John Herron

[Kyoto Protocol, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the environment minister told the House that Canada would meet the targets set out by Kyoto. Yet in La Presse yesterday the minister said Canada will likely ratify yet at the end of the day not meet the target. Enron had Andersen Accounting and look where that got it.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to ask the House to vote on a target that his own minister admits the government does not intend to honour?

[Kyoto Protocol, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 1997 the Prime Minister and the premiers stated that first ministers agreed to establish a process in advance of Canada's ratification of the Kyoto protocol that will examine the consequences of Kyoto and provide for full participation of the provincial and territorial governments with the federal government in any implementation and management of the protocol.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister live up to that promise and not ratify Kyoto until Canadians know the consequences, the impact, the cost and the implementation strategy, or will this just be another Liberal broken promise?

[Pest Control Products Act, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Jonquière on her commentary. I worked side by side with her on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development when we put out the report on pesticides.

I have two questions. First, does the hon. member not think it is a major shortfall that the precautionary principle would not be made operational throughout the legislation as we had recommended in the committee report? If the PMRA uses a precautionary approach why would it not want to enshrine it in the act?

Second, is it not also a shortfall that the bill would not incorporate non-active ingredients with more clarity by giving full disclosure of the potential toxic effects of formulants?

Does the hon. member not agree that these are two shortfalls--

[Legislative Instruments Re-enactment Act, June 12th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I wish to begin my speech on Bill S-41 by saying that the Progressive Conservative Party intends to support the government on this bill.

When we look at the bill we see that it is only four pages of reading. It is one of the most simple bills we may actually have before the House of Commons. Many individuals may not think that this piece of legislation necessarily requires a lot of debate or that it could be confrontational in any way, shape or form. To be honest, the merit of the bill is that it is a technical bill. It addresses the reality that many of our statutes, principally orders in council or perhaps regulations, were initially instituted in only one of our official languages.

There is a debate among certain individuals that because these acts were in fact translations when they were eventually adopted into law, as opposed to being enshrined in law simultaneously in both of our official languages, they potentially could be subject to some form of legal challenge. There are certain individuals who may say that the bill is merely of a legal nature. I must compliment the government on the approach it has taken. I believe it to be a very efficient approach to ensure that the intent and the spirit of parliament is never contravened by our laws. I think that is the government's intent in giving this a retroactive nature. I do not think there is anything where one could conclude that the actions had an aspect of malice or mis-intent. I think the approach it has taken is completely legitimate.

I believe that the preservation of our laws in both of our official languages quite clearly speaks to the fabric of this nation. The formation of this country in 1867 was indeed a very serious partnership of four founding provinces and two strong linguistic communities. Having a law enshrined, whether or not it is intended to be a defensive mechanism for court challenges, has a positive aspect to it as well. It enshrines into law the necessity to protect and respect both of our official languages. That indeed does speak to the fabric of our nation.

We have had some similar situations arise in our country in the recent past. In the city of Moncton in the province of New Brunswick there was a court challenge because the municipal bylaws were initially tabled only in English. There is a strong bilingual character in the city of Moncton. The constitutional legality of those laws was challenged as to whether they were in fact binding in terms of municipal law.

Courageously, the province of New Brunswick did not challenge the court decision that was made. In fact, it made a clear commitment to actually ensure that in our largest cities and in our most linguistically pluralistic cities we have our municipal bylaws translated to reflect the nature of those communities. I really want to applaud the federal government and the efforts of not only the Minister of Canadian Heritage but in particular the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for their financial contribution in assisting my provincial cousins in the province of New Brunswick with the costs of the translation for those municipal communities. This reflects a similar initiative taken by the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney in 1984 for the province of Manitoba, after the Blaikie decision, whereby the provincial statutes were written in both official languages.

I think this reflects the common bond that we have as a nation. When it comes to defence of our linguistic communities, this is an issue that transcends most party lines. Sometimes I am a little bit confused about the official position of the leader of Her Majesty's official opposition on embracing that duality, but I suspect he will have a chance to be able to provide more clarity on that aspect down the road as well.

I know that we are never supposed to make reference to the absence of a member in the House, but I would like to make reference to the presence of my friends from the ridings of Madawaska--Restigouche and Saint John. We can applaud a strong, progressive piece of legislation just passed by the province of New Brunswick through premier Bernard Lord. It is our new provincial official languages act, which really reflects the spirit of the first pioneering act that was passed by the then premier, Louis Robichaud. What the provincial government of New Brunswick has done with its new law is ensure that we have a progressive piece of legislation that meets our constitutional obligations, particularly under sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act. I would like to pay tribute to that aspect as well.

I would like to perhaps send up a flare or indicate one particular concern because people are worried about our constitutional obligations under official languages and about the need to respect the constitution, which is a document that, in theory, makes our family whole. These days parliamentarians are reticent to raise the constitutional aspects of our nation from time to time, but the fact is that 25% of our population is still not represented in our constitutional family.

At some point it will be incumbent on the Government of Canada to address that immense inadequacy or deficiency. It is something that concerns me dearly, because it is just a matter of fact that at some point that issue will flare up again. We should do this in a very proactive and progressive way and not let it sit in perpetuity in the hope that it will go away. Not only is it a fact that it could be problematic, but it is also in the spirit of the nation to ensure that all members of our Canadian family participate in the constitutional framework itself.

That was the spirit of Meech when it was embraced by all 10 premiers, not once but twice, initially in 1987 and later in the 1980s. Then one particular individual turned his back on Canada, the then premier of Newfoundland. Make no mistake about it, Meech was about the protection and respect of the linguistic duality of the national identity that we have in the province of Quebec, its language, culture and civil code. It reflects the historical compromise that founded this nation and even steps back to the Quebec act of 1774 itself.

When we talk about the constitution and ensuring that we have laws that meet those obligations, let us ensure that at some point as parliamentarians we have the courage of our convictions to understand that our country has to be whole again and that 25% of the population is not represented in our constitutional framework. We need to find a way to actually accomplish that so we can reflect the nature of what we had attempted to do under the then premier, the late Robert Bourassa.

For a technical bill perhaps I went into some deeper thought for some individuals, but that is why we do this. That founding partnership still reflects the essence of our nation and is one that has to be wholeheartedly addressed. We need to ensure that we have national leadership in that regard.

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what we have advocated all along is that we need a graduated approach to protecting species at risk. Just because a species is found on a particular property, whether it is federal, provincial or even private land, it is not an automatic situation where that land becomes completely unusable. Sometimes the actions that need to be taken can be extremely benign. It may be just a matter of informing the landowner or the province that there is a species at risk located at a certain spot and to tell them what actions they can take to avoid further harming that particular species. Sometimes it is just a matter of sharing information among various levels of government.

We could even have a systematic approach to creating an awards or recognition program where all Canadians are committed to preserving our biodiversity. If that were a token gesture of the Government of Canada or a provincial regime to do that, it would make a lot of sense.

We could have provisions for information respecting methods to formalize commitments to land stewardship, including conservation easement to agreements and government programs, whether it be technical or scientific advice, to actually help out the landowners. We could even have a commitment to regularly examine the tax treatment and subsidies to eliminate disincentives for actions taken by persons to protect species at risk.

We saw that just recently when the Government of Canada went in a very good direction by removing one of the most draconian taxes when an individual inherits land that is a private woodlot. Sometimes it was cheaper to actually cut all the wood at once in order to pay the taxes to maintain that property. The Government of Canada changed the tax code in the last budget, which was a positive step in that direction.

There are things we can do and a stewardship approach is far better than a command and control aspect.

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first part of her commentary, the amendments that were brought in at the eleventh hour made the bill almost mediocre as opposed to totally unacceptable. Kudos to the Government of Canada for going in that direction.

The parliamentary secretary referenced the advertisement by the species at risk working group The top part of the commentary states that it did not reflect the consensus the group had. The perspective would be that they saw gains in the eleventh hour amendments.

From the get go we wanted it to be a co-operative entity. I understand the approach that the group has taken in that regard. Having a commentary from a very learned environmental lawyer of the nature of Stewart Elgie, it does not get any better than that.

However the point is that each one of the deficiencies that I flagged are still salient. I believe those individuals at SARWG, or even Stewart Elgie, would categorically concur with respect to where my remarks came from.

I made it clear that the eleventh hour amendments was a positive initiative, not a negative one.

Let us look at the issue of compensation in regulations. Because of the eleventh hour amendments, the committee chose not to gut out a Progressive Conservative amendment to Motion No. 109 which stated that the Government of Canada shall make regulations. If the government shall make regulations that means it is committed to doing it.

The point is that if the government is going to do it, it should do its homework in a significant way so it could simultaneously table at least draft legislation with the framework agreement itself so we would know what we would be getting as an end product. It is incumbent on the Government of Canada to do that.

I think we actually know why the Government of Canada really did not get its act together on compensation. I will paraphrase some of the minister's earlier remarks with respect to compensation.

The minister said that responsible behaviour was something that we expect, not something we should have to buy. He was a reluctant convert to compensation in the first place which was the reason, after the act was tabled, that the homework had not been done in advance, despite having nearly a decade to actually do it.

We cannot cobble together complex regulations in a matter of a few months and weeks. The Government of Canada recognized that which is why we do not have the regulations tabled now. I believe that addresses the parliamentary secretary's concerns on those two points.

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put on the record at third reading of Bill C-5 the Progressive Conservative position on the species at risk act.

There have been references in the Chamber throughout the day that this is the third attempt by the Government of Canada to deliver the species at risk act itself. There have been comments saying that the other bills had not worked and that this is a cumulative effort of past efforts in providing Canadians with better legislation.

There is an element of truth to that, but let us be very clear. We know as a point of fact that the reason Bill C-65 and Bill C-33 died on the order paper previously was that the Government of Canada chose for political reasons exclusively to call a national general election well within the traditional four year mandate, just over three and a half years. In the last case it was just under three and a half years. Those two bills were permitted to die on the order paper purely for political reasons.

I raise that issue because I believe it is even more salient given the perspective that Bill C-5 will likely pass third reading today. Once that is done it will be sent to the Senate. If it does not clear the Senate this summer, there is more than just the odd rumour that the Government of Canada may consider proroguing the House. That means all pieces of legislation on the order paper will die instantaneously.

The Government of Canada may choose once again to unilaterally let the species at risk legislation die or fail, not because the legislation necessarily was flawed, which it was in each one of those three cases, but purely for a politically driven rationale. I wanted to make that point very clear.

This legislation will be the first piece of environmental legislation by the Government of Canada in the nearly nine years since it formed the government after winning the election on October 25, 1993. In fact a number of individuals refer to the Liberal government's experience on environmental legislation to be “the lost decade”. In April the Sierra Legal Defence Fund issued its report “The Lost Decade” which criticized the Liberal government for failing to conserve biodiversity and protect its endangered species.

In contrast, the Progressive Conservative Party was in government between 1984 and 1993. We received numerous accolades with respect to how progressive our environmental laws were and how they enhanced our country.

We cite the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is our principal omnibus bill on the controlled use of toxins in our environment. We cite the fact that in 1987 Canada pulled the international world together on ozone depleting gases. We cite a $3 billion green plan on pollution prevention so that we can help move industry into a best practices regime.

We cite the fact that in 1992 at a biodiversity forum held in Rio de Janeiro it was Canada that led the international world to be one of the first signatories to commit to preserving our biodiversity. That was done in the summer of 1992 but unfortunately the following year there was a mild downsizing which prevented us from being able to follow through with legislation. The new Government of Canada had an opportunity to do that in 1993, 1994 and throughout the entire last decade to gain that what we have lost.

We knew that the government was at least challenged at providing the country with legislation which needed to be effective and could work on the ground.

We tabled a position paper that was drawn from the coalition experience that was formed by the species at risk working group which included the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Mining Association of Canada, the Sierra Club of Canada, and the Canadian Nature federation. They built a broad based coalition. There were some elements that we enhanced in our position paper tabled in March 2000 called “Carrots before sticks”.

We wanted to show stewardship and provide those incentives so that we could make it a common cause to protect our biodiversity. The first element of that document demonstrated that a species at risk should be determined by science and not political choice. The committee on the status of wildlife in Canada, known as COSEWIC, that entity of professional biologists are best to determine whether a species is endangered, extirpated, threatened, or whatever status it might have. That list should be the one that is considered.

The second element maintained that before we even consider having a law that could potentially engage on private landowners and on the provinces we should look after our own backyard. Otherwise we have no moral suasion to do so. We said there must be mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands including aquatic species.

The third point stated that we needed to protect transboundary species, particularly migratory birds. That is in an exclusive constitutional purview of the federal government.

The fourth point indicated the necessity to ensure that we had clarity with respect to the compensatory regime. All Canadians benefit from the preservation of biodiversity. The few should not have to pay the price. There must be clarity from the Government of Canada with respect to compensation.

Those are the four planks that we had fought for throughout the course of the deliberations on this act. The first initiative that took place in 1996 was when the national protocol and the preservation of biodiversity took place with the provinces and the federal government.. There is a commitment to have complementary legislation.

I want to make it clear that the approach the Government of Canada has taken with this law is better than the approach taken by the United States. Fostering stewardship, having a co-operative approach, working with our subnational governments whether they be territories or the provinces, is a more prudent approach. It fits with what we want to do as well. The problem with it is that the framework and the concept are fine but as always we can understand that the devil is sometimes often in the detail. There were some major gains in this legislation as a framework. It was enhanced at the committee level in each of those four planks that I touched upon.

I would like to go back to the minister's comments with respect to four points that he was most proud of. He used these four points in his conclusion. He mentioned there would be a scientific listing. Let us be clear. It was the committee that pulled the Minister of the Environment, dragging, kicking and screaming, to adopt the existing COSEWIC list. It was the committee on environment that ensured that once this law was enshrined that we would not have to have this lull of time before we even had a species on a list. We could use the existing COSEWIC list. The recommendation came from the committee, not from the Minister of the Environment, not from Privy Council, and not from the Prime Minister's Office. It was the learned members of the committee of all party stripes who did that.

I wish to applaud the member for York North who was steadfast in wanting to improve a lot of the environmental aspects of this legislation. She was critical of the Government of Canada for having a compromise amendment at the eleventh hour. One of the issues that the minister and the government are most proud of is something that they were not on board with in the first place.

The second thing they wanted was for aboriginal and traditional knowledge contributions to have a higher role in the act to determine whether a species was at risk or not. Just yesterday we had an amendment from the member for Churchill River in Saskatchewan that if the amendment had not passed that provision would have been gutted out.

The minister was proud that there would be a five year review. With all humility, it was again the committee that forced the Government of Canada to have a review aspect in the legislation in the first place. The committee put its shoulder to the wheel. We were pleased to do the homework for the Government of Canada.

Where is the bill still void? It is void on the scientific listing aspect and reverse onus concept that has been tabled before the House. It is an eleventh hour compromise. We would not have seen these eleventh hour amendments if it had not been for the fact that the government knew that it would lose the bill.

Moreover, the minister knew that if he lost the bill he would likely have lost his seat in cabinet. He would have been next Sunday's Shawinigan sacrifice. He would have been the individual who would have been next in line after the former defence minister and the former minister of public works. Although that political pressure spurred some positive reaction, let us give ourselves some credit that we can move the yardsticks if we apply the proper amount of pressure and have the courage or conviction to move in that direction.

Where the act is still void as well is that there was a compromise amendment made with respect to the mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands, including aquatic species. It is not what the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had advocated. It is not what the committee had advocated for the most part as well. However, it is better than what we had. We reluctantly supported it yesterday. It is a mediocre initiative. It is a convoluted approach that is not as clear as it should have been in the first place.

On the issue of migratory birds, transboundary species are in the exclusive domain of the federal government. It has the constitutional jurisdiction and the purview to protect those particular species. I find it ironic that on the Canadian Wildlife Service website we see photos of sandpipers and the whooping crane is the icon species of species at risk. Yet, this act does not protect migratory birds as a transboundary species. I encourage those folks who are riveted to their televisions at this moment to run to the Internet to look up that particular section on that national website.

Whooping cranes for the most part do nest in national parks so there is a strong element of their habitat that is protected. The Canadian Wildlife Service has chosen the whooping crane as its icon yet this is where the act is most void. I made reference yesterday to the blue heron. It is not a matter of self-preservation that I made that particular remark. However, that is something that should not be lost on the committee itself.

Pertaining to ensuring co-operation with the provinces I cited letters from the provinces of Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island on amendments the committee had made with respect to sections 32, 33 and 61 where we would establish criteria with the Government of Canada on the safety net provisions and would engage perhaps provincial jurisdiction if it were deemed appropriate in order to preserve a species. However it would not be done arbitrarily. Clear criteria would be set out to ensure that provincial legislation would be at least equivalent to federal legislation.

We received letters from the provinces of Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. that the amendments that the committee made on those sections were acceptable to them. In some situations the provinces stated they did not even like the sections in the first place and that is why they did not support the legislation.

The Government of Canada did not do its homework and build a broad based coalition with its provincial cousins as it needed to do. When the committee tabled the amendments that enhanced a co-operative approach with provincial governments, the Government of Canada unilaterally gutted them out.

It is incumbent on the Government of Canada to share with us at some point whether it consulted the provinces prior to removing the provisions by the provinces. The provinces put in writing, in letters dated December 2001, that they supported these provisions. We had a chance to have a pioneering bill and we have lost that opportunity with Bill C-5.

I would like to state for the record that the approach that the Government of Canada has taken is far more progressive than the approach taken in the United States. The problem is that the accountability mechanisms in the bill are far too weak.

I have had some spirited debates with the Minister of the Environment on the fact that we wanted everything done on a mandatory basis, but we needed to have some timelines. The committee had some acceptable timelines. If an action was deemed appropriate to be taken then it should have been done by a certain period of time as opposed to being left to drift. Those timelines were established by the committee.

The Government of Canada has taken that accountability mechanism out. It could have even left it in place as a guideline. The minister could have applied to parliament or have established a permit where an extension could be requested. However the government was reticent about making provisions that would make the Government of Canada more accountable.

I am pleased with a particular Progressive Conservative amendment that was accepted by all parties of the House. Our national stewardship action plan would enshrine into law the intent of what the Government of Canada wanted to do. It is clearly there. It is a comprehensive list with respect to what the government should include as part of its stewardship menu of initiatives that it can take and execute.

There was a debate among members of the House about what the best approach would be in terms of empowering criminal law on landowners. I am not a strong advocate of having any approach where we would spend more money and time in the courts than on the ground protecting species. I believe the government's approach on due diligence is more appropriate than the mens rea perspective, only if it is complemented with landowner notification. There is one provision in the bill which was tabled by the Progressive Conservatives that was accepted on landowners notification. The other ones have been removed from the bill.

The rural caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada has categorically let down rural Canadians. They sold them out when this side of the House asked for clear provisions on compensation. The least the Liberal caucus should have been insisting on was to have draft regulations in place so that we could follow what the Government of Canada would have done on compensation.

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important stage of Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation. It has had a rough and tumble ride on the Liberal benches over these last few weeks and for good reasons.

The House may be well aware that the bill was incredibly void on what we viewed as four principal points. It did not have the scientific aspect that we needed to determine the list regarding whether a species was at risk or not. Having a true scientific listing would ensure that it was scientific and not political.

The economic and social implications should be taken into account at the recovery stage, in the action plan of the act. The government has made a move on this particular plank. It has moved in a positive direction on having a better framework and having mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands, including aquatic species.

That is another position that the Progressive Conservative Party has held true. Our position is from the document that we tabled in March 2000 known as “Carrots before sticks”. It is a comprehensive program that follows closely the recommendations of the species at risk working group on what good, sound and effective species at risk legislation should have.

Beyond the listings and looking after its own backyard and having better protection on federal lands, including aquatic species, the Government of Canada has not moved that far. Let us be quite clear. The Minister of the Environment only moved in that direction because Liberal backbenchers were going to stand with the opposition and vote down this act because it was not effective.

That was clearly the signal that the Liberal members were sending across the board. The Minister of Environment had a choice. One was to lose not only the bill but likely his position in cabinet. He would have been next Sunday's Shawinigan sacrifice had he not implemented these particular amendments. Kudos to him for at least making the recommendations he did to move in that direction.

The bill is void on four points. Not only is the listing format not a true scientific listing, although it is better than what the government has proposed in the first place, it is still somewhat discretionary and is too discretionary with respect to mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands. However, kudos to the government for at least moving in a better direction. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will be supporting the amendments of that nature that have been added.

Another point where the act is still weak relates to the fact that we do not have mandatory protection of migratory birds, which is clearly in the purview of the federal government. There are even amendments in Group No. 5 that pertain to that particular aspect. We have lost an opportunity there on migratory birds. I am not saying that as a spoof, as some members have before, because of my last name being similar to that of a blue heron.

However, the greatest deficiency in the bill is that there is not enough clarity with respect to the compensatory regime that the Government of Canada will have in this act. It is not a matter of whether the law will be tough enough. It is whether it will be effective as well. If we are always saying that a law has to be tough, we are using a punitive approach as opposed to rewarding stewardship.

There was a comprehensive amendment that was adopted in clause 10 of the bill known as a national stewardship plan. It would foster positive behaviour by providing scientific advice to landowners and perhaps even consideration of financial incentives for protecting species at risk because all Canadians benefit from the preservation of our biodiversity as well.

I am heartened by the government's wisdom, although it may have been precipitated by pressure from the rural Liberal caucus. We had tabled an amendment which said at the very least that the government needs to notify landowners that there is a species at risk on their property so that they can take the appropriate action. The government wanted to gut that Progressive Conservative amendment known as Motion. No. 109. The government has chosen not to remove the provision the Tories presented in committee which was supported by all five parties in this Chamber. That was a positive step in the right direction.

I want to talk about the compensatory regime again. The previous speaker mentioned that it is a very difficult issue to reduce to law. That is what we are here to do. We are here to write laws and to provide the framework so that we know what actions will or will not be predictably made by the Government of Canada. We write laws. That is what we do. It is extremely condescending to take the approach that we would not want to reduce it to law because at the end of the day, it will have to be addressed through regulations.

If the Government of Canada wants to provide a framework for compensation through a regulatory regime as opposed to enshrining it in the act, that would be okay if that was its choice to go that route. However the minimum the government would owe rural Canada would be to simultaneously table draft regulations. It should simultaneously table the regulations with the act so the landowners know what they are getting in the package to protect species at risk. That would provide more clarity. Perhaps the intergovernmental affairs minister should have lent a hand on that particular aspect.

This is where the bill is still void. It is still weak on listing, although it is better than it was before. It is still weak on mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands, although it is better than it was before. It is still too weak and unacceptable on the protection of migratory birds. It is definitely not acceptable in providing clarity with respect to the compensatory regime and about what landowners should expect to have.

Kudos to the government for at least keeping the notification aspect in the act itself. I would like to point out one aspect which Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are very well aware of through a heated debate you may have had in the context of your own caucus. All members of the committee wanted to ensure that we included the traditional knowledge of our aboriginal people to complement the scientific knowledge, the actions the Government of Canada should take and knowledge about the dwindling populations of species, information from aboriginal people which should be absorbed in the act to make it better.

Instead of making aboriginal peoples a full partner, the Government of Canada added a provision that actually gutted first nations contributions. The member of parliament for Churchill River in Saskatchewan tabled an amendment that reversed the government's reversal. The Government of Canada has now seen the light and will support that Liberal member's motion.

Let us not be too revisionist here, although we are on the revision of the revision of the revision. The Government of Canada had an opportunity to welcome first nations contributions and it almost rescinded them. That is an aspect of the bill we should highlight as well.

Again, given that we have had eight years to prepare legislation, we should have developed sound and effective legislation as opposed to mediocre legislation at best.

I tip my hat to my friends and colleagues on the environment committee from all parties, the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc, the NDP and Liberal members as well, because any gains that were made in the bill were made through the hard work of that committee. It is very anti-democratic for the Government of Canada to have rescinded a lot of the good hard work that we have done.

[The Deaf and Hearing Impaired, June 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate in support of Motion No. 367 brought forward by the hon. member for Longueuil. I commend her for raising public awareness of those individuals with disabilities, particularly people with disabilities related to hearing.

I had the opportunity last week to participate in a forum during disability week in my own province of New Brunswick. I was escorted around in a wheelchair throughout the upper Saint John region. We are aware of the necessity to ensure that we have the appropriate accesses to rooms and elevators for those individuals who are physically challenged. We think we have made great inroads in our society, and the truth is we have.

However there is an awful lot that we must do. Any motion that we have before the House helps raise the awareness that there are initiatives the Government of Canada must take and that we as a society must take to ensure that those persons with disabilities have the right to participate in our society to their fullest capacity because they want to as well.

The motion we are debating states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired; (b) act without delay to set up a real program to fund the research and development of technologies relating to closed captioning; (c) draft a bill to amend the Broadcasting Act to oblige all broadcasters to carry visual programs with closed captioning.

According to Statistics Canada hearing loss and deafness affects millions of Canadians with 2.9 million Canadians experiencing some form of hearing loss. That is one in ten. The statistics are probably on the low side since most of the research and statistics gathering rely on self-identification and inconsistent use of terms and definitions. It is common for people to deny their hearing loss, as we might understand.

The Canadian Hearing Society along with other groups supports the motion and so does the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The reality is that deaf, deafened and hard of hearing Canadians continue to experience violations of basic human rights without regard to public broadcasting. Let us be clear. The need for and right to communications and language is fundamental to the human condition. Without communication an individual cannot become an effective and productive adult or an informed citizen in our democratic process.

Studies have proven conclusively and repeatedly that captioning assists both children and adults in learning literacy skills and in developing second-language skills. In 1987 the Canadian Association of the Deaf estimated that one-third of the populace could benefit directly from captioning. Considering this, one might assume that captioning is presently being provided by all television broadcasting as a matter of course, a matter of self-interest by broadcasters or a matter of regulatory requirements by the CRTC. This is simply not the case.

In November 2000 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the CBC had indeed discriminated on the basis of disability or deafness and ordered the CBC to caption everything it broadcasts on the first reasonable occasion. The CBC has chosen to challenge the decision. It will likely argue that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction in the matter because the CRTC is legally mandated to rule on broadcasting.

We cannot have our cake and eat it too. The industry cannot be exempt from the Canadian Human Rights Act and have the CRTC stripped of the power to regulate and require captioning. However it is important to note that the CBC and CTV are the best achievers among Canadian broadcasters as far as captioning is concerned.

The technology is not only capable of supplying the demand but it is already in the hands of the broadcasters. Even community cable channels have access to the equipment itself. It is important to point out that the Liberal government itself has agreed that closed captioning is of vital importance.

On May 30, 2001, parliamentarians gave their unanimous consent to a motion to adopt the report on the broadcasting and the availability of the debates and proceedings of parliament in both official languages. This report recommended, among other measures, the closed captioning in French of oral question period in the House, as is already being done in English. However, the government, as per usual, did not take any action.

Unfortunately, this is another chapter in the book called the Liberal government that does nothing and it is Canadians that pay. In this case there are individuals who have hearing losses or deafness and do not have the opportunity to participate to the degree that they should.

I would say to all members of the House that this is a mere motion. It is not a bill. It is not an actual piece of legislation. When the House approves a motion, Madam Speaker, and you are well aware of this particular aspect, it is expressing the will of the House to move in a direction to meet the intent of the motion. It may not be exactly as the member has worded it in the motion itself but the principles are followed through.

If Canadians are concerned, not just in principle but in reality, and if members of parliament are concerned beyond supporting the principle of the motion but not liking one comma that is in the sentence, then I ask all members of the House, regardless of what party stripe they yield from, to support Motion No. 367.

I wish to commend the member for Longueuil for her ongoing commitment to this most worthy cause. I ask all members to support the motion. The best way to do that is to put it to a vote. We can end the debate right here and now. Let us not filibuster this issue. There is no need to do that. I suspect that we have the support of the mover of Motion No. 367. If all members are concerned about this particular issue I would ask them to stay in their seats. Let us end the debate now and put it to a vote.

[Species at Risk Act, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister has tabled 11th hour amendments on critical habit and scientific listing closer to the Progressive Conservative position. However the minister also knew if he did not, the Liberals likely would have voted down his bill, not only costing the bill but likely his cabinet position along the way.

If the minister is willing to table amendments, why will he not table amendments to have more clarity with the compensation regime? Why is the minister still willing to sell out rural Canadians and Liberal backbenchers by not providing more clarity about when we compensate and when we do not?