Peter Goldring

[Grants and Contributions, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday in Washington the minister gave me a box of 200 pages of information which he said was the missing $550,000 report from his department. The information I received was not a half a million dollar report. It was a collection of disconnected photocopies, mostly from the other report.

It is shameful that the minister would accept this as the $550,000 report. No one believes that the copies the minister gave me was the report at all.

Will the minister admit today that the second report was never written and will he ask for a refund?

[Ten Cent Coin, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Motion No. 385 made by the hon. member for South Shore.

The hon. member seeks the support of the House to collectively express its opinion that the Royal Canadian Mint should restore the schooner Bluenose to the Canadian ten cent coin immediately as an uninterrupted commemoration of our seafaring and fisheries heritage. A modification has been made to the original motion. It is now asking for more permanency.

The motion is a particularly appropriate one for the hon. member given that his riding includes Lunenburg, home to both the Bluenose and the Bluenose II .

Many Canadians may not realize the Bluenose was for a short period of time no longer on our ten cent coin. For as long as I can remember the ten cent coin, the dime, has had on its reverse side an image of the magnificent tall ship. The dime was introduced in 1937. The Bluenose has remained on the coin almost continually since that time save for a short period in 2001 when the Royal Canadian Mint decided to eliminate the Bluenose to commemorate the International Year of Volunteers with an image of three women intended to represent marching mothers. It goes without saying that the image on our ten cent coin of women volunteers is hardly more representative of our country than was the symbol of the Bluenose .

Many Canadian families have been associated with the majesty of ships and the marvels of ship travel, having travelled by ship to immigrate to Canada since well before Confederation. My family's ancestors arrived by ship to Upper Canada in the 1830s before Confederation, having come from England.

In the early 1920s my great uncle Richard Goldring sailed a commercial schooner aptly named the Maple Leaf out of Port Whitby. In Whitby where I grew up a street is named in his honour. I have spent many days filled with fond memories at Whitby's harbourfront. Many across Canada share my fondness for the ships that ply the world's waterways, particularly those of Canadian registry. The Bluenose personifies the essence of Canada's seafaring excellence.

Canada's history is intimately connected to ships. When the original Bluenose ran aground in 1946 an exact replica, the Bluenose II , was constructed and launched in 1963. It was built from the same plans, at the same Lunenburg shipyard and by some of the same persons who constructed the original Bluenose .

After its Lunenburg launch in 1921 the original Bluenose enjoyed a reputation of consistent and undefeated glory in the International Fisherman's Trophy race. It won every International Fisherman's Trophy between 1921 and 1938 except for the 1928 race which was declared no contest. The race became such a rivalry that the Gloucester fishermen and their financial patrons built and launched several ships, all with the objective of defeating the Bluenose and all without success. In addition to its racing prize money the Bluenose earned its keep by being a superb fishing schooner.

At the outbreak of World War II the Canadian government unfortunately showed little interest in saving the Bluenose from the financial stresses the Great Depression had caused its owners. A suggestion that the Canadian government take over the Bluenose was ignored. In 1942 it was sold to a West Indies trading company. A humbled Bluenose was consigned to carry freight between the islands of the West Indies. In 1946 a tired Bluenose struck a reef off the coast of Haiti and went to a watery grave.

I believe I speak for all Canadians when I say I am deeply offended to have seen the Bluenose dime altered in the way it has been altered. Like the hon. member for South Shore I want to ensure it does not happen again. It is time to consider how important symbols are to our sense of ourselves as a nation and ensure they are respected, promoted and viewed throughout Canada.

Not only the Bluenose dime is of concern. Many Canadian symbols merit similar commemoration on our coinage and similar protection from politically correct altering agendas.

For example, similar to the lack of historical appreciation and understanding shown by those who want to remove the Bluenose from our coinage, Senator Vivienne Poy wants to personally undo the progress of history by selectively finding fault in today's O Canada lyrics where it says “In all thy son's command”. Rather than reinforcing the correct definition of a son, which is a defined as a person for which the famous five so aptly pointed out also includes all females, she has chosen to ignore Canada's history, its legislators and our dictionaries in a misguided zeal.

The son, as in the son of America, is used for both males and females. By meddling with the anthem and wanting to use the wording of an earlier 1908 version, Senator Poy opens the anthem to many more changes that even she may not appreciate. Specifically, the modern government approved version has the line, which was not in the 1908 version, “God keep our land glorious and free”. Is the senator's intention to remove this reference to God from our national anthem too?

The point is that the national anthem was debated and approved by learned people at great national expense in 1968. Senator Poy wants to change the words to suit a very limited edition, non-specific dictionary in an effort to put political correctness before linguistic accuracy.

Canada's crown corporations must be brought under similar protection from liberalists to protect both song and coin. There must be some Canadian absolutes in our national song and our national currency.

First, the monarch's representation must be on all coins and paper currency. This is essential to remind us of our royal beginnings that affect our presence and guide our governing in the future.

Second, symbolic national representatives must be consistent with their national importance. To suggest that female volunteers, while important, are comparable to the wind, sail and seafaring commerce and immigration suggested by the Bluenose is very narrow, politically correct thinking. Supplanting Canadian maritime commercial enterprise and distinct seafaring, world leading culture with domestic volunteering is an odd way to promote a country to encourage a ravaged shipbuilding industry.

Coins that aptly represent Canadians include not only the Bluenose dime but also the beaver on the nickle and the caribou on the quarter. Each has its importance to our heritage as well as the maple leaf on our lowly penny.

I support the member for South Shore and his concerns to retain historical images on our coinage and paper currency. The dime should specifically be reserved to depict the Bluenose on the reverse as well as the Queen's image on the front. These are important symbols for our heritage and indications of our past. I also support the member for South Shore in his insistence that representation be retained on the dime. However we must be very careful to ensure that representation of our historical past be maintained on other forms of currency as well.

[Grants and Contributions, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister is confusing documents with the report. Any way we look at it, Canada's taxpayers have been stiffed by the Liberal government through either a fraudulent act or gross incompetence: fraud, if the invisible report was never produced; gross incompetence, if the invisible report was lost.

Could the minister tell the House which it is? Are the Liberals concealing gross incompetence or are they concealing fraud?

[Grants and Contributions, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a report ordered by the Liberals on government visibility is itself invisible. This invisible report on government visibility cost taxpayers $550,000. The $550,000 cheque to Groupaction was very visible. Groupaction's cheque of $70,000 to the Liberal Party was very visible.

Will the minister rise and confirm to the House that the invisible report never was, that there never was a report?

[Canadian Police Association, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, each year the Canadian Police Association brings its concerns to Parliament Hill to be heard by all members of parliament. This valuable opportunity allows elected officials to share ideas and information with those who are on the front lines protecting our families and homes.

This year it asked for our support to protect police officers and victims, to close club fed prisons, for greater protection for children and for increased police funding.

Seven hundred million dollars was wasted registering duck hunters and shotguns while police officers need funding. The official opposition stands with them on these issues.

On behalf of all Canadians I acknowledge those noble custodians of law, order and public peace, some who have paid the supreme price with their lives in serving the citizens of Canada. More than ever their motto “To serve and protect” accurately describes their daily duty.

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the difficulty most people would have in recognizing an endangered species or its habitat in a wildlife area. Many people in Canada would have great difficulty recognizing or enumerating any of our endangered species, particularly with a bill that is punitive for those who do not recognize them. This is one of the difficulties with this legislation. What happens to tourists and campers who explore Canada? The burden of proof is too high for innocent Canadians.

We must protect endangered species. It is a critical goal and a responsibility this side of the House takes very seriously. People want to co-operate but this entrapment approach by the government is adversarial and does nothing to encourage co-operation. Without co-operation we simply cannot move ahead.

The minister must be more reasonable and realistic in exercising his discretion. It would be almost impossible for companies that deal with mineral or oil and gas exploration to demonstrate due diligence over operations covering hundreds of thousands or even millions of hectares when they do not even control all of the external factors involved. What would happen if the practices approved today were deemed fatal to species later? Who would take the fall?

There are 70 million hectares of agricultural land and 25 million hectares of privately owned forest lands in Canada. How would farmers and operators exercise due diligence over these areas, especially when many are small operations with very limited resources and no familiarity with endangered species regulations? Who will provide education for the yet to be determined caretakers of these species?

The government knows this is a problem. In response to a question from the official opposition, the minister said that it is a legitimate matter for concern. He said that the accidental and unwitting destruction is a concern and that the government wants to give the maximum protection possible to the legitimate and honest person who unwittingly makes a mistake. If it is such a concern, why is the government not doing anything about it? The bill would make such an honest person a criminal. Some protection.

This bill reminds me of the gun registration legislation, Bill C-68. In fact, this endangered species legislation is part of a disgraceful pattern in the government's handling of rural issues. Its cruelty to animals legislation makes farmers worry about the continuing standard animal husbandry practices. Its heavy-handed approach to registering long guns utterly fails to consider everyday living and farming practices in rural and northern Canada.

The Kyoto accord will potentially add heavy costs to agricultural producers across Canada. The premiers are united against this type of government shortsightedness. Now the endangered species legislation threatens to criminalize farmers and property owners, the very people who are in the best position to help our endangered species.

The official opposition's amendments would restore the balance by requiring that the crown prove some measure of intent before someone could be convicted. Did the farmer willingly harm an endangered species? Did the farmer wilfully harm the species and do so with intent?

All of these amendments would go some way to ensure that innocent people would not inadvertently commit a criminal offence. It would be a better start than the one the government is offering in the bill before us.

At a minimum the federal government must work with the provinces to provide training for landowners and users who would be required to meet the due diligence standard but do not have the knowledge or information to identify listed species or their critical habitat and residences. If the government does not provide the proper and realistic education on endangered species, we can only hope that the courts will act as a check and balance for our protection.

Is it realistic for everyone in an area to know everything about an endangered species? If it is not, the courts will likely rule most convictions out of order. Then we are back to square one.

Canadians want to protect endangered species. Everyone wants to do that but it will not come willingly under the heavy-handed approach outlined in the bill.

Canadian Alliance Motion No. 80 also covers the critical need to have criminal intent outlined in the legislation. Canadians deserve to be innocent until proven guilty.

Canadian Alliance Motion No. 94 deals with important provincial jurisdictional issues. The preservation of endangered species is a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments. Just over five years ago, in 1996, the federal and provincial ministers agreed to a national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada.

Sadly though in this legislation the minister unilaterally assumes discretion to apply the new species at risk accord to provincial lands, a giant step backward in federal and provincial relations. To confuse matters more does not happen automatically. Instead, it is completely up to the minister to determine whether the laws of a province are adequate. If he decides they are not, he can invoke using his heavy-handedness to apply the federal law in the province. Is it only me who sees a political showdown coming?

This completely undermines the principles of co-operation which were developed in the 1996 accord. Co-operation under my rules only, trust me politics in this House have shown that co-operation must be a shared responsibility where both sides are happy with the results. Dictated co-operation does not work.

Because it is completely at the minister's discretion, it leads to an uncertainty and confusion for provinces and, more important, for land resource owners. How does the minister feel about the provincial laws of today? What side of the bed did he wake up on? The provinces will try in good faith to arrange their affairs to comply with the law but they have no idea what the law will be if the federal government can step in at any time.

Lawsuits and appeals in the supreme court will undoubtedly choke the courts for generations to come and the species that we are trying to protect will disappear in the meantime. It will undermine collective efforts to protect species and show to the world that Canada is not serious in its commitments to co-operate in meeting this important goal.

This is like the approach of the former minister of health to health care co-operation. We must do better on this issue.

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation.

This legislation, perhaps more than any other, will be encroaching on the jurisdiction of the provinces. The political history of Canada has shown that this is dangerous territory and should not be taken lightly at all. In short, when it comes to jurisdiction the bill extends itself into provincial jurisdiction. This is unacceptable and should be done only with the consent of the provinces.

When it comes to criminal intent, the bill puts the burden of proof on the accused and not on the prosecution, meaning anyone who inadvertently destroys a species at risk or its critical habitat is guilty until proven innocent. Both of these are unacceptable positions for the government to take. A few of the motions put forward by the official opposition explain why. Motion No. 39 and Motion No. 44 are necessary amendments that would require that to be found guilty of a criminal offence a person must knowingly do harm to an endangered species.

Bill C-5 would make it a criminal act to kill, harm or harass any one of hundreds of endangered species or to interfere with their critical habitat. The fines are definitely a deterrent: up to $1 million for a corporation and $250,000 for an individual. The proposed act provides for imprisonment of up to five years for an indictable offence. It is possible that a person could inadvertently commit such an offence without knowing it. The bill would not require intent or even reckless behaviour as a condition for charge. Shockingly, it places the burden of proof on the individual to prove that he or she was exercising due diligence should harm come to an endangered species.

There is a great deal of expertise and knowledge to assume on behalf of all Canadians. In this way the bill ignores one of the fundamental tenets of our legal history, that criminal penalties are only given for offences committed with a criminal intent.

In the past we have said that it is not fair to convict someone of a serious criminal offence when he or she might have done so without intent or without knowledge. In order to protect ourselves from breaking this law, we would need to become experts at recognizing various species, such as the sage grouse, the burrowing owl or aurora trout. We would not only need to recognize them but we would need to recognize their critical habitat in case we were disturb a place where some of these animals spent part of their life cycle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the species at risk act and, most important, to the motion put forward by the Canadian Alliance. The motion asks:

That Bill C-5, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 2 with the following:

“landowners should be compensated for any financial or material losses to ensure that the costs of conserving species at risk are shared equitably by all Canadians,”

The rationale of the motion is that the bill's preamble currently says there are circumstances under which the cost of conserving species at risk should be shared. The amendment would replace the weak statement with a stronger affirmation containing two points: first, that since species conservation is of benefit to society broadly its costs should be shared broadly and not fall on one group; second, that landowners should be compensated for losses suffered as a result of implementing endangered species legislation.

A while earlier my colleague from Yellowhead mentioned a circumstance where a bald eagle attacked one of his neighbour's cows that was having a calf. Having lived on a farm as have many others in the House I know this is the reality on a farm. The farmer grows his herds by the newborns and it is absolutely imperative that they be allowed to grow and mature.

Who would be held liable if the farmer reacted to save his livestock? Would he be criminally liable for the act? I have another basic question. If the species at risk is a predator that was hitherto not in large numbers in the area, why should the farmer be financially responsible for the loss of his herd yet unable to defend his herd or livelihood? These are all questions that ultimately come down to the situation of compensation. Yes, compensation is the issue.

Bill C-5 includes the notion that the minister may pay compensation. It does not say shall. May means maybe yes, maybe no. The bill should say shall or will compensate. The bill says the government may pay compensation. That is a step in the right direction but it must be further defined. It is an improvement over the Liberals' earlier version of the endangered species bill, Bill C-65, but it is not good enough yet.

Under Bill C-5 compensation would be entirely at the minister's discretion. There is no requirement that it must be paid and no recognition that landowners and users have rights as well as responsibilities. At committee the Canadian Alliance won a large victory when it was agreed that compensation should be fair and reasonable. However the bill says compensation should only be for losses suffered as a result of extraordinary impact arising from the application of the act. What does extraordinary impact mean?

In a government commissioned study Dr. Peter Pearse, a University of British Columbia professor, suggested landowners should be compensated for up to 50% for losses of 10% or more of their income. Is this what the government intends? It should at least have the courage to say so if this is what it means.

Instead of coming clean the minister pleads that compensation is a complex issue and more time is needed to study it properly. No cost estimates for different compensation scenarios or discussions of how many people might be affected have been released. This contributes to great uncertainty and reinforces the perception that government environmental programs are brought forward with no planning or preparation.

The Canadian Alliance won another victory at committee when it was made mandatory for the government to develop regulations for compensation. On October 3 the minister told the standing committee he was proposing to develop general compensation regulations that would be ready soon after the legislation is proclaimed. He said it would be done as an interim measure until comprehensive guidelines could be developed.

In other words, the minister probably has the regulations drafted and sitting on his desk. Why does he not table them now so we can all judge whether his idea of compensation would be fair and reasonable for Canadians?

With regard to shared responsibility for common goals, the federal government has signed the United Nations convention on biological diversity and should therefore incorporate its principles into any legislation to conserve species and ecosystems. Article 20 (2) of the convention states:

The developed country Parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to enable developing country Parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs to them of implementing measures which fulfill the obligations of this Convention--

Clearly the United Nations convention recognizes that because the objective of maintaining bio and ecosystem diversity is so important costs must be equitably borne by everyone and not just developing countries. We expect the same principle to apply to Bill C-5. Protection of endangered species must be recognized as a common good.

The species at risk working group is composed of leading industry and environmental representatives. It wrote in September 2000:

SRWG 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.

There are lots of examples of compensation working in other jurisdictions. Brian O'Ferrall, a Calgary energy, environmental and expropriation lawyer, told the standing committee in May 2001:

--quite apart from expropriation, there are statutes which provide for compensation where land is not taken but where it is injuriously affected (depreciated in value) by either a public work or structure erected adjacent to the land.

In his opinion,

Providing for compensation should be mandatory, not discretionary. That is, the Minister should have to provide for compensation for the impacts, costs or losses which a landowner incurs as a result of the prohibition against destroying habitat. As the legislation is currently proposed, compensation is not even mandatory in cases where regulatory restrictions have had an extraordinary impact on the landowner's use of his land.

Adequate compensation is the incentive to cooperate. Absent adequate compensation, the landowner will have no reason to cooperate because then he is being asked to bear a disproportionate share of the cost of protecting endangered or threatened species.

Compensation to private landowners for regulatory restrictions which protect endangered species and preserve biological diversity is practised in jurisdictions around the world. From Tasmania to Switzerland, Scotland and the United Kingdom, compensation corresponds with the basic principles of the economic market. If the value of my property is diminished because of someone else's actions I expect to be compensated. This strengthens certainty and leads to greater confidence in the marketplace.

Having provisions for full compensation in legislation acts as a disciplinary device for governments. It restricts random regulations, makes governments more careful in planning and respects private property, the basis of our economic system. Compensation or full support is absolutely necessary to achieve full co-operation of landowners and healthy species populations.

I could go on and on but I see my time is coming to an end. I will close by saying I fully support the motion of our party.

[Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canada was begun by royalty. In 1763 at the Treaty of Paris the King of England, King of Spain and King of France ordered a new bicultural beginning for Canada. This royal decree had been nurtured and has grown to bring Canada to become the most multicultural nation on Earth.

Royalty has shaped our rich heritage, our present culture and will continue to guide our future, from the Royal Glenora Club of Edmonton, home to the Olympians of today, to the Princess Margaret hospital in Toronto.

The Royal Canadian Legion represents those who fought and died for country and crown. Princess Margaret was the Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.

A week ago we celebrated our monarch's Golden Jubilee, 50 years as Canada's Queen. Now we mourn the loss of her sister, Princess Margaret. The loss of Princess Margaret is felt by all Canadians.

[Contraventions Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to lessen the lifelong stigma of a criminal code conviction for minor possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use, but I have difficulty with the method of achieving this goal and with the resulting penalties which appear to be too weak. The arguments for the insulation of our inquisitive youth from a potentially career wrecking criminal record are both laudable and reasonable, however, I remain concerned that there must be significant penal consequences for possession of larger quantities of a hazardous substance.

My first concern relates to the varying and increasing potencies of cannabis resins and marijuana plants generally. Potencies have been increased through cross-germination and plant genetics and are unrecognizable from those of the hippie sixties. The potencies may well be increased manyfold in the future. An illicit drug that is not easily quantifiable as to potency is a hazardous substance that requires control with a very firm hand.

Today, three kilograms of cannabis resin or three kilograms of marijuana have enough potency to impair the residents of a small town, let alone one person striving for a personal recreational high. A person with three kilograms, or seven pounds, of marijuana is not an individual with a personal supply but is instead a bulk grocery store of drugs to be sold to members of our community, including children.

It is important to acknowledge a general consensus that simple possession of a small quantity of marijuana, medicinally prescribed and for medicinal purposes, should be legalized. The current debate on criminalization concerns possession for purely recreational purposes. I am not unfamiliar with the subject matter, particularly as I was a young person in Toronto during the sixties. As I recall, the price at that time was generally $10 per ounce, or a dime bag. Today an ounce might cost $50. Three kilograms or seven pounds of marijuana at $50 per ounce would retail for $5,000. Three kilograms of marijuana is the equivalent of 100 $50 dime bags, enough to seriously intoxicate up to 500 people.

Under the recently debated legislation in the House of Commons, Bill C-344, which has not yet become law, possession of three kilograms of marijuana would warrant no more than a $200 fine to the dealer. Such a penalty would amount to little more than an incidental business cost, more comparable to a traffic ticket than a drug trafficking penalty. A fine for a second offence would be no more $500 and for a third offence no more than $1,000. Again, these are little more than nuisance highway traffic tickets.

Some even believe that no jail time should ever be imposed when sentencing marijuana users or dealers. Before agreeing to such weak sanctions, I believe we should approach matters with a consistent hand and speak to the experts on the front lines, our police officers, and solicit a national consensus. In my opinion, there must still be restrictions and serious punishments associated with all marijuana offences, particularly for those who traffic in this potent mind altering drug. Removing marijuana charges under the criminal code for possession or trafficking in large quantities of the drug is not conducive to law, justice and good civil order. While alcohol induced impairment is readily detected by roadside breath analysis, the more dangerous marijuana induced impairment is not.

Grant Obst, a Saskatoon police officer and president of the Canadian Police Association, recently acknowledged that police across Canada are focusing more on marijuana traffickers than on users. However, the Canadian Police Association opposes general decriminalization of marijuana regardless of enforcement issues that arise in allocating very limited police resources. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the national Tory leader, the member for Calgary Centre, both call for looser pot laws. I say we should listen to the police who work on the front lines at street level. They say no.

Variability of potencies of marijuana is a matter of grave concern to the Canadian medical profession, which is now permitted to prescribe the drug for medicinal purposes. The Canadian Medical Protective Association, the primary liability insurer for doctors, is now warning doctors against prescribing marijuana. In the view of the association it is an unacceptable burden to require the doctors to prescribe marijuana unquantifiable as to potencies for medicinal purposes. While pharmaceuticals are subject to rigorous testing, quality control and regulation prior to being available under a doctor's prescription, there are absolutely no standards in place to address consistency in marijuana quality or potency.

In my view, our concern should be more to ensure that those who need marijuana for medicinal purposes are able to obtain a drug that is consistent in quality and potency, like any other approved pharmaceutical. We should not be devoting resources to decriminalizing marijuana generally.

Recently an Edmonton organization stepped forward to help those who need marijuana for medicinal purposes, but it appears to be more concerned with obtaining tax deductible charity status rather than with seeking help from elected officials such as myself who are willing to try to assist.

Last June I introduced a motion in the House of Commons. I am seeking agreement from my colleagues that the government should not legalize marijuana except for medicinally prescribed purposes. This motion has not yet come forward for debate.

The basic point remains. We cannot, as a responsible society, decriminalize a drug with known short term and long term narcotic effects, particularly when potencies and quality vary and the extent of social harm is therefore unpredictable.