Werner Schmidt

[Agriculture, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. For three consecutive years B.C. fruit growers have suffered setbacks on the basis of hail, heat stress and the collapse of their export market in the last year. NISA helps a few. AIDA does not help them at all.

The minister of agriculture knows that B.C. fruit growers are in an emergency situation which requires special action. What is the minister prepared to do to deal with the emergency situation?

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to expand on that. A number of Indian bands have extensive holdings and generate substantial revenues from those holdings. I commend them for the application of their expertise, their knowledge and understanding to do that.

Some of it comes from natural resources, from the application of the enterprise in terms of business ventures, and from the ownership, development and administration of financial institutions. All these are examples of where substantial revenues can be generated and are generated.

It is very easy for these groups to recognize the source of the revenue and the expenses associated with those kinds of enterprises. That is not difficult. Many of them are incorporated as separate and individual entities under the particular band council. It is not difficult to keep them separate unless we want to mix it up. It can be done very simply.

The motion recognizes that the same kinds of regulations and laws which govern the corporations we run and are involved with ought to apply in this case as well. When the government contributes funds from taxpayers it is from all of us. It is not limited to a particular group. This money comes from the public purse and should be accounted for in the same way as other audits are accounted for. The people who pay are the people who should know where the money goes.

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to endorse what my colleague from Wild Rose has just said about the importance of changing the attitude. I really would like to commend the Liberal government for supporting the motion.

At this point in the debate, though, I wonder whether it might not be good for our listeners to know exactly what the motion is that we are debating. The motion reads:

That the government stipulate that in all Contribution Agreements between the Federal Government and individual Indian Bands, the use of any public funds be publicly reported and audited.

That is the motion. The intent of the motion, the exposition, if we like, is clearly what the money is being used for, how much money is being used and whether in fact the money is being applied in the manner that the original program intended. That is the technical import of the motion.

However, I want to go well beyond the technical intent of the motion because the essence of the transparency that is being called for, the accountability that is being called for in the motion, really has more to do with an attitudinal change and the recognition that with receiving funds there is a responsibility. It is the emphasis on responsibility that I wish to attack.

There comes a point when people are put in charge. At the present time the government is making a big issue of the fact that our aboriginal people ought to be given the powers of self-government. That is a wonderful thing to do. We want to give our native people the right to determine their own affairs. Giving them the power and the right to do so has an implicit sense of responsibility.

Part of that responsibility is to account for what we are trying to achieve. Are we achieving those things? Is the money we are applying to those purposes being used for those purposes? We are not talking about peanuts. We are talking about $4.2 billion or thereabouts this year. That is an awful lot of money. Where is the money going? What results are being achieved?

My hon. colleague said that a lot of positive things were happening. Indeed there are. However, are the bands who are achieving positive results not the same bands that can show that there is reward for responsibility, for exercising accountability and being responsible for decisions that are made?

These are not those groups that go on tours. These are not the ones that go on cruises. These are not the ones that are paid exorbitant salaries. They are not the ones who hide where the money is coming from and where it is being spent. These are the ones who are telling their people the amount of money they got, where the money is going and what the results are. They should be proud of that. When they want to hide facts is when they get into trouble. That is the issue.

When will the time come when we as leaders in the House can demonstrate to the people that we are responsible? Will the Prime Minister, for example, demonstrate clearly that he is prepared to open the books as to what happened with the HRDC grants, the Shawinigan affair, his relationship with the hotel owner and the golf course? Will the Prime Minister tell the people of Canada what he did, or will he hide it? The Prime Minister is responsible and it is the duty of the House to call him to account.

That is what we are trying to do with the motion. We are not trying to call to account those band leaders who are doing their job. That is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to call to account those who are not doing that. We cannot do this unless there is a law that works.

Hon. members opposite have referred over and over again today to the provision of the audit in the legislation and regulations that apply. Let me read what the legal provisions are. The Indian bands revenue moneys regulations state:

8(1) Every band shall engage an auditor to audit its account and to render an annual report in respect thereof.

8(2) A copy of the auditor's annual report shall, within seven days of its completion, (a) be posted in conspicuous places on the Band Reserve for examination by members of the Band; and (b) be supplied to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Obtaining a copy of the audit under Access to Information is blocked by the 1989 decision of the Federal Court in Montana Band of Indians v Canada.

This is a court deciding that the people of Canada cannot know the result of these audits. It is not working. The intent of the legislation was not to prevent them from knowing how much money was being spent, where that money was being spent and what the results of spending that money were. That was not the purpose of that legislation or regulation. The purpose of the regulation was to open up and indicate clearly that a third party objective audit showed how much money was spent, what it was spent for and the results of the particular program.

Instead, on a technicality the court argued that because the leaders of particular bands decided to put together public funds and because those funds came from private ownership of Indian bands and were somehow put together in one book, we could no longer tell what the real position was.

There is not a self-respecting accountant performing audit functions who cannot identify that kind of difference. The only reason it can be muddled up is by people deliberately muddle the issue. That is how it happens. It does not happen when people are honest and truthful. It does not happen when people show clearly that this is their money and this is money that came from the public purse. It happens when somebody wants to make sure that we do not know the truth.

The time has come for the Government of Canada to recognize that it is responsible, and part of that responsibility is to tell the truth, to recognize that it has made some mistakes, that there are some things it can fix and that it will do it.

It is not done by hiding behind a technicality that says one source of funds is over here and the other is over there so we cannot tell the truth. That is absolute nonsense. That can be corrected. The intent of the motion is to make sure that the kind of legislation presented to the House will enable this kind of money to be made public so that we can clearly tell what the facts are and where we can go.

I commend the government for going as far as it has in supporting the motion. I also wish to clearly demonstrate that I am committed to the position of our native people, people who are declared as Indians under the Indian Act. I want them to have the same self-respect that we have and to have the same kind of opportunity to pursue their interests as we have. I want them to be performing in the House just as we are. They are citizens of Canada. They are Canadians first, just like we are. That is what we would like in the House.

[Privilege, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments. First, I commend you, Sir, for the promise you made when you contested the office of Speaker. You said at that time that you would introduce into this place a dimension of respect, a dimension of freshness and a new approach, and you have done that in your ruling here this afternoon. I thank you for that and I recognize the contribution you are making to the operation of the House.

I also appeal to all members in the House to recognize the good intention of the suggested amendment that we put a timeline on this matter. If we really care about what is happening here, we will deal with this in a time that is appropriate and in a time that will help the House.

I know all members on that committee and have a lot of respect for them, as I do for you, Mr. Speaker. I would simply like to suggest that we pass the motion, honour you for it, take it to committee, and then expect the committee to act within the intention and the spirit of the discussion here this afternoon so that it is dealt with expeditiously and comes forward in time for it to have a meaningful impact on the operation of the House.

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague who just spoke in favour of the motion. There is a very real need on the part of government, Indian bands and all people in Canada to recognize that one of the most important things to develop in parliamentarians and in people governing at the municipal or band council levels is integrity, honesty, truth, openness and transparency.

The hon. member just illustrated exactly how that could work. He made reference to the Millbrook Band, and I commend him for doing so. I wonder whether he could expand on his concerns about the lack of transparency and integrity on the part of certain people in not allowing their books to be opened. There seems to be an assumption that if there are public funds as well as private funds then a band council is only responsible for the public funds. It seems to me that a band council that manages private funds should be accountable for those as well, although perhaps in a different way. I wonder if he would comment on that.

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister know, as he should know, whether the practice by Indian bands of issuing cheques, welfare cheques in particular, to natives who live off the reserve has stopped or whether it still continues?

I believe the auditor told the bands to stop issuing cheques to natives who live off Indian reserves. Could he tell me whether that practice has stopped?

[Species At Risk Act, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely correct. It does not have to be a two or three acre plot. It could even be a 30 by 100 foot lot in the city. It is technically possible but not likely.

We need to be very careful. That is all the more reason the legislation which declares and creates the COSEWIC committee is very good. It could deal with this issue in an objective and independent fashion, which is neither rural nor urban, and on a scientific basis.

It reminds me of a story I cannot resist telling. There was a kindergarten teacher who had a show and tell day. One of the pupils brought a rabbit to school. The child was really excited about the pet rabbit. The pupils were looking at the rabbit and describing its features. One of the kids in the back of the room asked whether it was a boy or a girl. The teacher looked at the rabbit and did not how to analyze whether it was a male or a female. Again one of the pupils asked whether it was a boy or a girl, and the teacher said “Let's vote on it”.

The sex of a rabbit cannot be determined on the basis of a majority vote. That is the nonsense of putting it into the hands of a political vagary to decide which way things go. It could be determined in an objective and verifiable way. It does not matter who looks at it, no one can determine the sex of a rabbit. The situation in this regard is similar, and that is the point that has to be made.

[Species At Risk Act, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is that I and my party believe there should be full compensation at the full market price at the time. That is what it ought to be. This whole business of proportions is simply not acceptable. The level of compensation ought to be full and complete at the going rate in the market.

However I think the more significant point is that the legislation does not say that there will be or must be compensation. It says that there may be compensation. Hence, the minister, regardless of what the conclusion is, may still deny compensation. That is one part. The other part is that it is subject to regulation. The rate of compensation, or even that there will be compensation, is not part of the legislation.

There is a fundamental amendment that ought to be made to the legislation to indicate that there will be full compensation and that the minister will not only be required to pay that compensation but to pay it in a timely fashion. That is very important and it should not be delayed unduly.

I hope that allays the fears of my hon. colleague and other people out there because every person could be affected either directly or indirectly by the legislation, not only the people in the lumber and farming industries.

[Species At Risk Act, March 16th, 2001]

No, it does not, so it is very significant that we recognize this point. Not only that, but it says:

—suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact of the application of (a) section 58—

Then it goes into specific details as to where he may or may not. The government, in its wisdom, appointed Dr. Pearse who presented a report. That report suggests that if somebody experiences a loss of 10% the compensation should be 50%. That is a very interesting report. If an individual has a loss of more than 10% he can get compensation for 50%.

Let me put into perspective what that could mean in one economic sector. I refer to the forestry sector. It is critically important to Canada. It produces nearly $60 billion of products every year. More than one million Canadians depend on the industry for their jobs and it contributes more to Canada's balance of trade than any other sector.

Some will ask what that has to do with the bill. It has a lot to do with the bill. Forestry is critically important to B.C. It generates more than $15 billion annually and nearly 300,000 jobs. Thirty-one out of thirty-seven regions of the province are dependent on forestry. Across Canada there are 53 forest dependent species at risk. Out of the 53 forest dependent species at risk, 32 are of concern and 21 are endangered or threatened. Of the 53 species, 26 are located in B.C. Ten of these are considered endangered or threatened.

That is a clear indication of the potential loss that will be experienced by a major sector not only in British Columbia but in Canada as a whole. If people have a loss of 10% and are only compensated at 50% of that loss, how would they be able to continue their operation? How would they be able to employ the people who are supposed to be employed?

Those are very serious implications and that is only in one sector. We must deal with the agriculture sector. We must deal with cattlemen. We must deal with a whole host of other businesses directly affected by the implications of the bill.

The Canadian Alliance position is very clear. We take the view that private property ought to be recognized and honoured. Our policy statement is very clear. We believe the right to contract freely and to own, use and benefit from private property, including labour and real, intellectual and personal property, lies at the very heart of our legal and economic systems. I suggest that it lies at the heart of a democratic system in Canada and that it distinguishes a free society.

We will therefore seek the agreement of the provinces to amend the charter of rights and freedoms to include this right as well as a guarantee. Referring to the ownership of private property, here is the guarantee that applies directly to the bill:

—no person shall be deprived of it—

That is, the ownership of private property without the due process of law and full, just and timely compensation.

That is the key under which we operate. I reiterate that it is not the position of the Canadian Alliance to oppose the bill because it wants to protect endangered wildlife in Canada. We want legislation that will protect endangered wildlife. We want democracy protected. We want that protection to take place so that the integrity of scientists will be recognized and applied in this case, not political vagaries that are subject to political interference from special pressure groups or special interest groups.

We want to make sure everybody understands that we support the protection of endangered wildlife. However at the same time we recognize that the minister ought to include an amendment in the legislation that requires full compensation for those who experience loss and that the decisions based on science of COSEWIC are recognized and applied and not subject to the vagaries of cabinet or of the minister.

[Species At Risk Act, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5, which is before the House today, is a very significant bill, a bill that I think we would all do well to look at very seriously, because it attacks and has within it a consideration of some of the basic principles that govern and underlie democracy.

I wish to address two parts of the bill. The first has to do with the concept of how the selection of the endangered species at risk is done. The second has to do with the right of private property and how the bill deals with that particular aspect.

I would like to have the members of the public who are out there watching this debate understand exactly what it is we are talking about here this morning: Bill C-5, which is here to protect endangered wildlife species.

I will focus on the purpose of the bill as it is stated in this particular legislation. It reads:

The purposes of this enactment are to prevent Canadian indigenous species, subspecies and distinct populations of wildlife from becoming extirpated or extinct, to provide for the recovery of endangered or threatened species, to encourage the management of other species to prevent them from becoming at risk.

I wish to completely endorse the purpose of the bill. Clearly one of the things we want to be very concerned about in our society and in Canada is that we do protect our wildlife. We do want to create an environment in which wildlife can prosper, live and provide enjoyment for each of us.

It is important to recognize our support of the intent of this particular bill. I want to be sure that everyone out there recognizes that the Canadian Alliance, myself in particular, and its constituents support the protection of wildlife.

What we need to recognize here, though, is how the bill will be handled. I wish to refer to certain provisions in the bill. The first provision of the bill is the selection of the list of species and endangered wildlife that will be registered and protected by the bill.

Clause 14 deals with this particular part of the activities, so I will refer, then, to clause 14, which suggests that a committee be established. It is called the COSEWIC committee and many of the listeners will wonder what in the world we are talking about. That is an acronym for a long title, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. As shorthand we say COSEWIC. This is really what we are talking about. The committee is established by this particular bill.

I am so happy that there are at least some members opposite in the House listening to the debate, because it is really important. Some of the points we will make are points that the Minister of the Environment in particular should recognize and change in this legislation, and we want the minister and all members opposite to know that the idea of protecting endangered species is indeed an area and an action that we support.

With the establishment of the committee, we need to recognize who its members are. This committee shall carry out its functions “on the basis of the best available information, including scientific knowledge, community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge”. That is what the committee is supposed to do. This is a major issue.

Who are these people? The committee is to be composed of members appointed by the minister after consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council and with any experts that the minister considers to be appropriate. I would like to underline the word experts. The second part of the clause, subclause 16(2), is extremely significant:

Each member must have expertise drawn from a discipline such as conservation biology, population dynamics, taxonomy, systematics or genetics or from community knowledge or aboriginal traditional knowledge of the conservation of wildlife species.

That is a blue ribbon membership for the committee. These are very significant and very powerful people. They are people who understand the reality of science and understand what it is to use knowledge and to make observations that others can verify. They are not subject to political interpretation or the vagaries of somebody's imagination. They are based on facts and on observations which can be replicated by other people.

The people who are supposed to comprise this committee are independent and objective. This is very desirable and highly commendable. I support the minister in identifying this as the way the committee should be comprised.

One might say that the blue ribbon committee will go about doing its business, but what is the principle involved in creating the list of Canadian endangered wildlife? What are the decision making principles underlying this committee of scientists? The principles involved are truth and integrity.

What are we talking about when we talk about truth and integrity? Truth concerns a clear knowledge of the facts. I am speaking of things that are commonly accepted as being true in fact. They can be believed and acted upon with confidence and courage, recognizing that what has happened before will happen again because the basis on which the decision is made is verifiable by an independent person in an objective and independent manner and the findings can be replicated.

Integrity means that the people on the committee will actually say what was discovered, what has been put there, and that the basis on which those decisions are made is indeed one that is verified by the various observations that have been taken. On the committee we will have scientists who are objective and reach conclusions on the basis of verifiable interpretation, experiments and observations that could carried out by other people.

There is no problem with the committee or with the intent of the bill. Why then is there a problem with the bill? There is a problem with a provision in another clause of the bill. Subclause 27(1) makes a very interesting observation:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by regulation, establish the List of Wildlife Species at Risk and amend the List by adding a wildlife species to the List, by reclassifying a listed wildlife species or by removing a listed wildlife species from the List.

All the work of the committee, all the science involved, suddenly becomes subject to whatever the governor in council decides. This puts into question the whole integrity of establishing a committee in the first place. In this clause we have a group of scientists who are ignored and whose integrity is at least insulted if not denied. The governor in council can do this.

However, subclause 29(2) is an even more difficult area. It follows subclause (1), and I think for clarity I should probably read subclause 29(1) as well:

If the Minister is of the opinion—

The section refers to the minister now, not the governor in council.

The section goes on:

—that there is an imminent threat to the survival of a wildlife species, the Minister must—

It is interesting to note here that it is not that the minister may, but that he must.

It goes on:

—on an emergency basis, after consultation with every other competent minister—

Notice they are all ministers.

—make a recommendation to the Governor in Council that the List be amended to list the species as an endangered species.

There is no reference here to the committee at all. Subclause 29(2) reads:

The Minister may arrive at that opinion on the basis of his or her own information or on the basis of COSEWIC's assessment.

This really creates a dilemma for the scientists and for Canadians who are to place confidence in the Minister of the Environment and cabinet itself.

There is no attempt in this criticism to suggest that we should not have legislation of this kind. That is not the purpose of my criticism. The purpose of my criticism is to recognize that the principle of truth and scientific integrity needs to be observed throughout the legislation. It should be there in a consistent fashion all the way through. I submit to the House that clause 29 does not allow this to happen.

We need to move from there to the next step in the debate, which has to do with why it is so important that we have this truth.

The hon. members opposite are all Liberals and they had a leader at one time by the name of Trudeau who initiated and passed in the House a constitutional amendment called the charter of rights and freedoms. At the end of the charter of rights and freedoms this is what he wrote:

We must now establish the basic principles, the basic values and beliefs which hold us together as Canadians so that beyond our regional loyalties there is a way of life and a system of values which make us proud of the country that has given us such freedom and such immeasurable joy.

Those are wonderful and great words. We are now establishing one of those principles. Surely the right Hon. Trudeau, at the time he was Prime Minister and wrote that paragraph, recognized that one of the foundational principles of a democracy to function properly and adequately is that of truth and integrity.

I will now move into the next step of the legislation. That has to do with the recognition of private property. The bill recognizes clearly that there is such a thing.

Our charter of rights and freedoms does not grant that right in the constitution to individual Canadians, but the basis of liberty is the ownership of private property. It is not just the amassing of property that is the issue. The ownership of material things recognizes the dignity of human beings. It recognizes the basic integrity and beauty of human creativity and the ingenuity and innovativeness of human beings.

That is what private property does. Think about real property, intellectual property, all the novels that have been written, the poems that have been written and the songs that have been written. These are all matters of private property.

That does not mean, however, that the right to private property means we can do whatever we please with that property. Neither do we have the right to amass private property based on cruelty or intimidation or on things of that nature.

It means we must use private property to the interests of the people around us. It does not mean we can use private property to destroy endangered species. The bill makes that clear. If that is the case then the implications of the bill must be looked at.

Does the enforcement of the provisions in the bill have implications for private property? The bill clearly identifies that yes, it is probably true, there probably are implications.

Let me look at subclause 64(1). Subclause 64(1) of the bill clearly indicates:

The Minister may, in accordance with the regulations, provide compensation to any person for losses—

Again I draw to the attention of those listening and of our colleagues in the House, both on the other side and on the opposition side, that the operative word here is may. It is not that he shall compensate; it is that he may compensate.