A Trojan horse.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 36% of the vote.
Canada Transportation Act June 14th, 2000
A Trojan horse.
Petitions June 14th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, finally, I have a petition from a group of people in Saskatoon who point out that the federal government has not kept its promise to provide 50,000 new child care spaces as it said it would in 1993. The petitioners urge parliament to support a national child care program.
Mr. Speaker, these petitioners, without knowing so, named a figure for which this program would cost and I have been told by the clerk of petitions that they are not allowed to name a figure. I am not repeating it but I ask the indulgence and unanimous consent of the House that this petition be tabled in any event.
Petitions June 14th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners refer to the WTO. They do not like it in its present format whatsoever and suggest that the House of Commons work to build an alternative model of globalization, a stable rules based global economy protecting the rights of citizens and environment workers.
Petitions June 14th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions, two of which deal with health care. These citizens say that the federal government has vastly reduced its funding for health care. They are calling upon the government to increase its share to 25% of the total bill and to implement the national home care and national pharmacare programs.
Species At Risk Act June 13th, 2000
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the amendment to Bill C-33. The amendment was put forth by our colleague the member for Fundy—Royal. I want to state at the outset that I support the member's amendment.
I previously spoke on the main bill so I do not intend to go into the detail I did at that time. I will summarize what I had to say a number of weeks ago about Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.
I indicated that although the Minister of the Environment says the bill will do the job, it is weak in the protection of species at risk and their habitats. I may have previously mentioned that the bill makes it discretionary to protect species at risk even on government lands. Government lands account for a small percentage of the total land mass in Canada. The bill is weak in that sense. It also does not protect migratory birds and birds do not know borders so we have to do better than that.
The bill invites political consideration and lobbying as I and other members have said. The minister has chosen to allow a group of scientists under COSEWIC to continue to list species at risk, but at the end of the day, the determination of what will be considered as species at risk will be made by the federal cabinet. There has been widespread criticism of that because it does invite lobbying.
A company which maybe is endangering a whale through mining or some other activity could now go to the cabinet and try to prevent that species from being listed. I just use that as an example, but it is clear in that sense that the bill allows far too much ministerial discretion.
The bill also fails to include compensation provisions for workers and communities affected economically by action plans to rescue species at risk. I am thinking of people working in the forest. If it is decided that a patch of forest has to be saved, then of course we would support a patch of forest being saved, but what about the people who work in that patch of forest?
I want to very briefly indicate the NDP policy on this. I did not do that the last time I spoke on the bill. Our policy is clear on what such a law should do. This one really does not come close.
The policy was carefully thought out and debated at our last New Democratic Party federal convention. We passed a resolution at our 19th biennial convention which said that the New Democratic Party supports comprehensive federal endangered species legislation developed in co-operation with other governments which includes the benefits of traditional aboriginal knowledge as well and ensures, first, identification and listing of species at risk by an independent committee of scientists, wherein scientific evidence is the primary consideration and not political interpretation of this evidence. As I have said, the bill gives the minister far too much discretion.
Second, the NDP convention called for comprehensive nationwide natural habitat protection, including protection for species that range or migrate over Canada's domestic and international borders. I have already referred to that.
Third, the NDP convention called for legislation which would include stakeholders in the development of species recovery plans, provision of adequate support to those whose livelihood is disrupted by a species recovery plan, and provision for just transition to workers and communities by any recovery plan.
That is a very thorough, well thought out resolution about species at risk legislation. I know the government does not always come to the NDP for advice, but had it done so, we would have a better piece of legislation before us than what we have now.
When I first spoke to the legislation, it was very shortly after the bill was introduced. I was going by my own party's response, again based on our resolution in convention and the homework we had done. It has now been some time since the legislation was introduced and perhaps it is worthwhile to spend a minute or two looking at what people are saying about it. Let us call this a focus group for the minister for lack of a better term.
The Hamilton Spectator of Tuesday, May 2 stated:
In its current form, the proposed Canadian Species at Risk Act will serve as little more than a token document, of little benefit to those species truly at risk in our country.
On the day following the tabling of the legislation in the House, Stewart Elgie of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund had this to say:
We are very disappointed. This bill will do little to ensure that endangered species and their habitat are protected—it leaves everything up to political discretion.
Kevin Scott, director of the Vancouver based Defenders of Wildlife, said:
The legislation, as we have reviewed it, is in my opinion an international embarrassment.
An international embarrassment, that is how it is being described.
Sarah Dover of the Canadian Endangered Species Campaign said:
I do not think this environment minister...has been given the political capital in the cabinet room to affect serious change.
People are quite critical of this legislation. That includes some former supreme court justices.
Petitions June 12th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 200 people in Saskatoon, most of whom are from my riding.
The petition relates to early childhood education. It says that in 1993 we were promised 50,000 new child care spaces, and that has not happened. In the new children's agenda child care is barely mentioned.
The petitioners go on to ask that parliament support a national child care program that recognizes child care as the backbone of any federal early childhood development initiative.
The petition was made according to the House rules but a slight mistake was made. The petitioners put in a figure and, I was told by the clerk's office, that was not acceptable. I was instructed to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table the petition in any event. I hope members will give me that consent.
The Environment June 8th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it is three years too late on the tabling, but it is not just about delayed water reports, it is also about delayed action.
The Prime Minister wants action to protect Canadians' drinking water, but the Minister of the Environment says it is not his job. He is wrong.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act gives him explicit powers to ensure that toxics like the E. coli at Walkerton are not released into the water supply. This can be found at page 39, section 64, and at page 68, section 94, if he would like to look.
He can issue an order today to protect the health of Canadians. When will he sign the order?
The Environment June 8th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of the Environment was asked why his government failed to table an annual report on Canada's water supply, as required by law since 1996.
Lo and behold, this morning he did table reports for 1997 and 1998, but we are still waiting for reports for the last two years.
Will the minister tell us why the first two reports were kept from this House and the public until today? Will he tell us when his government will provide the reports that are overdue for the last two years?
Budget Implementation Act, 2000 June 6th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, as I did not vote on the last motion I would like to be recorded as voting no on this one.
The Environment June 6th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment recently said that our drinking water is in danger but he cannot do anything about it because it is a provincial responsibility. We now learn, in fact, that the Canada Water Act has been around for 30 years and gives the government all the authority it needs when water quality becomes a matter of urgent national concern.
If the quality of our drinking water is really a priority for the government, then I ask the Prime Minister why the government has not bothered to issue an annual report since 1996, as required by the Canada Water Act.