House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 67% of the vote.
Communications September 19th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Could the Minister of Industry indicate whether the competition bureau will investigate the recent media acquisitions, including the CanWest Global Communications acquisition of Hollinger newspapers and other media assets, which may result in massive concentration of power in the media at the expense of the public interest in the regions and nationwide?
The Environment June 12th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, since it took office the Ontario government has slashed the budget of its ministry of the environment by 42.5%.
Regional enforcement staff were cut from 2,400 to 1,500. Water quality monitoring facilities in the province were reduced from 700 to 200. The closing of three regional labs further reduced the ministry's analytical abilities.
Furthermore, the Ontario government cancelled 400,000 tests it had been conducting yearly, downloading this service to municipalities. The axe of the Ontario government also fell on the drinking water surveillance program which reported regularly on municipal drinking water quality.
The result is that the network of water testing laboratories, water scientists and laboratory technicians who knew how to manage clean water in Ontario has been broken up. What a shame.
Interparliamentary Delegation June 5th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour of presenting to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, which represented Canada at the meetings of the committee on economic affairs and development and at the first part of the 2000 session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe held in London, England, and in Strasbourg, France, from January 18 to 29, 2000.
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I also have the honour to present to the House in both official languages the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the 24th European Parliament-Canada interparliamentary meeting in Brussels from March 18 to 25, 2000.
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour of presenting to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, which represented Canada at the meetings of the committee on economic affairs and development and at the second part of the 2000 session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe held in Paris, France, from March 29 to 31, 2000, and in Strasbourg, France, from April 3 to 7, 2000.
Petitions May 31st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I want to present petition No. 362 prepared by some 85 or 90 petitioners in Toronto and in various parts of the country who call upon parliament to freeze the budget of the Department of National Defence pending a public review of military spending priorities and public hearings on the role of the Canadian armed forces.
Species At Risk Act May 29th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Calgary West had taken the trouble to read the legislation we are debating this afternoon, he would not have asked that silly question. That is certainly not the intent of the legislation at all. As he is raising this question I would have to urge him to read Bill C-33 before he starts spreading fears among his constituents that are totally unfounded.
The hon. member should know that the bill as presented refrains entirely from adopting the American model. Therefore the system of carrots and a carefully balanced legislation has been devised and developed by the Minister of the Environment. In addition the hon. member should know that an allocation of some $90 million has been made to stewardship for the next three years, which will then be followed by an allocation of $45 million every year in order to encourage stewardship initiatives.
To conclude, there is no intention whatsoever to adopt a shoot, shovel and shut up approach. That is the American approach. The Canadian approach will be very thoughtful and hopefully very effective.
Species At Risk Act May 29th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon has outlined the issue very well. There is not much I can add.
We are all familiar with the issue of the porcupine caribou herd which moves across the border between Canada and the United States into the north slope. That issue has been with us for several decades with changing portions, so to say. In part the future of that herd will depend on the determination of the two governments to control and possibly discourage the exploitation of petroleum and other sources of fossil fuels in the Arctic.
There was at a time of high oil prices tremendous pressure to develop the Arctic petroleum resources a way up north, even north of Tuktoyaktuk. At that time, I am referring to the early eighties, the Government of Canada made representations to Washington in order to protect the porcupine caribou herd.
It may well be that representations are again needed. I would encourage the hon. member to make her presentations on the occasion of the Parliamentary Arctic Council meeting which will take place next August in Rovaniemi, Finland. That is a very appropriate parliamentary forum in which representations of this kind can be made.
I am sure that the leader of the Canadian delegation, the member from Lachine, will be quite sensitive to the representations of the hon. member for Yukon.
Species At Risk Act May 29th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford.
As we have already been told by speakers preceding me, Canadians are placing high expectations on the government to protect endangered species habitat. We must deliver. This bill if strengthened could provide a fine legacy if it were effective in preserving Canada's rich nature heritage. The survival and protection of endangered species is one way of turning words into action when we speak about leaving a legacy, about what we owe to future generations and the like.
We are facing an emergency as has already been indicated by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. I have been told that over the last year the list of endangered wildlife in Canada has grown from 340 to 353. I have been told also that a comprehensive and complete list would have to consist of thousands of species because many categories of Canada's wildlife have not yet been assessed.
Bill C-33, the species at risk act, is intended to put an end to the loss of our rich natural heritage. Can this bill reverse this trend?
According to scientists, the loss of habitat is responsible for over 80% of species decline. Therefore the only way to stop the tide of extinction is to protect the habitat of endangered species. Canadians know this. In fact, there are many people already working to protect endangered species habitat through various conservation projects across the country. Moreover, 91% of Canadians recently asked said they believe a law to protect endangered species should ensure that habitat is protected. This level of support is consistent across the country among both rural and urban Canadians.
The government in recognition of the conservation efforts of individual Canadians, communities and organizations, will provide $90 million over the next three years to fund conservation initiatives. This is a major step forward. The provisions in the bill aimed at offering a safety net should provinces fail to act are also encouraging.
Finally, the bill prescribes in detail what measures must be included in the recovery strategy in order to ensure that all threats to the survival of the species are addressed. However, because Canadians strongly support the role of scientists and because Canadians believe in legislation that will protect endangered species habitat, we must make sure that the bill reaches these objectives.
In my opinion, the bill in its current form falls short of reaching these objectives. Let me explain.
Members may recall that last year 640 prominent Canadian scientists signed a letter to the Prime Minister urging him to introduce an effective endangered species bill. First, they urged that the listing of endangered species be transparent, science based and free from political interference. Second, they urged that the critical wildlife habitat of endangered species be protected wherever it occurred. Unfortunately, these two elements are missing in the bill.
As Bill C-33 is now drafted, the onus is on the minister to convince cabinet of the desirability of establishing the list of wildlife species at risk. The minister must do so for species that have already been scientifically determined as endangered. This approach is not satisfactory as demonstrated by provincial data and experience. Only in Nova Scotia does the scientific list of species automatically receive official protection under its laws. Some argue that political responsibility is needed at the listing stage.
However, Bill C-33 already allows ample political discretion on how and whether to save an endangered species, from the establishment of a recovery strategy to action plans and through the issuance of agreements and permits. Still, should the government of the day decide not to save a species, there are provisions in the bill allowing the competent minister not to act. I am referring to clause 41(2).
Another problem pointed out by Canadian scientists relates to habitat protection. As currently proposed in the bill, prohibitions against destroying the critical habitat of an endangered species will only apply where specified by the entire cabinet. I refer to clauses 59 and 61. Imagine the entire cabinet having to determine the extent of the critical habitat required, for instance by the maritime ringlet butterfly. The minister alone does not have the authority to pass regulations required to protect the critical habitat. Again they are left to the discretion of the entire cabinet.
Then we come to the recovery strategy. Under the bill three competent ministers are required to develop a recovery strategy for listed species, including action plans. However, the strategy on paper will not be adequate to protect the habitat of endangered species. When implementing a strategy, one of the three competent ministers may make regulations only with respect to one, aquatic species, two, species of birds protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and three, species on federal lands. I refer to clause 53.
When it comes to critical habitat, regulations within federal jurisdiction will become the domain of the entire cabinet.
There are good reasons to fear that the minister responsible will be so busy pleading with cabinet for every measure he or she wishes to implement that serious delays in protecting the species will become inevitable, delays we cannot afford because without prompt action extinction will be the fate of endangered species. However a good bill will make sure habitat is protected before it is too late. Therefore I would like to make four suggestions in conclusion.
First, there should be one and only one final list of endangered species, the scientific list. Second, within federal jurisdiction critical habitat protection should be made mandatory, to which other speakers have already referred. Third, the minister responsible and only the minister responsible should be given power to pass regulations to protect critical habitat. Fourth, the federal government should promptly provide an adequate safety net in case a province fails to act.
As can be seen, without improvements this legislation will not stem the perpetual slide toward extinction of Canada's endangered species. If improved, this bill will offer great potential for thoughtful stewardship of our land and wildlife. It is my hope our legislative process in committee will be flexible enough so as to allow for necessary changes to strengthen the bill. It could become the cornerstone of the federal government's comprehensive approach for protecting endangered species in Canada on behalf of all Canadians and in conformity with our international commitments.
Committees Of The House May 16th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to its standing order of reference under Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development undertook, beginning in the month of June 1999, a study on the management of pesticides in Canada, including an evaluation of the performance of the Pest Management Review Agency in preventing pollution and in protecting the environment and human health.
I therefore have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “Making the right choice, un choix judicieux s'impose”.
The Environment May 11th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, Canada takes great pride in being the first country to have signed the Convention on Biological Diversity at the Rio conference in 1992. As of May this year, the protocol on biosafety under this convention will be open for signature.
Can the Minister of the Environment indicate whether Canada will be one of the first signatories?
National Parks May 4th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, over the past 18 years, over 6,000 animals have been killed by trains, cars and trucks in Jasper, Banff, Yoho and Kootenay National Parks. The victims include grizzly bears, a species classified as vulnerable in Canada, mountain lions, bighorn sheep and wolves. The explanation is that animals are attracted by grain spilled by trains. Then we have bighorn sheep and mountain lions taking refuge inside the Brulé Tunnel near Jasper.
There are solutions to stopping this wildlife carnage in the national parks. Canadian National Railways could repair leaking hopper cars, clean up spilled grain from the railroads and build fences near the Brulé Tunnel.
Wildlife must be safe and protected when moving in national parks and CN Railways has a responsibility to discharge in exchange for the privilege of using railway tracks through the pristine wilderness of our national parks.