The House resumed from February 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Species At Risk ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak once more about the species at risk bill. The last time I spoke on this, I had mentioned a number of aspects which satisfied us in principle.

I mentioned that inevitably a number of international agreements had been signed. However, the most important agreement, the one which requires species at risk laws, is the 1992 agreement called the Convention on Biodiversity, which clearly states that every country has to establish and apply legislation aimed at protecting species at risk. Canada is one of the signatories of this convention, and we are proud of this fact, because we must immediately pass laws aimed at protecting species at risk in Canada.

This explains why, as early as 1989, the government of Quebec and the national assembly passed a law for the protection of species at risk.

I have already spoken about the importance of Canada's international commitments. I have also dealt with the importance of and reasons for introducing such legislation. I am not necessarily referring to this specific bill.

Today, I will compare some aspects of this bill with the act passed by Quebec.

I said that it was somehow paradoxical for the federal government to introduce a bill because we, on this side of the House, believe that it would duplicate the efforts made by Quebec in the area of identification.

I will remind the House of the principles of the act introduced by Quebec in 1989. They are the identification of species at risk, the legal designation of those species and the protection of aquatic environment. All this is inevitably linked to recovery plans which must be implemented in collaboration with industry, landowners and non-profit organizations working on a daily basis to preserve the heritage of Quebec. So there are a certain number of elements and measures incorporated in this act.

For example, on the whole issue of identification of species, the bill will give legal status to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, which has so far identified more than 340 plant and animal species.

Do we have the same type of tool in Quebec? Was it necessary to create a committee on species at risk for the sake of having a double security net? The answer is no. If members look at Quebec's act, they will soon see that the province created, back in 1989, an advisory committee composed of scientists who are knowledgeable about species at risk in Quebec and who have identified more than 19 plant and animal species.

This advisory committee already exists. It is working in co-operation with the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC. However, we are disappointed by this government which has committed itself toward the government of Quebec and the provinces, through the harmonisation agreement on species at risk in Canada.

We must remember that the federal government promised the government of Quebec (The environment minister at the time was David Cliche) that it would co-operate with the provinces to ensure that it would not infringe upon provincial areas of jurisdiction nor duplicate provincial legislation.

Obviously, the federal government did not keep its promise. We believe that habitat protection comes under provincial jurisdiction. We believe that the federal government should not interfere in this area. Under several of the clauses in the bill now before the House, the federal government would be able to get involved in wildlife habitat management in Quebec.

The government talks about protecting critical habitat, and if that is not a direct infringement upon one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, I do not know what it is. In clauses 37 through 73, that notion of critical habitat is directly applied. This is totally unacceptable.

It is unacceptable, because in Quebec we have species at risk legislation which sets out what we call recovery measures to protect the habitats.

Does the federal bill contain the same provisions? Again, the answer is yes. Why do we need federal legislation that sets out recovery plans when we already have some under Quebec legislation?

There is also the issue of compensation. The government is clearly improvising on the issue of compensation. During a briefing given by Environment Canada officials, we tried to ask them a few questions about the kind of compensation that would be provided to private landowners, but they were unable to give us a definite answer.

What we do know, in that regard, is that such compensation will be limited, because it says so in the bill. However, we would have liked to see a number of other provisions included in the bill. I am thinking, among other things, of the Pearse report, which said clearly that landowners who believed that they would suffer losses as a result of the application of the act would receive compensation equivalent to 50% of these losses.

If the bill before us today were clear on that, at least we would know what to expect. However, what we can expect from this government, and we see it very often in the bills introduced in the House, are provisions regarding regulations, which will be made at a later date and which we know nothing about.

As parliamentarians, we are asked to form an opinion and to take a stance on a bill when the regulations have not yet been tabled. This is totally unacceptable. If the government had wanted to be transparent, if it really had wanted people to know about the compensation process for landowners, then it would have tabled the regulations at the same time as the bill.

The enforcement issue is another aspect of this bill. I said a few moments ago that Quebec has had legislation on species at risk since 1989. I would add that not only does Quebec have legislation on species at risk, but it also has two other tools.

The first tool is the Quebec wildlife conservation act. In Quebec, we have species at risk legislation and perfectly adequate wildlife conservation legislation as well. We have fisheries regulations as well. These three enable us to protect our flora, our fauna and our aquatic environment.

Closer scrutiny of this bill, clauses 85 through 96 in particular, shows that the government plans to create a new authority. Its agents would intervene on both Quebec and Canadian territory.

How can we accept the creation of a new federal authority, when we in Quebec already have wildlife conservation officers? Those officers come under Quebec's wildlife conservation act. Why then create a new federal authority? How will it apply on our territory? That we do not know. We do not know what the protocols of intervention will be. We do not know what the authority's powers will be. This is totally unacceptable.

What is more, if this bill merely applied on crown lands, that is land under federal jurisdiction, we would not oppose it. If we were told “We are adopting a bill here in the House in order to protect endangered species in Canada's national parks” we would applaud that. We would applaud it because the protection of species is not restricted to a single territory, and we are fully aware of that.

What is more serious is that this legislation will not apply just to lands under federal jurisdiction. It is clearly indicated, and we must acknowledged that the minister has shown frankness, honesty and transparency by telling us so in this House, that the bill would also apply to Quebec lands.

The minister tells us that, to a certain extent, the bill would apply to lands belonging to the government of Quebec, including Quebec wildlife preserves. Imagine that, it would apply to lands managed by the government of Quebec. If the federal government deemed it necessary, agents of the federal authority could turn up on these Quebec owned and Quebec administered lands in order to enforce their law. If conflict is what it wants, I do not think the federal government could find a better way to stir it up.

Another aspect of this bill is the whole issue of offences, as if no offences are set out in the Quebec legislation. It is as if the Quebec law provides no offences for an individual who decides to stalk and kill an endangered species. The offences covered in the Quebec law are severe. Why have a federal law providing for offences as well?

The laws overlap. This is totally unacceptable, for two reasons. The first is because, and I have said this, there is blatant interference in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. There is such blatant interference that the day the bill on endangered species was tabled, the minister acknowledged, to some extent, that the bill was open to legal challenge.

Have we the time for a legal challenge? If Quebec did not have a law, it would be a different matter. There is not only Quebec. It is as if the provinces were guilty of not protecting species. There are other provinces, including New Brunswick, that have a law as well. The expertise and the experience the Quebec government has acquired over 12 years of applying the law must be respected.

There is room for improvement, I agree. A law passed 12 years ago certainly needs updating, and I acknowledge this quite honestly. However, we must realize that the federal government is about to make a serious mistake by proposing this bill.

I think the only reason the government is considering tabling this bill is to be able to come meddling again in the name of environmental protection.

I understand the need for legislation on endangered species. Considering that there are over 70,000 wild species that exist and that have been identified in Canada during all these years, we can understand that. Far from me the idea of claiming that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, did not do a good job, on the contrary.

Currently, under this harmonization agreement, the two governments are co-operating. COSEWIC, which identified 15 extinct species, 87 endangered species, 75 threatened species and 151 vulnerable species, shows that there is a real need for legislation. This is a bill that could have some teeth.

Today we are asking the government to act responsibly in its own jurisdictions. On this issue, as in all environmental issues, we are asking the government to take action in its own jurisdictions, instead of lecturing the Quebec government as it often does about specific issues. Let the federal government take action.

I would have liked the minister to be present in the House today. I would have asked him why the federal government took so long before introducing a bill to protect species at risk. The Quebec government passed such legislation in 1989, but the federal government still does not have an act to protect species on its lands and sites. Why did the federal government wait so long, more than nine years after signing the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity?

Throughout this mandate, we will remind the federal government that it must act in its jurisdictions, not only as regard threatened species, but also the contamination of its sites.

Species At Risk ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

An hon. member

Which is its own business.

Species At Risk ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Precisely, it is the federal government's own business. How can the government explain that some land and sites are currently contaminated? That contamination is getting into the water table. There is contamination of drinking water supplies in municipalities. My colleague from Sept-Îles, the hon. member for Manicouagan, strongly criticized the government for its inaction on the issue of the Sept-Îles airport.

Please explain why, in 2001, because of contaminated federal land, parents have to use bottled water to wash their kids. It is unacceptable.

Why do Shannon residents have to deal with contaminated water? How do you explain that the federal government has known since 1997 that the military base in Valcartier was contaminated and that it has always refused and is still refusing to co-operate with the government of Quebec?

I wrote to the minister at the beginning of the month and my letter remains unacknowledged, as if there was no emergency.

What we want is respect for our areas of jurisdiction. What we want is for the federal government to be proactive on environmental issues in its own areas of jurisdiction.

We will be examining this bill in detail. It seems that history is repeating itself once again. Need I remind the House that the government has introduced twice the bill now before the House? It was formerly known as Bill C-33. The provinces are not the only ones to oppose this bill, environmental groups do too, because it does not go far enough.

Once again, with this bill, the minister is alienating the provinces as well as the environmental groups. The minister should go back to the drawing board and introduce a bill that would protect endangered species in his own areas of jurisdiction and that would also respect our jurisdictions and avoid duplication with provincial legislation.

Species At Risk ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, Agriculture.

Species At Risk ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to speak to Bill C-5. I will give a bit of background before I actually get into analyzing the bill and what will be our party's position on it.

I thank those people in the constituency of Red Deer who gave me a 73% support margin, the 70% who turned out to vote. I thank the close to 40,000 people who put an x beside my name. I also thank my wife, my family, and all those campaign workers who did so much work to make that happen.

This is my first speech as the official opposition environment critic. I think it is fair to tell the House a bit of my background in environment. It is fitting as well that I live in probably the most beautiful riding in Canada. I know there will be some dispute in that regard, but I have parkland, lakes, foothills, the Rocky Mountains and part of Banff National Park in my riding. It certainly rivals most constituencies and is a good one for the environment representative to be from.

In high school I was very interested in biology and the environment. Most people in my constituency would probably consider me somewhat of an environmentalist. I was very active in the province of Saskatchewan in the Saskatchewan Natural History Society, the publishing of the Blue Jay magazine, Christmas bird counts and sharp-tailed grouse dancing grounds. All those were part of my high school days in Saskatoon.

In university I majored in biology. During the summers I worked for the Canadian Wildlife Service. I was involved in habitat protection projects, in sandhill crane projects at Big Grass Marsh in Manitoba. I spent a lot of summertime working on environmental issues with environmental groups.

Upon graduating from university I moved to Red Deer where I was a high school biology teacher for 14 years. During that time I became rather known in the community as part of the parks board and for habitat protection. Many people would remember me as a teacher who could get many teenage students up at 6.30 in the morning to go out on early morning birding trips and partake in nature. We did a lot of biological studies. We studied areas in Kananaskis on the east slopes, the Syncrude project and many other environmentally related subjects.

I was very involved with a committee that preserved the river valley. We are very proud of our 28 kilometres of trails and of our pristine river valley and creeks. We had to do a lot of environmental lobbying through the seventies to make that happen. It is something of which our city is very proud. The Gates Lakes Sanctuary, the Kerry Woods Nature Centre are all things that are the pride of our community.

I was involved in the provincial organization which was a co-operative one between industry and education called SEEDS, Society Environmental Education Development Society. That group was very active in much of the curriculum development within the province of Alberta.

I used to travel as well and shared the stage with people like David Suzuki, talking about the Conserver Society. My only comment there would be that in the seventies I was probably 20 years ahead of what today is common sense knowledge.

I will now refer to the bill itself and where it is at. All of us are interested in the environment, 100% of Canadians. We all want to preserve species at risk. I am surprised when the government did its poll that it found 92% of Canadians cared. I am really surprised it was not 100%. I cannot imagine people saying they are not interested in preserving an endangered species. We are on common ground there.

All of us also realize that there are tradeoffs in environmental issues. Some would have a pristine environment. Obviously those people would be prepared to live in a cave, not have roads, not have modern conveniences. Then we could have a pristine environment. On the other side there are industrialists who would probably pave the world. Of course that would be unsustainable, would not last and certainly would not be acceptable.

Somewhere there is middle ground on environmental issues. I believe all of us have to work very hard at achieving that. Extremes are not acceptable on either side. It is that middle ground we must work toward.

The Liberal record on the environment is not very good. Let me talk a bit about that and how it relates to the Endangered Species Act. In 1992 a protocol was signed saying that we would put legislation in place to protect endangered species. The 1993 red book talked about ensuring a clean healthy environment for Canadians and the preservation of natural species. The 1997 red book also said that. The 2000 red book did not say much about it.

What does the environment commissioner say about the government and what we have done environmentally? Let me quote a couple of statements that I think puts it in perspective: “In many areas the Liberal government's performance falls short of its stated objectives. This gap reflects the failure to translate policy directly into effective action”.

The commissioner went on to say: “Although the federal government has repeatedly stated its commitment to sustainable development, striking a balance between economic, social and environmental goals now and for future generations, it continues to have difficulty turning the commitment into action”.

No one says it is easy to deal with environmental legislation. No government will have an easy time with it. However, 100% of Canadians would say that the government should deal with environmental issues, be it water or endangered species which Bill C-5 addresses.

There are many examples of where the government has failed to deal with the problems. Many of them have been identified. Just to name a few, if we started with toxic waste sites we would find that according to most groups there are some 10,000 toxic waste sites across the country.

The most notable one is the Sydney tar ponds that have been talked about for 100 years. Legislation has been proposed. Solutions have been proposed. A committee is in operation but it has no timelines. It does not know where it is going. Basically no one is happy. Industry is not happy. People are not happy. Politicians are not happy. The provinces are not happy. Everyone recognizes the problem. Government and all of us in all parties need to work on that. We cannot say we will fix it and then not do it.

Kyoto is another example. I was not the environment critic then; I was in foreign affairs. I know how Kyoto was dealt with in the House. When the minister said he was going to Kyoto questions were asked as to the cost involved if he signed the agreement, what would happen, what would be the socioeconomic implications of signing the agreement, how he would deliver on that signature if he were to sign it.

The Americans were very clear. They could not sign it because they had not done enough homework. The Australians came with a lot of homework done and even they had trouble. We went ahead and signed it. Now we are finding that our emissions are 11% higher. We have guaranteed to lower them 6% below 1990 levels. When we do not deliver on our promises, people stop trusting us.

Bill C-5 is just that kind of legislation. We can introduce it and put all the words in place, but if we have no intention of delivering we have some serious problems.

Let me make it extremely clear, because I do not want a headline saying that the Alliance opposes endangered species legislation, that the Alliance Party supports endangered species legislation. We want it and we encourage the government. It should have come sooner. We want endangered species legislation. It is a good idea. It is supported by farmers, ranchers, industry, individuals, scientists and environmentalists. We want it but we want the right legislation. We want legislation that will work.

Through our committee I hope we will be able to put together legislation that will work to preserve and protect endangered species. The worst thing we could do is to put forward another bill that will not work and that no one has thought through.

I will speak to the history behind the legislation and why we are doing it. I mentioned that the convention on biological diversity was signed in 1992. At that point we said that Canada would go along with many countries in terms of this kind of legislation. Was it a popular move? Yes, it was right on. It should have been done and we should be doing it.

We did not implement anything for eight years. It is not totally the government's fault because there were all kinds of problems with Bill C-65. Most people were happy that it died when the election was called in 1997. Bill C-33 was an improvement. A lot of people would say that, but it died with the call of the election in 2000.

Red book three did not mention any legislation on species at risk. I assume that was a typographical problem, that the publisher forgot to put it in, and that the page designated to species at risk was left out. I assume the payment to the printer was reduced because he did such a bad job of printing red book three.

Let us talk about the international scene. As many members know, I am very interested in international events. I am really concerned that in productivity Canada has dropped from third to 13th. In many areas of health care we are 23rd out of 29 OECD countries. Environmentally we have dropped from fifth to seventh in terms of world ratings. That really concerns me.

When I travel I ask people what they think of Canada. They usually say positive things and I say positive things about my country. I love Canada. I would not be here if I did not. They tell me the Canada they think of is one with pristine lakes, limitless forests, wolves and bears literally on most corners, mighty rivers teeming with salmon, and the land filled with bounty; the most beautiful place in the world.

My riding is pretty beautiful but it has environmental problems. I do not know of many places in Canada that do not have some environmental problems. We love to have international people think of those wonders. Obviously tourism is very important. I used to be part of that industry. Certainly it was great to welcome foreigners to our country and it still is. However we must shape up in terms of protecting our environment. We must start doing things that show leadership in protecting the environment. That is partly what Bill C-5 is all about.

What kind of legislation do we want? We could follow the examples we find in the U.S. We could follow examples from some other parts of the world, but we could also learn from the mistakes they have made.

Why should we introduce 1970 California legislation when it did not work? Why should we go through the pains of Oregon, Montana and Colorado when there were problems there? Let us fix what they did wrong and learn from that. Let us do what they have done in Britain and Tanzania.

On first analysis we see Bill C-5 as being weak and ineffective. It has not listened to the provinces, industry, environmental groups and landowners to deliver legislation that will work. What is our job? It is to try to fix it. As the opposition we will commit to working with the government to bring forward amendments and to try to make it work.

The minister said that he was very favourably disposed to amendments. I hope he means that. If he does, we will work with him because the legislation is good and popular for everyone. However, it has to be legislation that will work. The government cannot say that it knows best and that we should have trust. It cannot be that kind of legislation because a lot of people out there do not totally trust government to deliver what is good for them.

We need to be sure that we consult, listen to and implement what the people are telling us. That becomes very important in the bill.

We must also remember that there is a great deal of distrust. Some people feel, maybe wrongly, that they will lose their business, be it a farm, an industry or a job in a mine, because of legislation like this.

We need to sit down with people and show them how legislation in other parts of the world has been designed so that it will work. It cannot be rammed through with closure. It cannot be top down and heavy on penalties, threats and attacks because that will never work. That has been tried and it did not work. It meant that endangered species became extinct because of the type of legislation that was there.

Let us learn from that and not waste money, RCMP time and conservation officers' time trying to enforce a bill that has not been well thought out and designed in this place.

Let us not talk about the heavy penalties, the non-compliance, the RCMP and the heavy hand of government. Let us talk about what kind of legislation will work to save endangered species.

Canadians are in favour of preserving endangered species. We are in favour of preserving endangered species. Farmers, ranchers, industrialists and environmentalists are in favour. Therefore all members of the House should be on the winning side.

How would we as the opposition improve the legislation? What should we do? What must we look at? I will spend the rest of my time speaking about how we can develop better legislation. I will put forward a few suggestions. Obviously I will miss some. Obviously some will come out from people we call as witnesses at committee. They will have all kinds of suggestions. I have a long list of people who want to come and make sure parliament hears their voice. We had better be here to listen.

What do we need to do? First, we need to co-operate. The word co-operation has to be critical in the legislation. Let us start with the provinces. We must not threaten provinces. We must listen to the member who spoke before me who said that Quebecers feel threatened by the legislation. That cannot be. It will not work in Quebec if they feel threatened by the legislation.

We cannot use court challenges. We cannot simply do driveby smears. We cannot have ministers using innuendo on one province over another. All provinces must be treated equally. We must remember that all the provinces have signed an agreement stating that they will implement and support endangered species legislation. That must tell us how important this is if all the provinces have agreed already.

We already have taken a step in co-operation. Now we must build on it. Having the provinces onside is critical. This cannot work if they do not work with us. I think all members would agree with that.

Second, we have to have the landowners on side. We cannot expect landowners to absorb all of the cost of protecting something that 100% of us want to protect. If all of us want to protect an endangered species, all of us must absorb the cost of doing it. We must have input into it and feel part of it. That would be very positive.

What kinds of things can we do? Habitat preservation is really interesting. I was involved in such a project. I mentioned that I worked for Canadian Wildlife Service as a biologist. In one of my jobs I spent the whole winter identifying habitat for migrating waterfowl. We used aerial photographs to identify the stopping places and breeding places of waterfowl across western Canada. I forget how many millions of dollars we had, but we had a bankroll and we signed agreements with farmers to protect that habitat for 25 years.

I was in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I went to a place called Derwent, Alberta. I was driving a government vehicle when I showed up in town. I went to the restaurant for a cup of coffee and breakfast, and they would not serve me. I then went to a gas station to fill up the tank, and they would not serve me. I then went to the RCMP and an officer said he wished I had not come to the station because people would see me there. I asked him what was wrong with me. What was wrong was that I was driving a government vehicle and people thought I was a tax collector or something. They did not know what I was doing, so they sent me out of town.

I went to Edmonton and met with a lawyer whose name I got from the RCMP. I explained to him what I was doing. When I went back to that community I got a free breakfast. Everybody said hi and knew my name.

I had x number of dollars. I phoned Canadian Wildlife Service in Saskatoon about two or three weeks later and said I was out of money, that all the agreements I had worked on during the winter were signed. My boss said they could not be because it was a whole summer's work. When I said that they were, he told me to make friends for wildlife in that part of Alberta, which I did.

I went to Ukrainian weddings, which often lasted a week, for an entire summer. That was co-operation. People there were happy to be involved in preserving wildlife. They did not have any problem with that at all. They were happy not to drain or burn and to provide nesting sites for migrating waterfowl. They were compensated and we co-operated with them. That is how we must approach this subject.

Had the heavy hand of government come down on those people telling them that they must preserve the area or they would be fined $50,000, their land would be seized or whatever, there would not have been many nesting waterfowl in the area. The government would have been treated like I was when I first drove down Main Street. It would not have been welcome.

I could use other examples. Ducks Unlimited is an interesting example. It often encourages people with incentives to protect water and wetlands areas, and it works great. It works right across the country. It has been in business a long time working with people.

I cannot help but tell the story of the gorillas in Rwanda. My wife and I spent a month in Rwanda in 1985. We trekked after the mountain gorillas. We followed them and we lived with them literally for a couple of days. There are fewer than 500 of them left. Fortunately, however, even with the wars they have not been decimated. The reason for that is farmers in the area who were encroaching on their habitat were told that tourists like to come and see the mountain gorillas. They were told that some of the profit from tourism in the area would be shared with them and that they would be paid not to knock down the bamboo the mountain gorillas eat.

In countries like Rwanda, Tanzania and South Africa there are many examples of co-operation in the protection of endangered species. They are doing a heck of a job. It does not cost a lot and it is working. We have to look at all of those examples and I hope we will be able to do that in committee.

The best conservationists I know are farmers and ranchers. I had a fellow from my riding phone me recently. He has owned his land for 100 years. For 40 years he set aside 180 acres for wildlife. He asked me if he should plough it this spring because he has an endangered species on the land. He said he wanted them there so his grandchildren to see them, but the government might seize the land. That is what these people are thinking. I know the legislation does not say that but the people do not know that. That is why we need the time to communicate with those Canadians who are affected by this.

We should not simply brush off the farmers and ranchers as a bunch of selfish guys who want money. That is not true at all. They want to save endangered species but they want a co-operative way of doing it. Let us make sure the legislation does that.

A difficult area to talk about is our aboriginal communities. It is very important that all Canadians be treated equally in preserving endangered species. It is very important that our native leaders, as well as the grassroots natives, be onside with any endangered species legislation or it will not work. It creates jealousy and conflict in the neighbourhoods and it puts the species at risk. Whether we are talking about grizzly bears, or salmon or whatever, all Canadians need to be treated equally in this legislation. I cannot emphasize the importance of that.

We need to recognize that many aboriginal people are very concerned about the natural world. We need to recognize that it is part of their religious ceremonies in many respects. We also recognize that if we just talk to the chiefs and not the grassroots who are living in substandard conditions, without sewer and water facilities, and living in impoverished situations, this legislation will not work.

I was troubled when I read the part of the legislation where it said the government would enforce the legislation for Canadians and that it would consult the aboriginal communities. We cannot just consult. They need to feel that they are part of this. The need to be brought into the consultations. We cannot leave them out. They have to buy into this. They have to be a part of the groups who make the decisions. They have to be included in the round tables. They have to be part of everything. If they are not, this will not work.

It is difficult to include that because some would say that I was picking on them. I am not. I am saying that we treat all Canadians equally. For me, that bill does not make that clear. Let us make it clear. Let us bring them to our committees. If we do that, we will be successful.

It is important that we include industry in this list. It is good business for industry to be interested in endangered species. That is just smart. The member for Wetaskiwin would like this example. When Union Carbide decided to build a petrochemical plant in his riding, one of the first things it did was get together with a group and purchase a farm. It is called the Ellis Bird Farm which raises bluebirds. The mountain bluebirds have thrived because of what Union Carbide did. Community groups are working with it to work on this kind of enhancement of a species.

As well, when we talk about industry, we must do a socio-economic study. We must include the socio-economic impact as part of any endangered species list.

It is not just a simple matter of saying we are going to protect all endangered species. While it is easy to say we all agree with that, we must look at all of the implications, be it the aboriginal communities, industry, farmers, ranchers or compensation. All of these issues must be part of the bill. To make this bill too simple will not work. It will not save any species. That is a major concern.

Before I leave the Ellis Bird Farm, there are so many committed people across Canada. Myrna Pearman is a person who should be recognized. She is the director, although I am not sure of her exact title, of the Ellis Bird Farm. She makes it click. She makes the community feel part of it. She makes Union Carbide a welcome industry in that community.

I know there are hundreds of examples. I know there are lots of examples in Ontario and in Atlantic Canada of the same sort of individuals and same sort of projects with industry. They must be consulted. If they are not consulted, they will not be players and they will not participate. That will endanger the endangered species.

When I talk about what is important and what would we do, co-operation has to be a word we focus on.

Let me just zero in on a few other areas we want to talk about with some specifics. I am going to list these quickly and obviously we will have a chance to elaborate more on them later.

We must take time to consult. We cannot have closure. We cannot have the minister saying it has to get through by June. I do not know why we waited eight years. If takes longer than June, than let it. However, let us do the consultation that is necessary. Let us do it right, if we are going to do it at all.

First, we need the full committee review. I have now talked to 12 environmental groups, a whole bunch of industrialists and I will be talking to a lot more farmers and ranchers. They want to be heard. It is the duty of the House to listen to them. We need to listen to the provinces and talk to each one of them. We cannot use closure or ram this down our throats to get it through and be done with it. It is too important for that in my opinion.

Second is the species at risk list. Let COSEWIC, the scientists, determine the list. I found it troubling, and maybe I did not understand something, that cabinet would decide on the list. I do not want the cabinet deciding on that. I want scientists making that decision. I want socio-economic impact studies and I want to hear from scientists. I trust them a lot more. I want the broad range of scientists, not just the small range.

Just to make sure we get it clear, many groups have spoken on endangered species. There are many people out there who should be listened to. It is important that COSEWIC base everything it does on science, not on politics. It should be the scientists who make the legal list in consultation with all of the people I mentioned. It should not be left to political lobbying, to political favouritism or to that sort of thing. It is too important an issue to Canadians to be left only in the realm of politicians.

Third is communication and co-operation. The only way this will be successful is if we put emphasis on the voluntary and on communication. The bill says we would have round tables. I have sat at round tables of foreign affairs. At one there were four defeated Liberal candidates and three fundraisers who were there for a weekend with their wives and good meals. They could not have given a damn about the issue we were talking about. I want those round tables to be real round tables. They are a good idea but let us make them for all groups. Let us listen to the extremes, the middle and then come to our conclusions. They are a good idea but let us communicate properly and let us get the feeling of the whole country.

Right now the country is suspicious about what we are doing. Compensation is a major issue and the minister said this in his speech. We must deal with it and it must be in the bill. It is not good enough to say it will be in the regulations and trust us. It is not in the bill now. The only thing that is acceptable is to have that in the bill.

We have serious problems with the Pearse report. I feel it is a formula for disaster. It will make the endangered species act not work. We need to have compensation in the bill. We need to spell it out and make it clear. If we do we will please an awful lot of people and go a long way in getting the bill through.

Provincial-federal co-operation is vital. We need to see the mechanism on how that is going to work and make sure it works.

With the issue of enforcement, we cannot have willy-nilly “we'll enforce it” because Environment Canada does not have the ability to enforce it. It says the RCMP will not be involved, so who is going to enforce this? How can we have a bill that has no enforcement? Is there going to be something? Again, we are told that it would be in the regulations. That is not good enough. We have to see it. We have to know what that means before it can be accepted.

In conclusion, the official opposition believes in an effective endangered species legislation. We support it. We want to make it work. We want to make it better. We believe that we can get effective endangered species legislation and that we can be world leaders. We have to have a full hearing in committee and clearly communicate and talk to Canadians. We need scientists, not politicians listing the endangered species. We need innovative approaches. We need to learn from what others have done. We need compensation as part of the bill. It must be there.

We need to talk about recovery and habitat protection, not just species. We cannot just really protect a species, we have to protect its habitat. How do we do that? Of course compensation comes into that. Get the politicians out of it. The round tables have to include all Canadians.

Above all, I came to parliament because I wanted to make a better Canada for my children and my grandchildren. I want them to be able to see grizzly bears catching salmon in B.C. I want them to be able to see dancing prairie chickens. I want them to see sandhill cranes and whooping cranes. I want them to hear the loon on lakes in Ontario. I want them to be able to see the beluga whales at the mouth of the St. Lawrence. I want them to be able to see teeming stocks of cod and other sea life in Atlantic Canada.

We can make this happen. We can make this country what so many international people think of it. However, we are going to have to work at it. We are going to have to work co-operatively at it. That is what we will be working toward in working with the government, hopefully, on Bill C-5.

Species At Risk ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

If there is agreement with the House, I would like to call it 5.30 p.m. and go into private members' hour. Is that agreed?

Species At Risk ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed

Species At Risk ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Fuel Price Posting ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC

moved that Bill C-220, an act respecting the posting of fuel prices by retailers, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to demand on behalf of consumers that the pre-tax price of a litre of gas be posted. As I said when I introduced this bill, when a fuel retailer causes a poster, label or sign to be posted indicating the selling price for a fuel, the price must be indicated without any taxes imposed on the consumer under federal or provincial legislation.

When we introduce a bill in the House, it is placed on the notice paper and then we have to wait for the draw. Sometimes one has to wait one, two or three years before one's bill comes up in the draw. If one is lucky, one's bill might be one of the first ones to be drawn. I was lucky, which is fortunate for consumers.

Then the bill is reviewed by a committee, and one has to explain why it should be made a votable item or not. One goes before the committee members, as I did last week. Members listen to find out what the bill is all about. I explained all that to the committee.

Then the committee meets a second time to determine whether the bill should be made a votable item. And this is when the problem starts. Once at this stage, and even earlier in the process, there should be a draw to decide which bills are votable and which ones are not. This is the problem we have in the House.

At the second meeting, last Friday, when opposition members saw that I was introducing this bill, Bloc members and Alliance members alike said “This is a provincial matter. This is a matter for provincial governments. You have no business introducing such a bill”. Therefore I did not win; it was decided my bill was not votable. But it does not matter, because in the House the main thing is to speak on behalf of consumers.

I am going to tell the House what the price of a litre of gas is: today in Val d'Or, in Abitibi, it is 77.9 cents. Very few people know what the price of a litre of gasoline is before taxes. However if people call the Régie de l'énergie in Quebec, the experts will explain what it is.

The price we see announced is 77.9 cents per litre, but when we go in to pay the bill after filling up the tank, we see a total of $40, for example, but we do not see the 10 cent excise tax or the 10.55 cent Quebec road tax on the invoice. In our region we do not have a 1.5 cent special tax, as they do in Montreal. However, in Montreal motorists pay 15.55 cents, whereas in Abitibi, thanks to the government in office, we pay 10.55 cents because we live in a remote area. Then there is the GST and the QST.

Consumers only see two taxes; they do not see the other taxes. In the meantime, oil companies, such as Petro-Canada, put a sticker on the pumps that says that taxes are included in the price. That sticker has been there for months. It is still there. The funny thing is that once they stick it there, they forget to remove it.

Today, the price of gas in Abitibi is 77.9 cents. Petro-Canada has a sticker on the pump saying that taxes are 51%. Let us take this price of 77.9 cents and add a few figures. The minimum price, according to the Régie de l'énergie, is 35.8 cents. The cost of transporting gas to Val d'Or is about 2.4 cents per litre. The cost of transporting it to Quebec City or to Montreal is about 0.3 cents per litre. If we add it up, 35.8 cents plus 2.4 cents, we get a total of 44.4 cents, which means that taxes would be 33.5 cents.

Now we get to the sticker. I am targeting Petro-Canada in particular because the Government of Canada owns 18% of that company. The consumer does not know what the exact price of a litre of gas is without taxes because it is not posted.

Throughout the year consumers are aware of the multiple billion dollar profits Canada's oil companies are making. They know how much the bosses and their friends are collecting in dividends, yet the companies are unable to tell us how much a litre of gas costs at the pumps. They do not want to tell the consumers this.

Yesterday morning, at 6.35, I went to a gas station and asked for a litre of gas just for the fun of it. How much would it cost? On Chemin de la Montagne in Hull, the posted price was 70.9 cents a litre. I tried to get a litre but did not manage to get exactly that. I went inside and paid my 70 cents, then went back out and tried to pump a litre. I ended up with 1.03 litres for 71 cents, yet the posted price was 70.9 cents.

Let hon. members try to do the calculation of what the price of a litre of gas is without the taxes. No matter what means we use, this is impossible. The oil companies are billionaires many times over, but they cannot tell the consumer how much a litre of gas costs.

We know that a litre of gas costs 35.8 cents anywhere in Quebec. The price added on top of that is for shipping it to the regions. In Nunavik people do not know the price of a litre of gas. We know, however, that 4 cents a litre is for getting it to the Chapais, Chibougamau, Matagami and James Bay regions.

We know that the profit margin is included in the price per litre at the pump. That is what I want to say to the government, and I tried to have a motion passed making the bill votable.

We know that the government of Quebec is doing a very good job, because it allows reductions on the transportation tax or the special tax in the outlying regions.

What is happening right now? Father Charles-Aimé Anctil, Val-d'Or's parish priest, wrote me the following one day: “What a surprise not to hear politicians up in arms about the hike in gas prices. Don't tell me that you can't do anything: you are the ones with the power”.

We are doing everything we can to get the oil companies to post the gross price of a litre of gasoline, minus the taxes. They are not interested. When we ask them why, we are told that it is the governments that are opposed. I put the question to the government of Quebec and to the Government of Canada and I was told that the problem was not them but the oil companies.

The biggest laugh of all is that there is nothing preventing the oil companies from posting the gross price of a litre of gas in Canada.

As of today, the price of a litre of gas in Quebec is 35.8 cents. It should be possible to find out the gross price of a litre of gas, minus the taxes, in Ontario, Manitoba or Vancouver, but it is not, because Petro-Canada's pumps break the price down into benefits: 1%, price of crude oil, 30%, refinery costs, 18% and taxes 51%. That is what is posted today.

However a look below, at the little bottom line reveals the words “average prices at the pump in 1999”. We are being had by Petro-Canada, by misinformation. At the moment, the oil companies are worth billions and cannot even manage to change the labels.

It is disgusting that a company belonging to the Government of Canada is incapable of being in consumer mode and revealing the cost of gasoline without taxes.

The aim of the bill is to find ways to enable the consumer to discover the real price of gasoline. A consumer buying a litre of gasoline in Abitibi Senneterre, or anywhere in Quebec knows he pays the QST and the GST. He knows he has to pay the excise tax. He also knows there is a provincial tax. He knows there are taxes for Tom, Dick and Harry, but he cannot know the gross price of a litre of gasoline.

In some provinces, there is no provincial tax. All the better for consumers. One day, with luck, we may not have to pay the provincial tax on a litre of gasoline in Quebec.

What counts most is reporting to consumers, telling them “Here is your product and the cost of it”. A litre of gasoline in Quebec is currently 35.8 cents, plus transport, which in Abitibi and I am still talking about my region, is 2.4 cents and the service station profit may be 3 or 4 cents, but we can live with that.

We can live with the taxes. In any case, we will always have to pay them somewhere. We will take it in our righthand or lefthand pocket. We are always going to get hit. Be it under the government of Quebec or the Government of Canada, we will always be paying taxes somewhere.

What matters to me is knowing the gross price charged by an oil company for a litre of gas. Not many people have this information. We have specialists. Perhaps we will know more tomorrow because the report on competition, or the study that was done, is supposed to be tabled tomorrow.

Here is what the study said:

That the oil industry should bear in mind the public's level of frustration and adopt more transparent pricing practices, including showing the gross price and giving the breakdown for refinery, processing, whole sale and retail prices, and taxes.

I think that everyone's interests would be better served if the industry made a greater effort to explain how prices are set and made this information available to consumers.

This quote is from a letter sent me by the minister on June 5, 2000. I have nothing prepared, I am speaking off the cuff. The federal Minister of Natural Resources wrote me and recommended precisely what I have just said: “that the consumer should be better informed”. That is what is important.

It matters little which governments are in power in Canada. What matters is the consumer. When we go into a corner store, we know that a case of beer costs $22 plus taxes. On the reserve, it costs $22 without taxes. That is another story. Whenever one goes to buy something, one knows the price. Here in Ottawa, we know that the lunch special costs $8.95, plus taxes.

Try that with a litre of gas. Everybody is upset at the Government of Canada regarding the price of gas in my region and elsewhere. I tell parliamentarians that there is no act preventing oil companies from doing that. There is no legislation preventing oil companies from indicating the gross price before taxes. There is no act preventing them from doing that. They do not want to do that, they are hiding things.

We should know tomorrow, because we just got a memo saying that Industry Canada will table its report on the oil industry tomorrow.

It is always the same thing with this issue. The government is the one being blamed. Sometimes this may be a good thing, but the government of Quebec is also blamed as well as all the provinces.

However, it is wrong to say that all the provinces regulate gas prices in Canada. Unless I am mistaken, there may be two provinces that have an energy board: Prince Edward Island and Quebec. These two provinces set a floor price. They can try to do so. Today in Quebec that floor price is 67.6 cents, depending on the regions. In Abitibi the floor price of a litre of gas is currently 67.6 cents. It is less than in Montreal, because in Montreal they also have taxes. These are special taxes for the metro, 1.55 cents, and others at 1.5 cents, 0.10 cents, 15.55 cents.

The important thing for Canadian consumers is to know what kind of products they are paying for. What is the capital? What the gross price before taxes? We do not know. This is what I am asking from oil companies. If it does not work here in Ottawa, I am asking oil companies to stand up and to show the real price of a litre of gas before taxes.

Fuel Price Posting ActPrivate Members' Business

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the debate started I heard my name used as seconder. I would like it noted that such is not the case. Perhaps that could be addressed on the books and the hon. member could find somebody else to sponsor the bill.

Fuel Price Posting ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is there unanimous consent for the member for Scarborough Centre not to be the seconder?

Fuel Price Posting ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Fuel Price Posting ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Fuel Price Posting ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an error. I mentioned to the pages at the beginning that the seconder of the motion was the hon. member for Fredericton. I would ask you to put the question.

Fuel Price Posting ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

I will not go through the pages. I will ask the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, if the hon. member for Scarborough Centre does not want to be the seconder, would another hon. member want to replace him?