Vic Toews

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few comments on this particular bill and on the issues before the House.

This issue is more than simply a matter of science, of medical technology or of what our scientists or medical doctors can do. The possibilities that science has brought forward are seemingly endless and appear to continue to grow weekly, monthly and yearly.

The issue though that does not seem to get the same attention and on which we see the same development, is in the growth of our understanding of these issues, not from a medical science point of view but from an ethical or a moral point of view.

I noted the decision of Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw in the Sharpe case dealing with child pornography. In reviewing the issues before him and examining the material which involved brutal exploitation of children by adults, he indicated that while the writings by Mr. Sharpe did not advocate this type of brutality, they did in fact glorify the actions.

I have a lot of difficulty understanding what the distinction is between advocating and glorifying, but the disturbing statement he made continues in that judgment. The justice stated that in reviewing the material and the defence of artistic merit that was afforded to this individual under our law, he had to examine the issue on a totally amoral basis. I found it an astounding statement to make for a learned justice of a superior court in Canada, in talking about the issue of exploitation of children, to say that we have to examine it on an amoral basis.

How can one examine a law for which society has specifically expressed its moral and ethical disapproval of the exploitation of children by adults? How can one look at that issue on anything but a moral basis? Once the justice had decided that the law had to be seen in a moral vacuum, it was not surprising that he believed he had no alternative but to acquit Mr. Sharpe.

All of our laws have a moral underpinning to them. I do not mean that in any narrow or partisan religious sense. I mean it in a broad sense. All our laws reflect our moral understanding of issues. The distinction between a person being allowed to kill an animal for food or for other reasons and the general prohibition against murdering a human being is not a rational decision as much as it is a moral distinction.

Our laws against murder reflect our moral disapproval of the murder of human beings. Our laws against theft tell us that we as a society believe that it is morally wrong to take someone else's property. All of our laws have this moral underpinning.

Without the understanding of a legal system we could not justify laws such as the prohibition against child pornography or the laws against prostitution. Those laws, for example, tell us that it is morally wrong to sexually exploit another human being.

In the case of this particular law that we are dealing with here today, we know about the scientific advancements and the tremendous medical research going on and yet as a society we have not come to an ethical or a moral consensus with respect to this very troubling issue.

What bothers me is that the minister is trying to neatly sidestep the issue of developing that moral consensus with respect to this law on assisted human reproduction, the law on stem cell research. The government is neatly attempting to sidestep a discussion on that issue. In typical Liberal fashion, what do they do? They designate a government body to make those determinations, an agency.

This is not an issue for an agency of government to make that determination. This is an issue that must be made in the House through debate, through discussions, through hearings and, most important, that the voice of the people of Canada be heard and reflected in the law.

The bill is more than simply improving human health. I do not accuse anyone in the House of saying that there are ulterior motives or that there is something untoward in the intent of the bill. I am not suggesting that at all. I am simply saying that we as a nation and we as parliamentarians are not in a position to move forward with respect to some of these very difficult issues. It is not because of the medical science or the research capacity involved. It is because we as a nation have not yet addressed the moral issues that underlie this legislation.

Human embryos and their use in research is a very troubling issue. We have not heard from the people on this issue. I would support a moratorium on any stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos.

Therefore, I leave those thoughts with the House: We should move very carefully before we proceed in this direction.

[Government Contracts, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is what Groupaction said.

The Liberal government now is in full denial mode. Last week it blamed the media and the public for being cynical about corruption in this country. Now it has the audacity to criticize the auditor general for doing her hard work.

Only an independent public inquiry will tell us who is telling the truth, the independent auditor general or Liberal ministers with their hands in the cookie jar. Who is telling the truth?

[Government Contracts, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Groupaction has defended its $1.6 million fee for a few hundred pages of photocopies by stating that it followed accepted practice. If this is accepted practice of the Liberal government, a police investigation simply is not enough. Why will the Prime Minister not establish a full public inquiry to see what the established practice of the government is?

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is an issue of malice on the part of the Liberals. They want to do whatever they can to remain in power even if it means being indifferent to the people of rural Canada and ignoring their needs. The government would avoid making any decision that could affect its ability to stay in power. If there is one thing we have learned about the Liberal government in the last nine years it is that it desires to stay in power.

When we look at the government's performance with respect to rural and western economic development we see disaster after disaster. Members and ministers across the way can point to certain programs that have worked. I will not dismiss all the programs nor the hard work of some good public servants in trying to administer them. However in most situations it is more a matter of luck that programs work or a dedicated public servant makes a difference in the community he or she lives in.

The issue is one of indifference to rural Canada. It is motivated by the desire to stay in power. That is why there is no accountability for the moneys spent. The Liberal government could not be responsible for the money.

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of today's Canadian Alliance motion that calls on the Liberal government to stop its legislative and political attacks on the lives and livelihoods of rural Canadians and their communities. I believe we have heard enough patronizing and naive comments from the other side in respect of this serious issue. We must look at the issues before us and look at ways to resolve some of these difficult concerns.

As the member of parliament for the primarily rural riding of Provencher in southeastern Manitoba I am proud to represent a large population of farmers and other rural Canadians who are some of the hardest working, honest and law-abiding citizens in this country.

However they are faced with an unholy trinity of legislation, some of which is still under consideration by the House. I fear that this legislative package would put our farmers into an unworkable situation. Time and again we have seen the government implement ineffective and costly legislation that pits rural Canadians against urban Canadians.

The legislation I am referring to is Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation and Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation. They have been on the House agenda for over a year, but it is only because of sustained opposition efforts that public awareness about the true nature and anti-rural character of these bills is finally being understood. Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, has been in place since 1995 and every year the price tag increases while crime is getting worse.

The new species at risk bill, if passed, would give the federal government the right to expropriate land from farmers and other rural individuals without any obligation to compensate for losses.

Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation, introduces the risk of harassment to farmers from private legal prosecutions funded by radical urban based animal rights organizations who are claiming the debt that they claim the former justice minister owes them for supporting her during the last federal election.

Even if prosecutions by these radical animal rights groups were not successful, the legal process involved would impose a financial burden that few could afford. In addition, we also have the Kyoto agreement that threatens to dramatically push up costs without any substantive evidence that it will improve our global environment. The member for Red Deer stated that all we are doing is playing a shell game. The earth is a global entity. We cannot simply push off dirty air in exchange for clean air and think somehow the dirty air is being reduced in the process.

The third bill, Bill C-68, has targeted primarily rural Canadians for owning long guns and yet these individuals have been law-abiding families for generations. We heard today from one of the Canadian Alliance members that while farmers are being harassed and prosecuted for not registering long guns, the government is busy handing out licences and registrations to leaders of criminal organizations in Canada. This is at a cost of $700 million and climbing at a cost of $100 million a year. Last year's estimates showed that the registry would cost $35 million. The true numbers came in at $149 million in direct costs.

I do not believe that the government is against rural Canadians. It is indifferent to rural Canadians. It is banking on passing legislation that will build support in urban areas at the cost of rural Canada. Instead of looking at Canada as a whole whereby we should be working together, the government takes advantage of a smaller population to impose politically expedient but ineffective programs.

By calling for discretionary compensation in Bill C-5 the environment minister is asking Canadians to trust the government with their land and livelihood. He says compensation should not be such a big issue because the government is willing to pay landowners dollar for dollar for any losses they would face. If this is truly the case why does he not make the commitment explicit in the legislation? Why does he not say in the legislation that farmers and landowners would be compensated dollar for dollar at fair market value?

The government is trying to get the legislation through the House by offering vague assurances that regulations would be formulated to compensate landowners. Such regulations would be drafted in the secrecy of cabinet meetings. Even the government's own backbenchers would have no input into them. There may well be Liberal backbenchers here today who say we should trust the government. However they do not realize that the regulations would be passed in the same secretive way in which the government acts on matters crucial to the integrity and effectiveness of our rural economy and the larger Canadian economy.

Our farmers are unable to take any more financial blows. While some landowners in the past have voluntarily co-operated in species recovery programs without full, fair or, in some cases, any compensation the large majority of farmers and landowners today are not financially able to make such sacrifices in the name of the public good.

If a species at risk is important and worth saving why should it be done on the backs of rural Canadians? Why could we not all share in the cost? If it is good for the country we should let the country as a whole pay for it. We should not take it out of the livelihood and land of our rural people.

Bill C-5 sets out some scary criminal provisions. Its low requirement for mens rea or guilty mind would enable prosecutors at the direction of the minister to prosecute farmers for even inadvertent destruction of habitat. This kind of legislation is not worthy of the dignity of the House. If we are to make people criminally responsible for their actions let us make sure they are criminals. Let us not convict people simply because we want to terrorize rural people into not doing anything with their land and for their livelihoods. The government's heavy handed approach would lead to uncertainty and confusion for land and resource owners including the majority of rural Canadians who in good faith tried to comply with the law.

Bill C-15B is poorly drafted. Had it not been for the perseverance of the Canadian Alliance Party, Liberal backbenchers would not have woken up to the dangers posed by the bill. Finally they are waking up. They are saying it is their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their constituents that would be affected. I am happy the Liberal backbenchers have finally woken up. However when will they take a real stand? When will they stand and say they have had enough of the government's abuse of rural Canada? When will they stand with the people who are concerned about the country as a whole?

I am profoundly concerned about the direction of the government. There is some optimism now that Liberal backbenchers are finally waking up. However it will not be until the Liberal cabinet is gone that rural Canadians can be equal partners with their urban cousins.

I urge hon. members to think carefully about the legislation before the House before they do anything untoward and damage rural Canada any further. Let us think carefully about Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B. Let us remember the lessons of Bill C-68

[Briefings or Negotiations, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that have been made here today in respect of the motion. Again I want to reiterate that the federal government should not be barring provincial ministers from negotiations as it has done in the past on matters that affect them. It seems odd to me that the government would invite provincial officials but specifically bar provincial ministers.

While I understand that ministers may not want to attend certain types of meetings because they are working meetings, the federal government has gone beyond simply barring the attendance of the minister. The staff that was sent from Manitoba to attend the meetings on the Young Offenders Act was permitted to attend only on the condition that it not disclose to the minister what the nature of the discussions was. In an effort to continue with co-operative federalism, I said that I was very interested in making sure that we had input into it and I did not want to bar them because of this ludicrous condition. Therefore, members of the staff of the provincial attorney general and justice minister went there and came back but could not disclose what was discussed at these meetings. It was simply astounding given the financial interest, the administrative interest and the prosecutorial interest of the minister in that matter.

How could I, as a minister, go back to cabinet and say that I have just sent my staff to negotiate an agreement but I cannot tell cabinet what they negotiated because I do not know? How could I say that the reason I do not know is that the federal government is saying that my own staff cannot tell me? What we see is this kind of control of the process in order to achieve a desired result: the minister can then say that there were negotiations with staff. He can say that the minister had the opportunity to pick up the phone and call him. That is easier said than done in this great and wonderful democracy. As great as it is, it is not that easily done.

Those are my comments. I urge members to consider the motion very carefully.

[Briefings or Negotiations, May 6th, 2002]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should never exclude elected provincial government officials from any briefings or negotiations with provincial civil servants concerning legislation, regulations, treaties or agreements of any kind.

Mr. Speaker,I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion. The motion arises as a result of my personal experience as a provincial justice minister dealing with negotiations with the federal government on the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

While I was a provincial minister I was told by my staff that I could not attend negotiations or discussions with federal officials, nor could I be briefed by my own staff with respect to these meetings with federal officials despite the very real financial, political and administrative interests the provincial government had in administering not only the Young Offenders Act but the new act that has been put in its place.

I initiated the motion after the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights barred the appearances of provincial attorneys general during hearings on the Youth Criminal Justice Act, Bill C-7. The newer members of the committee, such as myself, were told that it was a rule or a convention of the committee to not hear from elected provincial officials. The government members voted down a motion supported by all four opposition parties to waive this rule. As a result, the committee was only able to hear from non-elected provincial officials.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act, which replaces the Young Offenders Act, is enforced on a day to day basis by provincial officials and authorities. While the justice committee regularly hears testimony from the federal attorney general, unbelievably we were prevented from hearing from the officials who are actually responsible for implementing the legislation, paying for it and for making it work: the provincial attorneys general.

Despite the numerous concerns expressed about the lack of consultation with provincial authorities in the ongoing debate over this bill, astonishingly the government members on the justice committee said that they did not believe it was appropriate to invite elected representatives from provincial governments to make representations here in Ottawa. While they discussed matters with staff, they would not hear from the elected representatives who are politically accountable to the people of the various provinces.

Given that the provinces are often shouldered with the burden of the costs in implementing new laws, it is a tremendously important issue for provincial attorneys general or any other provincial minister administering a federal law who have to justify to the taxpayers the moneys they will have to spend. As elected officials responsible for the expenditure of funds and working in partnership with the federal government, there can be no relevant objection to them explaining their views and concerns to parliament.

On the issue of funding, I recognize that the federal government has indicated that it is willing to spend more money to implement the Youth Criminal Justice Act but we know that it will never reach a 50:50 partnership as the act had originally intended. Essentially the provinces will continue to bear about 75% of the cost of this act, and possibly even more in the years to come.

The provincial attorneys general and the taxpayers they represent who are shouldering the bulk of the financial burden of this act could simply say that they will not enforce this legislation or any other legislation the federal government imposes on them in the future. This was done with Bill C-68 where provincial attorneys general said that they would not co-operate in that federal act because it did not meet the needs of the people of their provinces.

The attorneys general of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba are not required to enforce the new youth justice legislation. They could simply say “Forget it. Let the federal government do it”. They could refuse to accept the delegation to prosecute under that act or to indeed spend any moneys under that act.

Even if that might be an unlikely possibility, and even though in Bill C-68, for example, they did refuse that delegation, common sense, good government and co-operative federalism demand that the provincial attorneys general be allowed to come to Ottawa to explain the difficulties they may foresee in making the legislation work.

It is critical that the federal government continues to work co-operatively and in good faith with the political figures who are responsible to the taxpayers of their respective provinces.

The motion also indirectly addresses the fundamental concerns of parliamentarians who often see committee work as ineffective or irrelevant. During the justice committee hearing in which we discussed whether or not to hear the elected provincial officials, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice at the time, the hon. member for Erie--Lincoln, said:

With respect to the ministers, they have more than ample opportunity to speak to the Minister of Justice at various federal-provincial-territorial meetings that go on frequently, and went on with this specific legislation. They've had more than ample opportunity to present their views to the minister.

Even if that is in fact correct, which it is not, having had that experience as a provincial justice minister where we were not consulted nor did we have an opportunity to discuss the act with the federal minister, as the member for Winnipeg--Transcona so aptly pointed out at the committee, it appeared that it did not even occur to the parliamentary secretary that perhaps the justice committee might form a different opinion or might even be a different entity in some respects from the federal justice minister.

The parliamentary secretary sat in his chair and said that ministers of justice in the provinces can talk to the federal minister of justice and that was good enough. This lack of democratic consultation is exactly what many Canadians, including parliamentarians, find so disconcerting about the entire legislative process.

There are only two significant ways for individual members to contribute to the political process under the process that we presently have today in parliament. One is through the introduction of private members' bills and the other is through parliamentary committees. However it is now apparent that even these avenues are being shut off. This was demonstrated recently when the Prime Minister rejected the extensive work of a committee reviewing the contentious species at risk legislation, Bill C-5. All Liberal members in the House were instructed to vote against the committee amendments, including amendments that would have guaranteed compensation to landowners for land expropriated under the legislation.

Similarly, last week the new Minister of Justice rejected the recommendations of the parliamentary committee that proposed important changes to protect the interests of children caught up in bitter custody battles after divorce.

Those are but a couple of examples of why so many Canadians, including parliamentarians themselves, have become disillusioned with our political system. What is the point of an all party justice committee when the Liberal majority on the committee is simply an appendage of the justice minister?

Although the motion will not necessarily address issues of democratic reform in parliament, it would go far to remedy one particular consequence of the dysfunctional nature of parliamentary committees. The motion as worded would give parliamentarians the opportunity to confer on a number of fronts with both elected and non-elected provincial officials regarding any matter crossing areas of provincial and federal jurisdiction.

By working more positively and proactively with the elected political figures who are responsible and accountable to the people of their respective provinces, the House could demonstrate an unprecedented measure of good faith that would go a long way to improving co-operative federalism in the country.

Although the motion is not votable, I would hope that it would be a starting point for future discussions on this matter.

I have the minutes from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as of April 4, 2001. I want to read a few of the comments that were made by members in voting down hearing from provincial officials. When I stated:

I understand there is a standing rule that prohibits elected officials from coming here, and I think that's unfortunate.

The member for Winnipeg--Transcona then expressed his concern and the chair indicated the following:

The rule, the tradition, the convention predates the chair's being a member of the committee, but my understanding is that there are technical aspects of this the provinces would have to be responsible for administering, and we wanted to bring in the technical people who would be doing that. Therefore, what we wanted to do was bring in deputy attorneys general and representatives of the government, rather than elected officials. That was what I understood.

The member for Winnipeg--Transcona then raises other points, saying that on this kind of bill there are political matters in the very best sense and there are federal-provincial issues with respect to the allocation of resources.

The parliamentary secretary then said the following, and it was astounding. He said:

Mr. Chair, I stand to be corrected, but the suggestion that we have not heard from the provinces before this committee would be inaccurate. We have heard from officials. To my recollection, certainly in the case of the Province of Manitoba, the Province of British Columbia, the Province of Ontario I believe...invitations were extended to the provinces as well. We're certainly very happy to hear from the individuals who work with this legislation day to day.

With respect to the ministers, they have more than ample opportunity to speak to the Minister of Justice at various...meetings...They've had more than ample opportunity to present their views to the minister.

The point is however that they were not allowed to present their views to committee.

Perhaps the height of Liberal majority arrogance on the justice committee was seen when one Liberal member stated the following with respect to the motion in favour of having elected representatives there. He said:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say that I would not be supporting the motion on the basis that I've spent two years as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and I can see that changing our convention would be simply opening it up to a series of fed-bashers. They would come here, the way they do, with the media in tow, and get into that. That's why I think the rule or the convention makes sense, to have officials who aren't going to be here to play the political game. As much as we are discussing political issues, I don't want to be captive to a round of fed-bashing, which I think this would inevitably lead to.

We are talking about the elected representatives of the people of the various provinces. They are responsible for administering and enforcing the legislation.The point of view of the parliamentary secretary is that this is simply fed-bashing. That is the problem with this government. Liberal members think that unless they can absolutely control any discussions to arrive at a predetermined result, it is simply fed-bashing.

This is a federal system. The federal attorney general has the right to speak to the provincial attorneys general. However we, as justice committee members or any other committee members, should be entitled to hear from these elected officials. They are responsible for the payment of this in large part. They are responsible for prosecution. They are responsible for administration. This is a shameful example of how the government refuses to co-operate with the provinces.

The provincial attorneys general could simply say that they will no longer prosecute under the criminal code and that they will leave it to the federal attorney general. They can say they will no longer prosecute under the youth justice legislation. However they are attempting to work co-operatively with the federal government, but unfortunately the Liberal majority on that committee refuses to hear from those who have significant input on this matter.

[Species at Risk Act, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, conservation of the environment is a difficult issue. Some of the issues raised by my hon. colleague across the way demonstrate the difficulties.

I think it is safe to say we are all in favour of conservation as long as the responsibility is on someone else's shoulders. I heard it said here or elsewhere that the definition of an environmentalist is someone who already has a cottage in the forest. We are all strong on environmental issues when we already have a piece of property. However as there is more and more interaction among people living in urban, rural and protected areas we must come up with a solution to address the tension.

One point is clear from the American experience of adopting legislation without a rock solid guarantee of compensation: Inadequate or no compensation would fuel the destruction of the environment. We must place the burden equally on everyone and not just on landowners like farmers, ranchers and cottage owners. We must be prepared to compensate these individuals.

If we believe our environment and endangered species are important we need to compensate landowners. Failing to do so would put the onus on a small segment of our society and encourage it to destroy endangered species. As pointed out in the example of the hon. member, if we forced landowners out, restricted their activities and did not give them compensation some of these individuals would destroy species before we could act to protect them. The issue of compensation is fundamental to preserving our environment.

This is the context in which I address Bill C-5 and the amendments. I will speak in favour of the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague from Skeena. I will also speak to the flaws in the government amendments, many of which would reverse months of painstaking work by the environment committee.

The arrogance and cynicism displayed by the minister is nothing new to us in the opposition but it is beginning to grate on upperbenchers on the Liberal side of the House. The real concern here should not be politics. It should be to make the legislation work.

During report stage debate my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance and other opposition parties proposed a number of amendments to Bill C-5. The grouping of amendments we are addressing stresses the fundamental importance of making public consultations for the act as broadly based as possible. The changes my colleagues and I are proposing are intended to ensure public consultations have a real and substantive impact on the act and on any further action by the government to protect endangered species.

The requirement for a basic level of public consultation lies in the need to make the process as transparent as possible. It also ties in to the issue of compensation for stakeholders. As we have argued, there must be a clear and open process to ensure the compliance and co-operation of stakeholders. However as with the issue of compensation, the government's amendments with respect to public consultation do not come at all close to ensuring we meet the important goals of co-operation and compliance.

Although some government amendments are a move in the right direction, even the positive ones are technical and do not go as far as they should. Many are counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve. They would reverse the work done at committee without giving any justification to parliamentarians or Canadians.

Initially Bill C-5 provided for a parliamentary review of the act after it became law within a period of five years. The committee added a provision to the effect that the bill would be reviewed at five year intervals. Government Motion No. 130 would revoke the committee amendment entirely. This displays a blatant disregard for the decisions and integrity of the committee and its members.

With respect to the legal listing of endangered species, we agree that the final list must be subject to government approval because ultimately the government and cabinet must take responsibility for the decisions. However the listing should be as scientific as possible. It must ensure transparency and accountability. To achieve these goals the committee urged that the government, as soon as possible and to the extent known, must notify all landowners affected by the listing.

However we have before us government Motion No. 126 which would remove the requirement for ministerial reports to be entered into the public registry, reports that include decisions with respect to the listing of species. The government's refusal to provide listings of species to the public absolutely defies common sense. It would reduce transparency in governance and create a far more cumbersome process for ordinary citizens to obtain information regarding endangered species. Failure to provide reasons for including or not including certain species on the list would make it impossible to ensure accountability and the co-operation of the public.

My colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have done a thorough and comprehensive job of trying to counter the senseless tactics of the government. The hon. member for Skeena introduced Motion No. 127 which would ensure that if the minister decided to restrict information relating to a species or habitat he would be required to advise the affected landowner. One would think this would be common sense but there is no such requirement at present. Despite the reasonable arguments of the opposition I have little hope any of our amendments will be accepted.

Not only has the government failed to calculate the long term cost of Bill C-5 to every taxpayer. Not only has it miserably failed to estimate or even consider the burden it may place on landowners and farmers. It has totally ignored the need of members of the public to be informed and consulted on matters their way of life depends on. This serves not only to foster mistrust of the federal government. It ultimately renders the bill less effective because it does not further a spirit of co-operation.

This is a heavy-handed, top down, government knows best approach. Co-operation with landowners and resource users is critical to the success of Bill C-5. I cannot stress that enough. Unilaterally imposing federal laws on the provinces and imposing harsh penalties and strict liabilities on property owners and farmers does not demonstrate good faith on the part of the federal government. It destroys co-operative federalism.

This legislation demonstrates that the federal government is not interested in making federalism work. The governments wants to see decisions made unilaterally from downtown Ottawa. It wants to tell people in the various regions of the country what is best for them. That is the wrong approach. It is the approach reflected in Bill C-5.

Without the amendments we have proposed Bill C-5 would have disastrous results for the government, landowners, resource owners and, most importantly, the endangered species we mean to protect.

[Government of Canada, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the executive and the cabinet represent the political system and Canadians see them as corrupt.

The Prime Minister is among the minority of Canadians who do not see the government as corrupt. It must be lonely at the top of that shaky tower.

Will the minister stop blaming the media? Will he stop blaming the opposition? Will he stop ducking his responsibilities and will he take real steps to deal with the problems of his executive and his cabinet ministers?

[Government of Canada, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear why 70% of Canadians consider the government corrupt. Minister after minister serves as evidence for this obvious conclusion and yet the Prime Minister wants more evidence. We already have the ethics counsellor working overtime to deal with what we have.

Why will the Prime Minister not see the obvious and admit that he has failed to take the real steps necessary to deal with this serious problem?