Bob Mills

[Species at Risk Act, May 8th, 2002]

Or nothing.

[The Environment, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest he listen to the premier and some of the other members there and the environment minister.

I would also say it is pathetic what the government has put toward alternate energy. While the Americans have put $4.6 billion toward alternate energy, he is talking $5 million to $6 million. It is pathetic.

Has the minister not noticed that his whole caucus is abandoning him? The ministers of finance, natural resources, industry and the Deputy Prime Minister are abandoning him.

[The Environment, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the environment minister said that he continues to promote Kyoto because of the opportunities it might afford. The only opportunity Kyoto affords is for an unwieldy bureaucracy to enforce the draconian restrictions. Studies which show benefits to Canada are based on outdated economic methods and unrealistic assumptions.

Why will the government not seize on the real opportunities and do more to promote conservation, all kinds of transitional fuels and alternate energy?

[Lisa's Law, May 7th, 2002]

moved that Bill C-400, an act to amend the Divorce Act (limits on rights of child access by sex offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most meaningful opportunities I have had in the nine years I have been in the House. I am bringing forward a bill concerning two little girls aged five and six, a bill with which I have become emotionally involved.

I believe in putting children first. My experience as a father of six and grandfather of twelve have given me a real feeling for children and what it is all about. I have talked many people about Bill C-400 during the last year. Things like the Sharpe case come to mind. People wonder how a guy with over 500 pictures of nude boys does not get a jail sentence. It is upsetting to people.

In our community a fellow was convicted nine times of being a pedophile and attacking young children. I asked in the House what I should tell the parents of the 10th victim. I was told offenders must be given a chance. A year later he picked up two little girls, a five and a six year old, and was in the process of assaulting them. They were his 10th and 11th offences.

When I get to this case I can hardly describe to members the emotions I feel. I will give the House some quick background. In Saskatchewan a doctor named Schneeberger married a lady named Lisa. She already had two children by a previous marriage, a boy and a girl, and together they had two little girls.

In 1992 one of Schneeberger's patients suspected something was happening on the examination table. The police were called in, blood samples were taken but there was no DNA connection. Lisa then discovered that her 13 year old daughter had been raped a number of times. A drug had been used on her and there had been repeated rapes over the course of about five years.

After taking numerous blood samples from what turned out to be a tube in the gentleman's arm, the police finally took a hair sample. The DNA matched. During that period the divorce occurred. Schneeberger had not seen the two young girls since they were less than two years old.

He was convicted in November, 1999. He was given a six year sentence for the assault and rape of a patient and of his 13 year old daughter. He was then sent to jail. The woman and her two little girls moved to Red Deer which is my constituency. Schneeberger managed to be transferred to Bowden which is some 30 kilometers away from my community but still in my constituency.

In the process Schneeberger made an application to a Saskatchewan court that the two little girls should pay forced visits to him on the last Sunday of every month and phone him every Monday and be on the phone for an hour. Of course the little girls cried each time this happened. They could not believe they would have to go into a jail setting.

This was appealed in a Red Deer court but the judge said it had to go back to Saskatchewan. A single mother on limited income trying to start a new life was told she had to go back to Saskatchewan to fight the case. She did not have the money. We managed to raise some money but not enough.

On May 27, 2001, a day I will never forget, we finally heard the news. The night before the visit was to take place we were told Lisa's five and six year old daughters would have to go into the prison to visit the man they had not seen for so many years, the man who had raped their sister in their home.

I was in a parking lot. I was to speak at a Kinsmen meeting some 15 kilometres away from the prison in Innisfail. I got the message when I stopped the car. I immediately called the local radio station to tell them the bad news. I told the Kinsmen club about it in my speech. The truckers broadcast it on truck radios across the province. They said if people were in the vicinity of Bowden on Highway 2, a busy highway, they should stop the next day to let people know they cared about the mother and her two kids.

Sunday morning came. It was a cool day. We went to a local hotel. A news conference had quickly been put together and was packed with media people. Lisa was there. Her daughter who had been raped was there. She is probably one of the bravest young girls I have met. She is now 19 years old and is carrying on with her life. She is a totally open and brave young person. At the news conference the usual questions were asked. Nevertheless they had to go to Bowden. The fine would have been $5,000 if they had not gone to Bowden prison that day.

When I arrived at the news conference I was surprised by the hundreds of people who were there. Big rigs had stopped and the police were there. I have so many memories of that day. I am sure it is the same for Lisa. One memory is that the people there wanted to block entry. They wanted to protect the mother and the two young girls. They said it was wrong that this had to happen in Canada. An RCMP officer told me he would love to be part of the protest because he had young children. The tears coming down his face had an impact on all of us but he was there to do his job. He had to provide entrance to the prison.

Lisa and the girls arrived. I cannot imagine what the drive must have been like for them. If it was traumatic for the adults in the crowd let us imagine what it must have been like for them. Lisa, the two girls and a psychologist arrived at Bowden some 35 kilometres away. The outpouring of support gave the adults strength. The common emotion everyone had is something I had never experienced before.

The crowd parted. The psychologist, the two little girls, Lisa and myself proceeded into the prison. We then entered the security area. The deputy warden met us. The guards made a point of saying they were not the ones making this happen. They did not think it should happen. They wanted us to understand that. Prior to that I had asked the attorney general if we could take them to a hotel somewhere under guard so the visit could occur there. I was told the man was too dangerous to take out of the prison.

We went through security. We were told this was to make sure we did not have weapons. There was tension as we passed through the gate. I have visited the prison before. Hon. members will recall that about 80% to 90% of the inmates are sex offenders. I will never forget the tension that was building in us. We entered the doorway. The door slammed and there we were in the waiting room.

Schneeberger felt he had a victory. He had used the court system and the Divorce Act against the lady who had testified against him. He hated her. Divorces are war. The two little girls, a five and a six year old, were the pawns that Sunday afternoon. As they entered the room and saw the man who had raped their sister they started to cry. They started to sob and then they grabbed their mother.

At that point I said this could never happen again. It cannot happen in a country like Canada. Fortunately we had a psychologist with us. The psychologist said it had to end because it was too traumatic for the children. She immediately ended the visit, took the children back to the vehicle and out of the prison.

The two young girls are still receiving psychiatric treatment. They still wake up screaming in the night. They were forced to go into the prison to go through that. As I say, I did not need any more motivation for creating Lisa's law, Bill C-400.

After that Mr. Schneeberger said he would not make them come back. However the law is still on the books. Every time the phone rings in Lisa's house she does not know whether it will be him on the other end of the line saying next Sunday she must go back to the prison. Next time there would be a lot more support for Lisa across the country. That is gratifying. It has given me hope for us all because thousands of people have phoned, written and communicated with Lisa. They have called their members of parliament and talk shows to say what they think should happen.

Every member of parliament should have received a card with a picture of Lisa on it. I had originally written the notes for the back, with Lisa's permission of course. However she wrote me a letter to give to all members of parliament, and when I read the letter I simply threw away my notes and put Lisa's letter on the back of the card. The letter on the back of the card is a true message. I did not edit it. I did not even talk to her about writing it. It is a true message from the bottom of her heart.

What do I want to accomplish with Lisa's law? It is not about access to children in prison. Everyone must understand that. All the lawyers I talked to advised me to make it specific. It is about sex offenders and pedophiles who force their children to visit them in prison probably to get at the other partner. It is not about wanting to see the kids. It is about the force involved.

Maybe the bill is not perfect. I have talked to a couple of my colleagues on the other side about how it could be made better. I trust the justice committee to make it better and fix it. I am not married to the wording. I am not a lawyer. However I want the bill to work and I want the problem to stop.

I think all members would agree that it is not a partisan issue. It is about not forcing kids to go into prisons against their will to visit pedophiles. It is not about kids visiting prisoners. That is a whole different issue. The bill does not cover that. Bill C-400 is about kids who are forced to visit sex offenders.

I will put something on the record so everyone understands. If after consulting with experts there is a mutual consent between the parents that having the kids visit would be good for the children and the prisoner, that is fine. That is not what I am after. I am after what I saw on May 27, 2001.

I believe that to be a slight defect in the Divorce Act. It can be fixed by this minor amendment to the Divorce Act. Lawyers tell me that it can be done very quickly. We must do it quickly so it will never happen again.

Some would say that we should not force judges or make decisions for them. In a case like this, it seems to me that all of us in this House were elected to make the laws. Yes, the judge needs guidance and needs to look at the child's best interest but the judge in this case said that because it was not written in the law he really did not have a choice and could not prevent access to those children. That was his interpretation.

What I am saying is that we need to clear that up for judges. The bottom line is that we need to make sure judges know what parliament thinks about pedophiles, about children and about putting children first. I look forward to suggestions from other members.

Lisa and her two young daughters are the people who should receive credit for this bill. They are the ones who went through this. They need to find confidence in this parliament, which I think will help us all. No matter what party we are from, I do not think this should ever have a party name on it. This is Lisa's law. It is dedicated to a single mom out there who is trying to make a life for herself.

Lisa is afraid of the publicity but she has committed to doing this. I think that is very important. She just happens to be a constituent of mine. I would not want any other MP to ever have to experience what I did on that Sunday in May. It was something that no one should ever have to go through.

Therefore I put forward today Bill C-400. It is the most emotional thing I have ever presented to the House. I feel more strongly about this than anything I have ever done. If we can make it better we should make it better. If someone votes against it, I and I do not think Lisa will be able to believe it. As I say, most of the people I have talked to right across the country would agree with that.

I thank all members who will be speaking on this and I trust that they will vote for it.

[The Environment, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is the most ridiculous answer I have ever heard. How can the government keep this charade going on? The treaty will do nothing for the environment. Carbon credit trading simply moves enormous quantities of emissions from one location to another. It will cost billions of dollars. It will lead to massive job losses and it is already damaging our investment economy.

If the Prime Minister really wants to leave an environmental legacy, why does the Deputy Prime Minister not get the Kyoto albatross off from around his neck?

[The Environment, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed refreshing to see the Minister of Industry calling for a made in Canada plan to address climate change. Of course we in the Canadian Alliance have been asking for that all along.

As the minister said, now is the time to get going on a realistic plan that takes into account the unique position we hold in North America. Will the Deputy Prime Minister finally tell Canadians that the Kyoto fantasy is dead?

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about compensation being in the bill. I have heard that from other members. What do they not understand when it says that it shall be in the regulations if the minister chooses to do up the regulations and that it will be fair and reasonable without any definition of what that means? It does not say fair market value but fair and reasonable.

He talked about building trust. How can trust be built when all Canadians are not prepared to share in helping those people to preserve that species. Environmental groups, industry, farmers and ranchers know it will not work on the ground. How can the member stand and say that he really cares about the rural members or that he really thinks this thing will work on the ground to save a single species?

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of issues to deal with there and the first is the Kyoto issue. Government members say how wonderful Kyoto will be and how much it will accomplish. The reality is emissions trading for example. When we have a dirty company and a clean company, the dirty company pays the clean company by emissions credits, but we still have the same amount of CO

2

in the air. Internationally, a country that is producing CO

2

buys from some poor country that does not have any industry. Do we really expect that will help clean the air? We are still releasing the same amount of emissions. We are just transferring wealth. Kyoto is politics.

Let us get into something that will really help the environment. Let us get on with alternate energy and transitional fuels. That is what it is about. It is common sense, not anything to do with this game the government wants to play. Emissions trading equals bureaucracy.

The member just confirmed there is no money for compensation because $10 million of the money we thought might be there for helping the environment is already spent. Members should wait until the court actions start. We want compensation but not just in dollars.

There are wolves in Yellowstone. A private trust has been set up so anybody who suffers a wolf kill in that area is paid full market value for the cow, the calf or whatever. That works. Wolves are there and we are happy to have them there, but the landowner has been compensated. It does not have to be compensation from the government. It can be private trusts or all kinds of things but the government refuses to look at that. The government will just not listen to common sense.

The hon. member mentioned the committee. The committee worked very hard and then had 138 amendments turned back after all the work it did. That is an embarrassment to the House.

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Provencher.

I represent a riding that is both urban and rural. My riding has a lot of farmers. The endangered species in my riding certainly are the Liberals, because no one who is a farmer would vote Liberal. Farmers know what the government is like. They know what a lack of concern the Liberals have for agriculture.

We had to listen to the minister talk about the sky is falling and all the bad weather with not signing Kyoto. In actual fact if he were to admit it, it is a flawed agreement. There are much better ways to handle global warming. Yes, we should deal with it but certainly not through that flawed Kyoto agreement.

When farmers in my area hear about Kyoto they understand they will lose 30% of their jobs because most of them have to work off the farm. When national energy program one came along, 30% of them lost their houses, their land and their jobs. They know that Kyoto will cost at least that and more.

I want to talk primarily about Bill C-5 and the assault on rural property owners that it represents. We sat in committee for nine months. The minister talked about the farmers, the ranchers, the foresters, the oil and gas workers, the miners all being frontline soldiers. He said here again today that they were the people who had to co-operate if we were to protect species at risk.

We as a party want to protect species at risk. We want legislation that will work. That is the key difference.

Witnesses appeared before the environment committee month after month. We came up with over 300 amendments. We worked as a team on the environment committee to build something we all felt would work.

When the bill came back to the House the government turned back 138 of those amendments. It reversed them and went back to legislation that is exactly the same as legislation we would find in the United States which for 28 years has been nothing but a failure and has resulted in litigation instead of any kind of conservation.

That is what the government really stands for. Obviously it has not worked and it really does not care. The Liberals do not care about environmentalists. They do not care about business. They do not care about farmers. That is what the bill tells us. There is no habitat protection. There is no compensation. There is no mens rea.

There are horrendous penalties. Even though a farmer does not know that he has an endangered species on his land, and the government will not tell him, the farmer could get a $250,000 fine, five years in jail and a criminal record. There are not a lot of other offences with those kinds of penalties, except maybe gun control, as has been mentioned. Those kinds of penalties do not say the government wants to co-operate with rural landowners. They certainly are not farmer friendly.

There is no money budgeted for compensation. The minister says that the government is going to see how it works and in special cases it will give money. There is no money budgeted. Yes, there is $45 million to handle the administration, but that is for the administration. We have found what happens when the government talks about the administration of things. It said that Bill C-68 would never cost more than $85 million and now we know it is $1 billion and growing. That is the kind of shell game and misrepresentation we have seen.

There is not a farmer in the country who would believe the government is really going to give them compensation.

Clause 64 of the bill states “The minister shall”--it was “may” but now it is going to be “shall”, because that means everything--“in accordance with the regulations provide fair and reasonable compensation”.

What is fair and reasonable compensation and what does it mean to have it in the regulations? What it really means is that if there were no regulations there would be no compensation. There is no money budgeted for compensation. How can the government stand in this place and say there would be compensation?

Fair and reasonable is just that, whatever that means to whomever is making that decision. Some would say the Pearse report. It said if people suffer under a 10% loss they should get 50% compensation. Farmers and ranchers are not a bunch of greedy people waiting to sell their land. All they want, if they lose their piece of land, is to get fair market value. I have talked with a lot of people about what the difference is. Fair and reasonable is anything. It could be the Pearse report or whatever the government dreams up. But fair market value is taken by the sale of land around and an appraisal. This is a shell game.

The chairman of the rural caucus stated there were serious flaws pertaining to land compensation. He said:

Landowners must be compensated for loss of property enjoyment that results from compliance with the provisions of the act.Farmers tell me that any coercive approach to species protection will inevitably lead to many cases, with farmers and others faced with taking land out of production, resorting to a three S scenario — shoot, shovel, shut up.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association seemed to have bought into the government's shell game, but it said there were problems with: lack of certainty regarding availability and scope of compensation, use of strict liability offence as opposed to mens rea , and lack of species notification. It also found fault with it even though it was told to follow the government line.

Farmers are saying the legislation will not work. Why did the government put forward the legislation? Why does it keep saying there is compensation? It is saying that because in actual fact the Minister of the Environment lost the battle at the cabinet table. In fact, one cabinet minister stated:

Removing compensation from C-5 altogether would be the ideal case from my point of view, but this is unlikely given the expectations of resource users.

That is what we have. Rural Canadians out there have no compensation. It might be in the regulations, but we will not draw them up. It will be fair and reasonable, but we will not define what that is. So in actual fact, when Canadians want to save a species, they will not contribute to the saving of that species. That is all that rural people in this country want. It is simply to be dealt with fairly.

Obviously there would be no regulations and no compensation. The government should stand up and honestly say we need this piece of legislation because we agreed to it in 1992 in a biodiversity convention. That is why it is putting it in. It is not going to enforce it. It has no money to enforce it. It has no money for compensation and so this piece of legislation is on the books, but it is really of little use. It will not save habitat. It will not save species at risk. It will not help farmers and is a total failure to rural Canadians.

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I find it pretty hard to sit here and listen to the minister, having had so much to do with him over the last year and a half, and really believe that he thinks any farmer out there, anyone in rural Canada, those he calls the frontline soldiers, would trust that tirade that he just went through in telling them that the whole thing is coming down, the sky is falling, and saying to look at the science.

The science does not confirm that. We have just had the coldest April and the second coldest March in history. Is that climate change? Maybe we have climate cooling occurring. We had two feet of snow this past weekend. Maybe that is climate cooling. Maybe an ice age is coming.

This is the kind of garbage that we have to listen to from this minister. He puts everything onto Kyoto. If we have an ice storm, if we have a flood, it is Kyoto right now. The reality is that there are better ways. There are alternative fuels. There is alternative energy. There are all kinds of transitional fuels out there.

However, the government has no dedication. It is sitting on its hands and kowtowing to the Europeans. Meanwhile, it could be doing something. It could be doing something to really make a difference for the agricultural community of the country. This government does not care about farmers.