Bill C-5 (Historical)

Species at Risk Act

An Act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, for four days this week the House could have had thoughtful and fulsome debate on the report stage of Bill C-5 about species at risk. Unfortunately, the official opposition did not appear particularly interested in that.

Nevertheless, I will continue to consult with opposition House leaders to try to reach agreement on how to complete the debate on that very important legislation and I hope that there will be more interest shown than we have seen so far.

In the meantime, the House will proceed this afternoon with consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-15A, amending the criminal code. Tomorrow we will debate Bill S-34, respecting royal assent, followed by Bill S-40, respecting financial clearing houses.

On Monday we will return to any unfinished business from this week and, if there is time, we will turn to Bill C-15B, which of course is another criminal code amendment.

Later next week, if Bill C-50, the bill dealing with the WTO, and Bill C-49, dealing with excise, are in fact reported back to the House from committee in time, we will deal with their final stages as well as concluding any business left over from Monday.

As the House already knows, Tuesday, April 23 and Thursday, April 25 will be allotted days.

Species at Risk Act

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the parliamentary secretary talk about the bill it would seem everyone in the House is saying what a wonderful piece of legislation it is. It could be if the government listened to the recommendations made by a number of members on both sides of the House, in committee and otherwise. The basis of the bill is good but a number of the clauses are not.

There are two ways of looking at the issue. First, we could look at the bill itself with its strengths and weaknesses. Second, we could look at what a piece of legislation like it is supposed to do. In looking at the second part we should question how well the government would look after species at risk. Would it only panic when a species was in such a state that recovery was impossible? What would the government do to identify species that were potentially at risk to make sure they did not reach the critical stage?

I will look at the issue both ways, starting with a look at the bill itself. There are a few clauses in Bill C-5 that cause tremendous concern. First, there is concern about the government's commitment to look after species on land the government controls. The government's commitment in this regard is weak and not clear at all. However that is the typical commitment of the present government.

Second, the people who own land on which we find species determined to be at risk have a lot of concerns about this piece of legislation. There is absolutely nothing in it to guarantee they would be compensated for any portions of their land. In some areas significant portions of their land could be designated as habitat for certain species.

Let us imagine we have a nice piece of farmland anywhere in the country on which we have nice ponds where we like to walk, swim or boat. Let us imagine a nice country cottage overlooking a lake with lawns and pasture land. We get a knock on the door and a guy says the words we always fear: “I am from the government and I am here to help”. He tells us we have a beautiful piece of land and there is a valuable resource on it: a species at risk. We say that is wonderful. Then the government official proceeds to tell us that because it is a species at risk and the habitat cannot be disturbed we can no longer control our own piece of property.

Unless we get clear and distinct definitions as to what compensation would be available for land declared an area of protected habitat, it would be foolish for anyone in the House to support such a piece of legislation. It would leave constituents across the country holding the bag. It would allow the government to take credit for protecting species when doing so at someone else's expense.

There are several other problems in the bill including the review process. However I will come to the other side of the issue: What would the government do to protect species that were potentially at risk?

I am glad to see we are joined by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He knows better than anyone in the House that in the waters over which he has jurisdiction, and perhaps in waters slightly outside his jurisdiction, there are species that are certainly at risk. One of the ones we have not yet talked about a lot is the Atlantic salmon.

In his own province of Nova Scotia and certainly in Newfoundland and Labrador and other areas there are many groups and agencies very concerned about the environment and the fisheries, They are concerned about the potential this fisheries provides for the economy of the region, both in commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries, and in keeping the species alive as a basis of sustainable development.

One of the things each group mentioned as we talked to them about the future of the stocks, particularly Atlantic salmon, is the effect of the growing seal herds on species of fish, whether they be trout or salmon. We ran across this as the fisheries committee visited Nova Scotia and we have seen it in Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to not only salmon but cod stocks as well.

The seal herds have multiplied tremendously and are certainly not at risk. However the species upon which they feed are at risk. If six or seven million seals eat one pound of fish a day, that is 365 days multiplied by one, multiplied by six or seven million. Imagine the amount of fish being eaten. Multiply that by 40 and the amount is horrendous. We cannot have sustainable development of our cod and salmon stocks or other fish in the ocean unless we control other species that are growing above and beyond the accepted norm.

Seals are now seen around river mouths where they have never been seen before and eating salmon going up the river to spawn and smaller salmon coming down. In the spring and through the summer there are numerous seals in these regions. That is providing a major concern and certainly one the minister will have to deal with.

The FRCC in its report released a couple of days ago talked about the cod stocks in the gulf. This affects the member's province and my province as well. The seal herd was again highlighted as a problem.

I am sure others will pick up the challenge of informing the government to change the legislation to ensure it is acceptable for the majority of people in the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure to get up in the House and speak to such an important topic.

I have had the privilege of being in the House since 1997. Every day we deal with legislation that is important to Canadians. I can think back to the Newfoundland Schools Act, the Quebec school act and when we brought Nunavut into existence on April 1, 1991. There have been significant pieces of legislation.

The bill before the House of Commons today is very important for Canadians.

There is no question that nature is part of Canada's identity. We flock in record numbers to our national parks. We boast about our wide open spaces. We revel in our reputation as a country of the outdoors. We are the envy of many countries around the world. While nature is part of the Canadian identity it is at the core of the way of life of Canada's aboriginal peoples. They are people of the land, with vast and rich stories and a vast knowledge of nature.

The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development worked long and hard in its study of the proposed species at risk act. Its work must be praised and is of great value. It has added a great deal to an already sound and well considered approach.

At report stage we are dealing with what would seem to be a number of motions, but most are housekeeping motions. They would clean up the text to ensure consistency in wording throughout the bill while maintaining the intent of the hard and valuable work of the standing committee in drafting amendments.

We accept in principle the standing committee's proposal to develop a stewardship action plan under Bill C-5. Work is already underway on the development of a federal, provincial and territorial Canada wide stewardship action plan. There have been meetings and discussions. Much progress has been made in this area.

However we want to avoid legislating mandatory federal government programs which add to the complication of making future resource commitments in law. We want to ensure we have sufficient time to develop a plan in co-operation with others including landowners, resource users, aboriginal people, provinces and territories. That is why the government motions would remove a one year deadline and provide the minister with the authority to develop a stewardship action plan in consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.

The federal commitment to stewardship has already been reinforced by the Habitat Stewardship Program. Under the program $45 million over five years has been targeted to stewardship activities. The program is now entering its third year. It has fostered many new partnerships and allowed old ones to accomplish more. It has brought new partners into the fold of stewardship across all regions of Canada.

For the $5 million in the first year of funding the program attracted non-federal funding of over $8 million. In other words, for every $1 spent by the federal government under the Habitat Stewardship Program $1.70 worth of non-governmental resources was contributed to the projects.

In the second year of the stewardship plan $10 million for more than 150 projects has already been allocated. For example, the Habitat Stewardship Program includes projects that focus on improving the habitat of the threatened spiny soft-shell turtle in the Thames River. It has contributed to carrying out field propagation and release programs for the endangered eastern loggerhead shrike and protecting the native prairie habitat on which the endangered burrowing owl depends. I realize these species are of great import to the Speaker because he read out all the names in English, French and Latin.

Throughout the outreach and public education, and these are important initiatives, more than 25,000 landowners and nearly 50,000 people have been directly contacted to raise their awareness of their local area. We have also provided more favourable tax treatment for the contribution of ecologically sensitive lands. Over 20,000 hectares have already been donated as ecological gifts.

The federal government is a steward in the protection of species at risk and their critical habitats in Canada. Landowners, farmers, fishers, aboriginal people, conservation groups, workers in the resource sector and many others are stewards. They all deserve credit for the stewardship work they do. Bill C-5 would encourage us to do more. It deserves our support.

Just as we cannot underestimate the importance of conserving and protecting species at risk and their habitats, neither can we underestimate the importance placed on Bill C-5 by Canada's first peoples. The formation of the proposed legislation has involved aboriginal peoples in a variety of ways. They have been at the table for many rounds of discussion. They have provided a significant advisory capacity by helping us fully understand the issues, needs and capacities of aboriginal peoples to help in the protection of species at risk.

The role and importance of aboriginal traditional knowledge would be entrenched in Bill C-5. These are the people whose traditions tell us about the habits and patterns of birds and animals. These are the people who know because they have been told by their parents and the parents of their parents that certain plants can survive in certain places. This knowledge would help us protect species and plan effective recoveries. We would incorporate traditional aboriginal knowledge in our assessment and recovery process in a formal way. This is quite unique.

I spoke about the intense involvement of representatives of Canada's aboriginal peoples in the development of Bill C-5. This became part of a formal process through the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk, a group which has provided advice to the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Parks Canada Agency and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for a number of years. Its advice is invaluable. We want to continue to benefit from its advice and input which has helped inform us so well in making the policy behind Bill C-5.

I acknowledge the invaluable contribution of my colleagues the hon. members from Churchill River, Nunavut, Western Arctic, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I also commend my hon. colleagues from the north for their effectiveness in ensuring the voices and viewpoints of Canada's aboriginal communities are reflected in the legislation. The standing committee has said we need a mechanism to ensure this continues. We agree.

I am heartened by the interest that has been shown by members on all sides of the House. Many members of the official opposition have been moved to speak to the legislation. I commend the critics on the opposite side of the House for the interest and productive activity they have given to the committee's work.

However it saddens me to hear things repeated because many people who watch the proceedings on television do not have the benefit of being able to read the act or the committee transcripts. In clause 129 of Bill C-5 the government has set out a review mechanism which would take place in five years. I would hate Canadians to be misled into thinking we have in any way ignored the transparency and accountability the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development worked so hard for.

Bill C-5 would be effective. It would work on the ground. It is what Canadians have said they want. We as a government have responded.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, personally, I am very happy to speak today, April 18, 2002, the day after the 20th anniversary of the patriation of the Canadian constitution, which resolutely and wittingly denies the existence of the Quebec people. As a result, Canada still fails to recognize the existence of the Quebec people, in addition to other dishonourable measures when it comes the Quebec people. This a patriation and a constitution that no Quebec government has ever recognized, regardless of its political colours.

This event, which we do not hear nearly enough about and which thankfully was discussed a great deal yesterday, is a very serious event in the recent history of Canada and Quebec. As we saw yesterday, the current government is trying to gloss things over, referring to the charter of rights instead of to the real event, which was the patriation of the constitution, of the unilateral move made by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, this pseudo-democrat who had risked his head, and the future of his party, to make changes following the no result of the referendum. It is important to remember this.

The changes made were contained in the charter, the patriation and the new constitution, which not only failed to recognize the Quebec people, but which weakened the powers of the National Assembly then, and still now.

Indeed, it is in the same vein that Bill C-5 was introduced, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. It is important to view the introduction of this bill in its historical context.

This is an outcome of the Rio convention on biodiversity, signed at the time by the Government of Canada. The government wanted to follow up on it in 1995, then again in 1997. The bills were strongly opposed throughout Canada, and all died on the order paper. The government came back this year with Bill C-5.

In Rio, and this is an important element in the debate and in the underlying constitutional issue, the government made a commitment to, and I quote:

—develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations.

There is a commitment made to develop new provisions; this was done in this case as with others. Canada is signing treaties, not only without the consent of the House, which means that those elected to represent the people are not involved in the decision because there is no debate, but also without consulting the provinces.

In Rio the Canadian government made some very significant commitments in this area, without consulting the provinces, and Quebec in particular, which had—as I may elaborate on later—legislation in place since 1989 to protect endangered species.

Bill C-5 replaces Bill C-65, which was introduced in 1996. One of its key points dealt with the creation of COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife Species. In a report dated April 11, 2000 by Environment Canada, the following statement was made:

To date, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, has designated 340 wildlife species in Canada as being at risk. Of that total, 12 are extinct, 15 others are extirpated in Canada, 87 are endangered, 75 threatened and 151 vulnerable. Of the 97 species whose status has been recently reassessed, 26 are headed toward endangered status.

The problem is therefore a real one. The governments and other stakeholders must intervene, but the rules must also be respected. Here we have the federal government creating a very unwieldy structure in which those mandated to do so, termed in the legislation competent ministers—nothing personal here, that is what the law says; we will identify no one, we will make no personal judgments—are the ministers responsible for Canadian heritage, fisheries and oceans, and the environment. One important point is that clause 10 reads as follows:

A competent minister may, after consultation with every other competent minister, enter into an agreement with any government in Canada, organization or wildlife management board with respect to the administration of any provision of this Act.

Whereas clause 11 reads:

A competent minister may... enter into an agreement with any government in Canada, organization or person to provide for the conservation of a species at risk.

This says a lot about the role that the Canadian government has decided to play in the lives of Canadians from coast to coast. Quebecers must be increasingly aware of this. Something very important is happening here, in this place, and in the Langevin building. It was decided here, following the 1995 referendum, which Quebecers almost won when they came so close to giving themselves a country, that Canada should never live again the intense hours that it experienced on the evening of October 30, 1995. Canada does not want to go through this again. It has decided to take the bull by the horns and to make this government the Government of Canada.

This is what underlies this bill and clauses 10 and 11. This is clearly stated in the social union agreement. The Canadian nation building is being carried out at the expense of Quebecers and Quebec, where legislation had been in place since 1989, and with total disregard for all existing laws. This is happening in every sector. We saw it with the millennium scholarships. Today, we are seeing it with the protection of species at risk. We saw it with parental leave and with marine areas.

There is no need to mention the government's shameless propaganda. It is so bad that even dromedaries in Africa display the Canadian flag. The government has a problem with visibility, or else it is obsessed with it. Sixty five per cent of the propaganda budgets, including for summer festivals, are spent in Quebec.

This government is present everywhere. Quebecers must realize that the federal government has decided that it would call the shots in every sector, thus showing its contempt for the constitution, for the history of Canadian federalism and for the National Assembly and government of Quebec.

I hope that Quebecers will keep this in mind. This government made a decision to patriate and use the 1982 constitution without a mandate, without consultations and without a referendum. Quebecers must take note of this and they must think about it, because there is no future for them in the Canada that is being built.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Bill C-5, species at risk, and I am not talking about myself, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the bill and the issues within it.

One of the issues that has been raised by our critic is that this is a new piece of legislation that is breaking new ground. We would like to see the legislation brought back to the House after a five year trial period to find out how well it worked. One would think that would be appropriate. It affects a large number of people in this country, a large number of landowners. Every Canadian has an opinion on species at risk and we would certainly want to ensure that our species at risk are preserved, but not at the cost of individuals. They should not be required to pay for public policy. There are many other aspects that would encroach and intrude into people's lives, especially the lives of landowners and the way they manage their property.

I would have thought it would have been quite appropriate and that the government would have agreed that after five years a committee of the House would be asked to review the legislation. However the government said no.

This concept of democracy, listening to the opinions of the House, unfortunately has no effect on the government today. I cannot say how disappointed I am that the government would not listen to a request that five years after the legislation is introduced, an all party committee of the House would be asked to re-examine the legislation to see the impact it had on our society and on the people it specifically affected, and to see whether the regulations, as they were written, are appropriate and fair. Is that asking too much? I did not think it was asking too much. My colleagues did not think it was asking too much. Unfortunately, an all party committee to examine this five years down the road is too much for the government.

We do live in an open society. Transparency and openness should be the order of the day. Democracy means that people's input and people's opinions should be heard. However, like so many other bills and legislation around this place, the government has the first word and the last word. What the opposition and Canadians have to say does not seem to be very relevant. It is a rather unfortunate situation.

One of the things the bill deals with in significant amounts is property rights. If a species at risk is on somebody's land it means the owner can no longer use the land for his or her enjoyment. The owner must ensure that the species at risk on his or her land is protected and there is no compensation for that. Why should a few people in Canada carry the burden and the cost of public policy? I cannot understand why the government would adopt that type of attitude. It seems absolutely and patently unfair that it would take that position.

I think back to the hepatitis C scandal. We paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation because the government did not follow appropriate practice and people died or became very sick because of the hepatitis C situation. We also had the AIDS situation where again the government was culpable on that issue too and it paid out. We have the residential schools situation with our natives, which is a very unfortunate circumstance, and the government is paying out for that too. The government pays and rightly should pay for problems that it causes and for the implementation of public policy but on species of risk it will not.

I do not know why the government will not provide compensation. Should it? Of course it should. I want to emphasize this point. Why should one individual or a few individuals in the country cover the cost of public policy?

We did have an all party committee of the House look at the legislation. It proposed numerous amendments. All the parties agreed that the amendments were appropriate. Government members, who also sit on that committee, agreed that the amendments were appropriate and the bill would be enhanced by these particular amendments, so that when it came back to the House for report stage and third reading the bill would be improved by the debate of the committee members who had a particular interest in that particular subject, who had heard from witnesses with expertise in this particular area and from witnesses who would be affected by the legislation. The amendments were then introduced here and the government said that it was not the way it wanted to go. It wanted it done its way.

What is the point of having committees? What is the point of having debate in the House if no one listens? The species at risk legislation, recognizing our responsibility to protect species at risk, is something every Canadian knows would enhance our stature in the world, but the way it is being done, the heavy-handedness, cannot be condoned.

I am rather appalled that the government would do this. This is surely a non-partisan affair because we do want to protect our environment. We do want to protect these multitude of species, some of which are at risk, but the way the government does it turns off the opposition in the House. We are the ones who are supposed to form the debate. We are the ones who are supposed to have input into public policy, advise the government on what it should be doing and approve what the government wants to do. However, as we can see, the party whip on the other side cracks the whip and the result is preordained. Everyone knows before the vote is even taken what the results will be.

The points that really concern us are: no review of the legislation after five years even though it enters a whole new area of Canadian and legal jurisdiction; the heavy penalties; not knowing how it will be administered; and not knowing how it will work. Parliament should be reviewing that but the government has said no. Property rights and public policy should not be at the expense of a few Canadians.

We must let the committees of the House work. As the chairman of the public accounts committee, we feel that we do a fair amount of good work. We work closely with the auditor general. We bring out waste, mismanagement, accusations and allegations of corruption, and so on. I would like to think that every other committee in the House would feel that their contributions are making a difference, but when their recommendations are ignored by the government when they get into the House, we wonder why it would be all worthwhile.

It is disappointing. It could have been good legislation. It could have enjoyed all party support. It does not because of the attitude of the government.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your recognizing me, because if it goes to a vote it does not always work out that way.

I am glad to rise on Bill C-5 and talk about the problems--

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

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of Canadians, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development devoted considerable effort to hearing from witnesses across the country and carefully reviewing Bill C-5.

One of the standing committee's significant contributions is the proposed establishment of a national aboriginal council to provide advice on the implementation of the bill and to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.

Aboriginal peoples in Canada manage a considerable amount of the habitat on which species at risk depend. Many in turn depend on wildlife for sustenance and for making a living. As a result of their unique relationship with the earth, aboriginal peoples also possess knowledge about the biological status of species and about measures that can be taken to improve this status. This information is critical to achieving the goals of Bill C-5. For the first time in wildlife legislation, Bill C-5 recognizes the value of aboriginal traditional knowledge by requiring that it be considered, together with scientific and community knowledge, in the assessment of species at risk.

I would like to pause here for a moment and talk about the aboriginal working group on species at risk. This group includes representation from Canada's national aboriginal organizations. The aboriginal working group participated in the development of Bill C-5 and continues to provide advice to the federal government on the development of species at risk legislation. We do not want to lose access to the kind of advice and input from the aboriginal working group that has helped to inform the policy behind the bill. We need a mechanism to ensure that it continues.

I am pleased that the record will show the importance of the efforts of the aboriginal working group. The establishment of a national aboriginal council on species at risk is consistent with the Government of Canada's commitment to strengthening its relationship with aboriginal peoples. This is a great step forward.

By establishing the national aboriginal council on species at risk, we are recognizing and putting into law the importance of the relationship of aboriginal peoples to land and wildlife. The establishment of this formal advisory body puts into law what has been happening in practice, thereby strengthening the government's commitment to aboriginal involvement. With this council, with this legislation, and with the incorporation of aboriginal traditional knowledge into the assessment and recovery of species, we are moving forward.

We have said for nearly nine years that we all share in the responsibility of protecting wildlife. Perhaps no group demonstrates a commitment to that responsibility more than Canada's aboriginal peoples. The national aboriginal council on species at risk will set into law a partnership that has already produced many positive results. It is a partnership we are also working hard to foster with others, with landowners, farmers, fishermen, conservation groups and those in the resource sector, which will be aided by the proposed species at risk legislation.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleagues who supported me for their good judgment and wisdom. Those who did not will be dealt with another day.

I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-5, which is the species at risk act. I would like to begin my presentation by clearly saying that the Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and the endangered species.

However the bill borders on unconstitutionality. It proposes to relieve Canadians of the right to enjoy ownership and full control of their property based on a bureaucratic decision and provides no compensation to any Canadian who is deprived of the enjoyment of their property rights.

Sadly, this was one of the things that was taken away from Canadians 20 years ago through the charter of rights. In the bill of rights, which I support very strongly, it was clearly established that Canadians had the right to free ownership and control of their properties and would not be deprived of it without due process. In that explanation there was compensation that would be required.

For the benefit of our audience, our point about Bill C-5 is this. Someone has a piece of property and a little critter of some sort shows up on the property that has been or could be deemed a species at risk, such as a three toed purple frog. If a decision is made that this particular critter is deemed an endangered species, then without notification by the state police, and I mean the Liberal government, a process can be enacted and put underway to take away a piece of that landowner's property. This would be done to provide a habitat of any size, as determined, for this so-called endangered species without any notification to the landowner. That is about as unconstitutional as I can possibly imagine, when the state can implement a process without any notification to the person who will suffer a consequence by it.

Members know that the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development spent approximately nine months dealing with this issue. It called witnesses from all across Canada, many who were experts in this field. The committee provided a sterling report to the government on its findings. It provided a number of recommendations that would have made Bill C-5 somewhat palatable to most Canadians and, of course, palatable to most opposition members.

The committee spent exhaustive amounts of hours, days and weeks dealing with the bill and putting a report together. There was majority approval on it, and I understand on many items there was unanimous approval. After presenting to the government a report which the committee believed was a very successful end to a long exercise and after hearing all the witnesses, the government simply trashed the report from the environment committee was trashed. That is unbelievable.

I will give the House a little humour. Two days ago the Minister of the Environment stood up in the House during question period on a question from either the Bloc or the NDP. The minister started out his answer by saying, first of all, let us be clear, this was a democratic process. He was not even talking about Bill C-5, but about something else. He said that in case his hon. friend across the way did not know, “democracy consists of listening to people”. That is a direct quote from the Minister of the Environment, the same minister who ordered the trashing of the environment committee report. In a surprise for him, the committee members went out and listened to people from all across the country and brought back the comments, involving themselves in a most democratic process.

When I heard the minister's comment, I was just astounded by the hypocrisy of what he said in the House and what he did to the report of the environment committee. I understand that there were over 300 amendments put forward by the committee, good, solid amendments that were all supported by the committee. Nevertheless, the report was trashed by the Minister of the Environment and his people.

What we have here is a formula that will be so detrimental to Canadians across the country, particularly but not exclusively to hard-working rural Canadians who rely on their land as a source of income or food, and I am speaking of the farming families, and to Canadians who have sought to escape the city core and have bought a two acre, three acre or five acre hobby farm in the country in order to provide a clean environment for their kids, both from a social and a nature point of view. This formula places this whole idea of getting back to the land at risk, because who really owns the land now? The people may have ownership of it, but they certainly do not have jurisdiction over it according to the bill.

I want to wind up by saying that the government has really dumped all over the people of Canada with the endangered species bill. No one, it appears in the government's mind, has the right and the security to own and enjoy property. In winding up I want to make a motion. I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me no great pleasure to rise once again on Bill C-5. It is tragic that the potential of this place, and the respect I have always had for it having always been a student of politics, has come to this when it does not need to.

A good number of people on the government side, perhaps not for the same reason, also see it as a bad piece of legislation. Here we are repeatedly expressing the same concerns over and over again because that is the only tool that is available to us.

I have been here for nine years. It is not long compared to some people, and certainly not long compared to the hon. member for Davenport who chairs the committee and who also has real concerns about the bill. I have always thought we could produce so much better legislation if we were to allow the committee to have a topic for a bill before it is introduced in the House. The all party committee would access the most expert opinions on any number of topics from anywhere in the world to develop and introduce a bill that would reflect the desires and the intentions of all parties in the House.

It seems so logical to me that after 130-some years in this place that would be the process we would have achieved to give a meaningful role not only to the ministers of the government, but to all members in the House and to all members of the various committees.

I do not understand the government. It gave the bill to the committee for some nine months and various members of the committee introduced some 300 amendments. There was some real co-operation and compromise in committee to come to a unanimous report. Then the minister, and therefore the government on instruction from the minister, turned around and rejected all the work that went into the committee report. I do not know whether that was a lack of confidence in the work of the committee by the minister or whether that was a power play by the bureaucrats who draft these bills and cannot stand to see anybody change the bill that they intended by introducing amendments.

It is a process that is severely flawed and could be so much better and more productive in this place. To engage in this kind of endless filibustering is frustrating and a non-productive use of our time.

The other concern I have with the bill is that of a landowner and a rancher which I have been all my life. Both my wife and I have always been proud to be raised on the farm. We decided we wanted to have a ranch, to raise animals and raise our family in that environment. We have always considered ourselves pretty dedicated stewards of the land and protectors of the environment and the species that live in that environment. We always had a dream to do that. Over the years that dream has been somewhat altered because of the economic realities of agriculture today and the modest living that we are allowed to get out of that enterprise.

It makes me quite angry that for some 40 years or better of my life I worked in all parts around the globe to sustain a dream of being a landowner and rancher and then see the government abuse its power, to be able to take that dream away from me without compensation. I find that difficult and arrogant.

From that perspective it upsets me. It upsets me that there are people in this place, and in the country, who are so arrogant that they think they can change a process that has been going on this planet for millions of years. Species have been adapting and evolving. Climate has been changing and forcing the adaptation and evolution of species for as long as the planet has existed and it will continue for another million years. Certainly we have a responsibility as human beings to do everything we can on the planet to mitigate our influence on the planet but to think that we can actually halt or reverse that process is arrogant beyond belief. It is hard to understand how we can do that.

I will address some of the concerns of the bill. I recently received a letter as a result of an obvious and unexplainable flip-flop and change in direction by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association from a position opposing the bill to a position supporting the bill. The letter was from a fellow rancher who, instead of engaging in work in the oil field as I did to support my habit of ranching, became a lawyer so he could be a rancher. He is the director of the Western Stock Growers' Association. He expressed his concern with the decision of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association to change its position on the bill by saying:

We believe the vast majority of those persons involved in raising cattle in Canada would not support a law which would allow their federal government to confiscate their land without fair compensation under the guise of protecting habitat (their land) of a species at risk; as well as the other issues addressed in the fact sheet faxed herein.

I agree with him. I do not know what in the world was offered to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association to convince it to change its mind. It is beyond belief. I was a member of that organization for many years. Certainly in the decision it made it is not doing the job that it was elected to do in representing the interests of cattle owners.

One of the other aspects of the bill that strikes terror in my heart, and it should strike terror in the hearts of most people, is the fact that for even unintended violations of the bill a landowner could face extremely severe penalties under the law, up to a million dollars and five years in jail.

Most landowners make a modest living from the land for the work they do. To be forced into a situation where they must defend themselves through the legal system against that kind of penalty should strike fear into the hearts of those people because very few of those people engaged in farming and ranching have the resources to defend themselves against the Government of Canada and against this kind of charge.

It would literally destroy them, bankrupt them and take away the livelihood that they had worked hard to put in place for themselves. That alone should make members think differently. Landowners do not have the same privileges as members of the House whose legal defence bills are picked up by the taxpayers of Canada.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that message being passed. I have a lot of respect for the hon. gentleman who just spoke. I also suggest, however, that it does not just necessarily have to be members of the government who sat in the committee who could speak to this legislation. It can be any member of the sitting government that can speak, and speak favourably, to the committee's work. That is to what I was alluding. I was suggesting that the committee actually work the way a committee should work.

First, I would like to congratulate our member who sat on that committee for hours on end listening to stakeholders, witnesses and to people who had some very valid points to bring forward. The member for Fundy--Royal was very excited that even government members on that committee accepted some of his amendments in the committee stage. That is how a committee should work.

Unfortunately, somewhere between the time the committee accepted those amendments and the time they hit the House floor other amendments were put forward that changed the whole legislation. We will speak to those because that indeed is what we are talking about today with respect to Group No. 4. I know the hon. member from the government side who just chastised me would be very happy to realize that one amendment the committee asked for was a five year review of the legislation.

That is not an unheard of request. We have asked for sunset clauses on other pieces of legislation, but in this case the committee suggested that there should be a five year review of this legislation. Is that so terrible? We do not know how the legislation will affect endangered species or species at risk five years from now, so let us go back and review it. However coming forward in Group No. 4 is a government amendment suggesting that that not happen.

For what reason, I do not know. I am sure the hon. member would agree with me that it was a good idea to bring the legislation back for review in five years. However the government has decided it is not necessary, that it knows best and that the legislation can go on in perpetuity or until it decides to bring it forward.

This is the third kick at the cat in bringing this legislation forward. The first two kicks at the cat never happened because it was defeated on the order paper. In effect the government has had 10 years to bring the legislation forward but it does not want to review it in five years. To me it does not make any sense, especially when the committee suggested that that happen. To have a Liberal government member vote against this suggestion from the committee is, in my opinion, voting against the committee and the committee form of government that presently exists.

The second thing is that the committee put forward an amendment, and the hon. member will remember this, to establish a council of first nations members to advise the minister. A committee suggested that the amendment come forward, yet it has been changed. The hon. member is going to stand now in the House and explain why he and the rest of his government colleagues are going to vote against the absolute opportunity to have a committee of first nations members come forward to advise the minister on issues of species at risk. The government has gutted it out. The committee wanted it to happen.

The first nations who were given that opportunity are mad, as they rightfully should be. They were the ones who suggested that this was a very good change to the legislation. It was agreed to at committee and now it is not going to happen. In fact the member for Churchill River has tabled a compromise, an amendment, that the government should accept.

The committee said as part of Group No. 4 that the government must consult with the provinces and the territories. That is what the committee said.

These are species at risk. These are endangered species. What is co-operative federalism if not discussing these very issues with the provinces and territories that it serves? That came from the committee. What a great idea. Let us actually sit down and talk to the provinces that have legislation with respect to endangered species. Let us sit down and talk to the territories that know more about their property and the endangered species of their particular areas.

We just talked about an orchid in Manitoba which I was not aware of. Who better to know about that orchid than the member from the province of Manitoba? Is it not a good idea that the government have co-operative federalism and talk to provinces and territories? Guess what? The committee felt that it was. However, when it came forward the minister felt that it was not necessary. The government decided it did not have to talk to the provinces and territories and it should not have that co-operation in the legislation.

Bill C-5 has other deficiencies. One of the major deficiencies is the issue of compensation. The Canadian Real Estate Association was on Parliament Hill today and yesterday. Believe it or not it had three issues that it wanted to talk about. One of the issues was species at risk act. Is it not rather strange that a real estate association would want to speak to species at risk? It spoke to the same issue that the hon. member for Fundy--Royal spoke to with respect to the legislation. It spoke to the fact that there should be compensation built into the legislation for property owners. There should be a compensation built into the legislation for people who will be affected by species at risk.

Why did it not happen? Because the government changed it. Now, unfortunately, the government is under no obligation to provide a compensation package unless of course the circumstance is an extraordinary one. That is a bit of an interpretation. Who will interpret what extraordinary is? Who will interpret if in fact there should be an obligation to that particular landowner with respect to species at risk? The courts will have a heyday. At this point in time the government is off the hook because it could let this thing run for years if in fact there even is a legitimate requirement for compensation from one of these circumstances.

The legislation could have been supported and passed. Unfortunately the way it is right now the amendments that have been brought forward in Group No. 4 cannot be agreed to by the Progressive Conservative Party. They cannot be agreed to by the majority of people on this side and I hope, for those people who are prepared to logically listen to the arguments on the government side, will not be supported by those members as well.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise today to speak to the category amendments on Bill C-5. It is important to point out that I wish it was not just simply members of the opposition who spoke with respect to the bill. It would be nice to have members of the government speak to the bill, particularly those members who sat on the committee, who put forward such good amendments at the committee level and who insisted upon changes to a piece of legislation that made it very workable. They made it a piece of legislation that I am sure, had it come forward from the committee the way it was debated, would have been approved by all of the members of the House, including those who sit on this side. I wish that some of those committee--

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to stand in the House of Commons, the House of the representatives of the people of Canada, to debate this very important bill, Bill C-5, a bill relating to the preservation of species at risk.

I believe this is an historic debate today. It will be one of the most significant debates of the last eight or nine years. The reason I say that is very simple. I have a belief in my heart that this will probably be the first government bill to be defeated in the House.

That in itself is a very optimistic statement but I really expect that this time all the Liberal members who worked so hard in committee to do what was right and who have been so dumped on by the whip and the government bureaucracy in this bill, will rise, as I think many of their colleagues will, in revolt. I would encourage them to do so.

I have to relate a little story. Not long ago I told one of the editors of a major paper in my riding of an instance in the House a number of weeks ago when there were no Liberals members at all. I am not speaking about now. I told the editor of the paper how I walked across the aisle and sat on the government side. I was perhaps out of order but I actually sat in the Prime Minister's chair, being the only member on that side of the House. I gave the excuse that there was a member on this side speaking and that it was very difficult to speak if one did not have an audience. I also said that there was something symbolic about the situation. I said that if no Liberals were ready to properly run the country that symbolically we were.

I told that to the reporter and she reported it in the paper. She said that I was a cheeky MP. Perhaps what I did on that occasion was cheeky but I made the point that government members, who have the majority and who by standing on a vote can cause a bill to pass or fail, have an awesome responsibility.

In this particular instance I think they have a wonderful opportunity to restore the sense of democracy, which ought to prevail in the House in any case, and that is that the wisdom of the committee and of the witnesses that were heard should actually be taken into account and should positively influence the legislation with which we are dealing.

Speaking of cheeky, I think if anyone is cheeky it is the arrogant Liberal government on the other side which thinks that whatever it comes up with in the back rooms cannot be revised or amended.

If any one of us in our relationship with other people, with our businesses or with our families were to give the impression that we could never make a mistake, that whatever we said was absolutely right and that whatever anyone else said was just automatically wrong because we did not say it, that would be the height of arrogance and it would go nowhere.

I believe that is what is happening with the bill, and I am very sad about it. The committee worked hard, heard from witnesses and made a number of recommendations to amend the bill and improve it.

Lo and behold, we come to third reading, because the committee reported. This was reported by all members of the committee, not just from one party or another. I believe in many instances these amendments were passed in committee unanimously. The committee reported Bill C-5 back to the House with amendments.

What happened after that? The government introduced a whole bunch of amendments at third reading. The only purpose of those third reading amendments was to nullify the work of all the witnesses and all the committee members.

I know that when I use certain words they reflect back on myself but I really cannot think of any other words to use than the words, what blatant arrogance. It is very unwise. I wish the government would wake up and recognize the collective investment Canadians put into their parliamentarians. It is not cheap. We know the expense of having individual member of parliament here, the office staff, the office costs and the travel costs, not to mention the salaries and the forthcoming pensions. All of that is a huge investment on the part of Canadians. I think it is about time that Canadians received value for that dollar.

If the Liberal members are not willing to finally assert themselves on this occasion, the best occasion I have seen in the over eight years I have been in parliament, and say that the work they did was valid, that they will stand by their work and that they will stand and vote against the amendments which nullify their work , then I think they will have missed a golden opportunity.

I was a math-physics major but I know somebody somewhere said that there is an opportunity, there is a chance given to men that comes but once. I think it goes something like, “a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the maximum leads on to fortune”. I have not referred to that poem since I was in high school. I am sure members can tell by looking at my hair that it was not years ago but decades ago. This is an opportunity for members to react.

My colleagues have talked about these different amendments. I think it would be a waste of my time to go through all those amendment again. My appeal is simply to those members who will read this speech in Hansard or who are watching it now on closed circuit television in the House of Commons, and my appeal to them is very straightforward. Let us do what Canadian taxpayers and Canadian voters have sent us here to do and are paying us here to do, which is to do what is right.

I would like to emphasize this further. In my whole life I have not very often been able to say that everything I have done today is right. I probably make one or two mistakes every day, sometimes three or four and sometimes more. I think it is a missed opportunity on the part of the government to not listen to the committee and to the witnesses who appeared before that committee. It is forcing through a bill with a bunch of amendments to get its way when what that produces is a bill far less effective than the bill that would result if these amendments by the government would be turned down in order to give us the bill that the committee studied and improved.

Why would the government not want to have an improved bill? We walk into the stores and we see soap and bread that is new and improved. It is better than it was before.

I subscribe to the theory that when the bill went to committee it was not as good as the bill which came back from committee because of the work members of the committee expended on it. They studied it and came up with some amendments.

I have to emphasize over and over again that the members of the House, who really believe their work was valuable and that they did improve the bill, should, in this particular case, although I hate to counsel defiance, defy the authority of their whip, stand their ground and say that they have done good work and that they will stand by it. I would like to see that. I intend to do that. I will vote against these amendments which undo the committee work. I invite all hon. members to join me in that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to join in this important debate on Bill C-5, the species at risk bill. I believe it is important that I go on record to state categorically that legislation on species at risk is of course extremely important. We must be good stewards of the land, the water and the air that God has given to us. Along with my fellow members of the Canadian Alliance, I am committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and, of course, endangered species.

That is why it is with a certain degree of sadness that I must say it is so unfortunate that the legislation actually falls short of making any kind of sense. There are many aspects that cause me great concern. Of primary concern, of course, is that I do not believe that this act will actually work as it plays itself out unless it guarantees fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who will suffer losses under this present legislation. The farmers, ranchers and other property owners who also want to protect endangered species should not be forced to do so at the expense of their own livelihoods.

There are several issues specific to the Group No. 4 amendments, which simply do not meet the standard of parliamentary democracy that all members of the House should be upholding. Committees are intended to be masters of their own destiny and rightly so. However, when the environment minister sets aside the committee's recommendations and ignores its deliberations I believe that something is very wrong with the current state of the House of Commons.

Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20 deal with aspects of the national aboriginal committee. The standing committee had originally intended to create a national aboriginal council, but the government instead wants to call it a committee. This seems to border on semantics and therefore we have several amendments today that change “council” to “committee”. It troubles me that the name change from council to committee reverses the standing committee's work with no good justification.

This is just one more example of the government, or perhaps I should say more correctly the Prime Minister's Office, showing nothing more than contempt for the work of this parliamentary committee and its own MPs. These are changes made just for the sake of wielding power. Unfortunately we have seen the Prime Minister's Office, through the whip, doing this on more than one occasion in the past. Is it any wonder that Canadians stayed away from the ballot box in record numbers during the last election? They feel cynical about the voice that their own representatives have in the House of Commons. When the backbenchers of any government are so restricted as to not even be able to adequately represent their own constituents and the very deliberations of their respective committees, we must recognize that democracy is gone and the dictatorship of the Prime Minister's Office has taken its place.

The idea of an aboriginal committee is in itself acceptable. In many parts of Canada, especially the northern reaches of the provinces as well as the far north, native people have an intimate knowledge of the land. Therefore, consultation with them is appropriate and desired in addition to consultation with the other stakeholders such as property owners and resource users. Motion No. 6 by the government calls for nothing more than the deletion of the term national aboriginal council, which is replaced with the term aboriginal committee later on in clause 7. This type of name change is nothing less than a slap in the face of the standing committee. It does not justify reversing the work of the committee. We must remember that these changes were initiated by Liberal members on the committee. This shows the government's contempt for the work of parliamentary committees as well as its own MPs. Certainly on that basis alone I will be opposing this amendment.

Motion No. 16 follows the same pattern by diluting the role that the aboriginal committee would have with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. Let us remember that this council is made up of the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and ministers of the government of a province or a territory who are responsible for the conservation and management of a wildlife species in that province or territory. I believe that we run the risk of making decisions based upon political rhetoric rather than sound, good science. In honour of the committee's original recommendations, I will be opposing this motion as well.

Motions Nos. 17 and 20 continue this pattern of disrespect by the PMO and the government whip. With the respect that I have for standing committee deliberations, I will oppose them also.

The next section of amendments deals with the creation of stewardship action plans. The government is introducing such far reaching amendments to the standing committee's work that all members of the House need to take special note of it. Again we see the utter contempt of the PMO for the work of a parliamentary committee.

Originally the standing committee had required that the stewardship action plans must include a commitment to regularly examine any tax treatment and subsidies, as well as to eliminate disincentives. This is vital and yet what does the government want to do? The government wants to delete this language from the bill.

The government seems to believe that compensation is not just a cash payment but could involve other things like tax treatments which are so vital to farmers and other property owners. The government is attempting, through the use of tax incentives and disincentives, to force land and resource owners to bend to the government's will.

The bottom line appears to be that if the landowner does not follow the wishes of the government, the government will find other means of achieving its political decision.

Farmers in particular have been hit so hard these past number of years through drought, flood and global subsidy wars why on earth would the government want to put one more economic barrier in front of them?

As I have already stated, I believe that decisions, such as those involving species at risk, should be made on real science not political lobbying or political expedience.

Now the government wants to delete the standing committee's requirement that stewardship action plans provide technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities. As an alternative, the government will make information relating to technical and scientific support available to persons engaged in stewardship activities.

This small but significant difference means that instead of giving property owners real assistance by sharing data on the presence of endangered species or assistance in configuring their property to protect sensitive habitat, the government can simply mail a pamphlet to them.

All is not gloom and doom today. I am pleased that the government has brought forward Motions Nos. 24 and 114. Motion No. 24 strengthens the legislation by placing a copy of the stewardship action plan in the public registry. I believe this is consistent with the other provisions of the bill that provide transparency. This is a positive amendment that would increase the flow of information to the public.

Motion No. 114 requires that management plans that adopt existing plans are considered to be proposed management plans until also subject to a public comment period. The intent of the motion is to accommodate the changes made by the standing committee to the bill which would establish proposed management plans. Although this is primarily a technical amendment, I will be supporting it.

Unfortunately, the remainder of the amendments run counter to the proposals made by the standing committee to the bill and, as such, I will be opposing the remainder of them.

I know my time is running short and I did want to mention concerns regarding the public consultation process under the bill, specifically the five year review and the maximum public information available.

Initially the bill had provided for a parliamentary review of the species at risk act five years after coming into force. The standing committee added the additional requirement that it be subsequently reviewed at five year intervals. However government Motion No. 130 removes the standing committee amendment and instead would put the onus on parliament to put a review on the agenda should it deem it necessary.

I believe that this is wrong and again shows contempt for the standing committee. Greater accountability and public involvement should be an integral part of our democratic process.

The government had an opportunity to do something really good. Species at risk is something with which we are all concerned, and rightly so. Unfortunately this legislation is flawed and the government amendments further take away from the legitimacy of the bill as well.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

And that is mandatory, as my colleague says, but I guess it is better late than never.

With the deletion of the standing committee's amendment, I doubt that the legislation will be reviewed by parliament until there is a more responsible party at its helm.

I could go on citing examples of how the Liberal government, or should I say certain cabinet ministers, because the members of the standing committee have not been listened to, has contemptibly changed the committee's report but I think the point has been made.

In conclusion I would simply like to point out to Canadians the utter lack of respect the government has for individuals in this country, including its own backbenchers and the legions of expert witnesses who were heard on these issues at the standing committee.

The rest of Group No. 4 deals with public consultation on issues surrounding Bill C-5 and I dare say that these consultations will simply be a farce, just like the hearings of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development were on Bill C-5.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate the Group No. 4 amendments to Bill C-5. In this grouping there is a common theme and it is an especially disturbing theme. That theme is one of outright interference in the work of a parliamentary committee. Canadians should be very concerned with the government's actions.

As many of my colleagues have already noted, it cannot be stressed enough that when a committee of the House of Commons is charged with examining a piece of legislation, that work must be taken seriously. Enormous time and resources are spent hearing from expert witnesses and making subsequent recommendations for changes to that legislation. The contempt that the government has shown for the work of the environment committee is astounding.

Group No. 4 highlights that contempt in many ways. First, Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20 deal with aspects of the creation of a national aboriginal committee. The environment committee called for the creation of this body clearly because natives have a close relationship with the land, especially in the north, and so consultation over habitat and species at risk with them is vital.

The committee's report called for this new body to be called the national aboriginal council. In this instance, the government changed the word council to committee apparently simply for the sake of making the change. There is no good reason to make such a change. This is perhaps the most blatant of the changes that show the contempt this government has for the work of its committee which, I might add, is dominated by government backbenchers.

I will present to the Chair several more examples of tampering with the work of the committee before I am finished today, but before I do so I would like to say a few more words about the national aboriginal committee. As I mentioned earlier, the creation of the committee itself is acceptable given the relationship that natives have with the land. Therefore, consultation with them is very appropriate. It is also important to mention in the same breath that it will be equally as important to consult with other stakeholders such as property owners and resource users. The existence of the national aboriginal committee should not preclude wider consultation with others, and special care must be taken to ensure that it does not become a special conduit for race related political concerns.

The administration of the act must concern itself with the protection of endangered species in a sustainable socioeconomic manner. Special privileges and exemptions from the act's application should not be based on race. I am very skeptical, however, that the government will ever be able to live up to this standard as it is clear that the government already discriminates based on race. This is exemplified in the current sentencing provisions of criminal code section 718, where aboriginal Canadians are already given special consideration based on their race alone. My concern of course is that they will be given different treatment for contravening this act than will any other landowner or corporation.

Next I would like to discuss the creation of stewardship action plans. Once again, Motion No. 25 is one that the government is introducing and that completely overrides the committee's work. I cannot even begin to imagine the frustration of government members of the environment committee who, with the co-operation of the opposition, created a report for parliament only to have it totally ignored by their colleagues in cabinet.

The standing committee had required that stewardship action plans must include a commitment to regularly examine “tax treatment and subsidies” and “to eliminate disincentives”. The government wants to delete this vital language. It shows that compensation is not just a cash payment. It could involve other things like tax treatment, things that are so vital to farmers and other property owners. In addition, the government always wants to create incentives and programs, but it must be forced to confront the realities of disincentives. There are usually good reasons why people do not respond the way bureaucrats think they should.

The government also wants to delete the standing committee's requirement that stewardship action plans provide technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities. Instead, it will:

provide information relating to the technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities.

This is a small but significant difference. Now, instead of giving property owners real assistance by sharing data on the presence of endangered species or assistance in configuring their property to protect sensitive habitat, the government can, for example, mail them a pamphlet. Gee whiz and thanks, especially when one considers the very serious criminal penalties for knowingly or unknowingly contravening the act.

Continuing with the theme of tampering with standing committee work, I would like to point out Motion No. 130, which will remove yet another of the standing committee's amendments to the bill. Initially the bill had provided for a parliamentary review of the species at risk act five years after it came into force. The standing committee added the additional requirement that it be subsequently reviewed at five year intervals. Motion No. 130 from the government would remove the standing committee amendment. It does not think that automatic five year reviews are needed and instead would put the onus on parliament to put a review on the agenda should it deem a review necessary.

I would like to point out that I currently sit on the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights and we are now in the process of reviewing the mental disorder provisions of the criminal code, which actually have a mandatory five year review clause. The legislation was passed and implemented in 1991. The review should have been undertaken over five years ago, but we are just getting to it now, today.