colleague also spoke, as other colleagues have, about one of the big concerns we have in the bill outside the jurisdiction area. That is how the bill could affect criminal intent when it comes to people who are stewards of the land. The bill puts the burden of proof on the accused and not on the prosecution, meaning that farmers, ranchers, or anyone inadvertently destroying a species at risk or its critical habitat are guilty until proven innocent. This is unacceptable.

On the principle of obviously wanting to prosecute people who intentionally commit crimes against endangered species, I do not think we would find anyone opposed. When I was the environment critic for the official opposition, I had some discussions with some land management and agricultural groups. They said they had a real problem with the particular part of the bill that would invoke criminal intent. Even though we all know, and I think the parliamentary secretary to the environment minister would agree, there are people out there who are stewards of the land and who are currently working to protect endangered species, there are times in the daily operations of farmers, ranchers or others who deal in the natural resource industries when habitats might be affected negatively.

In many cases that could be done unintentionally. It is not the intention of many of these groups to damage habitats but unfortunately it could happen. What is being suggested in the bill is that even an innocent farmer or someone who is going about the business of dealing with their own business could be prosecuted in the event of an accident. This is unacceptable.

If there is obviously clear intention, which can be proven without making this sort of change to the bill, on the part of people who are going to actively destroy habitat, then we should prosecute them to the highest levels. We should ensure that fines are levelled and everything else. However we have jeopardized totally the whole notion of justice with this change of saying that a person is guilty until proven innocent. That goes against our belief in the justice system.

As I have said, the government has an opportunity to bring the stakeholders together. We have been repeating this message over and over again in the official opposition. The stakeholders involved have been repeating this message over and over again. This is the third time the government has tried to put this type of legislation through the House. Why has it failed? Because each time it consistently has refused to listen to the opposition and various stakeholders to bring people together on an issue that is very important. It refuses to listen to Canadians. That is unacceptable and that is why we have a really big problem with this bill.

[Terrorism, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been warned repeatedly. Even CSIS has told the government that terrorist networks are operating within this country. The Ressam case made it clear that terrorists are operating here.

Last week we learned that the RCMP intelligence section was not even talking to its CSIS counterparts and has not been doing so the whole time the Liberal government has been in power. Now the murder of Daniel Pearl may have been planned or directed from this country.

How can the government possibly assure Canadians that it has not dropped the ball on the war against terror at home when it appears that the murder of Daniel Pearl may be tied to terrorists operating in Canada?

[Terrorism, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there were reports today that the murder of Daniel Pearl, The Wall Street Journal reporter who was brutally slain by his al-Qaeda captors, may have been planned or directed from Canada. One of the suspected murderers may have received his orders to kidnap and kill Pearl in calls made from Pakistan to Canada.

It seems that the government's post-September 11 efforts have been for nothing. How can the government repeatedly assure Canadians that terrorists are not operating from within this country when the killers of Daniel Pearl may have received their marching orders from the al-Qaeda masters here in Canada?

[Species at Risk Act, February 20th, 2002]

We were hoping that maybe the Minister of Justice and others would have stood up in their caucus to defend the rights of property owners. It makes us question her commitment to Albertans or others when it comes to fair compensation to landowners.

This is what we have to focus on when it comes to dealing with endangered species legislation. Do we want to have legislation that is effective, that has teeth and that will deal with bringing all the stakeholders together no matter what portfolios they have? Endangered species is an issue all Canadians are behind. We know that. I know my hon. colleague in the corner there would agree. If we had more people trying to bring stakeholders together rather than the divide and conquer mentality of the government, we would have an effective endangered species legislation with which members on all sides of the House would agree and support.

The issue of fairness should be taken seriously by the government. It would give the sense to landowners that they could continue to do the job they are already doing on a voluntary basis. They are being stewards of the land and protecting endangered species. If their land is taken away, they should be compensated fairly for that. Is that too much to ask? We in the opposition feel it is not. It is too bad the lights were not on over on the other side so that government members could at least see the value of fairness to Canadians.

[Species at Risk Act, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to discuss some of the amendments put forward in Group No. 1 respecting Bill C-5. Even though it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to various government legislation, in this case I do so in complete and utter dismay. When I was serving as environment critic of the official opposition I was dealing with many of the issues on which we heard from the government that it would move, such as the issue of compensation.

Your Honour is no newcomer to this place. You know of some of the legislation that has gone through the House and how long it takes for the government to move legislation through. This is the third time we have dealt with this legislation. Some of the issues coming back to the House have still not been rectified, especially in the area of compensation. This leaves opposition members shaking their heads when there is an opportunity for the government to take advantage of bringing all stakeholders together on this bill.

Canadians have said loud and clear that they would like to see effective endangered species legislation. I believe over 90% of Canadians have said that they are in support of some form of endangered species legislation. I know I am. Once again the government continues to polarize Canadians when it could bring stakeholders together on the sensitive area of compensation.

We are talking about people's private property. We are talking about taking it away from them and not guaranteeing effective compensation to them for their private property.

The last time I checked I thought we lived in a free society. I believed we stood up for people's rights. I thought we believed in the right of people to own property. If people own property and it is taken away from them by government sources for whatever reason, one would think they would have the responsibility to compensate them.

When I worked on the legislation I remember some of the arguments against fair compensation which the government put forward. It still astounds me that it continues to hang on to arguments like there would be abuse among farmers, ranchers or landowners who want to make a buck if endangered species were found on their land. This is utter nonsense because some of the best stewards of the land are the people who work, live and take care of particular properties in large areas of wilderness. They want to see endangered species protected.

We have seen over and over again that some of the best stewards of the land are these people. Yet the government does not recognize that. Instead it points fingers at these people, some of the best stewards of the land, and says that they may take advantage of any compensation which might be provided by the government. That is completely outrageous. These are the people closest to the land. Yet the government points fingers.

I take a moment on the issue of compensation to identify what has been done in other countries to accommodate the idea of compensation so that fairness for people who own property is taken into the mix and they do not have, as my colleague who spoke immediately prior to my rising said, the shoot, shovel and shut up attitude on behalf of farmers, ranchers or others closest to the land.

One might think that members of the European Community are not sensitive to private property rights. In some cases they are very strong environmentalists and would perhaps be opposed to the idea of fair compensation. Within the European Community landowners receive compensation if they agree by a management agreement to maintain features of the landscape. This is what Canadian landowners are prepared to do, but they have had no indication from the government that it would live up to its part of the bargain on compensation.

Let us look at some of the examples of what happens in the European Community when it comes to compensation and how much the government could learn from these jurisdictions and apply at home. The U.K. operates the environmentally sensitive area scheme with 10 year agreements. Payments are on a per hectare basis. There are currently 43 ESAs in the U.K. covering about 15% of agricultural land. It is not that much. Obviously there is not much abuse going on there.

Switzerland runs the integrated production program, a voluntary scheme whereby farmers are given standard amounts based on profits forgone in return for agreeing to certain restrictions.

That sounds like it is moving in the right direction.

In Scotland the goose management scheme, run by the Scottish national heritage trust, pays farmers per head of Greenland white-fronted goose recorded on their land for over a 12 month period.

There are countless examples of this sort of responsibility among other jurisdictions when it comes to the idea of compensation. It is fair compensation to landowners. I think people expect fair compensation to be brought into the scheme of things.

I would like to take a moment to share with everybody something that we were all very excited about when I was the environment critic. We were waiting to see what sort of compensation equation the government would produce in the hopes it would be something that could bring all the stakeholders together.

Dr. Peter Pearse, a UBC professor, was asked to study what would be a fair compensation equation. He suggested that landowners be compensated for up to 50% for losses of 10% or more of income. That was all we heard as a suggestion on compensation for private property from a study that was commissioned by the government from an expert.

Since then, the government has remained silent on whether or not it agrees with it and whether or not it plans to incorporate it, because currently it is not in the legislation.

The government is talking about leaving it up to the regulations. Once the bill is passed in the House some bureaucrats who have no accountability to this place will be filling in the regulations. We have to trust that they will be fair to landowners.

If the government respected the House and democracy, and if it would allow this particular House to function, then we would be able to deal with important changes to legislation in this place. It would be debated openly and we would know exactly the intention of the government when it comes to compensation. However, we do not know. We do not have a commitment at all.

To take it further, according to the bill, compensation is entirely left to the minister's discretion. I do not know about Canadians out there, but many of our colleagues in the House shudder at the thought of giving more responsibility to ministers. We have seen irresponsibility in many cases in managing money within their departments.

I know there are many from the opposition who feel strongly about the legislation. The Minister of Justice, being from Alberta, is very sensitive to the issues of compensation when it comes to landowners and people who care about landowners.

[Foreign Affairs, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister is more concerned with the fight in his own cabinet than the fight against terrorism.

A few days ago Canadians were once again treated to the spectacle of the Prime Minister shooting from the lip on the world stage. On that occasion the Prime Minister decided to choose Moscow as a forum to announce his opposition to U.S. foreign policy on Iraq.

What did the Prime Minister hope to accomplish with those antics? How does he expect to be listened to in Washington on any issue when he continuously goes out of his way to criticize American foreign policy?

[Foreign Affairs, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear about what the Prime Minister said in 1998. He said:

Saddam's determination to develop and use weapons of mass destruction, chemical warfare in particular, is well documented. Anyone doubting the serious character of the threat this man represents has only to recall how he turned these weapons against his own people.

If that was the government's view in 1998 when Canada supported American and British strikes against Iraq, why is it not the view of the government today?

[The Economy, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is just like the government to celebrate mediocrity.

Another potential leadership candidate, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, seems to think that Canada is doing just fine and that our standard of living has been deemed by the United Nations to be among the best in the world. Among the best means third on the UN index, sixth in GDP per capita, far behind the United States, and eleventh in poverty levels.

Does the Minister of Industry share the heritage minister's belief that this level of performance in our standard of living is good enough?

[The Economy, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the two scrappers continue to argue and contradict one another. The Minister of Finance tells us that the government is on a solid footing and that the economy is healthy. The Minister of Industry tells us that our situation is worsening compared to our North American partners.

Who is right? The Minister of Finance, who tells us that everything is fine, or the Minister of Industry, who says that things are going from bad to worse?