Karen Redman

[Question No. 118—, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 118 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 120, 123, 124, and 131.

[Government Response to Petitions, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.

[Fisheries, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, our actions to date show that the government is willing to take a strong stand. We presented strong positions to protect fisheries at NAFO and we will continue to do this.

[Fisheries, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I would like to thank the hon. member for St. John's West for his ongoing interest in the issue of foreign overfishing. I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on this very important issue.

The Government of Canada takes the issue of foreign overfishing very seriously. Overfishing affects some of Canada's most vulnerable communities. We saw an example of this recently.

During a port inspection of the Russian registered vessel Olga , DFO officials determined that the vessel had on board 49 tonnes of cod and 9 tonnes of skate that had been caught outside Canada's 200 mile limit. The relative amount of cod on board clearly indicated a directed fishery for this species that is contrary to the moratoria for all cod stocks in the NAFO regulatory area.

The Government of Canada took action. We immediately raised this issue with the Russian authorities. I am pleased to say that we are seeing results.

The Russian fisheries' representative in Halifax has advised Canada and NAFO that the Russian authorities are cancelling Olga 's licence to fish in NAFO waters for the remainder of this year and that they will conduct further investigations into this vessel's activities. The Canadian embassy in Moscow will meet with Russian authorities to ensure that a thorough investigation is made and that appropriate sanctions are levied. This is a clear indication that Russia has taken Canada's concerns with this vessel very seriously. The Olga is now in Iceland and we have requested that Icelandic authorities undertake a detailed inspection of the vessel and inform us of their findings.

Similar concerns have been raised in the Latvian registered vessel Otto but the situation with the Otto is different. On March 19 we authorized the Otto to enter a Canadian port to unload its cargo. The Otto 's agent advised DFO that the vessel would offload its catch in Iceland rather than in Canada.

At Canada's request, the Icelandic authorities undertook a full inspection of this vessel and gave us a copy of the dockside inspection report. The report indicated that no irregularities were found. Quite simply, the Otto was not involved in any illegal fishing.

These are just two examples of the Government of Canada taking action on allegations of foreign overfishing. Indeed Canada will not tolerate the wilful abuse of NAFO quotas and rules. When such allegations arise, Canada will take up the matter with the proper authorities.

We have already demonstrated our resolve by closing our ports to Faeroese and Estonian fishing fleets because of non-compliance to NAFO rules and conservation measures. DFO officials are now closely monitoring the fishing activities of several other fleets to ensure compliance. If there is evidence of non-compliance, similar actions will be taken.

Canadians depend on DFO to manage this resource on their behalf and to manage it responsibly with an eye to the future. Fisheries and Oceans Canada continues to take this responsibility seriously and will continue to respond to allegations of foreign overfishing in an appropriate fashion.

[Waterloo Regional Children's Museum, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Waterloo Regional Children's Museum presents a place where art and technology meet to stimulate creativity and motivate learning. It is a place of wonder and adventure that we can share with our children.

This exciting concept is one that clearly mirrors the character of the Waterloo region itself. While Kitchener is home to technological leaders and innovative research, it is also a place where the earliest forms of agricultural practices remain in use. The children's museum explores the diversity and development of our culture and presents a unique learning opportunity.

I am proud to say that the federal government is sharing in the local community's commitment to the museum with funding of $675,840 through the Cultural Spaces Canada Program.

The children's museum is the culmination of artistic interpretation and cultural heritage. Like many in our community I eagerly await the doors to open so we can share in this experience.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure to get up in the House and speak to such an important topic.

I have had the privilege of being in the House since 1997. Every day we deal with legislation that is important to Canadians. I can think back to the Newfoundland Schools Act, the Quebec school act and when we brought Nunavut into existence on April 1, 1991. There have been significant pieces of legislation.

The bill before the House of Commons today is very important for Canadians.

There is no question that nature is part of Canada's identity. We flock in record numbers to our national parks. We boast about our wide open spaces. We revel in our reputation as a country of the outdoors. We are the envy of many countries around the world. While nature is part of the Canadian identity it is at the core of the way of life of Canada's aboriginal peoples. They are people of the land, with vast and rich stories and a vast knowledge of nature.

The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development worked long and hard in its study of the proposed species at risk act. Its work must be praised and is of great value. It has added a great deal to an already sound and well considered approach.

At report stage we are dealing with what would seem to be a number of motions, but most are housekeeping motions. They would clean up the text to ensure consistency in wording throughout the bill while maintaining the intent of the hard and valuable work of the standing committee in drafting amendments.

We accept in principle the standing committee's proposal to develop a stewardship action plan under Bill C-5. Work is already underway on the development of a federal, provincial and territorial Canada wide stewardship action plan. There have been meetings and discussions. Much progress has been made in this area.

However we want to avoid legislating mandatory federal government programs which add to the complication of making future resource commitments in law. We want to ensure we have sufficient time to develop a plan in co-operation with others including landowners, resource users, aboriginal people, provinces and territories. That is why the government motions would remove a one year deadline and provide the minister with the authority to develop a stewardship action plan in consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.

The federal commitment to stewardship has already been reinforced by the Habitat Stewardship Program. Under the program $45 million over five years has been targeted to stewardship activities. The program is now entering its third year. It has fostered many new partnerships and allowed old ones to accomplish more. It has brought new partners into the fold of stewardship across all regions of Canada.

For the $5 million in the first year of funding the program attracted non-federal funding of over $8 million. In other words, for every $1 spent by the federal government under the Habitat Stewardship Program $1.70 worth of non-governmental resources was contributed to the projects.

In the second year of the stewardship plan $10 million for more than 150 projects has already been allocated. For example, the Habitat Stewardship Program includes projects that focus on improving the habitat of the threatened spiny soft-shell turtle in the Thames River. It has contributed to carrying out field propagation and release programs for the endangered eastern loggerhead shrike and protecting the native prairie habitat on which the endangered burrowing owl depends. I realize these species are of great import to the Speaker because he read out all the names in English, French and Latin.

Throughout the outreach and public education, and these are important initiatives, more than 25,000 landowners and nearly 50,000 people have been directly contacted to raise their awareness of their local area. We have also provided more favourable tax treatment for the contribution of ecologically sensitive lands. Over 20,000 hectares have already been donated as ecological gifts.

The federal government is a steward in the protection of species at risk and their critical habitats in Canada. Landowners, farmers, fishers, aboriginal people, conservation groups, workers in the resource sector and many others are stewards. They all deserve credit for the stewardship work they do. Bill C-5 would encourage us to do more. It deserves our support.

Just as we cannot underestimate the importance of conserving and protecting species at risk and their habitats, neither can we underestimate the importance placed on Bill C-5 by Canada's first peoples. The formation of the proposed legislation has involved aboriginal peoples in a variety of ways. They have been at the table for many rounds of discussion. They have provided a significant advisory capacity by helping us fully understand the issues, needs and capacities of aboriginal peoples to help in the protection of species at risk.

The role and importance of aboriginal traditional knowledge would be entrenched in Bill C-5. These are the people whose traditions tell us about the habits and patterns of birds and animals. These are the people who know because they have been told by their parents and the parents of their parents that certain plants can survive in certain places. This knowledge would help us protect species and plan effective recoveries. We would incorporate traditional aboriginal knowledge in our assessment and recovery process in a formal way. This is quite unique.

I spoke about the intense involvement of representatives of Canada's aboriginal peoples in the development of Bill C-5. This became part of a formal process through the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk, a group which has provided advice to the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Parks Canada Agency and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for a number of years. Its advice is invaluable. We want to continue to benefit from its advice and input which has helped inform us so well in making the policy behind Bill C-5.

I acknowledge the invaluable contribution of my colleagues the hon. members from Churchill River, Nunavut, Western Arctic, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I also commend my hon. colleagues from the north for their effectiveness in ensuring the voices and viewpoints of Canada's aboriginal communities are reflected in the legislation. The standing committee has said we need a mechanism to ensure this continues. We agree.

I am heartened by the interest that has been shown by members on all sides of the House. Many members of the official opposition have been moved to speak to the legislation. I commend the critics on the opposite side of the House for the interest and productive activity they have given to the committee's work.

However it saddens me to hear things repeated because many people who watch the proceedings on television do not have the benefit of being able to read the act or the committee transcripts. In clause 129 of Bill C-5 the government has set out a review mechanism which would take place in five years. I would hate Canadians to be misled into thinking we have in any way ignored the transparency and accountability the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development worked so hard for.

Bill C-5 would be effective. It would work on the ground. It is what Canadians have said they want. We as a government have responded.

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure all people listening are anxious to hear my hon. colleague get to the content of the Group No. 4 amendments to the species at risk bill before the House.

[The Environment, April 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of the Environment announced proposed regulations to tighten exhaust emissions levels for on road vehicles for the year 2004. Among his proposals, sports utility vehicles will be reclassified as cars in order to lower their emissions. SUVs have evaded the regulations that were put in place for passenger vehicles and smog contributions from new SUVs will drop dramatically.

In addition, this summer proposed regulations will be put forth for small spark ignition engines, power chainsaws, snow blowers and lawnmowers. As well, by the end--