Larry Bagnell

[Species At Risk Act, February 28th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the federal government is emphasizing conservation actions before compensation. I listed a number of available programs and projects in which Canadians have voluntarily and through community projects protected a number of habitat. I also mentioned the amounts of money, $90 million and $45 million, that were available for those programs.

The destruction of critical habitat, especially on private land, is a last resort and hopefully in most cases it will not come to that.

The Pearse report had some very detailed direction on compensation. It will be studied by the department and the compensation will come out in the regulations. That is why we have made no comment on the exact percentage. The Pearse report had recommended 50%, but we still need to study in detail the ramifications and what would be the best compensation framework. It is a very complex issue and the exact details will be handled in the regulations.

In order to allay some fears that members on the other side might have, I would like to say that expropriation is not envisaged. The minister has been on record as saying that he does not think it would ever come to that and that other methods would be used to ensure habitat protection.

[Species At Risk Act, February 28th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the member's initial comment, I too mentioned the same concerns as the previous member but I mentioned them in the context of those who have more information than I do.

The Sierra Legal Defence Fund will comment on those very issues at the committee meeting. The CPAWS Yukon branch, and Juri Peepre's letter, which mentioned the issues of habitat protection and scientific listing, will be at the committee meeting. I look forward to those issues and concerns being brought to the committee.

If a province or territory does not act, even if it is not in a federal jurisdiction, there is provision for the federal government to act to save a species. The member raised a very important point relating to federal lands in Yukon. There was a deficiency in that area in the last round, but I have been told it has been changed in this round.

[Species At Risk Act, February 28th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to help introduce Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada because during the election I was asked if our government was going to reintroduce the bill.

Today I will make only introductory remarks because there will be much feedback and suggested improvements from constituents to input later when it will be reviewed in committee. For instance, I met with an official of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. He assures me that he will present its detailed input to the committee.

I have also received a letter from Juri Peepre, executive director of CPAWS Yukon, which highlights three key areas: strong mandatory habitat protection, public accountability, and a very creative compromise ensuring science based lists and the ultimate role of cabinet. I forwarded the letter to the minister and to the committee chair.

Senator Ione Christensen, the other half of the Yukon caucus, and I often work together on initiatives and this is no exception. Senator Christensen has distributed Bill C-5 to such Yukon organizations as the Yukon Outfitters Association, the Yukon Chamber of Mines, Minister Dale Eftoda, Grand Chief Ed Schultz, the Yukon Conservation Society, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce and the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce.

Notwithstanding the fact that parliament has been receiving and incorporating input on the main elements of the bill for seven years, I will forward any feedback I receive from those other organizations to the minister and the committee chair just as I have with the CPAWS letter. It is very exciting to be part of an effort to help preserve some of the species we share the earth with.

Members who were here through the first two iterations know it is not easy to come up with common ground for such a huge variety of stakeholders, some of whom want weaker legislation than that presented today and some of whom want stronger legislation. Because there are species that inhabit virtually every metre of our nation, there are obviously a myriad of stakeholders and interests with whom to try to build common ground.

In my constituency in Yukon there are first nations governments, territorial governments, municipal governments, land use planning bodies, farmers, miners, loggers, trappers, sports and subsistence fishermen, big game outfitters, tourists, wilderness adventurers and campers, boaters, naturalists and snowmobilers, et cetera. Our challenge as a parliament is to come up with a bill that protects species and is as acceptable as possible to the many elements of our diverse society.

Bill C-5 incorporates a number of new suggestions from individuals and groups as refinements to previous drafts. The following are some highlights.

It prohibits the killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking of species officially listed as threatened, endangered or extirpated, and the destruction of their residences. It includes a public registry and a scientific assessment of species at risk.

There will be mandatory action plans and recovery strategies, including the ability to enforce critical habitat protection. It provides the authority to prohibit the killing of endangered or threatened species and the destruction of their critical habitat on all lands in Canada.

It provides emergency authority to protect species in imminent danger. It uses three mechanisms: positive incentives, which we hope will be used in most cases; strong legal protections; and, if absolutely necessary, the Government of Canada can act alone.

It complements and works together with first nation, provincial and territorial governments. It involves landowners and land users. It uses traditional aboriginal knowledge.

It complements the stewardship program in which Canadians can take voluntary actions to protect habitat. It fulfils Canada's obligations to the court for protection of species at risk. It unifies the efforts of the provinces and territories.

There will be some compensation which will act as a positive incentive to assist in implementation. Budget 2000 provided $90 million over three years and another $45 million thereafter.

Some work has already been done. Under the new habitat stewardship program the Government of Canada has contributed $5 million toward 60 partnership projects with communities and regional organizations. In the government implemented ecological gift program Canadians can use capital gains for ecologically sensitive lands and easements for the protection of habitat, a measure I support because habitat is a concern in my riding. It recognizes the role of boards established under land claims agreements such as the UFA in Yukon.

I will also use the debate to highlight a relatively new process in the federal government, the rural lens. It is one of the initiatives of the Secretary of State for Rural Development. Any new initiative by the federal government should be examined through the rural lens to see how it affects rural Canadians in ridings such as mine in Yukon.

Bill C-5 has been carefully vetted through the lens in its development. I would encourage all members of the House to support the use of the rural lens for all programs, services and legislation. It is very helpful to Yukon residents and to rural Canadians in all ridings to have new initiatives viewed through their eyes.

We hope the bill will bring stakeholders together in support of the common goal of saving species. The bill shows respect for property owners by having many co-operative and voluntary recovery possibilities and compensation if need be.

I will, however, fight to ensure that the rights of rural Canadians and Yukoners are reflected in this and other legislation. Yukoners often live on the land with these species, sometimes at -50°C, and all have learned to survive together.

The proof is that at the present moment, according to the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, of the 364 COSEWIC listed species there are no species in the endangered category in Yukon.

We could not tolerate the dictums of an urban created myth that does not reflect our rural reality. We hope all parties will support the legislation and help Canada live up to its international obligations.

Nine provinces and territories, including Quebec, have laws to protect species at risk. Bill C-5 is structured in such a way as to complement these laws and not to create overlap.

A number of provinces and territories do not have comprehensive legislation and, in the long run, the bill is a safeguard to filling those gaps. Any time two governments work toward the same noble cause, in this case preserving species, they may on occasion run into overlap. However, if it came, for instance, to saving a species of whale, I would rather have overlap than a gap because failure is irreversible.

Failure is irreversible. We respect the agreement on harmonization, because the intent of this legislation is to complement the efforts made by the provinces and territories.

If a province has a combination of its species at risk and other complementary legislation in place so that everything is protected, then this or other complementary federal legislation will not have to kick in.

I think that Bill C-5 is effective and in keeping with the Constitution of Canada.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment said the last time around on May 11, 2000 “We have examined and benefited from the experience of other jurisdictions, other provinces, other nations”.

I have a short note on the compensation percentage under the legislation. The deal will be covered in regulations. It will be thought out and studied carefully over the next several months and will be ready in time for the bill to be passed.

The time to act is now. As the NDP member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar said on May 29, 2000, in the previous debate, “Worldwide we are experiencing the largest extinction since the time of the dinosaurs. Historically on average about two to three species a year went extinct due to natural causes but currently two to three species go extinct every hour”.

As the Bloc member for Jonquière stated on May 15, 2000 “I would like to state the position of the Bloc Quebecois since species are disappearing more rapidly, the problem is serious and we must take effective action”.

The Alliance member for Edmonton—Strathcona said, on the same day, “I am confident there is nothing partisan about endangered species and nothing partisan about protecting endangered species”.

That said, I hope we will be work together to pass this bill.

In 1623 a British parliamentarian said that if a clod of earth washed away from Europe then Europe would be less. It would be fitting, in that context, to say that if a species dies out then we are diminished because we are involved with them.

In this House of great bells, a parliament I respect, the bells will soon be calling us to vote. If we do not enact legislation to protect species at risk, then heed the words John Donne wrote in 1623:

If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Someone said that it costs $17,000 an hour, but I think there is a lot more in personal time as well that could be better used than on frivolous amendments.

Members opposite, and especially my friend from Elk Island, have years of experience and talents to bring to parliament, to their constituents, to legislation, to committee meetings, to doing research for committees and to Canadians in general. Do members opposite really think it is advantageous to squander those talents by sitting here while 3,000 frivolous amendments are proposed and voted on?

Members of the loyal opposition in their opening addresses to the motion used the term parlez-vous. They did not know any French, but they thought it meant something about talking and that the House was meant as a place for serious discussion and debate. That would be exactly the result of the motion. If we were to eliminate everyone standing 3,000 times on a frivolous amendment, would there not be more time for serious debate?

Should we not talk just about things that are important to us members of parliament?

In conclusion, hopefully a minor change that eliminates frivolous amendments will allow us to get on with some of the very important things that we do here. I personally have a great respect for this institution and will do my best to do productive things with my time.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, first, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. You have been doing a wonderful job.

Before private members' business, I was talking about the institution of parliament, the respect for the debating procedure and how legislation is debated and decisions are reached.

Members of the House have traditionally sought to improve the debating procedure of parliament and to increase the dignity of the institution in the eyes of Canadians. Sadly, we have not always proved equal to this challenge. In recent years, some believe there have been early and worrying signs that some Canadians do not always hold the institution of parliament in the same high esteem that they once did.

While some of that may be a result of general suspicion of all institutions, some responsibility for this disillusionment may lie closer to home. For example, from time to time some of the debating actions and statements of some members of the House can fuel the disillusionment and cynicism felt by Canadians. Sometimes this is a result of a misunderstanding by the public of how parliament, with its notion of loyal opposition, works.

I still do not understand all the procedures in that huge manual. I hope I will understand them better and make sense out of some of the things that I would see as a member of public watching television.

At other times some believe it is little more than a matter of high spirits and good natured bantering on the part of some members and perhaps a reflection of the collegiality which permeates the history of this and other similar institutions. However, on other occasions there are incidents which are less positive and which suggest that some procedures in the House may be dysfunctional and no longer work as had been originally intended. I have noted a special sensitivity to these incidents by new members such as myself.

In this regard we need to look further than the use in recent years of the report stage to put forward hundreds, and even thousands of motions, in the hopes of paralyzing the work of the House.

Just a brief review of recent history gives a number of glaring examples of the misuse of this stage in the legislative process.

For example, in December 1999, the House spent more than 42 consecutive hours voting on 469 report stage motions designed to delay to the work of the House on the Nisga'a legislation.

In March 2000 there was a similar exercise involving 36 consecutive hours of voting on 411 motions on the clarity bill

In September 2000, the House was faced with the prospect of having to deal with over 3,000 motions which would have required more than two weeks of non-stop sitting on the youth justice bill. Can anyone in opposition explain how this would have been useful? After all the years of study, suggestions, expert witnesses and procedures to come up with the best compromise and some improvements, how could 3,000 nuisance motions be beneficial? Clearly this would have been an abuse of parliamentary procedure that would damage the work of the House.

Perhaps worst of all, it damages the dignity of parliamentary debate in the eyes of Canadians.

It is a great pity, for it means we are squandering the respect and legitimacy that democracies like ours need in order to survive and thrive.

That some Canadians should be turned off by these filibusters is hardly surprising. During the marathon voting sessions, Canadians are treated to images of MPs bobbing up and down like puppets, sleeping at their desks and reading books or newspapers. Reviewing such a spectacle, some Canadians may conclude that parliament is not a place that takes the nation's business seriously and that MPs are engaged in silly partisan games.

While this is clearly not the case, we nevertheless must face up to the fact that such tactics, while perhaps justified in the minds of those employing them, are hurting the dignity of parliament and the respect of Canadians for the institution. Clearly this can not continue.

The motion before us seeks to address this issue and repair some of the damage caused by the amounts of abuse to parliamentary procedure in the debating system. To do this, it proposes to restore to the Speaker his or her power to select motions for debate and filter out others which are frivolous, repetitious or clearly intended to obstruct the business of the House at report stage.

Returning the decision to eliminate frivolous motions to the honoured institution of the Speaker I do not think could be opposed by many. The Speaker we have in place has the respect of all members of the House, as I think we could see by the very strong acclamation achieved when he was selected in a vote by all members of the House. Of course the Deputy Speaker and Acting Speakers are very well received as well by the House.

To address the function, many parliamentarians have been involved over the years in studies with other parliaments and procedures. We can usually consider the experience of the U.K. house of commons. Therefore, the motion calls upon the Speaker to be guided by the practice followed in the parliament of the U.K., in effect allowing him to draw on experience of a parliament with the longest history in the world in determining whether to select motions for debate at report stage.

Once in place the change would allow members on all sides of the House to get on with the work of debating and studying legislation, which is after all why Canadians elected us in the first place. It would also restore the traditional functions of the House and reinforce the role of House committees in considering amendments to legislation.

As members are aware, many amendments which would normally be introduced at the committee stage are now being brought forward instead at report stage. This practice weakens the committee system by denying members from all parties the input provided by such amendments during their detailed study of legislation.

Finally and perhaps most important, it would remove a misuse of House procedures which has damaged the dignity of parliament and discredited the institution in the eyes of many Canadians. As a result, the change would facilitate the work of parliament and help restore the confidence of Canadians in the debates of the House and its ability to address the issues that matter most to Canadians. Clearly this would be good for parliament and good for this nation as a whole.

There are a number of issues in my riding that I would like deal with. I receive dozens of phone calls and e-mails. There are groups that want to see me. If that time is taken up by frivolous motions to a bill, it would not help me in my work and I would be very frustrated by it.

As a new parliamentarian, I have been frustrated by the lack of time to do all the things we are allowed and expected to do and that I want to do in this role. I have the great honour to be in this role. There are a lot of things I would like to try to accomplish to help my constituents and groups forward their agendas and to look at improving legislation. However, the amount of responsibilities and possibilities are just immense. I am sure all speakers in the House find this.

Unlike some provincial and territorial legislatures, the House sits five days a week, most nights until 6.30 p.m. Tonight we are sitting until maybe 11 p.m. We have a long sitting until June 22. That is a lot of sitting time and just one function of members of the House.

As well, there are committee meetings for detailed discussions on bills, research and comments. If there is a lot of research, we have binders full of material. Input from people giving evidence before committees has to be reviewed. If we are doing a good job, we comprehensively study the bill to make sure it is an excellent bill. That takes a lot of time.

Just because those two items coincide in time, I find it very frustrating. We have to take time away from one or the other, either sitting in the House to try to understand the debate on all legislation or narrowing the time down to our committees. Already, without adding frivolous motions, we have limited time for our functions.

There are various caucus meetings on specific areas which I find very productive. For instance, I have been attending a children's caucus, foreign affairs caucuses and regional caucuses in different parts of the country. It is a very productive to get into some detail in areas we would not be able to otherwise. However, once again it has been very productive for me in moving forward things that my constituents are interested in. On the other hand, it is a third time constraint.

The next item is all the e-mails we get, either in our constituency offices or in our Ottawa offices. I am sure all members of parliament try to do their best to respond them and be sensitive to their constituents.

In the same manner we have written submissions. Sometimes the written submissions, at least the ones I get, have huge backgrounds of documentation which I take on the plane with me to try to get through them all. I still have not got through them. There is a vast quantity of material.

Then there are individual groups that are experts in their areas. We try to respect that. These groups can bring a tremendous amount of research material to us. In Yukon we have the mining association, the Yukon Tourism Association, the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Klondike Placer Miners Association, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Yukon Grants, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce, the Skookum Jim Friendship Centre and the Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre. There are all sorts of groups that have detailed perspective they can bring to us on issues that we have to also add to our workload.

I cannot believe I am the only one who feels that way. All members of the House must be slightly depressed at the amount of work they have to do and the time in which they have to do it.

Members will understand that being new, I do not always know how to prioritize. Some nights I am in this building until three in the morning. Members can rest assured that I would be very angry if I was here because I was voting on 3,000 frivolous amendments to something. Members of all parties have enough other things they could do with that time.

I hope that would be the intent of the motion and would be the result of its passing. I cannot believe that members on the other side would not feel the same way too, that they would like more time to do the things their constituents and the groups in their ridings ask them to do and to review more of the legislation. Obviously none of us can review all the legislation that comes before us in detail because of all our other duties. If we could free up some of the time from sitting here voting on frivolous amendments, I think all of us would be happy.

The bill does not give any more control to the government side, whichever it happens to be in a given year. It does give control to the respected institution of the Speaker to eliminate frivolous amendments and motions. I do not think there are many who could argue with that.

On a number of occasions opposition members have talked about different suggested improvements, as recently as the speaker before me. I cannot imagine not getting their support because the motion is in line with the type of intentions they are trying to promote.

There is a tremendous cost to operating parliament. Of course it is not only for the 301 members but for the whole parliamentary support that goes with it. Does anyone really think about the cost of that to Canadian taxpayers and the cost of taking our time away from serious debate?

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the chance to speak on the motion which seeks to reaffirm the traditional power of the Speaker to select motions for debate and reject those which are repetitive, frivolous and designed solely to delay report stage proceedings.

This is a particular honour for me since it touches on issues at the very heart of Canadian democracy, namely the dignity of parliamentary debate.

Canadians believe in the country. They are committed to its values of fairness and compassion. They are dedicated to safeguarding those freedoms which are our birthright. It is because of this that they hold institutions such as the debating procedures in parliament in great esteem. They see them as living symbols of the values and freedoms we hold so dear.

Recognizing this, members of the House have traditionally sought to improve the debating procedure of the parliament in order to increase the dignity of the institution in the eyes of Canadians. That is, for instance, why we are involved in so many parliamentary co-operative institutions around the world to see how it is done in other places and how we might improve what we do.

Unfortunately, we have not always proved equal to the challenge. In recent years some believe there have been early and worrying signs that some Canadians do not always hold the institution of parliament in the high esteem they once did.

While some of this may be just a result of general suspicion in all institutions, some responsibility for this disillusionment may lie closer to home with us in the House. For example—

[Air Canada, February 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring from a constituent a non-partisan issue that every member in the House should find very distressing.

Air Canada has just increased the change fee for transborder fares from $100 to $145, a 45% increase. It appears that on March 1 it will burden all Canadians with this increase by also applying it to domestic fares. This is unacceptable.

To stabilize our economy, this nation has inflation targets of less than 3%. This quasi-monopoly has the nerve to impose a 45% increase in the fee. Quarante-cinq pour cent, c'est incroyable.

Canadians are turning increasingly to the competition because of such audacity. Canadians do not want it, businesses do not want it, Yukoners do not want it and I do not believe the constituents of any member here want an Air Canada increase.

I urge all members to stand up and be counted and say to Air Canada that enough is enough.

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, February 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, who owns more than 18% in Petro-Canada?

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, February 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the last intervention was quite thoughtful. I will comment on the ownership later.

The previous speaker, my colleague from the NDP, was a little off topic when he was talked about things in NAFTA only going to the elite. That precludes all the workers who have got thousands upon thousands of jobs because of NAFTA. They are not elite, they are every day working people. It also precludes the lowering of prices because those poor people do not have to pay tariffs that they artificially had to pay before the agreement. I find it difficult that the NDP would call those poor people and the workers who have benefited from that elite.

He also said that he would like to hear this side of the House just say once that demand management is good. I will say that I think demand management is good. In fact, if he would like to be positive on this point, perhaps he should consider making an enumeration of the hundreds of initiatives of provincial and federal governments that are helping save energy across this country. They have for decades.

Both he and the previous speaker were back on the topic of the energy program, which has been mentioned numerous times. They talked about some examples where it may not have gone to the most appropriate person. This is getting a bit tedious. We got the message. I do not think there has been any program in history dealing with millions of people that has always been right. The bottom line is millions of poor people benefited from that program, which is good. In fact, the argument by the member from the Bloc got so circuitous at one point when he complained about children having money to buy clothes.

He also said there should be a more in-depth discussion on globalization. He was referring to poverty again, which is great, admirable and a good topic to discuss. However, maybe he missed my remarks yesterday when I talked about the in-depth analysis which showed that globalization reduces the tariff barriers and the customs that poor people would have to pay. It reduces the control of companies that are hiding behind tariff barriers. It opens up markets for those poor and undeveloped countries. Poorer people can now market their goods more easily because they do not have to cross a huge tariff barrier.

My last comment is related to the point about the ownership of Petro-Canada, which has been raised by most of the Alliance members. We live in a free market economy in the western world. We believe basically that the market in appropriate circumstances should work freely and bring lower prices. Therefore, we can all have those lower prices. However, the market does not always work perfectly by itself. There are times when there needs to be government intervention.

I personally believe that the effort of this bill to maintain Petro-Canada's 18% in government control is a good safeguard in the event that we need to be involved in this industry when it is in a oligopoly position. When there are only a few large companies involved, it is good to have a player from the government to keep track of what is going on and to be on the ground in the day to day involvement of pricing and operations. That way we get a true picture of the on the ground situation.

That would help the concerns of every member in the House with things like prices of energy, which we are all concerned about. A closer attachment to the operation of what is going on, such as the partial control of Petro-Canada, would be a benefit to us all.

[Organized Crime, February 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Montreal four individuals were convicted under Canada's anti-gang law. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice inform the House of the government's commitment to the fight against organized crime?