House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 70% of the vote.
Ethics Counsellor April 25th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I simply ran for the leadership. What I did was step down from my position. I did not stay in a position of trust. That is ethics.
All we ask is that if anybody enters a leadership campaign he or she should step down as a cabinet minister. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister not recognize that as the ethical standard?
Ethics Counsellor April 25th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, what we requested from the ethics counsellor was a copy of the report prepared by the office of the ethics counsellor regarding the Minister of Finance and his Calgary lawyer, Jim Palmer.
The answer we received back from the ethics counsellor was “We have no records of any such transaction”.
My question is very straightforward. The finance minister defended himself by saying that he had been in touch with the ethics counsellor. Where are those records?
Fundraising April 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister in this campaign has doled out big taxpayer bucks to an organizer in Toronto. Now we find out that he is organizing her phantom leadership contest.
My question is straightforward. Will these guidelines ban the sort of practice that looks like a conflict of interest to every single Canadian? Yes or no.
Fundraising April 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, today we learned that other questions have been raised about the Minister of Canadian Heritage and her fundraising. It is very similar to the Minister of Finance's problems.
Will the Prime Minister promise today to set guidelines for ministerial fundraising and to make them public immediately?
Book Day April 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, it is my opportunity also to speak about Canada Book Day, April 23 which is today.
This is a day to contemplate the importance of written communication. Let us think of all the issues involved with books: the manufacture of paper; printing shops; libraries; authors; newspapers; yes, journalists; and scientific literature. The list goes on.
This is a celebration of literacy from the child's first halting recognition of simple words to the flowery poetry that inspires and stimulates. Canada Book Day also commemorates a symbolic date when prominent authors including Shakespeare, Cervantes and Nabokov were born or died.
Written language is a symbol of modern society. Canada Book Day celebrates that symbol.
Government Expenditures April 17th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, our 16 pilots are top gun military pilots and they have experience on planes that are very similar. Bombardier let me know that to certify a pilot costs $47,800. We get four certified for nothing in the purchase. That does not add up to $8.2 million.
Where are they hiding the rest of that money?
Government Expenditures April 17th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have squandered $101 million for luxury jets. They claim that $8.2 million of that is earmarked for pilot certification. The actual cost of pilot certification is $570,000.
Why did the Liberals fudge the figures for pilot training on these luxury Gucci jets?
Government Expenditures April 16th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said parts, taxes and pilot training. He backed away from taxes. He is obviously backing away from pilot training because four pilots are trained for free.
I ask him again, how many pilots will we be training? How many?
Government Expenditures April 16th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government tried to justify spending an extra $25 million on these luxury jets by saying that part of it was for pilot training.
We have learned that for each jet purchased the training for two pilots is free; covered.
Just exactly how many pilots are we training?
Species at Risk Act April 16th, 2002
Madam Speaker, this is my opportunity to speak to the amendments in Group No. 4 relating to species at risk, Bill C-5.
I will begin my discussion on the overall and broad effect the species at risk legislation would have on society, which is the reason we are debating the legislation. There is an advantage to society to protect species that are at risk.
I was recently at a talk on science which was dedicated to the effect pollution has on organisms downwind of big metropolitan cities, in particular Toronto. A scientist who is quite well known for his work in this area talked about how the plant and animal species downwind of the major cities were in fact different from those in areas upwind.
He studied lichens and their growth and showed how the effects of pollution were negative on that plant species. He did not speak a lot on animal species, which is where we are at today with the legislation, but the same effects have been shown to be true and present.
It shows the effects of human activity on other animal species. I tried to look back to see where we have been successful in our efforts toward species at risk. The one area where we have been successful is with the whooping crane. That was a widely publicized issue in which Canadians should take some pride. We have had some success in tracking and raising these birds in a tame environment and then releasing them in the wild.
Would Bill C-5, and particularly the amendments that we are talking about today, give us success in that regard? The two areas that are very particular to these amendments are areas that relate to letting the landowners know whether or not they have species at risk on their properties.
We have tried to put forward amendments to the legislation that would allow the landowner to be made aware of the presence of species on their properties that are at risk .
The arguments that have been used against that are I suppose valid. The public could possibly become interested in the land, tromp on it and possibly endanger the species in question. I am of the mind that telling the landowner is an advantage. If the landowner were aware he would be capable of taking preventive steps against harming the habit for that species. That is one specific area where I am not certain the argument is one I accept.
The second area would be consultation. There is a great desire to consult on issues of this kind. Those who have a vested interest of course are the ones the government has the closest access to. People who are animal activists would be very interested in this issue and would likely be available for consultation and available to the committee as it travels. I am not certain that all components of society are as actively sought by us when we look at legislation of this nature. For instance, the indigenous groups in the country certainly have an interest in and a record of being interested in species and the overall environment. I am not certain if we have seen any amendments in these two specific areas that would make the legislation more appropriate.
I will talk about more broad issues as well. In my view, and some of my colleagues have expressed this plainly, the best way to preserve species at risk is a co-operative mechanism. In other words, the stewards of the land are enlisted in this co-operative effort. In the preamble to the legislation we see these thoughts reflected. A co-operative approach is much better than a forceful approach. I looked to see whether that was carried through in the way the legislation would actually be enacted and I am not certain that the stewards of the land are well enlisted in this approach.
I would ask the philosophical question, is this for the good of society? I happen to believe it is for society's good to try to protect species and maintain biodiversity. I also believe that if it is for the societal good, the cost should be borne by society as a whole, not by individuals suddenly singled out by the presence of a species at risk or by an accident of nature there is a species at risk near their dwelling, their place of work or their place of commerce.
What pitfalls do I see if we do not go down that road? The one pitfall of course is that if we punish the steward of the land, we end up with the triple s approach to preservation. That has been very evident in other jurisdictions.
I represent a large ranching part of Alberta. An individual gave me an example of what had happened in his particular case. The grizzly is a species that by some estimates should be very heavily protected. In his part of the world over the last few years the grizzly bear has become a problem for some of the cattle. One of his neighbours went down the route of exterminating a grizzly because if it was found on his property, the access of his cattle to the range would be shut down. That is an example that is very harmful to the overall concept of being a steward of both the land and the species.
Farmers and ranchers often are very vocal and close to the issues of species at risk and property rights, but it is interesting that the Canadian Real Estate Association is currently lobbying, in the good sense of that word, here on the Hill. One of its big issues, one of three issues that was brought to parliament, was the very issue I am speaking of, property rights in relation to species at risk. Most of us know a realtor. I was intrigued by the fact that realtors would take this issue to parliament and say they have discomfort with the approach in Bill C-5, an approach which basically says that the government may provide compensation and only for losses where there is an extraordinary impact. There is no obligation, in other words, to provide compensation under the species at risk act. If there is one thing the government could do and should do to change the tenor of debate on this major issue, it would be to provide compensation.
The example that was given to me by the realtor who came to see me was one which I think should affect most homeowners in Canada if in fact their property, a city lot, not a country lot or some pristine beautiful piece of property, were designated to have a species at risk on it. Individuals could lose the ability to have barbecues behind their homes. They might even lose the opportunity to put a fence around their property for the standard reasons people fence in their property, for example to keep their tots in hand.
The point was broadened out to talk about land development. Land developers look for the opportunity to give economic advantages to Canada. They look at areas to put in developments, factories, condominiums, homes in the broadest sense. Those developers, having purchased property and finding a species at risk on it, and possibly the government having known about this and not having let them know, could lose their whole livelihood and have the property taken from them
I conclude my comments by saying that species at risk are important. They are important for society as a whole, as a good for society. I believe that society should pay for that good and not have the issue of compensation for land left with such vague phrases. “May compensate for extraordinary impact” is not good enough. “Must compensate” is much more appropriate.