Philip Mayfield

[Endangered Species Sanctuaries Act, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the parliamentary secretary. It is paradoxical that the stewardship model that he refers to is exactly what has been followed for these northern caribou in the western Itcha Ilgachuz Mountains.

It is interesting that while I asked the minister to seriously consider and to grant the request of British Columbia, this is a growing and healthy herd of caribou. It is estimated to be between 2,800 and 3,400 strong in 15 separate herds.

It also is interesting that disease is not the problem in these animals, but the natural predator is wolves. I have been there and have seen how cutting patterns for forestry have been modified to provide protection for the caribou while they are feeding so that they are not obvious either to hunters or to wolves while they are feeding. It is also interesting that in the stewardship pattern, while the roads are open for logging, as soon as the logging is completed the roads are closed so one can only go in by foot or by horseback.

I do request the minister's serious concern and I thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention.

[Endangered Species Sanctuaries Act, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I rose in the House to question the Minister of the Environment about the serious issue of red tagging a herd of northern Caribou in the Itcha Ilgachuz Mountains in the western part of my riding.

Healthy growing herds of these caribou have been lumped in with an appropriately red tagged mountain caribou herd in the eastern part of my riding near the Wells Grey Provincial Park. There is over 500 kilometres and the mighty Fraser River separating these two regions and there is no cross-migration between these two areas and these two separate species of caribou.

The issue is not the health of these northern caribou in the Itcha Ilgachuz Mountains, but the size of the ecoprovince established by the federal government that includes viable herds with endangered herds, thus creating two separate problems.

The first problem is that the planned transfer of caribou from the Itcha Ilgachuz Mountains to establish and support small herds in the east Kootenays is stopped. The second problem is that with this red tagging, guides and outfitters are having to consider refunding deposits from clients who are already booked for hunting expeditions this fall because this herd has been red tagged since the bookings were made.

In October 2002 a letter from the British Columbia department of water, land and air signed by Nancy Wilkins was sent to Environment Canada to the attention of Karen Brown, requesting that the Itcha Ilgachuz northern caribou be excluded from this red tag listing. I am told by B.C. department officials that despite repeated requests, this letter has not yet been answered.

The federal government has ruled that the Itcha Ilgachuz herd cannot be hunted this year, even though it is healthy and growing. The hunt for next year is also doubtful. This will have dire social and cultural impact on the region. A constituent of mine who wrote to the Minister of the Environment and copied to me about this problem points out the situation quite well:

Some of the operations have been in existence for 50 years and these people have been the ones who have looked after the caribou population to ensure that their clients would have successful hunting opportunities. Some of their clients have made reservations for their next outdoor opportunity many years in advance. The guides who have territories in that area now have to refund all that money.

This is no small consideration, particularly in an area that is suffering from double digit unemployment. Numerous hunting associations have written to the minister about this situation without a reply to date. Years of work by local wildlife biologists have identified that there is a difference between the herds. The federal government says that an exemption has to be applied for, but with respect, that exemption has been applied for and there has been no response.

I would like an answer to the following questions: Why has the letter from the government of B.C. requesting exemption not been answered? Why is the healthy western blue tag herd of caribou being lumped in with the red tag herd and classified in the southern ecoprovince and listed as a threatened species by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada when the classification of the blue tag explicitly says in the B.C. list status the following:

Blue tag: Includes any indigenous species or subspecies considered to be of special concern in British Columbia... but are not extirpated, endangered or threatened.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, February 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member discuss the issue of negotiations and the fairness of those negotiations. From his point of view, how would he see those negotiations clarified and how would he see those negotiations conducted so that there is fairness throughout?

[The Environment, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

The new, unproclaimed species at risk law is already throwing guide outfitters out of work in my riding. Healthy caribou herds in the Itcha Ilgachuz Mountains of western B.C. have been lumped in with the red listed herd of the Cariboo Mountains even with over 500 kilometres between the two herds and no cross migration.

The government has ruled that this western herd cannot be hunted this year even though it is healthy and growing.

Why is this healthy herd being lumped in with a weak herd so far away and why is the environment department not co-operating with British Columbia to reclassify this healthy western B.C. herd of caribou?

[Species at Risk, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the new species at risk law is already, even before it is proclaimed, unnecessarily throwing some British Columbians out of work.

Healthy and growing caribou herds in the Itcha Ilgatchuz Mountains in western B.C. have been lumped into the same eco-province as the vulnerable caribou herd in the Cariboo Mountains 500 kilometres to the east and with another herd in Alberta. What this means is that guide outfitters have been told there is no work for them and also, planned establishment of new herds in the East Kootenays using this healthy stock have been stopped.

This heavy handedness has occurred despite years of success by wildlife biologists, logging companies, guide outfitters and private citizens to enhance this western herd. This new law will come into effect in June. Therefore, any exemptions have to made now, even though letters have been sent to the guides telling them there will be no work this fall.

This is so typical of the government. Already it cannot tell the difference between its own listing of endangered species and it has no idea of how to effectively enforce the law that it has made.

[Points of Order, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you. I apologize. I did intend to use the minister's title. It was only in error that I referred to his name, and I withdraw that.

However the point I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is that you stopped my question relating to legislation when it had nothing to do with the legislation but what appears to be an indiscretion of the Deputy Prime Minister by making an announcement inviting the public to call his office with the number listed on his own Deputy Prime Minister website.

[Points of Order, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the number is 952-4900 and that is not the Hill Times number. That is the Deputy Prime Minister's office number. I inadvertently gave the wrong number. I would like that corrected. The number I intended to read was 952-4900 which is the Deputy Prime Minister's office.

I consider it entirely appropriate when I read in the paper a fundraiser for John Manley, a fundraising event held--

[Fundraising, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is an ad and the number is 232-5952. The rules are very clear. Even finance ministers must not use their ministerial offices or resources to raise campaign funds or to sell party memberships.

Will the Prime Minister instruct his second in command, the Minister of Finance, to disallow corporations from purchasing tickets to this $1,500 a plate fundraiser?

[Fundraising, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the proof is in the Hill Times . I have a copy of it right here.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today with pride on behalf of the riding of Cariboo--Chilcotin to speak to Bill C-13 on human reproductive technologies.

I find it interesting the manner in which the issues of great ethical and moral concern are dealt with in this place. It is not that they reach an impasse, but that after months and years of study, that study can be set aside and a whole course of action can be put in place and no one really understands the roots or origins of where the changes have come from, but one can guess.

I find it also interesting that at this particular time while we debate this serious ethical issue of the origins of life, of correcting genetic mistakes by using both adult and embryonic stem cell research, we are also in the ethical dilemma of how to conduct our affairs in another part of the world as we consider the Iraqi situation and our relationship with our allies and neighbours. These too are the result of deep moral concern and division.

What concerns me is that we come to this place and while we take part in the exercise, it is as though the end result has already been determined and the debate in the House is only filling up space. I hope there are people who are concerned about this legislation. I hope they are concerned about what it is going to accomplish. I hope there are members of the government who are carefully listening and understanding the depth of concern of people here on these moral issues.

At this moment I am concerned about the issue of embryonic research. It is an issue that divides Canadians. It is an issue that has attracted much attention. Many petitions have been tabled in the House expressing people's concerns, hundreds and hundreds of petitions representing thousands and thousands of Canadians. I wonder what benefit the petitions have been in the process of determining in which direction our country will go in setting out guidelines, in legislating the details of how this research will be conducted, of how the benefits of this research will be used.

It disturbs me when I realize that as part of the legislation there will be an agency that will not be responsible to the representatives of the people, to Parliament, but in fact will be responsible to the executive branch of the government, to the ministers at the cabinet table. In fact, that agency will be susceptible to directions from that executive group and these may be secret instructions that no one has an opportunity or a way of knowing anything about.

This really is not clarity. It is not open government. This is clouding the issue of how the morality of our people can and will be expressed. It causes deep concern for me that we cannot do this in a transparent way where everybody knows the way the decision was taken, where everybody knows the course of action that was followed, where everybody knows how the rules apply to them specifically.

It is wrapped up in a cloud and we do not entirely understand why there is this lack of clarity. Is it because of the big minds and big egos of scientists who want to put their mark on a new area of research? Is it because of commercial considerations? Does somebody have an opportunity to obtain a patent on a process or gene, or a way of harvesting the cells that are needed?

These are issues that would add a lot of light in my understanding of what we are doing and would go a long way toward settling some of the concerns I have as we discuss these issues. What we are looking at is an objectification of human life. We have been proud to say that every person is absolutely unique. We talk about the uniqueness of a person's facial characteristics, their fingerprints and their DNA, yet what are we doing? We are making people far less than subjects, subjects of God or subjects of the country. We are objectifying people and making them clones, not in the cloning process, I hope, because we are absolutely opposed to that, but in using procedures so close to it that they are very terrifying.

Life is not a tool. Life is a gift. It is a gift as much to the unborn as it is to the born, as it is to the middle aged and the elderly. Life is a precious gift. That is the basis of many of the great religions of the world and certainly of the religion of Christianity, of which I am a part. Life is precious. Human beings are subjects. Human beings are not objects to be manipulated. That is the basis of our freedom. The basis of our freedom is that we are unique, that we have a means to act independently and express that uniqueness, and that we know we are cherished for that individuality, not manipulated and not subject to destruction for somebody else's purposes, unless that is a choice someone might choose to make.

We have virtues such as courage. People have taken that individual choice and have chosen to give their life for something very special. To give a life for a life is one of the most precious things that we can contemplate, but we are trying to play God by saying that we can make life and we can take it away. It is not interesting that we do not believe in capital punishment, that we do not believe in killing people who have done bad things, but we do believe in killing people for other purposes? Ethically, I find that most disturbing.

There is another thing that disturbs me. As we consider the benefits of embryonic versus adult stem cells, there is a way of pursuing the research and avoiding so many of the ethical snags we run into by taking life, for whatever virtuous reason. It is not a life that is given. It is a life that is taken.

I was happy to hear that Quebec is setting up a clinic to take umbilical blood for the harvesting of adult stem cells. This clinic will be one of a number around the world and of two in Canada. The other one is in Alberta, I believe. That is the way we should be going. We should not be trying to satisfy the curiosity of a scientist who says this can be done. We should not be trying to satisfy the curiosity of a scientist who would like to know how to do it and have the means to do it. At what cost to our society do we take such an immoral, in my opinion, course of action?

Embryonic stem cell research has caused many problems even in the research and the results of that research. We are still trying to follow that course. At what price? For what cause? To satisfy what ego, which would take a life that has not been offered, which would kill the innocence when there has been no opportunity for productive realization of that life?

While I am pleased to speak on this, members can tell that it is a matter of great urgency and of great concern for me. I plead with those who are responsible to keep our nation whole, to preserve the integrity of our nation, our people and our course of action, because unless we do have that integrity, upon what base will we continue to grow and thrive as one of the family of nations in the world that has something to offer the world?