Jim Abbott

[Government Contracts, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister and the government is saying is that they do not find it a little strange that he had not had one single solitary contract prior to 1996 until this heritage minister took over.

Let us look at his credentials. Thornley was and is the heritage minister's campaign manager. Thornley was former president of the Liberal youth. Thornley is now chair of the federal Liberal agency, which just shows that membership does have its privileges.

Why can the Prime Minister not understand that we need an independent ethics commissioner?

[Government Contracts, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister appointed the Minister of Canadian Heritage to her office in 1996, at that time Joe Thornley and his firm had not received one single solitary Canadian heritage contract.

Joe Thornley was and is the heritage minister's campaign manager. Since 1996 Thornley has received over three-quarters of a million dollars in contracts from her department.

Is it not clearly obvious why the Prime Minister needs an independent ethics commissioner to answer to Parliament?

[Copyright Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those rare occasions in parliament when there is agreement among parties.

The committee worked diligently. We listened to a tremendous number of witnesses on the issue. We listened to the rights holders, JumpTV, Internet providers and to the broadcasters. We had full input.

During the process of the committee work we all came to one mind. As a consequence, I was privileged to put forward the amendments that basically changed it from enabling legislation to legislation that had a specific purpose. I was gratified to have the support of all members of the committee for those amendments.

It shows that when there is a common interest and when there is goodwill we as parliamentarians can work together. This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of copyright. It is a good public policy issue. It is an issue of our place in the international community.

I also would like to thank all the people who were involved, all the committee members, and the officials, who did put up a good fight for a perspective different from what we had, but at the end of the day I agree with the parliamentary secretary and with the member for Toronto--Danforth. He and I were absolutely simpatico. It is up to the politicians to make public policy. It is not up to the bureaucrats to make public policy. That is exactly what we did in the committee. If we are standing here patting ourselves on the back, we will have to find a good chiropractor. We did a good job. This is good public policy.

[Government Contracts, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are disgusted as they hear report after report about millions of their tax dollars being handed out to sponsor phantom events, millions more being paid for reports never received, and still more millions being blown on questionable government advertising.

The government is out of control and out of touch when it promises it will return some federal tax dollars to pay for important projects that affect the well-being of small communities. The Liberals promise project money for safe drinking water, health care facilities and safe highways, then withhold the funds even when they are approved.

Better yet, the federal Liberals say there is money for important projects like the expansion of the Cranbrook airport in my constituency, but the Liberals cannot decide on the rules because the Prime Minister and his cabinet are at each other's throats over the leadership issue.

It is phantom money for real projects, yet for their Liberal cronies it is real money for phantom projects. It is vacuous Liberal promises. The reality is that there is little money for community projects because it went to Liberal buddies and golfing friends.

[Species at Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I felt I had to jump to my feet to make some comment and ask the member a question.

The member knows that I have a high regard for him personally, but I must say that on the basis of what he just said, I have less of a regard for his understanding of what is going on in Canada. I will not comment on what may or may not be happening outside of the Canadian jurisdiction but I will comment on what is happening in Canada.

Canada's forests are growing annually. In British Columbia, for every tree that is harvested two are planted. In my constituency, which is in the Canadian Rockies where there is the finest big game hunting in North America, the people who are most concerned about the entire issue of species, the maintenance of species and enhancement are the people, my constituents, who are members of rod and gun clubs and other organizations like that, who go out and create a better habitat.

With the greatest respect for the member I suggest that it is the kind of misinformation that he has given to the House that drives people in urban areas to not understand what is going on in my constituency and in other rural constituencies.

We have a growing population of grizzly in my constituency. Yet I dare say that the member or other people like him would say that it is an endangered species so therefore we are not managing it right. In fact, it is a direct result of sound forest practices, which include clear-cut logging, that has opened up the forage for large mammals like the grizzly, elk, caribou and moose. That is why they are thriving.

On what basis is the member coming forward with the information he is giving to the House, which I know incontrovertibly as a member of the community of Kootenay--Columbia is factually inaccurate? It cannot be shown to be true on the ground.

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that was a good clarification and I thank the member, though I would also ask him about what he has mentioned in regard to a figure of $180 million for stewardship. I wonder if he would not agree with me that, considering the size of Canada, the magnitude of the potential of this problem, and although $1 million is a whole lot more than I would understand and $180 million is 180 of them, in fact the budgeting by the government is exceptionally meagre against the challenges that will be faced. If we are looking at protecting species by protecting habitat, particularly if we are talking about either private property or tenured property, whether it be for mineral rights or tree cutting rights or whatever, we are talking about the loss of value. I wonder if the member would not agree me that in fact the $180 million, $45 million already in the present budget, is indeed a very tiny amount, a very meagre amount, in comparison to the challenge that is likely going to face this government.

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I respect this member for his work for the environment and for many environmental issues. However, I do believe that he and I have a fundamental difference of opinion with respect to the issue of compensation. If I may restate my position, let me say I believe that in regard to Canadian law all Canadians want to have proper protection of and a proper protection regime for endangered species. That is my position and that is the position of my party.

Therefore, I ask the member why, in amendment number 109, I believe, although I may be incorrect, the government made the decision to change this word: that the government “shall” compensate to “may” compensate. It seems to me that this is contrary to what this member has just said when he says that the government has shown in its fullest legislative commitment. I believe those were his words. How is the government showing its fullest legislative commitment when it removes the word “shall” from the words shall compensate and replaces it with the word “may” ?

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will restate clearly and unequivocally that the Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species.

As I have said in the House many times, my wife and I lived by a lake in the Rocky Mountains where we brought up a wonderful family of three children. We are completely committed to the natural environment. We are committed to endangered species at a personal level. That is also the position of our party.

However the process has been highly frustrating. This is the third incarnation of the species at risk act. In every process, this one included, we have heard legitimate and intelligent input from stakeholders and experts who are deeply concerned about the issues and have brought their concerns to committee. In every instance the environment minister of the day has turned back their common sense proposals. On May 2 the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton was quoted in the London Free Press as saying:

Of course there is (frustration) with the system...Why do committees exist? It's to be a counterbalance, and it's fundamentally flawed, wrong and improper when the work of a committee can be undone by a minister at his own whim.

I agree with the Liberal member completely. Another Liberal, the hon. member for Thunder Bay--Superior North, is quoted in the same article. He stated:

We all go through the process at times at the committee level of getting the recommendation put in and the minister's department doesn't see fit to include them and, yeah, there's always that frustration.

There is a tad of frustration, and not just on this side of the House. A May 2 Ottawa Citizen article stated:

Environmental groups and certain MPs were focusing their efforts yesterday on winning one last concession from the government before the bill comes to a vote. They want the bill to guarantee the protection of the critical habitat of endangered species on federal land.

The Citizen article quoted the hon. member for York North who has been involved with these issues for a long time. She said:

I think it's important that we find a bill that protects habitat for species...I believe that we're moving towards a resolution of that issue and I'm looking forward to seeing that in the bill.

Interestingly, the same article quoted the environment minister who was asked if he would agree to such a change. He gave a two letter, one word answer: “No”, he would not change. What has changed between then and now? What has changed with the people involved in the issue such as the hon. members I mentioned, the hon. member for Davenport and others? Liberal backbenchers have succumbed to the pressure of the government and will permit this badly flawed piece of legislation to go through.

The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species. However Bill C-5 would not do that. It would not even come close. Why is that? There are many flaws in the bill but one primary flaw: It would not work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. Farmers, ranchers and other property owners want to protect endangered species but should not be forced to do so at the expense of their own livelihoods.

The government wants to amend Bill C-5 to reverse many of the positions taken by its own MPs on the environment committee. It is another example of top down control from the Prime Minister's office. It again shows the contempt in which the government holds members of parliament.

As I stated at the outset, in all instances there has been input by interested parties. One of the most interesting was the Species at Risk Working Group otherwise known by the acronym SARWG. The group issued a joint statement of principle. The statement was so good, profound and sound it could have been used as a foundation for any good species at risk act. Instead this diverse group had its interventions fundamentally ignored.

Landowners, land users and rural residents whom I represent would bear the brunt of the species at risk act. Motion No. 109 would eliminate the requirement to develop regulations for compensation. Compensation is not an extra. It is essential to the entire framework of protecting endangered species. For instruction on the issue we should look to countries with legislation that does provide adequate protection for landowners, which ensures that they and other land users are encouraged rather than penalized for looking after species at risk.

Compensation would not only ensure landowners and resource users did not single-handedly bear all the costs of protecting species. It would send an important symbolic message that the government understood their fears and recognized the need to take their interests into account.

The government will not even commit to developing a regulatory framework. Consistently in the House we are faced with skeleton laws made by the Liberal government, laws that have only the basic outline of what is expected. The regulations, the meat on the bones, are turned over to the bureaucracy and are completely out of the control of the people elected to this place to represent their constituents and the people of Canada.

The minister says he hopes to have draft general regulations ready for public review and comment soon after royal assent. That is not good enough by a long shot. How helpful is that? It should be available now for the House to debate. The minister acts as if providing a few regulatory scraps is evidence of his gracious benevolence. After all, it is not required. He can do it if he feels like it.

This is exactly like a bill we are considering in the heritage committee. Bill C-48 has to do with copyright. It too is nothing more than a skeleton law. We do not know what the regulations will be. The Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage wrote letters to the committee telling it to pass it as is. They told the committee to get the bill through so it could be enacted. They said once it was enacted the government would come back to committee sometime in the next year with the regulations. That is not good enough. Bill C-10, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act which has just passed the Senate, is exactly the same thing. It is also a skeleton bill.

We are charged not only by our constituents but by all the people of Canada with responsibility for bringing forward good laws and legislation that people understand and that we can vote for intelligently. However in Bill C-5 there are again no regulations. There is no meat on the bones. The way the Liberals consistently deal with legislation is unacceptable. It holds the entire institution of the House of Commons in contempt. Government Motion No. 109 would weaken the law. Subclause 64(2) of Bill C-5 currently reads:

The Governor in Council shall--

Shall is the important word.

--make regulations that the Governor in Council considers necessary for carrying out the purposes and provisions of subsection (1), including regulations--

What did the government do? Did it strengthen the wording? There is no way to strengthen the word shall so the government changed it to may. The government said it might get around to it. It does not care if it weakens the law.

I appeal to the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, for whom I have tremendously high personal regard, to take another look at the bill in good conscience. They should realize it would not protect endangered species, something I know they want as much as I do.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Liberal members that the Liberal government is clearly aware of the fact that, unlike the representations that have been made by my friends in the Liberal party, there are problems with the bill that require amendment.

In spite of that we are being asked in this House of Commons, and they are being asked by the justice minister, to proceed at third reading for this to proceed to the Senate.

I remind everyone in the House that we have gone to the people of Canada and, through a democratic process, have come here through that democratic process, through our constituents voting for and against, as representatives of the people of Canada. It is therefore our responsibility to be making law.

I underscore that because I have a news release under the name of the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey. It states:

Liberal Rural Caucus Chair is asking members to support the government's cruelty to animals legislation on the understanding that the bill can be amended in the Senate.

In other words the Liberals know full well that the bill is deficient and has problems. Otherwise why would the chair of the Liberal rural caucus be putting out a press release saying to members in the backbenches that they should vote for and support the government's cruelty to animals legislation on the understanding that the bill could be amended in Senate.

What that means is that there is an abdication of responsibility by the Liberal backbenchers who know full well that the bill is flawed and would create all sorts of hardship for farmers and other people who are involved in the husbandry of animals. They know that would be the case, but they receive this bleak assurance that all will be made right when it gets to the Senate. What kind of an abdication of responsibility is that on the part of members who went to the people of Canada to be elected to come here?

Indeed, what are some of the problems? The most egregious problem is that the government has entered into a brand new piece of legislation instead of making minor amendments to the current cruelty to animals act and the attendant criminal responsibility. Instead of simply making sure that there is proper enforcement of the penalties of the existing legislation it has gone to a whole new act and we do not what the unintended consequences would be.

I will again read into the record comments from animal rights activists. These are the people who farmers and ranchers, the people who have legitimate right to own animals, are concerned about.

Lynn Manheim, a columnist for Letters for Animals said:

Ultimately there can be no real progress until society undergoes a paradigm shift, a new way of looking at the world which opens the door to new systems and interacting with it. We have seen most strikingly with the women's movement, language plays an essential part in such a shift. Establishing legal rights for animals will be virtually impossible while they continue to be called and thought of as “its” and “things”.

Alan Berger, executive director of the Animal Protection Institution, said:

Society's perception of animals as property must be changed before legal rights for animals can be established. The time is right to make such a change.

We note that this amendment would remove animals from the property section to an undefined section within the criminal code. That is precisely what Alan Berger would want. Here is another one:

Just as we have moved beyond “owning” people after the Civil War, we now need to move beyond “owning” animals, who deserve a far greater understanding in our society than simply being treated as property or things.

The final quote is from Jane Goodall of the Jane Goodall Institute:

In the legal sense, animals are regarded as “things”, mere objects that can be bought, sold, discarded or destroyed at an owner's whim. Only when animals can be regarded as “persons” in the eyes of the law will it be possible to give teeth to the often fuzzy laws protecting animals from abuse.

We do not have any idea where this brand new legislation is going to take us. It is for precisely this reason that I implore the Liberal backbenchers to wake up and smell the coffee. If they have not figured out that the bill has the potential to be very serious within their own constituencies and within rural Canada, then there is probably no reason to talk to them. I know that 50 or 60 of them have figured it out, but now they have this rather weak response of “Oh, well, we will correct it when it goes to the Senate”. That is not good enough.

I implore the Liberal backbenchers to do their job, to stand up for the rural people of Canada and to vote against this legislation.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split my time. I would like seven minutes for myself and three minutes for my colleague from Yorkton--Melville.