Gurmant Grewal

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, I am pleased to participate in this Canadian Alliance supply day motion debate. Earlier my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan--Coquihalla, debated the motion very eloquently and I will keep the ball rolling.

Let me give some background. Earlier this year the federal government revealed it overpaid Manitoba, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia $3.3 billion in transfers due to an accounting error. According to new documents, the error stems from the way capital gains taxes on mutual funds were accounted for. The problem was discovered during a computer system upgrade last year in December. The amounts include more than $2.8 billion to Ontario, $420 million to Manitoba, $121 million to British Columbia, $4.5 million to Alberta, and several thousand dollars to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

The former finance minister's office had given assurances to the province of Manitoba, for example, that it would cover at least 70% to 80% of the overpayments and may even bite the bullet for the full amount. The two sides were close to finalizing the deal last week before the finance minister was turfed out of cabinet by the Prime Minister.

On his first day on the job, the new finance minister hinted that the federal government would try to collect the overpayments in tax refunds from the provinces. That is a flip-flop.

The motion we are debating has basically two components. First, overpaying at least $3.3 billion to several provinces as a result of its own accounting error; and, second, the House calls upon the government to forgive any past revenue overpayments to the provinces. Dealing with the second part first, the clawing back of these revenues would severely affect the ability of the provinces to fund health care, education and social services.

This arrogant Liberal government has already cut federal transfers to the provinces by $25 billion up to the year 2000. These cuts were made with totally inadequate consultation with the provinces. Is this the legacy that the Prime Minister and this weak Liberal government are leaving behind?

These cuts have drastically reduced available funds in the provinces for health care, education and social services. We all know about the devastating state of the health care crisis in all provinces. The health care crisis has been the number one issue in Canada in all polls since the government made its drastic cuts. Doctors and nurses are leaving the country, beds are closing, waiting lines are growing and now even surgeries are being cancelled.

We do not know the crisis in education because of its latent nature. In health care we know there is a crisis because we know people who are feeling the pain and suffering but in education we do not have an appropriate yardstick to measure the effect of the cuts by this weak Liberal government. People do not go back to the same classroom year after year but the educators tell us the adverse effects in education as well. Probably in a few years the effects will be more evident.

Who is the root cause? This weak Liberal government that lacks vision and that made the cuts in the first place.

While the federal government cut transfers to the provinces by 33%, it only decreased its own discretionary spending by 6%. Money continued to be wasted in programs of generally low priority to Canadians but of high priority to big Liberal businessmen or the Liberal Party. This includes, in particular, grants and contributions to big business, funding for questionable crown corporations and agencies, such as CBC, ACOA, HRDC and so on.

The federal government continues to use cost shared agreements to distort provincial programming and impose federal priorities on the provinces. If the provinces do not agree to federal conditions then they do not get the money. This means that many programs that the provinces reluctantly buy into may not fully meet provincial needs.

The federal government has continued to intrude in areas of provincial jurisdiction using its spending power. By doing so it has distorted provincial programming.

The creation of the millennium scholarship fund in the area of education is one example. While the millennium scholarship fund, which provides grants to students, appears good on the surface, the money might have been better spent by transferring it directly to the provinces. It could then have gone to address shortfalls in core educational service funding. There is little point providing federal money to send students to university on the millennium scholarship fund when the provinces are still forced to pay the bulk of that student's education but with inadequate resources.

I will now move on to the first part of the motion about the government's errors in accounting, or I may even say some deliberate errors, and the government has been cooking the books.

As a former member of the public accounts committee, I remember that Auditor General Desautels was very critical of the government for not following generally accepted accounting principles and blasted this weak federal government for unilaterally changing its accounting rules to balance the books in 1998.

When the government was running a deficit before the election it deferred payments to the next year so that the amount of the deficit would be minimized; frontend loading or the backend loading.

When the government has more surpluses and it will be quite some time until the next election, then it hides away the money so it can dole some out just prior to the election to buy votes from Canadians with their own money.

So far the government has hidden money in entities that did not even exist at the time the payments were made. The auditor general was very critical and questioned the credibility of the federal government's books. Due to the reason I mentioned and to avoid political pressure to reduce taxes and pay debt, the Liberals avoided reporting a surplus during that time.

The auditor general qualified his audit of federal government books in 1996-97 because the Liberals overstated the deficit by $800 million. The auditor general was not prepared to stamp the books of the government. This arrogant Liberal government inappropriately recorded the $800 million transfer payments to the Canada Foundation for Innovation before March 31, 1997, a foundation that was not legally created until April 1997. The government books closed on March 31, 1997. The money for the foundation was not supposed to be spent until the year 2000. This was a violation of the basic accounting principles as found in Canada's public and private sector. If a businessman or a manager had done that he or she would be in jail.

Let us look at the further arrogance of the deputy minister of finance and the secretary of the treasury board who wrote a letter bullying the auditor general. They wrote a letter to the auditor general registering profound astonishment that the auditor general would publicly state his objections. They did not want him to state what I have stated publicly. What a shame.

This practice has not stopped yet. According to a newspaper report, the auditor general has identified at least another $30 billion that has been secreted away in separate slush fund accounts that she cannot access or question. Only the Prime Minister and the cabinet have access to these funds and, by legislation, they are accountable to nobody.

We know there was a gap of $20 billion between the Liberal's estimates and the actual liability of the federal government employees' pensions. This shell game must end.

In conclusion, equalization is based on a five province standard and it looks at the average revenue raising capacity of five provinces. The average capacity is then compared to the capacity of individual provinces and those provinces whose capacity falls short of the average receive an equalizing transfer from the federal government.

There is only one taxpayer. The overpayments have been spent on the provincial provision of services or goods. and the money is not sitting in Swiss bank accounts, as Gary Doer, the premier of Manitoba says.

According to Gary Collins, British Columbia's finance minister, “if we are going to keep re-opening these things 10 years back, there is absolutely no way the provinces can continue to work with the federal government on a tax arrangement”.

The Canadian Alliance is calling for an audit of all the computer systems and the calculations being done today for the various types of taxes that the CCRA oversees in order to ensure that Canadians are treated fairly and to expose all kinds of boondoogles.

The provinces and Canadian taxpayers should not be punished for a mistake made by the federal government reaching back several decades.

[Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the second hour debate on Motion No. 432 moved by the Bloc member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie. I would like to thank the member for bringing the motion to the floor of the House.

The motion calls on Canada to ratify the inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture. Earlier, when the member for Okanagan--Coquihalla, the senior critic for foreign affairs for the official opposition, spoke to motion, he articulated his position during the first reading of the motion.

The inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture seeks to prevent torture at the hands of a public servant, an employee or a person who acts on their behalf.

Nothing can every justify torture. All acts of torture or any other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment constitutes an offence against human dignity and are violations of the fundamental human rights and freedoms. Protecting and promoting human rights is a cornerstone of our foreign policy. Of course torture against citizens by a government should be prohibited and condemned. However I have concerns with this motion for several reasons.

First, the definition of torture in this convention is simply too broad. I feel that if this convention were ratified, the implications on Canada's police and correctional services could be negatively impacted. Canada's police forces have enough to worry about without having to fear that by using pepper spray to control a deranged attacker or by holding someone in a modest cell they will be found to have tortured the individual and will be punished for simply performing their duties.

We have all seen how vague definitions have been used by courts to expand the scope of the legislation beyond what was intended by the legislators. This legislation speeds this along by being too sweeping in the first place.

I feel that Canada has enough safeguards in place to protect the rights of perpetrators of crime and it would be those individuals who will be mostly likely to take advantage of any greater protection this convention would afford them. I feel that Canada has to turn its attention to the perpetrators of crime rather than continuing to put safeguards in place to protect them.

Second, acts that would constitute true torture are already illegal in Canada. Those protections are already in place. To use the broad definitions of torture contained in the convention would simply open up a whole new set of challenges for our law enforcement community in Canada.

Third, Canada is a signatory to the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. After the deposit of its ratification instrument in 1987, Canada was one of the first state parties to this UN convention. This convention has a much more reasonable and narrow definition of torture. To avoid conflicts, if Canada is to ratify any convention on torture there must be only one definition of torture used.

There is no question about the laudable aims of the inter-American convention. Though it is perceived that the UN convention against torture provides higher standards and stronger protections than the organization of the American states convention. Nevertheless, there is already a very strong and effective international mechanism with broad support. We must seek further international support in order for that mechanism to become universally accepted.

The fourth concern I have is that under this convention torture includes “inflicting physical pain as a preventative measure or as a penalty”. I am concerned that those who would seek to deny parents the right to administer corporal punishment to their children would use the ratification of this convention to further their efforts to deny parents this option.

I am concerned that a teacher trying to break up a schoolyard fight and confine the troublemakers to keep them separated could be prosecuted under a broad definition such as this.

Although preventing torture is a commendable goal, ratifying this convention would cause more harm than good. The Canadian Alliance does not condone the use of torture, however the definition of torture in this convention is too vague and could cause problems for law enforcement and correctional service agencies.

Since we are talking about human rights, I would also like to take this opportunity to bring the attention of the House to another very important issue. The sudden and unexpected disbanding of British Columbia's human rights commission is quite disturbing, particularly when provincial legislation has not been defined, debated or passed by the legislature.

Consultations on the proposed legislation are ongoing through September 15 with debate commencing this fall so the final definition of this legislation is still unknown. It would appear that the province is placing the cart before the horse and circumventing the democratic process of the legislature.

By immediately disposing of B.C.'s human rights commission, it places all human rights complaints and administration in the lap of the Human Rights Tribunal.

It is perceived by my constituents that under new legislation there will be no separation of authority between a body, which is a commission, that mediates and investigates complaints, provides legal, educational and advocacy support from the body, which is the tribunal, that executes the judicial functions.

By doing so, greater authority is placed in the hands of the tribunal that is to fulfill the mandate of both the commission and the tribunal. It will mediate and investigate complaints, select cases for judicial review, as well as exercise final judgment.

This action begs the question: What body will provide an impartial voice for the disadvantaged and minorities? Moreover, B.C. is now the only province in Canada without a human rights commission. This is in contravention of the UN convention requiring state, which is provincial, human rights agencies to be provided with adequate resources to investigate and promote human rights standards as set out by the United Nations, which has been ratified by Canada and thus upheld in law in Canada.

It was only this past April when Canadians marked the 20th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that afforded Canadian citizens protection from unreasonable and arbitrary government actions in their pursuit of justice.

It is difficult to conceive that British Columbians in pursuit of justice and a human rights tribunal left in a judicial limbo while waiting for an amended legislative mandate that remains to be defined.

Certainly, with virtually no official opposition within the B.C.'s legislature, it is evident that this legislation will pass. However a government should not and must not be so presumptuous as to act before the public consultation process is completed and the laws are democratically passed by elected legislators.

Already the human rights commissioner and others that were summarily discharged will be pursuing legal action.What it cost the taxpayer to pursue this in the courts? The process has already gone too far to backtrack.

I implore the offices of the premier of British Columbia and the Prime Minister of Canada to take immediate steps to fulfill their obligations under the laws of Canada and the UN charter to ensure that the human rights of British Columbians will not suffer as a result of the actions prematurely taken by the province.

I will be writing a letter to the premier of British Columbia. I will also be urging the Prime Minister and this Liberal government to make sure that the law is upheld and that we respect the United Nations charter that we signed.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate concerning Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

The purpose of the bill is to reintroduce the proposed amendments to the cruelty of animals provision of the criminal code while consolidating animal cruelty offences that were introduced in Bill C-17 with a few changes, some of which we consider improvements and others which are of concern to Canadians.

Among the improvements are increased maximum penalties for persons found guilty of cruelty to animals, those who act willfully and recklessly in killing or harming animals. However, with a widened definition of the term animal, it creates a number of concerns for those who are dependent on the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihood.

The new provisions would not prevent legitimate activities from being carried out. The law would only proscribe illegal activities. The problem is, and therefore the concern, these new provisions would narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities. Why does the minister not simply raise the penalties for committing animal offences?

Problems arise with the definition of animal in the bill. The proposed definition of animal in Bill C-15 would include non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. This new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never before been provided that kind of protection. This definition is too wide and would open the door for the prosecution of those who earn their livelihood working with animals. Our key concern is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices.

The phrase “legal justification or excuse and with colour of right” in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. The parliamentary secretary to the minister attempted to assure the justice committee that it is the government's intention that the defences in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code would continue to apply to cruelty to animal offences and that those defences would be implicit in the new legislation. Both the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc members moved amendments that would have made these defences explicit and the government members opposed them.

However in the new bill animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own which would remove these provisions outside the scope of that protection. By moving the animal cruelty section out of the range of property offences would emphasize animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This is a significant alteration in the underlying principle of the legislation, and could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts.

Our concern is that the legislation could open up the possibility that farmers, sporting groups and scientific researchers would be unjustly prosecuted. As a result, animal rights groups in Canada would use the new legislation as the basis for such prosecutions. They have already stated their intentions to do so. Liz White, a director with Animal Alliance of Canada, has said:

My worry is that people think that this is the means to the end, but this is just the beginning. It doesn't matter what the legislation says if no one uses it, if no one takes it to court, if nobody tests it. The onus is on humane societies and other groups on the front lines to push this legislation to the limit, to test the parameters of this law and have the courage and conviction to lay charges. That's what this is all about. Make no mistake about it.

The people who are most concerned about the bill are the agricultural groups, farmers, industry workers and medical researchers. They do not condone intentional animal abuse or neglect in any way. It is fundamentally important to the success of their livelihoods that they treat their animals with the care and respect that the bill intends to afford animals.

Moving the animal cruelty section out of the ambit of property offences to a new section on its own is seen by many as emphasizing animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This significant alteration and the underlying principle of the legislation is something that needs to be carefully considered.

The Canadian Alliance asked government members to retain the cruelty to animals provision in the property offences section of the criminal code but they refused. Many groups are concerned that elevating the status of animals from property could have significant and detrimental implications for many legitimate animal dependent businesses. Our party supports increasing penalties for cruelty to animal offences. However we do not support the widening scope of what currently constitutes a criminal offence against animals.

The amendments to the Firearms Act are of an administrative nature and would simplify the registration process and reduce costs by incorporating information technology. My Canadian Alliance colleagues and I are opposed to these provisions on the basis that we have long held that the act be repealed entirely. We believe there should be severe mandatory penalties for the criminal use of any weapon. We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer. We would replace the current firearms law with a practical firearms control system that would be cost effective and would respect the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.

I support increasing penalties for cruelty to animal offences but I cannot support widening the scope and definition of what currently constitutes a criminal offence. This legislation would influence and cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different way which may have a detrimental effect and implications on farmers, hunters and agricultural producers.

The minister amended the bill to provide a screening mechanism for indictable offences. That would allow a provincial court judge to prescreen such prosecutions and decide whether they should proceed. The Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty to animals and supports increasing the penalties relating to such acts. However, while cruelty to animals cannot be tolerated, the criminal law should not be used as a tool by special interest groups to destroy the legitimate farming and related food production industry.

We will strive to ensure that the legitimate use of animals by farmers, sportsmen and medical researchers is protected.

[Committees of the House, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

Notwithstanding Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, your committee requests the government to table a comprehensive response to this report on the four regulations relating to the aboriginal communal fishing licences within 90 days.

As you probably know, Mr. Speaker, this sixth report was tabled in the other House last Thursday by my colleague and joint chairman, Senator Hervieux-Payette.

In light of some of the media reports over the weekend, I would like to clarify to the members in the House, as well as to the public, that this report requests the tabling of a comprehensive government response. Because these regulations impact the livelihood of many, I would urge the government to treat this matter as urgent.

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from committees so I may present the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

[Foreign Affairs, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, to ease tension between India and Pakistan, world leaders are playing a role in preventive diplomacy but the Canadian government is sidelined. That is not surprising given the inconsistent and haphazard foreign policies of the government.

In 1996, the Prime Minister led a team Canada mission to India. In 1998, the Liberals unwisely imposed sanctions against both India and Pakistan in a knee-jerk reaction to their nuclear tests. In 2001, the government decided to lift the sanctions.

Given its erratic policy, does the Liberal government have any influence left in the region?

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have three questions for the hon. member.

First, Canada's largest trading partner is the U.S. Eighty-five per cent of our trade is with the U.S. However the Liberal government has been ineffective in diversifying our trade with the east, west and south.

Second, the government has not strengthened our trade relations with our neighbours, our largest trading partner. This weak Liberal government has been an ankle biter to the Americans on ICC, the international criminal court; on the national missile defence; on landmines; and on NATO. The Prime Minister has even bad mouthed the American president on Open Mike . The Prime Minister and his cousin have also made other remarks.

Third, the government has been ineffective in taking care of the regulations controlling the lumber industry, forestry, particularly with counterproductive regulations. Even the market practices have not been dealt with by the government. New technology has not been encouraged for the forestry industry to use.

I would ask the member what the government has done to show that it has been effective in dealing with our trade, technology, regulations and other practices in the lumber industry?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-56, an act respecting assisted human reproduction. This is a very important topic within all our constituencies as it affects directly the daily lives of the people we serve.

The opposition has been calling for legislation since 1993 when the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies reported. The minister of health at the time introduced a voluntary moratorium on some technologies in July 1995. The government introduced a bill on June 14, 1996 prohibiting 13 uses of assisted reproductive and genetic technologies but the bill died on the order paper because of the 1997 election.

Draft legislation was submitted to the Standing Committee on Health on May 3, 2001 for consideration. The committee presented its report “Building Families” in December of that year.

In March 2002 the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, followed by Genome Canada, pre-empted parliament by publishing rules to approve funding for experiments on human embryos and aborted fetuses. Funding was put off for one year following opposition protest.

Here we are in 2002 debating a bill that would bring into effect the very strong recommendations of a commission that reported in 1993. Why did the Liberal government put these recommendations off for such an extended period of time?

In those nine long years science, research and technology have been rapidly progressing. As well, commercial investment in these procedures has moved on but the government has remained stagnant. The weak, incompetent and arrogant Liberal government should be embarrassed that it has not dealt with this important issue much more quickly and expeditiously.

I have gone through the bill and would like to share some of my observations.

The bill would allow for experiments on human embryos under four conditions. All embryos must be byproducts of the AHR, assisted human reproduction process, and not created solely for research. Written permission must be given by the donor, although donor is singular. Research on a human embryo is only if the use is necessary, but the word necessary is undefined. All human embryos must be destroyed after 14 days, if not frozen of course.

The purpose of research on human embryos is not specified in the bill. The purpose must be restricted to creating medical therapies that would assist in healing the human body.

The future of humanity is at stake in this debate. The Canadian Alliance members and I firmly believe that all human beings possess the fundamental human rights to life, to freedom and to own and to enjoy property. Human embryos are early human lives which deserve respect and protection. The Canadian Alliance will strive to protect the dignity and value of human life.

The bill is about access by prospective parents to the best assisted reproductive technologies that science can ethically offer. The Canadian Alliance will work to preserve it. I strongly support and encourage health sciences research and development.

I strongly support research on adult stem cells. Stem cells derived from embryos and implanted in a recipient are foreign tissues and thus are subject to immune rejection, possibly requiring the use of costly anti-rejection drug therapies. Adult stem cells are easily accessible and are not subject to tissue rejection and pose minimal ethical concerns.

Adult stem cells are now being used to treat Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis and spinal injuries while research using human embryos has not yet led to healing therapies. We should focus our energies and scarce resources on research that is making a difference now.

We are calling for a three year moratorium on experiments on human embryos until the potential for adult stem cells can be fully developed and explored. This debate is not the same as the pro-life, pro-choice abortion debate because embryos can exist outside a woman's body. This bill addresses the use of embryos in a Petri dish outside the woman's body. Her choice of how to use her body does not directly apply in this case.

The opposition wants to close dangerous loopholes in the bill. One of them creates human-animal hybrids where a human egg and an animal sperm, or vice versa, are combined. We support a ban on commercial surrogacy.

There are so many issues which I would like to touch on. Since time is limited I will touch on only some, beginning with subclause 25(3) of the bill. None of the minister's policy directions fall under the Statutory Instruments Act. They escape the scrutiny of regulations as well as being published in the Canada Gazette . All can be done in secret. This subclause should be struck from the bill.

Subclause 66(2) states that regulations laid before parliament may be sent to a standing committee. The words “may be” should be changed to “must”, not that they may be but that they must be sent to the standing committee. Which standing committee? It should name the Standing Committee on Health and make health committee scrutiny a requirement of the law. The standing committee report recommended this but the government ignored that recommendation.

Subclause 66(3) states that a regulation should not be made until the standing committee has reported on it. This would eliminate the 60 calendar day cap placed on scrutiny of regulations. I am mentioning the scrutiny of regulations because I sit on that committee as co-chair representing the House. I know that the government sometimes presents vague, incomplete legislation in the House which is followed by a big stack of regulations which are not debated in the House. The government is not governing but ruling through the back door by throwing in a bunch of regulations which sometimes do not receive the scrutiny of experts and parliamentarians.

Accountability is very important. The performance of the agency according to subclause 30(d) will be evaluated by the agency itself. It should not be. It should be evaluated by the auditor general.

Subclause 40(2) states that embryos can be harvested if the agency satisfies itself that it is necessary for the purpose of the proposed research. The discretionary power of the agency to decide what is necessary must be reduced by defining in the clause what constitutes that necessity. A modification of the phrase from the majority standing committee report “unless the applicant clearly demonstrates that no other category of biological material could be used for healing therapies” would be appropriate.

In conclusion I want to clarify that I support provisions against human or therapeutic cloning, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ line alteration, buying or selling embryos, and paid surrogacy.

The bill is about improving human health. The Canadian Alliance strongly supports the research to this end when it is compatible with the dignity and value of human life. The Canadian Alliance will strive to protect the dignity and value of human life.

The bill is about the best interests of children born of assisted reproductive technologies. The Canadian Alliance will work to protect them.

Finally, the bill is about access by prospective parents to the best assisted reproductive technology that science can ethically offer. The Canadian Alliance will work to preserve it. We cannot support the bill until it is amended.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on amendments proposed to the government's species at risk act, Bill C-5.

Before I begin I would like to make it absolutely clear again that the Canadian Alliance members and I are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species.

The Canadian Alliance supports effective endangered species legislation based on co-operation, science, respect for private property, transparency and accountability. Therefore the argument is not about whether we should have endangered species legislation but rather that we have effective legislation.

The Liberal record on species at risk is dismal. Since the 1993 red book, the Liberals have promised in every red book to enact legislation to protect species at risk but in eight years the Liberals have failed to pass endangered species legislation in the House.

The government has a poor track record in protecting endangered species over which it has direct control, such as the Atlantic cod, Pacific salmon and many others. Approximately 100 species have been added to the endangered species list since the Liberals first introduced endangered species legislation in the 35th parliament.

Out of the 13 motions that we are debating in Group No. 4, 12 have been moved by the Liberals and 1 by a Canadian Alliance member. Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20 deal with aspects of the national aboriginal committee.

The standing committee had wished to create the national aboriginal council but the government instead wants to call it a committee and so it has changed the words in various clauses.

I was a member of the environment committee at one time. I know how hard the members work in that committee. However the government is changing the will of the committee to suit its requirements.

The idea of an aboriginal committee is itself acceptable. The natives have a close knowledge of the land and environment and so consultation with them is appropriate, as it is with other stakeholders. However care must be taken to ensure that it does not become a special conduit for race related political concerns. Special privileges and exemptions from the act's application should not be based on race.

The name change from council to committee reverses the standing committee's work with no good justification. The government is showing contempt for the work of the parliamentary committee and its own members of parliament. It makes changes just for the sake of doing so.

Motion No. 25 deals with the creation of stewardship action plans. The government is showing contempt again for the work of all members of parliament in committee who asked for a commitment to examine regularly tax treatment and subsidies and to eliminate disincentives.

The government wants to delete this language but it is vital. It demonstrates that compensation is not just a cash payment but could involve other things, like tax treatment, which are so vital to farmers and other property owners. Further, the government must be forced to confront the realities of disincentives.

The government also wants to delete the standing committee's requirement that stewardship action plans provide technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities. Instead the government will provide information relating to technical and scientific support available to persons engaged in stewardship activities. This is a small but significant difference.

Now, instead of giving property owners real assistance by sharing data on the presence of endangered species or assistance configuring their property to protect sensitive habitat, for example, the government can mail them a pamphlet.

Most of the remaining Group No. 4 amendments concern issues of notice and public consultation or discussion. This presents opportunities to stress the fundamental importance of making consultations as wide as possible and of ensuring that consultations have a real impact on the administration of the act and are not just done simply for window dressing purposes.

Initially the bill had provided for a parliamentary review of the species at risk act five years after it comes into force. The standing committee added the additional requirement that it be subsequently reviewed at five year intervals. Government Motion No. 130 will remove the standing committee's amendment again. The government does not think that automatic five year reviews are needed and instead would put the onus on parliament to put a review on the agenda should it be deemed necessary, and that is wrong.

Not only is it contemptuous again of the standing committee, it removes an opportunity for greater accountability and public involvement. Mandatory reviews of legislation are not quite as effective as a sunset clause, but perhaps a close second, but they are important for ensuring that an act is working as it was intended and it creates an opportunity to make changes. This is basic democratic accountability and ensures that legislation is kept ever green. Transparency is essential.

Motion No. 29 deletes the requirement that the proposed text of stewardship agreements be made public for at least 60 days of consultation. Since stewardship agreements can affect not just the landowner but neighbouring lands too, anything that would restrict consultation with affected stakeholders should be opposed.

On the other hand, Motion No. 114 ensures that when management plans are made public for public consultation they are referred to as proposed management plans. This shows that they are not yet final and that the government will respond to comments from the public.

The government should be open-minded in considering suggestions and comments and to ensure that consultation is really in good faith.

Sadly, if the government treats the Canadian public with the respect that it gives the parliamentary standing committee, then no consultations will be in good faith since it will have made its mind up already on all the key points and be unwilling to listen to another point of view.

Motion No. 126 deletes the requirement for all ministerial reports, including listing decisions, to be entered into the public registry. This reduces transparency and public access to important documents giving insight into how the list of endangered species is developed. There is no reason that ministerial reports concerning COSEWIC and listing not be made public instead of forcing citizens to go through the hassles and delays of access to information requests.

Motion No. 127 is a Canadian Alliance motion. Currently clause 124 allows the minister to restrict the release of any information if it is in the best interests of the species to do so. This is understandable under certain circumstances. For example, a landowner might not want the general public trespassing over his or her land looking for a rare bird. However, especially given the harsh criminal penalties in the bill, it is unacceptable that the government would be able to withhold important information from property owners. This amendment would allow the restriction of public release of certain information. However this must be taken with Motion No. 128, which was debated in Group No. 1, which required that in all circumstances the minister must notify an affected landowner, lessee or land user of the location of a wildlife species or habitat. This would ensure that the interests of people were respected, as well as the interests of the species.

Canadian Alliance members like myself and all of us on this side of the House are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species. The work we are doing is for future generations. The Canadian Alliance supports effective endangered species legislation, not legislation that will not do its job properly. Our chief critic for the environment, the hon. member for Red Deer, has done an excellent job in analyzing the bill and I commend him for his efforts.

To conclude, Canadian Alliance members support effective endangered species legislation based on co-operation, science, respect for private property, transparency and accountability.

[Business of the House, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I am pleased to rise and participate in the debate on Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts of Canada and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety.

It has been almost eight months since September 11. This is the Liberal's third attempt at legislation. It was first introduced as Bill C-42. Then it was split. Its offshoot, Bill C-44 was passed. The government reintroduced Bill C-42, then pulled it again last week. Now it has introduced Bill C-55.

This shows a reaction to the September 11 event rather than how the government needs to address the issue. This also shows a lack of vision and strategy by the government. It does not enhance the confidence in the government's ability to lead in the war on terrorism.

The legislation is a feeble reflection of its American counterpart. The U.S. introduced, debated, amended and enacted much more comprehensive security legislation in eight weeks, setting out tasks and defining government responsibilities. President Bush even signed it into law in November 2001, despite an anthrax scare.

It has taken the government eight months to introduce Canada's legislation in three different drafts to give us a sense of comprehension of security and third rate management. Actually all it has done is raised taxes and grabbed more power since September 11.

I am pleased that the Liberals withdrew their last flawed terror bill, Bill C-42. However they seemed to have missed the concerns Canadians had about it regarding an apparent power grab by ministers.

Bill C-55 has many flawed elements but two of them are the power grab by ministers and half-baked measures designed to mirror U.S. legislation. The stated purposes of the bill include: making air rage an offence; strengthening security at restricted areas in airports; requiring transportation companies to provide information on passengers; criminalizing terrorist hoaxes; providing for more control over explosives and sensitive exports; providing for the naming of controlled access military zones by the defence minister; protecting the jobs of reservists called up for service; and implementing the biological and toxin weapons convention.

This is an omnibus bill amending 19 different acts of parliament and implementing one international treaty, as well as impacting nine different ministries, which makes fair scrutiny by one committee almost impossible, amounting to even less accountability in government.

It gives the ministers of the environment, health, transport and fisheries and oceans the authority to issue an interim order effectively giving them the power to act without consulting cabinet or parliament and thus making the government even more arrogant.

This general increase in authority is not accompanied by any new specifics, or an assumption of responsibility by the ministries concerned. It is without any judicial or parliamentary oversight to safeguard the rights of Canadians. Allowing ministers to impose interim orders in contentious areas limits accountability for a bad decision to a single cabinet minister, rather than the Prime Minister or the whole government. This is not a step forward toward more accountable government.

Given the sweeping powers that already exist in the Emergencies Act to declare a public order emergency, an international emergency or even a war emergency, the new interim orders are probably not necessary in most cases.

Although the timeframe for cabinet review of ministerial imposed orders has been reduced from 90 days to 45 days it is a cosmetic change that is still too long a time period. It is 31 days more than the 14 days currently required under the act.

The legislation is inadequate, vague and seems to only be window dressing. It will probably be loaded with regulations. The government is not only weak and arrogant but also infamous for thwarting democracy in the House. The regulations would be imposed without any oversight or debate in parliament. This is not called governing but rather ruling through the back door.

As co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee I know how badly we need regulatory reform in the country. Some of the provinces are doing quite a bit, at least more than the federal government. The government needs to submit regulations along with the legislation when it puts it forward for debate in the House so that we know what it is following. As they say, the devil is in the details and the devil has to follow.

The government would now require air transportation companies to provide information about passengers en route to Canada but would not require them to ensure that passengers have documents when they board and when they disembark. There are no provisions to fine companies and require them to return the passengers if they do not have their documents.

The problem of invalid or missing travel documents remains. All persons who do not have documents should be detained automatically until they can prove their identity or their identity can be proven by running criminal checks overseas.

The auditor general said that 40% of potential refugees applying for refugee status in Canada land in the country without any kind of documents in their hands. That puts security at risk. Although airlines are required to check the passports of passengers for citizenship information, it is for immigration purposes only, not for security or ensuring that they land in this country with the documents with which they were able to board the plane.

There is no provision in the bill to send people back. If they were to come through a safe third country nothing could be done about them. All such persons should automatically be sent back. The transportation company should foot the bill for failing to screen the passengers. That is the law in the United States, why not in Canada?

According to the bill collected information would not be shared with law enforcement agencies and could not therefore be used in profiling. Further, the bill would not provide a means by which such information might be processed. It lacks co-ordination and a utilization strategy for the information.

There is little controversy about the provisions for greater sharing of information among financial institutions and regulators in order to comply with the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act. There is nothing about that in the bill. Again it is a lack of co-ordination and co-operation. The government does not understand how to create a synergy of resources and information.

There should be a reasonable balance between security and the privacy rights of Canadians. The provisions proposed in section 4.82 would give the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information of all Canadian air travellers on flights within Canada as well as on international routes without any judicial authorization, explanation or justification as to its necessity.

Only air travellers within Canada would be forced by law to identify themselves to police for scrutiny, not travellers by train, bus or car. It is discriminatory. Similar practices exist in only totalitarian societies where police routinely board trains or establish roadblocks to check identification of people in search of anything in the interest of the state. Such countries have issued compulsory national identity cards or numbers. This provision would be an infringement on the privacy of citizens.

There are other issues, for example, how about law abiding citizens? They would also be required to provide information. Similarly, the amendments to the criminal code deal with hoaxes which are not real terrorist threats. There are so many things that are limiting to democracy.

The bill is contrary to Canadian Alliance policy of calling for more accountability in the government. The Canadian Alliance opposes the bill unless the government amends certain things we have put forward and limits the blanket interim order powers given to the ministers. I look forward to the government making those possible amendments.