Jim Abbott

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is very important to my constituents. It is important to me personally because I have chosen to live with my family for over 25 years in an area of British Columbia in the Rocky Mountains. Our home is on a small lake. There are all sorts of eagles, osprey, muskrat, white tailed deer, and elk. We have everything around our family home. This issue is very important to me personally and to my constituents.

For the most part people choose to live in Kootenay--Columbia because they highly value all of the species that there are. From time to time there are conflicts between domestic herds and herds of elk, for example, which are in transition.

There are also potential conflicts between various species and open pit mining and other activities. Believe it or not, over 20% of all the metallurgical coal that is consumed in the world comes from my constituency. I know what it is to have that activity combined with a desire and love of endangered species, the love of all species. That love is shared by many people who are involved in rod, gun, fish and game clubs. They are hunters, sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts.

A balance must constantly be worked at between the land required for a potentially endangered species and the ability to do resource extraction in a responsible way. For the most part the balance has been achieved between forestry companies such as Tembec, formerly Crestbrook, Wynndel Box and Lumber, JH Huscroft, Downie Street Sawmills in Revelstoke, and mining companies such as Cominco, Fording and Teck. The balance has been maintained by all of these companies. In my judgment it has been absolutely exemplary in the world. After all my constituency with no exaggeration is the big game hunting capital of the world. We have a balance that we are very proud of.

I cannot think of any other issue that could come before this parliament that could potentially have the emotional impact and real impact that Bill C-5 has on my constituents and on my own choice of lifestyle.

Of the 301 members of parliament, there are members from urban, suburban and rural Canada which can create difficulties. It is understandable that some members, frankly very few of whom have spoken to the debate today, have a lack of understanding that there is a compensation issue which is absolutely key to the success of this legislation.

A person from urban Canada would possibly look at buying or renting a piece of property that would be 33 feet wide by 100 feet long. However, when looking at what the bill will do if compensation is not taken into account satisfactorily, we are not worried about a piece of property that is 33 feet by 100 feet, we are worried about larger pieces of property. We are looking at pieces of property that are tens, hundreds, or thousands of acres, pieces of property that are measured by the quarter mile, the square mile, pieces of property that encompass all sorts of topography and geography where a value has been assumed over a period of time for the holder of that property, be it an individual or corporation. That value has become part of the assets of that individual or company.

Faced with the possibility of having that asset value, which in some cases is not just in the millions of dollars but in the hundreds of millions of dollars, wiped out with the discovery of an endangered species, the human temptation to shoot, shovel and shut up will be there.

We have seen the triple-S in action in the United States under the endangered species act. At various times in my constituency we have had clashes, particularly with regard to aquatic life, between the interests of people who are using the U.S. endangered species act and those who wish to have access to continuing to see the aquatic life on the Canadian side of the border. We continue to work through that process.

I was impressed when I happened to be sitting on the environment committee in September 2000 and SARWG, the species at risk working group, came before the committee. It made the following submission:

SARWG strongly urges Parliament to implement key amendments that firmly recognize that the protection of species at risk is a public value and that measures to protect endangered species should be equitably shared and not unfairly borne by any individual, group of landowners, workers, communities or organizations.

I was particularly impressed when the group came before parliament speaking as one voice. I was astounded at the competition of the species at risk working group. The group did not just consist of people who classified themselves as environmentalists or industrialists. With the exception of the recreational user of our great lands, every group that has an interest in our environment and in the protection of the endangered species is a part of the species at risk working group.

At the conclusion of the group's submission, which was insightful and valuable, I asked its industry members and its environmental members if they spoke with one voice and they answered that they did.

I recall coming away from that meeting thinking that all the environment minister and Liberal government had to do was enroll or engage recreational users, get their input to the submissions that SARWG made and we could have a law that would be acceptable, workable and create the kind of balance that I could proudly talk about in my constituency of Kootenay--Columbia.

As was pointed out by the member for York North, we had a situation, on a distinctly non-partisan basis, where there was co-operation among members of all parties on the environment committee. We are now talking about SARWG's co-operation and the various interests involved there. We had co-operation and a bill that was workable and now the environment minister and the Government of Canada are putting their boots to it. That is not good enough.

The bill is not reflective of what is needed to protect endangered species in Canada.

[Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to the bill. It is an important bill because it speaks to the history. I agree with my colleague that it also speaks to who we are.

I have done some research on the bill as it has come to the House many times. I have taken a look at the speeches of some of my colleagues, past and present, and recognize that there have been some very eloquent speeches. I believe the vast majority of members of the House across party lines are in favour of the bill because they have a larger vision of Canada, what it is, what it could be and what it should be.

I can understand the chagrin of the members of the Bloc Quebecois and I can understand its smaller vision of Canada because they do not see Canada as I and many of my colleagues in the House do.

There is a battle in Canada, a battle that ebbs and flows, for the larger vision of Canada and truly the Canadian Alliance and I represent that larger vision. There is also a battle about remembering our predecessors in the political realm because we become so partisan in debate.

As we look at honouring these two founding gentlemen of our country, it is understandable that we look at them through the prism of 100 years of history and what it has shown us about their vision. In the case of Macdonald it certainly is a 100 years and not quite in the case of Laurier.

It is important too that we not set today's standard of enlightenment against some of their specific pronouncements. I know some people who have a larger vision of Canada have been somewhat critical of some specific pronouncements, particularly those of Sir John A. because to put it mildly, he was very pithy.

I have some of his quotes. For example, as we know he enjoyed some liquor a lot of times. This is one of his cuter quotes. He said:

Would you move away please your breath smells terrible...it smells like water.

He also had some rather pithy ways of looking at situations. For example, he said:

A compliment is a statement of an agreeable truth; flattery is a statement of an agreeable untruth.

He also was very straightforward in his reaction with respect to the English and the French, similar to what we are faced with today. He said:

Let us be English or let us be French, but above all let us be Canadians.

Sir John A. was my guy kind of guy.

Senator A.R. Dickey of Amherst, New Brunswick, was in conversation with Macdonald. Dickey said:

No, I am still a Conservative and I shall support you whenever I think you are right.

Sir John A. said:

That is no satisfaction. Anybody may support me when I am right. What I want is a man that will support me when I'm wrong.

He had a very simple way with words. For example, here is another quote from 1872. He said:

Confederation is only yet the gristle, and it will require five years more before it hardens into bone.

Perhaps he was thinking forward to some of the commentators on the political situation in Canada today, and I say this with a little chagrin because it is not purely complimentary to the opposition, but in 1869 he said:

Given a Government with a big surplus, and a big majority and a weak Opposition, you could debauch a committee of archangels.

He certainly had a way with words but his way with words was interesting in that it was so concise, so pithy and so earthy.

One of our former prime ministers, Mr. Borden, said of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the following:

Looking dimly it may be through the mists I can even now discern the future greatness which I am sure will place this Canada of ours not only in the fore-front of the nations of the Empire, but in the fore-front of the nations of the world. This is our dearest wish, the wish cherished with equal fondness by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and myself with regard to the country which we are proud to assist in developing, and to whose future I am sure every loyal Canadian looks forward as hopefully and as devoutly as we do ourselves.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1910 said:

The more I advance in life--and I am no longer a young man--the more I thank Providence that my birth took place in this fair land of Canada. Canada has been modest in its history, although its history has been heroic in many ways. But its history, in my estimation, is only commencing. It is commencing in this century. The nineteenth century was the century of the United States. I think we can claim that it is Canada that shall fill the twentieth century. I cannot hope that I shall see much of the development which the future has in store for my country, but whenever my eyes shall close to the light it is my wish--nay, it is my hope--that they close upon a Canada united in all its elements, united in every particular, every element cherishing the tradition of its past, and all uniting in cherishing still more hope for the future.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier by contrast to Sir John A. was the more flamboyant and the more eloquent, yet both of them clearly had a total, absolute commitment to our great nation.

Before I use this last quote, I want to make a particular point about the larger vision that both men had. We have a tendency, and perhaps I have a tendency, of looking at the smaller vision. For example, who does have a vision of today? When we talk about a vision, we have to ensure that our vision for the politics of today is not that we set the bar so low that it is a foot under the ground.

We have debates about our finances. We have debates about criminal justice reform. We have debates about health. I suggest with respect that those are debates of a slightly smaller vision. The larger vision is how we govern ourselves, whether we will become involved in a true reform of this institution and whether we will become involved in a Senate reform.

We can do that if we individually and collectively work together, look at our history and realize what the larger vision was of the great people in our history. We must be very careful not to get away from that larger vision.

I quote from a speech delivered by Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald in reply to allegations concerning the Pacific railway charter. This was a point of tremendous pressure for Sir John A. This was one of the finest speeches he made and I would like to put it on record. He said:

But sir, I commit myself, the government commits itself, to the hands of this house; and far beyond the house, it commits itself to the country at large. We have fought the battle of confederation. We have fought the battle of union. We have had party strife setting province against province; and more than all, we have had in the greatest province, the preponderating province of the Dominion, every prejudice and sectional feeling that could be arrayed against us. I have been the victim of that conduct to a great extent; but I have fought the battle of confederation, the battle of union, the battle of the Dominion of Canada. I throw myself upon this house; I throw myself upon this country; I throw myself upon posterity; and I believe that I know, that, notwithstanding the many failings in my life, I shall have the voice of this country, and this house, rallying around me. And, sir, if I am mistaken in that, I shall confidently appeal to a higher court--to the court of my own conscience, and to the court of posterity. I leave it with this house with every confidence. I am equal to either fortune. I can see past the decision of this House, either for or against me; but whether it be for or against me, I know--and this is no vain boast for me to say so, for even my enemies will admit that I am no boaster--that there does not exist in Canada a man who has given more of his time, more of his heart, more of his wealth or more of his intellect and power, such as they may be, for the good of this Dominion of Canada.

It is fitting that the House, these members, vote in favour of honouring these two gentlemen.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Liberal who just spoke and couple of things came to mind.

First, I just realized that she felt compelled to get into talking about provincial politics to try to make a point about the federal government. I could not quite figure that out.

Let us talk about the federal government. The federal government, in the area of EI funds, “I” standing for insurance, has generated an absolutely humongous surplus: $20 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion. I think we have lost track. The finance minister himself has said that the EI fund, which is way oversubscribed, in the billions of dollars, has gone into general revenue, that there is no surplus in the EI fund. In fact, employment insurance is not correctly called. It is an employment tax.

I would particularly like to draw her attention to the fact that with the $24 fee that she was touting about making our skies safer, it not only makes the smaller aircraft and the shorter runs far less competitive, literally driving those airline companies out of the sky because it makes them uncompetitive, that money also, like with the employment insurance fund, will be going into general revenue.

How can she say that there have been tax decreases and proper management of the finances of Canada when in fact we have the history of the finance minister putting the money into the general fund?

[Terrorism, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in a speech in Canada Bill Clinton recently said that we were in a struggle to define the shape and soul of this new century. He said we had to win the argument between ourselves and the terrorists about the nature of truth and the value of life.

Some 100,000 Canadians suffered through blind atheism at the September 11 service on Parliament Hill. In Canada's rush to be tolerant and accepting we are becoming insensitive to the vast majority of Canadian citizens who hold high spiritual values, especially Christianity.

Last month Billy Graham's daughter Anne gave an insightful response to the question how could God let something like September 11 happen. She said she believed that God was deeply saddened by this just as we are but that for years we had been telling God to get out of our schools, get out of our government and get out of our lives, and like a perfect gentleman he backed off. How can we expect God to give us his blessing and protection if we demand he leave us alone?

The Bible says “Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”. Liberty, freedom and tolerance are based on the laws and cultural foundations built on Christian bedrock.

[Broadcasting Act, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill S-7. As has been stated, I believe the bill has come in in an inappropriate way. The heritage minister should have championed this bill if she thought that it should come before the House. Furthermore, although there is some redeeming value to the bill, which I will be reciting in half a second, I also suggest that while the government does review after review, it does not pay any attention to the reviews that are actually taking place.

In this particular instance a review of the state of Canadian broadcasting is currently before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The members of the committee are undertaking a very long and onerous task. It is probably going to take at least 18 months to get through the review. Within that period of time many pressures will be brought to bear on the Department of Canadian Heritage and on the committee itself to make legislative changes that reflect the requirements of the broadcast industry at that time.

If there is a review under way, will we be getting into a situation where the minister ends up putting more postage stamps, band-aids, chewing gum and baling wire on the problem, or will we get to the end of the Broadcasting Act review and after the work of the committee is completed, then the minister will seriously consider the recommendations of the committee and will come forward with the legislation?

In the case of Bill S-7, I fully recognize that this is a very tiny part of the Broadcasting Act. Nonetheless, there is a principle here. The principle is very simple and straightforward. While the standing committee is undertaking the review of the Broadcasting Act, neither I nor the official opposition want to see the minister or her department come forward with changes to legislation that the committee is undertaking. While this is a very small part of the Broadcasting Act, it nonetheless would set the principle if we did not stand against the passage of this bill at this time, notwithstanding the value that is contained within the bill itself.

The bill has been advocated by consumer groups for consumer groups across Canada. Consumer organizations across Canada had been asking the CRTC to make cost awards available to individual consumers and consumer groups for broadcasting and cable television hearings throughout the 1990s. The CRTC made an honest effort to find a way to cover the costs for individuals and consumer groups. However, it came to the conclusion that the only way to do this was to amend the Broadcasting Act. The power of costs awarded already exists in the Telecommunications Act. The CRTC administers both the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act.

If I could insert a bracket here, this is one of the reasons I and my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance believe that the CRTC should be answering to one ministry, probably the Ministry of Industry under competition, as opposed to it having its feet in two camps at this time.

Bill S-7 has come about because of the efforts of consumer organizations. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre and several other groups have been promoting this amendment on behalf of all Canadian cable and television subscribers for the past three years. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre on behalf of a number of groups approached the Department of Canadian Heritage three years ago to ask that the government amend the Broadcasting Act to permit cost awards.

The department was reluctant to open the act just for this change and suggested the group pursue a private member's bill approach. The groups approached Senator Finestone and asked if she would champion the bill. She consented and in the spring and early summer of this year, the bill was passed in the Senate and a member was asked by Senator Finestone to champion the bill in the House of Commons.

The question is whether anyone is against the bill. We in the Canadian Alliance find ourselves in a rather unusual position because the answer is no. No one is against the principle of the bill. To the question is anyone against the bill, the answer is no. In the Senate hearings on the bill all witnesses, including industry representatives, supported the key principle of the bill that every democratic society should foster active citizen participation in public issues. Modern democratic life requires an active role from the population and needs participation from members of the community. The Department of Canadian Heritage and the CRTC also supported the bill in the Senate.

I go back to the process by which the bill came to the House. There are two problems with it. The first one I have clearly outlined. I wanted to be sure about the second problem and asked the Speaker for a specific ruling on Bill S-7. In looking at this legislation, it required a fee to be taken by the CRTC to be redistributed to the people who were appearing on appeal before the CRTC.

I brought my argument to this Chamber yesterday. It was not an attempt to stop the bill. Because the heritage department and the minister had brought the bill in through the back door by way of the Senate and it did have to do with money, I wanted it to be very clear that we were not setting a precedent that was outside parliamentary precedent that had been established for nigh on 600 years of parliamentary practice in the United Kingdom and Canada.

While we are in favour of the content of the bill, we have those two problems. One is that the minister did not bring it forward. The other one is the crux of the situation. Will the minister and the government continue to ask for a review, to ask committees to do work, to ask citizens and corporations in good faith to prepare and to come before committees and make submissions and travel to Ottawa and engage in all of the expenses that are involved in doing proper work? If so, will the minister and the government commit that the committee work, the review work, will be of some value at the end of the day or will it just be a make work project? The reason I think it could be a make work project is because of Bill S-7, the fact that we are involved in a review process, yet through a backdoor process the government has brought in this bill and says that it is just changing a small part of the act.

What is the next small part of the act the government is going to change while the review is under way? What is the next small part of the act that it is going to review? How is it going to alter, for example, the funding of television production by the finance minister? How is it going to alter, either enhance or decrease the amount of the appropriation of the CBC during this period of time?

The government has asked the committee to do some work and the people on the committee are doing it in good faith. Is the government going to leave enough latitude for the committee to get to the end of its process without having been interfered with by the minister?

With regret, although the bill itself has great merit, if there was not the Broadcasting Act review under way at this time, it would be my recommendation as the heritage critic for the Canadian Alliance that we support the bill. I think it is absolutely commendable. However, the fact that the Broadcasting Act review is under way precludes me from doing that. Therefore I am recommending that we vote against it.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the excitement of the evening I got all wrapped up in my voting and I voted incorrectly. I wish to vote in favour of Motion No. 10, not in opposition to it.

[Points of Order, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Bill S-7 should be withdrawn from the order paper because it would violate the financial privileges of the House. I argue this point as a matter of precedence. While the bill has some redeeming value it is contrary to parliamentary practice and consequently would establish a deleterious precedent.

Further, the bill in its present form and in the route by which it was placed on the Chamber's order paper was a conscious attempt by the heritage minister and her officials to avoid dealing with the issue. The summary of the bill states:

This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act in order to enable the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to make regulations establishing criteria for the awarding of costs, and to give the Commission the power to award and tax costs between the parties that appear before it. Costs are the allowed expenses that a party incurs in respect of a proceeding. The taxation of costs means the review of the costs by an officer of the Commission with a view to determining that they are authorized and reasonable.

The bill attempts to amend the Broadcasting Act by adding the following after section 9:

9.1(1) The Commission may award interim or final costs of and incidental to proceedings before it and may fix the amount of the costs or direct that the amount be taxed.

(2) The Commission may order by whom and to whom any costs are to be paid and by whom they are to be taxed, and may establish a scale for the taxation of costs.

The awarding of costs for intervener status already exists on the telecommunications side of the CRTC. This is creating a level playing field, so to speak, for the broadcasting side. The costs are met by companies that come under the jurisdiction of the CRTC which took part in the proceedings and will be affected by the outcome.

One of the principles of reimbursement is to compensate deserving interveners for the costs incurred by an intervention based on fair market value for the work performed. Like the costs for company representation the funds come from the key industry intervener's services budget. This procedure would be the same as that already in place under the Telecommunications Act.

In exercising its responsibility under the Broadcasting Act the CRTC is given decision making powers that are important for and have a great impact on the association of Canadians with the promotion of Canadian culture, the setting of rates, the introduction of competition and the resolution of stakeholder disputes.

Mr. Speaker, on June 12 you set the stage for the ruling I am asking for in your ruling on Bill S-15. Since the same stage can be used for my argument regarding the procedural inadmissibility of Bill S-7 I will begin by quoting from your ruling. Citing chapter 18 of Marleau and Montpetit you said:

Initially, the Commons were content simply to have grants of Supply originate in their House. However, over time the Lords began “tacking on” additional legislative provisions to Commons “money bills”, by way of amendments. This was viewed by the House as a breach of its prerogative to originate all legislation which imposed a charge either on the public or the public purse, and led the Commons, in 1678, to resolve that:

All aids and supplies, and aids to his Majesty in Parliament, are the sole gift of the Commons; and all Bills for the granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons: and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint, in such Bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants; which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords.

--300 years later a virtually identical formulation is found in our own House of Commons Standing Order 80(1) which reads:

All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.

This same principle is captured in an early source on Canadian procedure, Bourinot 4th ed., at page 491, which states, and this is a translation:

As a general rule, public bills may originate in either house; but whenever they grant supplies of any kind, or involve directly or indirectly the levying or appropriation of any tax upon the people, they must be initiated in the popular branch, in accordance with law and English constitutional practice.

In Canada, the constitution itself enshrines the ancient English practice whereby the elected representatives of those who will be affected by any tax measure should be the first to examine such a measure and accept or reject it.

In matters of taxation, the House is provided with priority over the Senate. The Constitution Act, 1867 provides, in section 53: “Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons”. The standing orders provide that the House may only consider taxation measures that have been initiated by a minister through the usual ways and means procedures.

As with Bill S-15, the central issue in this case is whether or not the fees imposed are for purposes beneficial to the industry concerned. I refer the House to page 779 of Erskine May, 22nd edition:

Modern legislation, however, frequently makes provision for the imposition of other types of fees or payment which, although not taxes in a strict sense, have enough of the characteristics of taxation to require to be treated as 'charges upon the people'--

As I said earlier, the sole purpose of Bill S-7 is to compensate deserving interveners for the costs incurred by an intervention based on the fair market value of the work performed. Like the cost for company representation, the funds come from the key industry interveners' services budget.

As I stated, I am arguing the bill as a matter of precedence and not as a motion on behalf of the industry although Bill S-7, unlike Bill S-15, does not even attempt to make the case that it is beneficial to the industry.

I have not been able to identify in the bill any dispositions that provide for any benefit to the industry. The bill would work against the industry. At the moment a member of the public can bring to the CRTC a grievance against a telecommunications company and the intervener would be compensated for any costs incurred. Bill S-7 seeks to extend this benefit to the broadcasting side of the CRTC. This would encourage more people to launch complaints against the broadcasting industry.

The difference between Bill S-15 and Bill S-7 is that in the case of Bill S-15 no such fund existed at all. Bill S-7 seeks to expand the use of a fund that already exists. This cannot be a legitimate argument to allow Bill S-7 to remain on the order paper.

On June 12, 1973, the Speaker ruled Bill S-5, the Farm Improvement Loans Act, out of order because while the bill did not in itself propose a direct expenditure it proposed substantial additional liabilities on public moneys. The Speaker ruled that the bill infringed on the privilege of the House.

On October 23, 1991, the speaker of the Senate ruled a Senate bill out of order that sought to extend war veterans benefits to merchant seamen. The speaker pointed out that the bill would give rise to claims by merchant seamen and their spouses against the government and would cause the government to incur liabilities.

Bill S-7 would have the same effect in that it would increase liabilities upon the existing fund. It introduces for the first time a scheme for compensating interveners for the broadcasting industry.

In F. A. Kunz's The Modern Senate of Canada there is a reference to the war risk insurance bill of 1942. The government had to accept a number of amendments made by the Senate except one which enabled the minister to enter into an agreement with provincially registered insurance companies. After debate Mr. Ilsley told the House on July 29 that the Senate:

--contravenes constitutional usage and practice, because the alteration of that scheme in any important particular is the alteration of what is essentially and soundly considered a financial bill.

The attempt by Bill S-7 to alter the criteria for the awarding of costs and give the commission the power to award and tax costs between the parties that appear before it is the alteration of what is essentially and soundly a financial matter.

To sum up, Bill S-7 would introduce a tax for the broadcasting industry. It would not be beneficial to the broadcasting industry. It would alter an existing scheme that increases the liabilities of an established fund.

If the heritage minister and her department want to create such a change let her exhibit leadership by bringing forward such legislation and in effect taking ownership of it. Using the back door of a bill originating in the Senate, even one with some redeeming value, is unbecoming for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Bill S-7 would violate the financial privileges of the House and establish a precedent for future bills. It should therefore be withdrawn.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, as I do every time I stand to speak on national parks I want to quickly recite my own background and the relationship I have with national parks. My family and I decided in 1973 to move to a piece of property on a lake on the west side of the Rocky Mountains. We have lived there since 1974. We continue to live there today. Our family grew up there.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for the wildlife, the environment and the ecology. We have made a very strong personal family commitment to the environment, waking up in the morning and watching the bald eagles swooping down over the coots, or watching the muskrat burrowing out from the under the ice on some of our docks in the winter. I know our neighbours do not necessarily always appreciate the number of deer we have around in the winter because they chew at the hedges, but I live in an area with 500 people who have nothing but the greatest of respect for the ecology, the environment and certainly for all the wildlife species there.

With those personal qualifications, I would like to make some remarks on the whole issue of the establishment of the marine conservation areas. The change of the name from marine park, which is the name of the act from another parliament, to marine conservation area reflects a realization that national marine conservation areas are not simply parks in the water. Marine conservation areas involve a partnership among several federal departments.

Under the Oceans Act, the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans can establish marine protected areas. Additionally, Environment Canada can establish national wildlife areas or marine wildlife areas under the Canada Wildlife Act, as well as migratory bird sanctuaries under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. We see, then, with respect to what the government is attempting to do here that there already are a lot of federal laws with respect to the protection of the marine conservation areas.

What is very unfortunate is that these national laws end up overlapping and creating many more layers, like layers of an onion, on top of all the provincial regulations as well. Because the act would be administered under Canada's national park agency, I would like to take a look at how the national park agency is currently relating to issues of ecological integrity and the environment.

I will refer to a document that was done by the Fraser Institute. I believe the name of the document is Off Limits: How Radical Environmentalists are Shutting Down Canada's National Parks . It was done by Sylvia LeRoy and Barry Cooper and I want to give them full credit for what I am about to say here. Bearing in mind that the marine conservation areas would be administered by Parks Canada, let me read from one of the sections in this report, which states:

Much of the confusion over current parks policy stems from the language adopted over the course of a cumulative policy review process initiated by the federal government with the appointment of the Banff-Bow Valley Task Force in 1994. Reflecting recent trends in the wilderness conservation movement, ostensibly scientific discourse has been turned into highly charged political rhetoric in order to redefine the basic assumptions and parameters of parks policy. Specifically, the overriding consideration is to evaluate the impact of activities in the parks on what is called their “ecological integrity.” No one would in principle argue against a common sense understanding of ecological integrity, or EI as it is called by Parks Canada officials and environmentalist groups. Obviously, preservation of the integrity--the wholeness and soundness--of the ecology--the natural environment--must be an important priority in park management. In fact, however, the effective meaning of EI is far from clear. As a technical term, a term of art, as the lawyers say, it has been used to promote everything from the common sense meaning of environmental stewardship, to a most unusual and basic restructuring of the mountain parks, especially Banff National Park.

In the name of ecological integrity, it has, for instance, been proposed that Moraine Lake, the image of which used to grace the back of the $20 bill, be either bombed or poisoned so as to eradicate all non-native fish species described as “biological pollutants” by one government ecologist. Science projects already under way at the less well known Bighorn Lake are just as astonishing. There are trout in Bighorn Lake today, but according to EI advocates, once upon a time there were none. Ecological integrity today apparently requires that the existing fish be exterminated and the lake returned to pristine sterility. Bighorn Lake, a few miles from the Banff townsite, is a popular destination for hikers with fishing poles. It seems a curious policy of wildlife management that requires the extinction of wildlife.

It is this kind of extremism we see currently within Parks Canada which I am addressing as it relates to the future administration of this marine conservation area. When I visited Gros Morne National Park about three years ago I was astounded to see some of the largest mammals that I have ever seen wandering around in the wild in Canada. These were moose, absolutely gigantic moose. I was told that there were no fewer than 7,000 moose within Gros Morne park. Why have they thrived there? First, the top of the flat areas in Gros Morne park is a smorgasbord for the moose. It is perfectly and ideally suited for the moose, which is probably why God did not put moose in Newfoundland. Someone did. Someone introduced a pair of moose around the turn of the century. That pair has subsequently increased to 7,000 head and on top of that are literally eating Gros Morne out of existence.

In this report from the Fraser Institute we see on one side of the coin that selectively Parks Canada is prepared to poison Moraine Lake or to blow up the fish in Bighorn Lake so as to get back to a pristine standard, while on the other side of the coin, perhaps because the moose are so big and so magnificent, there is an absolute ban on any idea of there being a cull or any way of actually getting the number of moose under control, the balance being that the park likely within a number of measurable years will not be able to sustain those moose nor will the park be able to sustain itself and its ecological balance.

I visited Riding Mountain National Park about four years ago in the summer to find that someone had decided to plant some spruce trees on the far eastern boundary of the park. It was an area that was supposed to be a grassland or by nature was a grassland area. The spruce trees thrived and then we had spruce trees that were 80, 90 or 100 years old being cut down. These were beautiful clear spruce trees that were being cut down and burned because of park policy to try to return the area to grasslands.

On one side of the coin we are prepared to poison, blow up and annihilate fish. On the other we are not prepared to do anything about the moose that are destroying the park, but we are prepared to cut down and burn perfectly merchantable timber. This does not give me a whole lot of confidence in the environmental understanding of Parks Canada at this point.

I will read again from the Fraser Institute study, which states:

Parks policy has tended towards ever-greater restriction on enjoyment in order to promote ever-greater preservation. With the completion of reports of the Parks Canada Panels on Outlying Commercial Accommodations (OCAs) in 1999 and on Ecological Integrity (EI) in 2000, this policy trend has been emphatically affirmed . Bolstered by the scientific discourse that established benchmarks in [the Banff-Bow Valley study], and aided by the legal advice of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, the EI Panel has reinterpreted Parks Canada's historic dedication both to visitor use, and to park protection. Thus according to the Panel, “a proper reading of the National Parks Act of 1930 reveals that...there was no dual mandate.” Rather, ecological integrity was the one and only goal. Such a revision of the plain language of the Act calls into question the legitimacy of the general process by which parks policy is made, and in particular it raises the issue of informed public involvement. Since new guidelines for outlying commercial accommodations and ski areas are to be settled within the parameters of the EI Panel conclusions, the economic impact of the revised understanding of ecological integrity is bound to be significant. Moreover, these same assumptions are also bound to establish the context of future amendments to the National Parks Act as well as of future changes to regulations and interpretive guidelines made by Parks Canada under the terms of the Act.

As I stated at the outset, my primary concern about this issue is that we are giving to Parks Canada, an organization of questionable ecological understanding at this point, a club that it will be able to use in the national marine conservation area.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. department of commerce has been ruthlessly misled by a small and influential group of U.S. landowners who refuse to compete in a free marketplace. ILMA president Gary Crooks said it is like having a fist fight with the wind. It is a deliberate set up to protect special interests. It is pure and simple political manoeuvring that flies in the face of free trade agreements intended to provide benefits to consumers.

Let us remember it is home builders and buyers in the U.S. who will see their house prices skyrocket while our skilled and dedicated workers are forced to sit on their hands.

Every business in my constituency that uses wood in its product, whether or not it directly manufactures dimension lumber or boards, is being unfairly targeted. There is a large industrial manufacturer in Golden with 400 employees. Its product is not subject to CVD or anti-dumping duties but it trades logs with companies that are subject to the U.S. tariffs.

Our forests are not one uniform species or grade. The 400 workers in Golden trade fir, balsam and spruce and utilize specific grades of wood. The corresponding lumber mills use other species and grades. Each company must have an outlet for species and grades they cannot use. If the lumber operations are shut down where would the industrial wood fibre come from?

Companies in my constituency from Revelstoke to Wynndel and Erickson to Galloway are all faced with the necessity of making irrational choices. If they lay off their skilled workers, will their employees stay in the business or look for employment outside the lumber industry? If they shut down, will it be for weeks, months or years? What happens if the tariffs are not retroactive? What happens if they are? What will their U.S. customers do? Will they wait or turn to lumber from former Soviet satellite countries?

This punitive and punishing penalty is not just an economic issue. It is an environmental tragedy looking for a place to happen.

British Columbia has an enviable environmental record. In the past 10 years we led the way. Our commercial forestry practices are models of sustainable development. Our commercial forests are growing. That is not a play on words. We are adding to the commercial forests by planting twice as many trees as we are harvesting.

What about the forests of the former East Bloc? First, they are boreal. Their basic wood source is from a fragile base. Second, their forest stripping practices are similar to irresponsible strip mining and are referred to as rape and run in the lumber business. Forcing U.S. home builders to access large volumes of lumber from the former east bloc is to explode an environmental bomb that will have future global implications.

Let us look at what it means environmentally in Canada. Business after business in my constituency has responded to the challenge and opportunity by turning to trim ends, waste wood and low grade lumber. My constituency has proudly built remanufacturing, finger jointing and finishing businesses that not only employ more people with the same amount of logging but upgrade low value wood fibre.

British Columbia is growing nice new forest at twice the rate at which it is harvested. We use every part of the tree. With cogeneration we clean up after ourselves while substantially reducing consumption of non-renewable fuel sources. However the punishing penalties inflicted on Canadians by narrow private interests in the U.S. have all but stopped this responsible use of low grade or waste fibre.

Where punitive tariffs were assessed against the input costs of these remanufacturing operations they are now assessed against the finished product. Given the high labour costs and tight margins of the process a 30% mark up would price the finished product out of the market.

I am aware of the value that is added by prime coating and painting boards. Can members guess what? After businesses invested in buildings, equipment, production line and employee training they were forced to curtail their volumes due to the countervailing duties.

What about having to turn perfectly good wood into chips for pulp? If companies cannot sell utility or number three grade wood what else can they do with it? Let us remember they cannot upgrade the product, so what options do they have? Is permanent storage an option?

The major employer in my constituency is Tembec. Along with the other forest companies it accounts for 25% of the wealth created in Kootenay--Columbia. Here is how it is affected.

Tembec is one of six Canadian companies singled out by the U.S. It has to produce not thousands, but tens of thousands of invoices to the U.S. It is forced to reveal every detail of its business proving the average cost of every board that they sell. The U.S. then discards every invoice where the selling price exceeds the production cost. The invoices with the lower grade wood under the average production cost are retained and the anti-dumping levy is assessed on them.

Let me explain it this way. If the average cost of every car produced by General Motors was $20,000, the $70,000 Cadillac or the $30,000 Buick invoices would be ignored. Under this zeroing principle the small compact cars would attract anti-dumping levies. The $14,000 Sprint could not be produced or sold. Even that example is flawed. GM has a choice about whether it wants to produce a low cost vehicle.

To use a cow as another example, T-bone steaks are $10.00 per pound and soup bones are worth $1. If the average cost is $3, forget brisket, soup bones and chuck steak. Under this bogus U.S. system we would have to take them to the dump.

Low grade wood comes in the package known as a tree and the company has to do something with it. What about responsible forest practices? Loggers work to a prescription set by government professional foresters. How will they use a low grade wood that is part of the natural forest? Chips for pulp come from wood production where fibre cannot be recovered. That is good. However conversion of lumber to chips is an irresponsible use of fibre, yet what are the company's choices other than to chip low grade wood?

For Tembec it gets even more bizarre. The U.S. will not allow Tembec to sell any product in the American market under their Canadian selling price. However, because the U.S. has imposed their countervailing duty and anti-dumping tariff, the Canadian market has discounted the lumber sales to reflect the 30% penalty. In a low market like today Tembec could only dream of a 30% profit margin.

The U.S. constructs a cost by adding 18% to Tembec's actual average cost. The so-called dumping penalty is levied on the difference between the sale price in the U.S. and the fabricated constructed costs. Now as complicated as the U.S. has made this, the issue is simple.

Kootenay--Columbia residents are being held as economic hostages. They are highly skilled, industrious, dedicated and hard-working people. Narrow U.S. economic interests treat companies with solid business ethics and responsible environmental practices with disrespect.

U.S. home builders and buyers are paying a higher price for an inferior product from the eastern bloc. The world shudders at the environmental practices carried out in the eastern bloc. If only the Liberals had taken this issue seriously two years ago, they could have taken this message to the U.S. to get the U.S. consumer on side.

Over the last two year period specifically, we have been pushing for the trade minister and the Prime Minister to get to the U.S. consumer. It is only the U.S. consumer interest, understanding the perspective of that country, that would be able to stop this group of small anti-trade very closely held landowners from being able to inflict this kind of damage on my constituency, on our country and on the consumer of the U.S.

There is however one small light in the tunnel. President George W. Bush has assigned former Montana governor, Marc Racicot to work as his envoy in the softwood dispute. The governor has the attention of President Bush and is a personal friend of the president. It is an indication that Bush wants this issue resolved.

I had a minor working relationship with Governor Racicot on the shared interest of Lake Koocanusa that backs into Kootenay--Columbia behind the Libby Dam in Montana. His office was communicative, co-operative and was run with intelligence. In the meetings I had with the governor, I judged him to be the source of his office's intelligence. I believe he understands the issues because he takes time to listen.

We must find a resolution to this never ending Canada-U.S. irritant. We can only hope that the Canadian government finally has the matter on the front burner. My constituents deserve nothing less than the full time attention of the Prime Minister to resolve this issue now.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the NDP motions it may be of value to look at the wording that party is proposing. The member for Windsor--St. Clair has proposed the following amendment:

4.(1) The purposes of this Act are:

(a) to create a system of representative marine conservation areas for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada and the world; and

(b) to protect the ecological integrity of marine conservation areas and reserves.

His second motion is:

That Bill C-10, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 36 on page 4 with the following:

(4) For the purpose of achieving ecologically sustainable use and protection of marine resources, marine conservation areas shall be divided into zones, which must include preservation zones that fully protect ecological processes, special features and all marine species that occur in these zones and may include natural environment zones that serve as buffer areas to preservation zones and conservation zones that foster and encourage ecologically sustainable use of marine resources.

What we have here, I suggest with the greatest respect to my NDP friends, is ideology versus practicality. Looking at the full intent of the law as it has been drafted by the government, all of the things the NDP has moved are more than covered. In fact, the NDP amendments create a redundancy in verbiage.

My friend from the Liberals who preceded me said that extraction of non-renewable resources is not sustainable. In the strictest meaning of the words, extraction of non-renewable resources, if those resources are being extracted, if they are not renewable, then clearly as my friend has said, it is not sustainable. At some point we are going to reach the end of those resources.

We also recognize that with the exception perhaps of wind power or hydro power generation, virtually everything we do as human beings is to consume some of the resources which were given to us by God himself. These are resources that we use hopefully in wiser and wiser ways. Certainly we are trying in every respect to ensure that we leave the world a better place, but to suggest that we could get along without the actual consumption of resources, with great respect to my friend, simply is not practical at all.

Referring specifically to the NDP motion, Bill C-10 is a framework. To try and confine even further within that framework any environmental or ecological imperatives is constraining the ability of human beings to have access to the resources that are at their fingertips.

One of the difficulties we as a party have had is that this is yet another layer. When individuals and those involved in natural resource extraction are exploring and looking for ways to continue to serve all of mankind with these resources, they find they are into layer upon layer. In Bill C-10 we not only have a new federal statute layered on top of other departments, but additionally, we have federal statutes layered on top of provincial statutes and provincial rules and regulations.

There is a difficulty at the moment for the province of British Columbia. The provincial NDP, the soulmates of the federal NDP, have gone through a process over the last 10 years of fundamentally, let us presume in good faith, lowering the ability of people to get to and to develop resources.

I will go off on a different angle for a second. In the province of British Columbia when the NDP government came to power there was a lot of responsible mineral exploration. We recognize that a lot of mines are being depleted or are running down due to world prices or whatever the case may be. The only way those projects the mining industry can continue in the province or in any area, is through further exploration.

As a result of the kind of motion our NDP friends have brought to the House, which reflects the kind of thought process the provincial NDP had, investment in mining exploration fundamentally has gone to zero. That is an absolute shame. It is a shame because in my constituency at the Sullivan mine, owned and run successfully by Cominco and its successors since the turn of the century, more lead zinc has been extracted from that one mine project than from any other lead zinc mine in the history of Canada. However it is now depleted.

The problem is we have not had exploration. If we do not have exploration, we end up with the problem that we will not have a mining industry tomorrow. What are the skilled miners in my constituency supposed to do? Within a very small community of only 500 people, as of December there will be 15 families looking at no more work. They will have to go to some other jurisdiction, probably outside Canada, in order to find employment. They are highly skilled people who are 45 to 55 years of age. Where will they go?

We see this kind of ideology. I say with the greatest respect to my NDP friends that they have a particular vision but I suggest it is a myopic vision. It is a myopic vision in that if we have the ideology of environmental protection at all costs to all exclusion, we end up with an employment problem, a resource problem, as well as a wealth generation problem.

For example, I note that today in the province of Ontario there will be an economic statement, if it has not come forward already. The premier told the people of this great province that the resources required even to do things like health care were going to be cut back.

My Liberal friends may have a difference of opinion over whether or not the premier should have done that. However, we come down to the same fact that if there is a slowdown in the economy, if there is a slowdown in the production of wealth, then there is no tax base from which to fund health care and other programs that are so essential to us here in Canada.

Clearly therefore, we will be voting against these motions. As I have suggested, the clauses are redundant. As a matter of principle, the further intrusion of more government rules and regulations to shut down the ability of people to responsibly be involved in resource development and resource extraction, is simply not going in the direction we need to go as a nation.