John Herron

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 12th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-32, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 49 with the following:

“the Ministers shall propose achieving virtual elimination of the substance under this Act by implementing subsection 65(3).”

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 12th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-32, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 48 with the following:

“subsection (4), achieving virtual elimination by implementing subsection 65(3).”

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 12th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-32, in Clause 65, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 39 with the following:

“(3) When a substance is added to the Virtual Elimination List, the Ministers shall recommend that a regulation be made under paragraph 93(1)( w .1) prescribing the quantity or concentration of the”

[Health Care, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is a serious staffing situation in the province of New Brunswick which can mean a serious downturn in patient care. Because of the high demand for radiation therapists across the country, provinces are competing for qualified staff to fill vacancies.

Sadly, radiation therapists in New Brunswick are the lowest paid in the country. For that reason many are seeking better paying jobs in other provinces. Already the province has lost four people and one more is planning to leave.

The people of New Brunswick deserve access to qualified health care providers. We need to stress the importance of retaining our qualified, experienced radiation therapists in New Brunswick to care for the hundreds of cancer patients who are in desperate need of treatment. We have an obligation to those patients to ensure that this alarming situation does not create an exodus to the west or stateside and that our health care workers remain in the province.

I challenge Premier Thériault to address this issue. If he does not, Bernard Lord will.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 10th, 1999]

With regards to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans announcements on June 19, 1998, of a $100 milion program for measures to protect and rebuild salmon fish habitat on Canada's west coast is there a similar program available in Atlantic Canada that has the same four components of (1) establishing a permanent fund for habitat initiatives, (2) developing community based stewardship programs aimed at protecting habitat from further damage, (3) extending community restoration and partnership programs, and finally, (4) increasing public awareness of the problems affecting salmon stocks and, if so, how much money is spent in Atlantic Canada on this type of program?

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-441, an act to protect wildlife species in Canada from extinction. Ninety-four per cent of Canadians, an overwhelming majority, support protection for endangered species. Estimates of extinction range from two to three species a day to three to four species an hour.

In 1992 Canada signed the International Convention on Biodiversity. Under the terms of the convention Canada made a commitment to protect threatened species and habitats. Under article 8(k) it had to develop the necessary legislation to provide that protection. Sadly, six years later we were without any legislation. It is soon to be seven years.

In October 1996 Canada's 10 provinces and two territories and the federal government all signed a national accord for the protection of species at risk. It committed each jurisdiction to establish an effective endangered species program. To date, four Canadian provinces have laws in place that specifically protect species at risk. They are Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and Manitoba.

While only a few provinces currently have plans in place, most notably a federal plan remains outstanding. We wonder why it is taking so long. The solution is simple. The federal government has to introduce a bill that identifies species needing help, that does not allow for them to be killed, that gives them a home and helps them recover. Bill C-441 proves it can be done. Any bill introduced by the minister should follow its lead and achieve at least the following goals.

Ideally a Canadian law should apply to all federal lands with complementary legislation from the provinces. It should have a specific listing of the species at risk and the habitat required for survival. It should automatically prohibit the destruction of the species and its critical habitat. It should require a recovery plan within one year for endangered species, two years for threatened species and three years for vulnerable species from the time of listing. This will prevent what I call the 911 approach to species protection.

If we invest in the earlier years when species are vulnerable, we can actually protect them from entering the more costly stage when they become endangered and we may not have the resources or the time to address the issue.

We also must require protection for critical habitat and require the advance review of projects that may adversely affect the protection or recovery of an endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat.

The federal government already had a chance to put forward a bill that could have accomplished these basic goals. To date it has failed to do so.

The government introduced Bill C-65 during its past mandate but it was widely criticized for several key weaknesses. It protected species on federal lands only. It protected them from direct harm, or harm to the nest or den only, which was known as a residence. The bill required recovery and management plans but never required them to be implemented. Cabinet, not scientists, was given the authority to list a species as endangered. That was a tragedy. It required action only after the species had hit a crisis situation, again the famous 911 approach.

Nonetheless the bill was sent to committee for a lengthy review process. I know firsthand about lengthy review processes of a bill. We just endured six months of reviewing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The bill that returned from the committee was significantly stronger but it still had key weaknesses. The bill still only covered federal lands and waters and cabinet still only did the listing of endangered species.

Due to many problems identified by both industry and environmental NGOs, Bill C-65 was allowed to die on the Order Paper at the dissolution of parliament in 1997. Since then the Liberal government has been promising a new bill that will hopefully address these concerns.

Bill C-441 certainly does. It addresses the crucial weaknesses identified in Bill C-65 and meets all the ideal criteria for a new federal law. Although it has not been deemed votable, I can assure members that Bill C-441 is the standard against which any future federal legislation should be measured.

The goal of any endangered species legislation should be to create an atmosphere where the landowner will act in a way that positively contributes to habitat protection. Allow me to say it again. The goal of any endangered species legislation should be to create an atmosphere where the landowner will act in a way that positively contributes to habitat protection so that existing endangered species are protected and future endangered species are prevented.

This does not necessarily mean taking over land management of private property. If an endangered species is found on private land, then the landowner must be doing something right and should be encouraged to continue.

Encouraging stewardship programs will create an atmosphere where the benefits of biodiversity are valued and recognized. This is the approach the Canadian Nature Federation has taken. It ensures that landowners, industry and environmental NGOs are actually advancing in a common cause the best, well balanced piece of legislation possible. The work that Sarah Dover has been doing on behalf of the Canadian Nature Federation and the coalition should indeed be acknowledged.

Legislation that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of landowners and resource users is the most effective way to achieve co-operation. Without the co-operation of the provinces, landowners and resource users, the most stringent criteria of an effective endangered species act will be impossible.

Legislation should implement stewardship, including recognition and compensation programs across the country to ensure that landowners and resource users would consider land management practices that protect species.

Critical to the success of the upcoming bill the government plans on introducing is it should not be restricted to the residence of a species. It should include its core habitat. Survival of a species depends on its having a place to sleep, eat and breed.

The vast majority of Canadians want the federal government to implement strong endangered species legislation. It will set a standard for the provinces to achieve.

Information sharing is also critical. It is essential to species recovery. Effective species recovery is not only dictated by limited resources but also by limited knowledge. Endangered species protection legislation must focus on encouraging the use of information to protect species. Imperfect information can result in underestimating or overestimating the value of a habitat and will result in negative net benefits.

Information from the scientific community, traditional knowledge and landowner concerns must be considered when deciding how an endangered species will be protected.

Information sharing should also be used to alleviate the fears of landowners who will lose their property rights should they become involved in the recovery of a species. The wildlife department must show that all of society will bear the cost of endangered species protection.

We also need to ensure that we are rewarding stewardship activities. It is far more effective than outright control of private property. Simply purchasing land in most cases is not the most effective method of protecting species. The economic benefit brought from the land is lost and other unforeseen problems can arise. But there is a moral hazard in purchasing land because the landowner benefits while the rest of society pays.

In the time remaining, I would like to outline some of the other initiatives which have been done around the world.

American legislation is known as command and control approach legislation. It is largely ineffective and does not have the support of the resource users or landowners. It does actually promote the shoot, shovel and smile approach which we do not necessarily want to advocate. We want all of society to show leadership in protecting species at risk.

The British legislation actually has some innovative approaches in terms of having land preservation or specific areas where a species is provided a core habitat. It is something that should be included.

In conclusion, regardless of which plan the government decides to introduce, it is imperative that the legislation work. The American law is strong but ineffective. We do not want the same thing to happen in Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping we would have a question that would be a little difficult. This one is a bit of a lame duck.

In any event, the reason the province of Ontario had to make some tough decisions on health care and education was that this government cut transfer payments for health care and education by over 35%. Whoops, I guess the hon. member actually forgot that. What Mike Harris has been able to do by growing the economy of Ontario, and I can point out growing the economy of this country, is the government of Mike Harris is investing more in health care, more in education than ever before by any government that has ever governed the province of Ontario.

Next time hopefully I will get a tougher question.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to my hon. colleague's question. I want to set the record straight on a couple of issues as well. Let us think this through.

In 1987 the Reform Party was formed. Its members would have us believe that they wanted to get our fiscal house in order because they were worried about the direction in which the country was going. There is a little bit of history. As a younger person I find it very uncomfortable lecturing some of the more senior members in that regard.

In 1984 the deficit was approximately $40 billion. In 1987 the deficit was around $17 billion or $21 billion. The government was headed in a much more prudent fiscal direction in that regard. That was the Progressive Conservative government of the day. For Reform members to say that they became a party because they were concerned about the fiscal element within this country is a faux pas. I am very sad to say that.

When Reform decided to become a party it was headed in a positive direction. Instead of encouraging the government and jumping on side to make investments, Reform decided to have a party to split the right. Now Reform is saying perhaps it was not a good thing to do and we should all cuddle up and try it all over again.

I want to talk about very serious issues. The partisanship is not important. What is important is we have a $600 billion national debt. We have the capacity to show the Canadian taxpayer that we are serious in addressing it and that we want to pay down the debt with very measurable targets.

That is the commitment Canadians want to hear, not the partisan rhetoric. They want to hear that we want to pay down the national debt in a very real way in terms of our debt to GDP ratio and in a very real way as compared to EU nations. That is what we want to do. We want to make that commitment.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to have the opportunity to address such a very constructive question. I know that was the intent of my hon. friend from the environment committee.

First we have to look at the GST, which is a tax itself. No one likes taxes, but the GST was a replacement tax for a hidden federal manufacturing tax. It was a good thing to do, according to this government. Otherwise, it would have changed it. It was such a good thing that the minister of heritage decided to run twice on the very same issue.

When it comes to the national debt and which part of the debt we should pay down, we need to take a very serious look at the debt issue itself. There is a partisan swing there, but the overall impression is this. The past government lowered the debt as a percentage of GDP.

To be quite honest, more should have been done and more needed to be done. We need to continue to use our export driven economy, our access to the American market to keep our economy growing and pay down the debt in a very serious deliberate way so Canadians know we are making investments in that. We have a moral obligation to do it. We have a reason to do it from a productivity perspective.

I will be very pleased to answer any questions.

I thank my hon. friend and colleague from the environment committee for his interest in this particular issue.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

It was actually 35%, the learned member from St. John's East has pointed out to me.

If there is one investment that the government needs to make it is to ensure that we put more money into post-secondary education so that our best and our brightest can go to school. I have talked to the member from Compton—Stanstead about this on numerous occasions and I know that he shares the same sentiment. He is very fearful that some of our best and brightest will choose to not even go to university. I am extremely concerned about that.

The government has no plan, in terms of health care, to attract doctors or nurses; nor does it have a visionary concept to attract doctors to rural Canada. That is very important to the residents in my riding of Fundy—Royal.

The government takes credit for putting money back into health care through the transfer payments, the CHST. However, the province of New Brunswick was getting less money. It was getting $11 million less because of the 1998 budget. This year it is actually getting a little more. The government is playing a bit of a shell game with our health care dollars. I find that to be a travesty.

I will sum up by indicating what this government missed in the 1999 budget.

There should have been a prudent, serious commitment to paying down the $600 billion national debt. It should have sent a signal to Canadians that it was the right step.

It should have provided Canadians with the broad based tax relief which they rightfully deserve. Doing that would have given our economy the injection it needs so that we could become the country we know we can be.

I want to ensure that the government puts money into priority programs, not silly programs like the transitional jobs fund. We need to put money into priority spending areas, such as health care. I am particularly concerned about rural health care. We also have to ensure that our best and brightest have access to affordable post-secondary education.

As the environment critic for our party, I would point out that the finance minister is a former environment critic, yet the environment department is still one of the most underfunded departments in this government. That is a shame.

To set the record straight, it was the provincial governments which actually provided the political leadership in terms of fiscal responsibility, primarily the Progressive Conservative governments of Manitoba, Ontario and Alberta.

We also need to pay tribute to the people on the front lines of this debt and deficit debate, the Canadian taxpayers who sacrificed to get the job done.