Bill C-33 (Historical)

Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act

An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Species At Risk Act

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

The species at risk legislation has been a very long process dating back to 1996 with Bill C-33, and then Bill C-65 and now Bill C-5. Since 1996, 93 days and 246 hours of parliamentary time have been put into the legislation. Committee members have put thousands of hours into the legislation since 1996.

I want to congratulate all members of the committee. They did a wonderful job in working together to bring the legislation forward. Canadians have been calling for this legislation for nine years and finally it is coming to fruition. I am very proud to have played a part in the making of it. I commend specifically the committee chairman on the job he did. He has been an advocate for this legislation.

I had many concerns on the environment committee in dealing with species at risk when I was elected on November 27, 2000. I grew up in a farming community in a very rural area. I worked on farms when I was growing up. After receiving an engineering degree I began my professional life and went into the environmental business for 10 years. As such, I felt I could see both sides of the equation with regard to this issue.

First and foremost, I have always viewed farmers as the ultimate environmentalists. They are the people who live off the land. They show us how to use the land. They provide nourishment from the land.

One major concern which resonated when I started to discuss species at risk with my colleagues had to do with command and control. I heard testimony from various individuals and witnesses but one really resonated and stuck with me.

Someone presented me with a copy of a magazine for ranchers from the southern U.S. In it was a for sale ad for a cattle ranch with some 300 or 400 hectares of land. There was a wonderful picture of it. At the bottom of the ad it said that the land was guaranteed not to contain species at risk. It was guaranteed not to contain species at risk because of command and control legislation in place in the U.S. That caused me great concern.

We have done a lot of work on Bill C-5 and it is time to move the legislation forward.

The proposed species at risk act before us today is one component of the Government of Canada's overall strategy to protect species at risk. During the nine long years that this legislation has been in the making, we have not been sitting still and it is a good thing too, because this long process could have brought us to a standstill in our efforts to protect species and habitat and in taking action.

Through stewardship, recovery planning and partnerships with provinces and territories, there has been an overall strategy at work for some time now for the protection of species at risk. For instance, we have worked for years with the provinces and territories under the accord for the protection of species at risk. A number of provinces have brought in new or amended legislation to protect species at risk as a result of this accord. Ministers meet regularly and have directed numerous actions.

A third pillar of the strategy is stewardship. Through stewardship and recovery efforts we are taking action on species at risk where it matters most, on the land, in our streams, oceans and forests. Stewardship is the first line of defence to protect critical habitat. It is through these actions that we are protecting habitat by encouraging landowners in voluntary conservation measures. They are both formal and informal. They often involve governments, but just as often volunteer organizations, businesses and industry.

There are incentives for stewardship. We know this approach works on the ground to effectively protect species' critical habitat. Stewardship is nest boxes for birds. Stewardship is setting aside a spot where the Vancouver Island marmot has its den. Stewardship is patrolling the beaches of Lake Diefenbaker to protect the eggs of the piping plover. Stewardship is a farmer who does not plant right up to the edge of the stream, but protects the riparian zone between the field and the water.

Stewardship is informal activity. It is also part of a formal approach added to over two years ago by the Government of Canada. The habitat stewardship program was established to help start partnership projects with local and regional organizations and communities.

Funding was announced in budget 2000. Much has already been done. Projects are underway all over the Missouri Coteau landscape in southern Saskatchewan. This is the prairie pothole region of the province. It is some 23,000 square kilometres and is home to species at risk such as the piping plover, the burrowing owl, the loggerhead shrike, the ferruginous hawk, the northern leopard frog and the monarch butterfly.

Stewardship is a key element of the entire species at risk strategy which includes the bill before us today. It also includes the accord for the protection of species at risk, an agreement between the federal government, provinces and territories. The agreement has produced a number of results while we have worked on the bill. Stewardship and the accord have a fundamental premise that co-operation produces the best results. That is why we have worked so hard and why we have insisted that the proposed species at risk act contain that same approach.

Canada's approach to stewardship and conservation is the envy of our neighbours to the south. Some critics have suggested that we need legislation like the endangered species law in the United States. Let me tell members the real facts. The Americans wish they had our co-operative approach. They wish they had stewardship and co-operation because what they know now, after 25 years, is a backlog of court cases and a lot of ill will.

I would like to tell members a few things about the habitat stewardship program which has been moving forward while we have worked on the species at risk act. There are already over 70 partnerships with aboriginals, landowners, resource users, nature trusts, provinces, the natural resources sector, community based wildlife societies, educational institutions and conservation organizations. So far more than 200 species identified at risk in Canada, as well as over 80 provincially listed species at risk, are benefiting from the projects under this program. Many species and habitats that are not yet at risk will benefit at the same time but others have joined in the effort.

In its first year, the habitat stewardship program attracted non-federal funding of over $8 million, compared to the $5 million contributed to habitat stewardship program funds. For every one dollar spent by the federal government under the habitat stewardship project, $1.70 of non-federal resources were contributed by project partners. The second year saw more than $10 million for more than 150 projects. We are monitoring the population of the right whale. We are assessing the leatherback turtle and the rare ginseng plant.

The habitat stewardship program is not all, however. We have also made it easier for Canadians to donate ecologically sensitive lands and easements by reducing the capital gains from donations through an eco-gifts program. Over 20,000 hectares have been donated already as ecological gifts. There is authority in Bill C-5 to establish stewardship action plans.

We all share responsibility for protecting wildlife. If the bill is passed, the federal government, in active partnerships with provinces, territories, landowners, farmers, fishermen, aboriginal peoples, conservation groups, the resource sector and others, will be a leader in protecting species at risk and their critical habitats in Canada. We are using what works and providing more tools to make it work better.

Individual Canadians, conservation organizations, industries and governments are working together every day to conserve and protect species at risk. These are the actions that make a difference.

Our preferred approach to protecting species' critical habitats is through voluntary activities by Canadians. We respect the authority of other governments but we also expect them to bring in critical habitat protection measures if needed. If they do not we will be ready to provide the needed protection.

The bill will compliment existing or improved provincial and territorial legislation, not compete with it. We have all acknowledged that protecting species at risk is a shared responsibility. It is time for us to ensure that the federal responsibility is met completely, and that includes legislation. We have designed an approach that works.

Through nine years of consultation, examination, writing and rewriting, we have come to the time when we must act. The time has arrived for the species at risk act to take its official place alongside the accord, and stewardship is one of the three pillars of the strategy for the protection of species at risk.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put on the record at third reading of Bill C-5 the Progressive Conservative position on the species at risk act.

There have been references in the Chamber throughout the day that this is the third attempt by the Government of Canada to deliver the species at risk act itself. There have been comments saying that the other bills had not worked and that this is a cumulative effort of past efforts in providing Canadians with better legislation.

There is an element of truth to that, but let us be very clear. We know as a point of fact that the reason Bill C-65 and Bill C-33 died on the order paper previously was that the Government of Canada chose for political reasons exclusively to call a national general election well within the traditional four year mandate, just over three and a half years. In the last case it was just under three and a half years. Those two bills were permitted to die on the order paper purely for political reasons.

I raise that issue because I believe it is even more salient given the perspective that Bill C-5 will likely pass third reading today. Once that is done it will be sent to the Senate. If it does not clear the Senate this summer, there is more than just the odd rumour that the Government of Canada may consider proroguing the House. That means all pieces of legislation on the order paper will die instantaneously.

The Government of Canada may choose once again to unilaterally let the species at risk legislation die or fail, not because the legislation necessarily was flawed, which it was in each one of those three cases, but purely for a politically driven rationale. I wanted to make that point very clear.

This legislation will be the first piece of environmental legislation by the Government of Canada in the nearly nine years since it formed the government after winning the election on October 25, 1993. In fact a number of individuals refer to the Liberal government's experience on environmental legislation to be “the lost decade”. In April the Sierra Legal Defence Fund issued its report “The Lost Decade” which criticized the Liberal government for failing to conserve biodiversity and protect its endangered species.

In contrast, the Progressive Conservative Party was in government between 1984 and 1993. We received numerous accolades with respect to how progressive our environmental laws were and how they enhanced our country.

We cite the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is our principal omnibus bill on the controlled use of toxins in our environment. We cite the fact that in 1987 Canada pulled the international world together on ozone depleting gases. We cite a $3 billion green plan on pollution prevention so that we can help move industry into a best practices regime.

We cite the fact that in 1992 at a biodiversity forum held in Rio de Janeiro it was Canada that led the international world to be one of the first signatories to commit to preserving our biodiversity. That was done in the summer of 1992 but unfortunately the following year there was a mild downsizing which prevented us from being able to follow through with legislation. The new Government of Canada had an opportunity to do that in 1993, 1994 and throughout the entire last decade to gain that what we have lost.

We knew that the government was at least challenged at providing the country with legislation which needed to be effective and could work on the ground.

We tabled a position paper that was drawn from the coalition experience that was formed by the species at risk working group which included the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Mining Association of Canada, the Sierra Club of Canada, and the Canadian Nature federation. They built a broad based coalition. There were some elements that we enhanced in our position paper tabled in March 2000 called “Carrots before sticks”.

We wanted to show stewardship and provide those incentives so that we could make it a common cause to protect our biodiversity. The first element of that document demonstrated that a species at risk should be determined by science and not political choice. The committee on the status of wildlife in Canada, known as COSEWIC, that entity of professional biologists are best to determine whether a species is endangered, extirpated, threatened, or whatever status it might have. That list should be the one that is considered.

The second element maintained that before we even consider having a law that could potentially engage on private landowners and on the provinces we should look after our own backyard. Otherwise we have no moral suasion to do so. We said there must be mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands including aquatic species.

The third point stated that we needed to protect transboundary species, particularly migratory birds. That is in an exclusive constitutional purview of the federal government.

The fourth point indicated the necessity to ensure that we had clarity with respect to the compensatory regime. All Canadians benefit from the preservation of biodiversity. The few should not have to pay the price. There must be clarity from the Government of Canada with respect to compensation.

Those are the four planks that we had fought for throughout the course of the deliberations on this act. The first initiative that took place in 1996 was when the national protocol and the preservation of biodiversity took place with the provinces and the federal government.. There is a commitment to have complementary legislation.

I want to make it clear that the approach the Government of Canada has taken with this law is better than the approach taken by the United States. Fostering stewardship, having a co-operative approach, working with our subnational governments whether they be territories or the provinces, is a more prudent approach. It fits with what we want to do as well. The problem with it is that the framework and the concept are fine but as always we can understand that the devil is sometimes often in the detail. There were some major gains in this legislation as a framework. It was enhanced at the committee level in each of those four planks that I touched upon.

I would like to go back to the minister's comments with respect to four points that he was most proud of. He used these four points in his conclusion. He mentioned there would be a scientific listing. Let us be clear. It was the committee that pulled the Minister of the Environment, dragging, kicking and screaming, to adopt the existing COSEWIC list. It was the committee on environment that ensured that once this law was enshrined that we would not have to have this lull of time before we even had a species on a list. We could use the existing COSEWIC list. The recommendation came from the committee, not from the Minister of the Environment, not from Privy Council, and not from the Prime Minister's Office. It was the learned members of the committee of all party stripes who did that.

I wish to applaud the member for York North who was steadfast in wanting to improve a lot of the environmental aspects of this legislation. She was critical of the Government of Canada for having a compromise amendment at the eleventh hour. One of the issues that the minister and the government are most proud of is something that they were not on board with in the first place.

The second thing they wanted was for aboriginal and traditional knowledge contributions to have a higher role in the act to determine whether a species was at risk or not. Just yesterday we had an amendment from the member for Churchill River in Saskatchewan that if the amendment had not passed that provision would have been gutted out.

The minister was proud that there would be a five year review. With all humility, it was again the committee that forced the Government of Canada to have a review aspect in the legislation in the first place. The committee put its shoulder to the wheel. We were pleased to do the homework for the Government of Canada.

Where is the bill still void? It is void on the scientific listing aspect and reverse onus concept that has been tabled before the House. It is an eleventh hour compromise. We would not have seen these eleventh hour amendments if it had not been for the fact that the government knew that it would lose the bill.

Moreover, the minister knew that if he lost the bill he would likely have lost his seat in cabinet. He would have been next Sunday's Shawinigan sacrifice. He would have been the individual who would have been next in line after the former defence minister and the former minister of public works. Although that political pressure spurred some positive reaction, let us give ourselves some credit that we can move the yardsticks if we apply the proper amount of pressure and have the courage or conviction to move in that direction.

Where the act is still void as well is that there was a compromise amendment made with respect to the mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands, including aquatic species. It is not what the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had advocated. It is not what the committee had advocated for the most part as well. However, it is better than what we had. We reluctantly supported it yesterday. It is a mediocre initiative. It is a convoluted approach that is not as clear as it should have been in the first place.

On the issue of migratory birds, transboundary species are in the exclusive domain of the federal government. It has the constitutional jurisdiction and the purview to protect those particular species. I find it ironic that on the Canadian Wildlife Service website we see photos of sandpipers and the whooping crane is the icon species of species at risk. Yet, this act does not protect migratory birds as a transboundary species. I encourage those folks who are riveted to their televisions at this moment to run to the Internet to look up that particular section on that national website.

Whooping cranes for the most part do nest in national parks so there is a strong element of their habitat that is protected. The Canadian Wildlife Service has chosen the whooping crane as its icon yet this is where the act is most void. I made reference yesterday to the blue heron. It is not a matter of self-preservation that I made that particular remark. However, that is something that should not be lost on the committee itself.

Pertaining to ensuring co-operation with the provinces I cited letters from the provinces of Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island on amendments the committee had made with respect to sections 32, 33 and 61 where we would establish criteria with the Government of Canada on the safety net provisions and would engage perhaps provincial jurisdiction if it were deemed appropriate in order to preserve a species. However it would not be done arbitrarily. Clear criteria would be set out to ensure that provincial legislation would be at least equivalent to federal legislation.

We received letters from the provinces of Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. that the amendments that the committee made on those sections were acceptable to them. In some situations the provinces stated they did not even like the sections in the first place and that is why they did not support the legislation.

The Government of Canada did not do its homework and build a broad based coalition with its provincial cousins as it needed to do. When the committee tabled the amendments that enhanced a co-operative approach with provincial governments, the Government of Canada unilaterally gutted them out.

It is incumbent on the Government of Canada to share with us at some point whether it consulted the provinces prior to removing the provisions by the provinces. The provinces put in writing, in letters dated December 2001, that they supported these provisions. We had a chance to have a pioneering bill and we have lost that opportunity with Bill C-5.

I would like to state for the record that the approach that the Government of Canada has taken is far more progressive than the approach taken in the United States. The problem is that the accountability mechanisms in the bill are far too weak.

I have had some spirited debates with the Minister of the Environment on the fact that we wanted everything done on a mandatory basis, but we needed to have some timelines. The committee had some acceptable timelines. If an action was deemed appropriate to be taken then it should have been done by a certain period of time as opposed to being left to drift. Those timelines were established by the committee.

The Government of Canada has taken that accountability mechanism out. It could have even left it in place as a guideline. The minister could have applied to parliament or have established a permit where an extension could be requested. However the government was reticent about making provisions that would make the Government of Canada more accountable.

I am pleased with a particular Progressive Conservative amendment that was accepted by all parties of the House. Our national stewardship action plan would enshrine into law the intent of what the Government of Canada wanted to do. It is clearly there. It is a comprehensive list with respect to what the government should include as part of its stewardship menu of initiatives that it can take and execute.

There was a debate among members of the House about what the best approach would be in terms of empowering criminal law on landowners. I am not a strong advocate of having any approach where we would spend more money and time in the courts than on the ground protecting species. I believe the government's approach on due diligence is more appropriate than the mens rea perspective, only if it is complemented with landowner notification. There is one provision in the bill which was tabled by the Progressive Conservatives that was accepted on landowners notification. The other ones have been removed from the bill.

The rural caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada has categorically let down rural Canadians. They sold them out when this side of the House asked for clear provisions on compensation. The least the Liberal caucus should have been insisting on was to have draft regulations in place so that we could follow what the Government of Canada would have done on compensation.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague who, as he pointed out quite rightly, was a very hardworking member of our environment committee which dealt with this bill.

This is the third incarnation of the legislation. I had the privilege of working on Bill C-33 which predates my hon. colleague across the way.

It is interesting that the member would reference that some of the legal opinion was a bit curious, because I happen to know that he himself is a lawyer. It has been my experience both inside and outside government that when two lawyers are in a room there are often three or four opinions. He seems to be subscribing to some kind of lockstep assuredness in the species at risk legislation.

Clearly what the government has done and the stand we have taken is that co-operation should always be the first approach to protect species at risk. That is how the bill is structured. The government acknowledges that species at risk are protected on the land, not in the classrooms nor in the courtrooms of Canada.

The member made a couple of comments that I also found very curious. He seemed to infer that it does not include all of Canada. That is tacitly wrong. The bill certainly will work in partnership with aboriginal leaders as well as territorial and provincial governments but it will cover 100% of Canada.

It is interesting that while on the one hand he acknowledges the strength and the co-operative efforts that were made in the committee, on the other hand he criticizes the government when it reacts in a progressive way, in a manner that is attentive not only to the witnesses but to the committee work. Of the 125 amendments that came to the House, 70 were accepted because they clearly strengthened the bill with respect to transparency and accountability.

Would my hon. colleague like to comment on the stewardship program? This again goes back to the basis of co-operation, the basis of invitation to Canadians that they would continue to do the activities they are doing right now. I point out that the $45 million that was earmarked is indeed being spent. There are programs right across Canada and $10 million was spent this year on 160 local projects in partnership with local conservation associations which are protecting 208 species as we speak.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to third reading of Bill C-5, the government's endangered species legislation or, I should say, the latest version of it since we all know it has been underway since 1993.

This should be a positive day for people concerned with environmental issues because action to protect species at risk and their habitats is long overdue. However I cannot celebrate this bill. I would like to but I cannot. It contains so many glaring faults and fundamental mistakes that it would be unworkable. It would do precious little to help protect Canada's invaluable biological diversity.

Because the government did not give serious consideration to our amendments, I regret to say that we in the Canadian Alliance will be strongly opposing the bill. We tried to produce species at risk legislation that would work but the government has reversed the hard work of the committee. We must therefore oppose the bill. The Canadian Alliance wants species at risk legislation but it wants legislation that will work. The Alliance Party's 2002 policy declaration states:

We are committed to protecting and preserving Canada’s natural environment and endangered species, and to sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations.

The need is great. It is estimated that worldwide two to three species go extinct per hour almost entirely due to human causes. Some scientists believe we could lose 25% of the earth's species in the next 30 years at the present rate.

Canada has a serious endangered species problem. Some 27 species have gone extinct in Canada in the last 150 years and more than 300 are at risk. Some of our best known and loved neighbours who share the land such as the grizzly bear, beluga whale or woodland caribou could be lost to future generations unless we take action now.

Biological diversity is to be cherished. The wide range of species the world over provides a living laboratory for the development of new drugs and medicines. Endangered species are an important early warning system of ecological trouble. Protecting wild species protects billions of dollars in wildlife related activities across Canada and the livelihoods of countless Canadians. We know all this. The Canadian Alliance has done its part in trying to make strong, responsible endangered species legislation a reality.

I will take a moment to commend my hon. colleagues on the environment committee. Over the last year or so the committee has been a model of how the House works at its best. It has been a forum for reflection, discussion and an honest search for the best way forward. Some very constructive proposals have come out of it. There has been, in my experience at least, unprecedented co-operation at the committee between members of all parties. There has been a lot of negotiation and compromise. I have not seen such a level of co-operation since I was elected in 1993. Even the whips could not whip their members into changing their positions. However the government has reversed all that.

Bill C-5 has witnessed remarkable partnerships among groups outside parliament. People have managed to put aside their usual perspectives and work co-operatively in the cause of protecting endangered species. One of the best examples has been the Species at Risk Working Group or SARWG. How often have the Sierra Club, Canadian Wildlife Federation and Canadian Nature Federation had common cause with the pulp and paper industry, mining industry and so on? The fact that SARWG's members could agree on so much made their common position all the more compelling.

Had the government accepted more of SARWG's advice the bill would be far stronger today and might make a real difference. Instead the government has said “Trust us, we will fix it later”. I am sad to say this is how the Liberal government deals with things.

Despite all the goodwill and the extraordinary degree of consensus among industry and environmental commentators, Bill C-5 as amended would not go far enough. It would not pass the test of workability. When I read the amendments at report stage I was sad to see the government had undone many of the constructive changes that had been made. That is sad because we all want a workable law that will make a difference.

What is the problem? I will quote some fine words from the minister's appearance before the committee on October 3 of last year. He stated:

The front-line soldier of the campaign for endangered species will be the fisherman, the farmer, the person who works in the woods, or the trapper, to name only a few. These are the people who are out there where the habitat is and the endangered species are. If we want to succeed in the protection of habitat for species at risk, we need to maintain the support and cooperation of Canadians who work and live on the land and on our waters of Canada. And that is where the action is needed.

Truer words were never spoken, but perhaps the minister should introduce his speech writer to his legislative drafter. Bill C-5 would fail because it ignores the concerns, I would even say the fears, of those frontline soldiers. The minister is ignoring their concerns. He is refusing to commit that if and when they suffered economic losses because of the need to protect endangered species they would not have to carry the cross alone but would receive compensation. The minister is ignoring them by holding over their heads the threat of harsh criminal sanctions for unintentional or inadvertent actions.

As a strict matter of public policy the bill is wrong on these counts, but in terms of communications it could hardly be worse. It would send the signal that the real life concerns of these frontline soldiers were not significant. It would make them feel like targets of the government rather than partners in helping endangered species.

Finally, the bill would demean and insult 10 other frontline soldiers in the battle to save endangered species: the provinces of Canada. The minister can talk all he wants about co-operation, but at the end of the day he says he would decide whether the provinces were doing a good job of protecting endangered species and whether the federal law would apply in each province. There would be no negotiations or criteria, only uncertainty and resentment.

In the end Bill C-5 is a bad bill. It would not come to grips with the real lives of Canadians who want to do their part to protect wildlife and endangered species, Canadians who want to be responsible stewards of the natural environment but do not like being threatened or demeaned.

Sadly, in this respect Bill C-5 is part of a trend in the Liberal government's relationship with rural and northern Canada: the long gun registry which has ignored the realities of life outside our nation's cities; the cruelty to animals act which would criminalize run of the mill animal husbandry practices; and the Kyoto accord which threatens to impose significant costs on rural energy users. It is sad to say, but the message must get through to the Liberal government.

The minister's frontline soldiers throughout rural Canada too often feel their way of life is what is endangered. They care about wildlife. They are not selfish. They are responsible people who want to protect the environment and had been doing so for generations before the government decided to intervene. An approach based on partnership rather than confrontation would be met with a lot more success.

The biggest flaw in the species at risk act, the thing that guarantees it would never be effective, is its failure to provide compensation to landowners who would suffer economic losses as a result of measures to protect species and their habitats. The word compensation sounds so grasping, selfish and un-Canadian. Why would people expect to be paid for obeying the law? Why should property owners not be willing to absorb the costs in the service of a greater social good?

When people's livelihoods are at stake they have a different view of things. Farmers might have to leave certain sections of land untouched for a number of years or adopt different practices to accommodate nesting birds. Maybe areas of a forest would be off limits during migration. There are lots of ways property owners and resource users could be affected, some temporary and some permanent. However in many cases they would face costs either in the form of lost income from not being able to use their land or actual costs for protecting habitat or providing for endangered species.

It is completely incorrect to think farmers are sitting there waiting for the government to put compensation in the bill so they can sell their land to the government and make a big profit. Listening to the minister talk about how compensation would prevent voluntary programs, one would think this was what he believed.

For the farmers and ranchers I know their land is their life. Often it has been in their families for generations and they are not looking for an easy way out or to sell it to the government. They respect the wildlife on their property and would be happy to work co-operatively in voluntary stewardship programs, but when costs arise they do not want to be left holding the bag alone. Ten per cent could easily put them out of business.

No doubt the minister will say that the bill recognizes the principle of compensation. Let us look at the bill. Yes, it does say that the minister may, and I emphasize may, provide compensation. That is good. The government even seems willing to retain the words of the committee, “fair and reasonable” compensation, but that is not fair market value. However, in Bill C-5 any compensation would be left entirely to the minister's discretion. For the farmers in my riding, fine words are hollow promises. Until property owners and resource users know that when they suffer losses they will be guaranteed compensation, not by the minister's good grace but by right, they will look at the species at risk act with one hand guarding their wallets.

It would have been a token of good faith had the minister tabled draft regulations for us to look at prior to the bill being passed. He has promised to have a draft ready soon after royal assent, but again that does not do anything to convince people that the act will be fair to them.

What can they expect? What in practice does the bill mean when it says there will be compensation only in the case of the “extraordinary” impact of regulatory restrictions? Can they trust that the process would be fair? The minister owes Canadians answers to questions like this.

In fact, the only public picture of what regulations might look like is the Pearse report. Dr. Pearse may be a noted natural resources economist, but when he says that landowners should be happy to lose up to 10% of their annual income without compensation in order to protect endangered species, property owners get worried. When he says they should get a maximum of 50% compensation for losses over 10%, they stay worried.

It is not because the minister's “frontline soldiers” are selfish but because, like many Canadians, they work hard for a living and want to be treated fairly. Fairness demands that when they are injuriously affected by government they receive something to help them out. This is the very principle embodied in the UN convention on biological diversity, which Canada has signed.

The convention recognizes that because the objective of maintaining bio- and ecosystem diversity is so important, costs must be equitably borne by everyone, not just primarily by developing countries. Applied at home, this principle would mean that landowners should not bear all the costs of species protection, and that since they are helping to achieve a greater social good, compensation should be extended to offset any losses that they might incur.

The species at risk working group also recognized this in their brief to the standing committee. The group wrote:

SARWG strongly urges Parliament to implement key amendments that firmly recognize that the protection of species at risk is a public value and that measures to protect species at risk should be equitably shared and not unfairly borne by any individual, group of landowners, workers, communities or organizations...Provision for compensation helps to balance the effect of efforts to protect species at risk and instills necessary trust among all stakeholders...The Act should specifically allow for compensation for unavoidable losses caused by the inability to carry on an activity that is authorized by a legal contract or licence.

If a committee of industry and environmental groups can recognize this, then why can the government not? The principle of compensation is recognized internationally too. Let me quote from threatened species legislation in Tasmania:

A landholder...is entitled to compensation for financial loss suffered as a natural direct and reasonable consequence of the making of an interim conservation order.

That is, there is compensation for an interim protection order or a land management agreement.

The legislation also states: “A person who is required to comply with a notice under section 36 is entitled to compensation for financial loss” as a result of “being required to comply with that notice”.

Within the European Community, landowners receive compensation if they agree via a management agreement to maintain features of the landscape. Switzerland runs the integrated production program, a voluntary scheme whereby farmers are given standard amounts based on profit forgone in return for agreeing to certain restrictions. The U.K.'s conservation program of 1994 states:

Where a special nature conservation order is made, the appropriate nature conservation body shall pay compensation to any person having at the time of the making of the order an interest in land comprised in an agricultural unit comprising land to which the order relates who...shows that the value of his interest is less than it would have been if the order had not been made.

Not only is it fair, but the prospect of paying compensation introduces important fiscal discipline for the government. Instead, the government has taken the U.S. example of no compensation. I take the minister at his word and so I know that at the moment the government really has no idea of what the implications of the bill are or what it will cost Canadians to comply. Here is what he told the committee on October 3 when asked about compensation:

I have to express my regret that I'm not able to give the precision you have asked for. I think, though, your request for precision is perfectly legitimate. I really would like to be able to give it. Unfortunately, it simply has proved to be one of those things that has escaped us.

In reality, there is a letter from a cabinet minister to another cabinet minister saying that there can be no compensation in the bill, and nothing has been allocated. A departmental information supplement distributed in October was not of much more help when it stated:

Environment Canada is aware that compensation for restrictions on the use of land is a complex issue that requires careful consideration and innovative thinking. We will need several years of practical experience in implementing the stewardship and recovery provisions...before we can be precise in prescribing eligibility and thresholds for compensation.

In other words, it is “trust us”. I guess it is easy to be this flippant when spending someone else's money. The government does not know what the economic implications will be of the legislation it is passing. The act would put a potential burden on countless property owners and users across the country. The minister is advised to have a better answer for them when they start asking why all the costs of this noble effort seem to be on their shoulders.

In the end, the best argument in favour of compensation is that it is best for endangered species themselves. Without some recognition of their costs and corporate willingness to assist, property owners and users end up in an adversarial relationship with endangered species when naturally they are their best defenders.

The wolves in Yellowstone National Park are a great example of how this works in practice. When ecologists reintroduced wolves in the park they naturally received a hostile reaction from local ranchers who rightly were afraid that wolves would prey upon their livestock. Why, they asked, should they have to pay the cost of wolf introduction? According to Hank Fischer, northern Rockies representative of the Defenders of Wildlife, the controversy was resolved by starting a non-governmental compensation fund for ranchers, which paid a flat fee for each head of livestock killed by wolves. Now, five years later, the wolf population is growing and farmers have for the most part learned to live with it since they know that their families' prosperity is not being sacrificed. As Mr. Fischer writes, “This program is about a lot more than money. It's about respecting what ranchers do”.

Maybe that is the key point. Landowners are more than willing to do their part, but they need to know that the government understands their situation and cares about what happens to them. If the government cannot even provide some measure of compensation for their losses then they will be far less willing to co-operate on a voluntary basis. Coercion will be the government's only option, which will only increase resentment and suspicion. If property owners are upset about being asked to carry all the costs of protecting endangered species with no guarantee of assistance in doing so, they should be equally concerned about the harsh criminal sanctions that the government is using to make sure they co-operate.

Bill C-5 makes it a criminal act to kill, harm or harass any one of hundreds of endangered species or to interfere with their critical habitat. Fines are steep, up to $1 million for a corporation and $250,000 for an individual. The bill provides for imprisonment for up to five years for an indictable offence. As far as I am concerned that punishment is too good for people who wilfully threaten endangered species, people such as poachers, those who traffic in endangered animals or hunters looking for a thrill, but let us look at the bill.

The bill states:

No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species--

Similarly, it states:

No person shall damage or destroy the residence--

of that species, or:

No person shall destroy any part of the critical habitat of a listed endangered species--

Protecting species and their residences and habitat is what the bill is all about and we support that. My concern is that the act would have the great potential to catch honest people in its net, people who have no intention to harm endangered species, let alone commit a criminal offence. Under this act someone could commit a criminal offence, not a misdemeanor or administrative violation but a criminal offence, without knowing it. The bill does not require intent or even reckless behaviour. Rather, all offences under the act would be strict liability offences which means that the burden of proof rests on the individual to prove that he or she was exercising due diligence should harm come to an endangered species.

Is it fair to convict someone of a serious criminal offence when they might have had no idea that they were endangering a species or its habitat? In order to protect oneself from breaking the law, one would have to become an expert on recognizing the sage grouse, the barn owl, the Aurora trout, the Atlantic salmon, the prairie lupine and the American water willow, et cetera. One would have to be able to recognize not only them but their critical habitat in case one disturbs a place where some of these animals spend part of their life cycle, or even where they used to live or might be reintroduced, or some pollen or seeds blew in. I dare say the minister knows that this is a true problem.

In October he spoke to the committee about making people criminals even when they do not know they are breaking the law. He had a lot of concerns. He said:

It's a legitimate matter for concern. The accident, the unwitting destruction—it is a concern, and we want to give the maximum protection we can to the legitimate and honest person who makes a mistake, who unwittingly does that.

That is a nice thought, but that is all it is.

What is this maximum protection that he talked about? There is no protection that I can see. Protecting endangered species is important and we take it seriously, but it cannot be done in a heavy-handed way. People want to co-operate, but this “gotcha” approach from the government is adversarial and does nothing to encourage co-operation. A person might not know he or she was harming an endangered species, but “gotcha”. All they can hope is that the minister is reasonable in exercising his discretion. “Trust me” he says. That is not good enough.

How are companies, for example those involved with mineral, oil or forestry, supposed to demonstrate due diligence over operations covering hundreds of thousands or even millions of hectares when they do not even control all the external factors involved? There are 70 million hectares of agricultural land and 25 million hectares of privately owned forest land in Canada. How do these farmers and operators exercise due diligence over these areas, especially when many are small operators with very limited resources and no familiarity with endangered species?

What maximum protection would the minister provide to them? At the very least, the government must work with the provinces to provide training for landowners and users who will be required to meet the due diligence standards but do not have the knowledge or information to identify listed species or their critical habitat and residences.

As the species at risk working group said:

Failure to make such programs readily available will deprive Canadians of the means to defend themselves against criminal charges.

The best solution would be for the government to amend the bill to require what Roman law used to refer to as the guilty mind, mens rea. This required that in order to commit a criminal act persons had to know that they were doing something wrong. It has been the standard division between criminal and civil offences in English common law since the late Middle Ages and is absolutely essential in this case. The bill should require that criminal sanctions apply only when someone knowingly, intentionally, wilfully or even recklessly harms an endangered species, its residence or its habitat.

Why make this change? Do the strong penalties not send a signal that endangered species are important and that no one should mess with them? Yes, it does that but that is the wrong signal for farmers, cattlemen, fishermen, forestry workers, property owners and users across the country.

The minister does not seem to understand the implication of his own words when he calls these people his frontline soldiers in the campaign for endangered species. Property owners are the good guys here yet the bill treats them as if they have to be beaten into submission and threatened to keep them from harming wildlife. Let me quote the minister once more:

Now we have all seen, as politicians, what happens when people get fearful or angry with their government. We have all seen the damage that is done to public trust when perfectly reasonable people suddenly decide that the government has some hidden and nefarious agenda, and there is no reason to stir up those kinds of concerns with this legislation.

The minister's speech writer is absolutely correct. There is no reason for this to happen but it is because Bill C-5 treats property owners in a spirit of confrontation and antagonism. If the government is willing to brand people as criminals for an entirely inadvertent act, then people will question the government's commitment to its rhetoric about co-operation.

As I said earlier, the bill also insults and demeans another group of frontline soldiers in the battle to protect endangered species. Those soldiers are the provincial governments. I know it is not fashionable to defend the provinces in this place. The government obviously believes, and it may even be true, that Canadians generally do not care who delivers a service or takes responsibility for an issue, they just want it done. We want to see endangered species protected, but even if people do not widely care about constitutional niceties, it is vital that governments respect them. Perhaps the government can get away with encroaching on provincial jurisdiction in the court of public opinion. In the only survey I have seen, 94% of Canadians say that they want to protect endangered species. I cannot believe it is not 100%. However, if it tries to go it alone, the government will produce bad policy, bad legislation and will end up hurting rather than helping the cause of species protection, which it seeks to advance.

I do not want to pretend that the federal government has no jurisdiction at all in getting involved in environmental issues and protecting endangered species. Environment, after all, does not fall exclusively into either federal or provincial jurisdiction.

Fathers of Confederation thought far more about regulating trade, commerce, education and even how to divide up the colony's debts than they did about protecting endangered species, but the federal government clearly has a role to play.

Section 91 of the constitution gives the federal government power in the areas of international treaties, Indians and land reserved for Indians, sea coast and inland fisheries. One could even, I suppose, make a case that the power to guarantee peace, order and good governance allows the federal government an entry here, though that is sufficiently ill-defined as a justification. I am sure it will be fought out in the courts.

Perhaps the best justification for the federal role is responsibility for the criminal law. This power to prohibit and punish any conduct clearly would extend to protecting endangered species, though I cannot help but wonder whether the harsh criminal provisions in the bill and the refusal to require that someone have criminal intent exists more because they strengthen the federal government's self-jurisdiction for involvement than because of how effective they will be.

The provinces have a role to play because the constitution gives them power over: the management and sale of public lands belonging to the province; property and civil rights; and matters of merely local or private nature in the province. Together these amount to vast responsibilities. The provinces are the ones with the troops on the ground, with the power to really enforce the provisions of the act. They have a presence to enforce natural resources and wildlife rules that extend widely across the nation.

Apart from the jurisdictional question, without the provinces the bill simply cannot be enforced. It is essential for the minister to make sure he has the provinces on side or his best laid plans will not have their desired effect.

Does the bill reflect the co-operation and consensus building that one would expect, given that environmental questions are a shared responsibility? Sadly, the answer is a strong no. The bill talks about co-operation, voluntary programs and consultation but when it comes right down to it, Bill C-5 gives the federal government the power to impose its will on provincial lands with disregard for provincial rules or practices.

This is the concept of the safety net. Largely through use of federal criminal law power, Bill C-5 gives the minister, in his absolute discretion, the right to decide whether a province provides effective protection for endangered species. If not, then he must order that the federal law will apply in every province. In this way he is given the power to sit as lord and judge over the provinces.

The standing committee insisted that the minister be required to make his reasons public. Most important, the committee required that the minister consult with the provinces in order to develop criteria for determining what constitutes effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada. However the government introduced motions to reverse these provisions.

We are left with a situation where provinces, landowners and resource users will try to arrange their affairs to comply with the law in good faith but with utter uncertainty about what the law will be. That is where the money will be used, in litigation. How are companies expected to invest or individuals develop their land if they do not know what the rules will be? This uncertainty leads to confusion and distrust. This federal intrusion will almost certainly lead to legal challenges from the provinces instead of focus on protection of species at risk.

Undoubtedly, provinces will challenge these provisions in court. Not only will this take time and resources, it will undermine collective efforts to protect species and show the world that Canada is not serious in its commitment to co-operate in meeting this important goal.

Of course all this talk of the federal safety net assumes that there are big gaps in the provincial legislation. It implies that the provinces have done nothing about endangered species protection and cannot be trusted with the job.

As I have said, I believe there is a role for the federal government here but this white knight attitude, which puts down everyone else so it can pretend to be the champion, only creates bitterness and sets back the cause of species protection.

I have been told that there are 33 provincial statutes that cover endangered species, wildlife, special places protection, environmental management and so on. They exist in every province and territory. I do not claim to be an expert on all of these but a background presentation by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund on Bill C-5 included a report card comparing the provinces to Bill C-33, the endangered species bill that died in the last parliament and provided the framework for this bill.

Interestingly, five provinces were ranked higher than the proposed federal law and three more provinces were given the same mark. This is a subjective assessment but at least it establishes that the provinces are doing something to help endangered species.

Instead of the government's confrontational approach, would it not be much better to work co-operatively to pursue the goals that we all endorse? The foundation for this co-operation already exists in the 1996 national accord for the protection of species at risk. The federal and provincial ministers committed themselves to complementary legislation and programs to ensure that endangered species would be protected throughout Canada and established a council of ministers to provide direction, report on progress and resolve disputes. This is the way to proceed. Perhaps it was not perfect. Certainly more work was left to do and federal legislation has a role here. Goodness knows, the federal government has enough land and responsibilities in its jurisdiction with which to concern itself without deciding to take responsibility for provincial lands too.

Again we urge the government to adopt a more co-operative approach instead of one rooted in the minister's discretion to intervene whenever he wants with no criteria and no explanation. That is not the way to build teamwork with provincial enforcement agents on the ground. It is not the way to work with landowners and resource users who need certainty and predictability in the law and, in the long run, it is not the way to help protect endangered species.

In conclusion, we want species at risk legislation but we want legislation that will work on the ground. This bill will not work. Farmers, ranchers and people in industry say it will not work. It is just like the U.S. legislation. It will end up in the courts. It does not include compensation. It does not include mens rea. It does not provide clear federal--provincial co-operation. It does not provide adequate habitat protection.

Money, as I say, will not be used for the conservation or protection of species. Instead it will go into the courtroom.

Government has used deceit and deception to convince various groups that they will be taken care of. It has used an attitude of “Trust us, we will take care of you. We will give you compensation. We will make sure that we work with you”.

I do not believe those bureaucrats who will be out there enforcing the legislation will do anything but follow the exact wording that is printed in Bill C-5. As a result, the legislation will in fact endanger endangered species.

Species at Risk Act

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member came in perhaps a trifle late. As you explained, the debate is on the issue of time allocation.

Certainly, if I am permitted to depart from that strict issue, I would give the greatest credit to the committee members, including the hon. member who just spoke. They did an immense amount of work, not just on the current bill, Bill C-5, but also on the preceding bills, Bill C-33 and Bill C-65 in previous parliaments.

However, and I hope he understands this, the fact that I point out that the critical people who will be protecting endangered species are those who are out on the land, namely farmers, ranchers, trappers, fishermen and people who work in the woods, I hope does not suggest to him that somehow we are denigrating the work of the committee. No, these are the people who are particularly important.

With due respect to the hon. member, he comes from an urban riding. He spends a lot of time in the House. He is not always out there on the land. Perhaps he should give a little credit too, to those people on whom the bill will depend for its success and whose co-operation is so important in getting this bill.

I hope that does not denigrate the committee.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should realize that it has taken us a long time to get this legislation out because the previous Conservative government did nothing about this issue. It was in our red book when we first came forward. We beat the Conservatives to the point where they were reduced to two seats because they were doing nothing on this issue.

Since then it has taken a lot of time. He is quite right. However when he says that we have not attempted anything for nine years, has he forgotten Bill C-33, or indeed the previous bill, Bill C-65? Has he forgotten how long it has taken with this particular bill?

We have been working on this continuously. When he is so critical of parts of days being used I hope he will remember, as he cozies up to the Alliance as he is so keen on doing, that the staff of the hon. Leader of the Opposition actually bragged about the way it was filibustering this particular piece of legislation.

Excise Act, 2001

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy of the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 10.

Bill S-22, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canadien horse as the national horse of Canada--Chapter No. 11.

Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act--Chapter No. 12.

Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act

[The Speaker]

As it is now 3 p.m., the House will proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to Bill C-33.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the amendment to Bill C-33. I first looked at this bill when it was C-62, Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act and again now when it is C-33, the same title, Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

This bill is long overdue. It has been on the books since 1992-93. It is high time that we actually pass it through parliament. Ten years is long enough for any piece of legislation to be passed in this place.

There are some important questions to be raised regarding the deletion of the non-derogation clause. In conversation with the Inuit Tapirisat and the people in Nunavut they raised a number of questions about the bill. None the least of which was the long standing concern that the people of Nunavut had over the requirement for ministerial approval of applications. Certainly the intent, and a noble intent, is to have more control or more power vested in the jurisdiction and the people of Nunavut.

There was a problem with the authority of the governor in council to make regulations in areas that the Inuit felt should be the authority of the water board or the surface rights board, especially the water board. The legislation did not expressly recognize Inuit water rights. The bill states that is subject to Nunavut rights in the Nunavut Act and the rights invested in the crown. Possibly there should have been another amendment looking at water rights specific to the Nunavut area.

Another concern raised was that the $20 million liability factor. It should have probably been higher. However, all those issues and the non-derogation clause aside, this legislation is long overdue. It should have been passed long ago.

It has the support from the member for Nunavut and the premier of Nunavut. It is not up to us as parliamentarians to hold this particular piece of legislation up whether or not we agree with the amendment. The amendment has been passed in the House. It will be my intent to support the amendment in the House. It is incumbent upon all members in the House to look at this piece of legislation carefully to make sure that it is pushed forward and to absolutely make sure that it is passed because it does give more rights to the people who live in Nunavut. That is extremely important.

Maybe at some point in the future we should come back and look at this again but let us get the legislation through. Let us pass it. It is a good piece of legislation. It is timely and it is long overdue.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of my caucus to participate in this debate on Bill C-33 and, in particular, the amendment being proposed by the Government of Canada.

At the outset I will reiterate the position of our party on the bill and echo the words of my colleague, the aboriginal affairs critic, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who has worked long and hard with other members in the House on advancing the bill and pushing for an expeditious resolution of this matter.

As my colleague has noted on numerous occasions, the bill is long overdue. It is well noted in the House that in fact there were several predecessors to this bill, specifically Bill C-51 in the 35th parliament in 1996, and then again in the 36th parliament, Bill C-62. Both those bills died on the order paper despite the fact that there has been a long recognized need for legislation in this area and despite the fact that the people of Nunavut have called persistently for action from the government.

It is clear, and I am sure the member for Nunavut acknowledges, realizes and lives with this on a day to day basis, that the people of Nunavut have waited patiently for a very long time to see a bill finally come through all stages in the House of Commons. Obviously we are committed to and interested in seeing this process come to an end and seeing the action taken that is so desperately needed.

Clearly the whole issue of Nunavut land claims settlement in the areas of land use, water and environmental assessment boards is paramount and critical. It is in fact scandalous that nothing has happened since June 1993. Of course we want to see the bill move through the House and action taken. However, we are concerned today with the announcement from the government that in fact a very important clause in Bill C-33 is recommended for deletion to the House of Commons.

I have listened carefully to the debate and have tried to understand the rationale for the deletion of this clause and have yet to appreciate any significant rationale for this initiative. I listened to the member for the Alliance suggesting that in fact this is in the best interests of the people of Nunavut and that this deletion of the non-derogation clause is according to their wishes and intent.

My understanding of the situation is that in fact the people of Nunavut would like to see some form of a non-derogation clause in the bill. Perhaps the wording of this one before us today poses some difficulties, but I think it would still be concluded that it is better than nothing. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre indicated that this issue was discussed thoroughly at committee stage and he was pleased to see that there was at least something in the bill around non-derogation.

I think it is particularly important that we understand the historical basis for such a clause and appreciate the reasons for the need to include a provision like this in a bill of this nature, especially today when we are on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms entrenched in our constitution in section 35, part of the Constitution Act. It is a very important development in the history of Canada which actually recognized that aboriginal rights are part of our history and must be entrenched in the constitution and that those inherent rights cannot be signed away by any document. It was felt that a bill of this nature should surely include a non-derogation clause. It has become standard practice in legislation dealing with aboriginal and treaty rights.

To quote from the speech of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, he noted for the House that:

In anything dealing with aboriginal rights, a non-derogation clause has become standard practice, in that nothing in this newly signed agreement will derogate or in any way diminish rights that are inherent within the charter of rights and freedoms or the constitution. The inherent rights that aboriginal people enjoy cannot be signed away by any document.

That is the spirit behind this amendment.

It was noted at committee that the wording of the particular clause dealing with non-derogation was problematic. I think the leadership of Nunavut did indicate problems with that non-derogation clause. There was an attempt to change it to be more acceptable and responsive to the wishes of the people of Nunavut and in fact it was recommended that the clause should actually be rephrased to state:

Nothing in the bill should derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1982.

That proposed amendment was in keeping with the wishes of the delegations from Nunavut. It was simple and straightforward but unfortunately did not succeed at committee stage. We are left with the non-derogation clause as outlined in Bill C-33 which is now being proposed for deletion. That represents a concern for us and does temper our support for Bill C-33.

I want to register those concerns and to indicate that we will be listening closely throughout the remainder of the debate for a better understanding of why such an amendment is being proposed. It would seem to us that anything we can do as a House of Commons to recognize the long struggle of aboriginal peoples to pursue the fundamental notion of their inalienable rights being entrenched in the constitution and to encapsulate the spirit of that constitutional provision is absolutely vital and must be pursued.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today on the Senate amendment to Bill C-33. I shall not speak very long. As hon. members are aware, my party's critic, the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, is quite knowledgeable on this matter. I shall limit myself to a few remarks on the government's motion.

It must be said immediately that we are in favour of Bill C-33. I need not remind hon. members that the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, which we have recently supported, provides more self-sufficiency to the communities. We believe it is a step in the right direction and we supported it unconditionally.

Overall, Bill C-33 represents the implementation of certain elements of the Nunavut land claims agreement concluded between the Inuit of Nunavut and Her Majesty in right of Canada. The bill before the House at this time therefore brings to completion the last aspects of this historic agreement. Let us keep in mind that this bill was passed by the House of Commons last November and has stagnated with the Senate every since.

We realize what the workload of our colleagues in the other place is, but is it acceptable for this bill to stagnate, to remain dormant, if I may use that term, for six months in the other place, just so that this legislation, which will empower the communities, can be implemented?

I have trouble understanding why, after six months, the only recommendation the other place can come up with is to take seven lines out of the bill. Worse yet, the proposed amendment does not even concern the body of the bill, but rather the preliminary definitions and the mechanisms for application of this legislative measure.

I could go on and on about the role of the senators and the legislative process, but I will spare the House this needless suffering, which would be boring to them as well. The amendment to Bill C-33 proposed by the Senate consists in deleting from application of this new legislation a fundamental provision relating to the negotiations that in fact led to the conclusion of the and claims agreement between the government and the Inuit of Nunavut.

In the treaty providing the framework for the agreement, which was ratified and implemented on July 9, 1993 by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, care was taken to specify the scope of the agreement and the fact that it did not take precedence over prior legislation.

Clause 3(3) of Bill C-33 is consistent with the spirit of the 1993 legislation. However, the Senate is trying to remove this important aspect, the product of years' of negotiations leading to the accord and now, all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, the Senate wants to strike them from the treaty implementation act, which is the final stage of this effort that has lasted so many years.

We find this situation unusual, and rather embarrassing for an institution such as the Senate, which has had to deal with serious credibility issues. Not only do senators want to undo twenty years of work, but their changes do not even appear to make any sense.

It is unfortunate that the House is required to waste precious time pondering an issue that is as useless as the Senate itself, rather than spending this time to further the cause of first nations.

The Bloc Quebecois has made good relations with aboriginal peoples a cornerstone of our political program and campaign platform. Like the government of Quebec, we firmly believe, and reiterate this today, that there must be harmonious relations with first nations, as demonstrated by the recent nation to nation agreements that have been concluded with the Cree and the Inuit.

We are determined to work together with the government to respond promptly to the governance wishes of the Inuit from Nunavut. However, the Bloc Quebecois is strongly opposed to the motion presented by the Senate, and we will be voting against the motion.

In closing, I would invite my colleagues from the other parties to consider this carefully and to carefully weigh the pros and cons of such an amendment. To finish, I would like to add that it is unfortunate that this bill was held up in the Senate for six months only to come up with this provision, when we could have accelerated the pace and the process to provide more governance and more autonomy to communities.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-33, the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

Hon. members are familiar with the legislation. It is back before us today so we can consider an amendment moved by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources and approved by the Senate. I am pleased to advise the House that the government will accept the amendment which does not alter the intent of the legislation or affect any of its provisions.

Bill C-33 remains an important bit of unfinished business for Canada. It is important for Inuit and for the future of Nunavut. I will give members a bit of the history. The agreement was signed in 1993. Yet here we are in 2002 still trying to get legislation for the bodies created under the land claims agreement. It is important that the bodies have a legislative base.

Today I will be asking hon. members to support the legislation as amended so it can proceed quickly to royal assent and proclamation. I will address the amendment in a few minutes. First, I will remind hon. members what the government is endeavouring to achieve with the legislation and why it deserves our support.

Bill C-33 would establish the legislative framework for two institutions of public government: the Nunavut Water Board which is responsible for licensing the use of water and the deposit of waste in Nunavut; and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal whose role is to resolve access disputes between landowners and those who want and need to use the land. As hon. members know, preliminary versions of both institutions were created in 1996 under the authority of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The land claims agreement also requires Canada to establish in law the power, duties and functions of the institutions.

Bill C-33 would meet this requirement. The bill is one of empowerment. Nunavut residents would be guaranteed representation on both the Nunavut Water Board and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal, thereby bringing decision making closer to the people. Bill C-33 would help give the people of Nunavut, some 85% of whom are Inuit, opportunities to become economically self reliant and build relevant institutions of government.

I will talk a bit about what we are doing in Nunavut. It is very much parallel to what the government of Nunavut is doing. We talk about Nunavut becoming economically self reliant and becoming a government on its own. It is a long struggle which becomes harder if we do not have the resources, legislation and tools in place.

I see Bill C-33 as one of the tools that would help us move a bit further down the road that has been three years in the making since April 1, 1999. I am proud to say the people of Nunavut have risen to the challenge and made the last three years exciting. Great progress has been made. Because of the great challenges we face we have a lot further to go, but I can honestly say we have made changes in the last three years. If we keep working the way we have it is a good sign for the future. The last three years are a good example of the determination of the people of Nunavut to make things right.

By supporting Bill C-33 at second and third reading hon. members have shown they agree with the government on these matters. As I noted at the outset, the legislation requires our attention once again due to an amendment approved by the other place. Specifically, the other place has amended Bill C-33 to remove the non-derogation clause.

Inuit rights provided for within the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are not only constitutionally protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Clause 3(1) of Bill C-33 says that in the event of any inconsistency between the bill and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement would prevail.

The intent of the non-derogation clause was neither to diminish nor enhance the constitutional protection given to the rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples. The government's goal was to signal that enactment of Bill C-33 would not abrogate or derogate from the protection provided by the Constitution Act, 1982 to aboriginal and treaty rights.

Non-derogation clauses are not uncommon in federal statutes. Their intent is always the same: to remind the reader that aboriginal peoples have protected rights under our constitution that must be taken into account when exercising legislative authority. It is for this reason that aboriginal people often request that such clauses be included in bills for their comfort.

Unfortunately, some Inuit representatives cannot accept this explanation for the non-derogation clause in Bill C-33. The issue of the non-derogation clause has become somewhat of a debate among lawyers vying for their legal opinions to be heard. The magnitude of the debate has been blown out of proportion.

The courts have not yet made any interpretations regarding non-derogation clauses. Some groups do not share the government's interpretation that such clauses are a signal of constitutional protection because statutes are subject to protection under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 whether or not such clauses are included. For that reason when Bill C-33 was before the standing committee some witnesses expressed strong opposition to the clause.

The obvious solution was to remove the non-derogation clause from the bill. While our goal was simply to flag aboriginal rights which are already enshrined in the constitution, we acknowledge that if some Inuit people found no comfort in the clause and it made them uncomfortable, there was no reason to leave it in the bill. That being said, hon. members should be aware that removal of the clause in no way impacts the application of Bill C-33 or the protection of aboriginal rights. In short, neither the bill nor the Inuit will suffer because of the amendment.

It is time to move forward with the legislation. There has been a lot of debate on the issue. It has been divisive for some people in the territory. The debate is becoming larger than the bill itself. I have spoken a bit about what is happening in the territory. There are so many things going on at the same time that we want to move forward. I do not want the groups that are trying to move forward and deal with the challenges to be held back because they have no legislation with which to do their work.

There have been exhaustive consultations. We hope they have resulted in a bill that would further implement the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, protect the Arctic environment and create certainty for the resource industry and others who may wish to invest in Nunavut.

Hon. members have heard me talk as much as I can about the natural resources available in the territory. We hope we will be able to draw investors in the future. We are doing so today because of the territory's promising natural resources such as diamonds and precious metals.

We hope to use those resources to move forward and become contributors to Canadian society. It will also benefit us in the form of jobs and training. We want our communities to become industry based instead of government based as it is in so many communities.

We hope our young people will go back to school to pursue careers that will help them take advantage of all the natural resources available in the new territory.

The mining industries have stated that it is difficult for them to invest in our territory unless there is absolute certainty and they know the playing field. I have had a couple of people tell me that they really wished Bill C-33 would go through because it would create a more certain field for them as far as an investor is concerned.

As I referenced earlier, the bill is a key part of the government's commitment to the Inuit of Nunavut through the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Settlement Act. With that in mind, I urge hon. members to join me in voting in favour of Bill C-33 as amended.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, a fellow Saskatchewanian, upon her appointment as deputy House leader for the official opposition.

This afternoon we will be continuing with the debate on Bill C-15B, the legislation relating to cruelty to animals. When that is completed, I expect to move on to Bill C-15A, the legislation relating to pornography. If there is time after that, we will go on to Bill C-53, the pest control bill, followed by Bill S-40 respecting financial clearinghouses.

Tomorrow the business will be Bill C-43, the miscellaneous technical amendments legislation, followed by the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-33, the Nunavut legislation.

On Monday I would expect to begin the day with Bill C-53 but after 3 p.m. we will turn to Bill C-54 which relates to sports in Canada.

Commencing on Tuesday we will return to the report stage debate of Bill C-5 respecting species at risk.

Species at Risk Act

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.

I would like to add my voice to that of my colleague from the Canadian Alliance, the member for Lethbridge, about how little this government respects what goes on in committees.

I was on the Standing Committee on the Environment along with my colleague from Lethbridge when Bill C-33, the precursor of Bill C-5, was examined. We heard dozens of witnesses in connection with Bill C-33, the one that preceded Bill C-5.

As my colleague from Lethbridge has said, the position taken by most of these was diametrically opposite to that taken by the government in this bill. I believe that the government just sloughs off any presentations by witnesses who come before a committee to offer their opinion on a bill.

This government operates with a kind of magical thinking. It applies a semblance of democracy by inviting people before the committee. “We will listen to you”, it tells them. “We will ensure you are given a careful hearing. We will let you provide us with some improvements to the bills”.

However, the witnesses and opposition parties are just being taken in, every time, by this government. Never, since I was first elected in 1997, have I seen any open-mindedness on the part of the government with respect to bills. They deserve to be approached with an open mind. Let us not lose sight of the extreme importance of protecting species at risk.

Neither us nor the government alone possess the whole truth. People in the field are well aware of situations we are not. This is perfectly normal. Everyone is an expert in their own area of knowledge.

The government hears the witnesses but does not listen to them. It continues along the path it has already chosen, and heads straight for third reading. It keeps on introducing repetitive bills which mean that there is never any progress made with an issue. This species at risk bill is once again a duplication of effort with the provinces.

In 1996, the federal government proposed a Canada-wide agreement to the provincial and territorial environment ministers, the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. My colleague for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel referred to it earlier. So there has been an agreement since 1996.

Why did they not bring together all the environment ministers and tell them “Together, we have made some progress. Why should we not sit down together again and make more progress with this issue?” What do they do instead? They deny their own agreement with the provinces and draft a bill that is contrary to many areas of provincial jurisdiction. What will the result be? It will cost dearly, very dearly. Once again, there will be duplication. It will end up in squabbles and this does solve the problems.

What is more, they have the gall not to want to use the COSEWIC list. I would like to explain to our viewers just what COSEWIC is. It is a body that was created in 1978 and is composed of representatives of each governmental agency in the provinces and territories, along with four national conservation bodies. It is the main player as far as species protection is concerned, and its mandate is to list the endangered species on Canadian territory.

These are the experts. I am not an expert, but I can recognize those who are. They have drawn up a list of 340 species that are endangered at the present time. These are credible people. They have been around since 1978 and are doing a good job.

What is the government saying? It says “We are setting aside the work that you have done since 1978. The governor in council, cabinet will draw up the priority list to protect species at risk”.

This is ridiculous. It is nonsense. A minister or cabinet does not know which species are the most at risk and require immediate protection on the territory. This is not true. I hope members do not believe that. I am sure that our viewers do not believe it either.

Let us be serious. If we want to move ahead on this issue, because it is urgent to do so, we must sit down with the experts. I do not trust people who claim to be perfect. I am afraid they might engage in petty politics. This is no time to engage in petty politics. But maybe they want visibility. Perhaps this government is bent on getting visibility at all costs. No, the government must not seek visibility here: it must act.

It is time for the federal government to co-operate with the provinces, to sit down with their officials, to say that it will continue to settle the issues that have surfaced since the 1996 accord. But this is not what the government is doing, and it is unfortunate. There is still time to propose amendments to that effect, but the government is so dense, so uninterested in settling issues that it creates new ones to get more visibility.

This is an extremely important area. It is said that biodiversity is the result of the earth's evolution over a period of more than 4.5 billion years. This evolutionary process has generated a large selection of living organisms and natural environments on our planet. This is the reality.

I think that the provinces would have wanted to continue, with the federal government, to try to improve the 1996 accord. However, the federal government has decided once again to stand out, to get more visibility and to reinvent the wheel. This government is always reinventing the wheel and, in the end, it only causes trouble. This is no time to cause trouble. It is time to act and to make progress. I deplore this attitude.

There have been three bills: Bill C-65, Bill C-33, during a previous parliament, which died on the order paper, and this one. Therefore, I ask the government to withdraw its bill and to sit down again with the provinces to update the 1996 accord.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to the proposed amendments to Bill C-5 that make up the third group. The House will recall that Bill C-5 replaces Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.

This leads me to comment more specifically on the amendment introduced by my colleague, the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, who is the Bloc Quebecois critic for the environment. He proposes amending clause 56 of the bill, which reads as follows, “the competent minister may...establish...national...guidelines with respect to the protection of” species.

Yet the second statement of the accord signed in 1996 stated that the minister will establish “a Council of Ministers that will provide direction, report on progress and resolve disputes”.

It seems to me as though this government is obsessed with establishing national standards from one end of the country to the other, imposing them in areas that come under provincial jurisdiction. The species at risk act is yet another example.

Clause 56 would allow the government, as I said earlier, to establish codes of practice and impose national standards or guidelines, yet the federal government is not responsible for most of the lands involved and has no power over the resource management in these areas.

Therefore, this clause not only violates the division of powers set out in the constitution and interpreted as such over the years, but it also grants broad discretionary powers to the Minister of the Environment.

This bill interferes directly in provincial areas of responsibility and excludes the provinces from making real and direct contributions to the process. Existing laws are ignored. It is an outrage.

Of course, the protection of certain species is only effective if their habitat is also protected. But it is up the provinces to manage this in co-operation with the various stakeholders involved.

Despite the fact that the minister theoretically supports shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces for the protection of species at risk, first, he is disregarding the division of powers and the provinces' responsibilities in managing habitat and protecting species; second, he is ignoring laws that already exist; and third, he is assuming extremely broad powers to protect species. The federal government is therefore going against real environmental harmonization between the different levels of government.

I would also like to mention the position of environmental groups and industry which are opposed to this bill. The bill scares them. The main problem, which seems to have been raised by all these environmental groups, is the fact that the decisions on the designation of species will be taken by the minister and his cabinet, and not by scientists themselves.

Will somebody tell me what sort of decision the minister, who does not have the qualifications and has not studied this area, will take? They will truly be informed. He is excluding the scientists who have been studying these endangered species for years. The minister will tell them what to do simply because he is the minister. It is scandalous too.

Quebec's position on this bill has been expressed by Quebec's minister of the environment. When his federal counterpart first introduced the bill he said that it was just another useless development for Quebec. Quebec's minister said that not only was the bill introduced by the federal government designed to put in place a safety net for endangered species and their habitats on sites under federal jurisdiction but also throughout the territory of Quebec.

While the federal government may be responsible for protecting migratory species, it has no Constitutional authority—this government interprets the constitution when it suits its purposes—with respect to the management of habitats located in provincially owned lands. There can obviously be no question of the government of Quebec sitting by while the federal government invades areas of jurisdiction that do not belong to it and tells Quebec how to go about protecting its ecosystems, when Quebec already has legislation to protect endangered species and their habitats.

Quebec's minister said:

Quebec has always behaved in a responsible and appropriate manner regarding the protection of the most threatened fauna and flora species and intends to keep on exercising its authority in this matter. We will never accept umbrella legislation covering all the initiatives in this area.

In fact, the government of Quebec believes that legislation such as that proposed in the bill could be acceptable if it excluded any species or habitat under provincial jurisdiction and if it were applied to provincial lands if, and only if, the province or territory specifically so requested.

The Quebec government would not need to use such a provision, since it passed its own act in the late eighties. Indeed, the Quebec government passed the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species in 1989. It also passed an act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, and fishing regulations. These three legal supports provide Quebec with the tools required to identify species at risk, to legally designate them as threatened or at risk, to protect their habitat and to develop implementation plans that provide sufficient protection for species and habitat that are in a precarious situation.

The situation is clear. The province of Quebec and its government do not need a federal act to encroach on its jurisdictions.

With the increasing rate with which species are disappearing, the situation is serious. It is true that effective action is necessary, but does this bill really make a contribution to improving the protection of our ecosystems and of the endangered species in it? In our view, the answer to the two questions asked at the beginning is negative.

The Bloc Quebecois completely supports the principle of providing additional protection for species. However we do not think the bill would improve the protection of threatened species. In fact, we are opposed to it because it constitutes a direct intrusion into many jurisdictions of Quebec that I just listed.

This bill is liable to create more red tape, rather than to make it possible for the limited resources to be properly channeled where they can do the most good. The government of Quebec is already legislating in the areas addressed by the bill. While acknowledging the urgency of improving the implementation of these statutes, we do not believe the bill will make it possible to achieve results.

We will not let this bill intrude in our jurisdictions. We already have an excellent act and we want to keep it.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak once more at the report stage of Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Today, the debate is on amendment motions in Group No. 2.

The amendments are rather substantial. One hundred and thirty-eight amendments have been moved at the report stage by members of all opposition parties in the House, members of the Bloc Quebecois, well as other political parties.

This being said, I want Quebecers to understand that it was not easy to bring this bill back to the House where it will be voted on. The legislation introduced in the previous parliament was Bill C-33. We have to wonder: when opposition parties move 138 amendments to a bill, there has to be a problem somewhere.

For Quebecers and especially for stakeholders in Quebec whom we are representing, and for the members of the Bloc Quebecois, the very principle of Bill C-5 has been in question. Why? Because Quebec, in the area of species protection, passed the appropriate legislation at the right time. I would like to provide a brief historical overview.

In 1990, the Quebec government passed the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species, the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, and fishing regulations. These three legislative measures are designed to protect, among others, wildlife species at risk. So, the Quebec government had already made the effort to create a whole structure to protect wildlife. In this regard, I congratulate wildlife conservation officers who, for decades, have been responsible for implementing these regulations.

So, a protective structure was put in place in Quebec. Why? The question we must ask ourselves as Quebecers is why the federal government is proposing independent or different regulations or legislation. We must ask ourselves this important question, particularly in Quebec, because we took our responsibilities in 1990.

In 1996, there was even a federal-provincial accord, the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. This accord between provincial ministers of the environment and the federal government meant that now, we will have an accord on the protection of species at risk. In 1996, we did not need an act, but that never stopped the federal government.

Since 1996, it has been trying to impose an act that would supersede all provincial legislation. This is where the problem lies. The federal government is once again telling us “We will create a double safety net. In Quebec, you have your own provincial laws, your safety net, but we will have a federal act that will create a second safety net”. I am sorry, but back home it is not a double safety net: it is overlapping in jurisdictions.

If the federal government felt that certain species transiting in Quebec on their international journeys are lesser known in our province and are thus at risk, it would have been so simple to ask the Quebec government to include them in its regulations on the protection of species at risk. Quebec has never refused to amend its list of protected species. It would have been so simple to ask the Quebec government to make changes to its regulations to include certain species.

This is not what the federal government chose to do. It decided to enact legislation that even provides for the creation of federal officers. In Quebec, we already have wildlife conservation officers who do some wonderful work, given their limited resources and the financial resources of the Quebec government.

Instead of negotiating an accord with the province and investing funds to upgrade the network for wildlife protection, instead of granting certain sums and new budgets to wildlife conservation officers in Quebec, the federal government chose to create positions for federal officers.

I repeat for all Quebecers who are listening that this is a double safety net; we call that duplication, we call that spending twice for the same thing. In order to improve the wildlife protection network, it would have been much simpler to give some additional amounts to the existing wildlife protection officers. That would have increased their effectiveness, they might have worked less overtime in high activity periods and might have recruited more help. No; instead, the federal government chose to create an independent network.

It is hard for Bloc Quebecois representatives not to propose a series of amendments to this bill. Naturally, we know these amendments will be rejected systematically by the Liberal majority, but it is good to have the opportunity to discuss this legislation once again. We think the issue was clearly defined in the federal-provincial accord, the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada.

Today, the government is proposing a bill on the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. The difference with the accord are probably the words wildlife and Canada. The government could very well have changed the accord by saying that it was the Accord for the protection of Species at Risk in Canada. All the provincial ministers of environment would have signed the new accord with the federal government.

The government could have had an accord on new budgets to be allocated to monitoring, instead of creating an independent network of federal officers. The government would have helped Quebec's conservation officers by increasing their salary, which would have allowed them to do a better job. Once again, I want to say that they are doing a great job. At some periods of the year, they have to work many extra hours because of limited budgets. However, the federal government has decided to create an independent network of federal officers. This is what we will have in the near future.

Moreover, we will have a duplication of legislation and new regulations that will force users once again to respect not only the Loi sur la conservation or the Loi sur la mise en valeur de la faune, which are in effect in Quebec, but also to abide by the new federal regulations.

We are being told that this is a double safety net, but it is not a double safety net for users. This is another instance of overlap and duplication. We already have wildlife conservation officers, and Quebec already enforces its own legislation.

As concerns the accord signed by the Quebec government in 1996, it could have been improved, and joint action by both governments was possible. It could also have been a good opportunity to set up a real compensation plan—even though it did not happen and it was even criticized by the Liberal majority—for crucial habitats of endangered species. If a property is affected, the owner would be entitled to decent compensation thanks to a sizable fund. This bill does not provide for any compensation fund.

The only interesting thing for landowners in Quebec and Canada would have been compensation for their land, if it contained a crucial habitat for the protection of an endangered species. We needed a real compensation plan to compensate any loss to landowners. If an owner is prohibited from using his land, he should get adequate compensation.

But it was not to be. In this case, just like in health care and education, the federal government will not pay. It passes legislation and sets standards, and it wants all Quebecers and Canadians to abide by them, but it never gives any money to improve wildlife protection or compensate landowners who could incur losses.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, here we go again. In the last parliament it was Bill C-33, the species at risk act. Did the government pass it? No it did not. We have come full circle to Bill C-5. The public should know the government fully intends not to make it work. This is a bill the government understands is clearly unworkable.

That is why my party and all of the opposition parties have introduced 136 amendments. Why? We want to make sure the bill is workable and that we have a bill that will protect endangered species.

The public would also be interested to know that the government has violated its own members. Many members on the committee from all sides, including the government side, proffered good, constructive solutions that if listened to would make the bill strong, workable and ensure that endangered species are protected. However the government has not done that. I read that the Prime Minister's Office and the minister's office have chosen to introduce amendments and changes that would emasculate the bill, so we will have a bill that cannot work.

I was appalled when I went up to the environment committee once and took a look at the bill which is about 3 cm thick. This is a 3 cm thick bill that is so unworkable that it begs for legal problems that will only tie up the courts and will not in the end protect endangered species. There are three areas that we want to focus on in the bill: mandatory compensation, penalties for the intentional destruction of habitats and jurisdiction.

On the issue of mandatory compensation many of us have been proffering that this is the way to go and yet the government has not done that. It has left it up to the jurisdiction of the minister. We cannot save species without enabling mandatory compensation. What has worked in many other parts of the world is they have sat down with the different stakeholders. In fact in Saskatchewan, with respect to the black footed ferret, the provincial government has done an outstanding job by working with farmers and ranchers to set up methods of compensation to ensure farmers would not be done hard by and that critical habitat would be protected. That is a model the federal government should be looking at because it works.

The second issue is one of jurisdiction. We have a bill here that would deal with federal lands which is a small percentage of our total landmass. Endangered species do not know jurisdictions. A bird, a plant, or an animal will go where it wants to with no care of jurisdictions. We have a bill that will not protect endangered species at all.

Why is this important? We have 198 species that are at risk. Those numbers are not going down they are going up. If we rolled back time 50 years we would see the variety of species, the biodiversity of animals and plants that we had then. We are in the worst possible time in the history of the planet. Species are going extinct at a rate that is astronomical. The species we have today will be very different from what we will have in our children's or grandchildren's lives. They will be far more restricted and constricted.

How do we deal with this? First we must list species and habitat on the basis of scientific evidence not on the basis of political expediency. The way to do that is to deal with COSEWIC, committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. This is a group of esteemed scientists who have put forth an articulate, scientifically based analysis of the species that are at risk. That is what the species at risk should be based on.

There is the issue of protection. The government should work with the provinces and municipalities to protect critical habitat. In that way we protect all of the habitat not a small sliver, which the bill attempts to do but fails in doing. As I explained earlier we should look at the example of Saskatchewan in regard to compensation.

I wish to talk about CITES, the convention on the international trade in endangered species. The public would be shocked to know that the trafficking of endangered species is the second largest trafficking product in the world behind drugs. It is a multibillion dollar industry. Canada is one of the top three centres for trafficking in endangered species in the world. This has been known for years, yet in my eight years of being here I have not once heard from the government any effort to make sure that our obligations as a signatory to CITES would be upheld. In fact, we are known as a country that is completely violating our obligations under this important convention.

The last part deals penalties. A person recently was found trafficking in one of the largest consignments of ivory ever found and received a $10,000 fine. That is absolutely pathetic. We need penalties that are strong, tough and apply to those individuals who wilfully cut the gallbladders out of black bears, destroy herds of endangered ungulates and damage, destroy and pick plants of medicinal value that are threatened or becoming extinct. Heavy penalties must be applied because the profits from the trafficking of these species is huge.

I have two private member's bills that deal with all of these issues. The government needs to look at them and I hope adopt those bills. They would enable us to accomplish good, strong endangered species legislation.

There are two last points on which I wish to speak. First is our international obligation. We have to ensure that Canadian companies working abroad are not wilfully destroying the environment.

There is a situation right now in Belize where a Canadian company, Fortis, is involved in building the Chalillo dam on the Macal River. This dam would destroy the largest area of pristine habitat in Central America. This is being done by a Canadian company through environmental studies that were sponsored by CIDA. When we try to get an answer from CIDA, it twists every which way like a pretzel to not allow the House to have information as to where taxpayers' money was or will be spent regarding environmental studies on this particular project.

The public would be appalled to think that the government is wilfully ignoring evidence that this dam would destroy critical habitat for jaguars, tapirs and numerous tropical birds in Central America. Why should taxpayers fund studies that would not be released but may show evidence that a Canadian company is destroying the largest undisturbed habitat in Central America? Canadians would be shocked if they knew that. Yet the government obfuscates and obstructs any kind of effort to find out that information.

The last area deals with balancing off the interests of the public in terms of endangered species. During my time working in Africa I spent a lot of time in the African bush looking at ways in which the environment could be protected. After my 17 trips there and hundreds of hours in the bush, the best evidence that I have ever seen comes from a place in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Officials married up private interests with habitat protection. They came to the conclusion that animals, plants and habitat must pay for themselves if they are to survive. Wanting these things to survive will not work because these areas need value, and indeed this can be done. Funds can be generated from habitat through culling for protein, hunting for game, and charging large amounts of money as a certain number of game is actually taken out. This can also be done for medicinal plants which can be grown to generate money.

The money generated from this as well as from ecotourism and other opportunities must be shared by two areas. First, some of that money has to go back into the environment, to the game wardens and the parks people that are there to protect the environment. Second, it has to be shared by the people in the surrounding areas. If the people in the surrounding areas do not see value in a particular reserve or park, that reserve or park will be destroyed.

There is a model that I would like to see the government use when it is at the G-8 summit. It is part of the new plan for African development that it is working on. By linking up the Johannesburg summit, the Rio summit and the G-8 summit, and by triangulating those three things we would be able to involve poverty reduction, primary education along with the protection of endangered species and critical habitat.

If we are able to do that we will accomplish the objective of the bill which is to protect endangered species in Canada.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I will say that the grouping of these motions defies logic.

Group No. 1, which is supposed to deal with compensation, does not include clause 64, the main clause dealing with compensation. This clause is included in Group No. 5, in Motion No. 109. It makes absolutely no sense. How is it possible to talk about compensation without talking about the provision in the bill dealing specifically with compensation?

Group No. 2 deals with federal-provincial relations. It is about deadlines and federal-provincial agreements.

It is a misleading title because Group No. 2 refers to the critical part of the bill regarding listing and habitat. I do not know why we should not call it listing and habitat. I think it is a delusion to call it deadlines and federal-provincial relations to imply that if we encroach on federal-provincial relations in the bill the amendments produced by the committee are not valid.

I remember the beginning of endangered species legislation. I am very sorry I was not able to take part in the workings of the committee this time, but I was there when the minister of the environment at the time proposed endangered species legislation for the federal government. I was a parliamentary secretary. It was the first time ever the federal government was going to move to this area of legislation, backed by a huge majority of Canadians. Since then we have had Bill C-65 under the succeeding minister, then Bill C-33, and now the present one, Bill C-5. Every time, it seems to me, we have slipped down the slippery slope.

If we want to talk about compensation, let us talk about compensation. The whole issue is whether we will be firm and mandate from the government that the bill means to be implemented with obligation on the part of the government or whether it will be discretionary. If there is a thread running right throughout the bill it is the tremendous discretion given to the government on every section, whether it be listing, whether it be habitat, whether it be compensation, whereas the committee had suggested that the government shall produce regulations to set out the criteria for compensation and that it should be fair and reasonable.

I look at the arguments produced for saying that the committee was not valid in its conclusions. The argument states that the standing committee amendments remove governor in council discretion. I would suggest that there are stacks of pieces of legislation where governor in council discretion has been removed, because this is the intent of laws: to bind the government to certain things. Do we not remove governor in council discretion when we mandate as a House that legislation will be or shall be reviewed every five years, as is the case with several pieces of legislation here? There is no discretion there. Is there not discretion, for instance, in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act where we mandated that certain listings be carried out within fixed timetables, that regulations be issued within fixed timetables? There was no discretion there.

I see that regarding compensation the committee also required the mandatory development of detailed compensation regulations. What is wrong with that? This is what Canadians want. They do not want it to be left to the discretion of this government or that government according to the will of the day or the discretion of the day. This is why there are mandatory provisions in legislation binding government to certain specific acts. I see nothing wrong or untoward with the provisions that the committee set out to bind the government to an obligation that regulations must be produced and that compensation must be fair and reasonable. What is more, we are talking about compensation in Group No. 1 without examining the key item of legislation, clause 64, which deals with compensation. This is something completely illogical if ever there was.

Besides, the section on compensation refers to clauses 58, 60 and 61, and it happens to be that clause 58 has been completely gutted by the government in this bill. We are talking about compensation referring to a certain set of criteria under clause 58 as amended by the committee, but now clause 58 is a completely different animal.

How can we talk about compensation on one side and have another grouping for listing and habitat when all of these things are holistic and interdependent? I would suggest, first, that the way we have grouped these things is completely illogical. I do not know how it was done in the first place, whether it was produced at the request and instigation of the minister or the ministry, but it does not make any sense at all.

If we discuss compensation we should be in the main section of the bill and deal with it within Group No. 1. Also, if we are to deal with the subject of compensation, which is of course a big issue for a lot of members here, as we have witnessed by all the speeches made in this regard, then obviously we have to tie it into the key sections of the bill regarding habitat and listing, because all of it is together. We cannot just separate one from the other.

I would suggest that we give a lot of time to having the bill debated, that we do not bring forward any closure which would prevent discussion on Groups Nos. 2 and 3 and the others. There is no way we can deal with the bill in a piecemeal fashion, looking at compensation completely separately from the other key items of the bill. If we are to abide by the rules of the House, then we have to talk about the groupings one by one.

I hope we will have a lot of time to speak about Groups Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, but especially Group No. 2 about the critical subject of listing and habitat, where the committee recommendations, worthwhile and completely constructive and objective, have been gutted. If members look at clause 58 they will find that the whole page has been gutted and replaced.

I am very sad. On the eve of Rio Plus 10 we will have a bill that will look like a great bill. It will have a wonderful title. It will be very thick. Then around the world we will be able to produce the fact that we have an endangered species bill, but I suggest that really it is a hollow little book. There is not much in it except for discretion and it is discretion from a to z . It is sad.

The whole question of compensation is a good example of what I am saying, because we have replaced some obligation on the part of the government, completely legitimate, by total discretion, and we know what discretion leads to.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of the Surrey Central constituency regarding the report stage debate on amendments proposed to the government's species at risk act, Bill C-5, which used to be Bill C-33 and Bill C-65 in previous parliaments.

I make absolutely clear that Canadian Alliance members are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species. Therefore the argument is not about whether or not we should have endangered species legislation but rather that we have effective legislation.

I commend the chief critic for the official opposition on the environment, the hon. member for Red Deer, who has done extensive work in putting forward reasonable amendments at committee stage. Of 13 motions in Group No. 1 which we are debating today coincidentally all the motions are moved by Canadian Alliance members. Eleven motions deal with the issue of compensation. Therefore I will focus my remarks on the compensation component of the bill.

We are opposed to this piece of legislation that punishes landowners and farmers for accidental harm done to species at risk or their habitat. The incentives this would put in place are totally perverse. They would punish the very groups that the government should be trying to bring alongside.

As it currently stands Bill C-5 proposes to allow for some discretionary compensation to landowners and resource users from extraordinary impact losses as a result of regulatory restrictions. Specifically this may mean forcing farmers to adapt their farming practices to accommodate nesting birds, selectively logging certain areas instead of clear cutting, forgoing logging in certain areas during migration season or not farming sections of land for a number of years.

I have many problems with this approach to dealing with compensation. The first deals with the basic issue in good policy making which deals with ensuring the costs imposed on society are distributed in a fair and even way. On the other side of the equation the benefits should ideally be distributed equitably within and across stakeholder groups. Then all Canadians including our future generations benefit when our natural heritage is protected. This deals with the benefit side of the policy equation.

On the costs side of the equation however the picture is less favourable. This is because the government has set a compensation scheme in place that imposes all the costs of protecting these valuable species at risk on to one particular group, that is farmers and landowners. In fact one could say this is yet another form of hidden taxation.

The government's current approach assumes that landowners and resource users need to be coerced into complying with such a law. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Resources companies and farmers realize that their profits and livelihoods cannot come at the expense of the protection of species at risk.

Therefore the confrontational approach taken by the government shows that in spite of what it says has been exhaustive consultation with all stakeholder groups, the government is still ignorant of this.

One way of showing good faith in dealing with all stakeholders is to ensure that proper stewardship incentives are in place, including fair and reasonable compensation for economic losses.

One way to build relationships with landowners and resource users would be to establish stewardship agreements based on fair and reasonable support for forgone revenues. The basic economic logic suggests that the costs should be borne by all Canadians.

The government's consultation process seems to favour certain interest groups over others. The riding of Surrey Central, one of the largest in Canada, is largely urban. However a small proportion of my constituents derive their livelihoods from farming and resource related activities. They have already felt the heavy hand of the government as it mismanaged the softwood lumber industry.

The minister indicated on October 3 at committee that compensation provisions would be assessed on a discretionary case by case basis. As per this bill it is not mandatory for the government either to develop a more detailed policy or regulations on compensation. This attitude of just trust us is not acceptable.

This promise has never been put in black and white on a piece of paper. Provisions for full compensation must be outlined in legislation set by elected members, not by bureaucrats. The formula must be clearly spelled out before the bill is passed by the House. If the government is willing to do it, there should be no problem with putting its promise in writing in the bill. Our motions are listed in Group No. 1. Members should just vote for them.

The government may come back with the argument that an amendment passed at committee stage inserted a clause regarding fair and reasonable compensation into the legislation. This is somewhat misleading, however, since the compensation paid out under this provision is not compulsory. It is just case by case. Instead it is still up to the government to determine when compensation is to be paid.

Opinions can differ over what is to be considered fair and reasonable compensation. Also the government has yet to indicate the criteria it will use to decide who gets compensation and who does not. This is a problem that needs to be resolved before the legislation is passed.

While agreeing to pay compensation under certain circumstances is a baby step maybe in the right direction, it is far from clearly articulating and developing a system for calculating and selecting how the compensation will be paid to a given landowner or a farmer. Instead the government seems intent on punishing them in whatever way possible, whether this means not giving agriculture any new money in the budget or paying them for revenues lost due to the presence of endangered species on their lands.

Not only the opposition party is saying this. A well known economist from the University of British Columbia, Dr. Peter Pearse, proposed a compensation scheme whereby landowners would be compensated at a rate of 50% for losses that affected 10% or more of their income. I understand the government is using this report only as a discussion paper.

However I fear that the government is not interested in more discussion. There is every indication that it may impose closure on the debate just to snub what we are trying to say in the House. I believe this is just another example of irresponsible use of delegated regulation making power by the government and its departments.

Many times regulations do not depict the intent of legislation. This legislation is very vague. It has less meat on the bone. However through the back door the government is in the habit of pushing through the regulations which are not debated in the House. Through the regulations the government is coming up with all kinds of misdirections which are sometimes contradictory to the intent of the legislation.

It will not work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. Farmers, ranchers and other property owners want to protect endangered species but should not be forced to do so at the expense of their livelihoods.

The bottom line is that unless the bill provides for mandatory compensation and stops criminalizing unintentional behaviour, it will not provide effective protection for endangered species and we cannot support it as such.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I am ready to deal with the point of order raised this morning by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough concerning Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts), passed by this House on November 2, and specifically concerning the message received from the Senate yesterday, November 21.

The message received yesterday from the Senate reads:

ORDERED: That, notwithstanding Rule 63(1), the proceedings on Bill C-33, an Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which took place on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, be declared null and void; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons informing that House of this decision and that the Senate attends any message that the House of Commons may have regarding this matter.

I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter for it gives the Chair an opportunity to correct certain misinformation about this case.

The hon. member is correct when he says that deficiencies were identified in the parchments and reprints of the bill sent to the other place.

These errors were first identified by House of Commons officials, who immediately informed their counterparts in the other place of their findings. It is important to note that these errors were strictly administrative in nature and occurred after third reading was given to Bill C-33 in the House, so that at no time were the actual records of the House compromised.

It in no way affects any proceedings that took place on the bill in this Chamber or in committee and I can assure all hon. members that there is no defect in the records of the House regarding Bill C-33. These remain in the words of the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough “pristine, concise and accurate”.

The documents relating to Bill C-33 sent to the Senate were not accurate and the fact that they were not is the most unfortunate result of compounded human errors. When my officials discovered these regrettable errors, no substantive proceedings on the bill had yet occurred in the other place. On being briefed on the matter, I directed the clerk to communicate with his counterpart in the other place. I asked the Clerk of the House to take the necessary action to rectify the error and to ensure that the other House would have a correct and complete copy of Bill C-33. That was done yesterday. Such communication is part of the usual administrative procedures of parliament and in no way constitutes a message to the other place which requires an explicit decision of the House.

I understand that Bill C-33 has, earlier this afternoon, received first reading in the other place.

I once again thank the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for his assiduous concern about the accuracy of House records. I trust this will allay his anxieties in this regard. I therefore consider this matter closed.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw your attention and the attention of the House to the Journals of the House of Commons published this morning. Yesterday's Journals record that “A message was received from the Senate as follows”, which ordered:

--That, notwithstanding Rule 63(1), the proceedings on Bill C-33, An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which took place on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, be declared null and void; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons informing that House of this decision and that the Senate attends any message that the House of Commons may have regarding this matter.

The Senate has drawn our attention to a serious defect in our records and the probity of the message that goes from this House to the other house of parliament. I draw your attention and the attention of other members to an excerpt from the Senate Hansard dated Wednesday, November 21, wherein the Hon. Fernand Robichaud, deputy leader of the government, states:

Honourable senators, with respect to the first item on the Order Paper under Government Business, the copy of the bill currently before us does not faithfully represent the bill passed by the House of Commons. In fact, the amendments passed in the House were omitted. As this is not a true copy, we cannot continue debate on this item as it appears before us.

This is a fairly serious matter, I would respectfully submit. Twice the bill was corrected and twice it was found to be deficient. If this was a rarity one could look the other way, but it is clear from the Senate message that there is now considerable concern about our records, and records, as the Chair would agree, must be pristine, concise and always accurate.

This must be seen in the context of the work facing the House with respect to 100 amendments presented in the justice committee on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill that was just tabled in the House. When people are legislating in marathon sessions at three o'clock in the morning, we have a duty to know that the records will be accurate. If the government takes a decision to pursue such an action, we must ensure and be equally diligent in determining and ensuring that the resulting work is accurate and a reflection of the effort.

The Senate message is a serious warning. First, may I ask for assurances from the Speaker that no corrective action was taken or will be taken by officials to send a corrective message to the Senate until the House has clearly authorized such a message? Second, I want to reserve my ability to raise any question of privilege that may flow from this matter.

Finally, I would ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion, which would be seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester:

That the Message from the Senate concerning Bill C-33, An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Carriage By Air Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as transport critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-33.

I would like to help all the Quebecers and Canadians who are watching us to understand how Parliament works with regard to the way legislation is implemented.

I will read the summary of Bill S-33:

This enactment implements in Canada the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air signed at Montreal in 1999 (the “Montreal Convention”). The Montreal Convention consolidates and modernizes the rules of the Warsaw Convention and associated documents. It provides for unlimited liability for damages in the case of death or injury to passengers arising out of accidents during international air carriage, simplifies ticketing requirements, provides for electronic documentation and establishes a new jurisdiction that will allow most passengers to bring actions in the place of their domicile.

To be perfectly clear, this bill that is submitted to the House today, in November 2001, implements a convention written and signed in Montreal in 1999.

The main stakeholders in the air transport industry from all over the world met in Montreal. Most major airlines were present. There were representatives from Air Canada, from Canadian Airlines, which no longer exists, from Air Transat and from the Air Transport Association of Canada. A fairly large Canadian delegation attended the meeting since it took place in Montreal.

That meeting led to a very important convention to change the way things were done in the area of liability so that air carriers would be liable for larger amounts than the ones agreed upon in the outdated 1929 Warsaw convention. The decision was made to increase the liability of air carriers.

That convention was negotiated in Montreal in 1999 and ratified by Canada on September 25, 2001, after the events of September 11. No matter what could have happened in Canada, the Montreal convention would not have been ratified by Canada at that time. We waited until after the events of September 11 to ratify a convention that was negotiated in our country, Canada, and in my country, Quebec, more precisely in Montreal. This convention was negotiated with all industry stakeholders, and Canada did not ratify it until September 25 of this year. This is how things work in Canada. It always takes the government a few years to react.

My colleague from the Alliance mentioned that this is the fourth bill introduced by the Minister of Transport since the beginning of the session. With such a pompous title, an act to amend the Carriage by Air Act, we could have expected, especially after the events of September 11, more important changes than a mere increase in the liability of air carriers in case of accident.

Such is the harsh reality facing those Quebecers who are watching us and airline employees who no longer have jobs, the 9,000 Air Canada employees, the 1,400 Air Transat employees and the 4,800 Canada 3000 employees, who took the hardest hit. These people lost their jobs because their employer went bankrupt. Over 2,000 jobs were lost at Bombardier and about 1,000 at Pratt & Whitney.

So for a major industry that has suffered phenomenal job losses since September 11, the minister moves the second reading of a bill to amend the Carriage by Air Act, but all it deals with is the issue of air carrier liability in case of accident.

I repeat that Canada did not ratify this convention until September 25. Had something happened in Canada on September 11, this convention negotiated and signed in Montreal in 1999 would not have been ratified at that time.

This is how the Liberal government operates. It is always a few years late. This is the harsh reality for airline industry workers who are listening today and who have lost their jobs since September 11. It is the harsh reality for all citizens of Canada and of Quebec who are trying to understand how we can hope that this Parliament will produce legislative amendments that address real problems.

There is nothing in this bill for the travellers who lost the price of their airfare when Canada 3000 went bankrupt for instance. There is nothing that would guarantee that those who lose what they paid for an airline ticket because of a bankruptcy such as that of Canada 3000 would be reimbursed in future.

A few years from now, there will probably be another legislative amendment. The men and women of Quebec and of Canada who buy airline tickets in times as difficult as those we are now experiencing and in which there could well be other companies that close their doors, as Canada 3000 did, will not be reimbursed because the federal Liberal government has decided not to invest in getting the airline industry back on its feet in Canada. That is the reality.

Other airlines may well go bankrupt in the years to come. It is not something we want to see, but it is the harsh reality. Again today, in response to questions I asked him, the minister said that the market must be allowed to operate freely in times as difficult as these, when a disaster such as that of September 11 has put families, employees, the human capital of the airline industry, which was highly competitive internationally, in the street.

I raise my hat to the workers in Canada's airline industry, who made it one of the most competitive in the world. Our government has decided to let the market operate freely. It has not followed the example of the Americans, who invested over $15 billion right away. Just days after the sad events, they announced a massive investment to revive the airline industry throughout the United States. Of this $15 billion, $5 billion is in the form of a direct investment and $10 billion in the form of loan guarantees. That is what the Americans did.

Meanwhile back home, all the minister announced is a $160 million investment to help pay the outrageous insurance bills that all the airlines in Canada had to pay. The minister decided to compensate them for losses that they incurred following the six days of restricted airspace. Canada decided to reimburse the companies and set up a system of loan guarantees, in which it announced a loan guarantee of $75 million for Canada 3000, knowing very well that this company was going to close its doors. This is the harsh reality.

The transport minister announced a loan guarantee of $75 million to Canada 3000, with such demanding conditions that he knew at the outset that Canada 3000 would close its doors. The proof is that one week earlier, the directors of Canada 3000 refused a job sharing proposal that was to be covered by employment insurance and that would not have cost the company a penny. They refused the proposal to have their employees share their work knowing full well that the company was being forced into bankruptcy and that such a program would be of no use to them.

This is the harsh reality. The government, with its day by day management, has allowed us to witness airlines shut down, losing jobs in a highly competitive sector; men and women who are very competitive and skilled have lost their jobs in recent weeks because of events that had nothing to do with them.

It is not the fault of workers in the airline industry that the events of September 11 took place. Today, they are paying the price, and we are telling them “Listen, the free market is going to take care of you”. Obviously, the market is going to kick employees out into the street and shut down businesses.

It will continue to get worse as long as the government maintains its policy of telling airlines “you have to sell off your assets”. That is what the government did. It said to Air Canada, which had asked for assistance, “you have assets, sell them off”. It did the same thing with Canada 3000: they were forced to sell off their assets before the government would intervene. But we saw the sad results: they sold off so much that they had to declare bankruptcy. That is the reality.

There is nothing today in Bill S-33 to help the people who bought tickets from Canada 3000 and lost their money. Why? Because this bill follows up on a convention signed in Montreal in 1999, which was drafted by the airline industry the world over, including the major Canadian carriers. Canada ratified the convention only on September 25, 2001, or after the tragic events of September 11. Today, it is still being discussed and will shortly be voted on.

I wish to assure the House that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of Bill C-33. One cannot oppose virtue, since it will cost the government nothing.

This bill requires airlines to have insurance. Their responsibility will be enhanced, because the 1927 Warsaw convention had the unfortunate effect of limiting carrier responsibility to $35,000. In the event of a major catastrophe resulting in death, the maximum was $35,000. Obviously, it was high time these amounts were changed, since they were no longer realistic, since more than 70 years had passed since the Warsaw Convention was signed.

Now the level of liability is limitless. Airlines are required to have loss compensation insurance, which is totally reasonable. Once again, however, there is nothing in Bill S-33 to help the men and women who invested in the air industry, who booked flights on Canada 3000, were not reimbursed and will therefore lose their money.

In two years there will likely be a new act guaranteeing, via independent insurance, that anyone purchasing a ticket from an airline that goes bankrupt will be reimbursed.

This then is day-to-day management: the inability to react rapidly when there is a problem. In Canada it always takes a few years to do so, something that never fails to amaze me.

It is important that the people listening to us, the Canadians and the Quebecers, understand that this convention was negotiated by stakeholders in the world industry, including Canadians, in 1999 in Canada, in Montreal, and that Canada finally signed it on September 25, after the events of September 11.

It probably signed the convention for this very reason, in case there were an accident in Canada and we got a mere $35,000 per passenger in the event of passenger deaths.

This is hard to imagine for those watching, for airline industry employees who have lost their jobs—the 9,000 who lost them at Air Canada, the 1,400 at Air Transat and the 4,800 who lost them so brutally with the bankruptcy of Canada 3000, not to mention the jobs at Bombardier and Pratt & Whitney.

What is needed is a policy of massive intervention in the aviation industry. The Bloc has been calling for such a thing since the start of this crisis. It contends that the Americans, who do not have a reputation for being the most liberal, whose society is very conservative, especially in matters of free trade and who tend to leave the free market to its own devices, decided to invest a massive $15 billion to protect the aviation industry. Canada invested only $160 million.

We can look at this proportionally, per capita. The Americans invested $15 billion for 300 million inhabitants, Canada invested $160 million for 30 million inhabitants—ten times less what the Americans invested.

This is the harsh reality and it is difficult to accept for workers who have lost their jobs in the airline and aviation industries, both highly competitive sectors in which Canadian companies are among the world's top performers.

Canada has decided that it would not support its airline industry, that it would let the free market dictate things. By contrast, the United States is going to support that industry, as did Switzerland. The Swiss and American companies that are going to get help from their governments will surely buy equipment which, hopefully, will have been made in Canada and in Quebec.

It is difficult to explain to those who will buy this equipment, to the countries that will provide subsidies or assistance to their industry, why they should buy equipment made in Canada, considering that our country has decided not to support the airline industry. If we do not support the airline industry, it is not Canada 3000 that will buy aircraft tomorrow, because that company is bankrupt. This is the harsh reality.

Canada is not supporting a highly competitive sector, but it expects countries that will have helped their industries to buy equipment in Canada, through their industries.

The Liberal government made a mistake. It is never too late to realize that one has made a mistake and this is an obvious mistake as we can see with Canada 3000 going bankrupt.

Despite investments of $160 million—which is proportionally ten times less than what the Americans invested—which were supposed to help the airline industry make it through the crisis, we lost one company, the second largest airline carrier in Canada. Indeed, Canada 3000 has shut down its operations.

There are also other regional businesses that will be forced to shut down. Canada has five so-called major carriers, but there are others, like Air Alma. Regarding these other regional carriers, the Liberal government policy, delivered by the Minister of Transport who has decided to favour the free market, is to say: “We will not support them, but when we do, we will support only the five largest carriers”. The government's rationale is that if these large carriers are doing well, it will boost business for all the other regional carriers in Canada.

I hope we do not see other airlines shut down their operations. It would be catastrophic for service to cities located in the regions, and not small communities as the minister and others on the Standing Committee on Transport like to call them. Cities located in the regions have as much right as large urban centres to enjoy 21st century air transport. They are entitled to have access to air transport, which is the fastest means of transportation, at reasonable rates so people can get on with their business.

I will repeat again that it is important that Quebecers and Canadians who are watching us realize that the government is submitting to the House today Bill S-33 which ratifies the Montreal convention negotiated in 1999.

It took two years for this bill, which the Bloc Quebecois will support, to be submitted to the House. But, once again, I must say that this is how it works in Canada. It takes forever for a bill to be finally introduced and passed.

The 1999 convention, which increased the liability of air carriers in case of accident or death, was not signed by Canada until September 25 of this year, after the events of September 11. It does not even contain a reimbursement clause for those who bought airline tickets from companies that may be bankrupt at the time when the tickets are supposed to be used.

That is the harsh reality. Once again, this bill comes too late.

Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House at third reading of Bill C-33, the Nunavut waters and Nunavut surface rights tribunal act.

The Nunavut land claims agreement and the creation of this new territory have resulted in more opportunities for employment, new business and social development and for protecting the ways of the past in the eastern Arctic for the Inuit community.

Frankly, however, for us to fully realize this potential the people of Nunavut as well as others who might invest there do need to have a greater level of certainty than currently exists. The bill would provide that level of certainty and in fact would go a long way toward establishing that certainty by providing an important mechanism in the legislative and regulatory framework that is very much needed in the territories.

The bill would establish in statute the powers, duties and functions of the Nunavut water board and Nunavut surface rights tribunal. These institutions of public administration arise out of the Nunavut land claims agreement, but their powers and authorities will extend across the territory to ensure uniformity and certainty throughout Nunavut on issues related to resource management.

Therefore I can say that certainty is the single most important outcome of Bill C-33. I say that because by providing the legislative underpinning for the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal, Bill C-33 would in fact provide certainty that decisions made by these institutions have a solid basis in law. This is not currently the case and has been the cause of some concern among members of these bodies and those who are subject to their decisions.

The bill would provide certainty for the industry by setting out clear ground rules for the issuing of water licences and the enforcement of licence conditions and by ensuring that resource developers have access to land for the purpose of exercising their subsurface rights.

Certainty and consistency are absolutely essential to support the economic development in Nunavut. In the case of the resource industry in particular, projects simply do not go forward unless developers are certain about their rights and obligations. This message was heard loud and clear when Bill C-33 was before the committee for review. Witnesses made it very clear that they find it unsettling to work with licensing boards whose legislative underpinnings are unstable.

By establishing the legislative framework for water management and surface rights in Nunavut, Bill C-33 would provide certainty that will pave the way for the new territory to take advantage of its resource development potential.

To that extent, I believe the bill is very much needed and it is my hope that the House will pass it as quickly as possible so the Nunavut people can get on with their lives and do the necessary things to create jobs, to respond to the needs of their communities and to live the quality of life that they so very much deserve.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for South Shore. He did not have the opportunity to be the representative for his coalition at the committee when it dealt with the clause by clause amendments, but he did hear the speech I made in which I pointed out some of the amendments that the NDP sought to achieve.

The hockey analogy that I used in my speech was the fact that under Bill C-33 the federal government still would retain the ability to charge a fee, a user fee, a licence fee or a permit fee, to any user of water in the territory of Nunavut. We sought to have an exemption to that rule which would state that the federal government could charge a user fee or licence fee to any user of water except in regard to waters that flow through Inuit owned land. In other words, the actual indigenous people of the territory should not be charged a fee for using their own water.

The witness who appeared before the committee used the example of wanting to pump water out of the river to flood the ice rink so his kids could play hockey. Under the bill, the government could charge him a fee for using his own water. We did not feel that was right.

Does the hon. member agree that is an amendment that should have been allowed at committee to give them true self-determination over their own water resources?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

That is a good question and obviously it is one of the problems with this piece of legislation.

The point of the legislation is to give the local territorial government and the people who live in Nunavut control over their water and their subsurface and surface rights. Yet they would be constantly coming back to a minister of the crown in Ottawa, which quite frankly is a long way from the people who live in the north not only in geographical distance but in thought process.

A great example of that, to which I always refer when I speak about Nunavut, is that it takes as long to fly from Ottawa to Vancouver as it takes to fly from Ottawa to Iqaluit. That is a huge geographical distance. The people who live in the area should be the ones who set their own governance.

The pros of the legislation are that it would allow more self-government and more input from the people who live in the area. Bill C-33 would improve on previous legislation and allow for further governance by local people and Inuit groups who live in Nunavut. It would give them control, although not complete control, over one of the earth's most precious resources which is of course water.

Both boards would be subject to an annual audit although it would be a directive of the minister and the auditor general.

The legislation has cons as well. A negative point of Bill C-33 which I have already touched on is that it would allow for too much ministerial power. I cannot say it any simpler than that. The minister would appoint the boards and could dismiss members. I should preface my comments by noting that the minister would have to consult with local Inuit organizations. However he could still dismiss members.

The issuance, amendment, renewal and cancellation of licences would all be subject to approval of the minister. I hope the minister would see fit to follow the advice of legislative people and Inuit groups in Nunavut when taking these assessments into account.

Under the legislation the minister would have the right to override the direction of water board inspectors and the recommendations they may make for dealing with licence infractions.

The aboriginal affairs committee passed an amendment that would place a time limit within which the minister would have to respond regarding licences. The amendment stipulates that the minister must either return a decision to the Nunavut water board within 45 days or request an extension up to a maximum of another 45 days. If the minister has not returned a decision to the water board by that time the licence would be deemed approved.

We in our party supported the amendment. A similar amendment had been proposed by our PC/DR coalition member and aboriginal affairs critic from Edmonton North. Her amendment would have proposed a timeframe of 60 days. We were more than happy to support a timeframe of 45 days.

Certainly the recommendation of the coalition is that we would support this type of legislation. It would provide the necessary mechanisms to flesh out the obligations to the Nunavut land claims agreement and would be beneficial in the long run for the economic development of the north.

In conclusion, this is the type of legislation that the coalition has tended to support. It goes that extra step in bringing self-government and legislative powers to the north. It still has a bit too much federal government interference on the behalf of the minister and we hope that the minister would show a fair amount of discretion with that power and would tend to go along with recommendations made by the people who actually live in Nunavut.

Of course it is also our hope and sincere wish that this would be another step on the way to complete self-government for the people of Canada's Arctic. Not only Nunavut but also the Northwest Territories and Yukon should be constantly on their way to becoming provinces and full partners in the Canadian federation even though they have huge geographic land masses and low numbers of people. That is certainly the direction in which we would expect the legislation to evolve.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33. I appreciate having the opportunity to present my thoughts and the thoughts of the PC/DRC coalition to parliament.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-33 at third reading and to speak on behalf of my coalition colleague from Edmonton North who is our aboriginal affairs critic.

This issue has been a long time coming. The bill would put legislation into place to allow institutions to be set up in Nunavut to continue it on the road to proper self-government.

All along we have seen similar legislation being put in place in Yukon and NWT. Even though it is not perfect and other amendments should perhaps have been made, as some of my colleagues mentioned earlier, Bill C-33 is better than no legislation at all. It would benefit the people who live in the territory it is meant to apply to.

The purpose of the bill is to implement the obligations of the Nunavut land claims agreement which was passed in 1993. Specifically it outlines regulations for the operation of the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal including the Nunavut water board's inspection and enforcement powers. It would also clarify the jurisdictions of both the water board and the surface rights tribunal.

The bill is set up in two parts. The first part controls the Nunavut water board. The second part controls the Nunavut surface rights tribunal. The Nunavut water board has been operational since 1995. Seeing as this is 2001 it is absolutely time we caught up to the board. The legislation would allow the board to operate legally.

Under Bill C-33 the Nunavut water board would consist of nine members appointed by the minister. Half the members would be nominated by designated local Inuit organizations. A quarter of the members would be nominated by the territorial minister responsible for renewable resources or by other designated territorial ministers.

The issue is that the minister would still clearly appoint a quarter of the members with perhaps no consultation at all with the people who live in the area. The local Inuit group would get to put up only half the members. It would have been a more effective bill if all the people could have been appointed by local governing agencies in Nunavut and by the people who live in the area who are affected by the legislation.

The Nunavut water board would issue licences to individuals and organizations whose operations would impact on Nunavut's water resources including water use and waste deposit. However the board could not issue licences for applicants whose operations may have an adverse effect on the local environment until the applicant and affected parties agreed to a compensation package. This would involve accountability, adequate public knowledge and all the basic things we would find in similar legislation. The minister would have final approval for the licences.

The issue is that we are attempting to provide legislation for increased self-government in Nunavut. We have done the same thing in Yukon and NWT. Yet we are still allowing the minister of the crown in the federal government to have final say.

The second part of the legislation deals with the Nunavut surface rights tribunal. This has been in operation since 1996, but the legislation would establish the tribunal as required and promised by the Nunavut land claims agreement.

The tribunal would resolve disputes regarding subsurface rights, sand and gravel on Inuit owned land and loss to Inuit from damage to wildlife, oil spills, et cetera. It would establish the terms and conditions of right of access to Inuit owned lands and determine liability and compensation due to the Inuit in case of damage.

Another board would be set up consisting of a chairperson plus two to ten other members approved by the minister, two of whom must be resident in Nunavut. It seems there would constantly be an odd number of members on the tribunal, which raises some questions. Again the minister would have the final say.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-33, the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, on behalf of my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques Cartier, who, unfortunately, cannot be here today.

This bill quite simply implements certain elements of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, reached between the territory of Nunavut and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada.

The bill before us today therefore completes the final aspects of this historic agreement. The treaty was ratified and implemented on July 9, 1993, through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act.

The Bloc Quebecois' support for this bill is consistent with our party's long held attitude regarding self-government and the responsibilities of aboriginal communities.

It would be impossible for us to oppose the quick passage of this bill, since it corresponds to the expectations and objectives of the nations and communities involved.

However, I deplore the Liberal government's usual attitude, its systematic refusal to consider proposals for amendments from opposition parties.

Indeed, once again, at committee stage, the government rejected all requests from opposition members to amend this bill so as to improve it.

This shows the general contempt the government has for the House, since it even gags its own members. This pattern is unacceptable, particularly when the bill being reviewed seeks to improve the living conditions of aboriginal communities. This ill-suited and excessive partisanship is reflective of the narrow-mindedness and lack of vision of government members.

We could go on and on about this government's typical attitude and trickery, but we already know that nothing can change the deplorable way it has been using the legislative process for many years.

So, let us go back to the central issue. In 1996, a similar version of this bill was introduced, but was strongly condemned by Inuit of Nunavut-Tungavik, because it respected neither the letter nor the spirit of the treaty.

It seems that the current version of the bill is a more accurate reflection of the aspirations of the Inuit of Nunavut.

However, I do have some reservations that could not be thoroughly examined at committee stage regarding some provisions of the bill that do not, at first glance, seem to meet the true aspirations of the Inuit.

Also, I hope that this act will be implemented with some flexibility and a great deal of tact, as regards the power of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to appoint the members of the Nunavut Water Board.

Knowing the government's tendency to appoint to key positions people who, shall we say, are close to it, it will be important for the minister to keep in mind the fundamental objective of this legislation, which is first and foremost to protect the interests of the Inuit of Nunavut.

In this context, the Bloc Quebecois is pleased to support this bill at third reading, and we reiterate our desire to co-operate with the government to quickly meet the very legitimate governance aspirations of the Inuit of Nunavut.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate at third reading on Bill C-33. The NDP caucus has been quite supportive of the bill from its onset. We welcome the opportunity to lend our support to the very important issue of helping the newly formed territory of Nunavut take its independence and control over water management, land use and other associated issues.

Members of the New Democratic Party have followed the debate with great interest. We have followed it much farther back than when it was introduced in the House as Bill C-33. We note with interest that as long ago as 1996, in the 35th parliament, a similar bill was introduced, Bill C-51, which, unfortunately, died on the order paper. In the 36th parliament, Bill C-62 was introduced, which was largely the same in scope and content and sought to achieve the same goals, but it too died on the order paper. In other words, the people of Nunavut have been waiting patiently for a long time to see this bill finally come through all the stages of the House of Commons.

It is worth noting that the Nunavut land claims agreement called for land use, water and environmental assessment boards to be established as institutions of public government within two years of the ratification of the agreement. That was in June 1993. It is scandalous that nothing has happened.

The surface rights issues were to have a similar institution within six months of the June 1993 ratification. We are almost a decade late in implementing this important enabling legislation which essentially hands over to the Nunavut water board the jurisdiction to make important determinations as to the use of water and putting waste into water in the territory of Nunavut.

This is an issue that most people are able to relate to. In fact, ever since we have been putting codes of conduct on paper or codes of practice into writing, we have dealt with water rights. The Magna Carta in 1215 referred specifically to water rights and water use issues. It is something that every democracy and every free society has to wrestle with and has to establish because it is so critical. People downstream deserve the courtesy of fair treatment from those living upstream, and water being an essential commodity.

After working with the people of Nunavut, members of the NDP did try to move amendments at the committee stage. The people of Nunavut actually came to the committee and made compelling arguments for things they sought to achieve in the bill. The one improvement in the bill that I will point out, and which I readily concede is actually an improvement over Bill C-51 and Bill C-52, is that at least Bill C-33 contains a non-derogation clause. This is important. In anything dealing with aboriginal rights, a non-derogation clause has become standard practice, in that nothing in this newly signed agreement will derogate or in any way diminish rights that are inherent within the charter of rights and freedoms or the constitution. The inherent rights that aboriginal people enjoy cannot be signed away by any document.

However, we were critical, and it was one of our amendments, that the non-derogation clause that was chosen for Bill C-33 differs from other non-derogation clauses in recent aboriginal legislation. We were suspect, as were the people of Nunavut, as to why it varied. It was only natural for the Nunavut people to assume that this clause was deliberately changed for a specific purpose.

A person can be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his or her actions but, by the same token, the government can be presumed to have intended something of the literal meaning of what they have put forward and chose to deviate.

We recommended that the non-derogation clause in Bill C-33 should state as follows:

Nothing in the bill should derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1982.

The amendment was simple and straightforward but unfortunately it did not succeed at committee.

We went further than a non-derogation clause. At committee stage, members of the NDP recommended that we go farther and put in a positive interpretation clause, not just a non-derogation clause but a positive interpretation clause so in the event of some ambiguity in the bill it would always be interpreted in the best possible light for aboriginal people. We felt that was important. It was a safety fallback position that would give some comfort to the people of Nunavut in the event the bill was challenged in the courts or in the event there were two points of view over a particular clause. The interpretation clause would give some guidance to arbitrators down the road to view the people of Nunavut in a more positive light. That too failed at committee stage and we were disappointed and critical of that.

We also point out that Bill C-33 is essentially a step toward self-government for Nunavut, for control and jurisdiction over its own land and water use. However, within the bill, the minister still has the right or the ultimate sign-off to any licences or permits that are granted within Nunavut. In other words, the Nunavut water board can issue a licence to Echo Bay Mines, or whatever the institution is that seeks a water licence, but it has to be signed off by the minister. In other words, Ottawa, the central federal government, still has the ultimate control, the right to veto anything the people of Nunavut do.

We suggested in an amendment that the powers of the minister under that section should sunset on the 10 year anniversary of the signing of the agreement, not the signing of this bill but the signing of the Nunavut land use agreement in June 1993. In other words, in June 2003 the powers of the minister would no longer exist and the people of Nunavut would make their own determination about their own land and water use in that territory. I thought that was a very reasonable amendment and I expected the support of my colleagues even on the other side, especially the member from Nunavut who sits on that committee. I thought she would have had a very real interest in seeing that step toward true self-government and true self-determination take place. That also failed as an amendment. We were trying to be reasonable and we did not succeed in any of these.

The last thing we sought to achieve in Bill C-33 we again failed to achieve. The Government of Canada can still levy a fee or a charge to any user of water in Nunavut. There are no exemptions to this. We moved an amendment that would have allowed the government to charge a permit or licence fee to Echo Bay Mines or any other user group, but we wanted to make sure it did not intend to charge the people of Nunavut for using water that flows through their own land. That is exactly what is contemplated in this agreement. If the people of Nunavut wanted to start a water bottling company as an economic development agency, they would have to pay a fee to Ottawa to use their own water. Is that self-government? Is that self-determination? Is that control over one's own resources and territory? That struck me as absurd.

You, Mr. Speaker, with a hockey background, would understand the analogy that was used at the committee. The people who came to the committee said that if they wanted to flood the hockey rink in their community they would have to pay a fee to Ottawa to pump the water out of their river to flood the ice so their kids could play hockey in a place where there is a great deal of ice and water. It struck us as absurd. On their behalf we moved what we thought was a very reasonable amendment to say that the Government of Canada could charge user fees, service fees or licence fees, except in water on, in, or flowing through Inuit owned land.

In other words, on crown property the government could absolutely charge whomever it wanted whatever it wanted. It could charge whatever the market would bear and ding people for all it could. However it should not charge the people who live there for the right to make a tray of ice cubes in their own fridge. That struck us as ridiculous. It did not succeed either.

We were frustrated at committee. As much as we wanted to support Bill C-33 and agreed with the tone, content and sentiments inherent in the bill, we were terribly frustrated that reason could not have prevailed in those few areas.

Having said that, we must now either move forward with a bill that is not everything the people wanted or delay and deny the people of Nunavut what they have been seeking for many years. Given that choice the NDP caucus will be voting in favour of Bill C-33 at this stage.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Cariboo--Chilcotin to participate in the debate on Bill C-33, entitled the Nunavut waters and Nunavut surface rights tribunal act.

The bill is intended to implement provisions of the 1993 Nunavut land claims agreement relating to the management of waters and to the creation of a surface rights tribunal for the territory of Nunavut.

As a party, the Canadian Alliance has in the past clearly identified problems, mainly financial, with the creation of the territory of Nunavut. However, with Nunavut now underway, this is legislation that is overdue and it provides the legal framework for the Nunavut water board that has already been in existence for six years.

It is interesting that we often have policy being implemented well in advance of the legislation being provided by the House of Commons, not only with regard to Nunavut but I have heard tax lawyers complaining about the same thing with regard to tax policy.

At this point in time the bill is at third reading and will be passed shortly, almost six years late, but I suppose it is better late than never.

The Nunavut water board is to have similar powers as those vested in the Northwest Territories water board. The purpose of the board is to promote the conservation and utilization of water through a licensing system, as well as waste disposal. The board is prohibited from issuing, renewing or amending licences if there may be a substantial and detrimental effect on the quality, quantity or flow rate of water through Inuit owned land unless the applicant has struck a compensation agreement with the Inuit for loss or damage.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development still maintains the right to appoint and release board members and issue and rescind licences, as well as expropriate land. This is a scary thought. The power to appoint board members is a hallmark of the Liberals. They love this sort of thing. When in government, the Liberals always try to legislate for themselves the privilege of political pork-barrelling. Hopefully the good people of Nunavut will not stand for this power of the minister to be turned into a patronage appointment system.

It is my understanding that as a result of committee hearings recently completed on the bill, the legislation has been so amended that the minister has 45 days to approve or deny approval for the licences that I mentioned concerning the flow of water. The minister can also postpone a decision for 45 days. I hope the Liberal minister does not take advantage of this generous allotment of time to make decisions and have local communities suffer while waiting for a decision from Ottawa.

The Canadian Alliance, like its predecessor, the Reform Party, has always believed in smaller, leaner government. The bill transfers to the local government responsibilities which otherwise would be the purview of the federal bureaucracy. On this side of the House we support policy allowing local governments to make decisions on issues that are of a local nature.

We will continue to honour existing treaties and, since the legislation is necessary to provide a framework for an agreement already passed by parliament, we support it.

The Canadian Alliance has expressed concern over the financial cost and, in some cases, duplication of services that are involved in the establishment of Nunavut. Nunavut, which receives $580 million in annual transfer payments, was projecting a $12 million deficit for the fiscal year 2001-02 and was asking the federal government for more money. Federal transfer payments make up approximately 90% of the territorial budget. That amounts to about $25,000 per person living there.

There are many problems with the creation of Nunavut and the official opposition is concerned about these problems. We want to ensure that these matters are dealt with in a responsible manner. However we will be supporting Bill C-33.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leader of the official opposition for the question. This afternoon we will continue the prebudget debate that we commenced this morning.

Tomorrow we will deal with the miscellaneous statute law amendment bill introduced earlier today. I understand there is some agreement pursuant to the usual process of passing the bill at all stages. We will then consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-33, the Nunavut bill.

I wish to advise the House that there will be a royal assent later this afternoon on Bill C-11.

Next week we will debate Bill C-39, the Yukon bill. That will be followed by report stage and third reading of Bill C-10, the marine parks bill. When this is completed we will turn to Bill S-31, respecting a number of international tax treaties. If and when Bill C-35 is reported from committee we will turn to its report stage and third reading.

I would like to report to the House that if we have time next week I will be prepared to entertain a second day of prebudget debate or consultation.

I understand that some members will be producing a motion to defer a debate until next week. I am awaiting that process.

I also wish to inform the House that there is ongoing consultation among House leaders, although not quite complete, about having a take note debate next week, possibly on the issue of the World Trade Organization and international trade generally. Those consultations are not yet complete.

Committees of the House

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 27, 2001, your committee examined Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and has agreed to report it with amendments.

I wish to thank all committee members and support staff for their great work.

Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, some of the last comments made by the member for Winnipeg Centre seem unfortunate. I certainly have no idea how dredging up things from years and years gone by, probably taken out of context, has anything to do with building and being positive.

As the first ever Reform Party member elected to the House of Commons in 1989 I remind the member for Winnipeg Centre that I taught school on a reserve at Frog Lake. I had several native foster children in my home. I was a lighthouse for the Reform Party. I tell him that there is sweet nothing to be gained by this kind of behaviour and debate in the House of Commons.

Let me tell him exactly what the Canadian Alliance position is in its policy paper. It states:

Our position in land claims negotiations will be to ensure respect for existing private property rights, affordable and conclusive settlement of all claims, and an open and transparent process involving all stakeholders.

Is that not what the NDP just said? Is that not in some measure what the government is trying to do right now? That is what we should be discussing right now.

On behalf of members of the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, as someone who has represented them for quite some time, and on behalf of every member of the House of Commons, it is foolish to even go down that path. Shame on them.

Let me get to the bill at hand, Bill C-37, and talk a bit about some of the pros and cons in that legislation. Obviously there is a history in this regard. The minister talked about it earlier this morning. If we had any choice it would have been to have the bill longer because there is so much to study in it. It was just brought in last week. I know that it was to be debated this coming Thursday, but because of Bill C-33 respecting the Nunavut water board and tribunal this bill is coming into the House earlier today.

So keen was I to make sure that I did get something to say about it, I travelled on the all-nighter last night so I arrived here at about 8.25 this morning. I am glad to be here while we are participating in this debate. I am also glad that we can change our flights around.

If we look at the history in this regard, the minister alluded to the Manitoba land claims agreement and made some changes to that as well. That came in, in 2000. To be able to make changes to that legislation to tighten it up, to make it more efficient and more streamlined, as the minister said, is a good thing. With the ongoing land claim settlements we need to be able to make sure they are swiftly and positively resolved. If this bill is in any way able to do that it is a good thing, not just for first nations but also for third party stakeholders. The minister talked about them.

Life is a balance. We always need to be able to come up with some sort of a balance that we can strike with regard to the stakeholders, whether in oil, gas, minerals or whatever, on reserve land or on future reserve land, as the minister talked about.

Let us look for a few moments at some of the general observations of the bill. Native reserve claim settlements normally require the accommodation of existing third party interest. That is there already.

Before land can be set apart for reserve creation or expansion the existing third party interests on that piece of land must be cleared either by buying out that land and cancelling it, or by accommodating the interest in a manner agreeable to Canada, the particular first nation and the third party. Only after that can the land be transferred to the government for reserve purposes.

Again that process looks like it is a good one, but of course the trick is how lengthy that process can be become. I think my colleague said that it could go on for years and years, sometimes even a generation for sure. Usually the additions to the reserve process takes between one and three years, but all kinds of outstanding land claim settlements can go on for many years.

Hopefully Bill C-37 will speed up that process. It would allow a first nation to consent to the creation of interests on land proposed for reserve status rather than waiting until after the land has been purchased by the federal government and granted reserve status.

We look at the timelines on it, give checkmarks and say that is a good thing.

We have to look at some of the pros and a few of the cons in the particular bill. We need to draw a column. It seems to me we all do that in our lives when we have a decision to make. We look at the pros and the cons. Then we weigh them off against each other because life is obviously just a series of tradeoffs and balances.

Some of the pros are that Bill C-37 would allow the minister to set lands apart for reserve creation expansion rather than doing this by the more time consuming order in council. Not only will this hasten the settlement of outstanding reserve claims, but with the large numbers of reserve creation orders expected in the future this will also avoid taxing the order in council process. I am sure that gets to be fairly lengthy on its own.

We could flip that pro into a con and say that as with so much legislation, as the member for Winnipeg said, the minister seems to get a great deal of power regardless of who is in power. We have to make sure that there are checks and balances on the power of the minister.

I am sure the minister would agree with that. We have both sat in the House for many years. It would be a pity to think that he would become omnipotent or something like that. I am sure he would never want that to happen. We have to make sure we balance out the pro with the con in that regard. Yes, it does give the minister more power, but let us make sure that there are checks and balances.

The predesignation provision allowing a first nation to consent to third party interest on land proposed for reserve status will significantly reduce the time required for Saskatchewan and Alberta to fulfill their reserve expansion commitments. Dear knows this whole process goes on and on. Perhaps the bill can hurry that process along, again making sure that all aspects are taken into consideration and that all stakeholders and third parties, regardless of what their interests are, are not getting the short end of the stick or shafted in any way on either side.

A speedier implementation process would encourage on reserve economic activity benefiting the first nation and provide commercial certainty for the third party that has an interest in proposed reserve land during the transfer process.

What a smart thing it is to have economic development on reserves. Hopefully the idea of complete dependence on government is waning across the nation. For first nations and reserves to be totally dependent on government is not a happy situation for anyone. None of us like to be completely dependent. If this in any way gives economic self-sufficiency or economic development for reserves across the land, it would certainly be seen as a good thing.

The legislation accommodates existing third party interests to give the first nations the opportunity to welcome new interests during the reserve creation process. It is interesting that while the bill is before the House we are talking about the pipeline in the Northwest Territories. That is also important.

All the kinks have not been worked out of it. That is for sure, but as we are watching this process evolve right now there are private oil companies which are taking in the aboriginal community in a one-third profit sharing idea. That whole idea of economic development cannot hurt anyone for sure. It is interesting that those events are going along a parallel track to make sure that third party interests really are considered and yet they are able to share the benefit of using native lands as well.

This will give the first nations a chance to select commercially viable lands for reserve expansion rather than simply those lands which are already cleared of existing interests. Again, that appears to be a benefit.

We have a couple of concerns. I have already mentioned the explicit one, not total but certainly more power for the minister. We need to make sure we keep that in check.

Although we support facilitating a quicker resolution of first nation claim settlements, we have concerns regarding the effects of the legislation on third party stakeholders with interest on proposed reserve lands.

I just mentioned the pipeline through the north coming down into Canada. Alaska also wants to get in on that. However, to make sure we are not all on one side or the other, there needs to be a balance. As I have said many times in my remarks as well as in the past, we need to make sure that there is concern for both sides here, that we do not just take off our glasses and say we want this side or that side to benefit. It needs to be mutually beneficial.

That is the only way in life it works. To me it is the only way this piece of legislation can work. We have to work together and make sure we get the aboriginal community as well as the third party stakeholders to the table.

We are not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes or pull a quick one and say to them that they have missed their chance, because we know these things always have ramifications. Sooner or later those concerns will come up, or there will not be any goodwill for third party stakeholders to even work with the government or to believe that a piece of legislation like this will really help them. We want to make sure that the third party stakeholders feel they are being listened to, that they, as well as the first nations, are being given not just the benefit of the doubt but the benefit of the whole situation, because I know that many of them over the years have had concerns that they have been railroaded or whatever.

Again, the minister has a huge responsibility to live up to. I know there are frustrations across the country right now and he faced frustrations this summer. These surely are difficult times for him to be working through. I know he will realize how important it is to strike that balance. We in the official coalition are in the opposition now, but sooner or later, as the member said, someone else will be in government and we want to make sure that there are reasonable and rational processes in place, as well as transitions that would take place for any government of the day.

I know the minister understands that because when he and I first started in the House we were sitting in the opposition corner. The opposition coalition wishes him well with this. I suppose if we can give any advice or caution it would be to make sure that he deals with this sensitively on both sides of the issue. I know it is a tough tightrope to walk but at the same time I do believe it is important. If he does not, obviously down the road he will end up with problems far more serious than those he is facing now.

The opposition coalition gives qualified support. We say to the government that we want to move ahead with these land claims settlements and we trust that this Alberta-Saskatchewan land claims agreement, which is modelled after Manitoba's, will go well, that it will go speedily and that we will see some true benefits both for the first nations and the third party stakeholders.

Nuclear Fuel Waste Act

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Speaker, yesterday I talked a bit about the certainty that Bill C-33 would provide for Nunavut so I will carry on from there.

This proposed legislation would also provide certainty for industry. For example, it would set out clear ground rules for the issuing of water licences and for the enforcement of licence conditions. The legislation would also ensure that resource developers have access to lands for the purpose of exercising their subsurface rights.

Anyone who is familiar with the resource industry will understand that clear and consistent rules of the game are essential for projects to go forward. No company will invest in a multimillion dollar project if there is genuine concern about the validity or conditions of a needed water licence. No company will consider a development opportunity if it is not guaranteed reasonable and affordable access to the site. Bill C-33 addresses these and other issues of stability and certainty that are important to industry.

The Nunavut land claims agreement has clarified the Inuit position about who owns the land and resources in the eastern Arctic. What we need now is a certain and consistent resource management regime of which water management and surface rights are a key element. This certainty is critical if the new territory is to take advantage of its resource development potential.

In a region where unemployment is a longstanding challenge and where an ever growing number of young people are looking for work, we must do everything possible to support sustainable development and job creation. It is worth noting that the three existing mines in Nunavut are nearing the end of their economic life. Further exploration and development would be welcome in Nunavut and it would be encouraged and facilitated by this legislation.

However Bill C-33 would do more than provide a secure base for economic activity. For example, Bill C-33 would give the surface rights tribunal the power to award compensation for loss of income resulting from damages to wildlife or to wildlife harvesting equipment caused by development activities. As well, the Nunavut water board would not be allowed to issue, renew or amend a water use or waste deposit licence that may substantially affect waters that flow through Inuit owned land unless a compensation package is in place.

Bill C-33 also addresses a land claims commitment to name an individual or fund that would be held liable for damages to wildlife from marine activities. This issue must be addressed in order to protect the interests of government and taxpayers as well as to provide guarantees to Inuit harvesters.

Bill C-33 will provide another important element of certainty, the certainty that the residents of Nunavut will be heard on issues related to water, the environment and their communities.

The proposed legislation would stipulate that a minimum number of members of the surface rights tribunal must live in Nunavut. As well, four of the eight members of the Nunavut water board are to be nominated by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, which represents the Inuit under their land claims agreement.

I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that we are not being asked to invent new institutions of government in Nunavut. Preliminary versions of the water board and the surface rights tribunal were established through the Nunavut land claims agreement and are performing the functions set out in the Nunavut land claims agreement. Both institutions are modelled on existing regimes that are working well in other parts of Canada.

What we are being asked to do is ensure that these institutions have the full backing of federal legislation, and in the case of the water board, the backing of federal regulations. This is absolutely essential if they are to do their jobs as envisioned in the land claims agreement.

We already went through a summer of uncertainty where the licence issued to the town of Iqualuit was questioned, the validity disputed and the authority of the board undermined by the lack of clarity.

We are also being asked to ensure that the country lives up to commitments that have been made to the Inuit. Meeting Canada's obligation to aboriginal people is an underlying principle of Gathering Strength--Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan, an objective that must be supported by all hon. members. In this regard Bill C-33 is the fair and right thing to do and it is long overdue.

In closing I would urge hon. members to give careful consideration to Bill C-33. This is clearly an important piece of legislation for the people of Nunavut. It should be sent to committee for review as soon as possible.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with Bill C-27, the nuclear waste bill, followed by resuming the debate on Bill C-33 on Nunavut surface rights. Should this bill be completed before the end of the day I would then propose to advance the emergency debate previously scheduled for this evening.

Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-32, the Costa Rica trade agreement. I do not propose to call other legislation tomorrow.

On Monday we will begin consideration of Bill C-31 concerning the Export Development Corporation, followed by Bill C-30, the courts administration bill, followed by any previously listed business that has not been completed if such is the case.

Immediately after I complete reading this statement I will be proposing a special order which will make it possible to have a take note debate on the airline industry on Monday evening.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day. On Wednesday we will deal with Bill C-34, the transport tribunal bill, and any unfinished business.

For Thursday and Friday I hope to be consulting with House leaders of all parties regarding the adoption of the modernization committee report, second reading of the foreign missions bill which will be introduced shortly, and the miscellaneous statute law amendment bill that we pass once per parliament.

Pursuant to the business statement I just made, I believe you would find unanimous consent pursuant to earlier discussions to move a motion. I move:

That, at 6.30 p.m. on Monday, October 1, 2001, the House shall continue to sit and shall resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider a motion “That the committee take note of the difficulties experienced by the Canadian airline industry”, provided that, during consideration thereof, (1) the Speaker may from time to time act as Chair of the committee (2) no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes (3) the Chair of the committee shall not receive any quorum call or any motion except a motion “That the committee do now rise”, (4) when no Member rises to speak, or at 10.00 p.m., whichever is earlier, the committee shall rise and (5) when the committee rises the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting day.

Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I know I do not have time to address everything today because of time constraints, but I am very honoured to be able to speak to Bill C-33, the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

On April 1, 1999, the map of Canada was redrawn for the first time in 50 years. I was here when that happened and I am very proud to be part of that history. I see this act as another stepping stone in achieving what we wanted to achieve.

The Inuit of the Eastern Arctic effectively achieved a public government framework in that legislation. As a result we have more opportunities for employment, for establishing new businesses, for social development and for protecting the ways of the past while we embrace what the new economy has to offer.

I assure the House that these are exciting times for the people of Nunavut but they are also very challenging times. We have many barriers standing in the way of economic growth and self-sufficiency in Nunavut. As well, a great deal of work must be done to ensure that the new territory has the legislative and regulatory framework needed to function effectively.

Bill C-33 will provide an important part of that framework. As legislators we must do our part to support the new territory by dealing with the proposed legislation as quickly as possible.

Hon. members have been informed that Bill C-33 will establish in statute the powers, duties and functions of the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal. The former will be a quasi-judicial body that will license water uses and the deposits of waste in Nunavut. The surface rights tribunal will resolve disputes that may occur between land owners and those who need access to the land.

Both of these are institutions of public administration arising out of the Nunavut land claims agreement, instruments of good and efficient government across the entire territory. They will ensure uniformity and certainty throughout Nunavut on issues related to resource management.

Certainty is a theme that will run throughout my remarks today, because it will be perhaps the single most important outcome of the Nunavut elements of Bill C-33. By providing the legislative underpinnings for the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal, Bill C-33 will provide certainty that the decisions made by these institutions have a solid basis in law.

Members of the Nunavut water board wrote to a previous minister of Indian affairs and northern development some time ago to request passage of legislation to address the current ambiguities about its role and powers--

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33 which deals with the Nunavut land claims agreement of 1993 and ensuing and enabling legislation from that with regard to the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal.

I am very pleased to see the member for Nunavut in the House today. I would have appreciated her viewpoint on this issue and hopefully we can still get it. I would be very interested to hear her views. I know she will be giving good advice in committee. It will be a good viewpoint from someone who lives there and understands the place and the culture and the impact of this legislation far better than I.

It is interesting to note that this legislation has gone through many lives. This is the third round at it. The bill comes from other legislation from previous parliaments. The Nunavut water board has been operational since 1995 and we are playing catch-up six years later to get it implemented into law.

The Nunavut water board will consist of nine members appointed by the minister. Half of them will be nominated by the designate in a reorganization. One-quarter of them will be nominated by the territorial minister responsible for renewable resources or other designated territorial ministers.

When any board or tribunal is struck, it is important that its members know what they are doing and that there is ultimate accountability. I know government members and opposition members would agree with that as well.

It is interesting to note in the bill that adequate public notice will be given of applications to the NWB. Public hearings on applications will be held as the board deems necessary. When one sees that it is when the board deems it necessary, that raises the alarm bells. It should be brought to the attention of the board that it is probably necessary quite a bit of the time. It would not be wise for the board to say that public hearings were unnecessary and shuffle off the applications. It is very wise to have more rather than fewer hearings when people have concerns. They should not just say "By the way there will be a meeting tomorrow night", or whenever. Great distances are involved. It is very important that adequate public notice be given. When the applications are being studied and ruled upon, the board should be keenly aware of how important it is that the process be made absolutely transparent.

The Nunavut surface rights tribunal has been operational since 1996 but the legislation will establish that tribunal as required under the Nunavut land claims agreement which took place in 1993.

The tribunal will resolve disputes regarding subsurface rights and sand and gravel on Inuit owned land and losses to Inuit from damage to wildlife. I speak here of oil spills for example as they are entirely possible. I think back to the week after I was elected to parliament in the spring of 1989 and the Exxon Valdez crisis and the long term ramifications which occurred from that. This is something we need to deal with seriously and have proactive, organized methods in place to deal with these things before they happen so that when they do occur, we are prepared.

The surface rights tribunal also establishes terms and conditions of right to access to Inuit owned lands and can determine liability, and an amount of compensation due to Inuit in case of damage. It is very wise that this be put into place beforehand rather than face crisis management. The September 11 crisis affected all of us. We saw how important it is to be organized and ready for disasters rather than wondering the day one happens what could have been done to deal with it.

The surface rights tribunal consists of a chairperson plus two to 10 other members appointed by the minister, two of whom must be resident in Nunavut. There will always be an odd number of members on the tribunal and that is very wise. If I had to ask any questions about it in such a vast territory as Nunavut, I would have to ask why only two members would come from there.

The tribunal can only hear applications where an individual has first attempted to negotiate an agreement with the other party. In other words, people cannot go to the tribunal first. This makes sense. In many instances, differences or problems can be worked out. In many respects it is like us as members of parliament. People have tried to work with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Revenue Canada, the CCRA, Agriculture Canada or who knows what and they come to us, their members of parliament. They say they are having problems and they need us to facilitate or mediate or who knows all the things we do in our offices.

That is what the tribunal is set up to do. It would hear the applications. People would have attempted to solve the situation first, but it was at a stalemate and they would go to that body.

There are some pros and some cons to the bill. I would like to look at a couple of the positive things and then bring some concerns to the table with the hope that we are able to deal with those more fully in committee.

The Nunavut water board and the surface rights tribunal assure the Inuit greater control over the affairs of their region, and what a region it is. It is a huge land mass with a fairly small population. It is concerned about the thing that is probably of most concern to us, or certainly should be as Canadian citizens, water.

Some of the things we have seen over the last couple of years across the country have caused great alarm. Many reserves are having problems with water. It is important for all of us to say that water is essential. We need to make sure that it is as clean and as safe as possible. The bill is good because it gives the Inuit more control over the affairs of their water.

Both the water board and the surface rights tribunal would be subject to an annual audit. The water board would be audited by the board's auditor and at the direction of the minister, the auditor general. If the minister thinks there is something of concern, he can pass that on to the auditor general. I do not think we could ever go wrong by asking the auditor general to step in and ensure that the books are above board. That is a good step.

The surface rights tribunal will be audited automatically by the auditor general. Again we think that is a good thing. I am sure the tribunal and the water board themselves know there is safety in being audited by someone. They know they are clean, absolutely above board and under the protection of that. They can operate with a clean conscience and a clean bill of health because they have been given the okay and that is a very good feeling for everyone.

The legislation improves on its predecessor, Bill C-62 in its last incarnation, by removing the $20 million limit of liability for developers. This change was supported by the Inuit groups. Twenty million dollars sounds like quite a pile of cash to me and probably to most of us in the House, but think of the Exxon Valdez . I do not know what the cleanup costs were for that, but in that kind of enormous cleanup operation, $20 million liability is not a lot. It certainly could be higher. The $20 million limit was removed from the bill and that is a good thing.

One of the concerns that we do have is the whole idea of ministerial power. It is a pity to have to say it but politics enter everything in life. It is not just here in the political arena, but we see so much of it in community groups, churches, schools and businesses. It does not matter what it is, but politics creep into everything and that is the way it is. We want to make sure that the minister puts people on the board because of merit and merit alone, not just because they were a candidate or gave money or whatever. That is good advice for all of us, just to make sure the minister does not have too much power. He appoints the boards and can dismiss members after consulting with designated Inuit organizations.

I know of an organization that will probably be doing some consultation over the next short while. It will, it is sad to say, consist of one phone call and then it will be said that consultation took place. There is probably nothing healthy about that. The minister needs to make sure that he or she, or whoever the minister will be over the long haul in this business of consulting, puts some parameters in place and makes sure that real consultation takes place.

The issuance, amendment, renewal and cancellation of licences are subject to the approval of the minister. We should make sure that there is not too much power attached to the minister. If we listen with only one ear and not the other, whoever the stakeholder is, we may get a skewed view of things.

Like every good parent, teacher, or manager we should listen to all sides and then step back for a short while and weigh the consequences before a decision is made. We would encourage the minister to do that.

We have concerns that the federal government is trying to manage from afar. There are incredible distances in Canada. It is a very long way from here to the west and from here to the north. Although we are unbelievably connected and wired, this is still a huge country. We need to be careful not to make Ottawa the centre, the be-all and end-all. That would probably not be wise.

There is the idea of having a minimum of two members appointed from Nunavut to the surface rights tribunal. It would be wiser to make sure that there are more than that because people at the ground level always know far more about what is going on. The more distant the level of government, the more distant the actual intimate knowledge of issues.

The best example is the city council and the aldermen of my city of Edmonton. They get many more phone calls at home if sewers back up than I do as a federal legislator, because constituents know their aldermen. They know me too but I cannot do anything about the sewers. They will talk to me about taxes or whatever. The more distant the level of government, the more distant the personal communication.

I am sure my colleague from Nunavut would agree that it would be very wise to have as many people as possible operating at ground level in Nunavut. Given that surface rights and land access issues are very important to Canada's north, the majority of the tribunal should be individuals who reside in and fully understand the issues of Nunavut.

I do not claim to understand the issues there. I hope to learn a whole lot more about them. I would be very nervous if I had to tell them that I was from the government, just appointed to the surface rights tribunal, and there to help. They may be a little nervous about anyone coming in with that kind of attitude.

We should make sure that the tribunal works on a practical basis. It should not be a group that is set up to just have meetings. If there is supposed to be a dispute settling mechanism, let the tribunal do it and do it well.

We also have concerns regarding the streamlining of regulatory processes. Are they needed? Are they too slow? Are they too complicated? We need to make sure when we address this issue in committee that those are the things we look at and that it is the best tribunal it can possibly be.

Our position is that we would support the bill at second reading. I look forward to getting it into committee. I am hoping that we are able to hear from some excellent witnesses because all of us want to learn more about it. If this place is about making practical legislation so that people's lives are a little easier and better at the ground level in terms of claims, damages, liability or loss, those are the things we need to look at in a practical vein.

This piece of legislation seems fairly lengthy and substantial. However there are some good things in it. I have reiterated some of the positives about it and some of the concerns about it.

The member for Nunavut should be able to tell us from the ground level some of the practicalities of it. I will give the hon. member for Nunavut a hint. Even though there are good things in the legislation, I am sure there are concerns held by her family members, her constituents and stakeholders, whether they are private landowners, have businesses or operate on crown land.

When the issues are addressed that to me is practical. I do not want to hear just one side of the story. I want to hear from her, not just in the House but also in committee, what some of the positive things are. I want her to tell us in her own words and from practical experience some of her concerns.

There are always two sides to every story and I would be pleased to hear some of her concerns or hesitancies because we want to get them fixed. I am sure the minister wants to get them fixed as well. If she has waited this long, I am sure that like the rest of us she wants to get it right. I would love to hear her concerns about it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation, I too will try to be brief.

The NDP caucus understands that Bill C-33 is omnibus legislation regarding the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal and that these organizations are necessary under the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The implementation of Bill C-33 is the fulfillment of the obligation to complete those requirements.

I agree with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when he said that the bill was an important step forward as we continued to meet our obligations to build capacity in the new territory of Nunavut. It is our hope that these institutions will guarantee that residents of Nunavut will have more say in decisions about the use of water resources, the deposition of wastes and access to lands throughout their territory.

We believe the roles of the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal should have the effect between balancing the interests of the many stakeholders, while ensuring protection of the fragile Arctic environment.

I think I speak for all members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs when I say I look forward to the further input from northerners in this legislation process as the bill goes ahead to the standing committee and ultimately through the various stages of the House of Commons and the Senate.

This piece of legislation has been conveniently divided into two parts for us. We understand that part 1 of the enactment would implement provisions to the agreement related to the management of waters, a very timely and talkable theme and a necessary issue as we recognize the right to self-determination of the people of Nunavut.

We also recognize the right for them to control the use of their waters and the many all-encompassing issues that fall under that category, be it development issues, water use for domestic purposes, the deposition of waste and sewage treatment and, as was raised by previous speakers, the well-being of the marine passageways in the event of an oil spill or damage to marine life.

We further note that the new board would have the authority and the power to not only give permits and licences, but also to regulate and to impose fines, if there was a violation, and to order compensation, if compensation becomes necessary due to the misuse of water rights that may have an impact on those downstream.

I am very sensitive to this issue partly because I spent much of my formative years north of 60 working in Yukon. I can say from experience that the history of water use and land management in our north has been abominable. It has been lacking in many important ways. This is all the more reason why the people of Nunavut, in the rightly negotiating process that led up to the creation of the new territory, asked for, deserved and were adamant that they be in control of the water management and the land surface, land use management in their area.

I have seen firsthand some of the cavalier and irresponsible attitudes toward water use in the Yukon Territory. I will give a couple of examples of mistakes that we do not want to see repeated; a legacy of abuse.

My home near Dawson City was built up the Dempster Highway on the road to Inuvik in the heart of the Klondike goldfields. There is a lot of history about the Klondike. A lot of people had a romantic idea about the taking gold from the Klondike, but what they did was dredge the entire area. They were huge dredges as big as this Chamber. They worked their way down the creek beds, the Klondike and all the historic creeks like Bonanza Creek and Hunker Creek, chewing up the riverbeds. They absolutely gobbled it up at one end, processed it in a huge floating dredge and spit it out the back end.

These dredges worked their way up and down the waterways of Yukon relentlessly for 30 to 50 years. Salmon streams were chewed up in the pursuit of gold by those who did not have a vested interest. They are now long gone but the damage remains.

I will give an example from my home province of Manitoba. When it became necessary to divert the Churchill and the Nelson rivers into one massive river system for hydroelectric dam purposes they flooded South Indian Lake in a very cavalier way. There was not a great deal of thought that went into the fact that it was an existing functioning town with a fish marketing co-op.

People had their livelihoods there. They simply backfilled the whole valley and flooded out the town of South Indian Lake. They flooded the tree line 40 feet deep without recognition that when land like that is flooded arsenic, mercury and other toxic material leech from the soil as natural products that exist there.

It was another example of water rights and water management practices under our current system that were negligent and abusive.

Another example comes to mind. I had a job in Yukon going around the Richardson Mountains, the Ogilvie Range and the Tombstone Range picking up fuel depots the American military had left behind. It used to cache aviation gas in huge deposits all over the north. Forty years later many of the barrels had rusted through and all the aviation gas was flowing into the delicate tundra ecosphere.

It was an incredibly negligent and cavalier attitude toward water quality in the north. Due to the fact that the area is so massive it seemed that nothing we could do would ever damage it. Now we know different.

The last example deals with hydroelectric power. We have examples like Notigi diversion, Kettle Rapids dam, Jenpeg dam, Long Spruce, Waskahigan, Limestone, Conawapa, the James Bay Grande Baleine project and Site C at Fort St. John. All these hydroelectric projects were done with very little environmental impact studies and very little recognition of what occurs downstream.

I do not blame the people of Nunavut for being adamant that they wish to have more input into water rights and water use. That is more than we saw in Yukon when water rights were under federal jurisdiction. The Yukon territory did not have jurisdiction of its own water rights because it was operated from Ottawa, to no one's interest.

We are comfortable that Bill C-33 would do as it is intended, that is to finish the job of the creation of the territory of Nunavut along with the transfer of jurisdictions that goes along with it and the ultimate goal of bringing greater benefits to all communities in the north.

The NDP caucus recognizes that the south has benefited greatly from the resources harvested in the north. We welcome any opportunity to recognize that the northern communities and people who live there deserve the right to share in the great wealth and prosperity of the nation largely drawn from the resources in the north.

We will be recommending an amendment dealing with the water board's ability to grant licences for water use. The board would be able to renew or cancel licences as well as assign penalties in the case of abuse of water rights.

The maximum fine, as contemplated in Bill C-33, is $100,000. Given the ongoing mining boom in the Northwest Territories and in parts of Nunavut and the types of user group that might be affected by it, we find $100,000 to be a paltry amount of money. It is really pin money to a large mining interest that might be in the north. We know what a mining operation can do to the water quality in whatever area it is in.

There used to be a myth that we could do anything to a river as long as it ran for three kilometres and after three kilometres it would run clear again. We now know that was an absolute misconception, a myth that was created by the user groups that were polluting the rivers. It is just not true. We think that the $100,000 fine is paltry when it comes to any kind of a penalty. Even if it is coupled with the full compensation of those who may be affected downstream, or hunters or fishermen who may lose their livelihood as a result of the irresponsible action, we still think the $100,000 penalty is paltry.

There are a couple of other things we wish were in Bill C-33. We are going to be seeking to include them at committee stage, but I will register them here.

The one thing that comes to mind is that this bill, even though it transfers the rights to make these decisions to the newly founded territory of Nunavut, it does not specifically make any reference to the bulk sale of water. Given that this has become such a timely subject, and that by the minister's own admission the original bill that was introduced has been amended over 100 times to make it more timely and to plug little loopholes, we wish that the bill specifically barred whoever is in charge of water in Nunavut from the bulk sale of water because it contradicts what we in the House of Commons have already decided is in the best interests of Canada.

We also wish it were more specific on an issue that will become topical very soon, that is, the ownership of the icebergs which are created by the breaking up of the polar ice cap. I am not talking about the bulk sale of water, but this is something we need to contemplate soon. Are we going to allow foraging or salvaging rights like we do in our shipping lanes within the 200 kilometres Canadian limit? Will we allow people to come into our waters to harvest and salvage floating bulk water? These things need to be contemplated any time we talk about the bulk sale or the management of our precious freshwater resources.

To keep the speech brief, I will simply say that the NDP looks forward to Bill C-33 going to committee. We plan on being active participants at that stage. We look forward to further input from people who actually live in the north and the people of Nunavut. We wish them well as they take this next step toward true independence and charting their own destiny.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am one those who believe that “what is conceived well is expressed clearly” to which I would add “and briefly”. I shall, therefore, be brief on Bill C-33.

Bill C-33, the Nunavut waters and nunavut surface rights tribunal Act, represents no more and no less than the implementation of certain elements of the land claims agreement between the Inuit of Nunavut and the Government of Canada.

The bill currently before the House is therefore complementary to that historical agreement. The agreement, the treaty per se, was ratified and implemented on July 9, 1993 through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act.

Since its creation, the Bloc Quebecois has strongly supported aboriginal land claims. It sees itself as the ally of the first nations of Quebec and of Canada. The favourable position of the Bloc on Bill C-33, which we are discussing today, is part of that positive attitude, one I would describe as reaching out to the first nations--since the Bloc Quebecois favours maximum self management and accountability for the various aboriginal communities.

I think it unwarranted for us to oppose the quick passage of this bill, because it is consistent with the expectations and objectives of the nations and communities involved, which is, everyone will agree, what matters most.

In 1996, a similar version of the bill was introduced, the House will recall. It was strongly opposed by the Inuit of Nunavut-Tungavik, because it respected neither the letter nor the spirit of the treaty signed in 1993. The present version of the bill seems, however, to have been corrected and better reflects the aspirations of the Inuit of Nunavut.

It is important to point out at this time that I have certain reservations, which could, however, be addressed more exhaustively at committee stage so as to clarify certain elements of the bill which do not, at least upon initial examination, appear to be fully consistent with the real aspirations of the Inuit.

Similarly, I am convinced that, with other committee members, we will find common ground regarding the power of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to appoint members to the Nunavut Water Board.

Knowing the Liberal government's almost pathological propensity for appointing to key positions individuals closely linked to power, we will need to be on the lookout in order to protect the interests of Nunavut's inhabitants.

I repeat, it will be possible for us to consider the bill in depth and to hear the observations of the groups concerned at committee hearings which, I hope, will begin soon, be constructive and, I also hope, will take place in an atmosphere of co-operation among the various parties represented in the House of Commons, and with the communities that appear before us.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is prepared to work with the government and move quickly to meet the entirely legitimate governance aspirations of the Inuit of Nunavut.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak in respect of Bill C-33. My party will be watching the bill very closely in committee. We will scrutinize and vigorously question the witnesses to see if it is workable. We hope it is for the people of Nunavut.

The minister mentioned that at least on the surface the bill would implement the provisions of the 1993 Nunavut land claims agreement relating to the management of waters and the creation of a surface rights tribunal for the territory of Nunavut.

It is my understanding the bill is similar to what is operating in the territories and elsewhere in the country. As mentioned, versions of this bill were before the House of Commons in two previous parliaments; in 1993, Bill C-51 and in 1996, Bill C-62.

What could be better than promoting the conservation and utilization of water, as well as waste disposal, through a licensing system, which would be overseen by a board consisting of people from that part of the country?

Our party will raise in committee the issues of the powers of the minister, the terms of reference of the board, the length of terms for board members and so on. We notice that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development maintains the right to appoint and release board members. We do not know if they can have indefinite terms. We probably would want to see some limits in respect of that. We will be pressing that in committee.

The minister has the power to issue and rescind licences, as well as to expropriate land. There is a lot of power in the hands of the minister. We will want to know exactly what the checks and balances are in respect to that.

We have been told that the arrangement is similar to the arrangement with other territories. We will be looking more closely at this and no doubt there will be amendments to improve it, to add to it and to increase the value of the bill when it comes before committee.

As a general principle, the Canadian Alliance endorses efforts to decentralize the decision making process, taking it closer to the people, at local level of government, and allowing them to make decisions that affect in this case their water resources. Our intent will be to ensure that the past concerns about the bill have been addressed.

If we go back through the Hansard record and the committee discussions and so on, some of those may in fact have been addressed, but other ones that may require further examination.

Bill C-33 would amend a portion of the Nunavut Land Act. It is not a secret to anyone that our predecessor name, the Reform Party, expressed concern over some of the financial costs and the duplication of services that were involved in the establishment of Nunavut. It is a known fact, and it is on the record, that Nunavut receives $580 million in annual transfer payments. It is projecting in this fiscal year a $12 million deficit. Nunavut receives federal transfer payments of approximately 90% of the territorial budget.

All these matters need to be watched carefully and closely. We believe that if people pay for their own resources through tax dollars and in support their governance, the more they will hold their government accountable because of that vested interest of dollars.

Because of the remoteness of Nunavut, costs of providing a lot of the services are excessive. Some people have criticized this, but fair minded people in the provinces, territories and particularly in the House should ask whether we have too much government in some of these places. We want to be careful and watchful because sometimes there can be over governance, which is not good for any territory or province.

We notice the Nunavut water board will have eight appointed members, plus a chair for a population in the range of 24,000. There is a bureaucracy of some 930 civil service jobs, as set out in the 1992 Coopers and Lybrand report on the establishment of Nunavut, plus 705 public service which were transferred from Yellowknife.

We notice that there will be eight members on the Nunavut water board. We will be questioning whether that is necessary. In comparison, the entire Northwest Territories water board currently consists of four. It can go up to nine, but it is normally four. The Northwest Territories has twice the land and twice the population.

Various groups of people in the north have said they want those additional board members to guarantee representation for different population groups, including the Inuit of Nunavut and the Inuit of northern Quebec. We will have to look carefully at those claims and try to get some sense of whether that is merited.

Also a couple of things that have been raised by members of the House thus far and questions will need to be addressed to provide us some assurance. Some have asked if Bill C-33 will affect the water quality and a safe drinking water supply. As we understand it, Bill C-33 refers to water quality, but does not define those water quality standards and regulations. As was mentioned by the minister, they will be developed by the water board.

We would like to know what are the parameters for those regulations. Will they be as good as any other regime or place in the country? Hopefully so or better. Will they be similar to the Northwest Territories regulations?

Also another important question for the economic development of Nunavut is will regulations be cumbersome and stand in the way of sustainable development? Jobs are an important part in all places, especially in Nunavut. Will these regulations stand in the way of sustainable development? We want to be environmentally sensitive, but there needs to be economic development. Frequently, we have heard that some the regulations in the territories and Yukon do stand in the way of seemingly feasible sustainable projects.

Our concern is that we set some parameters. When they set these regulations, the regulations should not hurt the economic opportunity and the development of job opportunities for the people of Nunavut.

A question was raised about the sale of water. We need absolute assurance that, as far as this particular act is concerned, it is a federal jurisdiction. These days there is some controversy around the issue of the sale of bulk water and whether there needs to be some further definition under NAFTA or whatever. We would also want assurances that that is a federal jurisdiction and not something that can be trumped by the Nunavut water board.

Another question is does Nunavut have control over coastal and seabed resources? Our understanding is that Bill C-33 deals with freshwater resources and waste water disposal. We need absolute confirmation and assurance that Bill C-33 does not refer to coastal waters or mineral resources on or under the seabed and that the federal government has control over those coastal waters.

In principle, there are caveats in respect of this, but the intent of local governments making decisions on issues that are of a regional or local nature that is supportable by the Alliance Party, but we want it to be cost effective as well. This is one of the caveats we throw in there. We believe in that.

This is under the purview of the federal bureaucracy, but it may be of a benefit to have it under Nunavut water board. Careful consideration will be given to this in committee.

The Canadian Alliance Party will scrutinize carefully and vigorously query those who present to the committee, so we can hopefully improve and make this better legislation for the people of Nunavut.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-33, the Nunavut waters and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal act. Bill C-33 would address a number of outstanding commitments made under the Nunavut land claims agreement signed in 1993.

It is also consistent with our commitments in the Speech from the Throne to strengthen Canada's relationship with aboriginal people and to bring the benefits of prosperity to all communities including the remote Inuit communities of Nunavut.

Bill C-33 would provide the legislative framework for two institutions of public government in Nunavut: the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal.

The certainty created by the act will encourage investment. These institutions will ensure that residents of Nunavut have a say in decisions about the use of water resources, the deposit of wastes and access to lands throughout the territory. Their role will be to balance the interests of many stakeholders while ensuring protection of the fragile Arctic environment. They will operate with fairness, openness and integrity based on known and consistent rules.

Preliminary versions of the Nunavut water Board and Nunavut surface rights tribunal were created under the authority of the Nunavut land claims agreement. The agreement requires the government to set out by statute the powers and duties of the two institutions.

By way of background, the members of the Nunavut water board and Nunavut surface rights tribunal were appointed in 1996. This was a requirement of the Nunavut land claims agreement and the institutions are now exercising all the powers and duties described in the agreement.

However, the absence of legislation is contributing to a great deal of uncertainty in Nunavut. This legislative void is a major drawback that must be addressed. For example, concerns have been expressed in Nunavut about the appropriateness of the water licence issued to the capital city of Iqaluit. Officials at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Iqaluit have found the licence to be difficult to enforce, a problem that can be traced to the lack of ground rules setting out the jurisdiction of the Nunavut water board.

Uncertainty about surface rights is a challenge faced by all stakeholders in Nunavut. Hon. members are well aware of the mining boom that is taking place north of 60. Several mines have recently opened and hundreds of prospectors are now combing the north for new mineral plays.

Bill C-33 would ensure that Nunavut has water and surface rights management regimes similar to those that exist in other jurisdictions in Canada. At the same time, it addresses the requirement in article 6 of the Nunavut land claims agreement for the government to name a person or fund to assume liability for damage to wildlife caused by shipping activities. This has not yet been done which could put the federal government at risk for damages in the event of a marine accident.

Bill C-33 would provide clear mandates for the water board and surface rights tribunal and certainty for all stakeholders in Nunavut; certainty of access for the resource industries, certainty in water licensing processes and certainty for members of the water board and the surface rights tribunal whose decisions in the absence of legislation, which is extremely important to bring to light, are open to legal challenge at any time. This is particularly true of the water board.

The Nunavut land claims agreement does not adequately describe the water management regime for the settlement area. It is silent on the issue of enforcement which is an integral part of any water management regime. As well, there is a lack of certainty respecting the jurisdiction of the new board in relation to the existing Northwest Territories Water Board.

Bill C-33 would fill a legal and regulatory void by fully describing the powers of the Nunavut water board. I would like to quickly review those powers for hon. members who are here in this place and for those who are in Nunavut and across the country, so they will better understand the importance of this piece of legislation.

The board will have responsibilities and powers equivalent to those of the Northwest Territories Water Board, which means essentially the authority to licence the use of water and the deposit of wastes. Licences will not be required to use water for domestic purposes or for emergency purposes, such as fighting fires or controlling floods.

Bill C-33 also sets out clear rules for granting, renewing, amending or cancelling water use licences. These rules will provide greater certainty for industry and ensure the protection of the eastern Arctic environment. It will also ensure that the interests of all water users are taken into account in the licensing process.

The Nunavut water board will be given a broad range of powers to fulfill its mandate, including the authority to consult the public on any and all licence applications. The board will also have the authority to establish strict licence conditions. The maximum proposed penalty for offences is a fine of $100,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. This is consistent with similar water management regimes in other parts of Canada.

I am pleased to inform the House that the water board will have the authority to order compensation for water users who suffer adverse effects as a result of a licensed activity. The board may also require that a licensee make a security deposit with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Although Bill C-33 would place a great deal of decision making authority in the hands of northerners, and in particular the Inuit of Nunavut, the governor in council would retain the authority to make water management regulations.

Bill C-33 also sets out the powers, functions, objectives and duties of the Nunavut surface rights tribunal. Unlike the water board, the tribunal is not a licensing body. Its role will be to resolve access disputes between landowners and those who want and need to use the land.

The Nunavut land claims agreement has provided certainty of land ownership and paved the way for resource projects and other economic development activities across the eastern Arctic. However, to support economic growth and job creation in Nunavut, we must ensure that processes are in place to allow developers to exercise their subsurface rights in a reasonable and responsible way.

At the same time, we must safeguard the interests of those who live on the land. The need for economic growth must be balanced with the rights of landowners to fair and reasonable compensation. It must also be balanced with the rights and desires of the Inuit to protect and preserve their land and the livelihood it supports.

Bill C-33 would achieve these objectives. It takes into account the interests of all parties, whether they be government, industry, Inuit organizations or the private individuals themselves. It would establish clear rules for exercising surface access rights on all occupied private lands, including Inuit owned lands throughout the territory of Nunavut.

On occasion, disputes of access will arise between landowners, developers and other interests in Nunavut. Bill C-33 would require the parties to try to negotiate an agreement before turning to the surface rights tribunal. In the event that the two parties could not come to an agreement, the tribunal would have certain powers to resolve the matter.

These powers are modelled on the regime currently used in the western provinces and in Yukon, and include the establishment of terms and conditions of a right of access to private lands, including Inuit owned lands.

Dispute resolution will be much less costly and time consuming than dealing with issues through the courts. Under Bill C-33 the Nunavut surface rights tribunal would be required to deal with applications as informally and expeditiously as possible.

If a dispute relates to damage to wildlife, the tribunal would have the authority to determine who was liable and the amount of compensation to be awarded to aboriginal harvesters. Under this proposed legislation an order of the tribunal would be final and binding subject to a review by the Federal Court of Canada on limited grounds, such as bias or lack of procedural fairness.

As I noted a moment ago, Bill C-33 also fills a significant void by clarifying who is responsible for damages to wildlife in Nunavut caused by marine transportation.

The bill names the ship source oil pollution fund, which is administered by the Department of Transport, as the fund that would be liable for damages from oil spills. When the damage caused by a ship is not related to an oil spill, the shipowner is named as the person with primary liability. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would have secondary liability only when all other sources of liability had been exhausted.

There are a number of other elements of the proposed legislation that I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members. First, the powers and authority of the two Nunavut institutions will be extended to the entire territory rather than just Nunavut settlement lands.

It is critical that we have uniform regimes for water management and surface access rights throughout Nunavut. This will be more cost effective, consistent and easier to manage than a patchwork of regimes and will reinforce the certainty needed for economic growth and environmental protection.

Bill C-33 would also ensure accountability of the water board to elected officials for major decisions regarding water licences. Such decisions can have significant impacts on the environment, the economy and the quality of life in a community. It is absolutely essential that an appointed water board be accountable for these major decisions to officials elected by the public. This accountability to the minister also exists in the Northwest Territories Waters Act and its predecessor, the Northern Inland Waters Act.

Initially, the water board will be accountable to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In the government here and I am sure in the north, it is our hope and we anticipate that over time the water management function will be transferred to the new territorial government, along with the political accountability of the Nunavut water board. This will further strengthen local decision making and accountability in Nunavut.

Some hon. members may recall that this is not the first time this proposed legislation has been tabled in the House. It died on the order paper on two previous occasions. The same hon. members will also be aware that a tremendous amount of work has gone into developing Bill C-33 as we see it today.

In fact Bill C-33 contains more than 100 amendments to the government's first legislative proposals related to the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal. These amendments were developed by the government in co-operation with the stakeholders, particularly Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.

Since 1996, departmental officials have consulted widely on the Nunavut elements of the legislation. Although agreement was not possible on all issues, the bill reflects an excellent balancing of interests and is consistent with the Nunavut land claims agreement.

Bill C-33 is an important step toward providing the basic legislative framework that needs to be in place for any jurisdiction. It will establish clear rules that will not only protect our precious water resources, but also encourage economic development in a part of Canada where jobs are at a premium.

I am therefore seeking the support of all hon. members on both sides of the House to refer the bill to committee for review. I look forward to listening to members on all sides speak to a void that has been a long time coming to the House, and that is the legislation that we speak of today, Bill C-33.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Species At Risk Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my hon. colleague and friend from Edmonton Southwest and thank him for his flattering remarks.

I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-5, the Liberal government's proposed endangered species protection act.

I would like to point out at the outset that I am currently seeking the input of the people of Surrey Central concerning this controversial bill. I am certain that the people I represent are in full support of protecting our environment and endangered species at risk, but I am not certain that we will support this legislation as is.

The government's previous attempt at passing this kind of legislation was a discriminatory and punitive bill, Bill C-33. It was very unfair to Canadian landowners. In the previous parliament I wanted to support that weak and confused legislation because of its intent, but I had such serious reservations about the strong arm tactics the government was using against Canadian landowners and farmers in order to protect species that I did not support the bill. The government was playing politics with our endangered species. It was not paying attention to the science involved and it was not going to properly compensate Canadians who also wanted to protect our endangered species.

In the new bill it seems that most of the flaws of the old bill are still in place. In anticipation of that, I have sent a message to my constituents asking them to advise me whether we will hold our noses and support this smelly bill or oppose it because of its undemocratic nature.

I have decided to oppose it until after the committee hearings. In the meantime we will see if the Liberals adopt any of the suggestions from the witnesses appearing before the committee or from the official opposition and the other opposition parties. We will see if the government conducts hearings on this bill once it has passed second reading and if witnesses will be given enough chances to come forward and express their positions.

I will briefly outline the chief concerns I have about the bill so far. First, we want to see effective legislation. That means we want to see a full review of the bill by the House and the committee. We do not want the Liberals to resort to using closure or to stifling debate so they can have the legislation passed by June.

Second, we need to see an emphasis on voluntary initiatives and partnerships. While the current bill is a slight improvement over the punitive American endangered species act, it can be made better. We know the American legislation has failed miserably. We need our legislation to be not only better but much better than the American legislation, which the Liberals are using as a template for what they are offering Canadians with the bill.

Third, we need to see science, not politics, used as the basis of the legal list of endangered species. The legal list must be left not to the discretion of the cabinet but to scientists.

Fourth, we need to see compensation regulations that are fair. These compensation regulations must be clearly spelled out in the bill. There should be provisions for full compensation, not just the 50% or the formula promised by the Liberals so far.

Fifth, we need to make sure the bill recognizes that protecting spaces is critical for protecting species, and species recovery action plans must consider socio-economic studies before recovery plans are developed.

Sixth, we need to see that transparency and accountability are improved, through the suggested round table in the bill being truly representative of all stakeholders and through equal application of the law to all Canadians regardless of race or creed.

Finally, we need to see that there are mechanisms in the bill to resolve disputes with the provinces. The Liberal government has never paid attention to developing relationships with provincial governments.

All Canadians want to help the environment. They want to protect biodiversity. We in the Canadian Alliance care about protecting species at risk and protecting or recovering critical habitat. Canadians recognize that we need a proactive approach to protect species at risk, one that is based on respect, respect for the species that inhabit our lands and waters and respect for those who own those lands. We want a common sense policy that considers the needs of all stakeholders.

The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species and to the sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for use by current and future generations. The Canadian Alliance maintains that for any endangered species legislation to be effective, it must respect the fundamental rights of private property owners.

The people of Surrey Central, whom I represent, are from largely metropolitan or suburban areas. While we are not running the risk of having our land confiscated without compensation or without reimbursement of fair market value, we do not want any Canadian subjected to such unjust treatment.

In fact, far from working in a democratic way to help Canada's ranchers contribute to our nation's efforts to save our endangered species, the Liberals are promising punishment for those ranchers. My heart goes out to the farmers and ranchers, who are already overtaxed by the government and who are already suffering. They have huge input costs that are the fault of the government and its lack of vision. They have to compete at a disadvantage on world markets thanks to the government's poor record on international trade.

From what I have been told, the Liberals are now planning to take sometimes thousands of acres of land from individual Canadians without a fair process of compensation and under the threat of criminal charges.

In conclusion, the Canadian Alliance has two main concerns to be addressed in regard to the bill. The first is scientific integrity. Species listing must be determined by scientists, not by politicians. It should be determined by scientists and based on scientific fact. Our second concern deals with fair compensation. The Canadian Alliance believes there are a number of areas that can be strengthened in the bill in order to make it more accountable and transparent to the public.

At this time I feel strongly that the government has more work to do on the bill and I would like to see that work done before I support it, but again, I am not above voting the way my constituents want me to vote on this bill on their behalf.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the way we treat nature and our mixed biodiversity translates in many ways to the way we behave as a society and the kind of future we build for our children and grandchildren.

Intertwined with the treatment of nature and its biodiversity is the underlying principle of equity, that is, respect for others, respect for nature around us and respect for the ecosystems that create life and support living.

This is why the bill is so important, even essential, as a tool to protect the environment and nature.

I rejoice that Bill C-5 was reintroduced after two of the previous bills died on the order paper. I also rejoice that the minister brought in several changes to promote transparency and make the bill a better one than Bill C-33.

However, there are still fundamental amendments that need to be made. In presenting the bill the minister said “All reasonable suggestions to further improve Bill C-5 will be considered carefully as the bill progresses through parliament”. I am very glad that the minister is open to amendments being made and I hope several amendments will be made in committee.

I happy to say that there is almost unanimous consent amongst Canadians for this bill. In a Pollara poll done only a very short while ago, over 90 % of the Canadians living in urban or rural areas said they supported a strong and proactive bill on endangered species.

Some time ago, the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, known as COSEWIC, brought in for review a list of 339 species that were listed as threatened and endangered. At this point the review is nearly completed. Only 53 species need to be reviewed. By the spring the total review will be completed.

The problem is that we leave cabinet with the discretion of when to list these species and at what point each species will be chosen or not chosen instead of having a startup list in the legislation before it becomes a statute. We have been asking for this very strongly. I do not think cabinet should be left with the discretion of deciding when, where and what species will be listed.

We also want habitat protection to be compulsory in the law instead of being at the discretion of the cabinet. It is like that in several pieces of legislation that the provinces have put forward. There is not one substantive argument that has been brought forward to convince us that habitat protection should not be compulsory.

I believe that habitat protection must be compulsory on federal lands, north of 60 and in areas of federal jurisdiction for cross border species and species that migrate between our country and other countries. In this connection, a letter was sent by the United States senate to the President of the United States on October 6, 1999 by 11 senators of both parties, republicans and democrats alike, including the senate minority leader, Thomas Daschle. The letter pointed out that Canada must ensure that any new bill contains habitat protection for U.S.-Canada shared species on all lands.

I believe that unless we can cover species and habitats on a compulsory basis on our federal lands and on lands north of 60 for cross border species and species that migrate between our country and other countries, our law will be left to the discretion of this government and successive governments that may or may not enforce it and put it into place. We need it very badly because it as an essential tool.

The government has a wonderful chance with this bill, which will soon go to committee. We all know there are only a few areas in the bill that need modification or improvement in order to make it a strong piece of legislation and one for which we can all be satisfied and proud.

I implore the minister and the government to give the committee a chance to work freely. Allow it to amend the bill in the critical areas, such as the listing of habitat protection and coverage on federal lands and in federal jurisdictions, so that we will have a substantive bill and one that has a mandatory safety net. A safety net that leaves discretion to the cabinet is no safety net.

All of us know which areas need to be improved. All we need now is that little push forward, that consent by the minister to do what he kindly suggested to us himself, to let these suggestions come forward so that the bill can be improved. This is my fondest hope.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-5. My sentiments on the various incarnations of endangered species bills have been aired many times in this House. I will address a few particulars of this legislation, but as one who has followed this issue closely for many years, I would like to begin with some broader thought.

To set a context for my comments, I will borrow a few words from Wendell Berry, the noted farmer, poet and writer. In an essay entitled “The Conservation of Nature and the Preservation of Humanity” he tells us:

When we include ourselves as parts of belongings of the world we are trying to preserve, then obviously we can no longer think of the world as “the environment”—something out there around us. We can see that our relation to the world surpasses mere connection and verges on identity. And we can see that our right to live in this world, whose parts we are, is a right that is strictly conditioned. There is simply nothing in Creation that does not matter. Our tradition instructs us that this is so, and it is being proved to be so, every day, by our experience. We cannot be improved—in fact, we cannot help but be damaged—by our useless or greedy or merely ignorant destruction of anything.

This small quotation touches upon a number of important themes in the debate around the protection of endangered species. First, it emphasizes that we all too often and conveniently view ourselves as disparate from the natural world. What possible relationship can we have with nature, one might ask, as we hurtle along a superhighway wrapped in an SUV with our ear pressed to a cellphone? If we cannot see nature and we cannot hear it and we cannot feel it, then it becomes easy to believe that it is something that is not us, something that we engage in on our terms perhaps when driving through a national park gate.

I believe that intrinsically most of us know that this is not so. We are not so far removed from an age when we were more aware of being of nature. This awareness has been buried deep within us by the mechanism of modernity. The challenge therefore becomes one of how can we reanimate this? How can we bring ourselves to a place where the world ceases to be defined in our minds as that which we have created, to a place where the term environment is no longer a category, a compartment, a file but instead includes us as part of this broader natural world? Such a reanimation would help us to abandon the current focus on, as Berry put it, our connection with the world and lead us to an emphasis on our identical identity. Were we to identify with nature rather than objectify it, who knows what wonders we might achieve.

Second, Berry wisely asserts that because we are of this world there are conditions to our participation in it. The conditions of every other species' participation are determined by the laws of nature. We alone among species get to set many of our own rules. For example, we can kill any species, anywhere at any time. We can kill for fun. We can kill deliberately or we can kill accidentally. We can kill quickly and efficiently through direct action or we can kill a species over a long timeframe by altering the conditions that it requires for survival. We can even kill from great distances.

Surely some responsibilities come with such apparent exceptions to the rule of nature. Most fundamentally, if we are in nature and nature is in us, then the unconditional application of our authority is nothing less than its unconditional application against ourselves.

That brings me to Berry's third point, that our destruction of anything in nature, whether intentional or through ignorance, damages us. Actually, he puts it better: “We cannot be improved” through such behaviour. The superficial and immediate rewards of destruction may tempt but by other measurements we are poisoning our own larder. By way of example, let me ask the human focused critics; which of our present species of plants would prove to contain ingredients essential to future medicines, vaccines and cures? We cannot know this now, hence we must accept as a condition of our participation in the world that we not eradicate them.

When I spoke on the previous version of this bill last June, I noted that on an issue of such fundamental importance to Canadians as the environment, when those concerned with its preservation and restoration rise to speak, few are really ready to listen. Many in this place say they care and many make fine speeches themselves, but words are a poor substitute for action. All of the rhetoric in the world will not save a river, a fish, a forest, nor will it protect a child from a hazardous contaminant.

Our words will not protect species at risk; only our actions can. Discretionary authorities to act may be political deal makers but they risk becoming convenient barriers to action in the hands of those who do not recognize a duty to protect the common. When we respect nature we can begin to understand the incredible services it provides. For those who must, putting a monetary value on nature's services is difficult for many reasons. What price can be assigned to the last drop of water or the last gasp of air?

On the task at hand, Bill C-5, let me first commend the Minister of the Environment for implementing several changes to the bill since its last appearance as Bill C-33. Most notably, the decision to recognize the current COSEWIC list as a scientific list of species at risk in Canada is laudable. However, in order to trigger action, the species must be legally listed. Currently the decision for legal listing resides solely with governor in council. Canadians from all walks of life, including industries, scientists, conservationists and environmentalists are concerned that this will therefore be a political and not a scientific decision.

The political listing approach has proven to be ineffective in other jurisdictions. The proposed round table meetings every two years to discuss species at risk are a welcome addition to the bill, as are changes to what will placed in the public registry.

The safety net provisions in Bill C-5 allow the federal government to step in if a province fails to protect species. However, the safety net is also subject to cabinet discretion. In other words, even if a province fails to protect species there is no duty for the federal government to act.

While the scope of the safety net provisions in a former endangered species legislation, Bill C-65, were more narrow than in Bill C-5, they contained a mandatory requirement for the federal government to act to protect species if provinces failed to do so.

One of the things that makes the public debate around the bill vastly different from those around other so called environmental bills is that a coalition of industry, environment and conservation groups have come together and worked for years on the legislation. I cannot tell the House how unusual this is. I congratulate them for their efforts in this area. The group is known as the species at risk working group.

Along with many other Canadians, the working group has raised concerns that the bill does not go far enough to protect species. It will be the role of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to hear from this group and from a wide range of Canadians on how we can improve the bill.

We will do nothing to protect species at risk unless the bill leaves committee as a good, effective piece of legislation. The House must support legislation that is strong, fair, effective and makes biological sense. It must be enforceable and it must be enforced.

Let me close with a few more words from Wendell Berry:

In taking care of fellow creatures, we acknowledge that they are not ours; we acknowledge that they belong to an order and a harmony of which we ourselves are parts. To answer to the perpetual crisis of our presence in this abounding and dangerous world, we have only the perpetual obligation of care.

I call on all members of the House to care about species at risk.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this honour to participate in this debate. As the Progressive Conservative Party, and as a recognized party in the House, we have a prearranged order for speaking. I would request from the Chair that attention be paid to that particular issue because on other occasions previous members have been missed.

I will now begin my 20 minute speech by saying that it is a pleasure to have a chance to participate in this particular debate. As members know, this will be the first piece of environmental legislation that we have seen before the House in this particular parliament. Members will also know quite clearly that this will be the government's first attempt to pass its first piece of environmental legislation since taking office on October 25, 1993. It is the government's first bill of its own initiative.

Mr. Speaker, you may recall, being the learned individual that you are on legislation, that the previous Conservative government was very proactive with respect to environmental legislation. We delivered to the country an acid rain protocol with the Americans, a packaging protocol that we did in conjunction with industry to reduce waste in our landfills. The Conservative government also pioneered a bill known as the Canadian environmental protection act which was first tabled in 1988.

Canada was a world leader on environmental protection by bringing the international community together in eliminating and reducing the consumption of ozone depleting gases with the Montreal protocol of 1987. The hon. Jean J. Charest was a very proactive environment minister who brought forth legislation with respect to new inroads in reducing pulp and paper effluent. One of the other hallmarks, in addition to the acid rain protocol brought forth with the Americans, was the $3 billion green plan which had an infinite affect on pollution prevention.

Having said that, this is the government's third attempt to bring forth a piece of legislation to protect species at risk or endangered species. Bill C-65 died on the order paper leading up to the 1997 election. The hon. member for Saint John was active in the debate at that time. We also know that Bill C-33 died on the order paper as the Prime Minister chose to call his vanity election three years and four months into his mandate.

The position of the Progressive Conservative Party will largely follow the positions developed by the species at risk working group, which is composed of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Mining Association of Canada, the Canadian Nature Federation, Sierra Club of Canada and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund.

These are individuals who are normally at each other's throats when it comes to developing legislation of this sort, but they have been able to build an unprecedented consensus, which I believe the government should be utilizing far more than it currently is.

In December 1999, a few weeks after the Progressive Conservative Party tabled its position paper, the government tabled a brown paper, which actually described essentially what its legislation would be composed of. Our position paper was graded A by the environmental community and received accolades from industry groups as well, while the government's position paper received a mere D.

I would like to compliment not only the consensus that was built with respect to SARWG, the species at risk working group, but also the consensus that was built with the Progressive Conservative caucus on this file. It is a unified position built in conjunction with our natural resources critic, the member for South Shore, with our agricultural critic, the member for Brandon—Souris, and with the leadership that we received from the right hon. member for Calgary Centre in ensuring that we had a very comprehensive and team approach to this particular piece of legislation.

We are all well aware that Canada has over 300 species that are at risk or endangered. I believe endangered species are what we could call our canaries in the coal mine. When we continue to lose species from our environment, from the various habitats, it is an indication that our overall environment is starting to decline. That will have a negative effect on the air we breathe and the water we drink.

Here we are eight years after the government has taken office and this is its third kick at the can in trying to deliver a piece of environmental legislation. After all the consultations, after all the homework, one would think we would essentially be reviewing a piece of legislation that would be nearly perfect. As the critic from the NDP pointed out in his remarks a few moments ago, we are far from there.

There are a couple of particular issues I wanted to speak about with respect to the legislation. Clearly, habitat loss is the single largest cause of why species become at risk, become endangered and ultimately become extinct. Habitat loss is responsible for over 80% of species decline in Canada.

Bill C-5 and its predecessor, Bill C-33, are in fact weaker than the first attempt at species at risk legislation that was brought forth, which was known as Bill C-65. Bill C-65 had significant problems, but it did contain stronger provisions for habitat protection, especially on federal lands. This was largely the result of the work of the environment committee.

Bill C-5 does not require protection of critical habitat for endangered species. It merely states that cabinet may protect it. This is a significant shortcoming, especially when critical habitat protection is crucial to survival of a species. Some of Canada's best loved species could potentially become at risk, whether it is the beluga whale, the woodland caribou or even the grizzly bear.

By making habitat protection discretionary, the federal government is abdicating responsibility for major areas within its own jurisdiction, and I will repeat that: within its own jurisdiction. We are not asking the federal government to actually sidestep or make a foray into jurisdictions where it does not have the responsibility. The federal government can and must protect habitat of all species within federal jurisdiction. This is absolutely critical.

Upon review of Bill C-5, members of the House will recognize the fact that there are provisions for the federal government to intervene in provincial jurisdictions to protect species at risk. There are provisions whereby the federal government can intervene on private lands to protect species at risk. However, it is not mandatory under this legislation to protect species at risk within federal jurisdiction, or within federal lands, for that matter.

This is indeed ironic given the response from the environment minister to the last speech from the throne. He said “Any species protection legislation must include provisions for the protection of critical habitat of endangered species. This is fundamental. No habitat, no species”.

We would like to have a piece of legislation that would reflect the minister's own words as spoken in the House.

Building successful legislation requires input and support from affected stakeholders. The Progressive Conservative plan calls for carrots before sticks, for incentives to reward stewardship. We believe it is imperative to encourage, recognize and reward stewardship by offering more carrots and resorting to fewer sticks.

We believe this can be accomplished by listening to the concerns of stakeholders and by working in co-operation with them to build a consensus on an effective legislative design and, most important, engaging stakeholders in the recovery process.

Finding an endangered species on one's land should not mean that all development stops. The key is to manage the land to ensure that a species can continue to survive. We have to do away with the myths that have been spoken about. I am talking about the myth that finding a species on one's property will result in an immediate economic loss. We can reward stewardship. There are many ways to address this particular issue.

The fact is that if a species at risk is found on a woodlot owner's lot, chances are the owner is working under responsible forestry management regimes that actually encourage an environment for the species. If the species did not like it there, it would not be there.

The Progressive Conservative Party believes that without the support of the provinces, private landowners, resource users and communities the endangered species bill will be impossible to institute. Moreover, it will be ineffective. It will breed the “shoot, shovel and shut up” response, which will result in more species at risk.

The Progressive Conservative Party believes that when designing a recovery plan, with stakeholders of course, social and economic considerations must be accounted for. Both objectives can be achieved, both to encourage stewardship and save endangered species. These objectives are not mutually exclusive.

Another glaring weakness, which I would say is the most obvious and which the member for Windsor—St. Clair touched on, is that in Bill C-5 the cabinet rather than scientists will decide whether a species is at risk. The committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, the scientific body that has been in place for decades, will not have the call on determining whether a species is endangered. This puts at risk the extinction of any species that cabinet opts not to protect and makes the decision a political one rather than one based on scientific fact.

There is an enormous flip-flop from the Canadian Alliance on this particular issue. I am not talking about pensions or Stornoway or anything like that. What I am referring to in this particular circumstance is that we can give solid credit to the member for Red Deer and what he now believes. Although the member for Edmonton—Strathcona who was the previous critic said that it should be a political determination as to whether a species is at risk, I interpreted from the speech of the member for Red Deer in the House on February 21 that he believed scientists, not politicians, should determine whether a species is at risk or not. I find it shameful that the Liberal Party of Canada would be the only party in the House of Commons that would rather resort to a political listing perspective.

I know that my friend who will be speaking shortly on behalf of the Liberal Party was a member of the environment committee that studied this particular issue. An all party consensus was built that the scientific list of COSEWIC should be adopted and that COSEWIC should determine whether a species is at risk or not. Now the Liberal Party of Canada is reneging on its promise on that particular issue. I find that very shameful indeed.

While the Liberals may argue that they do not want the scientists to be lobbied as to whether a species is at risk or not—

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Madam Speaker, although I have addressed the House on a few occasions and have asked some questions, this is the first opportunity I feel I have had to recognize the results of the November election: the support and confidence that was placed in me by the constituents of Windsor—St. Clair.

I acknowledge their support and all of the work my supporters did for me, the canvassing and phone calling. It is difficult to put that into words. There are certain specific groups I would like to acknowledge as well. I will start with my family, my wife of 31 years and my three children who were very active in my campaign and have been strong supporters of mine both in this past election and in the two previous times that I ran. I acknowledge that publicly.

A couple of other groups were of particular support to me. The labour movement in the city of Windsor is very strong and a great deal of those members came out and supported me, both on election day and in the campaign leading up to the vote.

There is another group I specifically want to mention. I promised that I would give it credit as one of the significant groups that made the difference in the outcome in my winning or losing since the results were very close in my riding. That group is the citizens who at one time worked in the United States but then came back to live in Canada in their retirement years. They were faced with a significant change in the tax regime put in place by the government. They feel very keenly about this travesty of justice and intend to pursue it. I will also pursue it on their behalf until that travesty of justice is remedied. I wish to acknowledge those people who supported me throughout the campaign and voted for me on election day.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-5, which in common parlance has become known as the endangered species legislation. This is not the first time the legislation has been before the House. In fact the original bill was put before the House in 1994. The government in both its red books and throne speeches has constantly promised the legislation. Here we are seven years down the road, in fact eight years from the time it was first elected, and we still do not have the legislation.

This procrastination and inaction unfortunately is all too typical of the government's record on the environment. It is not a good record whatsoever. We have not seen any new environmental legislation since 1993. There have been some amendments but no dramatic changes in the regime governing and protecting our environment.

We have absolutely no legislation right now that in any meaningful way protects our endangered species. That is interesting. If we look at the polling the government has done, there is extremely strong support in Canada for legislation to protect our endangered specifies. A recent poll conducted by Pollara, which was commissioned by the federal government, found that 94% of Canadians in all regions support federal endangered species legislation. More important, one should note that 74% of people living in rural communities support mandatory, not discretionary, habitat protection legislation.

In spite of the fact that we have broadly based support from environmental groups, labour unions, scientists and industry spokespeople calling for strong and effective endangered species legislation, we still have none as of right now.

The bill before us in the form of Bill C-5 is basically, with minor changes, the same bill that was before the last parliament as Bill C-33. Interestingly both Bill C-5 and Bill C-33 are substantially weaker than Bill C-65 which was introduced by the government back in 1996.

Based on good, solid scientific evidence at the present time we have 354 endangered species. It is a stark reminder that our natural heritage is under threat. The rate at which species disappear is historically at an all time high.

Worldwide we are experiencing more extinctions of natural species at any time in our history since the disappearance of dinosaurs. The current extinction rate is over 10,000 times the natural rate. To put it another way, historically an average of two to three species per year became extinct due to natural causes. Currently this year and in the previous few years about two to three species disappear every hour, all because of human causes. At the present rate scientists are telling us that we could lose 25% of the earth's species in the next 30 years.

Let us take a look at Canada. We have our own problems. In the past 150 years 27 species have become extinct. Let us compare that to the figure I gave earlier. At present 354 endangered species or at risk of extinction are on our list. The list is growing every year. An additional 40 species have been added in the last two years, since 1999.

As a country we have been waiting for almost a decade for the legislation. In 1992 at the earth summit, Canada committed to establishing legislation that was specifically aimed at protecting our vulnerable species. Canada was one of the first signatories to that accord. Yet here we are in 2001 and we are still reviewing the legislation.

In addition, the bill before the House is fundamentally weak. Let me turn to one of the major weaknesses of the legislation. We were promised by the Liberal Party and by the government that the legislation would protect the species at risk. What we have now is not a shall bill, that is we shall protect, but a maybe bill, that is we may protect them.

The bill contains rampant discretion in favour of the minister and the cabinet. All that it requires the government to do is to consult and report. It does not require it to protect when push comes to shove even one species. They could take these consultations from the scientific community, from the rest of the country, and could ignore them. Given their history, that is likely what they will do.

Bill C-5 is much weaker than the legislation of our partners in the United States and even in Mexico.

I will go back again to some of the public surveys on what the country is prepared to accept in the legislation. Most Canadians have told us that they are prepared to accept economic consequences in order to protect our natural species. Eight out of ten Canadians advocated placing restrictions on industries that pose a threat to endangered species and they are willing to accept the limitation of activities, such as forestry, mining and even tourism.

I will digress for a moment and talk about my own region. In the riding beside mine we have the smallest national park. About 10 years ago it became obvious that we had to limit the number of people allowed into that park. We had to cut the number in half because of the danger it posed to some of the fauna in the park. The public accepted that. There was an educational process and the general community understood the risk the park was at and they accepted the fact that they would have to curtail their activities in the park and the number of times they could go there. It was not easy for them to do but they did accept it. I suggest that is true for the rest of the country. We are prepared to take those losses.

I will now go to the three points that I wish to cover in terms of the weakness of the legislation. The first and foremost weakness is the lack of habitat protection. It is estimated that humans are responsible for almost all the species extinctions that occur, but that within that framework habitat loss is responsible for over 80% of the species' decline in Canada.

If this legislation is passed it will not protect habitat at all. I will compare that situation to the United States and Mexico. In both cases they have passed legislation that not only protects the species but also protects their habitat. Our legislation is simply proposing to make that protection discretionary in the hands of the minister and the government. If species are deemed worthy of protection then we should be protecting them.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved that Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin debate I should like to congratulate the member for Fundy—Royal on his election as vice-chair of the finance committee. I think it is very generous of the official opposition to let the Conservative Party have that post and I wish him well as the vice-chair of that committee.

Canada is blessed with a rich biodiversity of over 70,000 known plants and animals, many of which are found nowhere else in the world. We have a moral obligation to protect this precious diversity so that it can be enjoyed by generations of Canadians to come.

Bill C-5, the proposed Species at Risk Act, will enable countless Canadians to continue to work to protect and recover species and ensure that the Government of Canada can act as well.

Despite efforts to protect wildlife and plants, we continue to lose species at an alarming rate around the world because of human activity.

In Canada today there are 364 species classified as being at risk nationally.

Canadians overwhelmingly support the protection of species at risk and their habitats. From ranchers to fishermen, trappers to farmers, biologists to conservationists, we have heard the call for effective legislation. Bill C-5 responds to that call with certainty and with conviction.

It is effective legislation that will help prevent wildlife in Canada from becoming extinct. It will also provide for recovery of species that are at risk of becoming extinct. This is legislation that will achieve results where it counts the most, on the land, in our streams, in the oceans, on the prairies, in the forests and in the air above.

Bill C-5 is effective legislation that will help prevent wildlife in Canada from becoming extinct. It will also provide for the recovery of species at risk.

This is legislation that will achieve results where it counts the most: on the land and in our streams, oceans, prairies and forests.

I would like to outline the key strengths of the bill before parliament today.

The proposed act will cover all birds, fish, mammals, plants or insects listed as being at risk nationally. These species and their critical habitats will be protected whether they are on federal, provincial, territorial or privately owned land, in the air or in the water. SARA will be the cornerstone in species protection and recovery.

SARA will ensure that science is the first consideration in the recovery of species. For the first time, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, will be given legal status under the Species at Risk Act.

COSEWIC will continue to operate as a scientific body independent of the government. It that will assess and classify the status of wildlife species in accordance with the best available scientific, community and aboriginal traditional knowledge.

SARA will provide the authority to prohibit the killing of endangered or threatened species and the destruction of their critical habitats on all lands in Canada. We will have the authority to provide immediate protection to species and their critical habitats in imminent danger. The Government of Canada will also have the authority to act alone when and if necessary.

Under SARA, there will be a mandatory requirement for developing recovery strategies and action plans for endangered or threatened species, and management plans for species of special concern.

The Minister of Environment must report annually to parliament on actions taken to recover all listed species.

Possibly the strongest element of the bill is the extensive dialogue that has resulted in its evolution. The proposed legislation reflects more than seven years of consultation with Canadians in all walks of life, in all parts of the country, including specifically ranchers, farmers, land owners, fishermen, aboriginal peoples, business leaders, trappers, scientists, academics and many other stakeholders, including thousands of interested Canadians.

The Species at Risk Act or SARA is what it is today because of what we have heard over the last seven years.

We have heard that Canadians want legislation in place that empowers individuals to take action to protect habitat. This is the goal of Bill C-5.

We have also heard that Canadians want to know that there are strong legal protections in place so that, if necessary, the government will act alone to protect species and their habitat. This is another key component of Bill C-5.

We have heard loud and clear that the approach to species protection and recovery must be balanced and effective. The bill before us today meets these requirements.

Bill C-5 incorporates a number of useful suggestions made by individuals and groups in submissions to the standing committee during its pre-study of the former Bill C-33. These changes reflect the intent and spirit of the former bill, while improving its clarity.

I would like to outline some of the improvements that have been made in the bill we are debating today.

Of particular significance are the following, which will provide greater openness, transparency and accountability.

A new section was added, which would require that the minister convene, at least once every two years, a round table of persons interested in matters related to the protection of species at risk. The round table would advise the minister on these matters and its recommendations would be placed in the public registry. The minister would be required to respond within 180 days and his response would also be placed in the public registry.

The COSEWIC list will be published, unchanged, in the public registry. By doing this, it is given public recognition as the scientific list of species at risk in Canada.

Other documents to be placed in the public registry would now also include the annual reports of COSEWIC, general status reports, action plans and the minister's annual reports to parliament.

The registry, which will be available on the Internet, will be a comprehensive online source of relevant documents and information about efforts to protect species at risk in Canada. It will give Canadians the opportunity to follow the development of regulations and orders under the Act, from the consultation phase to final publication in the Canada Gazette .

In short, the registry will enable anyone to track government action on species which have been found to be at risk following scientific assessment.

These changes show that we have listened to Canadians. We intend to continue to take the advice of Canadians, and all reasonable suggestions to further improve Bill C-5 will be considered carefully as the bill progresses through parliament.

The bill that we are debating today is only one component of the Government of Canada's overall strategy to protect species at risk.

In fact, the strategy is already producing results through stewardship, recovery planning and partnerships with provinces, territories, non-government organizations, academics, and private citizens. This strategy includes this legislation, the accord for the protection of species at risk, and the habitat stewardship program.

Through stewardship and recovery efforts, we are taking action on species at risk where it matters most: on the land and in our streams, oceans, prairies and forests.

Our first line of defence will be to protect habitat by encouraging land owners to undertake voluntary conservation measures, often in co-operation with other governments.

The Government of Canada is providing incentives to promote habitat conservation, because we know this approach works on the ground to effectively protect species.

Through the new habitat stewardship program, the Government of Canada contributed, in the year 2000, approximately $5 million to over 60 partnership projects with local and regional organizations and committees. Species that have benefited already include the Vancouver Island marmot, the marbled murrelet and the critically endangered eastern loggerhead shrike, a bird that was once distributed from Manitoba to the maritimes.

Our approach to habitat stewardship also encompasses large areas of land such as the Missouri Coteau landscape of southern Saskatchewan. Located in the prairie pothole region of the province, the Missouri Coteau landscape is approximately 23,000 square kilometres in size and includes several species at risk, including the piping plover, the burrowing owl, the loggerhead shrike, the ferruginous hawk, the northern leopard frog and the monarch butterfly. The Coteau stewardship first step project seeks to maintain natural, restored and managed land capable of sustaining populations of these species at risk.

Funding for the habitat stewardship program is one of several initiatives to protect species at risk that were announced in budget 2000, which contained a commitment of some $90 million over three years and thereafter stabilized funding of $90 million every two years for the protection of species at risk.

Budget 2000 also made it easier for Canadians to donate ecologically sensitive lands and easements by reducing the capital gains from donations through the EcoGifts Program.

These partnerships and incentive programs will extend habitat protection in all parts of Canada.

Our preferred approach to protecting species at risk is through voluntary activities by Canadians. However, there may be times when these do not produce the desired results. At that point, government action will be required, either at the federal, provincial or territorial level.

We respect the authority of other governments, but we also expect them to bring in habitat protection measures when they are needed. This bill will complement existing or improved provincial and territorial legislation. It will not compete with it.

Make no mistake, where voluntary measures do not work, or other governments are unwilling or unable to act, the federal safety net will be invoked. If a province does not have complementary legislation, the Government of Canada will act to protect Canada's heritage, to protect threatened or endangered species and their critical habitats on provincial and private lands.

Landowners, farmers, ranchers, trappers and others who live off the land or waters of Canada are among our most important partners, since in many areas, their land includes the habitats of species at risk.

The proposed SARA will enable compensation to be paid for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact when it is necessary to prohibit destruction of critical habitat.

One of the most difficult questions in the debate over how to protect species at risk is that issue of compensation. That is why I asked the distinguished Dr. Peter Pearse, a professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia and a well known expert on natural resource issues, to review the issues involved and to provide me with advice concerning compensation under the legislation.

Dr. Pearse has done an excellent job of reviewing the issues and his findings will be an important contribution to the debate on compensation. His recommendations are of great interest to the government and they will be considered very carefully as we develop compensation regulations in consultation with Canadians.

I want to assure hon. members that as our discussions on the issue of compensation progress, we will continue our discussions with interested Canadians. We will keep them informed on this important issue. Our regulatory proposals will be shared on the registry in the same spirit of openness that has marked the development of the proposed species at risk act.

Anecdotal evidence on severe economic losses by landowners in the United States because of the American endangered species act has generated concern and fears in some parts of Canada. Let me assure the House that the proposed Canadian species at risk act is fundamentally different from the American act and, I might add, dramatically better.

The species at risk act represents a Canadian approach based on our own strengths and values. While it does give the government the power to protect threatened or endangered species and their critical habitats on private land, we have gone a long way to meeting the concerns of landowners and other people who work on the land.

The bill recognizes the fact that in order to be effective, species at risk legislation must be accepted and used by the people on the land who make decisions affecting wildlife every day.

Species protection requires a co-operative approach on the front lines. This does not preclude the inclusion of strong measures for those who would break the law.

I cannot emphasise enough the importance of partnerships in protecting wildlife in Canada. We are working with the provinces and territories, individual Canadians, conservation organizations, academics, industries every day to conserve and protect species at risk.

For this legislation to be effective, all affected stakeholders must be engaged. In order to get the job done, we need landowners, conservation groups, and other levels of government working together.

Aboriginal communities are especially important in efforts to protect species at risk since so many endangered or threatened species are found on aboriginal lands. Aboriginal peoples have been successfully involved in efforts to develop this legislation and they will be involved in the species at risk act recovery efforts at every appropriate step. The assessment and recovery processes will incorporate the wisdom of aboriginal traditional knowledge as well as local community knowledge.

We will work closely with and respect the role of wildlife management boards established under land claims agreements to ensure the protection of species at risk.

In fact, one of the improvements that has been made to the bill was to amend the definition of wildlife management board to ensure that any body authorized to perform functions in relation to wildlife species in a land claims agreement is covered.

We have a long history of co-operation with the provinces and territories on protecting species at risk in Canada. We have negotiated an accord to protect species at risk and have made significant progress on many issues under it. Because of the active involvement of many interested parties in this file, we have made remarkable progress.

Here are some examples. In 1941 there were about 16 whooping cranes in Canada and now there are about 200. The swift fox has been successfully reintroduced along the Saskatchewan-Alberta border and, in fact, its status has been upgraded by COSEWIC. The wood bison is returning to healthier and sustainable numbers. From a low of about 250 animals a century ago, there are now some 1,800 wood bison currently living in seven wild, free ranging herds. Again, COSEWIC has upgraded its status from endangered to threatened in recognition of this progress.

Clearly there has been progress. Now we must focus our efforts to save species still in danger, such as the right whale, the Oregon spotted frog and the Jefferson salamander, which was added by COSEWIC in November to the list of Canadian species at risk.

As a government, as citizens and as stewards, our goal must be to protect species on the ground. The proposed species at risk act is part of a comprehensive approach to accomplish this goal.

I invite all members to take an important step toward protecting wildlife species and their habitats across Canada by supporting Bill C-5. Canadians have told us in overwhelming numbers that they want a law to protect species at risk and their habitats. After seven years of debate, it is time to move on, and to focus our attention on protecting and recovering wildlife at risk.

In 1996 governments across Canada agreed, through the accord for the protection of species at risk, to bring in species protection legislation in their own jurisdictions. Many provinces and territories have already fulfilled this commitment. Now it is the time for the Parliament of Canada to live up to this commitment by approving Bill C-5.

Bill C-5 creates a framework for the protection of species at risk that will achieve results on the ground by using incentives as the preferred approach, backed up with strong legal protections that give the government of Canada the ability to act alone when necessary.

It is designed to work not merely in courtrooms, but where it counts: in the fields, forests, wetlands and open waters of Canada. Effective species protection, not costly litigation, must be our primary goal.

I look forward to committee hearings on Bill C-5, where we will discuss the bill in detail, and hear the views of Canadians on how effective this bill can be.

We have an opportunity to pass effective legislation, legislation that is needed and long overdue. I sincerely hope the members of the House will assist with this monumental responsibility.

This bill is important for Canada's biodiversity. I urge all members to give it speedy passage at second reading and I urge that it be voted with minimum delay for the committee stage and examination by the committee of the House.