Bill C-5 (Historical)

Species at Risk Act

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

Species at Risk Act

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will address the motions in Group No. 4 on the species at risk legislation.

I want everybody to understand that there is absolutely nobody that I know of who is not in favour of saving endangered species. It does not matter where we go in Canada or whom we talk to, everybody agrees that in areas of risk, the species should be looked at. That is not the point of concern. The concern is with regard to the whole bill and what is happening.

Let us take the consultation aspect as an example. It was supposed to come forward in the bill. Through an amendment by the government that has been taken out, after the committee recommended strongly that it be left in. A few on the government frontbench decided it this was not the thing to do and it would be better not to tell people what is or what is not on their property or to give them a hand in looking after it. I have a lot of difficulty with this.

I grew up on ranches in Canada. One of the main things that was instilled in us as children was to work very hard to accomplish something and to buy the land; buy land, buy land, buy land. This gave us ownership of the land, a place we could call our own and an opportunity to contribute to society.

Bill C-5 makes everybody wonder whether we should even own land. Who would want to own land in a country that proposes regulations that fall under a dictatorship? If I were a young person saving for my future, I would have to consider whether or not to invest in land which at any time at the whim of the government, it could be decided that the land is worthless without compensation to me as the landowner if there was an endangered species on that land.

We have moved from being an open democratic society to a more socialistic dictatorship with regard to the whole system. The land and ownership of land was the foundation that brought many of our forefathers and foremothers to this country in the first place. Through legislation like this bill the government is taking that away.

We have to wonder what is going on in this great wonderment of parliament and in the whole country of Canada. As far as I am concerned and for many other people, not only is this a direct intrusion into provincial areas, it is a total invasion.

Let me explain to the people who are watching the debate one of the problems they are going to face with this legislation. I will say this from a ranching point of view, having grown up on ranches.

The ranches in the area where I grew up are on very mountainous land. There are valleys, mountains and a lot of range land. People buy 1,200 or 1,400 acres for a ranch which is a large chunk of land. In many cases on that land there is swampland, small lakes and a couple of fairly large lakes that are full of fish and people used to fish on them. We would fence off many of the marshlands because we did not want our cattle calving there nor did we want to have problems pulling cattle out of the mud which often happens.

Also, people who live in that part of the country share that land with the moose, elk and deer which have a tendency to walk through fences or try to jump over them and take them down. If someone decides that all of a sudden the landowner's part of the marsh has an endangered flower, weed or frog living on it, the landowner will be held responsible for it and will have to bear all the costs. The cattle and the wildlife run there. If a moose or something else destroys the fence and the cattle gets in, the landowner will be held responsible for it. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Who can say whether it was a moose or the cattle that did it? I can see court cases coming from all over the place.

What will be done on range land? Range land is where the provincial government decides to lease to ranchers so much range land per head of cattle. If it is determined that something living on the range land is endangered, and there are six, seven or maybe 12 different people running cattle in that area and a cow damages the foliage or whatever is to be protected, would all the ranchers be held liable for that or just one? How would we prove which head of cattle did it? Was it Joe's, Tom's, Susan's or Mary's? What should they do, start taking hoof prints of their cattle so that they can prove which one it was that caused the damage? I think not.

Those are some of the areas the government has not even bothered to look at. We hear the government members say all the time “We will consult”. They will not consult. They will not even tell the landowners whether or not there is a problem or an endangered species on their land. The landowners will have to bear that total responsibility. It will not be on scientific findings either. That right will be left to the legislators. That is very hard to understand.

There is a reason the government decided to take land out of private property. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as private property rights in Canada today. I really have to wonder why. Is it because the government does not want people to own land, or is it because it has a fear that if people own land they have something of value and they do not have to depend upon the government for anything? This is probably where it is headed with all of this type of legislation the government is trying to put in here.

I try to explain to people that the biggest fear to any government is people who can stand and say that they are independent. If people can do that, it means they no longer have to depend upon the government for anything and therefore those in government cannot depend upon them to vote for them to keep them in their jobs.

I really question the motives behind pieces of legislation such as Bill C-5. The government cannot afford to allow the people of Canada to own land because that might make them independent. They will no longer depend upon the government to help them so they will no longer have to vote for the government of the day. The government will go to all sorts of lengths to create that scenario. I would like to say that I find that very disgusting, but it goes beyond that; for when the initiative and incentive for young people to buy and invest in their own country is taken away, just exactly where does the government think it will wind up?

I would like to talk for a long time on this subject but I am out of time. What the government is doing to the people of Canada is a total disgrace.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will never accept umbrella legislation from the federal government in the form being presented at this time, when the Government of Quebec has already taken the necessary steps on the issue being addressed today, that is an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. I am therefore pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-5, which concerns species at risk.

I would like to make it clear that long ago, in 1989, the Government of Quebec long ago enacted legislation respecting threatened or vulnerable species. It also enacted legislation respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, and fishing regulations. There can obviously be no question of the federal government invading areas of jurisdiction that do not belong to it and telling Quebec how to go about protecting its wildlife species at risk, when Quebec already has legislation in this area.

First, I would like to briefly put the bill in context. The federal government must first ask itself if this bill will provide additional protection that is enforceable. Will this bill truly help improve the protection of our ecosystems and of the threatened species that are part of them? The Bloc Quebecois believes that the answer is no.

Of course, the Bloc Quebecois fully agrees with the principle whereby our species must be given even greater protection, but we are opposed to this bill, because it constitutes direct intrusion into many of Quebec's jurisdictions and it directly overlaps the legislation enacted by Quebec in 1989. This bill could very well increase paper burden, instead of allowing for an efficient use of already scarce resources. As I mentioned earlier, the Government of Quebec government has already legislated in the area targeted by this bill. We do not think that the government's proposed measures will improve the situation of endangered wildlife species.

Even though the preamble of the bill provides that the protection of species is a shared responsibility, the bill is not worded accordingly and does not reflect the reality, namely that habitat protection is primarily a provincial responsibility. The whole bill is drafted in a way that leads us to believe that the minister will have the authority to impose on the provinces his own vision of that protection, if he deems it appropriate to do so. In other words, the minister's legislation will prevail over existing provincial laws, even though habitat is entirely under provincial jurisdiction.

Also, the federal government should have dealt properly with the control and evaluation of toxic substances, including, for example, the evaluation of the effects of genetically modified organisms on ecosystems. It could also have dealt with cross border pollution and migrating species.

Biodiversity as a whole is the result of the earth's evolution over more than 4.5 billion years. This process created a wide selection of living organisms and natural environments on our planet. Together, they form the ecosystems we know today. Each one plays a specific role in the food chain and contributes to the biological balance of the planet.

However, in recent years, scientists have been warning about the disappearance of species in increasing numbers, as well as the rise in the number of species facing extinction or extremely vulnerable species.

This is a stark reminder that our planet's natural heritage is under threat. The rate at which species are disappearing from our planet is an indication of the overall health of our environment and ultimately our own human health.

The Bloc Quebecois is aware that Quebecers and Canadians are concerned about protecting species at risk, about protecting and maintaining the environment generally. We recognize that the fragile balance of our ecosystems must be protected and maintained.

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

Given the increasing rate at which species are disappearing, the situation is serious. Effective action is therefore necessary. But will this bill really help better protect our ecosystems and the endangered species in them?

Unfortunately, the government and the minister are wrong about what their real role is in designing a realizable plan to provide such protection.

The government is but one of the many stakeholders, and it has not yet figured out that its true role is to build bridges between the various stakeholders, not walls. That is what the true task of the government is when it comes to endangered species, a task at which it has failed. The bill on species at risk the Liberals have now introduced will polarize and divide stakeholders far more than it will unite them.

Every action plan to protect species at risk must be based on respect, that is on respect for the species living in our waters and on our lands, and respect for those to whom those waters and lands belong.

This bill is full of provisions providing discretionary power. In true Liberal fashion, Bill C-5 officially sets up COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, as the ultimate authority in determining which species are endangered. At the same time, the bill prevents COSEWIC, which makes decisions based on scientific data, from determining which species are in fact protected by law. COSEWIC determines which are the endangered species, but will not be allowed under the bill to take steps to protect these species and to draw up a list of them.

What threatens species most is the loss of their habitat, where they live, reproduce and feed. Habitat loss is responsible for 80% of species decline in Canada. Again, Bill C-5 fails in this regard. Under the provisions of his bill, the protection of a species is up to the discretion of the Minister of the Environment.

Not only does the bill give broad discretionary powers to the Minister of the Environment, but it does not respect the division of powers as set out in the Constitution and as interpreted over the years. This bill interferes directly in an area of provincial jurisdiction and excludes the provinces from any real and direct input into the process.

The main problem with this bill, which seems to have been raised by all environmental groups, is the fact that the decisions on the designation of species will be made by the minister and his office, rather than by scientists.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois recognizes the need to improve the protection of our ecosystems and the endangered plant and animal species that constitute them. But we do not believe Bill C-5 is the way to go. We oppose the principle of this bill today. However, we will examine it more thoroughly in committee and we will then be able to better define our position on this issue.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my speech today on Group No. 4 will be based upon the same premise on which I have spoken to the other report stage amendments.

I really appreciate the tremendous amount of hard work that was done by members of the committee in taking a look at the bill which had some pretty significant deficiencies when it left the House after second reading. The work they did was not all in unanimity. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, there was a tremendous amount of debate during the course of the work of the committee.

However there was a very strong feeling, certainly on the part of the Canadian Alliance members, which continues to this day, that we do require a bill that will truly protect the environment.

The difficulty with this species at risk act, Bill C-5, is that the government is moving away from the ability to achieve that environmental protection that the Canadian Alliance wants and many members on the Liberal backbenches want.

The work done by members of the committee was in the area of receiving input from very diverse groups. They worked through it, if the House will pardon the expression, in almost a Solomon-like way of managing to come to balances of interests and opinions among people. When the bill came back to the House it was in a very distinctly improved stage from the way in which it left.

I find it reprehensible that the front bench of the government, the cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister, would have treated the work of a parliamentary committee, the standing committee on environment, with such a tremendous amount of disrespect.

I will take a look at some of the specific motions that the government has brought in, the first being Motion No. 16. I will read the clause as it is presently written. Clause 7(1) and (2) state:

1. (1) The Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council consists of the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and ministers of the government of a province or a territory who are responsible for the conservation and management of a wildlife species in that province or territory.

(2) The role of the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council is to

(a) provide general direction on the activities of COSEWIC, the preparation of recovery strategies and the preparation and implementation of action plans;

(b) co-ordinate the activities of the various governments represented on the Council relating to the protection of species at risk;

This is what the motion deletes:

...and (c) seek and consider advice and recommendations from the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk.

The amendment, which deletes that last phrase, deletes the reference to aboriginal council because the government wants to introduce mention of a national aboriginal committee in clause 8. There is no reason for the government to make the changes it proposes in Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20. The government wording would have largely the same result as the committee's proposal, except a name change from council to committee.

It does not justify reversing the work of the committee. These changes were, after all, initiated by Liberal members on the committee. It shows the government's contempt for the work of the parliamentary committees and its own MPs.

We will be opposing this motion because it fails to respect the committee.

Motion No. 17 by the Liberals is to delete the following:

7.1 (1) The National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk consists of the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and six representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada selected by the Minister based upon recommendations from aboriginal organizations that the Minister considers appropriate.

(2) The role of the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk is to provide advice and recommendations to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.

Again this amendment deletes a reference to the national aboriginal council because the government wants to introduce mention of a national aboriginal committee in clause 8 making this clause redundant.

Again there is no reason for the government to make the changes that it proposes in Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20. The government wording will have largely the same result as the committee's proposal except the change in name from council to committee. This does not justify reversing the work of the committee. These changes were, after all, initiated by members of the Liberal Party on the committee. It shows the government's contempt for the work of the parliamentary committees and even its own MPs.

Again our party will be opposing the motion because it fails to respect the committee.

This does get a little repetitious but my point is that the government keeps bringing in motions that fail to respect the committee and its work.

Government Motion No. 20 would insert clause 8.1 under national aboriginal committee on species at risk. The motion reads:

The Minister may establish a committee, to be known as the National Aboriginal Committee on Species at Risk, consisting of six representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada appointed by the Minister based on recommendations from aboriginal organizations that the Minister considers appropriate. The role of the committee is to advise the Minister on the administration of this Act.

The motion undoes the work of the standing committee and the motion by the Liberal member for Churchill River by replacing the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk with a national aboriginal committee on species at risk.

Again there is no reason for the government to make the changes it proposes in Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20. The government wording will have largely the same result as the committee's proposal except to change the name from council to committee. It does not justify reversing the work of the committee. The changes were, after all, initiated by Liberal members of the committee. It shows the government's contempt for the work of the parliamentary committees and for its own MPs.

Again we will be opposing the motion because it fails to respect the committee.

Government Motion No. 24 concerns clause 10.1, stewardship action plan in public registry. The motion reads:

son. A copy of the stewardship action plan must be included in the public registry.

Consistent with other transparency provisions in the bill, the motion proposes that a copy of the plan be included in the public registry.

Let me say that the government is not all bad because this is a positive amendment. It increases the flow of information to the public. We will be supporting it because of its increased transparency.

Government Motion No. 25, under clause 10.2, would create a stewardship action plan. I ask members to bear with me as this is a little complex. At present clause 10.2 reads:

The National Stewardship Action Plan shall include, but is not limited to,

The government motion to amend clause 10.2 reads:

The stewardship action plan must include, but is not limited to, commitments to

The motion goes through a whole series of additions and deletions in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). Because of the complexity of this I will not read into the record the inclusions and deletions but again the motion extensively modifies the amendments by the standing committee that introduced the stewardship action plan to Bill C-5. The amendment reinforces an earlier government amendment that makes the development of an action plan discretionary, not mandatory, although when the minister chooses to develop an action plan this motion will still dictate some elements to be included.

Again we will be opposing the motion because it strongly waters down the committee's changes and, in particular, omits mention of tax treatment and subsidies to eliminate disincentives.

That was just a small section of what we are allowed in a 10 minute period. Although there was one positive amendment that would strengthen the act, overall the entire impact of the government and the Prime Minister of the country was to substantially undo the excellent work of the committee. For that reason we will be opposing the amendments that I have read.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reconvene my participation in the debate on Bill C-5, a bill the Progressive Conservative Party has categorically panned.

The bill is weak with respect to four principal points. First, politicians and not scientists would be responsible for establishing the illegal list. I am struck by the fact that the government does not understand the socioeconomic implications of the action plan. It would have been a gift for the environmental community and individuals interested in preserving biodiversity.

Second, I do not know if hon. members are aware of this, but Bill C-5 would not provide for mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands. How can the federal government claim the moral fortitude to intervene on provincial or private lands when it would not be taking care of its own backyard? If a species at risk was in a national park, on a military base or north of 60 the Government of Canada would not be obliged to protect it.

Third, Bill C-5 does not include a provision for the protection of migratory birds which are cross boundary species in the purview of the federal government.

Fourth, the bill offers no clarity on the compensatory regime, something of which we in my party and our friends in the Canadian Alliance have been stalwart defenders. If the government had its act together on the compensation issue it would have tabled the regulations simultaneously with the bill.

I will refer to the Group No. 4 amendments for which the Liberal government is under assault by the first nations community. The committee wanted to entrench the consultative process to empower first nations and give them a role in how the act would be applied. There was nearly unanimous support for this by committee members from all five parties of the House of Commons. They said first nations and traditional knowledge should be taken into account not only when advising COSEWIC which provides information on habitat and listing. They should have a role on a permanent council with direct input to the minister, almost like a standing committee.

The Government of Canada has watered down that provision. The first nations community has written to the Minister of the Environment. A letter from the Inuit community to the Minister of the Environment dated February 20 refers to the gutting of the provision that would have allowed first nations to consult directly with the minister. The gutting of the provision goes against the whole spirit of what Bill C-5 was intended to do.

The hon. member for Churchill River is a strong environmental MP although he was stronger when sitting with the NDP than he is with the Grits. He has tabled a compromise known as the Amendment to Motion No. 20. The Government of Canada should follow it. Its language is extremely modest. It revisits the provision that the minister be advised by a council and that first nations have direct input to the minister.

We will categorically vote against Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20 in which the government goes against the will of the committee. We will support the compromise amendment tabled by the hon. member for Churchill River.

In Motions Nos. 24 and 25 the Liberal government has tried to, shall we say, augment a Progressive Conservative amendment tabled at the committee pertaining to clause 10.2. The amendment pertains to a national stewardship action plan that would: foster stewardship; ensure proper mechanisms such as tax incentives were in place to reward responsible behaviour, a tool which could be used to collect and share information between first nations and provincial governments or between various levels of government; regularly examine tax treatment and subsidies; and eliminate disincentives for actions that protect species at risk.

The government's language for the most part augments our party's amendment. I applaud the wordsmiths of the Liberal backroom who are listening intently to my remarks. It would have been more helpful if the government had kept part H. We in my party are inclined to support the government's augmentation of our amendment because it would blend the language better. Although is ironic, I compliment the government for not taking out an amendment the committee had overwhelmingly endorsed. We in our party think fostering stewardship and co-operative behaviour is a step in the right direction and should be enshrined in the bill. The government has done just that.

The hon. member from Churchill made a complementary amendment that we will support. It has better wording with respect to ensuring the traditional knowledge of first nations is included in the act.

I will also speak to Motion No. 76 which refers to clause 50 of the bill. The government has gone to great lengths to say it needs a consultative process with different levels of government including provinces and first nations. There is a point in the bill where the government would need to implement a recovery plan to provide accountability after the strategy is fully developed. However the committee said if something cannot be measured it cannot be managed.

We set a timeline for implementing the recovery plan and getting it off the ground. We and members of the committee thought a calendar year should be sufficient. However the Government of Canada hates to have accountability for anything where it would have to perform or provide action, so it took out the timeline. That is quite sad.

I will take a moment to refer to Motion No. 114 in which the government says it intends to consult provinces, territories and aboriginals for advice in developing strategies and plans. This refers to clause 69 of the bill. It was argued at length in committee that the provisions made at committee level could not be changed or reversed because it would break the consultative spirit the government had with the provinces.

Government Motion No. 114 would gut the provision under clause 69 of the bill which says the minister shall consult the provinces, territories and first nations. We are now back to May again. It is again a made in Ottawa solution.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendments in Group No. 4. I have been able to touch upon some of them. We look forward to defeating the bill come third reading.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating the various motions and amendments to Bill C-5, the species at risk act.

This legislation would have a dramatic impact on Canada as a whole in regard to the management of our natural resources and wildlife. It would have an impact on individual Canadians who live on the land and even those who live in the cities who want to enjoy the rural areas and the species living out in the countryside.

The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment along with endangered species. No one on God's green earth wants to see any species disappear. However, we know that over the millions of years that have passed nature itself has determined that some species would not continue to exist. We must have common sense legislation that within reason does as much as it possibly can to protect our endangered species.

The bill would not protect our endangered species in a common sense way. It may not even protect them in an effective way. The bill relies on the big stick. It relies on criminal sanctions when it should rely on some co-operation and some effort to bring Canadians totally on side.

The government has turned against the very Canadians that are most crucial in protecting species at risk, the landowners and land users where the species actually live. In the big cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, the areas where endangered species live have already been paved over so they are now gone from those areas. They may still exist in some other parts of Canada but the city people have already taken care of that. What is left now are the rural areas in Canada where we are trying to protect these endangered species. We are all in favour of that.

Today we are debating the amendments in Group No. 4. In one particular motion there is no requirement to put compensation in the regulations. This has been one of the binding points with rural people, the landowners, those people who would protect endangered species.

If a cattle rancher were to have a 640 acre square section on which there were particular endangered species or multiple endangered species, the government could come in and say that it should be set aside, fenced off and that there should be no use of that land for the raising of cattle because some species may need some heavier grass which should not be grazed down.

I do not know what the scientists may say about that. However, if that were the case there would be limited or no grazing on that land and yet there would be no compensation given to that rancher for that land which was taken out of production.

The government has asked to be trusted on this and said that it would do something for these people. If that were the case, if the minister's intent were true and believable, then what would be wrong with adding that to the legislation? That would get rid of a lot of problems. It would compensate those Canadians who might incur costs while attempting to save and protect endangered species and their habitat across Canada, which is what everyone wants. What is wrong with doing that simple thing?

It reminds me of Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation. What was required in that bill was the addition of one simple little legislative entry stating that under the criminal code the normal practices of farmers, ranchers, other livestock users and medical researchers was legally justified and would not be considered cruelty to animals.

The government could bring in good legislation but fails to do it. I do not understand why. It is like it is against farmers and ranchers. It just behooves me. The fine could be as much as $250,000. That is an awful onerous type of criminal sanction on a given farm and ranch. Many of these farms and ranches only net between $20,000 to $100,000 a year and then the government would try to fine them $250,000. That seems like an awful lot.

The government does not even have to let a landowner know that there is an endangered species on the owner's property. If the farmer or rancher were not aware that an endangered species was on the property, and the government did, the farmer or rancher could inadvertently destroy some habitat, or actually destroy the endangered species itself, and be subject to criminal sanctions because the government would not tell them. It is so ridiculous that the legislation deserves to be voted down.

We have some people in this country who are experts and have had experience with the species at risk legislation in the United States. I also have a friend High River, Alberta, David Pope. He is a lawyer and cattle rancher. I have actually seen his cattle ranch and he is a director of the Western Stock Growers' Association.

The directorship of the Western Stock Growers' Association met on April 9, 2002. The government thinks it has all the farmers onside. There are the Dairy Farmers of Canada. I know many members on the government side support the Dairy Farmers of Canada but the Dairy Farmers of Canada on April 3 wrote a letter to the government asking it not to pass the cruelty to animals amendments.

I am waiting to see that vote when it comes up in the House because I expect the Liberals to vote against the cruelty to animals provisions until we can get a decent bill brought in that takes care of our dairy farmers and does not cause them problems like the government is trying to do. Are Liberals the big protectors of farmers and agriculture? I do not think so.

David Pope said the Western Stock Growers' Association believed that the vast majority of the people involved in raising cattle in Canada would not support a law which would allow their federal government to confiscate their land without fair compensation under the guise of protecting habitat of a species at risk, as well as other issues.

Mr. Pope was born in the United States. He came to Canada and was a teacher, cattle rancher and lawyer. He is well travelled and well experienced. He said the legislation in the United States was terrible. There are many components in the legislation we are trying to pass that contain some of the same defects that were in the American legislation.

He said the federal government would have the legal authority to confiscate land without fair compensation, whether it was private land or crown provincial grazing land, under the guise of protecting the habitat.

A forced reduction of the number of cattle grazed on either private or crown land would not be fairly compensated. This backs up what I said a few minutes ago. We have an economic problem with agriculture. The cycles of prices, and commodity prices in particular, go up and down. Mr. Pope pointed out that as a result we end up with the necessity, when the government negatively impacts agriculture, that it provide some compensation for it.

The federal government is creating new crimes against landowners with fines of up to $50,000 or one year in jail. It would be double that if there was a second conviction. Any of us could easily be convicted of one of these offences without the government having to prove criminal intent.

Bill C-5 is along the lines of the Firearms Act. It would create a whole bunch of rules and regulations. They would be so many and so complex that Canadians could not possibly obey them all. With a vindictive government like this one and the present health minister who is a former justice minister, we would see that vindictiveness come forward and hurt Canadians.

I thank the House for the time to speak today. I will be trying to rise and speak to the bill later.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are here again this morning to discuss Bill C-5 one more time. As the saying goes, this bill is uglier than 40 acres of burning stumps but we continue to debate it and continue to work our way through it.

The bill has been introduced a number of times. I asked some MPs, who have been here for awhile, how many times they had seen this bill and they said that they were not sure, but it keeps coming back again and again. In fact in a lot of ways this has a longer gestation period than many of the animals that it purports to support.

The bill was introduced last summer and was sent to the committee last fall. It is interesting to note that the committee spent four months working on the bill and did so much work on it. It heard 120-odd witnesses and made over 300 amendments to the bill.

While we opposed the bill from the beginning, we felt that the committee had done some good and strong work and that it had done what it was supposed to have done. The hypocrisy that comes back to the bill through what the government has done to it is enough to appall anyone.

The government members and the opposition members spent months working on the bill. It seems that the committee was used to keep its members busy more than it was to do productive work. I would suggest that the government, and the minister in particular, has shown disregard for the MPs and their work in the House.

Who is setting the direction of the legislation and the government? It is clearly not cabinet. If it was, one would think it would allow the committees to do their work. I would suggest that the bill is being run by the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats behind the scenes. We see that in many other areas as well. One has to do with the new agricultural policy framework. We clearly see that someone other than the minister is running the department.

I would like to quote from an article in the Leader -Post on April 3 that talks about the agricultural framework policy discussions that are supposedly taking place and what a sham they are. The article reads:

Consultations about the most significant shift ever in Canadian agriculture policy are nothing more than a poorly-organized public relations exercise, say angry Saskatchewan farm groups.

The province's agriculture organizations are confused about why it took so long to set up meetings, why they aren't open to the public and why Ottawa hired a “heavyweight” international consulting firm to facilitate the sessions.

[These organizations] also complain they have had little time to prepare for the meetings about Ottawa's plan to overhaul agriculture, currently underway around the country...

Denise Treslan, executive director of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, said the meetings are so disorganized she found out third-hand that one of the organization's directors is scheduled to appear at a [meeting].

“It seems like a free-for-all,” said Treslan. “We've had no contact whatsoever with the group that is putting together the meetings. We don't know if we are supposed to make a formal presentation or if we show up and it's a roundtable or what.”

Farm groups are also concerned the meetings are not a meaningful attempt at consultation, noting the sessions are coming nine months after the policy revision was announced in June of 2001.

This is a pattern we see in the government. When it comes to consultation, it is not sincere in what it does. We will talk a little about that this morning with these amendments to Bill C-5.

With regard to Bill C-5, farm groups have been under pressure for 10 years to support the bill and most of them have continued to oppose the bill. I have talked to a few of them and they have been told by the minister that they should support the bill because, and these are his words apparently, “It could be worse”.

I am not sure if that is how we make legislation in the country now. Also I am not sure if this is a promise or a threat from him. Either he is saying that he is in control and he can make the bill much worse if he wants to. If that is the case and that is his attitude then it is probably time for him to go. Or he is saying that he cannot control his bureaucrats or the people who are running his department. If that is the case then he probably should be removed from his post.

Yesterday I noticed that he was doing a good job at PR as he spent some time applauding our Olympic athletes. Perhaps that would be a better place for him than to be heading up this bill.

The Group No. 4 amendments deal with two main issues: stewardship plans and public consultation and whether that is an active part of the bill or not.

The committee worked hard to put together a process for planning. It talked a lot in its work about recovery plans, action plans and stewardship plans. From that four months' work, a national stewardship action plan was agreed to.

I have the format in front of me of what that would have been. The national stewardship action plan made commitments to a number of things. It made a commitment to using the tax system, subsidization and the elimination of disincentives to help landowners protect species at risk.

It was a strategy for public education and information sharing. An awards and recognition program was built into the action plan. It had ways to formalize land agreements and provide technical and scientific support directly to landowners and people who were concerned with species at risk. It also had a consultation strategy.

By the time the minister was done with this part of the bill through Motion No. 25 he had done a few things to it. He eliminated the idea of using the tax system to support conservation. That was taken completely out of the bill. He offered to provide information about species at risk but no program of public education. I presume that means people would get government brochures rather than actually having a program of public education.

It committed to share information but not to develop a program to carry it out. It did keep the awards program. The government agreed to provide information about programs related to stewardship rather than to commit to setting up those programs. It agreed to provide information about technical and scientific support rather than providing the support.

It considerably weakened its commitment to the stewardship action plan through the amendment. It is no longer a plan at all. It ends up being a public relations exercise in the stewardship action plan and that is not adequate.

There is one thing that really bothers me. Where are the Liberal backbenchers on this bill and these amendments? Many of them are extremely concerned about the minister's action with regard to the bill. Many of them have done a lot of work on the bill. They did a good job in committee and had reached a bill that they could support and be happy with.

It went to the minister and came back completely gutted. Yet I hear little noise or attempts to address those issues from the backbenchers of the government. I suggest that they have a responsibility. If the government and cabinet were to bring forth poor legislation and provide poor leadership to Canadians the government backbenchers have a responsibility to have the guts to step forward and say they do not agree with it and that the legislation needs to be stopped. I do not see much of that happening and I am disappointed.

I would like to discuss the second part of the stewardship action plan which is dealt with in Motion No. 29. The amendment removes the requirement that stewardship agreements must be made public so that the public can discuss them. It seems by definition that the stewardship agreement would have to be put out into the public so that consultation and discussion can take place. It is interesting that the minister has chosen to remove the requirement that these agreements be made public before they become legislation.

It is necessary to get broad based support through public discussion. The minister clearly does not allow that in the amendment. That is absolutely unacceptable. Landowners are affected but so too are neighbouring landowners. It is interesting that if wolves were introduced into an ecosystem in a national park people around the park would also be affected. It is important that we take that into account.

I will point out one more amendment that has removed the effectiveness of the bill. There was a five year review built into the bill and amendments were made in committee to have subsequent five year reviews. The minister has clearly chosen to take that out. One review would be allowed and that is it. This reflects one more time the attitude of the government toward working with people.

I opened with a statement about the bill being uglier than 40 acres of burning stumps. At the end of my speech it has as much chance of survival or success as a one-legged grasshopper in a chicken coop. The bill is flawed more now than ever. More now than ever we need to stop it and to do whatever it takes to do that.

[The Speaker]

Before resuming debate on report stage of Bill C-5, the Species at Risk Act, I would like to make a correction.

One report stage motion was included with technical amendments in Group No. 3 when it should have been included in Group No. 5. Therefore, Motion No. 120, proposed by the Minister of the Environment, is now in Group No. 5.

The vote on Motion No. 116 will be applied to Motion No. 120. A corrected voting table is now available at the Table.

Pest Control Products Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as the other vice-chair of the environment committee it is my pleasure to speak to the bill.

As we have heard from my hon. colleague across the way, I was not part of the environment committee when Bill C-53 was discussed so I am not familiar with all the work put into it during that year. However I will add a few comments that might be helpful to the health committee as it looks at the bill.

My involvement with environmental issues dates back to my reading of Silent Spring , Rachel Carson's book that pushed into the forefront the issue of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and so on and the impacts they might have. In those days a lot of mistakes were made. A lot of chemicals were developed that were effective, but no one looked at what they might do to our water and wildlife down the road. No one looked at the cumulative effects they might have for future generations.

I am pleased this piece of legislation is being revised. As the hon. member across the way mentioned, it has not been updated since 1969. An awful lot has changed in the area of chemistry regarding what works, what does not work and all the problems I mentioned.

I recognize the pressure on farmers trying to make a living who have had to deal with low commodity prices, increased input costs and so many environmental concerns. Other legislation before the House, Bill C-15B, is causing major concern regarding the definition of animal and the rights animals should have. We are all against cruelty to animals. However by taking the issue to the extreme we could put an awful lot of pressure on our agriculture community. Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation, could put even more pressure on farmers as it comes through the House later this week.

Now we are discussing pesticides. A lot of farmers are afraid the government will come after them and attack the very things that constitute their way of life and means of income. We want to make sure members of the farm community understand that Bill C-53 would not target them. It would simply modernize a piece of legislation that has not been touched since 1969. I know many farmers who do not like using chemicals. They would rather not have to use them. However using various fungicides, herbicides and pesticides is a matter of survival for them.

Bill C-53 says the federal government would not interfere in the urban use of pesticides. It would leave it to the municipalities. That is a wise decision. It would allow each city to listen to its grassroots and make its own decisions. The most important emphasis for the health committee will be to look at the effect pesticides would have on children, animals and people in the community.

The new farming methods depend fairly heavily on the use of new herbicides and pesticides. Direct seeding is very common across most of western Canada. Saving fuel, reducing CO

2

and preventing erosion are all important when it comes to the new farming techniques. The downside is that farmers are fairly dependent on herbicides and pesticides to keep down weeds, insects and so on.

There is the matter of the runoff of these chemicals into our dugouts, streams and lakes and the effects it might have. We need a full study of water and the implications of pesticide and herbicide use on our water supply. The government has talked but has come forward with very little action regarding the survey of water.

We need to understand our aquifers. We need to understand the environmental implications on a much bigger scale than we now do. That is in the realm of federal concern. The federal government needs to show the provinces it wants to work together to develop a water inventory which includes the runoff of chemicals into our water supply. We have gone far too long without doing adequate studies to know what this means.

As I mentioned, the technology has improved. The modernization of chemicals and use of safer chemicals is all part of the new R and D. Chemical companies know they must have safe products. Because we have had such outdated legislation Canada has been pretty lax in the use of new chemicals. Bill C-53 would move us along those lines.

As has been mentioned before, when an OECD country says a chemical is suspect because it does not do the job it is supposed to and has other effects, Canada will start to look at that. This is a positive move. We need to register these chemicals. We need to understand their implications. These are all positive aspects of Bill C-53.

A big concern I have and that our agriculture and health critics have spoken to is that we need to put this piece of legislation into committee where we can make amendments and so on. However I am a little tainted and unhappy because that is exactly what happened to Bill C-5. Government members, opposition members, environmentalists and so on all found fault with it. It went to committee. We worked for nine months to improve it. All members of the House worked hard and co-operatively on that piece of legislation.

When the government got the legislation back from committee it decided to reverse most of the amendments we had won in committee. If that is the sort of thing that happens with Bill C-53 I will question what the committee is doing or whether it is wasting its time with the amendments. I will get over it. However when I see something sent to committee and have great hopes for amendments, I hope the government will listen to the committee. Committees listen to hundreds of witnesses before making recommendations to make better pieces of legislation.

When we talk about pesticides we should also talk about labelling. All of us have experienced difficulties with labelling. Whether we spray a chemical on our lawn or on a bug we do not want in our roses, we sometimes have difficulty reading the labelling. I have always thought that needed a lot of improvement.

The labelling sometimes talks about the mixing of quantities but talks about spraying only one rose bush. This does not mean much to the user who may not be dealing with only one rose bush. Sometimes it is very unclear what one is supposed to do to safely use a chemical. Farmers have the same difficulty when mixing batches of pesticide. Clear labelling is needed. Anything the committee can do to improve labelling for the use of pesticides would help.

We need to speed up the registration process whether for drugs or the use of pesticides. We need to learn from others. We need to look at what the EU, the Americans and other countries are doing. We need to see why they are outlawing certain chemicals and bringing in new ones. Many new chemicals are cheaper, more effective and do a much better job. We need to be able to speed up the process. Again, I hope the committee deals with the issue of registration.

As I mentioned, the mandatory review of any chemical banned by an OECD country is a good move because it means those 50 some countries have done their research. If they find a reason to ban a certain chemical it is good to evaluate the information. However we want the evaluation to be based on sound science and not the whims or lobbying of chemical companies and agricultural groups. This is something the committee could amend and improve in Bill C-53.

When we put forward a piece of legislation like this we need to recognize that farmers are in competition with members of the European Union and their American colleagues, and that the competition is real. There is an awful lot of work we can do. As long as the committee is given the freedom to bring in the witnesses it wants and put forward the recommendations it wants, and as long as the government is committed to listening, we will go a long way toward having an improved piece of legislation.

As my party's agriculture and health critics have said, we will support this piece of legislation. We will take it to committee. We look forward to getting amendments with respect to labelling, use, evaluation and so on. Provided that all comes together, we look forward to supporting Bill C-53 when it comes to report stage and third reading.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the legislation in section 182.2 states:

(1) Everyone commits an offence who, wilfully or recklessly,(b) kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately

I find that interesting. I know that animal rights groups are going to bring that in. They are going to try to redefine the idea of what brutally or viciously is. It was not included in the previous legislation. There is no reason for it to be included in this legislation.

On the issue of whether government members will stand and oppose the bill, I would ask that the rural members show some of the backbone they claim they have every time before we go into a vote. I would ask that they vote against the bill. Clearly it is in the worst interests of their constituents if they have farmers or ranchers who will be affected by this. I certainly would expect that those people who are involved directly in primary production, as is my friend from Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, as he so eloquently lets us know on a regular basis, would do the right thing. I know he will do the right thing.

I agree with my colleague it is important that the minister of agriculture take a leadership role on this issue. Why should those of us in opposition continually have to raise the issues that are important to rural people and to farmers and ranchers?

The minister of agriculture is supposed to represent the interests of those people. It would be a big step for him to take the lead on a bill like this one, or on another bad bill such as Bill C-5 which is the species at risk bill. Many people across Canada are asking that someone take the lead on it. The Canadian Alliance has done that. We ask that the rural members on the other side and the minister of agriculture stand and defend producers' interest there as well.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand and partake in the debate on cruelty to animals. This is the third time I have spoken against certain provisions of Bill C-15B. It is important to remind the House that the Liberal government initially brought the bill forward as an omnibus bill that brought together good pieces of legislation with the bad and the ugly. Today we are left to deal with the bad and the ugly.

The Canadian Alliance would not support a bill brought forward in that manner. We in the Alliance strongly opposed Bill C-15 and worked to have it split. We gave quick passage to the first part of the bill, Bill C-15A. Today we are debating Bill C-15B. My colleagues and I oppose Bill C-15B because it would have detrimental and far reaching effects on the farming communities and rural areas that constitute the majority of the riding I represent in Crowfoot in Alberta.

As I stated during debate on Bill C-5, the endangered species act, farmers do not need any more Ottawa made laws to drive them further into the ground. Many of my constituents, like those of all rural MPs including members on the other side of the House who appear poised to sell out their rural constituents, are struggling to survive. Our rural constituents are struggling to keep their farms viable. They are struggling to protect and preserve a way of life. They are struggling to provide for their families in the fashion to which they have become accustomed.

I will exemplify my point. For those here who do not subscribe to the Western Producer I will read the headline from March 21. It reads “Rural Exodus Hits Saskatchewan the Hardest”. The article goes on to say Saskatchewan has lost 13,162 rural folk since 1996.

The province I represent, my home province of Alberta, experienced a population growth of 10.3% between 1996 and 2001, a rate that far exceeds the national average. The national average over the same period was about 4%. This shows Alberta has a growing economy and the population is portraying that. However Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have all experienced what we call a population shift. This is prevalent and evident in my riding. Individuals are leaving the farms. They are leaving rural Alberta and moving into urban centres.

Alberta's saving grace has been its natural resources. It has been its oil, gas and tourism industries. The part of Alberta that has benefited most from the movement of population is the corridor between Edmonton and Calgary. It has seen the most substantive growth.

In September last year the Canadian Federation of Agriculture produced some facts about farm incomes. CFA president Bob Friesen said:

On the surface, the numbers might project farmers will be fine, but scratch the surface and you find a completely different picture.

From 1996 to 2000 total farm cash receipts rose by 12%. However when inflation is taken into account the increase drops to 5% in real terms. The numbers are also influenced by the livestock sector which has remained fairly stable and in some cases seen an increase. Crop receipts by comparison have declined by 14%. As the CFA president pointed out, it is important to note that cash receipts do not indicate final farm income. They reflect gross revenue, not the input costs associated with farming.

Expenses for farmers rose by 13% during the same period. Fuel costs alone went up 27% and were expected to rise another 10% in the next year. Fertilizer prices were expected to rise 33% during that period. We stood in the House last year debating farm input costs. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture said that all in all the year 2001 would be remembered as an historic low point in Canadian agriculture due in part to increasing input costs but more specifically to the environmental conditions facing farmers.

Environmental and drought conditions are factors over which farmers have no control. Parts of British Columbia were hit by drought while wet conditions on Vancouver Island affected the apple crop. Alberta and most of Saskatchewan were so dried up that most fields looked like parched pavement. Walking through a pasture in Hanna I could feel the grass crunch and break underneath my feet. I saw dugouts that were with caked mud on the bottom. I watched grasshoppers part in clouds for a person walking through a pasture.

In parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba crops were lying in water, flooded out and destroyed. The drought experienced in the maritimes was made worse by an invasion of army worms that hit the potato and forage crops hard. While in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland blueberries were less than plentiful, Prince Edward Island horticulture crops were down 50%.

My colleagues and I are not prepared to stand idly by. Canadian Alliance members of parliament will not stand by and watch the demise of the family farm in our respective provinces. That is why we have fought so hard for agriculture over the past years and for a system that adequately meets the needs of farmers. That is why we are opposed to this piece of bad legislation before the House today.

As we get into the cruelty to animals section I will make it abundantly clear that the Canadian Alliance Party does not condone intentional acts of cruelty toward animals. We therefore fully support increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts.

I do not think any Canadian believes behaviour such as mutilating animals or tying dogs to trees and beating them to death should be condoned. We need to throw the book at these individuals. However we are adamantly opposed to the broader definition of animal that appears in Bill C-15B. By including non-human vertebrates and “all animals having the capacity to feel pain” the new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms that have never been provided that kind of protection in the past.

We are also opposed to the provisions of the bill that would leave farmers and ranchers open to frivolous or costly lawsuits for performing routine farm practices which have been commonplace for centuries.

At the outset when the bill came before committee a number of rural Liberal members of parliament gathered at the committee to share our reservations. However promises from the Department of Justice have obviously appeased their concerns. Despite the negative impact the bill would have on their rural constituents they now appear ready to toe the old Liberal Party line to the detriment of rural Canada.

The chairman of the Prime Minister's task force on agriculture, the hon. member for Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, has said that with the bill's assurances that any attempt to charge a farmer with cruelty would have to be vetted and approved by a crown prosecutor, an overwhelming majority of rural members are now able to support it.

The hon. member for Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, echoing the words of his Liberal colleague, has argued that the pre-study of cases before a judge and crown attorney would take frivolous actions out of the system so farmers would not have to pay for them or spend time in court. He claims this would allay a lot of our concerns. I will make it abundantly clear to the House that this would not alleviate the concerns of the official opposition Canadian Alliance. The proposition might even be cause for concern in that it would potentially cause an undue burden on judges, crown prosecutors and our already overtaxed judicial system.

I do not know the exact figures. However from the complaints I have had in my office it would appear to be taking an inordinate amount of time to move cases through the courts. We hear of instances where it is two months, six months or years before court cases get a date for hearing. It is unacceptable, and Bill C-15B would make a bad situation even worse.

Bill C-5, the Endangered Species Act, coupled with the legislation we are debating today and the potential prosecutions that would occur as a result of Bill 68, would put a tremendous strain on our courts which would hear cases against law abiding citizens based on unfounded allegations with no requirement of criminal negligence or mens rea.

For the past 50 years animals have been successfully protected under the special property section of our criminal code. We see no reason for the changes being contemplated by Bill C-15B. Historically animals have been classified as property under common law. During the feudal period when the law was first developed, cattle included oxen, cows, donkeys, mules, sheep, goats, horses and chickens and was considered a person's most valuable means of survival and wealth. As such cattle was a seminal form of chattel or personal property. It was viewed for centuries as chattel or property. The law regarding personal property was based on cases regarding rights of possession with respect to cattle. Because of its economic use and benefit cattle was recognized by law to consist of domestic animals, distinguished from pets, that in some cases were tamed, bred, and used for farming, food and draught.

As a farmer with a herd of cattle, although now that I have become a member of parliament it is a smaller herd, I can attest to the fact that we still consider cattle as property and one of the most valuable means of wealth and survival. This is especially true in the riding of Crowfoot.

Let us consider what it would mean for the people of Crowfoot, in Hanna, Oyen and throughout the riding, to take away cattle from the property section. As an owner of cattle it is my property. This puts me in the position of being its owner. Being an owner gives me the responsibility to look after that which is my property.

I can hardly wait. I can imagine what groups like the SPCA and others would do as they came out and saw cattle being neglected. The farmer would say they were not his property. He would say he had turned them out into stubble fields where there were bush patches. He would say he had turned them out in winter to go and secure their own food because they were not his property. However because I am the owner of cattle and they are my property it is incumbent on me to look after that which is mine.

To reiterate an earlier statement, we in my party see no reason for the definition of animal to be expanded. For these reasons alone we in my party are adamantly opposed to Bill C-15B.

With respect to the part of Bill C-15B that would amend the Firearms Act, I stand by our party's longstanding position that we would repeal Bill C-68. I stand by our reasoning for not introducing amendments within this section of the legislation. With 22 pages and some 63 clauses of firearms amendments, Bill C-15B is a clear admission by the Liberal government that Bill C-68 was a complete and total failure.

Bill C-68, the hallmark of the Liberal government, consisted of 137 pages of new laws with respect to firearms and weapons. It has failed. The first enabling regulations introduced in November 1996 added an additional 85 pages while those introduced on October 30, 1997 added approximately 65 pages to our changing firearms laws.

It is important to note, especially for those who were not here in 1995, that there was a provision in Bill C-68 that stipulated that when amendments were made to the bill the amended regulations would not have to be reviewed by parliament. The justice minister could enforce or enact firearms regulations without parliamentary review if the regulations in his or her opinion were “immaterial or insubstantial” under subsection 119(2) or urgent under subsection 119(3).

To date the government has enacted legislation using these subsections 16 times. Furthermore it has failed to report these changes to the House as required by the Firearms Act. The government failed to report them to the House until the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, exposed this and it was forced to. Effectively, these regulating powers negate our parliamentary system of checks and balances which are supposed to ensure that the government of day does not use extra, autocratic or dictatorial type of powers.

It may be immaterial and insubstantial. It may be urgent in the opinion of the Minister of Justice, or it may be material or very substantial and it may not be urgent at all in the opinion of parliament. To my colleagues who represent large rural consistencies their firearms are viewed perhaps more as a tool than as a weapon. Regardless of our opposition and animosity to the Firearms Act we must be apprised of any and all changes to the legislation in a clear and concise fashion. All Canadians must be aware to avoid unintentionally breaking any of these encumbering laws.

Despite what the Minister of Justice said in defence of Bill C-68 there still remains serious criminal repercussions for Canadians who fail or inadvertently fail to properly register their firearms.

Bill C-68 created three different penalties for failing to register a firearm: a maximum penalty of a summary conviction procedure of six months or a $2,000 fine under firearms section 112; second, a maximum term of imprisonment of five years on summary conviction under the criminal code subsection 91(1); and finally, a different penalty for knowingly neglecting to register a firearm with a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years under the criminal code subsection 92(1).

Bill C-68 also provided the Minister of Justice with almost autocratic powers that Canada has not seen since the War Measures Act. Subsection 117(15) of the legislation empowered the justice minister to declare any firearm that in his opinion is not reasonable for sporting or for hunting purposes to be declared a prohibited weapon by a simple order in council which is immune to judicial or parliamentary review. Talk about losing rights. Talk about the rights of the property owner and the gun owner being set aside, actually pulled away.

Subsection 104(1)(b) of Bill C-68 states:

An inspector may not enter a dwelling-house under section 102 except

with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant

However, if consent is not given the Firearms Act empowers police and inspectors to obtain a warrant to enter a home even where no evidence exists to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. Prior to Bill C-68 section 101 of the criminal code prohibited entrance into a dwelling house without a warrant except in cases of fresh pursuit. A warrant could only be issued or obtained when a police officer had reasonable proof that a crime had been committed or was about to be committed.

The intrusive nature of Bill C-68 and the huge powers that are being bestowed on the Minister of Justice alone demonstrates why the legislation was and still is viewed as an attack against decent law-abiding firearm owners. It is an unjustified attack.

Firearm owners support measures aimed at reducing the criminal use of firearms. The Liberal government has never shown how this ill conceived piece of legislation, with its mountains of regulations, complicated regime of licensing and registration, would accomplish this one simple objective. It has never shown and never been able to prove that Bill C-68 would reduce the criminal use of firearms.

Bill C-15 and Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation, as well as Bill C-68, pit rural against urban, are confrontational wedge issues against rural Canadians and their way of life. That is why Canadian Alliance members will continue to fight for the constituents that they represent and that is why we remain opposed to these Liberal made laws that insult and disrespect our rural lifestyle.

Species at Risk Act

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motions in Group No. 4 respecting Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation. It is pretty safe to say that most Canadians agree we have a responsibility to protect endangered species.

I have some pamphlets that have been put out by the government of Saskatchewan which refer to the sage grouse. Most people recognize they are endangered. Certainly the piping plover was mentioned in the House earlier today. Most people also realize it is an endangered species. The greater prairie chicken is a different species from the sage grouse. That species and the whopping crane are very recognizable Canadian species of wildlife that are endangered.

In the work I have done researching the bill I have been given to understand that if any of these endangered species are discovered on land of which an individual or group of individuals has ownership, the government has no obligation to inform them. If I had some sage grouse, whopping cranes, piping plovers or other birds on my land I would very likely know about it. I recognize they are endangered species. I would probably take steps to ensure that their environment was not damaged because of something I did.

However there are a other species on the prairies. For instance, the slender mouse-ear-cress, a very small plant, is one of which I have no knowledge. There are also western spider warts and the hairy prairie-clover. These are prairie vegetation that are on the endangered species list. If I or someone who owns the land inadverently destroys the habitat of the sand verbena or the hairy prairie-clover, we would be subject to severe penalties even though we had no idea the endangered species was on our land and even though the government does not have any obligation to notify us so that we can take the required precautions.

In talking with our critic we were informed that some nine months of work of the committee, which is a gestation period, produced at least 300 amendments, 100 or more of which were approved by all parties. All that work was completely wiped out when the legislation came back to the House. Members of the House have a lot better things to do than attend nine months of committee work which counts for absolutely nothing when it comes back to the House.

This is a sham. It is a total waste of parliament's time, potential and resources. All of us have better things to do. Our constituents would be better served if we spent more time with them and less time in a committee that does not work. Committee work is wonderful. It is where the nuts and bolts of legislation are made. If the committee works it is a wonderful tool. When it is treated in this way it is an absolute, total sham.

I agree with him when he moves his motion that the bill should be reviewed on a regular basis. I would have thought that a five year review would have been good but if he is willing to go with six years I am sure we can live with that. I can speak for my colleagues that we would be willing to support such a motion. I am pleased to see that he has moved that. I know that he and other Liberal members who speak against the bill do so at their peril. I applaud them for taking that stand and having that courage.

When we talk about people who own land and try to make a living from that, I know a little about that. I made my living from the land for 35 years by raising cattle and other crops to feed a hungry nation.

I would like to read into the record something I came in contact with. It is written by a fellow who did a lot of work with the transplantation of timber wolves from Alberta to Yellowstone Park. It was a project with the state of Wyoming and the province of Alberta. This person came to the realization by talking to a man by the name of William Pen Mott.

William Pen Mott was national park service director to former president Ronald Reagan. He attended a meeting with sheep ranchers who did not have a whole lot of love for the wolves. He said:

The single most important action that conservation groups could take to advance Yellowstone wolf restoration would be to start a compensation fund. It is economics that makes ranchers hate wolves. Pay them for their losses and the controversy will subside.

If the legislation does not compensate landowners for land that is taken out of production because of endangered species that live on it then the legislation is not only doomed to fail but it also does not serve the purpose it was intended, that is, the protection of endangered species. I submit that it will not protect endangered species. The only way that there will be protection of endangered species is if the people whose land the endangered species reside on are equal and willing partners in the program. If they are not willingly compliant, it will not work.

If the Government of Canada were to start confiscating land from people because there were endangered species on that land then we never owned the land in the first place. The right to own property is a fundamental right in Canada. If that were taken away from us, it would be a sad day for Canada.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate Bill C-5 and the amendments in Group No. 4.

First I want to speak to hon. members on the Liberal side, especially my colleague from Bras d'Or--Cape Breton who just spoke about stewardship. He made a good speech if indeed that is what the government is providing, but unfortunately the government is not. It takes the members for York North and Churchill River to provide that stewardship. It is simply ironic and incredulous that two Liberal backbenchers have to stand in the House and literally yell and scream in order to tell the government that what it is doing is wrong.

It is unbelievable in this day and age that we are talking about the change of one simple word, the change of the word “may” to the word “shall”. When it came to the aboriginal consultative group, the original bill said that the government “may” do this, which means it will not do it. The committee got together and put in the words “the government shall establish”. The government has turned around and changed that again.

The member for Churchill River, my former colleague, says that the wording should be that the minister “shall” establish a council. That is exactly what this is about.

The fact is that aboriginal people, first nations, Metis, Inuit and Innu and many others, have a very strong knowledge of what goes on in terms of traditional knowledge of our natural environment. If we want to consult with anyone, it should be with those people. They are the ones who live on the land. In many cases their nutrition is supplemented by food off the land. They know what is best for the species. They know what is best for themselves.

It is absolutely incredible that I listened to two very good members of the Liberal Party turn around and basically aim their entire speech right at the front bench. It is one thing for us in the opposition to do that. That is what we are here to do. However it is wonderful, and it is quite sad at the same time, to hear the government's own backbenchers do the same thing.

I encourage my colleagues on the Liberal side, especially from Nova Scotia, and those across the country to review what the government has done and support the member for Churchill River's amendment because he is absolutely right.

Why do the aboriginal communities have a large distrust of the government? The government plays around with wording of that nature in order to avoid responsibility and leadership, not only in aboriginal affairs but in terms of our natural environment.

I go back to the work that the committee did, especially the work by the hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair and his other colleagues. They worked extremely hard. They also spent a lot of taxpayers' dollars to bring people from around the country to the hearings and come up with recommendations that at best were watered down. They were the minimum. Individual members wanted tougher language, stronger conditions to protect our various species and habitats, but through compromise the 16 members from five political parties got together and said “This is the minimum we can do, the very best. This is something we can all support”.

What did the government do? It ripped them up in a heartbeat, in record speed, which meant that all along the environment committee's work was a facade. That is what is really sad. People poured their guts into this report and worked extremely long hours only to have the government turn around with record speed and bring forward amendments which it has absolutely every intention of passing. It ignored the work of the committee.

If members of parliament on both sides of the House are frustrated at the government's action, imagine what the aboriginal communities, Metis and Inuit people must think, along with many others.

While I am on the subject of consultation with our first nations, what about consultations with coastal communities throughout Canada? Fishermen and fisherwomen in Canada's many hundreds of fishing communities know the waters they are adjacent to extremely well. They could tell us what is happening to our fish stocks, water temperatures, or the natural environment. The government does not want to listen to them. It only wants to listen to its own bureaucracy and delay the inevitable of accepting leadership and responsibility. It is a sad day.

I fear the five year review process will not have any merit at all. If there is a problem, the government will tell us not to worry, that a bit of jigging around will be done and it will do it in five years. Five years from now someone could stand in this place and say that five years previously a particular species existed but it has since gone. What would the government say then? It would say “We simply did not know. We did not have the right information at the time. Maybe we should have a royal commission and spend millions of dollars”.

The government could save a lot of time by accepting the committee's recommendations as is, which at the very best is the minimum. It should move forward to strengthen the bill in order to protect all species for future generations.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in this report stage debate, I will talk about only three areas that must be focused on at this time within Group No. 4.

Bill C-5, entitled an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, states in its summary that:

The purposes of this enactment are to prevent Canadian indigenous species, subspecies and distinct populations of wildlife from becoming extirpated or extinct, to provide for the recovery of endangered or threatened species, to encourage the management of other species to prevent them from becoming at risk.

A series of motions in Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20, deal with the national aboriginal committee. I will also talk about the creation of stewardship action plans and public consultation.

Our standing committee wished to create a national aboriginal council but the government instead wants to call it a committee. It is changing the words in these various classes which of course affects its power. The idea of an aboriginal committee itself is acceptable. Clearly in many places, especially in the north, natives have a close knowledge of the land and live off country food for their sustenance, so consultation with them is very appropriate, as it is with other stakeholders such as property owners and resource users.

The existence of this committee should not preclude wider consultation with others. Care must be taken to ensure that it does not become a special conduit for perhaps a race based political concern. The administration of the act must concern itself with the protection of endangered species in a sustainable socioeconomic manner. Special privileges and exemptions from the act's application should not be based just on being an aboriginal with status.

The name change from council to committee reverses the standing committee's work without justification. The government is showing its contempt for the work of the parliamentary committee and its own Liberal MPs when it makes retro changes to the normal legal process of a bill.

Motion No. 25 deals with the creation of stewardship action plans. Here the government is introducing such a far-reaching and noxious amendment to the standing committee's work that I think special note must be made of it. The standing committee required that stewardship action plans must include “a commitment to regularly examine tax treatments and subsidies and to eliminate disincentives”. The government wants to delete this language, but I think it is vital. It demonstrates that compensation is not just a cash payment but could involve other things like tax treatments, which are so vital to farmers and other property owners.

Further, while the government always wants to create incentives and programs and spend money, it must be forced to confront the realities of disincentives in the same situation, the reasons why people do not respond in the way that perhaps the ivory tower theorists and bureaucrats think they might.

The government also wants to delete the standing committee's requirement that stewardship action plans provide “technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities”. Instead, it will “provide information relating to the technical and scientific support available to persons engaged in stewardship activities”. This is a small but significant difference. Instead of giving property owners real assistance by sharing data on the presence of endangered species or assistance in configuring their properties to protect sensitive habitat, the government can just maybe mail them a pamphlet. Thanks a lot, bureaucrat.

I will just talk a little bit about public consultation. Most of the remaining Group No. 4 amendments concern issues of notice and public consultation. There is a fundamental importance to making consultations as wide as possible, ensuring that consultations have a real impact on the administration of the act and are not just simply done for show, for knowledge creates the capacity to protect.

Initially the bill provided for a parliamentary review of the species at risk at five year intervals. The standing committee added the additional requirement that it be subsequently reviewed at five year intervals. Motion No. 130 from the government will remove the standing committee amendment. It does not think automatic five year reviews are really needed and instead would put the onus on parliament to put a review on the agenda should it deem it necessary at some point in the future. This is just plain wrong.

It is really contemptuous of the standing committee and removes an opportunity for greater accountability and public involvement. Mandatory reviews of legislation are important for ensuring that the act is working as intended and that creating an opportunity to make a change will not simply be left to the whim of the government House leader of the day to fit another political agenda. This is basic democratic accountability and ensures that legislation is kept evergreen.

I will conclude my comments by saying that the bill as it is before the House is really in a complete tangle. Things have just worked out this way and there is an underlying reason, which is that the Liberals cannot manage. They have no guiding vision or values to carry us into the 21st century. As this is the third bill, it is obvious to all that it is a failure. Maybe it is a case of three strikes and the government is out.

It is the sad legacy of this country that the Liberals cannot manage and they are hurting the country. The evidence of those statements that are rather far-reaching is certainly in the process of this bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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