Leon Benoit

[Canadian Forces, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer conflicts with a recent study which said that in fact Canada's military is now 4,000 short, but it will be a startling 17,000 members short by the end of 2002 if the current trend continues.

The minister will go down in history as the man responsible for killing Canada's military through funding cuts, through delayed equipment replacement, and now through a critical shortage of personnel. Is the reason for this critical loss in personnel the weakness of the minister, or is it a deliberate plan on the part of the government to destroy Canada's military?

[Canadian Forces, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were elected in 1993 the Canadian forces consisted of 90,000 members. An internal document states that the military now faces a significant shortfall below the government commitment of 60,000 and still dropping.

Will the minister tell the House today, first, how many members there are in the Canadian forces on the active list? Second, what will Canada's military needs be in terms of personnel over the next five years?

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has in a very effective way presented the parts of the puzzle to solving this agriculture problem by reducing high taxes, unfair user fees, changing regulations that will make the grain transportation system less expensive and getting our product to market more reliably which will increase price.

He also talked about the problem with subsidies. He mentioned subsidies in a broad scope, but the subsidies that drive Canadian farmer prices down most are export subsidies. That is money spent to put a product into the market at a reduced rate. That is what hurts farmers more than anything. We are talking about compensation for that harm. Could the member comment on that?

[Species At Risk Act, March 16th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is extremely important for me to speak today on this piece of legislation. It is certainly important to people in my constituency: farmers, ranchers, people in the oil and gas business, people who have cottages at lakes and even those living in towns who may run into serious problems in the ownership and use of their property through this legislation.

I owe it to those people, who supported me so well in the past election, to speak on their behalf.

I do not believe there is any party in the House that does not take seriously the issue of protecting species at risk, although I wonder why it has taken the government seven years to finally bring in the legislation. Of course, it has not passed yet and, I would suggest, should not pass without some serious amendments. However, we will work on that by offering some of our suggestions, which is what I am here to do today.

Speaking quite openly and honestly, I think every member in the House wants to protect species at risk and endangered species. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Bill C-5, the legislation presented by the government, will in fact do that.

I will approach the issue from two points of view and deal with two key parts of the legislation which would determine whether, as it is, it would protect even one species at risk or endangered species. I suggest that it will not. I will use evidence from other countries to back that up. However, I will not leave it at that. I will also offer a positive approach to fixing the bill so that it will work.

The first point I want to make concerns the issue of fair market value compensation. The second point concerns using a co-operative approach to saving species rather than a heavy-handed approach. As I go through those two points it will certainly show that the legislation can be changed to make it work.

I just want to read what the Canadian Alliance has to say about species at risk, endangered species and the environment generally. It is just a short statement. The Canadian Alliance says:

We are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species, and to sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations.

Is that not what the endangered species legislation is supposed to be about?

The Canadian Alliance maintains that for any endangered species legislation to be effective it must respect the fundamental rights of private property owners.

That is the issue I will deal with first. I will approach it not only from the point of view that the legislation tramples on private property ownership rights but also that taking that approach will cause the legislation to fail. I believe it will cause it to fail to save even one species. I will use evidence to indicate that.

We are asking that if a piece of property, be it farmland, a cottage at the lake or a piece of commercial property being developed, is taken from someone in the name of protecting a species at risk, which in some cases makes sense and must be done, then compensation should be made at fair market value.

What principle could possibly lead the government to suggest that compensation be anything less than fair market value? It seems to me that most Canadians respect that as a value on which to base legislation.

If the use of property, be it a cottage at the lake or farmland, is curtailed in some way in the name of saving a habitat or a species at risk, then let it happen within reason. Let us ensure that compensation for the loss of the use of that property is at fair market value.

If the government would change the legislation and put in it clearly that compensation would be at fair market value, it would have gone a long way to making the legislation work.

I will look practically at a couple of things that are likely to happen and that have happened in other countries where legislation has not offered fair market value compensation. I would like everyone to think of a farmer, for example, who has a piece of property where a habitat for a species at risk is found. The farmer loses part of the property or the use of part of it without fair compensation.

If farmers or ranchers know that if a species at risk is found on their property they will lose the property or the use or benefit of it without fair market value compensation, what are they likely to do? I suggest they would do everything they could to ensure the species or habitat was never found. Does a piece of legislation that would lead to this type of action sound productive? I suggest it is not. That is why it must be changed.

The legislation must be amended to have a guarantee of fair market value compensation. A farmer, rancher or someone who owns a cottage at the lake will respect and protect species if they know the legislation ensures compensation at fair market value. That is a fundamental issue which is key to making the legislation work.

If the government continues to push the legislation through without making that amendment, then it will fail. We can point to examples in the United States. A lot of Americans and Canadians are shocked that this government has tailored its legislation to the American endangered species legislation.

I will use a couple of quotes. The first is about the American endangered species act. It is by Bruce Vincent, president of Alliance for America, and he cares about protecting endangered species. He said:

We've watched in horror as Canada tries to replicate the mistakes we've made down here.

That is from an American on his shock that Canada is using as a model American legislation which has failed miserably.

The next quote is from the U.S. National Wilderness Institute. It said:

Though unmeasured, the costs of implementing the Act as currently written are in the multi-billions, yet in over twenty years not a single endangered species has legitimately been recovered and delisted as a result of the Endangered Species Act.

That quote is from the U.S. National Wilderness Institute. It cares about protecting wilderness and species.

Clearly, they understand that the American legislation will not work. They also understand that the Canadian legislation, which is modelled after the American legislation, simply will not work.

What I am doing today is offering suggestions that would change the legislation to make it work. That is the bottom line and it is what all of us want here. We want legislation which will work to protect endangered species. These changes will help that.

Let us start by ensuring in legislation fair market value compensation for property loss or for property where the benefit is lost. That is the first fundamental principle that is not respected in the legislation and which must be respected.

Second, a far more effective type of species at risk legislation would be one that used a co-operative approach rather than the heavy-handed approach the government has used.

I will refer to a few examples from around the world where co-operative approaches have worked. In western Canada, we have Operation Burrowing Owl, a voluntary operation that does not take a heavy-handed approach. Ranchers and farmers across Saskatchewan and parts of Alberta have voluntarily and willingly participated in the operation because they care about the environment and about protecting endangered species.

About 500 farmers have agreed to have their land kept in a state that will protect the habitat of the burrowing owl. That is a co-operative way of ensuring we save species at risk. It works. This legislation will not work.

A second example is the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Whether these species are at risk or not, the principle works the same. It is a co-operative way where people across North America have protected habitat or waterfowl using the voluntary approach. It is extremely effective.

Ducks Unlimited has proven that its program works and works well. I have not heard much complaining from farmers who have been asked to take part. They willingly take part. There is compensation involved. It works because it is co-operative and because they care about species at risk.

Putting in place a piece of legislation that encourages and allows a voluntary approach will cause species to be saved, which is the bottom line.

One more category of voluntary approach that works involves private ownership of property. Private groups and individuals have taken initiatives, that are allowed under their legislation, that have really worked. The first is in limited areas of Alabama and Florida where private groups and individuals can create their own reefs. Because it is a private thing, guess what? It really does protect and develop the reef habitat, and it has been extremely effective.

There are lists of examples of voluntary approaches from almost every continent. I do not know of any from Antarctica but I know of them from every other continent, and they work.

In 1980, land was purchased by a privately owned nature conservancy in California to form the Kern River Preserve. This preserve harbours one of the rarest ecosystems: a riparian habitat with a number of rare wildlife species dependent on riparian forests. The managers of the preserve have worked to develop the trust of neighbouring landowners. They do not enforce or use the heavy hand of the law. They do not say that they will take away property without fair market value compensation. They have worked to gain the trust of neighbouring landowners to make the project work and it has worked. Species have been saved.

In spite of this fact, in spite of this evidence and in spite of the government knowing this evidence, has it altered this legislation to include these two important issues?

The first issue deals with compensation of fair market value, not just some broad statement that there may be compensation at some level. That is no comfort to someone who may have their property taken away or the use of it denied.

The second issue is the use of a co-operative approach without the heavy hand of the law hanging over them. I would suggest that if the government were to focus this legislation more on these two areas it would work.

Evidence from other countries around the world shows that this type of legislation will not work. In the name of protecting species at risk, I ask the government to amend the legislation to include the two important points I brought up today.

I am proud and happy to speak on behalf of my constituents and other people right across Canada whom I have heard from over the past five years, since I have been dealing with government legislation to protect endangered species. I am proud to stand on their behalf to propose these changes which will lead to the protection of endangered species and species at risk right across Canada.

[Agriculture, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the answer quite frankly sounds quite a bit like a continuation of the propaganda ads. Farmers are not suffering from a lack of Liberal rhetoric; they are suffering from a lack of government action.

Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explain why he thinks it is more important for him to spend money on his faltering image than it is to spend money on protecting farmers and saving the family farm?

[Agriculture, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister has responded in a cold and callous way to farmer rallies by placing ads in big city newspapers saying that he is right and farmers are wrong.

All farmers are asking for is compensation for their prices being driven down by unfair trade in other countries. This minister responds by putting propaganda ads in the city sections of big city newspapers.

Why is this minister more concerned with protecting his own image than with protecting the family farm?

[Species At Risk Act, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's presentation and he made a couple of key points. I wonder if he could comment on the area of compensation, which I think he explained very well.

I will comment by saying that at committee, when asked directly whether he would compensate and whether the legislation would ensure that loss of property or loss of the use of property would be compensated at full market value, the environment minister would not say that would be the case.

I think what my colleague said is absolutely accurate. We can fully expect that the legislation will not compensate at fair market value people who lose their property or the use of their property. Surely in a society that believes in people's right to own property we would expect that compensation would be paid at fair market value.

On that issue I would ask my colleague if, under the study that was done, there is no compensation if the loss is less than 10%. I know of many cases in agriculture and probably in forestry where there is not a margin of 10%. I know of many cases where, if the damage and the loss is above 10%, only 50% of the loss is compensated.

Is my colleague really saying that under the study that was done, and the government has not said it would do anything different, it is likely that if people lose their property or the use of their property they would be compensated for only half the loss? I know as a farmer that half the loss on any significant amount of property could cause me or other farmers to go out of business. I would like the member to comment on that.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that kind of comment demonstrates that Liberal backbenchers are willing to be like puppets. They get the information from the minister and are willing to go ahead and spew those figures.

They know that they are not comparing apples to apples. They know that what is priced out there is not the same as was priced out when the Conservatives made the deal before the 1993 election. They know that it is being dishonest to present these numbers in the way they are being presented.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolutely legitimate concern that the government is on a spending spree. The problem is that its priorities are all wrong.

The bit of extra money it will put into the military this year does not even bring it back to the level of spending when we came here in 1993. In spite of the fact that the salaries have gone up, all those costs have gone up and it is still not back to level of 1993. There is no commitment to the military. The commitment is to putting more money into the human resources department so that the minister could use it to gain political benefit. That is the problem.

That is where the extra spending has gone, to that kind of thing. That is the kind of program that is improper. It demonstrates that the government does not have a clue about setting priorities. The military, which protect the country and its citizens, should be a top priority of the federal government. Yet the commitment is not there. The minister stood last week at a conference and said that things were better than they were 10 years ago. Anybody who has a clue about reality knows that is absolutely ridiculous.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this supply day motion, and I commend the member of the Conservative Party for bringing the motion forward.

This is an extremely important issue and I am quite stunned listening to the parliamentary secretary to the minister. He makes it sound like everything is just great in the military. He indicated that the equipment is top notch, that things are going in the right direction and that everything is fine. I will talk a little about that toward the end of my presentation because the defence minister said the same thing at the defence suppliers' conference.

I will talk about how the attitude that everything is okay really does not bode well for the replacement of the helicopters or for the military generally. That kind of attitude in the minds of and coming from the lips of the minister and the parliamentary secretary certainly causes me great concern.

The motion is about having a fair and open process for replacing the Sea Kings. I do not think anyone would argue that the Sea Kings are in need of replacement. However, this motion may turn out to be entirely irrelevant.

I heard a rumour this morning that the government already has a plan in place to deal with the Sea King problem. The plan is to put ejection seats in the helicopters. God knows, we cannot afford to lose as many pilots as we are losing helicopters as these helicopters drop from the sky.

The government plan, and this is just a rumour, is to put ejection seats in the helicopters and apparently the contractor can put in an inflatable life raft. The pilot will need to blow it up when he is in the water, but there will be a life raft attached to the seat and everything will be fine. No one have not quite figured out how to deal with the roof of the helicopter coming off and some other little details, but the government does have a plan in place for dealing with the Sea King problem. I say this tongue in cheek. It is obviously meant to be humorous but it is not really funny.

My nephew flew a Sea King out of Halifax for about five years. He did not seem too concerned about it when he was single and before he had a child. He knew the Sea Kings had problems on a regular basis and that they were ditched quite often. He knew they flew in some of the most difficult conditions on the face of the earth.

My nephew is a young fellow. He already had a commercial licence when he went into the military. He wanted to fly an F-18 but unfortunately the government cut back that program just as he enlisted, so he went with the Sea Kings. He was committed to the military. He wanted to do his job and do it well, and he did. For the length of his contract he flew the Sea Kings.

His attitude, I sensed, changed when his first child was born. As parents we often think about life a little differently when we have the extra responsibility of a child. I sensed at the time he had the child that he was not happy at all to be flying those old Sea King helicopters. He knew the risk to him was greater than necessary. He was willing to take a risk. I never sensed that he was ever ready to back off on a risk, but he knew the risk was greater than could be reasonably expected.

For that reason, when it came time to renew the contract he did not want to fly the Sea Kings any more. He wanted to get back into the F-18 program. They had been losing pilots. He was trained on a twin engine machine the same as the F-18s. There were a lot of similarities, which might sound a little surprising. He told the government he wanted an assurance that he would go back into the F-18 program if he was to renew his contract. He could not get that assurance. A trained pilot with years of experience was lost because the government has no serious commitment to the military.

I will talk about the minister's attitude and what he said recently at the conference. However, with that kind of attitude in place, I do not see an awful lot of hope for the future of the Canadian military as long as this minister and this government are in charge. I am very concerned about that.

The Sea King replacement program is not new. The Sea Kings are from 1964. They are almost 40 years old. My nephew, when he started flying them, was under 25 years of age. He was so much older than the Sea Kings that it is not even fair to compare their ages. It would make him sound like an old man.

Replacing the Sea King was first talked about and seriously considered in the 1970s. Here we are in 2001 and there is still no real commitment to replacing them. I do not think the commitment is there.

Both the Sea King and the Labrador search and rescue helicopters, which are flown by the air force today, were slated for replacement with the EH-101.

Members of the Conservative Party and the governing party have been back and forth on the issue for some time, each saying their program is less expensive than the other. In reality, the program which was put forth by the Conservative government, when we compare apples to apples and equipment to equipment and do a fair comparison, was a much better deal than the deal the Liberals are considering now.

The $500 million cancellation cost is lost. The cost of replacing the helicopters is greater when we compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. When buying military equipment a bare bones helicopter is probably less than half the cost. The equipment put into it is the greatest cost. That is what we must look at when we compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

The points have been made by members of the Conservative Party and countered, completely inaccurately, by members of the governing party. The issue has been dealt with. What I will talk a little more about is the government's general lack of commitment to the military.

What we heard last week at the conference of defence associations was startling. The defence minister and the chief of defence staff both proclaimed that the Canadian forces, with fewer than 60,000 soldiers, was in better shape than at the end of the cold war when it had 80,000 men and women in uniform.

The minister responsible for the Canadian military stood at the conference and said that things were in great shape, the military was better than it was 10 years ago and that we were doing a great job. Someone without a clue about the military might think that was great because it is better than it was 10 years ago.

Unfortunately for the minister, the very next speaker was, who? The very next speaker was Major-General MacKenzie, a well respected man in the Canadian military and a respected analyst of the Canadian military. He stood right after the minister and said that the army could not fight and that the uniformed leadership should have a right to say so. He made it clear that we have terrific men and women serving in the military. The problem is the lack of commitment on the part of the government to replace equipment, such as the Sea Kings. The problem is the lack of proper training and the lack of money for the military. The little bit of money added to the spending today will not solve the problem.

Right after the minister stood up and said that everything was okay, we had Major-General Mackenzie saying that things were an absolute mess. When he asked for a show of hands from anyone at the conference of defence associations who honestly believed the military was in as good shape as it was 10 years ago, not one hand went up.

Anyone who knows anything about the military knows that if a defence minister stands at a conference like that and says that things are great and that they are better than they were 10 years ago, the minister either does not know what is going on or he does not care. It is one or the other.

When we have a minister who thinks like that and says things like that, what hope is there for getting an acceptable replacement for the Sea King? What hope is there for getting acceptable equipment in any area? What hope is there of getting proper uniforms for our men and women?

When I was deputy defence critic three years ago we were debating soldiers' uniforms and basic things like personal kits, and the debate had already been going on for a couple of years. Today we send men and women on overseas missions without proper, basic equipment like uniforms. What kind of commitment is that to our military? It is disgusting.

I know that my time is up and that my colleague for Edmonton Centre-East will be sharing the time.