CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 137 Ï NUMBER 169 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, April 16, 2002 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 10421 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, April 16, 2002 The House met at 10 a.m. ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) moved Prayers for leave to introduce Bill C-441, an act to change the names of certain electoral districts. She said: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with all ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS members of the House of Commons concerning the names of their ridings. There are a number of requests to change the names of Ï (1000) certain ridings and this bill simply implements what has been [English] requested by members of the House from all parties. COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS The Speaker: Orders of the day. Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the Ï (1010) House gives it consent, I move: Mr. Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would ask that we revisit motions because I have a motion that I be modified as follows: would like to move. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris) for Jay Hill (Peace River). The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to motions? Ï (1005) The Speaker: Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. (Motion agreed to) *** [Translation] GOVERNMENT ORDERS QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER [Translation] Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of SPECIES AT RISK ACT the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand. The House resumed from March 21, consideration of Bill C-5, an The Speaker: Is that agreed? act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions Some hon. members: Agreed. in Group No. 4. [English] The Speaker: Before resuming debate on report stage of Bill C-5, the Species at Risk Act, I would like to make a correction. Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I could ask for the consent of the House to return to One report stage motion was included with technical amendments introduction of private members' bills. I have a bill on the notice in Group No. 3 when it should have been included in Group No. 5. paper which I know is of interest to all parties in the House Therefore, Motion No. 120, proposed by the Minister of the concerning riding name changes. Environment, is now in Group No. 5. The Speaker: Is it agreed? The vote on Motion No. 116 will be applied to Motion No. 120. A Some hon. members: Agreed. corrected voting table is now available at the Table. 10422 COMMONS DEBATES April 16, 2002 Government Orders [English] This is a pattern we see in the government. When it comes to consultation, it is not sincere in what it does. We will talk a little Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian about that this morning with these amendments to Bill C-5. Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are here again this morning to discuss Bill C-5 one more time. As the saying goes, this bill is uglier than 40 With regard to Bill C-5, farm groups have been under pressure for acres of burning stumps but we continue to debate it and continue to 10 years to support the bill and most of them have continued to work our way through it. oppose the bill. I have talked to a few of them and they have been The bill has been introduced a number of times. I asked some told by the minister that they should support the bill because, and MPs, who have been here for awhile, how many times they had seen these are his words apparently, “It could be worse”. this bill and they said that they were not sure, but it keeps coming back again and again. In fact in a lot of ways this has a longer I am not sure if that is how we make legislation in the country gestation period than many of the animals that it purports to support. now. Also I am not sure if this is a promise or a threat from him. Either he is saying that he is in control and he can make the bill The bill was introduced last summer and was sent to the much worse if he wants to. If that is the case and that is his attitude committee last fall. It is interesting to note that the committee spent then it is probably time for him to go. Or he is saying that he cannot four months working on the bill and did so much work on it. It heard control his bureaucrats or the people who are running his 120-odd witnesses and made over 300 amendments to the bill. department. If that is the case then he probably should be removed from his post. While we opposed the bill from the beginning, we felt that the committee had done some good and strong work and that it had done Yesterday I noticed that he was doing a good job at PR as he spent what it was supposed to have done. The hypocrisy that comes back some time applauding our Olympic athletes. Perhaps that would be a to the bill through what the government has done to it is enough to better place for him than to be heading up this bill. appall anyone. The Group No. 4 amendments deal with two main issues: The government members and the opposition members spent stewardship plans and public consultation and whether that is an months working on the bill. It seems that the committee was used to active part of the bill or not. keep its members busy more than it was to do productive work. I would suggest that the government, and the minister in particular, The committee worked hard to put together a process for has shown disregard for the MPs and their work in the House. planning. It talked a lot in its work about recovery plans, action plans and stewardship plans. From that four months' work, a national Who is setting the direction of the legislation and the government? stewardship action plan was agreed to. It is clearly not cabinet. If it was, one would think it would allow the committees to do their work. I would suggest that the bill is being Ï (1015) run by the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats behind the scenes. We I have the format in front of me of what that would have been. The see that in many other areas as well. One has to do with the new national stewardship action plan made commitments to a number of agricultural policy framework. We clearly see that someone other things. It made a commitment to using the tax system, subsidization than the minister is running the department. and the elimination of disincentives to help landowners protect I would like to quote from an article in the Leader -Post on April 3 species at risk. that talks about the agricultural framework policy discussions that It was a strategy for public education and information sharing. An are supposedly taking place and what a sham they are. The article awards and recognition program was built into the action plan. It had reads: ways to formalize land agreements and provide technical and Consultations about the most significant shift ever in Canadian agriculture policy scientific support directly to landowners and people who were are nothing more than a poorly-organized public relations exercise, say angry concerned with species at risk. It also had a consultation strategy. Saskatchewan farm groups. The province's agriculture organizations are confused about why it took so long By the time the minister was done with this part of the bill through to set up meetings, why they aren't open to the public and why Ottawa hired a Motion No. 25 he had done a few things to it. He eliminated the idea “heavyweight” international consulting firm to facilitate the sessions. of using the tax system to support conservation. That was taken [These organizations] also complain they have had little time to prepare for the completely out of the bill. He offered to provide information about meetings about Ottawa's plan to overhaul agriculture, currently underway around the country... species at risk but no program of public education. I presume that means people would get government brochures rather than actually Denise Treslan, executive director of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, said having a program of public education. the meetings are so disorganized she found out third-hand that one of the organization's directors is scheduled to appear at a [meeting]. It committed to share information but not to develop a program to “It seems like a free-for-all,” said Treslan. “We've had no contact whatsoever with the group that is putting together the meetings. We don't know if we are supposed to carry it out. It did keep the awards program. The government agreed make a formal presentation or if we show up and it's a roundtable or what.” to provide information about programs related to stewardship rather than to commit to setting up those programs.