Len Taylor

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, October 31st, 1995]

New Democrats present will vote yea.

[Environmental Protection Act, October 24th, 1995]

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

Since the release last June of the environment committee's proposal to overhaul and update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, some industry officials have said the committee proposals are a threat to the country's investment climate, costly to implement and grounded on shaky science.

It is important these myths be dealt with.

Will the minister join with his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, who is expected to respond positively to the committee's impressive set of recommendations and take the opportunity to turn Canada into an international leader in green legislation or is he going to accept the arguments of some of the officials in his department and back away from the committee's critical recommendations on pollution prevention?

[Airports, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberal government is proceeding with the former Conservative government's plan to privatize the operations of local airports.

This week the president of the Saskatchewan Aviation Council reminded us of the continued importance of these airports and said that the key to the financial survival of small airports in these new circumstances is the ability to attract business to the affected communities. He accurately points out that there is little communities can do about the costs of running the airports, so they must find ways to raise new operating money. That generally means that the airports need to bring in more users.

The irony of the situation is that if new money cannot be found the increased costs of operating the airports will have to be passed on to the current airport users, resulting in less, not more, use of the airports.

With this in mind, I urge the government to provide the resources and support systems necessary to ensure that municipal governments can successfully make it through this critical transition period.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on June 11, 1992 the Canadian government signed the United Nations convention on biological diversity in which it made a commitment that this country would pass legislation to protect endangered species.

More than three years later, eight of the twelve provinces and territories still have neither federal nor provincial legislation. There is no time to waste. Canada currently has 244 known endangered species. The number of species at risk has tripled in the past 10 years and the list continues to grow.

On August 17 of this year the Minister of the Environment took the first step toward meeting Canada's obligation when she announced the legislative proposal for a Canadian endangered species protection act. Unfortunately the minister's proposal fails to live up to either the letter or the spirit of Canada's international commitment to protect endangered species. The proposal only applies to species that live in national parks or on other specified federal lands. It covers only 4 per cent of Canada's total land base and eliminates the north entirely.

On September 28 of this year in the House I asked the minister if she would ensure effective protection of endangered species by strengthening the proposed new act. The minister admitted that the legislation did not cover as many species as the government would like and blamed it on the fact that provincial governments had jurisdiction in certain areas. Canadians concerned about the survival of these species cannot accept this excuse for ineffective legislation. A species threatened with extinction is of national importance.

The federal government has more authority than the minister is willing to admit. Effective protection of endangered species requires federal leadership when the provinces refuse to act. For example, the provisions of the minister's proposal only apply to species found in Canada's oceans and not to freshwater fisheries, even though the Fisheries Act indicates that freshwater species are clearly within the federal government's jurisdiction.

The proposed act could also be applied to all migratory species and not just those that happen to wander on to federal land. A few lucky species will have "response statements" prepared about

them but no time limits apply and the government will prepare recovery plans for affected species only if it feels like it.

Truly effective legislation would require recovery plans for all endangered and threatened species and would prohibit the killing or harming of them. Habitat loss is the number one cause of species decline in Canada and is the main threat for approximately 80 per cent of Canada's endangered species. To effectively protect endangered species the legislation must protect the habitat they need to survive.

The government has completely ignored the recommendation of the federal endangered species task force to prohibit any activities that would destroy the critical habitat of an endangered species.

Realizing how important it is to identify and resolve potential conflicts before development begins, the task force also recommended that the legislation require advance review and approval for any proposed activity which could affect an endangered species or its habitat. This recommendation was not followed even though experience in the United States shows that advance review resolves almost all potential conflict between development and endangered species.

I should mention on a related topic that today is the day the endangered spaces campaign is releasing its second book, an interim report or owner's manual. It is most important we remember how integrally spaces and species are tied together. I urge every member of Parliament to read the interim report and support its recommendations.

The government says it is committed to protecting-

[Mining Exploration And Development, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on September 27, just days after the standoffs concluded at Gustafsen Lake and Ipperwash, Ontario, I rose in this House to question the Minister of Indian Affairs about what should happen next. Obviously, the issues raised in grievance by those occupying land and the concerns expressed by many who had not been occupying land had not been addressed and the frustration of aboriginal people concerning land was still outstanding.

I continue to believe that the federal government's approach to land claims and self-government, an approach that is slow, confusing, and filled with uncertainties, is the first area of concern that needs to be dealt with if the frustrations and anxieties are ever to be reduced. Indian leaders throughout Canada and through the Assembly of First Nations have said for many years that the anger among the people of their communities had to be addressed quickly or it would boil over.

Earlier, during the second week of September, when I called on the minister to get involved in the specifics of Ipperwash and Gustafsen Lake, I said that the only way to deal with the slow and uncertain nature of how land claim disputes are currently settled was with the understanding and intervention of the federal Minister of Indian Affairs. Only he has the authority to make the necessary changes. Only he has the jurisdiction to address the issues in a way that will adequately address the problems outlined by so many. Obviously those closest to the issue are the ones who should be consulted first, and those who work in the field must be consulted as well.

It comes as no surprise then to learn that the latest annual report of the Indian claims commission published this summer calls for the development and implementation of a new land claims policy and process. Here is the group caught in the middle between the bands and the government, receiving the applications, hearing and judging the evidence, and presenting the recommendations. Here is a group that does the work saying that it should be replaced; saying that the workload is increasing dramatically and the ability of the existing commission to respond is limited; saying that it is wrong for the government to have a process in place that allows the federal government to be a judge in claims against itself.

To quote the commission, "Everything that we have learned as a commission to date indicates that it is imperative to commence the process of reform immediately. It is imperative that an independent claims body be established to perform at least the initial assessment of the validity of First Nations land claims in Canada."

Upon reading the commission's report the editors of the Montreal Gazette newspaper had this to say: ``It is important that aboriginal communities establish a solid land base. From it, economic development and self-government can follow. In its red book of campaign promises the Liberal Party said the current process is simply not working and promised to set up an independent claims commission. It should do so sooner rather than later.''

That was my sentiment when I first asked the minister if it was his intention to establish a new process in policy.

That was my intention when I said I did not believe it would be in Canada's best interest to have First Nation's people from all across the country who may have legitimate land claims occupying land and leaving the resolution of those disputes to the local police. Land issues are not police matters. They are matters of critical concern to all Canadians and only the minister can deal with them. Therefore I was disappointed when the minister said he had to consult further. I hope he has now had the time to talk to the chiefs.

I ask again, will the government take the first step to relieve the anxieties over the land claims process and establish the new, independent commission called for by the Indian Claims Commission in its 1994-95 annual report?

[Innu Community Relocation, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with an Innu

delegation making representations with regard to the relocation of its community from Davis Inlet to Little Sango Pond.

The delegation informed me that on February 25, 1994 the Innu people received a statement of political commitment from the ministers of Indian affairs, health, justice, as well as the Solicitor General of Canada. Through these ministers the Government of Canada agreed to support the relocation subject to a number of conditions. The delegation has informed me that these conditions have now been met and the community is anxious for a favourable federal cabinet decision that will begin the process of its relocation.

Today I want to put on the public record that I am completely supportive of the Innu relocation to Little Sango Pond. They have satisfied the terms and conditions required and it would seem that the federal government has a clear obligation to respect its commitments as set down in February 1994.

[Oceans Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-98 respecting the oceans act. It implements many of the key recommendations in last year's report called "Opportunities from our Oceans" by the committee on oceans and coasts of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology.

As government members opposite have already noted, this piece of legislation does three things to implement a strategy to better manage the environment and resources of Canada's oceans. First, the act establishes Canadian sovereignty over the ocean areas and resources of a 24-nautical mile contiguous zone and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Canada signed in 1982 but never ratified. Second, the act develops and implements a national oceans strategy based on the sustainable development and integrated management of oceans and coastal activities and resources; this would include establishing protected marine areas. Finally, the act provides for the powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries to manage Canada's oceans.

This is an important bill which could move us forward toward managing both our natural resources and our fishery in a manner that is more sustainable for future generations. The idea of an oceans act is certainly overdue. I am supportive of the bill in general and pleased that Canada will finally implement one of the key provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

There are areas where the act could be improved. I wish to focus my remarks today on some of those improvements and on the fact that other legislation the government has on the Order Paper may limit the effectiveness of Bill C-98.

Clause 35 of the bill allows for the minister to establish protected marine areas. However, the bill states that these areas are only for the conservation and protection of fishery resources and their habitat. These protected areas should not be limited just to the fishery. The act should also be broader so that the protected marine areas protect other endangered species and different habitats and ecosystems, not just the fishery. This would recognize the importance of biodiversity in the complex ocean environment. There should also be no take zones within these areas.

The environment minister's proposed endangered species legislation will only protect 4 per cent of Canada's total land base. A broadening of the protected marine areas therefore would signal that even if the government does not intend to protect endangered species in most of the country, at least it will protect them in our oceans.

This shows that when we look at what the government is doing to protect the environment, it is important not to look at this legislation in isolation from other government statements and initiatives on the environment.

Last week I listened to government members opposite talk about how wonderful things in this bill would lead us toward sustainable development and how the bill's regulation would extend our jurisdiction to manage and protect ocean resources and our environment. They seem to be blissfully unaware that just last week the Minister of International Trade, a minister in their own government, said that Canada will have to cede its sovereignty and environmental standards to achieve freer world trade and that the environment will increasingly be subject to harmonization under international trade agreements. So which is it? Will Bill C-98 be used to protect and sustain our oceans, or will the environment of our oceans be sacrificed on the altar of free trade?

As they talked about sustainable development and environmental regulations, the Liberal members also seemed to be unaware that their government has introduced two pieces of legislation, Bill C-62 and Bill C-83. Those bills could effectively gut the regulations in this bill and therefore prevent us from knowing if the government's oceans management strategy will ever lead us to sustainability.

Just to remind members opposite, Bill C-62 is the regulatory efficiency act, and it does two things. It allows the government to sign compliance agreements with business, waiving the terms of

compliance with designated regulations. It also allows designated regulations to be administered by any government, Canadian or foreign, or by any other person.

The proposed oceans act states that existing Canadian laws will apply to the exclusive economic zone. This would include the two most important federal environmental protection laws on the books, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Since these laws are effected mainly through their regulations, how can Canada exercise environmental jurisdiction over its oceans if Bill C-62 effectively guts the regulations of CEAA and CEPA and gives the power of environmental regulation to private corporations or indeed foreign governments?

There are also parts of Bill C-98 that simply will not work without the regulations. I refer specifically to clause 16, which establishes the fishing zones of Canada; to clause 25, which establishes the outer limit of the exclusive economic zones and makes regulations concerning a marine structure and the application of federal and provincial laws; and to clause 35, which establishes protected marine areas.

It is technically possible that compliance agreements under Bill C-62 would replace some of these regulations. In short, Bill C-62 allows the possibility that the federal power in Bill C-98 could be administered by other authorities, including other provincial and national governments.

As my final point I would like to mention that Bill C-83, which establishes a commissioner of the environment and sustainability within the Office of the Auditor General, could also limit how effective Bill C-98 will be.

I spoke at length about this bill two weeks ago and how the environment committee recommended that the environmental auditor be given the mandate to evaluate whether government policy was leading us toward sustainability. Government members opposite did not lift a finger to defend the committee's report. You may remember that the government completely ignored the important recommendations of the committee's report; 11 out of 17 of those recommendations were completely ignored.

Now clause 30 in Bill C-98 bases the national oceans management strategy on two principles, sustainable development and the integrated management activities in Canada's sovereign waters. How are we going to know if the management strategy developed under Bill C-98 is sustainable, effective, or even desirable if the new environmental commissioner cannot look at policy established by the government?

The powers of the minister under the oceans management strategy in clauses 32, 33, and part III of this bill illustrate the clear need for an independent environmental auditor who can act as a watchdog and examine whether policies and actions are meeting environmentally sustainable goals.

In conclusion, although I welcome the intent and objectives contained in Bill C-98, its passage is not enough to protect the resources and marine environment off our coasts. If the government were really serious about protecting our natural environment, about ensuring sustainable development strategies, about preserving and enhancing environmental protection regulations, about pollution prevention, and about protecting biodiversity and endangered species, it would do a number of things in addition to passing Bill C-98.

The government would amend Bill C-83 so that the environmental commissioner can evaluate policy. It would immediately withdraw Bill C-62 from the Order Paper so that environmental legislation already on the books in this country is not gutted. It would bring in real effective endangered species legislation protecting habitats and it would implement the excellent recommendation in the environment committee's latest report, a review of CEPA entitled: "It's About Our Health! Towards Pollution Prevention". May this latest report of the committee fare better in the hands of the government than the last one.

[Business Of The House, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding House business. In support of your statement a few moments ago that it is not good to split up these matters, I noticed that in the course of the whip responding to the second question the government House leader vacated his seat.

I still have a question relating to House business for him. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could answer my question. However in the future, Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I support your contention that these points should be made separately and individually so that we can deal with matters in specific order.

With respect to House business for the coming week, the government House leader is aware that the recent supreme court ruling in respect of tobacco products marketing has been thrown back to the government for a response. The government has said that it is looking at options in response to this ruling but for the most part is relying on staff in the Department of Health for ideas.

In light of the fact that it would be better for members of Parliament to be examining the options, would the government House leader be willing to support a request from the House that the government offer this week the study of these options to the Standing Committee on Health so that a more public examination of the options and the issues could be undertaken?

[Endangered Species, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and concerns the need to strengthen the current proposal for the endangered species protection act.

As presented, the minister proposes to apply the terms of the new act to only 4 per cent of Canada's total land base and eliminates the northern jurisdiction entirely.

Is it the minister's intention therefore to ensure effective protection of endangered species by broadening the premise of the proposed new act and at the same time by providing us with a guarantee that the new $2 coin in not the last place on earth where we will ever see a polar bear?

[Canada Post, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in late August the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation ordered a top to bottom review of the mandate of Canada Post.

It is my understanding that in the very near future the minister will announce the details of the review: who the chairperson will be, how long the review will take and whether it will be held in public or in private.

In the past I have called for the minister to establish an independent commission that would evaluate the performance and mandate of Canada Post on an ongoing basis. Rural and urban communities have been greatly affected by post office closures, privatization, community mailboxes, slow delivery and stamp and service price increases.

Therefore, I urge the minister to ensure that the review recognize that service is important to the public and not use the results of the review only to justify further privatization and service reductions. The review should be held in public with cross-country public hearings and adequate time given for groups and individuals to make presentations.