Karen Redman

[Species at Risk Act, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will say a few words in support of the government's motions as well as its approach to assessing and listing species at risk as set out in the proposed species at risk act, Bill C-5.

First, we need to make sure everyone understands. There has been confusion about this. I do not know if it was deliberate or otherwise. Scientists and scientists alone would make the decisions about the assessment of species and where they would be placed on the list of those at risk. This would be done through the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC. The organization has been legally recognized as part of the assessment and listing process. This is a huge step forward.

The legislation means the assessment of species at risk would be scientific, expert and independent. It would be done at arm's length from government and away from any of the pressures that come with considering the social and economic impacts of being listed.

Decisions and findings of COSEWIC would be published in the public registry. Anyone could see them at any time. Anyone could see the reasons for the scientific decisions.

The government's decision to add species to the legal list would put a number of elements of the law into motion. For instance, species at risk legislation contains automatic prohibitions against the killing or harming of individuals of the listed species and the harming of their residence or habitat. It also stipulates that mandatory plans would be put together with specific time frames for the recovery of the species from its dangerously low numbers. Just as importantly, the process under the law would allow the authority to take emergency action if necessary to protect habitat.

Many decisions about protecting species at risk and their habitat could involve a number of serious economic or social implications, particularly for those who live in rural areas and depend on fishing, farming and ranching. We were elected to the House of Commons to take responsibility for such implications. We, not the scientists, must bear the burden of the decisions. We, not the scientists, must face the political heat. The government has been clear on this point for years and rightly so. Socio-economic decisions made under the act would be made by those who are publicly accountable. This is our democratic process.

I will speak to several government motions that relate to critical habitat protection with the proposed species at risk act. The motions in general serve to strengthen the federal commitment to habitat protection. They also reinforce the co-operative approach that has been and continues to be a key component of the overall strategy of protecting species at risk in Canada.

The federal government must work with provinces and territories to protect species and habitats. Protecting species at risk is the shared responsibility of all governments. The overall strategy of the protection of species at risk is to ensure the federal portion of the responsibility is met. Bill C-5 is one element of that strategy. It would complement the work done by other levels of government, build on a partnership approach under the federal-provincial accord for the protection of species at risk, and reinforce the stewardship component of the strategy.

The issue of critical habitat is only one part of species protection. We must protect where they live or they simply cannot survive. It is as simple as that.

What is a bit more complicated and has preoccupied us for a number of years in formulating the legislation is how best to protect critical habitat. It must be done in the best interest of the species but must take into account Canada's constitutional structure. We must respect jurisdictions. We must add to that the impact critical habitat designation could have on the livelihood of those who work on the land or water. This is difficult to assess at the best of times. Throughout all these considerations we must make sure the provisions for protection are workable, effective and integrated with other Canadian laws and conventions.

To that end, in its deliberations the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development made several changes to the species at risk act in the area of critical habitat. Some of the changes strengthen its provisions. I am pleased to say the changes are not only welcome but important. The committee added aquatic species and migratory birds protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act to the critical habitat regime within federal jurisdiction. These are significant changes. They make critical habitat even stronger.

Building on the additions of the standing committee, the government is moving further to strengthen critical habitat protection. It is moving to provide automatic critical habitat protection in national parks, marine protected areas, migratory bird sanctuaries and national wildlife areas. These are all federal lands and the protection element is a crucial one.

For anywhere else in federal jurisdiction the government is moving to require the competent minister to recommend protection if critical habitat is not protected within 180 days of being identified in an approved recovery strategy or action plan.

The government motions regarding critical habitat are reinforced by a further motion that would require all federal ministers to consider possible impacts on identified critical habitats prior to issuing licences or permits for any activity.

By restoring governor in council discretion we would restore the preferred and necessary approach to protecting critical habitat: stewardship and co-operation first. We feel strongly that the standing committee's approach would be a disincentive for landowners to enter into agreements and an incentive for going straight to compensation.

As I said, our approach must be co-operative and workable. We must remember that most lands in Canada are under provincial and territorial management or private ownership. That is why the approach must be one of joint action and not heavy handed, top down law. The proposed species at risk act would provide protection for all species at risk in Canada wherever they may be. The comprehensive and co-operative approach is essential to the survival of our wildlife.

The policy intents of Bill C-5 were not arrived at overnight. They came from years of study, consultation, discussion and examination. Because it is already working we know the co-operative approach is the Canadian way. We must ensure the incentive is there to pursue stewardship and voluntary action as the first step in all cases for protecting critical habitat.

[Motions for Papers, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers by allowed to stand.

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 20th, 2002]

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

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today to speak to the opposition motion regarding the health care system.

I do not think there is a single issue that I have heard more about since I came to the House in 1997 representing Kitchener Centre. We on this side of the House welcome this opportunity to debate with the opposition on something that is so important to all Canadians.

We recognize the very high priority that Canadians place on our health care system. It makes me very proud to remind the members opposite that the government places that same priority on Canada's health care system. Let me remind the opposition of a few key facts about health care in Canada.

First, overall health care spending reached $102.5 billion in 2001. That is equivalent to 9.4% of our gross domestic product. Let me point out that this is quite in line with other OECD nations. There has been a great deal of rhetoric about the rapid growth rate in spending on health care in Canada. As a nation we are spending virtually the same proportion of our GDP on health today as we did a decade ago. Public investments in health care have remained stable as a proportion of GDP as well. Clearly we are not falling behind. More important, our health outcomes, measured by indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality rates, are among the very best in the world.

It is important for us to recognize that over the past 25 years health care spending in Canada has shifted. In 1975 hospital services accounted for 45% of total health care expenditures. Now this sector represents 31% of total spending. This shift can be attributed to advances in technology such as diagnostic tests which can now be provided outside of the hospital setting. The majority of surgery is conducted on an outpatient basis rather than requiring lengthy hospital stays, as was previously the case.

As well, 27 years ago spending on drugs accounted for 9% of total health care spending. It now rests at 15%. Why? There has been an increased utilization of drugs and we have seen a rapid introduction of new drugs that can offer treatment for a great many conditions.

Any way we cut it, health care is an important issue for Canadians. Canadians are telling us that they are concerned about how long they wait to see a doctor when their child is sick, about how long an elderly patient will wait for space in a long term care facility or about how Canadians in rural and remote areas of our country will receive the care they need when they need it.

Canadians are also tired of having their governments pointing fingers at each other and bickering over health care. Canadians want their governments to work together to ensure that they will have the access to the care they need when they need it and where they need it. That is why we are working with our provincial and territorial counterparts on difficult issues with respect to health care. This is best exemplified by the first ministers agreement on health which was reached on September 11, 2000.

Let me remind the opposition that all premiers and territorial leaders agreed with our Prime Minister on a common vision for health care for Canadians. They also agreed to work together to support our health care system and to address key priorities to renew health care services. For these same reasons, in April 2001 the Prime Minister announced the commission on the future of health care in Canada. The work of the commission builds on a consensus regarding health care that was reached back in September 2000. It is from this basis that much collaborative federal, provincial and territorial work has indeed been undertaken.

In support of the September 2000 first ministers agreement and the priorities identified by those first ministers, the Government of Canada committed $21.1 billion in new cash in the Canadian health and social transfer over five years, beginning in the year 2001-02. This additional funding consists of an $18.9 billion general increase to the CHST in support of health and $2.2 billion in targeted funds for early childhood development initiatives.

In addition to increasing the CHST, to encourage and facilitate health care renewal in the provinces and territories the Government of Canada in September 2000 made significant investments in three targeted areas reflecting the agreed priorities: $1 billion over two years for medical equipment; $800 million over four years for the Primary Health Care Transition Fund which will accelerate and broaden primary health care initiatives across the country; and a $500 million fund to support, through an independent corporation, investment in information technology and communications such as electronic patient records.

In a past life I sat on a district health council representing regional and municipal governments. These are exactly the kinds of initiatives we at the grassroots level recognized as being in need of attention and funding. The government is following through with leadership as well as dollars.

Since the first ministers' agreement in September 2000 we have accomplished a great deal in several key areas such as pharmaceuticals and health information technology. The Government of Canada together with the provinces and territories reached an agreement on a common drug review process and new approaches to prescribing and improving the utilization of pharmaceuticals. Canada Health Infoway Inc. has been created and work is proceeding to develop electronic patient records and other innovative information technology applications.

In other areas such as primary health care and accountability, work is progressing in conjunction with our provincial and territorial partners. The continuing work on the health care system, based again on our agreed priorities, will renew and rejuvenate our most important national program which, as my colleague from Parkdale--High Park said earlier, helps define us as a nation.

What do all these facts and stories of collaborative work really mean for Canadians? They show that health care is a national Canada-wide issue and needs to be treated as such. They underscore that the first ministers' agreement of September 2000 was a joint endeavour agreed to by all premiers which continues to motivate collaborative work and renewal of health care. They prove that money alone could never ease the challenges the health care system faces. Perhaps most importantly, the first ministers' agreement demonstrated the will of all jurisdictions to work together to move forward on the renewal of the health care system. This is in the interest of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the most noteworthy aspects of the species at risk act and the one that has drawn a great deal of attention is the provision it makes for compensation. I would like to address my remarks today to this part of the bill.

Clearly wildlife does not live within a certain set of boundaries that we can just cordon off to protect them. We cannot tell the piping plover to build its nest only on a protected lakefront in Saskatchewan any more than we can tell the loggerhead shrike to stay away from cattle grazing areas.

We do have protected wildlife areas and sanctuaries and we are getting more all the time, but we cannot simply turn all of Canada into a protected area. Farmers, trappers, fishers and woodlot owners and their families are the people who make their livings from the land. Many of them have done so for centuries. We need to work together with the people who are using the land and waters in a way that also protects habitat as much as possible. We need to work with farmers, ranchers and trappers to find means to look at total land use including habitat protection. We call this stewardship. We call this a conservation approach.

This working relationship is important for many different reasons. By fostering stewardship we are emphasizing the co-operative process first when it comes to habitat protection. We understand that Bill C-5 is strong legislation. There are prohibitions where they are needed, but these prohibitions are designed to come into effect when the co-operative approach does not work.

We know from firsthand experience that most people want to do the right thing. During the development of the legislation, which has been nine years in the making, we realized that should a situation arise where the co-operative approach does not work and the prohibitions kick in, the legislation would also have to provide authority to compensate for losses that are suffered as a result of extraordinary impact.

We also realized this compensation regime was something quite unique. We are not afraid of making new policy. That is what we were elected to do, but extreme care must be involved in this very important aspect of the legislation.

We have looked at examples of other compensation regimes for land use restrictions though there was not much to choose from. We have consulted far and wide. There are many different views and the process has proved to be much more complex than we originally had thought.

We have no intention however of abandoning the idea. It is quite the opposite. We know what compensation will not be. It will not be a superfund that pays resourced based companies for not mining or for harvesting. We will continue the many partnerships that have grown over the years with large forestry and mining companies, with fishers, with farmers and with others, partnerships that are building conservation and stewardship into the way they do business. Integrating conservation and stewardship into the way of doing business is not just good for species and their habitats. It is just plain good business. It is sustainable development.

Our approach to compensation will be open and will be transparent. For now determinations of compensation will be made on a case by case basis. Clearly we truly need several years of practical experience in implementing both the stewardship and the recovery provisions of the species at risk legislation and in dealing with the question of compensation. This will give us more to draw upon in forming the precise eligibility requirements because we will know so much more about the value, the process and the eligibility.

In the meantime there will not be a void. We will develop general compensation regulations soon after the act is proclaimed. These regulations will specify the procedures to be followed for claiming compensation. This will enable the compensation provisions to be used should an extraordinary situation arise.

Work has begun already on developing these general compensation regulations. We will be able to develop more detailed regulations after several years of practical experience in implementing the stewardship and the recovery provisions of species at risk and in dealing with the question of compensation. Then we will know much more about the methods to be used in determining the eligibility of a person for compensation, the amount of loss suffered by a person and the amount of compensation in respect of that loss.

We are committed to continued thorough consultation with everyone who can help us gain the experience and who has a stake in a fair and effective system. The government is moving to restore the discretion by the order in council to make regulations in a way that is consistent with standard practice of other laws.

The direction provided by the standing committee says that compensation should be fair and reasonable. That is maintained in the government's motion. The commitment to compensation remains a commitment to be fair, to be open, to listen and to move carefully in designing a regime that works for everyone.

[Member for Calgary East, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, aside from the partisan sparring in the House there is a sense of camaraderie, and I rise in that spirit today to acknowledge that the member for Calgary East has taken a turn for the worse following heart surgery that was performed on Monday. He is being treated in intensive care at Foothills hospital in Calgary.

After several years of involvement in local and federal politics the hon. member was first elected to the House in 1997.

I ask all hon. members to join me in sending our best wishes and hopes for a speedy and full recovery to the hon. member, his wife Neena, their three children and indeed the entire Obhrai family.

[The Environment, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is serious about taking action to address global problems with climate change. The goal is to ratify the Kyoto protocol and Canada intends to meet its Kyoto target for greenhouse gas reductions. The decision on ratification will follow full consultation with the Canadian public, interested parties and the provinces.

First ministers have committed that no region will bear an unreasonable burden as a result of this plan.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-408 addresses an important issue for many Canadians. It proposes to eliminate the term “illegitimate” in two federal statutes, the criminal code and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

Before I turn to an examination of the bill, I would first like to commend the hon. member for his dedication and his commitment to the eradication of this antiquated concept and language from federal law. He has continued to bring this important issue before the House in a number of private member's bills over the passage of several years. His hard work and his personal commitment to the belief that all Canadian children deserve the same protection under law and to be treated with the same dignity by the law is very much appreciated by Canadians.

I know I share the view of many in the House in thanking him for his role and his contribution. Children should be included in and protected by our laws without regard to the relationship of their parents. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that the concept of illegitimacy no longer exists in any federal law.

The issue is not new to the House. The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, that was enacted by parliament in June 2000, accomplished several goals, one of which was removing the last remaining references to illegitimacy in seven federal statutes, including the second statute proposed for amendment in Bill C-408. These amendments specifically address the concerns of the hon. member and that he had previously brought before the House.

Let me point out that these amendments in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act to remove references to illegitimacy do not actually change the substance of the law. The seven statutes included all children. The references to illegitimate children that have now been removed were actually the earlier attempts of the House to ensure that children born to unmarried parents were included in eligibility for benefits.

Until recently, if a specific statute referred to the child of a person, some doubt existed in law about whether this referred only to children born to married parents. In order to make it clear that the law was intended to include all children, the acts were amended many years ago to specify that a child meant both legitimate and illegitimate children but this was in an effort to be inclusive in providing benefits.

More recently, with new international commitments and changes in our law, these specific references are no longer legally necessary. It is now clear in law that a reference to a child of a person would include any child, whether the parents were married or unmarried. Clearly the goal of this government is similar to that of governments that passed those earlier amendments; that is, all children, regardless of the relationship of their parents, deserve the same protection and treatment under the law. I have no doubt that all members support this worthy goal.

With more modern law, we can now remove the references in our statutes to the concept of illegitimacy without risking some children being left out of legal protections. Removing these references will help in turn to eradicating any discrimination or differentiation in the treatment for children.

The Government of Canada continues to emphasize the importance of families and of supporting families as set out in the Speech from the Throne last year. The government means that all families with children are important--married couples, common law couples and lone parents--so that no Canadian children will be stigmatized by something so clearly not within their control.

Bill C-408 supports the work accomplished in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act. The first provision of the bill proposes an amendment to the criminal code to change the definition of child to remove the reference to an illegitimate child. This amendment addresses a definition which was repealed by Bill C-15A and was passed by the House last fall.

The second provision of Bill C-408 would bring the amendment made in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act into force as of December 31, 2001. The reference in the statute to legitimate and illegitimate descendants in the definition of the “Inuk of Fort George” or the “Inuit of Fort George” was removed.

It is true that it has not yet been brought into force. However this is for a good reason. The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is a federal statute based on negotiated agreements: the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement and the northeastern Quebec agreement. Therefore the amendments to this act must be discussed with the Cree, the Naskapi and the Inuit prior to being brought into force. These discussions were raised at both the House standing committee and the committee of the Senate during the passage of the modernization act.

I understand from officials of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that consultations with the Inuit are underway. It is hoped that some agreement is possible through that process, following which the amendment would be brought into force. However it is clear I am sure to members of the House that bringing this provision into force at this time might jeopardize that ongoing process.

Although the reference to legitimate and illegitimate may unfortunately remain in one statute for a short while longer, the effect on the children covered by the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act would not change; that is, they would continue to be included.

In closing let me emphasize that the government believes that there is no longer any place in federal legislation for the use of language such as “illegitimate” or “children born out of wedlock”, with two small exceptions, one of which is currently under consideration by the Senate in Bill C-15A, federal law no longer distinguishes between children on that basis, and this last remaining stigma of another era will finally be gone.

The intention of this bill is laudable and the government will be acting to implement its intent.

[Acts of Bravery, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a special Kitchener hero. This morning the Governor General recognized Constable David Nicholson in a posthumous decoration for bravery. Senior Constable Curtis Rutt and Constable Robert Sauvé also received medals of bravery in connection with the same event.

On August 12, 1998, Constable Nicholson lost his life while attempting to rescue a 12 year old boy at the Grand River's Parkhill Dam. Constable Nicholson was trapped underwater when his scuba tank wedged in a hole. Constables Rutt and Sauvé made valiant efforts to save their colleague but sadly their efforts were unsuccessful.

The Ontario Police Memorial carries the words “Heroes in life not death”. These words were inspired by words from Constable Nicholson's own family. These words remind us that every man and woman who dons the uniform of a police officer is a living hero, deserving our respect and admiration.

I ask the House to join me in saluting Constable Nicholson and all our police heroes who go about their duties every day, proud to serve and protect.

[The Environment, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the recent announcement by the Minister of the Environment includes the fact that industries across Canada will indeed be expanding their reporting next year on the emissions of key smog and acid rain pollutants. The announcement is part of our 10 year strategy for cleaner air in Canada.

The minister is using the powers under the 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act to track and control the substance and the toxins that cause the most harm to the health of Canadians. The National Pollutant Release Inventory helps track our progress as we react to the release of substances that are most harmful to Canadians.