Alan Tonks

[Meteorological Service of Canada, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on March 13 the Government of Canada announced an investment of $75 million over five years that will allow the Meteorological Service of Canada to improve the quality of its forecasts and service to Canadians in all regions.

As a result of this investment, Canadians will benefit from more accurate and timely weather information, day-to-day forecasts, longer term forecasting, and in the prediction of extreme weather events.

To produce an accurate forecast for any given area, it is not necessary for a meteorologist to be looking out a window at the area to which the forecast applies. That is observation. It tells us what the weather conditions are at that particular moment in time. Environment Canada has over 6,000 different kinds of observing sites across the country.

Producing a forecast requires a view that extends many thousands of kilometres in order to see how various weather systems and patterns are developing. Then it takes sophisticated knowledge and equipment to predict the conditions that these systems will produce.

This new funding will enable the staff of the Meteorological Service of Canada to expand their knowledge and use more sophisticated equipment. It will also allow them to strengthen their research capability and deliver better--

[Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, February 27th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the commitment that the member is making to the automobile industry. I am sure that the implementation plan, in association and partnership through Industry Canada, will incubate the kinds of technologies that will make Canadian automobile producers more productive and more energy efficient.

We live in a free society where people exercise their rights to purchase the automobile that will make the largest impact on the legacy of clean air that we all believe in.

I would say that the Canadian automobile industry is making great progress. There is no question that we have a longer way to go but let us talk positive, and that is not the way the member is speaking. Let us work with the automobile industry to make sure--

[Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, February 27th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address the member's question in a broader context and hopefully my colleague will also apply in a more specific context.

The original question was what was happening with respect to the action plan as it related to Kyoto and whether Kyoto had been ratified and what progress had been accomplished.

I want to say that there really are two larger questions that should be addressed. First, what is the Government of Canada doing to build on its actions to address climate change? Second, what is the Government of Canada doing to help Canada meet its Kyoto protocol commitments? Those commitments also obviously are tremendously important as they relate to the automobile sector.

Still, and just for the record, let me state quite clearly that the Government of Canada formally ratified the Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on December 17, 2002.

Canada has a proud tradition of working with other nations toward common goals and we are committed to leadership on these international challenges. By ratifying Kyoto, we are part of the international effort to address an issue that knows no boundaries and affects us all.

Let me turn to the important issues of what happens next under the Climate Change Plan for Canada.

The plan maps out short term actions and a longer term perspective on how Canadians can meet our climate change objectives. It offers a national goal, that Canadians be the most sophisticated and efficient consumers and producers of energy in the world.

In relation to the automotive sector, it has been obvious that the innovation agenda and the take up that is coming from Canadians automobile producers is that they feel comfortable with the approach that the Canadian government has taken with respect to developing cleaner technologies and more efficient technologies in the automotive sector.

It recognizes that as individual Canadians we also can cut greenhouse gas emissions by a tonne a year from the more than five tonnes for which each of us is responsible.

The climate change plan recognizes that we can get results in transportation and through improved energy efficiency in our housing, commercial and institutional buildings. It moves us forward in a co-operative manner with large industrial emitters of greenhouse gases to reduce those emissions.

However, as the member is aware, the automotive sector was not considered one of the large emission emitters. Much to the chagrin of others who criticized the position of the government, the automotive sector was challenged to produce more efficient engines and concentrate on the tailpipe emissions through more effective use of the newer innovative approaches to engine construction.

Finally, the protocol builds and the plan builds on our work to date for international emissions reductions. We can take great pride in the fact that the automobile sector is compliant and is a strong supporter with respect to the Kyoto protocol and moving ahead with the implementation plan that the government has put forward.

[Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, February 27th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion and I thank the hon. member for putting the motion forward.

The government is definitely supporting the Cartagena protocol on biosafety, its objective of protecting biodiversity, and its value to the global community. The protocol focuses on transboundary movement of living modifying organisms, or LMOs.

As evidence of our support, Canada signed the protocol in April 2001. The protocol is not yet in force. However, it has been signed by 110 countries and ratified by 43. It will enter into force 90 days after 50 countries have ratified it, probably some time in 2003.

Biotechnology holds great promise for the well-being of man, but as with any new technology there are risks to be managed, so it is critical to maintain public confidence in our regulatory system and in the benefits that these technologies, including biotechnology, bring to Canadians.

Increasingly we see a world concerned with global scale effects on the environment. One such example is the degradation of our biodiversity and the resultant negative impact on the social, cultural and economic fabric of communities, just the opposite direction of where we should be going.

Canada played a major role in the development and negotiation of this protocol. Canada did so by finding pragmatic solutions to problems and by bridging the gaps between the different points of view brought to the table.

Our objective was to develop a protocol that could be supported by Canadians. This protocol is a win-win result for both the environment and the sustainable use of this transformative technology. The core of the protocol is advanced informed agreement prior to importation for intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment, for example, spraying or planting. The protocol ensures that an importing country has the information and the capacity necessary to reach an informed decision on the LMO prior to importation.

Developing countries showed us that grains and oilseeds imported for food, feed or processing often wind up being planted by their farmers. Therefore the protocol calls for documentation on these products.

The protocol must be implemented by the countries that ratify it in their domestic legislation and regulations. Canada already has a world class biotechnology regulatory system to protect our environment. We will continue to use our current regulatory regime to make decisions to protect our environment and biodiversity.

We already do more than the protocol calls for and we are continuously improving our regulatory system. We do so by acting on the advice of expert bodies such as the Royal Society of Canada and the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Other countries look with envy to the system we have put in place. Our biodiversity is already protected. We would, however, have to put in place regulations to implement our obligations with respect to our exports, such as for advanced informed agreement and documentation.

Since the protocol was adopted in January 2000, Canada has worked very hard to ensure that it will be both workable and effective in meeting its objective of protecting biodiversity. However we must ensure, and I am sure the member would agree, that this does not come at the cost of an unjustified impact on trade. Canada has participated actively and in many instances played a leading role in the many meetings to prepare for the entry into force.

In 2001 Canada co-hosted with Cuba the formative workshop on capacity building. At this workshop, developing countries, donor countries and international development assistance agencies such as the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility and the United Nations agencies all developed an action plan to enable developing countries to implement their biosafety frameworks and the protocol.

Canada has supported the implementation of the protocol by developing countries through our contributions to the Global Environment Facility and the leading multilateral fund for global environmental issues. The third replenishment of the Global Environment Facility concluded in August 2002 with the largest ever replenishment in its history. Canada has agreed to provide nearly $180 million Canadian over four years to the Global Environment Facility, a substantial increase from our last contribution, which was $122 million over four years. We are doing our share.

The biosafety clearing house and the international information exchange mechanism are at the core of the protocol. Canada has been very active in the development of the clearing house and we are not waiting for the ratification to move ahead on this important element. We are in the process of making operational the Canadian part of the biosafety clearing house. Documentation to accompany transboundary movements, that is, trade of commodity LMOs intended for food or feed or processing, has been the most difficult aspect of this protocol.

Canada has taken the lead in finding an approach that is acceptable to all stakeholders. Canada proposed and hosted jointly with France a series of expert meetings on documentation. At these meetings, experts from several countries provided for consideration their best advice on how the documentation provisions should be implemented.

Both the Canadian government and the Canadian industry agreed with this advice. This government promised that we would ask Canadians for their views before we reached a decision on the next steps. Throughout the month of September, the government held public consultations in six cities across Canada. Over 300 organizations representing industry, academia, public advocacy groups, aboriginal organizations and the public were invited to participate. In addition, we established an open Internet-based website and asked the public to provide us with their views on the question of ratification as well as on the draft regulations required to put the protocol into effect upon ratification.

We also consulted with provincial and territorial governments to obtain their views. We have heard a range of views from those who participated in these consultations. Unfortunately, despite the hard work since adoption of the protocol, there still remain legitimate concerns on some issues. The protocol is not a finished piece. There is a need for greater certainty on some of the key issues that could affect what Canadians have to do once the protocol enters into force.

Some issues will be considered for a decision in the immediate future at the first meeting of the parties to the protocol, which will be held after the protocol enters into force, probably in the spring of 2004. We are continuing to work on these issues with a view to providing the level of clarity that we need and that the stakeholders have demanded.

The government is proceeding with an action plan to establish support for Canadian positions and to influence prospective parties to reach decisions on implementing the protocol in a manner that attains its objective but is both pragmatic and effective.

Other issues of concern relating to implementation of the protocol are longer term and will only be resolved over the next several years through the ongoing intergovernmental process. The government will consider adoption and ratification of decisions on these issues at the appropriate time.

Canada, quite correctly, is viewed as a society that cares about protection of biodiversity and that applies reason to our decisions. On reaching a decision on ratification, and for the reasons that I have just given, the government is taking the appropriate amount of time to reach the right decision in collaboration with the best advice that it can get from all stakeholders.

We are still consulting with Canadians to develop solutions to address their concerns. We continue to work with the international community and with our major trading partners to achieve a higher degree of clarity on the issues on which we still face uncertainty and which could have a significant effect.

I hope that this has met some of the concerns that the member has raised and that he is now fully aware that we are--

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, you may think that perhaps I am a little too close to provide an objective answer to the question, but having chaired the caucus, I think that the members of the GTA have consistently raised concerns with respect to transportation and congestion issues.

In both the infrastructure program and the strategic infrastructure program, $2 billion was announced that is yet to be expended. Proposals are being received from the municipalities. With respect to the $3 billion over a 10 year period that is announced in the budget as an infrastructure down payment, the opportunity is there for the members to work with municipal governments in the GTA, for example, and right across the country, to prove their effectiveness by working together on sustainable development and housing issues. The people will be the judge of what we have accomplished when they see the quality of life that we all will enjoy in this country.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain that I spent 12 years on the board of directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. One of our colleagues was the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I had an opportunity to talk to the president very briefly when he was here and he was very optimistic with respect to what the budget would hold.

In 1977, when we had our Federation of Canadian Municipalities annual meeting in Winnipeg, I believe there were about 350 members and we had no federal representatives coming to that particular meeting. It was the same at subsequent meetings for a number of years. The FCM has become a model for municipal co-operation and in fact is recognized by the government in terms of the green fund that is administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

When I was on the board, we could only dream of working toward those kinds of programs. This budget increases that. I think that is far from being a joke. People who characterize it that way obviously do not have the history to know that we have been working consistently to increase the role.

The member talked about Stephen Lewis and Africa. We can do more in Africa, but the Prime Minister is recognized as having taken on the Africa agenda. We have made a commitment to increase our commitments under our aid programs in Africa, so I do not see that any apologies are required there.

Finally, with respect to day care and working with respect to our housing interests for more vulnerable people, as I said, we have not finished the job, but in this budget one can find commitments where we have listened to those communities, and we will continue to work with them.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as we live in a highly pluralistic society I am sure that there are Canadians from various interest groups who feel we should have a policy that is directed to freeing enterprise and having less government intervention in the economy. We have people at that extreme, but we have people at the other extreme, people who feel that there should be a highly interventionist relationship between their government and the financial institutions and the various interests throughout the country.

Then there are the people in the middle, who feel that perhaps we should try to invest strategically in a manner that adds value and multiplies that value added through the various sectors such as housing, transportation, pharmaceuticals and biomedical technology, which creates that confidence that Canada is moving ahead in creating a quality of life that is inclusive, with equitable treatment.

Mr. Speaker, you're damned when you do and you're damned when you don't in trying to take all those interests and meet them halfway by saying yes, the government cannot do everything, but this is what we can do. We can invest together in terms of this particular sector and that sector. We can build housing in this way. We can recognize that we can create capital, but we must use it in a very prudent manner.

For those who come more or less in the middle of all that and are not highly interventionist but simply will not leave people vulnerable, this budget represents that kind of approach. One can be critical of it, but when we hear what those in the international community say about the prudent stewardship of the fiscal foundation of Canada, they cannot be all wrong.

Moving ahead in the centre, carefully, prudently, wisely and caringly, is reflective of this budget. I personally support that particular treatment of people and groups.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the 2003 budget is a budget marked by milestones and major new commitments. While we have heard many comments in this budget debate up to now, some of the overview has to take into consideration the accountability with which the budget was designed.

It is a budget that is not only based on accountability but continuity, maintaining the prudent and balanced approach to fiscal planning that has contributed so much, so directly to Canada's economic stability and success. It is a stability that must be predictable in the global world in which we live, the ups and downs of the economy, and that in fact leads investors to conclusions that they may or may not invest. The approach in the budget is to make it absolutely clear that the country is on a sound financial foundation.

The country is moving forward in a progressive and dynamic way. We are doing so from a position of considerable strength. There will be no return to deficit financing, something Canadians made very clear and a pledge the government has kept. Maintaining a balanced budget and reducing the debt will remain the anchor of our fiscal strategy.

Canadians seek a society which is built on their commonly held values, an economy that maximizes opportunity for all and an honest and transparent accounting of government's efforts to achieve those goals. This is the challenge Canadians have brought to their government and this is the challenge the government has seriously taken up.

Budget 2003 responds to this challenge in three ways. First, it builds the kind of society with its typically Canadian values by making investments in individual Canadians, their families and their communities. Second, it builds the economy that Canadians need by promoting productivity and innovation while staying fiscally prudent. Third, it builds the accountability that Canadians deserve by making government spend more transparently and more accountably.

Budget 2003 recognizes the critical link between social and economic policy and how an integrated approach produces policies that will benefit all Canadians. It is based on sound financial management and a responsible stewardship of our resources.

Stewardship is a word that we do not use lightly. Stewardship involves making contracts with people and organizations, that in good faith we will abide by the agreement, that we will work together on the values and on the objectives that we have in the budget. It is this sense of stewardship that is rooted in the budget that will provide Canadians with the tools they need to realize the great potential our country offers.

The budget provides important new investments to build the society Canadians value and the economy we need. Canadians have also made clear that these investments must be backed by enhanced accountability to Parliament and to the public.

We started on the right track in 1994 through a vigorous review of all government activities. It resulted in the largest scale down in government spending since our post World War II demobilization. It was hard but it allowed us to create new efficiencies in many areas and it enabled us to eliminate the deficit.

Government programs should be subject to a regular review to make sure that they still fulfill an important purpose, that they are meeting the needs of Canadians and that they remain justifiable amid new and emerging priorities. In particular with the nature of the global environment where there is such change and such flux, Canadians and investors need to have that sense of predictability.

Federal departments and agencies should be regularly challenged to demonstrate both efficiency and the relevance of their programs. If they cannot or do not meet those tests, then they should reallocate their funding elsewhere.

The government wants Canadians to know better than ever where and how their tax dollars are being used and that they are being used wisely. To that end, it is determined to make its management of taxpayer dollars more efficient, transparent and accountable by doing the following things: first, by systematically reviewing programs to make sure they are still responding to the needs of Canadians; and second, by allocating resources from where they are less needed to higher priority areas.

There is more to sound fiscal management than avoiding deficits and reducing debt. The government must also manage tax dollars responsibly while delivering cost effective and efficient and effective services. That is why budget 2003 announces that the government will launch an ongoing review of all non-statutory programs to ensure that they continue to be relevant, effective and affordable.

Over a five year cycle, Treasury Board will examine the non-statutory programs of all federal departments and agencies. In doing so it will be guided by questions similar to those used for the federal government's program review in 1994-95. They are as follows.

One, is the program still relevant to the needs of Canadians? Two, are the program's resources being used in the most efficient and effective way to deliver the agreed upon and appropriate results? Three, is it necessary for the federal government to operate this program at all or could it be transferred to other levels of government or to the private or voluntary sector? Four, is there scope for considering more effective program structures, alternative structures and service delivery arrangements? Five, are department and agency management practices appropriate and of sufficient quality?

In the Minister of Finance's economic and fiscal update last October, the government promised to reallocate funding from lower to higher priorities. Budget 2003, as an illustration, delivers on that commitment by requiring departments and agencies to reallocate $1 billion per year from existing spending starting in 2003-04 to help fund the cost of new initiatives announced in the budget.

In budget 2003 the government takes several additional steps to make itself more accountable to taxpayers. Consider for example its management of employment insurance contribution rates. Budget 2003 reduces the EI employee premium rate for 2004 by 12¢ to $1.98 per $100 of insurable earnings from $2.10 in 2003. This will be the 10th consecutive annual reduction in the rate, representing annual savings for employers and employees of $9.7 billion in 2004.

The budget also announces that the government is beginning consultations with Canadians on a new transparent process for setting EI contribution rates for 2005 and beyond. This is something that has been raised by the Auditor General and it is something the government is addressing in this budget.

Budget 2003 follows up on the government's commitment to review the air travellers security charge to ensure revenue from the charge remains in line with the cost of the enhanced air travel security system over the next five years. Now that the review has been completed, the government is in a position to announce in this budget a reduction of the charge to $7 from $12 each way for domestic flights, and that is by more than 40%.

Accountability is also the anchor of the new health accord. The accord sets out a new accountability framework which includes a commitment facilitated by a new health council to report regularly to Canadians. To improve the transparency and accountability of federal support to provinces and territories, the government will create two new transfers a Canada health transfer in support of health and a Canada social transfer in support of post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, including early childhood development.

The government will also make a number of changes to improve the accountability and governance arrangements of arm's length foundations. In combination with clarifying the policy principles underlying the use of foundations, these measures will ensure their continued effective and appropriate use.

Starting with the budget, the government's financial statements will be presented on a full accrual accounting basis. This will make the government's financial reporting more comprehensive, consistent, clear and up to date. The Auditor General of Canada and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants have called for this reform. There are several benefits to moving to accrual accounting.

First, all tax revenues are accounted for in the fiscal year to which they relate rather than when they are received. As a result, the government's books for each year will provide a more accurate and timely reflection of the year's economic development.

Second, full accrual accounting recognizes the depreciation of the government's physical assets. This will lead to better recording of assets, better policies for maintaining those assets and better decisions about whether to buy, lease or sell buildings and equipment.

Third, there will be more complete recording of the government's liabilities, such as the potential cost of environmental cleanups and retirement benefits for veterans. This will encourage departments to develop better plans for managing them. In short, with a more accurate picture of costs, revenues and liabilities, Parliament and Canadians will be in a better position to hold the government accountable for its management of their tax dollars.

Good regulations are also essential to the functioning of our economy and society. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, has recognized Canada's success in this area. There is always room to improve, particularly in promoting a healthy marketplace and strengthening investor confidence. To this end, budget 2003 includes up to $30 million a year to create a coordinated national program to strengthen enforcement against serious securities and corporate fraud offences as well as to support the redesign of Canada's regulatory environment.

Budget 2003 delivers a wide range of action on the top priorities of Canadians while maintaining our commitment to prudent fiscal planning for balanced budgets. The budget takes serious steps forward in our quest to build the society Canadians value, the economy Canadians need and the accountability Canadians deserve. The challenge now is for Canadians to work together to build an even greater Canada, a Canada of economic excellence, fiscal responsibility and social equity.

I will sum up by outlining a couple of other areas which I think need to be addressed. There have been many claims that the budget does not come to grips with the issue of urban Canada. Having been a member of municipal councils for over 25 years, I would like to address a couple of points.

It is often missed that we operate within certain principles that are based on the need to reach out not only beyond our urban areas to our rural areas but in fact to the world. To do this we have talked about sustainable development, that we do not burden future generations by creating a legacy that is unsupportable, that their natural environment is exploited to the extent that there will be no quality of life for future generations.

Sustainable development is a concept that should bind Canadians together, not only with the world, and in the budget we are talking about investing in larger amounts for international development, but it should bind the regions of our country together. We do that by establishing other principles such as Kyoto. The budget recognizes the Kyoto commitments. The Kyoto commitments are investments that will lead us to sustainable development that will bind our regions and our cities together.

I would like to make reference to a few of those programs for those who think that cities have not been addressed to the extent they should have been. The budget has an investment which will allow us to increase our support by $300 million to science, research and development activities through the Canadian Foundation for Climate and the Atmospheric Sciences.

The value added that comes from research and development in new technologies, which will give us a better handle on climate change, will be done mainly in cities but will benefit the regions of Canada. As well, another $200 million will be dedicated to further investments in long term climate change technologies. Finally, we have a comprehensive strategy for climate change challenges by integrating these actions with other strategies. In climate change, that is in the area of binding our principles around Kyoto together with our principles of sustainable development.

We also have support for small businesses, which I can relate to, with an increase by 2006 in regard to $300,000 of income, which will be made available as a result of a special small business tax rate of 12%. That reduction represents more money to the small businessman to reinvest back into their businesses. Removal of the limits on the small business capital tax rollover is included in the budget. The budget also has a mechanism with respect to qualified limited partnerships. Again, small businesses in cities and throughout Canada will benefit from these kinds of mechanisms.

In regard to housing and daycare in the cities, on top of commitments that have already been made, the budget allocates additional moneys for the development of housing and for support for day care. Not to quote out of context, but we really should know, for example, that the Canadian Council on Social Development takes the commitment made by the government to day care as an extremely important, proactive and dynamic move to recognize the needs of poorer families within our country. As well, the national child benefit has been improved. Finally, the issue with respect to affordable housing and building for those who need it most has been addressed in the budget.

We have listened to Canadians. This budget is accountable, it has listened to Canadians and it is prudent. It has involved Canadians in establishing the kind of predictability they have faith in. While the budget cannot and has not been all things to all people, it is a good start. As the finance minister said, this is a down payment. A down payment is a statement of claim and faith that payments will continue to be made with respect to what equity is being built into. We are building equity in the people of this country who we trust. We will work together to build strength and to meet the demands of the global community and of the future that we all face together.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, my colleague will be aware from most of the research that has come, in particular from urban areas, that there is an indirect health consequence to the existence of persistent organic pollutants and the effect of climate change. This indirect effect is in the form of premature deaths. All of this has been detailed and chronicled. There have been cases of chronic bronchitis. It is estimated that 320,000 asthma symptom days have resulted from smog and in emergency room visits. This is as a result of environmental pollution.

Given the angst that has been demonstrated from urban leaders, from his knowledge of the plan of the budget, could the hon. member indicate what instruments would be available that would over the next number of years make a serious approach to deal with the problems of smog and the implications with respect to health, particularly in urban areas?

[Criminal Code, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if passed, Bill C-280 will create a new part XI.I in the Criminal Code and will create three new offences relating to the selling of wildlife. These offences will apply despite the provisions as has been pointed out of other federal acts of Parliament.

However the bill expressly states that the section setting out offences does not alter the application of any existing aboriginal or treaty rights, the point that was just raised by the member across the way.

The offences proposed in Bill C-280 would address three activities: the selling of wildlife in whole or in part; the killing or capturing of wildlife for the purpose of selling that wildlife in whole or in part; and finally, possessing wildlife for the purpose of selling wildlife in whole or in part.

It is worth noting at the outset that in contrast to penalty provisions found in the Canada Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act and the new Species at Risk Act, the offences in Bill C-280 are considered to be so serious that they must be proceeded with as has been explained by indictment only.

Providing for straight indictable offences is not an insignificant matter. I would like to take just a minute to examine the significance of providing for a dual procedure offence versus a straight indictable offence.

A dual procedure offence permits the prosecutor to proceed either by way of summary conviction or by indictment. There is a choice. The decision to do so will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case and therefore dual procedure offence models offer a great deal of flexibility for the penalty to fit the crime.

This is important in situations where the seriousness of a particular case may vary considerably. A summary conviction procedure can provide justice in an expeditious manner without compromising the quality of justice delivered. It is an appropriate procedure by which to address less serious instances of a particular crime. This flexibility is lost if the offences in Bill C-280 are classified as a straight indictable offence.

Restricting the offences to indictable offences also creates resource implications for the criminal justice system. Classification of an offence as an indictable offence means that the accused has an election as to the mode of trial, including an option to have a preliminary inquiry and a jury trial. There does not seem to be any valid policy reason for restricting the mode of trial to proceedings by indictment only.

In addition to the issue of maintaining flexibility in the justice system, there is another consideration. Penalties for new offences must fit within the Criminal Code in a sense that they are not disproportionate to the relative seriousness of other offences that may carry the same or lesser penalties. This is not an exact science but I suggest that the penalty provisions in Bill C-280 offend this principle of proportionality.

For example, it seems disproportionate that a second offence in relation to a threatened or endangered species carries a maximum penalty of eight years in Bill C-280 when the maximum penalty for an assault on indictment is five years. Further, the maximum penalties for offences in relation to threatened or endangered species of four years and eight years respectively are maximum terms that are unknown in the Criminal Code. This is another example of the inconsistency of these provisions with other penalty provisions in the Criminal Code. I also note that with a few exceptions most offences in the Criminal Code do not prescribe a higher maximum penalty for a second or subsequent offence.

Although the offences in Bill C-280 can involve serious commercial enterprises, I suggest there is a strong argument for saying that the penalty provisions as currently drafted are inconsistent with other offence provisions in the Criminal Code. As a minimum, it can be argued that they ought to be dual procedure offences.

In respect of the broader objectives of Bill C-280, I think most members of the House would agree that the goal of discouraging the selling of wildlife and wildlife parts, particularly wildlife which is threatened or endangered species, is a laudable one. The question however is whether this bill is the best way to achieve the goal.

This in turn raises a larger question: are the provisions of Bill C-280 in their essence about the prohibition of morally blameworthy behaviour which is traditionally associated with Parliament's exercise of its criminal law power?

Alternatively, is Bill C-280 more accurately characterized as a public welfare offence, which is traditionally associated with regulatory offences in a civil context? It is the position of the government that, from a constitutional perspective, Bill C-280 in its pith and substance is concerned with the regulation of wildlife rather than with prohibiting morally blameworthy behaviour. As such, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code cannot be supported.

I would like to take this opportunity to briefly outline some of the features of the bill that are traditionally associated with the creation of offences in the regulatory context rather than with Criminal Code offences.

One important feature of the bill is that it does not apply equally to all Canadians. It expressly exempts from application any person who is authorized, pursuant to a federal or provincial permit or licence, to commit the acts which otherwise would qualify as an offence as long as the wildlife involved is not a threatened or endangered species. Exemptions of this nature are extremely rare in the context of the Criminal Code.

Bill C-280 also permits the Minister of the Environment to exempt from application of the act any person or class of persons in respect of a threatened or endangered species where, in the opinion of the minister, the exemption is necessary or in the public interest. A provision of this nature is at risk of being declared unconstitutional on the basis that the criteria are so subjective and general that they do not provide any real limits on the behaviour to be exempted.

Another feature of the act, which is not normally found in the Criminal Code, is that the Minister of the Environment is given the power to designate by regulation an animal or wildlife for the purposes of the act. Another provision would permit the Minister of the Environment to designate a species of wildlife as either an endangered species or as a threatened species provided that the minister had consulted with the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. Again these provisions are more consistent with legislation aimed at the protection and regulation of wildlife than they are with the provisions found in the Criminal Code.

In concluding my remarks today, I would like to commend the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley for bringing this important issue to the attention of Parliament. The goal of the legislation is laudable. My inability to support the bill does not relate to the fact that the goal of the legislation cannot be supported. The lack of support for the bill is based on the fact that the mechanism chosen to achieve the objective is inconsistent with the Criminal Code and with other federal legislation governing wildlife.

I would like to thank the hon. members for their attention with respect to this bill, and again I would like to congratulate the member opposite for putting forward the spirit of the bill, with which we can all agree.