Bob Mills

[Kyoto Protocol, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the last opposition members, I hope the Prime Minister did get the message in Moscow on Friday regarding the ratification of the Kyoto protocol and how it will gut the Canadian economy. Nine premiers are concerned, industry is concerned and Canadians are concerned.

Will the government today abandon its foolhardy commitment to ratify Kyoto this year?

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the single biggest flaw in the bill is that the species at risk legislation will never be effective. It will be a failure because it fails to deal with the issue of compensation for landowners who will suffer economic losses as a result of the implementation of measures to protect species at risk and their habitat.

Compensation. The word sounds so grasping, so selfish, so un-Canadian. Why would people expect to get paid for obeying the law? Why should property owners not be willing simply to absorb the cost themselves in the service of a greater social good?

When people's livelihoods are at stake, they have a different view of things. Maybe a farmer will have to leave sections of land untouched for a number of years, or adopt farming practices to accommodate nesting birds. Maybe areas of the forest will be off limits during migration.

There are lots of ways property owners and resource users will be affected, some temporary, some permanent. In many cases they will face costs, lost income from not being able to use their land, or perhaps actual costs incurred to protect habitat or provide for individuals of an endangered species.

It is completely incorrect to think that farmers, for example, are just sitting there waiting for the government to put compensation into the bill so they can sell their land. Some members seem to imply this. The government seems to think that every farmer just wants to get rid of his land and that they will react that way to this legislation. Anyone listening to the minister talk about compensation would think that he believes that.

For the farmers and ranchers whom I know, their land is their life. Often it has been in their family for generations. They are not looking for an easy way out or to sell it to the government. They respect the wildlife on their property and would be happy to work co-operatively in a voluntary stewardship program. However when costs arise they do not want to be left holding the bag. Losing 10% of their land could easily put a farmer or rancher out of business.

No doubt the minister will say that the bill recognizes the principle of compensation. Let us look at the bill. Yes, it does say that the minister may, and I emphasize the word may, provide compensation. It is good that is there. The government even seems willing to retain the committee's wording of fair and reasonable compensation. That is even better.

However, in Bill C-5 any compensation that is left entirely to the minister's discretion will not be fine with the farmers I know. These will be hollow promises. “Trust us” is not something that people will accept. Until property owners and resource users know the losses they will suffer and the compensation that will be there, this bill will not work.

Instead, what has the government done in the legislation? It is moving to reverse what the committee did and instead make even the very drafting of regulations at the minister's discretion. He might, he might not. That is not very convincing. Again as I have said, most people will not accept “trust us”.

It would have been a token of good faith had the minister tabled the draft regulations for us to look at prior to the bill being passed. He has promised to have a draft ready soon after royal assent. That does not do anything to convince people that the act will be fair to them. What can they expect if he will not even put it in the bill?

In practice, what does the bill mean when it says that compensation will only be in the case of extraordinary impact of regulatory restrictions? Can people trust the process to be fair? The minister owes Canadians answers to these questions.

In fact, the only public picture of what the regulations might look like is the Pearse report. Obviously, the government has ruled out the Pearse report, but many people have read it and are concerned about it.

The very principle by which we have this legislation is the UN convention on biological diversity which Canada signed. This convention recognizes that because the objective of maintaining bio- and ecosystem diversity is so important, costs must be equitably borne by everyone and not just primarily by developing countries.

Applied at home, this principle would mean that landowners should not bear the cost of species protection but that since they are helping to achieve a greater social good, compensation should be extended to offset any losses that might result. The Species at Risk Working Group also recognized this in its brief to the standing committee. It wrote:

SARWG strongly urges Parliament to...recognize that the protection of species at risk is a public value and that measures to protect endangered species should be equitably shared and not unfairly borne by any individual, group of landowners, workers, communities or organizations. Provision for compensation helps to balance the effect of efforts to protect species at risk and instills necessary trust among all stakeholders.

The bill should specify that. It was amazing to hear industry, environmentalists, farmers, ranchers and foresters all saying that the whole of Canada could benefit by sharing that load of protecting those species at risk.

We believe in protecting these species at risk. That is the most important thing. If a government says it is going to take people's land, affecting their incomes and livelihoods, then obviously we are concerned that the ones who will be threatened even further are not only the landowners but the species that are at risk.

There are lots of examples internationally. Tasmania has a threatened species protection act which it introduced in 1995. It states that a landowner is entitled to compensation for financial loss suffered directly resulting from an interim protection order or a land management agreement.

In the European Community, a person who is required to comply with a notice under section 36 is entitled to compensation for financial loss as a result of being required to comply with that notice.

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

The U.K. has a natural habitats regulation which it introduced in 1994. It states:

Where a special natural conservation order is made, the appropriate nature conservation body shall pay compensation to any person having at the time of the making of the order an interest in land...who...shows that the value of his interest is less than it would have been had the order not been made.

Those are international examples. Nowhere, except it appears in our country, are people expected to give up their lands and livelihoods for the sake of the public good.

In the committee the minister even reported to us about his concern. He said that he would like to have compensation in the bill but that he lost the battle in cabinet. In fact in a leaked letter from the then minister of fisheries he said “I won't go along with any compensation”. It appears that is what happened more than the reality of trying to protect endangered species.

Environment Canada has said it knows there will be problems if compensation is not in the bill. It is easy to use all of the international examples and to talk about what people are telling us on the ground. Compensation does not have to be money. It can be land swaps. It can be tax breaks. It can be all kinds of things such as help with fencing or different equipment. There are lots of things that should be part of the bill but are not. There are lots of examples as well where it has worked to help save species.

I implore the government to look at the bill again. If it really cares about endangered species, it will include compensation in the bill.

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to speak to the motions that you have ruled out of order, Motions Nos. 40 to 42, and that entire list, and Motion No. 110 which I believe you ruled out of order as well.

I have several arguments. The first one is based on the importance one of the motions has for landowners. The bill talks about being guilty until proven innocent. This goes against all principles and destroys the goodwill many landowners will have in dealing with the legislation.

The chairman of our committee, the member for Davenport, did an exceptional job of working with our committee. Our committee worked in a co-operative manner that I have never seen before, certainly as long as I have been in the House. I believe that by exempting these we not only exempt a very important aspect to the landowners but we also exempt something on which, while committee members could not agree on, many members should have a say.

Some of the resolutions were put forward by the member for Skeena, the member for Lanark--Carleton and the member for Lethbridge because they were not on our committee and did not have an opportunity to speak on behalf of the landowners who would be affected by the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention that the slender mouse-ear-cress and the western spiderwort are endangered species. The only person who would know those species would be a botanist. The argument is that by debating this in the House we could alert the public to the fact that they will need to start finding out what these endangered species are because if the habitat is destroyed or if anything is done to that endangered species they will be guilty of a criminal act.

I have about 20 pages that we could talk about the legal ramifications and I am not even a lawyer. However, this will end up in court cases and take money out of what should go to conservation and be put in the hands of the justice system.

I really feel that the mens rea argument is one that we should strongly put and one that we should be discussing in the House. I just do not believe that by not talking about it and having it in the act that it will be fair to any of those landowners. In effect, they will be guilty until proven innocent, which is not the legal system that I understand and certainly not one that is very defensible. We say that we want to co-operate, consult and build a relationship with landowners but we introduce a bill that does not even identify a critical habitat. If landowners damage it, they will have committed a criminal offence.

I feel it is essential for all members to have the opportunity to talk about those amendments in the House. We are not talking about a driving ticket. We are talking about a criminal offence having been committed. It is not right to simply say that due diligence is the responsibility of landowners. Landowners do not have time to check out every worm, every mollusk and every plant that might be on their land to find out if it is on some list. We must discuss this in the House.

The minister said:

It's a legitimate matter for concern. The accident, the unwitting destruction—it is a concern, and we want to give the maximum protection we can to the legitimate and honest person who makes a mistake, who unwittingly does that.

The minister is arguing that we should discuss this and that it is a major problem in the bill. By exempting those, we are certainly going against that basic principle.

The best solution would be to debate the amendment to the bill which would require what Roman law used to refer to as a guilty mind, mens rea.

The requirement that in order to commit a criminal act a person had to know he or she was doing something wrong, has been the standard division between criminal and civil offences in English common law since the late middle ages. It is absolutely essential in this case but the bill does not take that into consideration. It states that the person is guilty. I believe no one, no landowner or company, will be able to function this way with the legislation.

Let me close by quoting the minister. He said:

We have all seen, as politicians, what happens when people get fearful of their government or angry with government programs. We've all seen the damage that's done to public trust when perfectly reasonable people suddenly decide the government has some hidden and nefarious agenda. There is no reason to stir up those kinds of concerns with this legislation.

The minister's speech writer seems to understand the issue. The only problem is that it is not in Bill C-5.

On that basis I believe all members should have the opportunity to speak to this issue and that we should be looking at mens rea as opposed to due diligence.

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

moved:

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-5, in Clause 97, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 26 on page 56.

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-5, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 8 with the following:

“6. The purposes of this Act, to be pursued in a cost-effective manner, are to prevent”

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the member across the way as well. He talks about inaction and the government. Because my time is limited let me talk about April 8, 1997, and then I would like to go on to May 7, 1998, and talk about the inaction of the government on these sorts of issues.

On April 8 I asked the then justice minister who is now the Minister of Industry a question related to a sex offender who had just been released into our community on March 14. I had just met with 200 young parents in a school gymnasium. We had an RCMP officer there who said that this person would reoffend. We had a psychiatrist there who said that this person would reoffend. We had several other people there from police agencies who said he would reoffend.

My question in the House was what I would tell the parents of the 10th victim of this person. I will paraphrase because he gave a very long answer, but the then justice minister answered that he too had children and would also worry about sex offenders being released into his community. He indicated that the new Bill C-65 would take care of it, that it would not be a problem any more and that I should not worry about it.

I then asked a supplementary question in which I explained to the minister that it was not good enough to say that the new bill would take care of it. The answer I got from the then minister was that he would send me a copy of Bill C-65 to take back to the parents and tell them that all was fine. On May 7, 1998, I again rose in the House and said:

Mr. Speaker, in this House some 13 months ago I asked the former justice minister about a nine time convicted pedophile who was released into my riding. The experts said he would reoffend. I asked the minister what would I tell the parents of the 10th victim. The minister said that we have new legislation which will prevent an offending pedophile from ever doing this again.

On the Friday before I rose in the House the sex offender had a 10th and an 11th victim. I rose again in the House and asked what I could tell the parents. The answer from the justice minister, now the health minister, was:

Mr. Speaker, obviously the situation that the hon. member refers to is a very serious one and a very tragic one. My colleague, the solicitor general, and I have discussed this issue and we are going to be looking at it further.

That was 1998. There have now been other victims and there are other examples. Perhaps it is the truck driver driving across the country who is a convicted sex offender. He reoffends as he goes from province to province because he has changed his name and we do not have a registry. That is the issue. How could anyone not react to putting a sex offender registry in place?

Let me talk about the most recent situation in my riding. I believe everyone is familiar with the Schneeberger case and Lisa's law, which I have been begging the House to take a look at. It is a case of a convicted pedophile, a convicted sex offender, who is about to be released in another couple of years from prison. This person even foiled the RCMP for six years before he finally was convicted of sexually assaulting, raping, his 11 year old stepdaughter as well as an adult patient.

I was with the mother and her five year old and six year old little girls when we were forced to go into the prison in Bowden in May of last year with a psychologist to see a sex offender. This single mother and these two little children are now really worried. When this person gets out of prison, will they pay a price? They are genuinely concerned.

They want to know and they deserve to know where the person is going to be at all times. The police should know. There are the technicalities of how this is done. I have heard in the House that some people are worried about the wording. Let us change the wording. This is not a partisan issue. This is about sex offenders. This is about pedophiles who prey on those people who cannot defend themselves.

The police say that CPIC is not adequate. The police say that sex offenders are getting out, changing their names, and carrying on life as usual. In many cases they will reoffend. Those reoffences are the problem.

Will I ever forget talking to the two fathers whose two five year old daughters had been attacked by a pedophile? Will I ever forget saying to them that parliament is not working for them, that parliament does not care? I quoted what the minister said in 1997. I quoted what a different minister said in 1998. It is now 2002 and I have to conclude that the government does not care about sex offenders. It does not care about a registry. It does not care about pedophiles reoffending. Parents should take care of their own kids because the government is not going to put that protection in place.

I ask that members look at this issue carefully and that they vote in favour of the motion.

[The Environment, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we need action right now. Birds are dying along our coastlines. Our surveillance is inadequate. Our fines are too low, often being under $20,000, and insurance companies often even cover those, whereas in Europe and the U.S., fines are in the millions of dollars.

When will the minister increase the fines in Canada?

[The Environment, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one of Canada's natural treasures is in trouble. The coast of Newfoundland with its colonies of sea birds is being put in danger by oil dumping. These spills are no accident. Foreign tankers and cargo vessels passing through our waters actually have an incentive to dump their oil because our fines are so ridiculously low.

When will the Minister of Transport increase his department's charges and fines for oil dumping so that we can stop this sabotage of our waters?

[The Environment, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is a runaway political train. Noted Canadian economists are saying that Kyoto has the potential to shut down Canada's economy.

We are now in an economic slowdown and we are considering ratifying a treaty that we do not even know how to implement. It could send us into another Liberal recession or deeper recession.

The great untold secret of Kyoto is that it would achieve practically nothing to reduce global climate change. It is all pain with no gain.

When will Canadians be told the truth about the Kyoto protocol?

[The Environment, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to weave its Kyoto story. On the weekend it was reported that the government might even consider energy rationing. However, most experts say that Canada still has no idea how to reach its Kyoto target. There are 47 government web sites, millions of brochures, and hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to confuse Canadians.

The government now wants to take this mess to Canadians to get their input. It is a little late. How can Canadians comment when the government does not even know what are the facts?