Bill C-5 (Historical)

Species at Risk Act

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

Species at Risk Act

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise once again to speak to Bill C-5. Let me begin by confirming that the Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species.

The bill, as drafted, has serious flaws which could ultimately work against the goal and the intent of the bill which is to save endangered species and plants. Not only that, but the bill contains numerous flaws in the way the public and property owners are to be compensated, consulted and informed if at all in some cases. If that is not enough, it legislates segregation that will put Canadians under different rules depending on who their parents are. It has no place in a country such as Canada.

The government has failed miserably with the softwood lumber agreement and innocent victims are paying for that cost across this country. We cannot afford to let that happen again. The endangered species bill must be treated very seriously, not just rewritten and changed on the whim of the PMO.

Let us start with respect. First, the PMO's draft makes this flawed bill worse. In addition it flies in the face of parliamentary democracy. For example, in Motion Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20 relating to Bill C-5, the standing committee wanted to create a national aboriginal council. The PMO instead wants to call it a committee. It is changing the words in various clauses.

The idea of an aboriginal committee is acceptable. Clearly in many places, especially in the north, natives have a kinship with the land and so consultation with them is appropriate, just as it is with other stakeholders such as property owners and resource based industries. However the name change from council to committee reverses the standing committee's work without justification. The government, in a contemptuous manner, is showing complete disregard for the hard work and the expertise of the parliamentary committee and its own MPs. How does this top-down control from the Prime Minister's Office help protect endangered species?

I would like to address the area of compensation. What upsets me most about the bill is that landowners risk losing the use of their land to save a species and there is no commitment from the government to compensate. The act will not work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation to 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 shift in the cost to the landowners is inexcusable. It creates a disincentive for them to protect the endangered species. That is what this is supposed to accomplish. There must be guaranteed compensation to landowners for the loss of their property so that we can be sure that both the interests of the species and the people who live alongside them will be accommodated.

Government Motion No. 25 removes any recognition that property owners face hardship by protecting endangered species. The legislation not only fails to see reality but also fails to recognize the financial burden this act would potentially place on landowners.

We are projected to spend $45 million for species at risk, a small amount of money when we consider we are trying to protect animals and plant life that may disappear from this earth forever. The government has deemed fit to spend over $700 million for gun registry. It has not worked. It will not solve the problem. We spent $101 million for luxury jets we did not need. Now, according to today's auditor general's report, we are writing off $1 billion a year in taxes.

One has to ask what the government is thinking when we see such twisted priorities. Perhaps a better use for taxpayer money would be to aid the landowners for the loss of their property. We need to protect endangered species and in preventing their extinction, we also must protect the rights of landowners before they too become extinct. We must give adequate compensation. Until that is addressed within the bill, I will not support it and neither will my party.

Consultation with the public on bills and issues that concern them is a hallmark of our democracy. Instead of working together with the provinces and property owners to protect endangered species, the federal government is introducing uncertainty, resentment and distrust with its refusal to conduct real consultation with the public and affected stakeholders.

It is of fundamental importance to make consultation as wide as possible. The government must not only listen but heed what is said by stakeholders and ensure that consultations have a real impact on the administration of the act and are not just simply done for show.

Given the harsh criminal sanctions contained in the bill, it is completely unacceptable for the minister to possess information about the presence of a listed species and withhold that information from the landowner. Under these guidelines, due to government imposed ignorance, people can be guilty of a criminal offence if they unknowingly harm a species or its habitat.

Therefore, our second amendment requires that regardless whether the minister publicly releases information about the presence of a species or not, he must in all cases advise the affected landowner. Given the criminal sanctions involved, this is only fair.

Sadly, the government is treating the Canadian public with the same respect it afforded the parliamentary standing committee. Any consultations that do take place will not be in good faith since it has already made up its mind on all the key points and is unwilling to listen to other points of view.

There is a systemic problem with the secretive government in releasing information. This unfortunate quality applies to Bill C-5 as well. There are severe criminal sanctions contained in the bill, yet the government does not want to release relevant information to affected stakeholders. Does that make any sense?

Government Motion No. 126 deletes the requirement for “all ministerial reports including listing decisions” to be entered in a public registry. This reduces transparency and public access to important documents giving insight into how the list of endangered species is developed. In the interest of transparency, all relevant documents should be made available through open channels instead of forcing citizens to go through the loops, the hassles and the delays of access to information requests.

We support putting maximum information into the registry so that interested stakeholders may see what is happening. The fact is the implication of an agreement between the government and one person may have far reaching consequences on his or her neighbours. Transparency is essential. Transparency is defined as being able to see clearly, not translucent where one can sort of see but cannot tell what is going on.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-5.

As we debate the bill I am reminded this is not the first time it has been debated. There have been other manifestations of the bill in previous years and other parliaments. As we were considering this issue in one of those debates I received a phone call from a lady in Ontario not too far from where we are right now. I have told this story in the House before but I am going to repeat it.

This lady was told that under the Ontario species at risk legislation, she was going to be forced to give up the use of a piece of property she had bought. She had purchased a piece of vacant land. She had an idea in mind and she borrowed a considerable amount of money to purchase this piece of property and then paid the costs of planning and developing. Before it was finished, she was notified that the property was no longer available for the use she had planned on and that an endangered species had been discovered on it. It was a bird, I believe it was a shrike. I wish I could remember the specific name. In any case this lady said that whatever we do, we should keep in mind the people who innocently get involved in situations like this.

This lady bought the property, paid for it and owed the money to the bank. No one is going to buy it back from her. What is she going to do besides suffer the consequences of not being able to take advantage of an investment she made and not being able to repay it? The money she had saved, the money she was able to borrow and the resources she used to guarantee the loan were all lost.

This is a consequence of highhanded legislation where a government has as its lowest priority those people it purports to represent. This situation is not new. There have been other stories and incidents like this one that the government has been able to take advantage of, but because it has the authority, the power and the majority in parliament under the whip to enforce that power, the taxpayers, Canadian citizens, the ones who are supposed to benefit from the resources of this vast, beautiful and rich country of ours, are left without. They are ditched.

At committee a number of amendments were proposed to the legislation that would allow public consultation to include members of the public. Those who were faced with finding endangered species on their property would be allowed to enter into a relationship with authorities and conservation officials using the guidelines of the legislation. They would work together in a co-operative manner to protect endangered species.

What would happen if someone inadvertently walked across a valuable piece of property and found an endangered species? Would the temptation be to run and tell someone and face the risk of having that property confiscated, taken away, not to be used? Not a chance. As a matter of fact, when the loggers were faced with the spotted owl threat earlier on, a well-known official told his people “If you see one of those things, shoot the damn thing and get a shovel and bury it”.

We are concerned about endangered species. There must be a co-operative effort initiated by the government in legislation such as this, but unfortunately not with this legislation, so people can co-operate with those who are concerned about the loss of endangered species. There must be a method of public consultation whereby people clearly know the rules. If there is an endangered species, people can begin to co-operate immediately for the benefit of that species and not be faced with the threat of losing what they have or faced with the consequences and all of the costs of the unfortunate discovery of an endangered species on their property.

As one who was born to rural life and lived on a ranch, it is a wonderful thing to be involved with the various species of birds, animals, plant life and micro-organisms. I can remember as a child being on my belly watching things like frog eggs. It is something that we must cherish. It is something that is part of our Canadian heritage. We must not allow people in areas that have no responsibility for endangered species to take over control of the program so that those who bear the burden must suffer all the consequences.

It has been my observation that in the House we are often told that Canadians are a community of people. Yet in this circumstance it is not the community that is bearing the consequences or the costs; it is the individual. The legislation, with the amendments the government has introduced, strips the consultative process from this.

For example, most of the amendments in Group No. 4 concern issues of notice, public consultation and discussion. This presents opportunities to stress the fundamental importance of making consultations as wide as possible, of ensuring that consultations have a real impact on the administration of the act and are not done simply for show.

Included in this was the proposal for a five year review of the act. 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 however will remove this standing committee amendment. It does not think the automatic five years are needed and instead would put the onus on parliament to put a review on the agenda should it be deemed necessary.

You and I, Madam Speaker, have sat at committee together. We have worked in parliament enough to know that parliament does not do anything until the executive decides that parliament will do it. How will parliament do what needs to be done, to put something on the agenda if the government has already determined it is not necessary? This is totally wrong. It denies people the input, the opportunity to be consulted, to know, to respond favourably and to act in a co-operative manner for something of which we are all in favour.

Not only is it contemptuous again of the standing committee, it removes an opportunity for greater accountability and for public involvement. Mandatory reviews of legislation, not quite as effective as a sunset clause but perhaps a close second, are important for ensuring that an act is working as intended and for creating an opportunity to make changes that will simply not be left to the whim of the government House leader of the day to fit his particular agenda.

This is basic democracy. It is accountability. It ensures that legislation is ever kept current, ever kept green.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-5, the species at risk act. Before I do that once again I thank my colleagues in the House who have sent me best wishes, flowers and prayers for my speedy recovery. Since this is my first day back I have gone from an S.O. 31, to questions, and to debate all in one day. It shows that I have regained my strength. I am happy to be here and to represent the constituents of Calgary East.

I grew up in Africa. I was born very close to one of the world's most renowned national parks, the Ngorongora Conservation Area near the Ngorongora crater. During the time that I was growing up I had the great privilege of seeing and observing wildlife that is home to that part of the world. It is one of the best places where one can see wildlife in its natural habitat. Conservation has been important to me; it is paramount. It grew up with me. I always take an interest in looking at and ensuring that we have good conservation policies.

While growing up in Africa near this national park it became evident, after the boundaries of the national parks were made, that poaching as well as the killing of animals was taking place because the people who lived near the park derived no benefit from the national park. For sound management practices, to ensure that the wildlife was not put at risk, it became necessary for the management of this wildlife to become partners with the local population who lived near there to ensure the viability of that national park. This became one of the important issues.

Today, most people and governments recognize that if they do not work in partnership with the people who are the players then they cannot have good conservation policies. That is what is missing in Bill C-5.

We are not making people partners in Bill C-5. We are telling them what we want, but that does not mean they are partners in the conservation process. Most people who believe in conservation will know that if we do not make them partners the conservation practices will not last for long. We are putting species at more risk if we do not make people partners. That is what is wrong with the species at risk act.

The Canadian Alliance is not opposed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species. As a matter of fact not only in Canada but the world over. Our opposition to the bill does not mean that the Canadian Alliance is opposed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment.

We want to outline what is wrong with the bill. We are not making the people who will be affected by the species at risk act as partners. I am talking of landowners, land users, et cetera. There is no compensation process. The government's own committee pointed that out.

Interestingly, my office receives many postcards from conservationists who ask us to support the bill. If I receive a postcard asking me to protect species at risk, I will say yes. Who would not say yes? However the message misses all the other points. It misses the issue of compensation and the review period. These were highlighted in committee by experts and Liberal members agreed to those points.

There is a campaign now where individuals are sending a message about species at risk. It seems to have reached the PMO. It is giving direction to individuals to ignore what the experts have said and to ignore what everybody has said. These higher officials are telling people how it will be done. The bureaucrats say they will do it because there seems to be a campaign going on.

Why am I talking about this campaign? The reason is because my office has received numerous postcards telling me to vote for the species at risk legislation. I have written to these individuals explaining that there are problems with the bill and outlining the problems. I tell them we need to fix it and get it right. What is wrong with getting it right? All the government has to do is get it right and get going so we can genuinely protect species at risk.

We have problems in the bill which have already been highlighted. I recall speaking to the bill when it came out for the first time. I highlighted the same issues at that time. I wonder who is listening. The environment committee made recommendations and nobody listened. The government refused to listen.

This issue begs a number of questions. Will the bill protect species at risk? Is the bill drawn up in the right manner? Is it consistent with the objectives of ensuring that species at risk are protected for years to come? This is not a five year situation. We must protect endangered species for years to come.

The bill is flawed. Many members will rise and speak against the bill. The Canadian Alliance is opposed to the legislation. I know I am repeating myself when I say that the Alliance is not against protecting and preserving Canada's wildlife, but I want to ensure Liberal members do not say that the Alliance is not in favour of protecting and preserving Canada's natural wildlife. They have a habit twisting the message around. That is why I keep repeating the message. The Canadian Alliance is not against protecting and preserving Canada's wildlife.

How can we support a bill that even the experts say requires refinement so it is done right in the first place? It will now be left up to the whim of the government to decide when to review the legislation. Based on past whims of the government we know things change. We know the government is fast asleep. The bureaucracy moves slowly. We just need to look at the immigration bill and how long it took before it was reviewed.

The Canadian Alliance supports protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment, but we cannot support Bill C-5 for the reasons outlined.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we resume the debate on Bill C-5, I want to clarify where the Canadian Alliance stands with respect to the species at risk act.

The Canadian Alliance is perfectly committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species, let there be no mistake on that, but we do have some major concerns with Bill C-5, as I will lay out and as have other members very capably laid out over the course of this day.

Alliance members do not believe that Bill C-5 would work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. Many of us who have spoken in recent days have farmers and ranchers in our constituencies. Those individuals want to protect endangered species but they should not be forced to do so at the expense of their own livelihoods, and therein comes the rub.

We have insisted all along that criminal liability must require intent. The act in this case would make criminals out of good people who may inadvertently and unknowingly harm endangered species or their habitats. This is unnecessarily very confrontational and makes endangered species a threat to property owners. We need a co-operative approach, not the confrontation that seems to be a part of Bill C-5. We need co-operation with the provinces.

The 1996 national accord for the protection of species at risk was a step in the right direction. It needs to be developed co-operatively. Instead Bill C-5 would give the federal government the power to impose its laws on provincial lands. Since it is left completely at the minister's discretion, landowners do not know if and when the shoe would drop. Instead of working with the provinces and property owners, the federal government seems to be introducing and producing an uncertainty and a climate of resentment and distrust as well.

It appears that the government wants to amend only along certain lines. In effect it is reversing many of the positions taken by its own members of parliament on the environment committee. Unfortunately that is another example of some of the top down control by bureaucrats who wanted to go a particular way on this bill. It also shows a real contempt or disregard for government members across the way and members in the opposition benches here.

The government really has no idea what the costs and the socioeconomic implications of the legislation would be over time. In the minister's information supplement of October 2001, the Minister of the Environment said:

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 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) before we can be precise in prescribing eligibility and thresholds for compensation.

In speaking to the standing committee on October 3, 2001, the minister explained why he could not guarantee compensation in Bill C-5. He said:

We then got deeper and deeper into this and it became more and more of the proverbial swamp, and more and more difficult to do partly because, of course, governments should not pass legislation which is open-ended in terms of funding. We have fiscal responsibilities which, as you can well imagine, are fairly strict on us. Forty-five million a year is what we're given to run the process and that's what we can expect and that's it.

Any fair-minded person, in hearing that kind of a statement, and those hearing it today, would understand that to be a red flag. Is it not essential that the costs on industry, on property users and the cost on government in terms of enforcement resources be known by the government before it introduces legislation with such far reaching implications?

In particular, we want to know and have a little more close approximation of what the bill would cost farmers, loggers, fishermen, ranchers and so on. We want to know what the government's compensation costs would be as well. Without that information, individuals cannot plan and government does not know what costs are being passed on.

The Canadian Alliance proposed a motion in a previous group, Motion No. 15, which read:

The purposes of this Act, outlined in subsection (1), shall be pursued and accomplished in a manner consistent with the goals of sustainable development.

That is very important. It is closely related to socioeconomic interests because it requires that a balance be struck between the environmental goals and the needs of the taxpayer. Without considering this important aspect of sustainable development, environmental laws could quickly kill the goose that lays the golden egg, so to speak.

Worrying about endangered species is only something that prosperous economies can afford to do because someone must pay for it. Economic desperation will be no friend to species at risk so we must put that forward.

The species at risk working group was made up of representatives from a broad range of environmental and industry groups, among them the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and the Mining Association of Canada. When they appeared before the House standing committee in September 2000 they said the purpose of the act should be pursued to the extent possible while taking into account the social and economic interests of Canadians. That is a reasonable amendment that should be accepted by the House.

We put forward another motion which would require socioeconomic interests to be considered in the legal listing of species. The bill would already provide that it be considered in developing recovery measures.

Another great concern is the minister's wide discretionary powers. It can be a pretty scary thing. The minister could decide whether compensation should be given or not. He would have the power to decide how much compensation would be paid. The minister would decide whether provincial laws were effective or not and whether the federal government would step in to impose the law.

Those are the kind of wide powers that the minister would have. That kind of discretion is the opposite of transparency. On this very day on Parliament Hill there are a number of real estate agents. Various members have met with them through the course of the day. They have expressed to me personally the major concern they have about these wide discretionary powers granted to the minister in this particular bill.

The government has refused to provide any proper draft legislation about the process for compensation, who would qualify and how much one would receive? Those are pretty critical and essential points.

Where is the technical amendment which would provide a predictable process for property owners to seek compensation? The all party committee of the House said the minister must draft regulations but the government seems to want to stay away from that obligation. Where is the technical amendment which would set out the criteria that the minister would use to determine whether a provincial law would be effective or not? Again, the committee rightly put some criteria into the bill but the government wants to take that out as well.

The process for action plans and recovery plans needs to be transparent and so must the process in other areas as well.

Farmers, ranchers and other such people can be of real help to us. They can be our best allies in respect to a bill like this. Providing incentives for habitat protection by promoting good management practices is a good thing. The Canadian Alliance supports stewardship and incentives for protecting habitat. We believe that farmers and ranchers are some of the best conservationists and that their stewardship initiatives must be acknowledged and encouraged.

I know I speak for a wide variety of people, but certainly for those in my own constituency of Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, when I say that farmers understand the importance of maintaining a healthy environment. Farmers, ranchers and agricultural people are primary stakeholders and as such their rights must be respected in the bill before us today.

We believe there should be protection. We should preserve Canada's natural environment and endangered species as well as the sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations.

There are major concerns about the bill. It does not measure up. We are vigorously opposed to Bill C-5 in its current form. We will rue the day because of some of the implications, amplifications and fallout from the bill. Therefore we stand opposed to Bill C-5.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, what do the passenger pigeon, the Dawson's caribou and the blue walleye have in common? They are three of the 12 species identified by the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, as being extinct. That means that for future generations they will be as mythical as unicorns or Liberals in western Canada. A species which may have existed in the past, but has long since disappeared from the Earth are what these species are.

That a species that once thrived in Canada has vanished from the Earth within the last hundred years is cause for sadness. We cannot help feeling somehow responsible for asking ourselves what practical things we could have done to save these animals from extinction.

In addition to the 12 extinct species, there are 17 other species that are extirpated. This means that there may be some members of the species elsewhere in the world, but we have banished that species forever from our land. For example, the great prairie chicken has vanished from western landscape and grey whale will no longer be seen on our Atlantic shores.

Canadians are concerned when they hear that there are only 1,000 giant pandas in the world. We want to preserve this magnificent species. We see the heroic efforts made to keep the Chinese panda species alive and we are very much aware that Canada's heritage is not just our cultures that people bring to the land from other places. Our heritage also constitutes the species that make up this land which is our home, for just as the people who live here give our country a flavour like no other, so do the animal and plant species that make up a great part of the tapestry of Canada.

It is of no small concern that we find that there are hundreds of species in Canada that are either vulnerable, threatened or endangered or, in other words, on the road to extinction. The list includes badgers, chestnut trees, frogs, orchids, owls, snakes, sparrows, turtles and whales. It is a comprehensive list that spans from one end of this country clear to the other.

That is why I am so disappointed to see Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. The bill was introduced on February 2, 2001. Here we are, well over a year later, still discussing the bill. It is exactly that kind of glacial government reaction that keeps species on the endangered list or pushes them further down the slippery slope on the way to extinction.

If the government really wanted to save endangered species, it would have a broad education campaign aimed at making Canadians aware of what species live in their neighbourhoods and how to best foster a friendly environment.

For example, in my riding of Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam there is a small stream that flows into a second stream. Pacific salmon spawn in the second stream. Developers wanted to build a road across the small stream and to avoid any possible pollution of the second stream, the one where the salmon spawn, instead of using a viaduct to cross the small stream as is usually done, a bridge was built 70 feet above the small stream and the pylons were put far away from the stream bed, so as not to disturb the habitat. Building that bridge, the David Connector, cost a lot of money but in beautiful British Columbia the awareness and appreciation of our environment makes us prepared to take the extra steps to preserve the habitats of species at risk.

In the case I just mentioned, the federal Liberal government did not throw a single dime towards the cost of building a major bridge instead of a small viaduct. If the government were really concerned about protecting endangered species, it would have used some of the $4 billion plus that it collects from highway fuel taxes to build an infrastructure to bypass the habitats of species at risk.

The government might also have spent some of the money to educate the public, especially young students, as to why such a bridge made sense in that case. Instead of doing that, the city of Port Moody designed and built the bridge, the neighbourhood paid for it and I explained it to concerned constituents.

As I read through Bill C-5 and the group 4 amendments, I did not see the kind of practical problem solving that saved a spawning stream in my riding via the David Connector. Instead I see a government that does not want to involve the public in the broader issue of how to best protect species at risk, does not want federal tax dollars to be part of the solution and seems to be willing to subjugate its commitment to protecting species at risk to the practices of aboriginal communities.

As an MP from the lower mainland, I am very much aware of the recent controversial grey whale hunt by the Makah tribe in Washington state. At the same time, I take certain comfort from the fact that the Makah stopped the hunt in the 1920s because the species was at risk and only considered resuming the hunt at a rate of less than five adult males a year after the grey whale was removed from the endangered species list in 1994.

Today the beluga whale and the bowhead whale, as well as the peary caribou populations are at risk in various parts of the Canadian north.

I am concerned about the creation of a national aboriginal council, now to be renamed the national aboriginal committee. Certainly most Canadians would agree that the native communities in the Canadian north have probably forgotten more about beluga whales than I will ever know in my lifetime. It is clearly appropriate that their deep knowledge of the land on which they live, which is so necessary for their survival, should be drawn upon in our attempt to protect species at risk.

We must however ensure that once the input of the national aboriginal council is taken into account the final regulations bind everyone, native and non-native alike on a level playing field. It would simply be wrong to let race and culture based loopholes allow anyone to kill a member of a species that might be endangered and that Canadians want to protect.

If we had a government that was prepared to listen to the concerns of Canadians, issues like the one I just raised could be quickly decided. Given the appropriate goodwill, there is no doubt in my mind that the hunting and ceremonial concerns of Canada's first nations could be satisfied while protecting the species that shape the land on which we all live.

That however is not how the government wants to do things. Public dialogue and discussions is to this government what kryptonite was to Superman, a dangerous thing to be avoided at all costs.

In my riding of Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam I saw firsthand how public awareness of the importance of spawning streams influenced the decision to build a major bridge rather than a minor viaduct thereby protecting the natural habitat of a species of Pacific salmon.

Let the public in, listen to them, get them involved and they will be a step ahead of the political class every single time. That is why my party is calling for broad public consultations. We think that the public needs to be consulted before stewardship action plans are drawn up and that the proposed text of a stewardship arrangement should be included in the public registry for at least 60 days. Given that these affect not just the landowner but neighbourhood lands as well, anything that would restrict consultation with affected stakeholders should be vigorously opposed.

Further, the way the Liberals have conceived the bill, if a species is at risk and is found in a farmer's field, the government has the right to impose a stewardship action plan without paying the farmer any compensation whatsoever for the loss of his or her land.

Of the 387 species at risk identified by the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada there are three species of moss. These are the apple moss, Haller's apple moss and poor pocket moss.

I believe all Canadians want to see preserved every single one of the 387 species that are identified as being at risk. At the same time, if farmers find themselves in a situation where they will lose a field without any compensation whatsoever because of an endangered species of moss is found on it, those farmers will face tremendous temptation to go ahead and grab the rototiller. That is because the way the law is set up, farmers can lose their land by reporting that a species at risk has been found, and by being good citizens.

Canada's farmers are just as eager as the next person to promote and preserve the at risk species that share the land with us but the law must encourage them to be partners in the preservation effort rather than victims of an ill-conceived government scheme.

This concern is so great across the country that at the recent Canadian Alliance convention in Edmonton two separate resolutions were proposed to deal with this problem. The first read:

We recognize that Endangered Species Legislation must respect the fundamental rights of private property owners, include full compensation for affected landowners, and promote co-operation through incentives...

A second resolution dealing more broadly with the issue of property rights contained the comment:

This policy would require that full compensation be paid to farmers who lose the right to use allor part of their property as the result of regulation by endangered species laws.

The importance of properly compensating landowners cannot be overstated. If the government really wants to protect and preserve species at risk, it will ensure the buy in of those landowners where the species at risk reside. Most of us know that the carrot is better than the stick in this regard. Unfortunately for Canadians, the Liberal government has not learned this lesson.

Because of this, and all the reasons I enumerated above, I urge all members of the House not to support the bill and to vote for a new bill that is full of common sense ideas.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank you for recognizing the hon. member for Haliburton--Victoria--Brock because I thought what he had to say was very interesting. Perhaps before I get to what I had intended to say, I could comment on a couple of points, one in particular, that he brought up.

According to him, the government has examined and re-examined the bill, it has made changes, modified and reviewed, and this has been nine years in the making. Let us think of that: nine years. It seems like forever that the Liberals have been sitting across the way and it has not even been nine years. Nine years is a very long time, yet strangely enough, in spite of what the hon. member said about the bill being reviewed, changed and modified over the course of nine long years, it still has so many fundamental errors. I am not talking about little things, little changes that need to be made or semantical changes or possible uncertainties.

There are fundamental things. The first is that the government would take someone's land without compensation. It is absolutely astounding. The hon. member says that it has spent nine years to fix the bill and yet we still have a clause that allows the government to take the land without compensation. Oh, yes, the government says it will probably give some compensation but we do not know what it is. The Pearse report suggests that it might be 50% of the actual value of the loss. I find it a little hard to take when the member says the government has spent nine years getting it right. It has spent nine years and still has it wrong.

Likewise, the government says it does not want to make any changes for dealing with somebody in court who may inadvertently harm an endangered species or its habitat. It says it does not want to change that because that would make it harder to prosecute anybody. The government would rather just go ahead and prosecute but have the judge take that into consideration in sentencing. What an absurdity. An innocent person, a person even the government acknowledges would be innocent, would be subjected to the legal system and would have to hire a lawyer because the government wants to make some special conditions for the person in sentencing. Of course the government has a lot of lawyers in its benches and a lot of lawyer friends, so perhaps that has always been part of its strategy. The person would be a convicted criminal and then the government would say it is okay because the person will get a very light slap on the wrist because the government recognizes that it really was not the individual's fault. It would not be that individual's fault. It would be the government's fault for not getting the bill right.

I would like to talk specifically about Group No. 4 with regard to consultation, which is what I had intended to do before the hon. member on the government side got up. I want to talk specifically about consultation and also about something that ties in with that for the Liberals, which is consistency. Although there are many places where we have to give the Liberals very low marks, we can give them excellent marks for consistency. We are talking about consultation on Bill C-5 or rather the lack of it. There is a consistency in what the Liberals do with regard to this lack of consultation. Probably the most recent example is the very rushed purchase of the Challenger jets. This is an area where there was no consultation with parliament or with the public sector. In fact, they used a sneaky little tactic to make sure they got this without even consulting with cabinet. They found a way to bypass the cabinet. Like I said, it is consistency.

Kyoto is another example of where the government has failed to consult. Mind you, I can understand why it failed to consult in the case of Kyoto. It has nothing to consult about. It has never explained how we are to achieve the objectives laid out in the Kyoto protocol. The government has never explained to anyone how much it will cost to achieve these objectives. It has never explained what the impact will be. Why would it consult? It has nothing to tell the people when it attempts to consult.

Another example is the current Minister of Transport. When he first took his position he actually said, and you could have knocked me over, I can assure members, that he would look at the privatization or commercialization of Via Rail.

Given that minister's penchant for big government, crown corporations and power to the government, it was very out of keeping. We kind of scratched our heads and wondered what was getting at. Sure enough, without any consultation whatsoever, a month or two later he said that they were going to scrap that idea because the private sector was not interested. How did he know that? There was no consultation whatsoever. Again, it is just like in the case of Bill C-5 with the endangered species.

The government has not consulted with these landowners. It has not talked to them to try to deal with the concerns they have raised. They are very consistent in my home province. The bill has quite an impact in my home province.

It was not that long ago this same government said it was going to put through the Nisga'a agreement, which B.C. has now soundly rejected provincially, without any consultation with the people of British Columbia. It was only because it made a huge procedural error in the House, that we ended up forcing at least a limited number of hearings in British Columbia.

It was interesting when we held a hearing in Terrace, British Columbia, in the riding of Skeena. One hon. member from the Liberal side gave an angry response to someone in the audience who was not allowed to speak because it was a very closed meeting. The person in the audience said “If you won't allow me to speak, why did you bother even coming here?”. The hon. member from the Liberal side of the committee in response said that they did not want to be there and that the only reason they were was because the Reform Party had forced them. That is great consistency on the part of the Liberal government.

In this bill the government says it will consult after the bill is passed. It will consult with scientists on what they think should be put on the endangered species list. Of course the Liberals will not let scientists tell them what should be on the list. They will just let them talk about it. If they like what they say, they will do it. If they do not like it they will ignore the scientists. They are not placing anything in the hands of the scientists other than the pretence that there will be a bit of consultation. I guess even the Liberal government is getting a little concerned about the fact that it fails to consult very much with all the different bills it puts forward.

In my province of British Columbia we have a severe problem now. It is hitting other parts of the country as well. However particularly in the rural areas of British Columbia, which is where the impact of Bill C-5 will be, we are experiencing the softwood lumber dispute. Softwood lumber is wreaking absolute havoc on the forest industry in British Columbia. My riding is particularly forestry dependent.

Bill C-5 raises a lot of concerns with those same people in the forest industry. They say that the government may take a lot of their land or that it may restrict the use of these lands and that they may be very restricted on where they can log or the manner in which they can log. There is nothing in the bill about whether or not they will get any compensation for this or even whether they will have any input, say or the ability to challenge the government in the event that it starts restricting their ability to carry out logging activities in B.C.

That is again an example of a lack of consultation by the government. It has not gone to the province, talked with these people, dealt with those issues and explained to them reasonably how it would deal with those situations should they arise.

In the odd place where there has been a little toying with the concept of consultation, I can assure the House that the consultation has not been meaningful. It is interesting that the government does not even appear to consult with its own members on the committee. Those very same committee members have made recommendations which the government has either ignored or put in changes which the government is now proceeding to take out.

I notice that I am running out of time. That is very unfortunate because I can assure the House that I have a lot more to say about this issue.

It is interesting now that the government is saying that it does not even want to review this legislation later. Not only is it failing to consult with people before the bill is passed into law, it is also saying that it will put provisions in to ensure that it will never have to consult with them after the bill is passed.

I can understand why the government might want to get rid of reviews. Where there have been mandatory reviews on other legislation, the government is years behind. Maybe it is because the government feels it cannot get good enough control of its committees and may have to override them.

I appreciate the time I have had. I look forward to continuing this debate. I would hope that at some point the government suddenly wakes up and decides it will fix the bill. Nine years is long enough. The government should be able to get it right.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak again to Bill C-5 which is simply a bad bill.

One would think that after the experience the United States has had with its legislation, which in the beginning was similar to what we are looking at today, we would learn there are better ways of doing it. A lot of people have analyzed this particular bill to be worse than what the United States came out with 25 years ago. It just did not work.

In Group No. 4 we have a number of amendments that would help address that by getting people to co-operate with one another in order to protect the endangered species as needed. That is what the Americans are moving toward. It is beginning to work and having an effect.

Instead of bringing the hard hammer of government regulation, government rule and law, down on the backs of the taxpayers, we should look at how we can make it work collectively. That would be the cheap way of doing it. I guarantee we would not have a lot of court cases as is the case in the United States. This bill would certainly bring a lot of those about.

A big problem with that is if someone is charged. We have a backward law where one has to prove one is innocent. The onus of proof is the reverse. We always assume that one is innocent until proven guilty. Not in this case. One is guilty and it is up to the landowner or a property owner or whatever the case might be to prove that one is innocent, that one is doing what is required by this law to protect endangered species. That is not democratic. The way this is set up it is not even according to the code of our judicial system.

There are people in this country who still do not realize that when the constitution was brought in by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the early 1980s the government totally and intentionally left property rights completely out of the picture. Because property rights do not exist in the constitution of this land, which is a disgrace, every one of these amendments attempts to fill that gap, that void.

It is because the constitution in the United States does have property rights that the endangered species act that it tried to pass 25 years ago finally is having a turn. The United States recognizes that it is important that it not only protect endangered species but it also protects the rights of the landowners and property owners in that country.

We will not do that here because we do not have any such rights to protect. It does not exist. I would like to know why the most obvious right would be left out of the constitution. I would not dare suggest as to why the government would do that. It would probably be declared unparliamentary language and I would have to apologize.

Any apologies that need to be made should be made to all the people that the government is trying to impose this kind of law on. People must recognize that they have to prove they are innocent rather than be proven they are guilty. People must recognize that if the government needs their land in order to protect endangered species it will go in and take it. It has the right to do it, with no compensation, because there is nothing to protect property rights.

Even the common sense Liberals who served on the parliamentary committee began to realize there was something wrong with this big picture. They made the best possible effort as committee members, along with others, to bring to the attention to members in their own party that the bill really needed work. Suggestions came from the committee after all its hard work. In the usual dictatorial manner the minister said that what comes in the front door would go out the back door and ignored everything suggested or brought forward.

Most of those suggestions came from the public after having met with the committee. It brought to the committee's attention some serious flaws in the bill. The Liberal backbenchers who served on the committee as well as the opposition recognized these problems. They were willing to bring them forward to the minister who in his usual dictatorial manner ignored the whole thing.

We stand here today in opposition to the bill because of these flaws. Speeches have been made by one opposition member after another, with no speeches coming from the Liberal side because its members know it is a bad law and they cannot possibly stand up and defend the legislation. I do not blame them. I too would remain seated and keep quiet.

Anyone on that side of the House who represents a rural riding which contains endangered species would know that the amendments in Group No. 4 are essential to make the legislation viable.

We get a lot of letters from lobby groups and different people who encourage us to support the bill. They say we must support it. One particular person who came to see me asked whether I would support the bill. I said I could not in its present form. After further conversations with people I understand now that they do not really know what this is all about. Communication regarding the bill is really lacking. People do not understand the situation.

I asked one constituent whether I could give a test. I asked about the burrowing owl and what we must do to protect it. I would like to ask some of the members in the House today what we must do to protect the burrowing owl. I am sure they do not know. I do not think they know. This particular constituent told me that we would have to fence off the area, let the grass grow and leave the species alone to enjoy its habitat.

What people do not understand is that burrowing owls will not live long in growing grass. They require the grass to be maintained. They pop their little heads out of their holes and must be able to see over the grass to spot their prey so they can eat. That is how it is done. It is not done through legislation such as this.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House and again take part in the debate on Bill C-5. The bill has been introduced three times in three different parliaments. It was first introduced two parliaments ago.

I have gone through some of the notes written at the time. We talk about the relevance of Bill C-5. It encountered the same problems when it failed the first time. It encountered them again when it failed in the 36th parliament. It is encountering them yet again. I cannot understand why the same government is in power. It has had three kicks at the can with the bill. There are still 139 amendments coming forward. Today we are dealing with Group No. 4. How can the government get it so wrong three times in a row? It boggles my mind.

This species at risk legislation would put at risk not only animals, plants, spiders and all those creepy crawly things but farmers, ranchers, oil patch workers, miners, woodlot owners and all the people who work the land in an environmentally sound way. There is already legislation in place. With Bill C-5 the biggest species at risk would be the taxpayer, the ordinary Canadian doing his darndest to make a living and keep the bank and the tax man off his back. Legislation like this would add to the regulatory burden and take the wind out of people's sails who are trying to be entrepreneurial and move ahead. I cannot understand it.

Bill C-5 would expand ministerial discretion. It creates a shudder effect through most of Canadian society when people see bills like Bill C-68, the obnoxious firearms bill. I thank the Liberal government for giving me more cannon fodder to use in the next election. The government is assuring my re-election with this legislation.

At the end of the day Bill C-5 would not serve the community. It would not serve the interests of Canadian taxpayers or the species they are trying to support.

There are three ministers in control of the issue: the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Canadians have concerns about these ministers when it comes to preserving their discretionary power.

Under Bill C-5 the minister alone would decide whether compensation was given and how much it would be. The government has budgeted $45 million to implement the legislation. Bill C-68 was budgeted at $85 million. Can members guess where it is now? The numbers we have obtained through access to information requests indicate it is 10 times that amount.

Bill C-5 would be another huge waste of taxpayer money. It would be another boondoggle to add to the notches in the government's bedpost. It flies in the face of everything a democracy stands for. There would be a total lack of transparency in reporting. Ministerial reports including listing decisions would be deleted. There would be no requirement for them. The minister could make changes arbitrarily. We have seen it done under other legislation. The government will keep doing it because it has the power. We can only shake our heads.

When will the Canadian people get the idea that these guys are not an effective government? Bill C-5 has no sunset clause. There is no mandatory review period, something that should be standard for any new legislation like this. We should be able to ask whether it is working. Whether it entails a three year or five year period, something must be put in legislation to indicate whether it is on the right track. The government is definitely not on the right track.

Under Bill C-5 politics rather than science would decide what was in danger. Every Canadian wants species to be protected but the legislation offers no effective means of doing that. That is why there are 139 amendments even though the government has had three kicks at it. Nothing has changed.

As I have said, a budget of $45 million is inadequate when we consider the different types of compensation. When we in the Alliance talk about compensation we mean market value compensation. The committee came up with the same recommendations. The all party committee made up of backbench Liberals and five parties from this side of the House came up with great recommendations. However the minister and a few of his henchmen on the front bench, probably the same three I named, said they would not do it the committee's way because they had a better idea. Their idea might give them more power, clout and budget money but it will not at the end of the day protect any species, especially the poor Canadian taxpayer.

I have talking points from the first time the bill was introduced. The main message was what Canadians wanted. These were polls that the Liberals did at that time. What did Canadians want when it came to protecting species at risk? First, a plan based on concern for the environment. All Canadians wanted a healthy environment and to protect biodiversity.

Second, a plan based on caring for species at risk. We can legislate it but that does not mean it will happen. If we have a plant variety, and we have lots of those in the west on range land and so on, and we trample over three miles of other plant life to go in and protect that one, what have we gained at the end of the day? I am not sure this will even work.

We have seen the American model fall apart. The Americans had the sense to back up and take another stab at it and go with incentives, allowing ranchers, farmers, woodlot owners, and miners to come up with plans that were proactive, not reactive and wrong-headed like Bill C-5.

The big thing that Canadians want to see is common sense in the bill. To protect species at risk we must have common sense to consider the needs of everybody involved. We must have a balanced plan, one that accommodates, changes, and is flexible. We should go back to some sort of sunset clause or a review. Are we getting the most bang for our buck?

The bottom line is we must have respect for the landowners. Whether it is someone's front lawn in the city, someone's back 40 out west or on the east coast in an apple orchard, we must have respect for that landowner. We must have a proactive approach, certainly, to protect species but we must base it on respect for that landowner, the guy who is trying to make a living from that land. If we take away the ability to farm or work the land how will he pay taxes? We are coming into that situation as well.

The committee laid out a proposal for timelines, action plans to be completed and so on. Those have all been brushed aside. We see the heavy foot of the ministers coming down saying that they do not want any of this red tape tying them down. That is unfortunate. That is what they are doing to the rest of the country.

No one on this side of the House or on that side of the House wants to see any endangered species at risk. We really do not. That is just good common sense. That is the end result of the bill. However I cannot see us getting there when we are trying to get from A to D without doing steps B and C. Compensation and good sound science are the B and C in that equation. They are not in the bill.

I do not know what kind of a bomb it will take to get these guys off of that type of logic. They will make us criminals before we have a chance to defend ourselves or explain what our role is and how that burrowing owl got there. It just happened overnight. It was not there last week when the farmer plowed it and that type of thing.

There are a lot more questions than answers starting to come forward in the bill. The longer it takes and the more debate that is going on, a lot of these questions are coming out, but the silence on the other side is deafening. We are not hearing any answers.

Probably the best thing the Liberals can do is hoist the bill again. Maybe the fourth time will be a charm. Let us take it back to committee and let these guys honour what the committee has done this time around and not put the hobnail boot on it. We need co-operation, not confrontation with the provinces. Habitat is all provincial and we are coming down hard on them with everything that is in the bill. We are totally cutting them out.

I talked to the provincial ministers in Saskatchewan and Alberta and they are afraid of this. They really are. They have some major concerns and they are relying on us to bring their concerns forward. We are happy to do that. I know this debate will continue and I look forward to that.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I had referred to Group No. 4 and was making comparisons. There is no doubt that my remarks were relevant. As far as mentioning who is in the House, I did not refer to who was or was not in the House. I did not say government members were not in the House today. I said government members had not been speaking to the legislation. I am sorry if the way I expressed it was not clear.

Government members have not been speaking to the legislation. Why have they not been speaking to it? It is because the government has told them they are not allowed to. The whip has come down heavily and told them they are not allowed to speak to Bill C-5. That is not the way a democracy works. What we have had in Canada for some time is not a functioning democracy.

What we have seen with the Group No. 4 amendments is a clear example of this. The committee worked on the Group No. 4 amendments regarding stewardship action plans. The all party committee dominated by the government presented its work in a report. What did the government do with the report? It chose to throw it aside and put in place what the environment minister and members of the cabinet wanted. That is exactly what it did. That is the way the government operates now. It simply threw it aside.

We know the abuse is extreme when the Liberal vice-chair of the committee goes on the radio to say she is disgusted with what her own government has done with the committee's work. She went on CBC radio two weeks ago. She said the committee had done good work on the issue, work which included the Group No. 4 amendments. She said the committee put forth its work and the government said to heck with it, the work means nothing so we will put in place what we want. The government's arrogance has reached a point where the Liberal vice-chair of the committee has made an issue of it. It is a clear problem but it did not develop recently. It is not new but it is expanding and has become worse. It is leading to bad legislation.

The Group No. 4 amendments we are talking about today demonstrate the point. The legislation and amendments now before the House and the country at report stage are not those brought forward by the committee. They were brought forward by the government to override the amendments of the committee. That is completely unacceptable.

As a result Bill C-5 has no clause for fair compensation for landowners or land users who have endangered species on their land. Because the legislation does not have a clause for fair compensation it will completely fail. Rather than protect endangered species, something we all support, Bill C-5 would further jeopardize them. Because it would adopt a mandatory rather than a voluntary approach it will fail. I look forward to commenting on further amendments as well.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the heckling is getting a little heavy over there. I guess some ministers have come to the realization that this is bad legislation and they do not want to hear about it. That is pretty clear. The fact that government members are not allowed to speak to the bill demonstrates that the government does not want to hear opposition to the legislation which has been shot down twice before.

In my opening comments I connected this group of amendments to the Challenger jet purchase. I will continue to do so because it has to do with arrogance. It is arrogance that prompts the Prime Minister and other ministers in the cabinet to buy executive jets when our military is short of equipment of all types and does not have enough people to do the job it has taken on and will continue to take on.

The same arrogance allows the government to prevent its own members from speaking to Bill C-5. Lots of them want to speak to the legislation. Many Liberal members in the House do not support it. They recognize that it is bad legislation. Arrogance is so ingrained in the government that it has become a huge problem.

I heard the Liberal vice chair of the environment committee on CBC radio a couple of weeks ago on the show The House . She talked about what had gone on at committee. She talked about some of the amendments in Group No. 4 and how they had been changed. I did not entirely like the product the committee came up with but it did its work. It was good work by and large. What the committee came up with was much better than what the government has put forward. The vice chair of the committee said on national radio that she was upset and disgusted with her own government because it had ignored months of hard work by the committee. The government completely ignored the work of all members of the committee. It threw it aside and put in place what the minister and cabinet wanted.

That is a problem of arrogance. The government no longer cares what the public wants. It thinks it can go on indefinitely without having to worry about the public. That is the sad truth. It is the level the Liberal government has come to.

I can understand why the minister and hon. members opposite want to shut me down through heckling. They do not want to hear this stuff. However it is a fact. Not only opposition members are saying this. Government members are saying it.

People across the country who expect their MPs to speak on their behalf must be wondering where the speakers are from the governing party. They are not here today. They have not been here for the past few days. They will not be here over the next few days--

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is my opportunity to speak to the amendments in Group No. 4 relating to species at risk, Bill C-5.

I will begin my discussion on the overall and broad effect the species at risk legislation would have on society, which is the reason we are debating the legislation. There is an advantage to society to protect species that are at risk.

I was recently at a talk on science which was dedicated to the effect pollution has on organisms downwind of big metropolitan cities, in particular Toronto. A scientist who is quite well known for his work in this area talked about how the plant and animal species downwind of the major cities were in fact different from those in areas upwind.

He studied lichens and their growth and showed how the effects of pollution were negative on that plant species. He did not speak a lot on animal species, which is where we are at today with the legislation, but the same effects have been shown to be true and present.

It shows the effects of human activity on other animal species. I tried to look back to see where we have been successful in our efforts toward species at risk. The one area where we have been successful is with the whooping crane. That was a widely publicized issue in which Canadians should take some pride. We have had some success in tracking and raising these birds in a tame environment and then releasing them in the wild.

Would Bill C-5, and particularly the amendments that we are talking about today, give us success in that regard? The two areas that are very particular to these amendments are areas that relate to letting the landowners know whether or not they have species at risk on their properties.

We have tried to put forward amendments to the legislation that would allow the landowner to be made aware of the presence of species on their properties that are at risk .

The arguments that have been used against that are I suppose valid. The public could possibly become interested in the land, tromp on it and possibly endanger the species in question. I am of the mind that telling the landowner is an advantage. If the landowner were aware he would be capable of taking preventive steps against harming the habit for that species. That is one specific area where I am not certain the argument is one I accept.

The second area would be consultation. There is a great desire to consult on issues of this kind. Those who have a vested interest of course are the ones the government has the closest access to. People who are animal activists would be very interested in this issue and would likely be available for consultation and available to the committee as it travels. I am not certain that all components of society are as actively sought by us when we look at legislation of this nature. For instance, the indigenous groups in the country certainly have an interest in and a record of being interested in species and the overall environment. I am not certain if we have seen any amendments in these two specific areas that would make the legislation more appropriate.

I will talk about more broad issues as well. In my view, and some of my colleagues have expressed this plainly, the best way to preserve species at risk is a co-operative mechanism. In other words, the stewards of the land are enlisted in this co-operative effort. In the preamble to the legislation we see these thoughts reflected. A co-operative approach is much better than a forceful approach. I looked to see whether that was carried through in the way the legislation would actually be enacted and I am not certain that the stewards of the land are well enlisted in this approach.

I would ask the philosophical question, is this for the good of society? I happen to believe it is for society's good to try to protect species and maintain biodiversity. I also believe that if it is for the societal good, the cost should be borne by society as a whole, not by individuals suddenly singled out by the presence of a species at risk or by an accident of nature there is a species at risk near their dwelling, their place of work or their place of commerce.

What pitfalls do I see if we do not go down that road? The one pitfall of course is that if we punish the steward of the land, we end up with the triple s approach to preservation. That has been very evident in other jurisdictions.

I represent a large ranching part of Alberta. An individual gave me an example of what had happened in his particular case. The grizzly is a species that by some estimates should be very heavily protected. In his part of the world over the last few years the grizzly bear has become a problem for some of the cattle. One of his neighbours went down the route of exterminating a grizzly because if it was found on his property, the access of his cattle to the range would be shut down. That is an example that is very harmful to the overall concept of being a steward of both the land and the species.

Farmers and ranchers often are very vocal and close to the issues of species at risk and property rights, but it is interesting that the Canadian Real Estate Association is currently lobbying, in the good sense of that word, here on the Hill. One of its big issues, one of three issues that was brought to parliament, was the very issue I am speaking of, property rights in relation to species at risk. Most of us know a realtor. I was intrigued by the fact that realtors would take this issue to parliament and say they have discomfort with the approach in Bill C-5, an approach which basically says that the government may provide compensation and only for losses where there is an extraordinary impact. There is no obligation, in other words, to provide compensation under the species at risk act. If there is one thing the government could do and should do to change the tenor of debate on this major issue, it would be to provide compensation.

The example that was given to me by the realtor who came to see me was one which I think should affect most homeowners in Canada if in fact their property, a city lot, not a country lot or some pristine beautiful piece of property, were designated to have a species at risk on it. Individuals could lose the ability to have barbecues behind their homes. They might even lose the opportunity to put a fence around their property for the standard reasons people fence in their property, for example to keep their tots in hand.

The point was broadened out to talk about land development. Land developers look for the opportunity to give economic advantages to Canada. They look at areas to put in developments, factories, condominiums, homes in the broadest sense. Those developers, having purchased property and finding a species at risk on it, and possibly the government having known about this and not having let them know, could lose their whole livelihood and have the property taken from them

I conclude my comments by saying that species at risk are important. They are important for society as a whole, as a good for society. I believe that society should pay for that good and not have the issue of compensation for land left with such vague phrases. “May compensate for extraordinary impact” is not good enough. “Must compensate” is much more appropriate.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the amendments to Bill C-5 and bring a little different focus to the discussions. A lot of people are speaking as if the landowners primarily affected by this bill might be farmers and ranchers. We also have a big slice of the public who are cottage owners, who are involved in land development or forest woodlot ownership. There are any number of other land use activities or ownership patterns that can be impacted by this proposed legislation.

In our non-urban areas right now there are two very significant initiatives on the minds of people; that is, the species at risk act and the ratification of the Kyoto agreement. That shows the kind of priority this legislation should have.

I met with the Canadian Real Estate Association this morning. I was interested to see that it has three priority items that it wants to bring to our attention this year. The first is the national debt and the second is the limits on RRSP contributions in Canada, which are longstanding issues and are financial in nature. We would expect that from the Canadian Real Estate Association. However when it has the species at risk act and property rights in its top three issues, then we know this is a major and significant bill which has the attention of people and has them very much concerned.

They basically share the concerns of my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance. I know there are a lot of people on the Liberal side of the House who also feel the same way. It will be interesting to see where they are when it comes time to vote. They also agree that the lack of commitment in species at risk act for compensation when citizens are deprived of their property rights is a major problem. Property rights are not guaranteed under the Canadian constitution and in this bill there is no obligation to provide compensation.

The bill states that the government may provide compensation and only for losses suffered when there is extraordinary impact. Of course the bill does not define “extraordinary” which obviously makes it virtually unworkable or takes it into the domain of the courts where there will be huge costs and uncertainty inflicted on the landowner. It means that this will become an exercise in frustration.

Therefore what will happen is human nature will come into play. The bill in all likelihood will be counterproductive in most instances when it comes to private land and that is very unfortunate. Property rights are the foundation of a strong economy and a democratic society. All this is doing is diluting both of those principles.

We are on the same wavelength as the real estate association and many other organizations and institutions across the country. They believe this bill should recognize property rights when landowners are deprived of the use of their property to protect an endangered species.

My background was working 20 years as a forester. I worked for industry and was responsible for land use plans for hundreds of thousands of hectares. I have dealt with endangered species. I have dealt with any number of management plans related to habitat and good conditions for many species of wildlife in British Columbia and on coastal British Columbia.

When we look at a bill like this, I believe we need to take a practical, pragmatic and realistic approach. After all the committee work, it was headed in that direction. I have an insight from some of the people involved in that committee as to the many thousands of hours of time of the committee members and other stakeholders and how much taxpayer effort was behind the work that went into creating a report from the committee. Unfortunately all this work was blown up as soon as the government got its hands on it.

This is a huge frustration. It is symptomatic of what is wrong with this place. Many of us could and would enjoy and be enthusiastic about the work of committees. However, when we see the work of committees being blown up or ignored by the government, then one begins to wonder why we would put energy and effort into that exercise. The worst part of it is that the very people who are funding that whole exercise, the taxpayer at large, are being taken for a ride and ignored in the process.

This is a clear cut example of committee work being ignored. I have been here since 1993. I cannot think of another bill that has had more input at the committee level for a longer period of time than this one. There was a set of amendments that were very well thought out. I think there could have been all party support.

Obviously everyone wants to protect endangered species in Canada. There are some things we do not want and we can learn by looking south to the U.S. which has a very heavy-handed endangered species act. The U.S. act has led to property owners doing everything they can to ensure that they do not end up with a liability. People want to do the right thing but they do not want to make their property worthless by doing it. The government cannot go with straight disincentives.

Recently there was a case where a group wanted to influence a land use decision in its favour under the U.S. act. In order to do so, it planted fur from an endangered species on the barbed wire fence of a property owner to prove that the endangered species existed there so that the land use would be denied to the property owner.

This goes to show how far off the rails that kind of disincentive can go. The legislation is now headed in that direction, against the recommendations of the committee.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in this place and speak to Bill C-5 at report stage and the Group No. 4 amendments. All the speakers, including my hon. colleague from the NDP who just spoke, have an honest passion to help protect endangered species. However, as others have said, there are some real concerns about how the bill has come together and how the government brings stakeholders together because there has been no effort on behalf of the government to bring stakeholders on all sides of the fence together.

That is where the bill will fail. That is where this side of the House will have tremendous difficulty in supporting the bill. I listened to my hon. colleague from Medicine Hat who comes from a rural area. He is clearly someone who is passionate about endangered species. I know he is an avid bird watcher and that he has been known to chase cougars from time to time. He has also actually wandered with the buffalo. I know how committed he is to endangered species but there was frustration in his voice when it came to the government and the basic rights that have been violated time and time again by trying to include property rights, something that is so fundamental.

My colleague talked about the 20 year anniversary celebration of the charter. We still do not have protection of property rights. That is why we find ourselves in the situation today where farmers, ranchers and landowners are so concerned about the prospects of finding endangered species on their land and that the government may not compensate them properly or fairly and will disregard the work they have done when it comes to stewardship and other programs.

The government is not willing to guarantee any form of compensation in the type of equation the opposition has outlined in the past. The government commissioned its own researcher, Dr. Pearse, to put together a fair compensation equation in dealing with land that has to be expropriated because of the endangered species. The government has failed to even consider those recommendations that it commissioned.

Something that particularly frustrates me a great deal in this place is the way democracy works. I have been speaking about that, as many of my colleagues have in the past, with different legislation, different cases, and different issues in committees. I have been trying to see if this place can function more democratically than it currently does. We have another case of where this place has failed because of the government's lack of paying attention to what members of this House do, even outside of the House.

I look at all the amendments that were put together at the committee stage. There were so many positive amendments made on all sides of the House that pertained especially to this Group No. 4 amendments. They dealt with a national aboriginal committee, the creation of stewardship and action plans and public consultations. These were positive amendments made at the committee stage from all members of the House. These amendments were agreed to in committee. They were discussed, debated, studied and witnesses had appeared. There had been some great progress made at the committee level which would have made a lot of things that are in the bill more tolerable right now to all members of the House.

However when the bill came back to the government we see some of the changes the government made to the committee changes that were made initially to the amendments. They are just outrageous. Some of them as simple as changing a name from council to committee particularly where Motion Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20 deal with the aspect of a national aboriginal committee. When that issue was debated in committee the actual name proposed for this national aboriginal committee was the national aboriginal council. The government did not want to accept that recommendation from the committee and changed it from the national aboriginal council to the national aboriginal committee.

It does not create the type of goodwill we are trying to establish in this place to bring stakeholders together. Even in the areas of stewardship and action plans, the government has made changes since the bill went through committee which are simply outrageous. It almost seems that it is trying to nitpick so that it does not have to give credit to members of the committee who worked so hard to scrutinize the bill.

It does not surprise me that there is sometimes such a disincentive in this place among members. They feel the work and the study they do to get to know a bill so they can make it better is continuously rejected. They are trying to represent the people in their ridings and Canadians generally. It begs the question as to what our role is as members of parliament in establishing proper laws and in trying to represent all Canadians by bringing people from all walks of life together? No wonder there is such frustration and breakdown of the way democracy works in this place, and this is a perfect example of it.

What I want to focus in on, and my hon. colleague from Medicine Hat touched on this, is the idea of driving a wedge between landowners and people who live in rural and urban areas, which I think that is a better way to put it. Canadians from all areas clearly have spoken in different polls and in different forms of expression about species at risk. They are generally in favour of establishing species at risk or endangered species legislation that would help protect species. I believe that in some polls as high as 92% of Canadians were in favour of such legislation.

If there is that form of consensus among Canadians who feel that protection of endangered species is important, then why is it so difficult to bring MPs, who represent all sides of the argument, together in this place? Obviously there was an opportunity for the government to bring those two groups together but it failed miserably.

My hon. colleague from Medicine Hat spoke specifically about the issue of compensation. Let us look at the people who are closest to the land and who are closest to endangered species and know the habitats of many of these species well enough that they can put measures in place to protect these species. These people are clearly ranchers, agriculture producers and landowners in rural areas. They have the knowledge and experience to protect these specifies and to it effectively.

We want to have landowners, ranchers and others on board. We want to work not only with people in the urban areas but also in some of the most crucial areas to the survival of endangered species. We have to bring all these groups together. One of the biggest areas in which this bill has failed is in the idea of compensation. For instance, if landowners potentially find habitat or endangered species on their land, it is still not clear whether that land can expropriated and whether they will be compensated for the confiscation of that land.

As my hon. colleague said, when people rely on that land through the history of generations, their livelihoods or the production for whatever it is they use the land, clearly they will react adversely if that livelihood is threatened. This is not a plea from some of these landowners, farmers or ranchers to receive handouts. Many of these people are providing viable services and businesses to their communities or the country. They only want to have that viability protected.

It is clear that, if the idea of compensation is dealt with even slightly to show that the government cares about private property rights and to show that it will never leave its rural farmers, ranchers and landowners while in the lurch in the process of trying to protect endangered species, then there would be the biggest positive response from some of these groups to help protect endangered species. Clearly that is the concern among many of them now.

This is the third time the bill has been introduced in this place in some form or another. For those who wonder why it has not had the consensus, the government has failed time and time again to bring stakeholders together and to let this place work in a fair and democratic way. Even as bills travel through this place and go through committee to be scrutinized. the government interferes in that process without respecting some of the basic recommendations of all party committees, which basically come together to build consensus.

Finally, the stakeholders have still not been brought together and that is a shame. I am happy that I could voice these concerns on behalf of Edmonton--Strathcona.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-5.

This is the third version of species at risk legislation that has been brought before parliament in recent years and there is one common theme that runs through them all. Each time they are introduced the legislation is weaker than the previous time.

On this occasion there were a number of good amendments from a hardworking environment committee, one that I participated in briefly. There were countless hours put in on that committee in its deliberations. It came forward with a number of amendments and as we heard today virtually all of them have been gutted and undercut by the cabinet members opposite.

It seems to me that what the speaker who just concluded his remarks and others are saying and what cabinet is doing by its actions is that the legislation is too important to be left in the hands of legislators. That is an extremely unfortunate occurrence. We are sent here from 301 ridings across the country to do our jobs to the best of our abilities.

In this case the environment committee came together, worked hard, proposed a number of good amendments including compensation for ranchers and farmers and then the cabinet turned around and said in effect that it did not really care what the environment committee thought. The government said it would be this way. It really diminishes the relevance of the House of Commons, this institution, and the whole democratic process.

On the species at risk act, SARA, we are experiencing the largest extinction epidemic worldwide since the time of the dinosaurs. Scientists believe we could lose a quarter of our species on earth within the next three decades if we do not change course.

We have serious endangered species problems of our own. Twenty-seven have already gone extinct in Canada in the past century and a half. We have more than 350 species known to be at risk and the list grows year after year. Some of the animals that are at risk are: the beluga whale; the woodland cariboo; the burrowing owl, which we have in the riding I represent in Saskatchewan; and the grizzly bear. All these species could vanish in coming decades unless and until we take strong steps to protect them. The legislation is long overdue.

I will turn briefly to Group No. 4 that is under discussion today. We feel that none of the changes are more offensive than the amendments that are proposed that remove the ability of the first nations to have input into the implementation of the species at risk act. There were a number of proposed amendments made at the time and they have all been gutted. These amendments were made by the Metis, the Dene, the Inuit, and other first nations. It is a sad commentary what has transpired since the committee reported before Christmas.

I would like to mention the Rio summit of 10 years ago. There was political courage demonstrated and political capital risked at the earth summit at Rio in 1992 when Canada was a signatory to the creation of laws aimed at protecting the vulnerable species. I happened to hear the former environment minister speaking on CBC last Friday and referring to the decade of neglect, which was her phrase, and what transpired since the Rio summit of 1992. The government office came into power late in 1993 and virtually nothing has happened in the intervening 10 years since that occurrence.

This is in sharp contrast to what is happening in other countries. Mexico has made the protection of critical habitat mandatory. Canada is only proposing to make it discretionary. A species would enjoy protection under the provision of this law at the pleasure of the environment minister. If a species were deemed worthy of protection there would remain a period, which could be as long as 30 months, before the habitat would actually be protected, and only the residents, the nest or the den would be protected in the interim.

I want to say a word or two about property rights. I acknowledge that I come from a riding which contains a mix of both rural and urban. I want to address the real concerns that people have in the riding of Palliser about the law which if passed would affect them.

Our party believes that people must be compensated if their lives are affected by this plan to rescue any endangered species. Landowners must be assured that they are not facing personal loss in order to protect habitat. If land is purchased it has to be with the consent of the owner and at fair market price. Workers whose jobs are lost or whose paycheques shrink must be compensated. The same logic applies to communities.

We know that Canadians want to stop more of our wildlife from disappearing forever. All of us want to do that and we understand that as a result the cost of protecting those species must be shared by all of us and not just the people on whose land the endangered species happen to live.

There is an amendment in Group No. 4, made late in the day, which would suggest a bit of a compromise in terms of natives, and working with cabinet ministers and aboriginal leaders. It is a may as opposed to a shall. We are concerned about that. The cabinet opposite needs to stand and restore that wording to shall as opposed to may in this regard.

A large number of communities, such as the aboriginal groups, the first nations, the Metis, the Dene and the Inuit, have come forward with detailed, strong and impressive presentations that impacted not only with regard to representation in the legislation but also in many other ways. I know that the committee was impressed with the representation by those organizations. The feeling of betrayal that those groups have is understandable with what has transpired since the House returned in late January.

It seems to me that the changes that have been made to Bill C-5 do nothing to encourage farmers and ranchers. They do nothing for aboriginals. Frankly they do nothing for the environment and for species at risk. They do nothing for the institution of this place and for legislators. All they do perhaps is put a happy face on the cabinet's point of view. The bill as amended is a sham and not worthy of support.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the intelligent comments of my colleague. Before I get into specific comments on this package of amendments, I want to review some of the fundamental concerns we have with Bill C-5.

First, it needs to be said that the Canadian Alliance is totally committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and our endangered species. Our dedication to that cause is reaffirmed constantly by the consultations we have with our constituents who, if we added up the land holdings of the members of the Canadian Alliance, are representative of a significant portion of the land base of the country. It is the landowners and to a great degree the people who use crown land who are impacted very much by the bill.

We do not believe the act will work. Our reason for opposing it is simply that. We do not believe that an act which does not guarantee fair and reasonable compensation for the owners of property, for the resource users who lease property, is going to work. Those people need to be protected. The compensation that should be in this bill, that should be itemized and clarified, which would protect those people who make use of that land, is not there. Therefore, people may suffer losses.

Farmers, ranchers and other property owners should not be forced into a position where they are penalized for protecting species at risk. Criminal liability must require intent. The act would make criminals out of people who inadvertently and unknowingly might harm an endangered species or the habitat of that species.

Also, we do not like the tone of the bill in terms of the way the federal government has dealt with the amendments that came from committee, reasoned amendments. The reasonable and well thought out packages of amendments that were dealt with at committee, and which have been disrespected by the minister and by the government in bringing this legislation forward, would strengthen the bill, not weaken it.

By ignoring the work of the committee members, the minister has not only shown disrespect to them and to their capabilities, but he has shown disrespect to the people who came and presented their views to that committee. That is something we do not accept.

This is reflective of a very top down approach. We are disappointed in that. We think this legislation is far to important to have been dealt with in such a manner.

I would like to address a couple of aspects of this package of amendments. The first is the five year review component.

The mandatory review of legislation is something that could have strengthened this piece of legislation. It could have made it more open, more accountable. It could have made it a piece of legislation which would have been more subject to change over time to better reflect and better deliver on the promise of protecting species at risk.

Five year reviews, mandatory reviews, are not perfect by any stretch but they are a mechanism that would allow further debate and intelligent debate to take place involving the people most affected by the legislation. It would involve the Canadian public, the landowners, the people who would be profoundly impacted, not just in terms of their desire to see species protected but in terms of their partnership with the land, people who would be impacted in a negative way inadvertently under the legislation as a consequence of even unintended acts. The need for a review is clear.

When I served in Manitoba as a legislator I had the opportunity to co-chair a red tape review committee. We examined all the regulations, and there were thousands of pages of them, of the Manitoba government's regulatory framework. We were able to go through all of those regulations in partnership with people in our bureaucracy, in our government's service, and in partnership with people from the private sector. We evaluated each of the regulations.

Through that review process we were able to stream out, eliminate and remove duplication and clean up wording that was confusing. We were able to introduce better processes for dealing with regulations that were being developed. Also, we were able to implement a better process for review of existing regulations as a consequence of that activity we engaged in.

In Manitoba we have implemented a process whereby many new regulations are sunsetted. A sunset clause of course means that the regulation dies after a certain period of time unless it is subsequently reintroduced. An act must be reintroduced to continue to be effective. In too many cases we found old pieces of legislation, the result of concerns of 50 or 70 years ago, still on the books, still taking up space, still utilizing the resources of the taxpayer but unnecessarily so.

An extreme example of this is the regulations that required companies that employed more than 10 female persons to have a matron on staff to, I presume at the time these were drafted, guard the chaste character of said females on staff. It is a regulation that at the time it was drafted fit in with the customs and mores of the day, but certainly it lost its meaning a long time ago. We also ran into a regulation that required spittoons. It actually regulated the size, design, shape and location of said spittoons in public establishments. It was important at the time. It was a critical piece of legislation.

I am not suggesting in any way that spittoon legislation is on the same level with species at risk legislation. What I am suggesting is that regular reviews of such legislation are an intelligent pursuit and make good sense. A regular review of any legislation that can profoundly affect the people of a country is especially important.

Through our process in Manitoba we introduced various strategies. Some of them required, for example, the pre-notification of legislation and regulation, pre-notification of affected people, and obviously consultation on bills at the provincial level. In Manitoba, for example, open committee meetings are held on every bill. Every aspect of a particular bill is exposed to public involvement. The public has the chance to come in and speak to the legislation being proposed to make their input and views known.

Such could have been the case with this piece of legislation, but Bill C-5, although purportedly using a process of full consultation with full input from a wide variety of people, failed at one stage, the stage at which it got to the minister's office. All the good deliberations as a consequence of the input the committee received were largely ignored and dismissed.

I am very concerned about the five year review. I think it should be brought back into the bill itself. I am also concerned about the aspects of the government amendments, Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20. These deal with the changing of the proposal that came from the committee, the proposal that would have created a national aboriginal council.

In my capacity with new responsibilities as the chief critic for aboriginal issues, I feel it is important that I address these specific issues. The national aboriginal council that the committee proposed would have provided the opportunity for aboriginal people, people who are in particular so knowledgeable and so close to the land themselves, to have consultation mechanisms and formal input into the ongoing aspects of the legislation. The impact it would have on aboriginal people could be profound and I think it is important that the national aboriginal council motion that the committee brought forward be restored.

I know that a number of members on the Liberal side of the House feel the same way and I encourage them to make sure the committee's work on this issue is done and done well. So many people from the aboriginal communities came forward. I understand that an aboriginal working group on species at risk was established. It had representation from the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Métis National Council of Women, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Inuit association of Canada.

These representative groups have an important role to play and an important contribution to make to this kind of legislation because it is so profoundly important, not just to indigenous peoples, clearly, but to all people of Canada. The opportunity for regular input on a formal basis would have been a useful thing. We do not want to see the work of the committee reversed. Certainly in respect of aboriginal peoples, the legislation, I believe, should not be amended as the government is now proposing to amend it.

In closing, too often the problem with the government is that it imposes urban based solutions on rural people. The farmers in my riding are certainly hard done by in many respects right now and they do not need an added burden. I understand that city people might want to escape the chaos of their frenzied lives and get the peace from rural life. City people envy farmers, but I recognize that they do not envy them to such an extent that they take advantage of the continuous opportunity to become farmers. I would like to remind them that it is the Canadian farmer and the people of our rural communities who have the greatest interest in preserving species at risk.