Debates of Feb. 20th, 2002

Species at Risk Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

With respect, I do not think that is a point of order. It is only a point of clarification.

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that although the current Minister of Health is obviously no longer the minister of justice, the issue of mandatory hunting rifle registration will continue to haunt her, and her government I might add.

With respect to the matter at hand, the species at risk legislation, let me begin by saying that in 1992 the convention on biological diversity obliged Canada to adopt measures for mandatory habitat protection of threatened and endangered species and a scientific listing of species at risk to be a part of that process, both of which actually this legislation is deficient on and actually does not meet those obligations.

Furthermore, I might add that it is unfortunate that it has taken the Liberal government so long to bring in this legislation. It has been in office since 1993 and here it is 2002 and, if I am not mistaken, this is the first piece of environmental legislation that it has ever brought in in all the years it has been in office, and the legislation falls short of our obligations under that 1992 convention.

Nonetheless, the species at risk working group, which was a coalition of well recognized and major environmental groups, as well as industry stakeholders, put together a series of consensus recommendations. The government is of course ignoring those recommendations in this legislation which has been its tendency in many other cases.

In many cases, industry stakeholders and, in this case, environmental groups with respect to environmental issues, are very much equipped to know the issues better than politicians quite frankly. The recommendations from these groups should be taken very seriously, not just flippantly disregarded as has been done in this case.

As I have said, that tendency exists in other areas, such as agriculture where farm groups have been proposing solid, sustainable agricultural policies and solutions to the agriculture crisis for years but instead of adopting some of those recommendations and listening to farmers themselves, the Liberals have stumbled from ad hoc agriculture program to ad hoc program trying to snuff out the fires of the crisis on a temporary basis. They do not seem to get it.

In any case, not only did the government ignore the consensus recommendations of the species at risk working group but members of the opposition in committee and, I might add, even some of the Liberal members of committee, worked very hard and proposed a whole series of amendments that they passed at committee to improve the legislation. Now that we are here at report stage, those amendments have been reversed by the minister, once again ignoring the advice and knowledge of people who have had a very close hand in working with the issues.

I will outline three specific deficiencies of the legislation. To be set up effectively, a plan to protect threatened and endangered species should include a science based approach: a list of threatened and endangered species that is put together by scientists and experts, not by politicians.

Second, if a species is placed on that list and a recovery plan stage is then entered into, that stage would include further scientific study and socio-economic assessments.

The legislation, however, involves political based decisions whereby there would be no requirement for the government to make a decision on recommendations by scientists or even to respond to them, no time line and the decision ultimately would rest with a politician as opposed to scientists. That is an obvious, glaring deficiency in the bill.

Third, there are provisions in the bill allowing for federal interference on private or provincial land but no mandatory protection for species at risk on federal land.

In the case of federal land, protection is discretionary on a case by case basis. Not only is that an inconsistency but it is obviously a wrong approach.

Protection of species at risk benefits everyone. No individual should bear the sole burden of the cost of recovery. Landowners who would be involved in the process should be subject to receiving fair and reasonable compensation. There is no clear provision for that in the bill either.

I want to address the issue of compensation for landowners. It is not in the bill but it will be dealt with, supposedly, by regulations from the minister. This is an approach that the government is increasingly taking every time it tables legislation. Instead of introducing comprehensive legislation that is very clear and thoughtful, it puts together these little framework shells of legislation and then accomplishes most of everything else through regulation. That is fundamentally wrong.

I would like to commend my hon. colleague, the member for Edmonton North, who, together with Senator Lowell Murray, co-authored a report entitled, “The Working Group on Democratic Reform”, a very exciting and comprehensive document of political, parliamentary and electoral reform. One of the recommendations contained in that report is regulatory reform, specifically, three measures are suggested.

First, that the government should be required to table a copy of the draft regulations before a bill is finally voted on in the Commons, or Senate if it originates there. Ideally, the draft regulations would be tabled at second reading or at the outset of committee study of the bill.

If that recommendation had been followed by the government, then the regulations pertaining to compensation for landowners could have been part of the process and could have been deliberated at committee where witnesses could have been called to testify about what they thought and amendments could have been proposed. It would have greatly improved the legislative making process.

The second recommendation in the report was with regard to new regulations under existing laws. It states that they should be tabled in parliament at the time of pre-publication so that appropriate committees can review them if desired.

Once again, that process is not followed by the Liberal government. When the time comes for the minister to table these regulations about compensation, there is no parliamentary scrutiny.

The third recommendation is that the disallowance procedure to rescind a regulation should be put on a statutory footing rather than being only an order of the House under the standing orders.

In fact the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations is currently struggling with that very issue right now. In December it voted to disallow some Indian-only fishing regulations that, as far back as 1997, were identified by the committee as being illegal, or what is called ultra vires the act, in other words, outside the scope of the act of parliament, and that the minister was making these regulations even though he did not have the authority to do so.

In December, because the minister kept dragging his feet and would not correct the situation, we finally voted to disallow those regulations. However the Liberal dominated committee, a few weeks ago, just outvoted us and is keeping that report away from parliament.

Those are some very solid suggestions for regulatory reform which I sincerely hope will one day be adopted by government.

Let me conclude by saying that the opposition coalition believes in protecting endangered species based on the principles of respect for private property, voluntary programs, co-operation, sound science and accountability. Without a strong emphasis on these principles, endangered species could become more threatened as the result of bad legislation. The current endangered species legislation does not sufficiently reflect these principles and we will continue to fight for legislation that is effective and that will work.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has notice of a point of order arising out of the question period today.

Point of Order

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, in this afternoon's oral question period, a Bloc Québécois member asked me a question. In my reply, I said September 2004, when I should have said September 2003.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment Insurance.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Species at Risk Act

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those debates on a bill to which I very much look forward. I think all of us in the Canadian Alliance, including the members on the government side, want to support and protect endangered species. I believe the emphasis is how do we do this and how do we manage it properly.

The assumption seems to be that somehow the bill meets the desire that all Canadians want, which is to protect endangered species and to ensure they are protected in a way that is balanced and is a fair process for everybody concerned. Therefore there is no disagreement as to the purpose and the objective of this legislation.

However this is now the third attempt by the government to bring forward this kind of legislation. This government is not the only government that has tried to deal with this. Other government have, some more successfully than others.

It is our position that in this case some of the provisions in the bill are of a nature that will make it impossible for the government to realize its objective. That is the really serious part of the bill. It will defeat the very purpose for which it was intended and that purpose will be defeated by some of the provisions in the bill.

I was particularly saddened this afternoon during question period when the Minister of the Environment responded to a question by my colleague from the constituency of Red Deer. The minister was asked what he wanted to do. He responded in a manner like this. He said “I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me yet again the opportunity of pointing out how much I value co-operation with people who work on the land, trappers, farmers, ranchers, people who work in the woods or fishermen. These are the people who are at the forefront of the battle to protect endangered species”.

Those are wonderful words. In fact, if he had listened properly, and he probably did, to some of the other speeches here, those were the exact words my hon. colleagues used. I believe that those are the correct words. The unfortunate part is that he seems to have forgotten that there is a group of people that he excluded and particularly damned in the next paragraph.

I am reading from the blues. Maybe he will change them when he sees them, but this is what he said, “With respect to the mining association, I am sure that it would like to have unlimited compensation for many things that we think it should not do. We do not think when it is operating on crown land it is given the right to eliminate endangered species. We think that it is something that should not be in...”

Let us analyze it. Does that mean the only time they would have unlimited rights to destroying species is when they are on crown lands and if they are on private lands they would not have that right? This is one superficial interpretation, but it suggests something to totally different. That is to suggest that the mining companies are irresponsible and that when operating on crown land or any other kind of land they want unlimited compensation and do not care not what happens to endangered species.

Let me tell the House about an example that exists at Wabamun, Alberta where TransAlta Utilities mines for coal. It has restored that habitat in such a manner that if we went there we would say that it was a beautiful part of the province and wonder how that happened. We would find out that the land has been reclaimed. There was an open pit mine there. It has been reclaimed to the point where it is now a show piece at which people can look. To suggest and imply that miners are irresponsible and that the only people who are responsible are ranchers, trappers and people of that sort is wrong.

I also want to lean rather heavily on notes that were given to me by a very prominent member of the Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association. Members of that association work in the woods, on resource lands and on crown lands. Here are some of his concerns. He suggests that Canadians expect that the needs of species at risk should be balanced with the socioeconomic needs of people and the communities that they live and work in. Do we all agree with that? He certainly agrees with that. This is a resource person talking this way.

He goes on to say that these Canadians expect this legislation to provide a process to protect and recover species at risk, while at the same time manage the impact on individuals and society in a fair and reasonable manner. What more responsible statement can we find than that one?

He also says that Canadians expect this legislation to encourage co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, landowners and resource users and that they are respectful of the constitutional division of powers to ensure that is there. We all agree with that.

This is a resource person managing some of the resources of our country and we know we must develop our resources and use them in a way that will enhance our economy and that will also develop resources and skills of our people. Sure, it is complex and involves biological, social, economic, cultural and constitutional boundaries. However notice that in the preparation of the bill the government said that it would consult with a wide variety of people.

We will talk about only one group, the Canadian Wildlife Service. Did the government consult it? Yes, indeed. Was that consultation productive in terms of amending the legislation to meet its concerns? No, it was not. What is the point of consulting people if we do not bother to listen to what they have to say or incorporate their legitimate concerns?

Some would argue immediately that there is some bias and predetermined interests that perhaps should be avoided. A member of a particular group, Dr. Pearse to whom my colleague just referred, told us very clearly that one of the fundamental principles was that if we were to take land away to protect species, then there should be fair compensation in recognition of what was happening in the marketplace.

We cannot just willy-nilly say it is worth a certain amount of money. We must look at the marketplace. If the land is being taken out of production at a particular time in date, we must compensate in terms of what the marketplace demands at that time and what the market is generally like in that area. That was all done.

Dr. Pearse did something very interesting. He did not say anything about the timeliness of some compensation. Technically, it could be argued that we would give compensation but would wait five years or ten years. This was not specified. Dr. Pearse should have covered that issue, but he did not.

What is necessary in terms of compensation? We have talked about fairness. We have talked about a relationship to the marketplace, but there is something far more significant than that. Everyone in the country and here in the House believe that we should have the right to own property, to use it, to have the pleasure of having that property and to do it in such a way that it will not hurt other people. We believe that is our right.

Should it not only be the responsibility of government to protect that right, but if in its wisdom the government decides to deprive individuals of the use and ownership of that private property, then should the government not be honour bound to compensate those people for the loss of that property?

However it goes beyond that. Very often the use of that land and property generates money for the benefit of society and develops communities. The government should then create a situation that if it is going to take those means of production away, it should then compensate in such a manner so that capital can be applied in a new way, a new generation can be brought about and then the economy is not disturbed but is enhanced by this issue.

We must address this area of compensation. We must address the right and responsibility as individuals to do what is right and fair and so should the government.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-5, a piece of legislation that has been a long time getting to this point. It is the third time around for endangered species legislation and sadly the government has still not got it right.

I want to begin where my friend who just spoke left off, on the issue of compensating people for the loss of the use of their private property. Property rights are central to freedom in Canada and to every country. If we do not have them protected and respected, then by definition our freedoms are eroded.

Whether it is the Canadian Wheat Board, the firearms registry or now endangered species legislation, the government has been very cavalier in its treatment of property rights. It is a shame not only because it erodes a fundamental freedom, but it is also a shame because it will work precisely against what the government wants to accomplish. It wants people to protect habitat for endangered species but the way the legislation is designed, where there is no guarantee of any compensation if land is taken out of production, for example on a farm, to protect endangered species, means that people will have an incentive to get rid of endangered species on their properties.

Perhaps people on the other side have not heard, but we have a severe drought in the west right now, particularly in southern Alberta. These are difficult times on the farms, and it is true really across the west because of low commodity prices as well. When the legislation comes into effect, as surely it will, there will be absolutely no incentive. In fact, there will be a disincentive to look after endangered species on property.

In my riding in southern Alberta we have burrowing owls, which are rare birds. People are generally very good stewards when they have burrowing owls on their properties. We used to have a program called “Operation Burrowing Owl”. Ranchers and farmers would voluntarily report activity by these owls. They would go out of their way to protect them and ensure nobody was out shooting gophers around them, et cetera.

Now all of a sudden having burrowing owls on your property becomes a liability. If someone down the road said that Mr. Smith had burrowing owls on his property, that piece of property would be taken out of production. He would not be able to raise cattle on it any more. We hardly have any grass as it is. If we take more of it out of production, it hurts people pretty dramatically.

The incentive will be to go out with the .22 and clean up the burrowing owls. That is exactly what has happened in the United States. This is not some theoretical consequence because it has already happened with very similar legislation in the United States.

A much better approach would be to say that we would provide compensation for people who have land taken out of production to protect these endangered species. That is in harmony with our common law tradition. We provide people with compensation if a road goes through their land or if it even has an injurious impact on the value of their property. When it comes to endangered species, the government does not place as high a priority on compensating people. In doing that, it really does work against the end it is trying to accomplish.

I urge the government to revisit the whole concept. I do not understand where the environment minister is coming from.

In my riding many people who are landowners are outdoorsmen and take great pride in protecting habitat on their properties. Many of them are involved in organizations like Ducks Unlimited and local fish and game clubs where they plant trees, build habitat and do all kinds of things to protect the land and ensure that all kinds of species have places to nest, burrow and those sorts of things. These people care about the environment. They want to protect it so there are more species, animals and birds.

I am afraid that this legislation, and in fact the whole approach of the government, has been to ignore that and not acknowledge the great benefit that these people provide when it comes to protecting the environment through voluntary organizations and as individuals looking after their own land. These people are great stewards of the land.

I am afraid that what we are seeing from the government is a heavy handed, top down approach which assumes that people will go out and destroy animals on purpose, which simply is false. There are better ways of handling this. I do not understand why the government does not take the approach that we should actually pay people to set aside property to protect animals. That is obviously a more co-operative way. I do not see why the government does not talk about providing tax breaks for people who provide habitat for species at risk. These are all proposals that have been suggested to the government, things it could have done, but the government reversed that. It said it would start on the assumption that these people are all out to wipe out endangered species, something that is simply false, completely false.

It is no wonder that the government is at loggerheads with the rural population, especially in the west, because it takes that approach. The same thing happened with the firearms and many other pieces of legislation.

It is very sad that after three attempts and after all the consultation the government received indicating that it should be working in a more co-operative way, it is not reflected at all in the legislation, especially considering that the government has been pounding away at this for pretty close to five years.

I will say one other thing with respect to this whole issue. A few minutes ago my friend, the deputy leader of the Canadian Alliance, got up and spoke. As members know, his family came from Uganda. They were driven out of Uganda by Idi Amin. One of the things that Idi Amin did when he drove them out was take all their property. I am not comparing the government to Idi Amin or to what happened in Uganda, I am not, but I do want to point out that property is central to freedom. The government laughs off that concept too often. It does not take that concept seriously, but it is so fundamental to everything good about our country that it should be respected in every piece of legislation the government brings down, but the government routinely nips away at the edges of this critical freedom. This bill, Bill C-5, is another perfect example of that.

I urge the government across the way, the next time it brings down legislation that has an impact on people's private property, to be conscious that it is fooling with something very precious.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this part of Bill C-5 dealing primarily with compensation to property owners who would suffer under the impact of the bill.

Let me give an example that is typical of this, because we are talking primarily about rural lands, farmland and ranchland. It is one of the anomalies in the bill. If there were four large ranches all in the same area, all interconnected, and there happened to be some endangered species habitat found on one ranch, that particular rancher could potentially suffer financial harm without proper compensation or even any compensation under the bill while the other three ranchers in the immediate area would have no financial penalty at all.

One of the problems we have with legislation throughout the country is getting people to relate to what the actual problem is. It is sometimes very difficult to get someone in an urban centre, where housing density is much more concentrated, to relate to what is happening to a random rancher or farmer but not to any great numbers of them. I would like to use examples which, while not necessarily factual, certainly could be.

I will pick three urban ridings, the first one being the federal riding of Davenport. Inside the federal riding of Davenport, let us say that a constituent goes to his member of parliament asking for help because six feet are being taken off his 70 foot lot, his fence is being taken down, his fruit trees taken out and the government is offering absolutely no compensation because it says that this is less than 10% of the individual's property and he should be prepared to give it up for the government.

In another riding, that of Kitchener Centre, let us say that someone with a large commercial building goes to his member of parliament stating that the federal government next door has decided it needs to expand its building and is taking away from the back of his property his legal access to his loading docks. Without that access, says the individual, “I have no way to bring in my trucks and I am going to suffer severe financial harm because the government is taking away a legally entrenched access route, which is right on the deed of property, but because it does not represent 10% of the value of the business I am not going to get any compensation”.

In the third riding, that of Victoria, British Columbia, a group of property owners goes to the member of parliament asking for help. They have waterfront property and the federal government has decided it needs some property on the water for a port activity. It has decided to take 50 feet off their property, denying them waterfront any more because another property will be between them and the water. The government will take away a substantial part of their lots and they will get approximately only 50% of the value of the land the government is taking.

In each of these cases, the member of parliament they went to for help is in a conflict because the three members of parliament for those ridings are the Liberal chair of the environment committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of the Environment himself.

In this legislation, they have not denied that they are following the provisions of something called the Pearse report, which recommends that the impact on anybody whose property is taken or whose operation is curtailed by less than 10% of the value should not be compensated at all. That would follow for the first two examples of Davenport and Kitchener Centre. In the third example, where substantial value is being taken, the Pearse report states that if it is more than 10% of the value then 50% of what the individual loses should be compensated.

I would hope that people from urban centres who are listening to this debate recognize how they would feel if the government said “We're taking a piece of your property. We're taking six feet off the side. We're taking away the new fence you just built and we're not going to put it back up. We're taking away all the fruit trees that line that side of your property and we're not going to give you any compensation”.

If they cannot relate to some random rancher or perhaps a farmer out in a rural area, then perhaps they can relate to someone on their street or even possibly themselves having the government come and say it is taking their property and there will be no compensation.

We certainly support the concept of protecting endangered species and their habitat. We think it is very important, but the very notion that a few people would be asked to finance the cost of this when it is of benefit to all is absolutely absurd.

I would hope that the members on the Liberal side would reflect on this. We know we are from different parties but sometimes I even wonder if we are not from different countries, with the gap between us on this side of the House and that little bit of space across the way to the government benches. How can they sit there quietly and say it is perfectly fair to take 10% of someone's land and not pay compensation? Are they are supposed to say “thanks very much for allowing us to contribute to the government”? That does not make a whole lot of sense and yet I do not hear a single voice from the government side speaking out in support of the people of Canada. That is really who they are acting against.

Whenever this happens to one group, in this case albeit a relatively small percentage, the farmers and ranchers of the country, the other people, those in urban centres and all those who say it does not affect them, have to realize that even though it does not in this case what happens the next time? What happens when the federal government does something that does affect them and other people say “it does not affect us so we're not coming to your aid”?

I had a recent case in one of my communities. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans decided arbitrarily that it needed a $400,000 fish screen placed on the opening of an irrigation canal that supplies water to the farmers in that area. That canal had been in operation over 80 years without any problem, but suddenly the Department of Fisheries and Oceans said it wanted to enhance the salmon fishery so it would have a fancy screen put on the opening of the canal. As a result, a small city of about 3,500 people is being handed a bill for $400,000.

All Canadians across the country must stand together to stand up to mistakes that the Liberal government makes from time to time. I would like to think that the Liberals are acting with honourable intentions. That is why we support the concept of the bill, but the reality is that it does no good to have good intentions if in fact serious harm would be done to a great number of Canadians across the country.

The very notion that the government would impose this financial hardship on a few suggests that it really does not care about making a bill that is right. It only cares about scoring a few cheap political points with a few people who are pushing this agenda particularly hard.

I salute the people who are pushing the agenda to protect the endangered species of the country, but I am sure even they would not agree that only a handful of people, particularly rural farmers and ranchers, should be the ones who have to bear the burden for it.

I would hope that the government will consider changing this part of the bill. We know that it has been drafting the bill for seven years. Would it not be an embarrassment to the government that it would come forward with a bill at this stage that would so unfairly penalize a small number of people within our community after seven years of a bill being brought before the House, being debated, being lost when the government prorogued the House and brought a session to an end and then being reintroduced yet another time, and with all the hearings across the country and the information we have received from divergent groups all recognizing the unfairness of this? It would be unconscionable. The government has an opportunity to change it and I hope the government will take it.

We are in report stage now and there is an opportunity for the government to accept that. If it does not, then the only other opportunity we have left is the thought that the government has no real agenda. There are a lot of rumours that the government will prorogue the House. That has bailed it out of bad legislation before. That is one of the reasons for proroguing the House: to wipe the slate of bad legislation. This bill is that and if ever there was justification for taking legislation off the slate this is it.

If the government does not fix this legislation, then it has to remove it. Otherwise, it is being very unfair to a number of good Canadians, Canadians who deserve better from the government.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are tenants on this earth, not proprietors. As such, we have a responsibility to maintain a certain level of care and respect for the way in which we treat the environment while we are here.

It has been estimated that the worldwide rate of wildlife extinction has been increasing at about 1,000 times the natural rate. Much of this increase can be attributed to human interference and lack of respect for the environment in which these species live. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we as representatives of a country which plays host to an extremely large number of wildlife species take any steps to protect species at risk of extinction.

As the bill currently stands, compensation would be assessed on a discretionary case by case basis. However, we cannot assess compensation on a discretionary basis. It is nothing less than arrogant for the government to expect the citizens of Canada to trust its judgment. We must have provisions for full compensation that are outlined in the legislation so that the amount of compensation is set out beforehand by all the elected members and not left entirely in the hands of a few bureaucrats.

Having provisions for full compensation in the legislation acts as a disciplinary device for government. It restricts random regulations, makes the government more careful in planning and assures that we respect private property. These ideals are nothing new. They are the basis of our economic system. It is therefore vital that those people or companies who experience reduced income or increased costs be fully and fairly compensated.

When things are left up to the discretion of a few people, it is hard to imagine that everyone will be treated equally. It will certainly open the door for those who feel they have not been compensated fairly to lose trust in their government. If we put strict provisions on compensation and have set amounts of compensation that are clearly outlined in the bill, it is much less likely that people will feel that they have been treated unfairly because everyone is assured of getting fair and equal treatment across the country.

It must be pointed out that the government needs to develop estimates for different compensation scenarios. We cannot just assume that every situation requiring compensation is going to be the same. The government needs to take these differing situations into account and provide guidelines for how to assess compensation in different scenarios.

This is a facet of the bill on which the government has yet to release information. It is an issue that needs to be tackled soon so as to decrease uncertainty and let the citizens of Canada know what they can expect. It makes sense and will likely decrease the chances of further problems down the road.

Although the minister's proposal includes references to compensation, the guidelines are quite restricting. For example, the proposal states that the compensation should not generally exceed the value of incentives that were made available through stewardship programs. In other words, the minister is saying the compensation would be limited based on the value of whatever initiatives were available to promote preventive action on the part of the landowner. This may sound fair; however, it is difficult to imagine how this limitation would allow compensation to cover market value losses if land were taken out of production.

Although in the past many landowners have co-operated in species recovery programs without compensation, the majority of these cases surely have involved those who can already afford to take such initiatives or people who are willing to make personal sacrifices to save endangered species. It would be naive to believe that all people would participate in these programs without receiving compensation for their personal efforts and financial losses. Therefore, with the health of endangered species in mind and in the name of putting people at the centre of legislation, all people must receive compensation at fair market value.

It is unfair to leave decisions falling into the realm of jurisdiction up to the discretion of one person. In our criminal justice system, the decision as to whether or not to convict someone of a criminal offence lies in the hands and discretion of twelve people, not one.

When a decision such as this is left up to discretion, it opens the door for one's moral, ethical and even religious dispositions to come into the mix. This is something that is sure to spark a nationwide debate.

We need strict guidelines as to when the federal government can impose its laws on the provinces so that provinces and landowners know what to expect in terms of interference from the federal level. Since Bill C-5 leaves the federal government's power completely at the discretion of the minister responsible, landowners do not know if or when the federal government can or will impose its laws on provincial lands.

Instead of working together with the provinces and property owners, the federal government is introducing uncertainty, resentment and distrust. The federal government must be responsible for ensuring that it consults and co-operates with the provinces when making these considerations.

Somewhat ironically, in a 1999 independent study commissioned by the federal government entitled “A Review of National Accord Gap Analysis”, nine out of the twelve provinces and territories scored higher than the federal government regarding wildlife conservation. In fact, the federal government scored 44% on the test whereas all of the prairie provinces scored in the top five with marks ranging from 64% in B.C. to 85% in Alberta. How can one not see the irony in this?

Under these conditions found in a study commissioned by the federal government itself, it is still insisting that federal wildlife officials be allowed to peer over the shoulder of their provincial counterparts to ensure that they are doing the job. The provinces are obviously doing a better job of wildlife conservation than the federal government. Therefore, why is it that Bill C-5 does not recognize the federal government's own shortcomings in this area but rather adopts an arrogant attitude ensuring a dominating and coercive attitude toward the provinces? Each province and territory of Canada is different in regard to the species that inhabit their part of the country.

Officials at the Government of Saskatchewan expressed concerns in a number of areas covered in Bill C-5. First, they are of the impression that Bill C-5 does not adequately allow for provinces to take an equal system approach. What is good for one species in a grasslands may not be good for another species inhabiting the same environment. Bill C-5 is fairly narrow-minded and does not adequately allow for the provinces to take a diverse and open-minded perspective toward wildlife conservation.

Second, the Government of Saskatchewan is worried that it does not have the adequate resources or the timeframe to meet all of the provincial requirements outlined in Bill C-5.

Moreover, Bill C-5 is diverging from the spirit of the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada signed in 1996 by most provincial and territorial ministers responsible for wildlife and by the federal government.

The accord lays out a variety of commitments to protect species at risk. By its terms, the governments recognize that intergovernmental co-operation is crucial to the conservation and protection of species at risk. The governments play a leadership role. Complementary federal, provincial and territorial legislation, regulations, policies and programs are essential to protect species at risk.

Co-operation between the federal and provincial governments is at the heart of the accord. However, as I have stated before, Bill C-5 does not encourage co-operation between the provincial and federal governments but rather introduces uncertainty, resentment and distress.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the species at risk bill, a bill which I join my Canadian Alliance colleagues in opposing.

Some people will say that by opposing Bill C-5 we demonstrate our lack of respect for biodiversity in Canada and the world. Some people will say that we do not care about protecting endangered species in Canada. This is false.

We care about the environment and we do so in a realistic and responsible manner. Alliance members recognize that legislation like Bill C-5 will fail and fail badly if it does not recognize some basic truths.

The first of these is that to be successful, species at risk legislation has to have a buy in from landowners and stakeholders at all levels. Enforcement to protect animals facing extinction will always be necessary, but the amount of enforcement needed dramatically decreases when there is voluntary reporting and co-operation with law enforcement.

There will be little interest in co-operation if landowners and stakeholders are not guaranteed compensation for losses incurred as a result of species protection.

The bill does allow for compensation, but only at the minister's discretion. This provides absolutely no assurance that the government will compensate for land lost to development.

This type of arrangement is typical of the members opposite. Time after time legislation is introduced without any clear intention of how it will work in the field.

Many ranchers and farmers across the country could lose their livelihood due to the discovery of endangered species on their lands. Frankly, this trust us philosophy is just not enough. Ranchers and farmers can look to the environmental movement and find strong allies against the trust us mentality put forward by the government.

Environmentalists have rightly said that it is scientists, not politicians, that should establish the list of endangered species. Organizations like COSEWIC have a longstanding reputation of using scientific data to make these decisions.

The Canadian Alliance supports following a scientifically determined list, not a politically motivated one. We do not support giving the Canadian government the final say, but only to clearly express why it has disallowed a species that was on the scientific list. Without a clear and compelling reason from the government, the list from organizations like COSEWIC would stand. We believe this would insulate these organizations from political pressuring that would interfere with their research.

Instead, the government will have complete discretionary power as to what species are put on the list. The Liberals think they know better than the biologists. They advise us we should just trust them, that they know what to do.

A democracy does not function because its citizens blindly trust the government. It functions when we have a transparent government that clearly defines fundamental aspects of our law.

In the case of Bill C-5 there are no more important questions than these: What species will be protected? What compensation will be put forward to protect those species?

Like the scientific listing, clear compensation guidelines are required. Blind expressions of trust are simply not acceptable. There are at least two reasons for this.

The first reason is admittedly practical. If we do not reassure Canadians of compensation for their losses, we risk a lack of reporting. Without the surety of being reimbursed, some landowners will not report sightings to the proper authorities. Obviously this is not right. As a society we all benefit from the protection of our biodiversity. I am sure members can appreciate that when faced with the destruction of their livelihood, some Canadians will fail to report.

Consider the following scenario: An endangered species is accidentally killed by farm machinery and later discovered by a landowner. Under Bill C-5 the farmer has no assurance if he contacts Environment Canada that he will be treated fairly. If it is found that the species is resident in his entire field, he will likely be ordered to cease and desist all commercial activity. Will he be compensated under this scheme? Who knows? Trust us, the government says. Some will, but many will not.

As a result, the species might never get reported. Instead of one dead, an entire population might be wiped out, all of this because the government refused to deal fairly with Canadian landowners from the start.

Worse still, it is possible that landowners would seek to destroy habitat simply to prevent endangered species from taking up residence. We know this has happened in the United States following passage of their endangered species legislation. It could just as easily happen here.

From a purely practical standpoint the government is inviting our own citizens to not report the presence of species at risk. This would simply put them more at risk. Let us work with stakeholders and landowners. Let us provide them the peace of mind they deserve. This peace of mind would translate into better protection for environment than vague pleas for trust.

Compensation is not needed just for practical reasons. There is also a moral imperative: a recognition that the ownership of one's person, one's possessions and yes, one's land are sacred. It is for this reason that native land claims need to be settled in good faith in my home province of British Columbia.

The rights to our own property should not have to be debated every time we stand to debate a bill in the House. They should be enshrined in the constitution. However, we are not here to reopen the constitution. That would be a long affair. The government cannot even respect provincial rights in the current constitution so I would hate to confuse them even more.

I am an optimist. Even though property rights are not in the constitution I would think members opposite would support the principle that individual Canadians should be able to own their own property and to have free use of it. The protection of endangered species is in all of our common interests. Sometimes we must impinge on the use or ownership of private land to do this. All we ask is that the government do so only as a last resort and that we compensate landowners fairly for their loss. The Liberals tell us to trust them instead of agreeing to this principle.

The Liberals have given us a billion dollar boondoggle in HRDC, including the enticement of a business into the minister's riding with $1.6 million of HRDC grants. The minister remains in her position. The government has given us a minister of public works who appeared to have serious conflict of interest charges over the Canada land corporation. He has been rewarded with the position of ambassador to Denmark. The government brought us Shawinigate. The architect of that boondoggle is still our Prime Minister.

Are these things against the conflict of interest guidelines for cabinet ministers? We do not know. The government refuses to release the guidelines. It says we should trust it. Now the government wants Canadians to trust it on endangered species, on compensation and on listing. Based on past experience I think we should get it in writing.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-5, the endangered species bill. I will speak from my standpoint of being a farmer.

We would have to go a long way to find better stewards of the land, the resources and wildlife on it, than farmers. Farmers are aware that we must be good stewards of the land because if we are not we simply cannot continue to do what we do for our livelihoods.

I would like to dwell on some of the positive aspects that the Canadian Alliance has brought to the bill. We believe that a balanced plan to conserve the biological diversity of protected, endangered species is critical for balancing a healthy environment and for a high quality of life for all Canadians. We must have the ability to feed ourselves to maintain a healthy environment and be sustainable. There has to be a balance. Endangered species legislation must encourage critical conservation through community-based stewardship programs, incentives, respect of private property rights, and full compensation.

My friend from Saanich--Gulf Islands referred to the possibility of us learning from similar legislation passed in the United States. Americans found that their legislation did not lead to better conservation or better protection of endangered species. In fact it led to harsher environments for endangered species. People did not report a short-eared owl or some kind of rare butterfly, or mushroom growing on their property. They did not risk having the whole bureaucratic force descend upon them, being read the riot act and maybe even charged with something. They took the attitude of shoot, shovel and shut-up. That is absolutely counterproductive to what the legislation is trying to attain.

When I go fishing with my buddy Stan and his son Marty we do not catch all the fish in the lake and bring them home. We do not even catch our limit. We set out to bring home enough fish for supper. My wife and I like fresh trout very much so we catch maybe two, or if they are a little larger one will do. We do not take all the fish out of the lake. We leave some for next time. It is called stewardship.

What I find so offensive about the bill is that it takes an adversarial point of view with the very people it should be co-operating with. There should be incentives and co-operation. There should be encouragement for people in the farming business, and in industry as well.

However I want to speak specifically about farming because that is how I made my living for the last 35 years. The government is making a huge mistake by not bringing the farming, agricultural and ranching communities onside with it as full partners and participants rather than taking the big brother approach that we shall protect these endangered species.

Farmers may be aware of some of the species but certainly not all of them. We are aware that the whooping crane is an endangered species and I am sure that farmers who had a whooping crane nesting on their land would take extreme caution to stay away from it and not disturb it. However while they are doing that they should be compensated.

All of us work very hard to pay for our land and we work very hard once we get it paid for to make a living from it. It is a basic right that we should be able to enjoy the quiet enjoyment of our land and be able to farm it in order to produce food.

If we do not have control of our land farmers will be added to the species at risk list. People in Canada will go hungry when farmers are regulated to the point that they cannot produce food for our nation anymore.

There are many people with farm backgrounds in the House, not just in our party, but in all parties. If we go back a generation or two, there are probably agricultural links literally to every person in the House and certainly if there are not direct agricultural links, there is a need for people in the House to depend on agriculture to feed them.

I would like to talk about compensation and not just compensation on an ad hoc basis. This has to be compensation at fair market value. If we do not have the ability to dispose of our land at fair market value, then we never had ownership of it in the first place. Surely to goodness we have not come to that point in Canada where people will be deprived of the ownership of their land. I thought that was something that was saved for totally totalitarian regimes.

The points I am making are absolutely critical to the survival and the saving of the species that the bill intends to help. Farmers and ranchers are excellent stewards of the land. The last few years have been particularly difficult for farmers on the plains. It has been dry. We have had barely enough moisture to get a crop in my area. I am fairly close to the foothills so we get showers that come over the mountains and we get rain but 25 miles east of me those showers have completely petered out and the land is even drier and--

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognize how critically important this is and it is absolutely shameful that so few people are listening to such an important bill. I therefore ask that you call quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Indeed, there are not enough members. The bells will not ring more than 15 minutes.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

We have quorum.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the government would be well advised to take on the agricultural community as an ally in the fight to save endangered species rather than take on the adversarial view that it will criminalize a lot of people for making a living who may inadvertently destroy some habitat of endangered species of one type or another.

The whole issue of compensation is of utmost importance. That one simple action would solve a lot of the problems I see here today. If people trying to make a living in agriculture knew they would be compensated at fair market value for land taken out of production they would comply.

We must take the position that this is a partnership and not have big brother looking over people's shoulders and pressing criminal charges on people who inadvertently destroy habitat. Having said that, people who deliberately, wilfully and mischievously destroy habitat are in a lot of trouble and they should be.

On a creek bank on my farm in Wetaskiwin there is a heronry of great blue herons. Great blue herons are not endangered species, but they were a few years ago and now they are making a great comeback. I took on the project of protecting them entirely of my own volition, not because someone said I had to. I do my best to protect them and keep people away from them while they are fledgling because they are particularly vulnerable at that time.

I have enjoyed the opportunity to speak to the bill today. I feel passionately about the issue. I hope the government is listening and will make the required changes to the bill. I hope it does not merely bring it up to our standards but improves it for all involved.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join in the debate today on Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation.

I am no stranger to the important issue of being a good steward of the land and the world around us. The habitat of the Vancouver Island marmot, one of Canada's most noted species at risk, is in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan. Like my colleagues on all sides of the House, I have learned much in the past number of years about the need to ensure the ongoing balance of natural habitat and the effect the issue has on our daily lives.

The premise of preserving species at risk is not open to debate. I am sure all members see the value of this. However the government has done such a poor job of putting the bill together that I must oppose it. It is amazing that after three attempts the government and the Minister of the Environment still cannot get it right.

As we debate the Group No. 1 amendments and the issue of compensation I believe the legislation would do more harm to habitat and people than the current lack of legislation. I commend my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, specifically my hon. friend from Red Deer, for putting a great deal of effort and thought into the proposed amendments we are debating today.

People in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan are concerned with conservation, the environment and the natural habitat around them. For those who do not know my part of Canada it is filled with vast tracts of untouched rainforest. We understand the need to preserve and protect species at risk. However in so doing we must ensure the protection is done fairly and in balance with those who would be directly and indirectly affected.

The issue of compensation plays an integral part in the bill. Bill C-5 includes the premise that the minister may pay compensation for losses due to the species at risk act. This is an improvement over the Liberal's earlier versions of the endangered species bill but it is still not good enough. Compensation under the current bill would be entirely at the minister's discretion. There is no requirement that it be paid and no recognition that landowners and users have rights as well as responsibilities.

At the Standing Committee on the Environment the Canadian Alliance won a huge victory when it was agreed that compensation should be “fair and reasonable”. However the bill says compensation should only be for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact arising from the application of the act. Under the current version of the bill we do not fully know what the term “extraordinary impact” means.

Dr. Peter Pearse suggested in his government commissioned study that landowners be compensated up to 50% for losses of 10% or more of income. Will this be the new government policy? If so, why not have the courage to say so and include it in legislation?

The minister pleads that compensation is a complex issue. He says more time is needed to study it properly. At no time has the minister brought forward cost estimates for different compensation scenarios or had discussions about how many people might be affected. This only contributes to the uncertainty and reinforces the perception that government environmental programs would be brought forward with little or no planning or preparation. I encourage the minister to table the compensation estimates and reports today.

Why compensate? It is recognized almost around the world that to implement an effective species at risk act there is a need for compensation. If the government is serious about species at risk legislation it should incorporate the principles of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve species and ecosystems. Article 20 of the convention states:

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

The UN convention recognizes that because the objective of maintaining bio and ecosystem diversity is so important, costs must be equitably borne by everyone and not primarily by developing countries. We expect the same principle to apply to Bill C-5. It should recognize that the protection of endangered species is for the common good of all Canadians.

Compensation to private landowners for regulatory restrictions imposed in protecting endangered species and preserving biological diversity is practised in many jurisdictions around the world. I will cite a few examples. In Tasmania the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 states:

A landholder is entitled to compensation for financial loss suffered directly resulting from an interim protection order or a land management agreement.

The legislation goes on to state:

The Minister must determine the amount of compensation to be paid to a person entitled to compensation.

In the European community landowners receive compensation if they agree via a management agreement to maintain features of the landscape. The United Kingdom operates the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme with 10 year agreements. Under the act payments are based on a per hectare basis. There are currently 43 ESAs in the United Kingdom covering 15% of the agricultural land base.

Switzerland runs the Integrated Production program, a voluntary scheme whereby farmers are given standard amounts based on profits foregone in return for agreeing to certain restrictions.

Scotland has the Goose Management Scheme run by the Scottish National Heritage trust. The scheme pays farmers per head for greenland white fronted geese recorded on the land over a 12 month period.

The concept of compensation corresponds directly with the basic principles of the economic market. In other words, if the value of my property is diminished because of someone else's actions I expect to be compensated. In addition, provisions in the legislation for full compensation would act as a disciplinary device for governments. Many Canadians are already skeptical of the role of government in their daily lives. A disciplinary process would restrict random regulations, make the government more careful in planning and respect private property which is the basis of our economic system.

Compensation or full support is absolutely necessary to achieve full co-operation from landowners and healthy species populations. It has been the experience of other countries that without proper compensation incentives, people depending on land for their livelihood act in ways counterproductive to saving species at risk. This is not in anyone's best interest.

The endangered species act would give unwarranted discretion to the minister to intervene and defend species at risk yet it gives no guidance about how the goal is to be balanced with other considerations. COSEWIC, the independent scientific panel responsible for maintaining the list of species at risk, would take into consideration scientific evidence. This is as it should be. However it must be balanced against the real concerns of property owners, industry and the economic well-being of all Canadians.

Protecting endangered species must work for the species and for people. Any other approach would risk creating antagonism and suspicion rather than co-operation. It would guarantee the act did not work for anyone. The government must do more for property owners, farmers and others who feel their livelihoods or prosperity may be affected. It must not simply say “trust us”. It must stipulate that a commitment to protecting endangered species would be cost effective and respect the economic interests of Canadians.

Motion No. 1 therefore asks:

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

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

The premise of legislation protecting our endangered species is an important and valid one. Action is long overdue, but let us ensure the legislation will adequately deal with all parts of the equation and not just one.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will recap in simple terms the nature of Bill C-5 for my constituents who might be listening back home.

The government has decided it will pander but the question is, pander to whom? It is not listening to the environmentalists. It is not listening to the farmers and corporations that will be affected by this bill. It is not listening to any of the people who will be losing jobs. I do not know exactly to whom it is paying attention. I think the Liberals are doing a bit of navel gazing with regard to the bill. I cannot find the group they are supposedly paying attention to with regard to the bill.

The gist of the bill is to impute criminal intent on people who may harm a species on their private land and to not fairly compensate them in terms of the protection of those species.

I would like to rename the bill. I do not think it actually has anything to do with species at risk. I think it has everything to do with property at risk. It should be called the property at risk act.

Think of the fundamental things this legislature does. We are supposed to protect property. We are supposed to protect people's individual freedoms and their liberties. That is what I understand part of our job to be. This bill is directly opposed to that.

I will mention somebody south of the border because the Liberals are borrowing on American experiences in the American endangered species act, the ESA, as they put forward this bill.

My favourite president of the United States is Thomas Jefferson. He was the third president of the United States. Instead of having the words life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the American constitution, he wanted to have protection not only for property, but what was absolutely crucial was that he wanted protection for private property. He recognized that there was a substantial difference between what some would construe to be public property and what would be properly termed as private property. Jefferson believed that respecting people's private property rights was absolutely fundamental in having a just society.

The stamp act to levy taxes upon American colonists was one of the reasons they had a revolutionary war. The government did not respect people's private property rights. It did not take into account that it had taxation without representation.

The bill before us goes against all the fundamental ideas. It goes against very Canadian ideas. One of the rationales for even having the other place, the Senate, in the first place was that it would serve as a protection for property. This House would serve the commoners and the Senate in a sense would be for the property owners. The Senate's job was to make sure those people were not overrun by mob rule. That was a basic understanding of the protection of private property rights.

Bill C-5 goes against that because it does not guarantee fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. That is absurd. The government will be able to shut people out of livelihoods and jobs without any type of fair compensation. People should not be forced to do so at the expense of their livelihoods.

This reminds me of another issue that is famously tied to the government. It has to do with the Canadian Wheat Board. Andy McMechan, a farmer who grew his own grain, wanted to sell it outside the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. He was jailed for that. This farmer was put in shackles over that very issue. He was not allowed to dispose of his private property as he saw fit due to the regulation and the meddling.

What a perverse turnover of the whole idea of liberal democracy and the very term liberal when we think of where the Liberal Party started off at the turn of the century. The Liberals in Laurier's day stood for free trade. They did not stand for protectionism. They stood for the freedom of individuals. Yet 100 years later, almost Orwellian, Nineteen Eighty-Four in terms of the doublespeak, the Liberals are actually adamantly opposed to those things now. They are coming out against personal liberties and personal freedoms and are going after grabbing private property and not giving it due respect. It is such a perverse topsy-turvy relationship they have had with this issue.

There is a criminal liability aspect to this. Criminal liability requires that there actually be some form of intent. As I understand it, and this goes back to the Romans and Latin terms, there has to be an actus reus, being the action that is performed, and in this case for example it would be harming a species, but there also has to be mens rea. That is the difference between manslaughter and murder. There has to be mens rea, the mental intent, to have intended to do that harm.

In this case the government has totally ignored these traditions that have been established for 1,000 years.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not see a quorum in the House at this time.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

We now have quorum.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why it is but when I speak the Liberals all seem to want to leave the Chamber. I give them these wonderful renditions of their party's history. I tell them about how they need to go back to their roots and where they have lost their way along the path. They are leaving as I speak. It is a shame. If they sat and listened perhaps we would actually improve the bill. However, I will go on as I hear those doors flipping and flopping in the background.

I would like to talk about the whole idea of mens rea , the mental intent, the idea that farmers can be held responsible for something they did not do of their own intention. In other words, if a farmer's tractor happens to harm either a habitat or a given animal and it was not the farmer's intent to do so but it simply happened in the course of his or her daily activities in order to put bread on the table, pay for the business and continue the family farm, the government over there, the Liberals, would say that the farmer should be held for criminal intent in doing that. It is a perverse form of law that the government would do something like that to farmers.

I cannot think of anyone who does more good for the rest of us than the small percentage of the population that grows our food. These people surely are stewards and lovers of the land. They deal with it on a daily basis more than you or I do, Mr. Speaker. The idea that the Liberals across the way think they know better than the farmers toiling away on their land, that they can tell them what to do and hold them criminally intent because of the way they deal with their land is ridiculous.

I will boil this down very simply. With regard to the bill the Canadian Alliance believes we should be protecting property, particularly private property. We should be protecting jobs. We should be protecting personal freedoms and liberty.

The government on this matter believes in theft, in expropriation, in intrusion, in messing around in the backyards even though they do not want legislators in the bedrooms. The Liberals are totally out of touch with this. It is elitist. It is top down. It is arrogant. It is mentally stunted because they will not even listen to the environmental groups or the businesses that will be affected or the farmers that will be held to account. They refuse to listen to their own backbenchers who sit on the committee. It is a shame.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the debate on the amendments in Group No. 1.

I know when we talk about compensation how important it is that people do not feel put upon or used or abused. Many farmers out in my former constituency of Beaver River are seriously nervous about the bill. If I were to say to anyone “Thanks very much, I am going to expropriate you and give you some sort of compensation”, one would like to think it would be fair compensation for the expropriation. Unfortunately from what we have seen here, it is pretty difficult for anyone to be guaranteed that the compensation is actually happening.

I do not think there is any one of us in the House who would ever say or believe that we are not committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species. All of us understand that. We know what pollution has done. We understand what urbanization has done. We certainly understand the difficulties and dilemma in which we all find ourselves in terms of being far more urbanized and what happens to any kind of species, let alone those at risk. Any of us who have spent any time in the country or the bush certainly understand and celebrate how important that is. I know for myself just how much I enjoy being out in the wilderness. I enjoy seeing any species.

I was in an odd place last week to enjoy some species. They are not terribly at risk, but I was in Vancouver a couple of Saturdays ago and saw three big fat raccoons having a wonderful time right in the middle of Stanley Park. They are nocturnal. I was driving around in Stanley Park at about 11 o'clock at night and there they were, raccoons. I got so excited I pulled the car over, stopped and watched them. It was marvellous. They are nocturnal, as am I. That is one thing I share with raccoons, to be nocturnal. I do not have to clean up the garbage after them and I know that they are pesky little critters, but I am happy to be able to celebrate nature and just enjoy any species.

To extrapolate this further and talk about species at risk, every one of us in the House understands how important it is to protect and preserve the Canadian natural environment and species, especially those at risk. However it seems to me that someone can go overboard. If we are going to protect this, there is always a balance that has to come into play. When I see some of the changes that have happened in the bill, unfortunately Liberal amendments are reversing dozens of key committee amendments made to the species at risk bill.

The committees do good work. Lord knows we have been talking about committees in this place in the last 24 hours and technically and theoretically how they are supposed to be masters of their own destiny and all that kind of stuff. We certainly have not seen that happen in the last 24 hours and how frustrating is that.

An all party committee got together and came up with excellent amendments to the bill. Liberal backbenchers worked their little hearts out as well in committee and made very good amendments. Now the government is reversing dozens of those excellent amendments. How frustrating that must be not just for opposition members who have worked very diligently at it as well, but for government members who think they are really making a difference, that they are having an impact.

Boy I tell you, Mr. Speaker, they are on committee. They are masters of their own destiny and away they go, championing this issue. They think they are doing an excellent job. What happens? Wham, right across the side of the head. The government in its wisdom is going to reverse dozens of those amendments. That must be very frustrating, not just for those who sit in the House but it is also frustrating for the environmental groups, the provinces and many landowners who have made excellent recommendations. They are critical of the minister's move.

These ministers think they can just stand up, have a little cough and make these pronouncements that they think they know better than anyone else. The minister unfortunately says he is always in the middle of consultations.

Our colleagues this afternoon talked about it, about how many kicks at the cat the government has had at species at risk legislation and how unfortunately it still does not have it right. It just spurns all these people, and there are groups that have vested interests in it.

Many of the farmers I know and represented out in Beaver River when I was in a rural riding are terribly frustrated with this kind of stuff. If something happens to their land, the government comes in, in all its wisdom, knocks on the farm door, catches them at the fuel tank or whatever, and says “Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help”. It would be enough to make my friend Fritz run to the back forty with the screaming meemies because he would be so nervous as to what was coming next. We hear “I'm from the government and I'm here to help you, and oh, by the way, I just forgot to tell you we are expropriating so many acres” because there is a particular species at risk. Then farmers cannot put in any grain, harvest it or feed the cattle on that portion of land. There has to be a balance there somehow.

My friend Fritz and many other people in the farming community around Dewberry where I taught school for many years are nervous, sick, about this because of the balance between environmental protection and their ability to make a living from the farm. I think farming is one of the noblest things to do, even with the 50 year lows of rainfall and moisture that many areas of the country are experiencing. These people need to have some assurances that they will be safe, that they will be protected and that they will not have a cabinet minister trying to make his name or his glory by saying “Three cheers for me, I am the one who finally got it through the House”. That is hardly a reason for a minister or a government to bring in legislation.

When we look at balance, when we look at what is respectful, when we look at Liberal backbenchers who have worked hard and come up with what they thought were very reasonable recommendations and amendments, suddenly the thing is just gone. I cannot imagine their unbelievable frustration.

The bill is void of the elements that were considered critical in the species at risk working group. Our coalition has brought forward some very good and vital concerns. I know that all opposition parties have done that and, again, the Liberal backbenchers have done that too. The government just kind of ignored that part of it. It cannot just brush over this and say it is busy consulting. It will look at a couple of groups it agrees with, which is never a really healthy way of consulting. Then it looks at what their aunt Martha and their cousin Stewart say. There they are. What in the world? We cannot call that consultations.

I think the species at risk working group was instrumental in coming up with a lot of good things, but it has been made completely null and void in the legislation. There were things such as critical habitat protection, scientific listing, a compensatory regime, and landowner notification and stewardship. I know precious few farmers who are not excellent, committed stewards of the land. They have lived on it most of their lives. They have loved that land because they have grown up on it. In many cases up in the Beaver River area where people homesteaded two or three generations ago, those are their homes and their roots. To have someone come in from the government and tell them they are not good stewards of their land is a dreadful thing and is so undermining and undercutting that no farmer should have to be subjected to that.

When we look at the reversal of dozens of key committee recommendations, we ask the question: What would be the motivation for a government to just turn its back on many excellent recommendations? One hates to be cynical, but it would appear that the minister will put a feather in his cap and say “We had three kicks at this cat but I will be the one to blow the trumpet, I was the one who got the species at risk bill through”.

It is far better to work on it properly, listen to all the stakeholders, the landowners and everyone else who has concerns about it, and get it right even if we need four or five stabs at it. Get the thing right before it is enshrined in law, before going around trumped up like a peacock, and I am not sure if they are on the endangered species list or not. I do not know if they are at risk, but I do know that having someone trump around like a peacock is not the best motivation for this kind of legislation.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it must be fairly obvious to anyone watching the proceedings today that it is only opposition members who are getting up to speak on the bill. The reason is that we are the only ones in the House who are concerned about private property rights and the fact that the government wants to confiscate property without any compensation.

It is a shame that there are no media people here to record this and tell the public what is going on. I realize they are very busy with the Warren Kinsella affair and do not have the opportunity to be here right now. Actually, I will bet that the Liberals opposite wish that Warren Kinsella had stayed in North Vancouver the way he promised to when he ran against me in 1997. He said that he had made his new home there and he was staying there. I can tell the House that I am glad he went over to those folks over there.

I think it is incredible that we have a situation here where, at the discretion of the minister, there will be compensation or no compensation for the confiscation of people's land. There are no standards by which a landowner will be able to judge whether or not he will get compensation. There will not be any guarantee, because if the players change, the people making the discretionary decisions change. There will be no certainty for those landowners. I believe the end result will be similar to what has happened in the United States: kill it and bury it if there is the slightest chance that there is something on your land that will cause the government to confiscate your property. This will not work in the interest of species at risk. It will work against them.

I have a constituent in my riding who owns property in the Kamloops area. He has a known species at risk on his land. He has deliberately produced a roadway that goes right around and well out of the way of this species so that he can protect it. However, he has told me that if he gets wind that the government is coming in and will not allow him to have that road to the other part of his land he will just make sure that this species disappears before the government finds out.

This is a really key thing that the government does not seem to be realizing. It has not given it enough thought. I think that is typical of a lot that the government does. It simply does not give legislation sufficient thought.

For example, I see the Minister of Justice sitting opposite. Obviously there was never enough thought given to that ridiculous gun registry that has blown away $700 million. There was never enough thought given to that stupid DNA registry that allows convicted criminals to escape giving DNA samples.

There is simply not enough thought given to the legislation that comes from that side of the House, but the Liberals had no trouble today blowing away $115 million on a ridiculous humanities research project. As if there was not already enough money wasted in that Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, they will blow away another $115 million.

I well remember being at a cocktail party with Pierre Trudeau and a former member of the House, Ian McClelland, one night. Ian McClelland said to Pierre Trudeau “Great group of social programs that you introduced there, Pierre. It's a shame you never thought of how we would pay for them”. Does anyone know what Pierre Trudeau said? He said “Yes, when I think about it we should have given it more thought at the time”.

That is my point. Still today the government is not giving enough thought to the legislation it rams through the House. That is why opposition members, one after the other, are getting up on the bill to try to defend the property rights of Canadians who will have their property taken away from them.

I think the problem comes down to what I call the politics of envy. It is the politics of left wingers who hate free enterprise, hate success, hate people who have managed to accumulate a bit of wealth and hate people who have private property. They think the government should give them everything and that it should own everything. It is that type of people who have no sympathy for homeowners and landowners who run the risk of having their property confiscated as a result of the bill. It is the people who have worked hard and who have made a success of themselves whom the opposition members are trying to defend today.

It makes me think again of Pierre Trudeau and his disdain for private property rights, the refusal of the Liberals to put private property rights in our constitution and the ongoing desire to waste taxpayers' money. There is $115 million that will be thrown away on this humanities research thing. I suppose it will spend money like the social sciences humanities research council already does on things like $125,000 for the Tell Madaba archeological project and its investigations of urban life in the semi-arid highlands of central Jordan. Or there is $40,222 for a project called understanding rural household, farm and village: reconceptualizing the dynamics of gender relations in Iran.

Are these good uses of taxpayers' money? The Liberals blow away the money on this stuff, but they will not compensate landowners for confiscation of their land.

There is $78,000 for isotopic studies of infant feeding practices in archaeology. This is the type of thing this Pierre Trudeau humanities council will waste our money on. It is an absolute waste of money that should be dedicated to looking after the Canadian people when their land is confiscated. There is $77,000 for behaviour and biology of early southern African populations and $65,200 for visual representation and social practice in classic Maya households.

I have pages and pages of this stuff. We try to get some sense out of the social sciences humanities research council. We ask why it is giving this money away. It says that is private. It cannot give us the files. It cannot explain why the grants were made.

The money that is blown away is a disgrace, such as $38,600 for history and aesthetics of television medical dramas in North America. Are they studying Dr. Kildare? Who cares? There is $23,740 for a study of mass media pornography. Are they spending their time on the Internet surfing and signing up? There is $86,726 for the use of time by teenagers and young adults, an international comparison. It goes on and on. There is not enough thought given to it.

Before the members opposite blew away $115 million today on a useless Pierre Trudeau foundation, they should have looked at what they are already wasting in the social sciences humanities research council, just like they should have looked more closely at this bill and what they are doing with their confiscation of private property without compensation. It is a disgrace. They should be ashamed of themselves. It is not only the Minister of Justice sitting there with a smile on her face, acting like everything is fine. She is not even the Minister of Justice any more. They should be ashamed of themselves and we should vote down the bill when it comes to a vote.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 5.58 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

National Remembrance Day

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 298

That the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be instructed, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), to prepare and bring in a bill in order to provide for the establishment of November 11th as a national holiday to be known as Remembrance Day.

Mr. Speaker, as the motion is non-votable, members will have one hour to discuss making November 11 a national holiday knowing full well that we will not have an opportunity to vote on it and pass judgment on it.

One might reasonably ask: Is Remembrance Day not already a national holiday? I should start by saying that in the great Canadian tradition holidays are a shared jurisdiction, and this is always confusing. Statutory holidays may be declared by provinces, as is the case with the province of Quebec which celebrates Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day on June 24.

Another example of a provincial holiday is the civic holiday held on the first weekend of August. This is a hybrid statutory holiday because the provinces and the federal government have declared it to be holiday. If someone is a federal worker they have a holiday. If someone follows the provincial labour law, they also have a holiday.

Two national holidays fall within the purview of the federal government, one being July 1, Canada Day, and the second being May 24, Victoria Day, or Fête de la reine in Quebec. Those are holidays which have been declared by the federal government.

This leads to the question: What is the status of November 11? It is a mishmash, a hybrid. The federal government has proclaimed it to be a federal holiday which means that all employees under federal labour legislation, such as civil servants, bank employees, airline employees, and so on, get the holiday. November 11 has been declared a holiday in certain provinces but not in all. For example, it is not a holiday in the province of Ontario. In other words, federal workers have a holiday but other people do not.

The purpose of my motion was to ensure that November 11 became a national holiday, such as May 24, which is the day we celebrate the birthday of a Queen who has been dead for more than 100 years, and July 1, which is the day when we celebrate Canada Day, 1867.

There are a lot of reasons for making November 11 a national holiday. I must confess that I brought forward the motion because there were some people in Canada who believed this should be a national holiday. A constituent of mine has been battling with this question for 13 years but she has not had great success.

During the Battle of Vimy Ridge in April 1917, which raged on for almost one month, 3,598 Canadians died, 7,000 Canadians were wounded and some 3,000 to 4,000 Canadians were permanently injured as a result of mustard gas. If we juxtapose that against the population of Canada, which was eight million or thereabouts at the time, we have some idea of the significance of the contribution of Canadian soldiers in the evolution of this country and in our place in the world.

There are those who say that December 12 is actually Canada Day because on December 12, 1931 the statute of Westminster was passed. It is interesting to note that on every December 12 the British Union Jack flies on all federal flag poles in Ottawa, including the flag pole here on Parliament Hill, because December 12 is deemed to be the day Canada obtained powers from the British parliament, one of those powers being the right to declare war. That right was used by this parliament in 1939 when the second great war began.

It is an obvious question then. Why is it not a national holiday as opposed to a mishmash of holidays?

This matter has been considered by the House in the past. In 1992 the then MP for the riding of Dartmouth, Mr. Ron MacDonald, had a bill before the House which was deemed to be votable but never made it to a vote on third reading, so it became academic. At that time the Conservative government opposed it. It said it would cost too much money.

Let me refer to comments from the then minister of the treasury board. In a letter dated May 17, the treasury board indicated that government members could not support the bill because it had collective bargaining implications that would cost too much.

Interestingly, at the same time the then leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister, wrote a letter saying that the Liberals felt this was petty reasoning and that the Liberals would continue to press the government to pass what was then Bill C-289 which would have made Remembrance Day a national holiday.

The only other time the House passed judgment on Remembrance Day was in 1931 when the name of Remembrance Day was changed by a private member's bill, ironically, from Armistice Day to what we now call Remembrance Day.

Last year the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, at its annual general meeting, passed a resolution calling on the government to make Remembrance Day a national holiday. Last year the Young Liberals of Canada, the youth wing of the party, passed a similar resolution. In fact that group has launched a petition drive to achieve that end. Jean Charest, the leader of the Liberals in Quebec, has signed a petition in recent months to the same objective.

This motion was declared non-votable and I have reason to believe that the committee was concerned about a couple of things. It was concerned about the expressed view of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Veterans Affairs that it was a cost factor and they could not do it. However it is already a holiday for federal employees, so that argument is somewhat specious.

We also know that the provinces, with a couple of exceptions, Ontario being one, already have a holiday. In terms of cost, the cost is in the province of Ontario, which used to have it as a provincial holiday.

The second issue is there is a belief that the Royal Canadian Legion is opposed to it. That is an interesting belief but it is only that because the Royal Canadian Legion has never at its annual general meeting or its convention put a motion forward to determine what its membership thought. Therefore, if anyone believes that certain service or ex-military organizations are opposed to it that is simply conjecture because those organizations have never had a motion, had a debate or taken a vote on it.

It would be interesting if indeed the committee, and this is simply conjecture, or if anyone were to say that this could never be a holiday because service organizations were opposed to it. I would just like to put on the record that that is not the case because there has never been a debate within any Canadian service organization on this point.

The final point is why should it be a national holiday? What is the underlying principle of this?

In the last century 100,000 Canadians died in wars fought in the name of this country and in the name of freedom. In the last century and into the 21st century, 125,000 Canadian soldiers have served not in war but in peacekeeping. Making November 11 a national holiday would give all Canadians an opportunity to reflect on the contributions in the past and more contemporary, the present, to the achievement of peace and freedom.

Today there are about 3,000 Canadian soldiers who are serving in Bosnia and Eritrea. An additional 750 to 800 are serving in Afghanistan. Despite comments made in the country and in the House, our military is still an integral part of our country's identity and its values of foreign policy both past and present.

I noted at the beginning that Victoria Day is a national holiday, a federal holiday declared by this parliament. It is interesting that we continue to celebrate the birthday of a queen who has been dead for about 100 years, yet we have studiously avoided a day to honour and remember those who served this country and those who continue to serve this country.

In conclusion, I submit that this is an issue which has increased in importance in this post-September 11 world. Many members of the House who were present at cenotaphs last November 11 will have noticed significant increases in attendance. The importance of Remembrance Day is not fading in Canada; rather it has become in one sense more important to us.

It is said that the purpose of war is to obtain peace. We are living in an era of limited peace because we have peacekeepers in areas that are wartorn. We have soldiers in areas that are wartorn. Our military is an integral part of our history. It is an institution of our country. It is for that reason I am supporting those who would say Remembrance Day, November 11 ought to be a national holiday.