Bill C-5 (Historical)

Species at Risk Act

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

Species at Risk Act

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the Group No. 4 amendments to Bill C-5.

As a way of developing a theme in which to frame my remarks I make the observation that there are concerned members of parliament on both sides of the House. There are those opposed for a variety of reasons who express, as many do on this side of the House, the concerns of rural Canadians, in particular, farmers, fishermen and people who make their living in and from nature. There are those on the other side who express the point of view that the bill does not go far enough or it is in some degree a sham and avoids dealing with and genuinely protecting the environment. I actually find there is quite a common theme between what both sides say.

The legislation as it is worded, and particularly as it would be amended by some of the government amendments put forward in this group, and in some of the other groups, manages to achieve both of the violations to which those who feel it goes too far and those who feel it does not go far enough are pointing.

It does this because it continues a dangerous trend that is prevalent in Canadian legislation and in some legislation of other countries as well. We are not the only ones guilty of this.

I refer to a tendency to enshrine in law unspecific provisions that would bind the executive but rather general instructions to the executive, instructions that talk about what ministers may do, that set timelines that might be met, that put in requirements that if not met do not bear any consequences for the government and which therefore may not in practice be met.

On the other hand if all these measures were taken to the full power that is considered or is potentially available under them, they could have the effect of putting draconian powers in the hands of the minister and government agencies. Both sides are justifiably concerned by the same piece of legislation.

Curiously enough, if the legislation were amended it could actually at the same time satisfy the concerns both of those who are worried that it is overpowering and those who are worried that it is underpowered. This can be demonstrated by turning to some of the specific amendments that have come up in earlier discussions.

For example, in Group No. 4, the member for York North mentioned government Motion No. 76 which says that action plans are advisory as opposed to being binding upon the government. Her point, a point well taken, is that if they are not binding then very little will be achieved by having these action plans mentioned at all in the bill. One is justified in asking, why are this things here at all? Why are action plans written down when they are not really action plans, they are really advice that the executive might or might not draw upon in the future?

By the same token on the other side of the equation there are members, including myself, who are concerned that when we talk about compensation it is compensation that may be given according to a standard that would be set up after the bill was passed.

Rural Canadians, farmers and developers, and others, want to have some kind of assurance that compensation would not be merely contemplated, considered a potential, or happen in an inadequate way. They want to have some kind of assurance and we can fight over what the amount should be. I believe in full compensation. Others would say it should be less than full and while I disagree with them they have a case to be made.

None of us have any clue as to what it would be. We are all expected to simply take it on trust. This is a dangerous sort of principle to have in law.

The legislation contemplates reviews at five year intervals. There was a contemplation that this law would be taken out if government Motion No. 130 is passed. This assumes that we do not have perfect knowledge now. There is a requirement to adjust the legislation five years from now and the assumption is that five years from now we would have perfect knowledge, we would have it all down pat and there would be no further reviews because the legislation would be perfect. Of course, that is a preposterous assumption.

Worse than that is the fact that this comes back to one of the points I was dwelling upon a bit earlier. We have provisions in our laws that are not actually enforceable. Legislative reviews under the government unfortunately have become something of a joke.

For example, there was the legislative review of the Referendum Act that was passed in 1992. It was the legislation under which the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord took place. Members may recall that the Referendum Act, which was proclaimed on June 15, 1992, had a provision stating it would be legislatively reviewed three years after the date of its proclamation. Three years after the date of proclamation was June 15, 1995.

I remember at that time working as a researcher on Parliament Hill and I gathered all the information together so that my party, the Reform Party at the time, could present a series of intelligent, thoughtful critiques of the bill and ways it could be improved. June 15 came and went and no review took place as far as we could tell.

It turned out there had been a review. As a member of parliament I had a chance to ask the chief electoral officer about this many years afterward when he was a witness before our committee and he informed me there had been a review. A motion was brought up without notice in committee. The motion essentially said that the act was being reviewed and that there was no particular reason to actually have witnesses appear before the committee. The committee did not think there was any need to have discussion of it and it was killed just like that. It was passed so quickly that members of the very same committee were unaware it had happened. People were present at the meeting when it occurred and happened not to be paying attention at that particular nanosecond in time that this review came and went.

If this is the kind of review we can expect then it is not a review at all. This is provided for by the legislation so it is clearly a flaw in the legislation. There must be a provision. When the government is required to do something and when the executive is bound there must be a requirement that this has some kind of consequence. If the executive fails to act, some form of independent action must take place.

If these kinds of changes are made to the legislation I suggest members will discover that there will be much more support for Bill C-5 than currently exists.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Speaker, stewardship is a word we have heard quite a bit throughout the debate. I will address my remarks to the series of motions regarding the stewardship approach in general. Stewardship is a word we struggle with a bit because it does not seem to portray the importance of what we mean by it.

Stewardship is more than a landowner doing the right thing. It is more than a company showing good corporate citizenship by sponsoring a wildlife centre or rehabilitating a wetland. Stewardship is how we get things done in Canada not just for species at risk but for much of what we do for wildlife. Stewardship is a local community group pulling together a conservation effort to protect an important shoreline for birds. It is a farmer who decides to let trees and brush remain along the edges of a field to encourage nesting. It is a big company that not only makes a financial contribution but sets aside thousands of hectares as a conservation easement.

This is stewardship. It is co-operation. In Canada it is how we get things done. In many ways we could say it is what species at risk protection and the bill before us are all about.

Bill C-5 is an essential piece of legislation. It would fulfil the commitment the federal government made with the provinces and territories under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. It sets out in the full letter of law the key components of assessment and listing, recovery planning, habitat protection and prohibition.

I will speak to the government motions that support the key component of stewardship in our strategy, the motions that would ensure co-operation was the first approach for protecting critical habitat.

Our neighbours to the south are envious of our stewardship traditions and the way we are enshrining them in our legislation. Many people point south of the border to the endangered species legislation the U.S. has had in place for 25 years. It has done much for lawyers and the legal industry. It has done less for species. The Americans wish they had our approach. Courts are choked with cases under the U.S. law.

Our commitment to stewardship has already been reinforced with the Habitat Stewardship Program. Under the program $45 million over five years has been targeted for stewardship activities. The program is entering its third year. It has fostered many new partnerships and allowed old ones to accomplish more. It has brought new partners into the stewardship fold.

For the $5 million in first year funding the program attracted non-federal funding of over $8 million. In other words, for every dollar spent by the federal government under the HSP $1.70 of non-federal resources was contributed by project partners. In the second year of the HSP $10 million for more than 150 projects has been allocated. Volunteer Canadians from all walks of life are involved in the Atlantic Beach Guardian Program to protect the habitat of the piping plover, the Gulf of St. Lawrence aster and the maritime ringlet butterfly.

We have provided for more favourable tax treatment for the contribution of ecologically sensitive lands. Over 20,000 hectares has already been donated as ecological gifts.

There is more to stewardship than the Habitat Stewardship Program and ecological gifts. There is the stewardship action plan set out in Bill C-5. We accept in principle the proposal to develop the stewardship action plan introduced in Bill C-5 by the standing committee. Work is already underway on the development of a federal, provincial and territorial Canada wide stewardship action plan. There have been meetings, discussions and much progress in the area.

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

I will speak in favour of the government motion to remove the requirements the standing committee imposed on the minister to publish draft contribution agreements when they are complete to provide the public an opportunity to comment on them. This type of requirement serves as a disincentive to stewardship. We are all stewards in one way or another.

The federal government is a steward in its protection of species at risk and their critical habitats in Canada. Land owners, farmers and fishers are stewards, as are aboriginal peoples, conservation groups and workers in the resource sector and others. We all deserve credit for the stewardship work we do. Bill C-5 would encourage us to do more and deserves our support.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member opposite for her presentation. It takes courage to stand in the House against one's own government. I am pleased to see her do that. She puts a lot of time and effort into the environment committee and takes it seriously.

I commend the hon. member for Churchill River for his comments about aboriginal involvement. The aboriginals have a theory that anything we do must be considered seven generations down the road. Perhaps if we did that we would all be in better shape today.

There are a lot of things going on in legislation before the House that are of concern to people in rural areas of the country who make a living from the land, the sea and Canada's resources. The bounty we have in Canada is unbelievable.

Let us look at the logging sector. A softwood lumber dispute has the whole sector in crisis. It does not look like it will be resolved. Today is the day it should be resolved but it does not look like it will happen. A pine beetle infestation due to the mild winter is devastating the forests of British Columbia and putting the province's forestry industry in trouble.

Let us look at farming. Last year was a disastrous year from coast to coast in the agriculture community due to low commodity prices and drought. In my area of southern Alberta the drought is severe and has not yet given any indication it will let go. The foreign subsidies that drive down commodity prices and distort production are killing our farm communities.

Let us look at the fishermen who make their living from the sea. Let us look at the mismanagement that has taken place there. Fish stocks are running out. Fishermen in Canada can no longer make a living. An emergency debate on the whole fishing industry in Canada has been applied for and agreed to for this evening.

Yesterday we debated Bill C-15B on cruelty to animals, a bill which has a lot of people concerned in the rural parts of the country.

The list goes on. The resource sector in Canada is concerned about the Kyoto protocol and some of the things it could do. We have the species at risk legislation. Today a bill was introduced to modernize the Pest Control Products Act. The bill would have ramifications throughout the resource and agriculture sectors.

If we add all of these things together, and they keep piling up, it is no wonder people in the agriculture, resource and fishing industries are terrified about the things that could happen to them. If passed as it is some of the legislation could be far reaching and devastating to many sectors.

What does the government do when developing a bill? The opposition is involved in the process. The bill is sent to committee. Expert witnesses from across the country are brought in to give their opinions. People from different sectors are brought in to talk about the bill and the problems associated with it. Hundreds of hours are involved in the process. The government brings hundreds of witnesses to Ottawa at great expense. It is not only at great expense to the government. It is at great expense to the witnesses who take time to come and bear witness under the guise that what they say will be listened to.

The committee listened. It made amendment after amendment. It went through Bill C-5 clause by clause. As the previous speaker indicated, committee members from all parties worked together to come up with a bill everyone could agree with.

The bill left committee. Before it came back to the House the government introduced amendments to take it back to where it was before the committee had a chance at it. The hundreds of witnesses, all the hours and all the expense of bringing in expert witnesses to present their cases was thrown out. That is an absolute shame. It derides the value of committees. It derides the value of the House when a government can do that.

As we have heard, many members on the government side of the House are concerned about what has happened. They work in good faith at the committee level as we all do. What we put forward should be considered. It was completely thrown out. The consultation process we asked for at committee stage was completely ignored. We asked for consultation with all sectors. It happened but the advice was ignored.

I would not be surprised if in years to come we invited industry representatives to present at committees and they refused. They use their own time to come and testify and the government does not listen to them anyway, so why should they?

The consultation we asked for at this stage did not happen. We have asked for consultation after Bill C-5 is implemented. That has been eroded as well. We have put forward an amendment to take care of the issue.

The government is proposing that if the minister became aware of an endangered species he or she would not have to make it public. We agreed to this to a certain extent because if people wanted to come and look it could harm the endangered species. However the person or company who owns the land should be notified if a species is there. Whether an area is on water or land the people in control of it should know the species is there so they can help make arrangements to protect it.

Under Bill C-5 affected landowners would not be notified if endangered species were on their land. Let us think about that. There are people trying to make a living as ranchers, farmers or fishermen who may not realize there is an endangered species in the area. Let us suppose it somehow gets reported to the Minister of the Environment. If these people did something to harm the species all the power, weight and heavy handed approach of Bill C-5 would come to bear on them. The government has taken out the aspect of mens rea which says the harm must be done willingly. That is gone. It absolutely terrifies people to think this could happen.

Let us look at the resource sector. People working in the bush surveying or doing whatever they do may not know an endangered species is nearby. They would be inadvertently affected because the whole weight of Bill C-5 could be thrown at them including jail time and huge fines. That is absolutely wrong.

Consultation did take place but it was not heeded. That is a huge problem. The issue of consultation and proper notification of affected landowners needs to be addressed before Bill C-5 goes forward.

We talked about the compensation issue at other stages of the bill. The whole idea of consultation would affect the ultimate compensation. If landowners do not realize there are endangered species on their property and the Minister of the Environment moves to affect their livelihoods they should be fully compensated for the income they lose.

We have talked a lot about the urban rural split. There is not really a split. This is an issue for which all of society is responsible. A few people in urban centres cannot dictate to the entire rural population how to operate their farms, ranches or resource industries. If people in urban centres want to do that then all people need to be responsible for compensation under Bill C-5.

This is something we want as citizens and as a nation. Everyone wants legislation that will adequately protect species at risk. However if we do not do it in the proper way the bill will not protect endangered species. It will do more to harm them.

Consultation, compensation and the whole idea of jurisdiction need to be addressed before Bill C-5 can be an effective piece of legislation. We have the support of all opposition parties regarding the amendments that need to be turned down and the ones that need to be approved. I urge all government members to listen to the people from the environment committee, the hon. member for Davenport and others on that side of the House when they say the amendments need to be made for the legislation to truly work.

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

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

First, I would be remiss if I did not congratulate my colleague, the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, who, as environment critic, has done excellent work standing up for Quebec's position on this complex issue. Obviously, it has been made even more complex by the Canadian federation. I commend my colleague for advocating for the interests of Quebec, both in committee and with his learned and brilliant speeches in the House.

Speaking of which, I would obviously be remiss if I did not mention the poor participation of the Liberal delegation from Quebec in this House, when it comes to defending the rights of Quebecers. Take, for example, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who was even Quebec's minister of the environment at one point, to name but one. So I am critical of federal Liberal members for not standing up for the interests of Quebec on this issue that should not be that complex, based on the wording, but that has received a great deal of attention in Quebec.

Before speaking about the protection of species at risk in Quebec, let us look at the history surrounding this. In 1990, the Government of Quebec passed the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species, the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, and fishing regulations.

The Government of Quebec had already, back in 1990, adopted a safety net for species at risk. All of this was recognized in the federal-provincial accord signed in 1996, the accord for the protection of species at risk. So there have already been major discussions in Quebec and in Canada. The proof is that an accord was signed in 1996, known as the accord for the protection of species at risk.

At the time, Quebec's minister of the environment warned the Quebecers in a press release, by saying, “Yes, it is well and good, we signed an accord for the protection of species at risk with the federal government, but I am warning you to watch out for overlap”.

Now, six years later, the overlap we had been talking about in this parliament since 1996 is upon us. This is where the problem lies with the Canadian federation. As soon as the federal government manages to get along with the provinces, negotiations begin in the House of Commons to have our own protection system, and government members dare tell us “This is a double safety net”.

I am sorry, but when such important amounts are allocated, this is not a double safety net; it is overlapping in jurisdictions. This is the reality with the act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.

In 1996, a federal-provincial agreement was signed, the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. Sure, the terms “wildlife” and “Canada” were not included, but the federal government could easily have reached an agreement with Quebec and the other provinces to make changes to this accord in another federal-provincial agreement. This is not what the Liberal government is proposing.

Again, I am upset at Quebec Liberal members for not protecting the interests of Quebec. In Quebec, we have laws that have been in effect since 1990. We have a whole network of wildlife conservation officers. This network is working very well, but it is probably underfinanced because of the constant efforts that the Quebec government must make in health and education. It goes without saying that these wildlife conservation officers are doing a tremendous job in all sorts of situations to try to protect species, including those at risk.

Instead of having an agreement with Quebec and the other provinces to try to increase budgets and pay part of the costs relating to wildlife conservation officers, this bill will create, believe it or not, federal enforcement officers.

A whole new monitoring system will be created, when the province of Quebec already has a monitoring system that works very well and that employs men and women who work very hard. They often work overtime during peak periods. The federal government, with its massive surplus, could very well have tried to reach an agreement with the provinces to improve wildlife officers' working conditions and increase their numbers so that they could conduct more monitoring, if they felt it necessary, to protect species at risk.

But this is not what will happen. A new system is being created, and we are being told that this is a double safety net. But this is not a double safety net; it is another instance of duplication in order, once again, to increase the government's visibility in the provinces, and in Quebec.

I listened to my Liberal colleague who spoke before me. The Liberals are celebrating an agreement reached with aboriginal people so that, in the end, there will be success. When it comes to aboriginal peoples, I trust the government of Quebec. At the beginning of this year, it signed the peace of the braves with a significant portion of Quebec's aboriginal population, the Cree nation. The peace of the braves is a historic agreement signed by the government of Quebec.

I trust Quebec when it comes to protecting wildlife species at risk in Canada or in Quebec. If the federal government had asked for it, it could very well have gotten a new federal-provincial agreement and reached an agreement with aboriginal peoples. Once again, this is the hard reality of the Canadian federal system.

I am still annoyed with the federal Liberal members from Quebec, who are not defending the interests of Quebecers. Once again, these members are going to try to persuade Quebecers that this is a double safety net and that twice the protection is better. The people of Quebec and of Canada are already paying enough in taxes without this sort of overlap. The federal government could very easily have got all the provincial environment ministers together around one table and asked them to sign a new federal-provincial accord for the protection of species at risk.

I repeat, in 1996, we signed an accord for the protection of species at risk. The government of Quebec signed this agreement. The then minister was far-sighted when he said in a press release that care would have to be taken to avoid overlap. Since it signed this accord with the provinces in 1996, the federal government has been trying, year after year, to introduce bills in the House with the purpose, once again, of enhancing its visibility in each of the provinces and creating its own oversight authority. This is hard to take in these heavily taxed times.

To say that we get along is nice. Government members, including Quebec Liberal members, are trying to convince us that it is a good agreement. Opposition parties tabled 138 amendments. Do not come and tell me that this is an acceptable agreement and that it is accepted by opposition parties, when they had to table 138 amendments. These amendments even had to be divided into five groups for debate.

Today, we are discussing one group, but there are five. Why? Because 138 amendments were tabled in the House. They were not all accepted by the Chair, but many of them were, and this is why we have to deal with five groups.

So, it is not clear sailing for this bill. There is a problem. The problem for Bloc Quebecois members is that, with the help of Quebec Liberal members, the federal Liberal government is once again creating a double protection for something that may seem minor, namely the protection of wildlife species at risk, when a federal-provincial agreement could easily have been negotiated among federal and provincial environment ministers. It would have been so simple. We could have renegotiated the agreement that was so successfully negotiated in 1996.

Again, it is too complicated. There is not enough visibility for the federal government. All they want is to display little flags, and have their own staff to overlap what wildlife conservation officers are doing in Quebec.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently through at least part of the speech of my friend, the hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain. For a while I wondered which bill he was speaking to, species at risk or cruelty to animals.

I want to point out to him and to the House that there has been a great deal of consultation on the bill. As a matter of fact there has probably been more consultation than there has been with any bill of its kind in past history, and particularly for the section we are speaking to, aboriginal peoples, who are the people who stand to benefit their country the most through the implementation of the bill. They are the people on the land, the people who are very directly affected. I can tell my hon. friend that I certainly will not forget the farmers, but I have to pay great respect to the aboriginal peoples of this land.

I should point out that in the bill it is the first time ever that aboriginal traditional knowledge is part of the decision making process. This has never happened before in the history of Canada. This is the first time. To me, that is very significant. As imperfect as some of my colleagues feel the bill is, we have made breakthroughs.

I also want to point out that a review is built into the legislation so that after the bill is passed, four years from now we are obliged to take a look at it again. There is a review process built right in so that the committee can review it. We can then determine what we have done right and what we have done wrong, because the actual nature of the bill is a breakthrough in itself. It is an attempt to bring about a departure from traditional kinds of legislation that are what we might describe as command and control. The Americans tried that. They passed legislation on species at risk or endangered species and it has not worked well. It is so deeply flawed that much of the budget for the preservation of species is going to litigation.

My minister wants this legislation to actually assist with the rehabilitation of species at risk, the identification of species at risk, and it will depend to a very large extent on the information obtained from aboriginal peoples in this country who will be able to deliver their traditional knowledge, which for the first time in the history of Canada can be brought to bear on the determination of species at risk.

The process has had intense involvement by representatives of Canada's aboriginal people in the development of the bill and has become a formal process through the working group on species at risk. This group has provided advice to the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Parks Canada Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada for a number of years already, and the advice, I must say, is invaluable. We are ensuring that it will continue in a formal way. It must. Ensuring that this formality exists is an enormous step forward. We are recognizing and putting into law the importance of the relationship of aboriginal people to land and wildlife. It is formal recognition and acknowledgement, a formal partnership. It is workable and valuable to all parties.

With this process and this legislation, with the incorporation of traditional aboriginal knowledge into the assessment and recovery of species, we are indeed moving forward. We have been saying for nearly nine years that we all share the responsibility for protecting wildlife. Perhaps no one group typifies a commitment to that responsibility more than Canada's aboriginal people. Our partnerships with aboriginal peoples have set the example for partnerships we have worked hard to foster with others: with landowners, with farmers, with fishermen, with conservation groups and with those in the resource sector.

We have established that nature and wildlife are an integral part of Canadian identity. This means that everyone in Canada has to take part in the success of this act. It deserves the support of everyone. I listened to my friend from Souris--Moose Mountain talk about farmers and people in the country, but he also quite rightly mentioned that the great majority of our citizens are urban. People in urban Canada have an equal responsibility for the protection of species, perhaps in the main because most of the species at risk are aquatic in nature. They are in the water. They are not on land at all. Therefore, when water such as the Great Lakes is degraded it means that those species at risk are continually put in danger.

With the bill, then, urban people will be able to join hands with rural Canada, with the very important input of aboriginal people, and hopefully, while it is perhaps not perfect, we can make this a bill that will raise the consciousness of all Canadians so that we can all move forward together and actually accomplish something that other parts of the world to date have not been able accomplish.

I enthusiastically endorse the bill. I also recognize that we can go back and look at it in years to come and ask what we did right and what we can correct, change and make better. In that spirit, I endorse Bill C-5 and would like to see it passed as soon as possible.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we received a lot of data from census Canada showing that a shrinking number of Canadians live in what is truly called rural Canada.

The vast majority of people in Canada live in a centre of 10,000 plus. As a result of that, one can take a look at many bills that come before the House, certainly Bill C-5 at the present time. Bill C-5 only involves a very small group of people who live in the rural area.

Yesterday we discussed Bill C-15B. Were the people in the ranching business consulted? Was the dairy industry or the hog industry consulted? No. These people were not consulted and yet they are the ones who will be the most affected.

This morning in the veterans affairs committee we had what I considered very good consultation. We had a gentleman who was very knowledgeable about the subject and we asked questions and so on.

The vast majority of people who this bill would affect were never consulted. Today we have a new president of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers' Association. He lives in a little area north of the No. 1 highway in Gouldtown, Saskatchewan. Was the Saskatchewan Stock Growers' Association consulted about the effects of Bill C-5? No. Yet its members own millions of acres of grazing land and they were not consulted.

If we were going to pass legislation applicable to a mass urban area like Ottawa or Toronto, there would be public consultation all over the place but when we deal with basic, rural agricultural problems, it does not matter any more because if we took all the people engaged in agriculture and spread them across Canada there would not be a voting block anyway. It really would not change the composition of members in the House. It is not a big issue except for those who happen to live there.

I was in Guelph, Ontario two weeks ago. The people there asked me to give a talk on how the agri-industry could continue to operate with such bills as C-5, C-15B and Kyoto, especially since it was not consulted on any of them?

I have seen a lot of the government's perception of consultation. Some crown corporations that are going to raise their rates put advertisements in the paper and invite the public to come. Three people may show up. The most common thing heard is that the government will simply go ahead and act anyway.

I am familiar with a provincial government issuing an environmental regulation to a group of people who for years used particular patches of land for grazing their animals.

Instead of telling them they could only use the land for grazing during a certain period of the year, the ruling came down stating that the piece of land had to be divided into three sections and that only one of those sections could be grazed every third year to preserve the nesting of certain birds. In order to make that land worthwhile, they had to put in miles of ineffective fencing.

This is very strange legislation. If a landowner or a land renter accidentally hurts or kills a particular animal, he or she must prove due diligence; that is, that he or she did everything possible beforehand to find out if that endangered species was on the land.

When the Rafferty dam was created in Saskatchewan we found that rare species of animals, animals which had never lived in the area before, moved in because of the water. Some people who graze their cattle near that dam still do not know that those animals are there. Under this legislation they would have to prove that they were guilty without due knowledge of what was happening. That is contrary to every other law we have in Canada which states that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

I know what people will say. They will say that the government would never do that. I know people will say that we would have a logical excuse. However, under this bill, the landowner has to prove that he is innocent.

I really believe that we in rural Canada from coast to coast are being totally ignored. Yesterday we talked about the cruelty to animals bill. The government never once consulted, learned about or asked about established practices that have been going on in this country since before Confederation and yet, under the proposed legislation, it will have the right to give its interpretation of such things as suffering and the right to say that a particular practice will no longer continue even though it never consulted with the people involved prior to the bill coming to the House.

The committee which studied Bill C-5 never heard from the people actually involved in land ownership. We did have good representation from industry and from some cattlemen but we never really heard from the national cattlemen's organization.

The government has never had the courage to say that the practices, such as branding, which have been going on forever in this country, will no longer be required. Instead, it waits. Let it say that a person who has an endangered species without knowing it is guilty of not protecting it. How can we protect something if we do not know it is there?

I found some endangered species on a piece of property and I reported them. The owners of thee property and the environment people were very happy about that. However if an individual visits someone who owns land and a particular endangered species is destroyed unknowingly on that piece of land, such as being ridden over by a horse, or an endangered piece of vegetation was trampled on, then they are guilty. We have to go back and change that part of the bill.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

It is an honour and a privilege to speak on the proposed Group No. 4 report stage motions. I bring to the House the serious concern that has been raised by the United aboriginal leadership of Canada in relation to government Motions Nos. 6, 16 and 17.

The government motions diminish the standing committee's work to recognize the crucial role and important contribution that aboriginal peoples would make toward protecting species at risk. The standing committee acknowledged, by a unanimous all party vote, that a national aboriginal council on species at risk was a necessary component for bringing all jurisdictions of all peoples of Canada together to protect the life and species that were under threat.

The aboriginal peoples of Canada, the Inuit, the first nations and the Metis, all have stood united for inclusion in the decision making process that would reverse the losses of our species.

Since 1998 the leaderships have asked to be included at the decision making table to meet face to face with the federal and provincial ministers, the Canadian Endangered Conservation Council, a decision making body established under the federal-provincial species at risk accord, as action plans and recovery strategies for protecting species at risk are discussed, formulated and implemented.

This desire to be a partner in a co-operative manner between governments and peoples is nothing new. In matters related to the constitution and the charter of rights, and the repeated supreme court decisions, a requirement of our federal government in matters related to aboriginal rights should create models of inclusion. In fact the six representatives of the aboriginals peoples were involved in the ministers meeting in Iqaluit. They were invited by the environment minister himself to the surprise and gratitude of the aboriginal leadership. This was a huge step forward as a meeting of the minds and a clear signal that Canada would move forward in aboriginal relations, and it was a new step forward in the new millennium.

The government Motions Nos. 6, 16 and 17 were a huge disappointment to the aboriginal leadership. For the information of the House, the wording accepted by committee to create a necessary link to protect species between aboriginal peoples in Canada, to seek and consider advice and recommendations from aboriginal peoples, which the committee clarified to be the counsel in language specifically found in the federal-provincial accord, was based on the successful Iqaluit model.

The aboriginal working group successfully consulted with the government and its leadership to create the support required for this representation and inclusion. Representation from the east, south, west and north was very critical to having the inclusion of a unique biodiversity and eco-regions of Canada.

I call attention to Motion No. 25 as well. It changes the mechanisms and methods necessary to ensure intellectual property rights inherent for the successful implementation of SARA are respected and protected and are shared and used in an honourable manner.

In these new wording changes, I would propose that following two amendments to the report stage amendments, Motions Nos. 20 and 25, be accepted:

That Report Stage Motion No. 20 to amend Bill C-5 be amended by replacing all the words after “The Minister” with “shall establish a Council, to be known as the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk, consisting of six representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada selected by the Minister based upon recommendations from aboriginal organizations that the Minister considers appropriate. The role of the Council is to:

(1) advise the Minister on the administration of this Act;

(2) provide advice and recommendations to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.”

That Report Stage Motion No. 25 to amend Bill C-5 be amended by replacing paragraph 10.2(c) with the following:

“(c) methods for sharing information about species at risk, including community and aboriginal traditional knowledge, that respect, preserve and maintain knowledge and promote their wider application with the approval of the holders of such knowledge, with other governments and persons.”

I also bring to the attention of the House that aboriginal leaderships have explicitly stated that the removal of the council in the act, if not corrected and an honourable compromise is not reached on Motion No. 25, there may not be aboriginal support for SARA. Canada needs the support of the aboriginal peoples and their nations to ensure the successful implementation of this act and of preservation of the threatened and endangered species of this country.

I offer this honourable compromise.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond in the affirmative. The government's agenda is of course a fruitful one.

This afternoon, we will continue with report stage of the species at risk legislation, Bill C-5.

Tomorrow, we will return to debate on Bill C-50 respecting the WTO. If this is concluded, we will call Bill C-47, the excise amendments.

The two weeks following this one constitute the Easter adjournment. When we return on April 8 we will resume debate on criminal code amendments, Bill C-15B, and commence consideration of the pest control legislation that the Minister of Health has introduced today.

In addition there is a very lengthy agenda of important business for Canadians. I look forward to the ample co-operation of all members of the House of Commons to move forward in an expeditious manner.

Species at Risk Act

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain for giving me this time slot. I am quite sure he will be speaking after question period.

In my childhood I had a recurring dream which illustrates a point I have been hearing over and over. Members have been addressing the fact that the government has ignored many of the recommendations brought forward in committee or come back and tried to reverse them. My dream was in the context of the farm where I used to feed cattle, chickens and the different animals my family had. In the dream I was walking around with a five gallon feed pail in each hand. I had the notion that if I stepped into the bucket and pulled up on the handle I could fly. The harder I pulled the higher I could fly. It was a lifting experience. I enjoyed the dream whenever I had it but it was not realistic.

The government continues to dream of producing good legislation while ignoring parliamentary committees, MPs and other levels of government. Perhaps it is dreaming beyond its potential.

The government's approach to Bill C-5 has been to reduce the challenges of protecting species at risk by basing almost every decision on political discretion. Its approach has been to say “trust us”, an approach which has satisfied few outside government. Because of this significant changes were made to the bill as it went through committee stage.

The Standing committee on Environment and Sustainable Development finished its study of amendments to Bill C-5 at the end of November. The Canadian Alliance worked hard to achieve several key changes to the bill. Most important of these was the reverse onus listing. It would give cabinet the final decisions about the listing of species but it would have to make them within a limited time. Listing decisions it did not make within the allowed time would default to the list compiled by the scientists.

Good science in this context must include socio-economic issues. It must take into account whether species are at risk because of human causes, natural causes or changes the animals themselves have made. When I last spoke to Bill C-5 in the House I mentioned that in Regina we protect peregrine falcons as an endangered species. I have since learned there are thousands of them in different locations. They have merely changed their patterns of flight and habitat. They are not an endangered species at all. Sometimes we need to investigate a lot of things.

We did not achieve a lot of our key goals in committee. We continue to believe strongly that when all other forms of negotiation fail there cannot be full co-operation without full compensation for landowners. Without full co-operation species across Canada would suffer instead of being helped. We fought hard for this. However our friends across the way voted down our motions while all opposition members voted to support them.

We debated the issue in the House of Commons in February and March. I have no doubt we will be back to debate it in April at report stage so all Canadians can understand how important compensation is for the protection of endangered species.

I will turn the attention of the House to Motion No. 29. The motion would extensively modify the standing committee amendments that would introduce the stewardship plan to Bill C-5. It is one of the reversal amendments.

The committee did not mandate compensation but at least it required that the minister commit to regularly examine tax treatment and subsidies and to eliminate disincentives for people to protect the species at risk. Motion No. 29 would remove any recognition that the tax system might be used to provide tax incentives for property owners as well as any recognition that property owners face disincentives to protecting endangered species. This would fail to recognize the financial burden that this act potentially places on landowners.

It would remove the committee's amendment which required a commitment to provide technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities. We oppose it since this strongly waters down the committee's changes and in particular omits the mention of tax treatment and subsidies to eliminate disincentives.

We argued in committee that those who accidentally kill a species, its residence or its habitat, must not be liable for prosecution. Liability should be reserved for intentional trespasses against the act. The committee vote resulted in a tie. The Chair decided the vote and this part was done away with. We brought this change to report stage to discuss the importance of limiting liability to intentional acts, not to accidental acts.

It is so easy in some cases to accidentally spoil habitat in a farmer's field or on his property or perhaps even accidentally kill an animal or wound an animal. We need to ensure that we include criminal intent and not just simply an accident that might happen.

We believe that taking into consideration the costs and the benefits of planning options would make for a much more effective bill. If precious money were wasted, species would be hurt because of it. The government must better consider economic realities and develop more formal ways of choosing the program that is the best bang for the buck. The committee rejected these arguments. Committee members believed that species would be worse off because of the lack of these things.

The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and our endangered species. However, we do not believe the act will work unless it includes fair and reasonable compensation. It will not work unless criminal liability requires intent. We believe that we need co-operation and not confrontation with the provinces and other levels of government. We believe that the government wants to amend Bill C-5 to reverse many of the positions taken even by its own Liberal MPs on the environment committee. This is another example of top-down control from the Prime Minister's Office and shows the contempt in which the government holds members of parliament.

Unless the bill provides for mandatory compensation and stops criminalizing unintentional behaviour it would not provide effective protection for endangered species. This is the reason why we cannot support the bill.

I remind members of that little story, of the insistence the government has to dream on and on. My city dwelling friends have a better vantage point for dreaming. Perhaps some have spent too much time in the CN Tower to really get down to earth and realize what happens on the ground out on the farm where people will have to bear the burden of the cost of protecting these species. We need to protect them. As has been said in many ways in many days in the House our prairie farmers are an endangered species themselves. We need to give them every tool to survive but also every tool they require to protect the endangered species they might find on their properties.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, the proposed species at risk act is becoming one of the most widely debated pieces of legislation the House has considered in some time. As much as we would like to say all decisions associated with species at risk and habitat protection are cut and dried, black and white and easy to decide I think everyone in the House would agree that is not the case.

Some members may agree on the compensation approach but not the listing approach. Some like the notion of government accountability but do not care for the way ministers would make decisions. Some support the co-operative approach. Others think there should be a more heavy handed approach.

This is only what we hear in the Chamber. Outside the Chamber even more has been made of the bill. Would it protect enough? Would it protect too much? Would it be better to move with what we have or have nothing at all?

I am not making light of the controversy. We need to acknowledge and even revel in it because it is democracy in action. However we need to understand why the government has been so insistent on its approach to issues concerning species at risk. It has stuck with them. It has introduced and reintroduced them. It has understood the political liabilities of some of them and still stuck to its positions. Why? It is because they are the right positions.

This is not arrogance. The government's position is based on the best available research. Bill C-5 is the result of exhaustive consultations. It is the result of nearly nine years of looking at what works and what does not. It is the result of studying the American example in the Canadian context, looking at precedents for compensation, and learning from 25 years of scientific expertise under the COSEWIC process.

We did not begin fully armed with policies. We built the bill one step at a time, with many amendments, and on the basis of the best experience in modern and up to date federalism. This is the Canadian co-operative approach. The provinces and territories must be involved. The territories must be treated as full partners in the protection of species at risk. There is a significant amount of federal land in the territories but under the legislation they would not be treated as little brothers or sisters. They would be treated as equals.

We must continue to ensure this full partnership is not undermined in any way. The approach must be one of joint actions and not heavy handed, top down law. Balance is what we must strive for. That is an absolute certainty. That is exactly what has been achieved in Bill C-5.

Our overall strategy for protecting species at risk is to ensure the federal portion of the responsibility is met. Bill C-5 is one element of the strategy. It would complement the work of other levels of government. It would build on the partnership approach of the federal provincial territorial Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. It would reinforce the stewardship component of that strategy.

The accord is one of Canada's commitments to protect species. We also have commitments through international and domestic agreements such as the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Unfortunately standing committee amendments eliminate the incentive for the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut to complete the development of their own species at risk legislation to meet their commitments under the accord. That is not good news for wildlife.

We should all be proud that for the first time in any piece of federal conservation or environmental legislation we are entrenching the role and importance of traditional aboriginal knowledge. These are the people whose traditions tell us about the habits and patterns of birds and animals. These are the people who know because they have been told by their parents and elders going back generations that certain plants can thrive in certain situations. Such knowledge could help us protect species and plan effective recoveries.

We are incorporating aboriginal traditional knowledge into our assessment and recovery process in a formal way. This is quite unique. We are supporting steps to establish a formal aboriginal committee that would recognize the enormous contribution aboriginal groups have made in the formation of these policies. It would be an enormous step forward. It would formally recognize and acknowledge our partnership and the valuable contribution of aboriginal people to the protection of species at risk.

The policy intents of Bill C-5 were not arrived at overnight. They came from years of study, consultation, discussion and examination. The co-operative approach is the Canadian way. It is the only way. It is already working. The time to act on the legislation is now.

If protecting endangered species is a significant step toward giving future generations a sustainable legacy in the natural environment then whatever the imperfections of Bill C-5, perceived or otherwise, it is the best and perhaps last chance to finally make a beginning.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House at report stage of Bill C-5. We are in the process of discussing the fourth grouping of amendments to the bill at report stage. This grouping deals primarily with portions of the bill that would ensure the federal government and the Minister of the Environment consult with the public and landowners prior to implementing recovery plans, action plans and entering into agreements with groups.

In particular, this grouping includes amendments being made by the government to overturn committee decisions on how the government must consult on the bill. Government amendments in this grouping seek to limit the meaning and usage of consultation mechanisms like the public registry.

More specifically, this grouping includes 12 government amendments, most of which reverse decisions taken by backbench MPs from the government side and opposition members. Many of the government amendments deal with consultation measures and some are purely technical. There is one amendment from the opposition which I have put forward, namely Motion No. 127.

. I will begin my discussion on this grouping with general comments on each of the government amendments and conclude with the reasons I believe all members of the House should support Motion No. 127.

I would remind members of the House that most of the government motions in this grouping are either reversing decisions taken in committee or changing express wording agreed to by the committee members. It would seem the government does not trust its own backbench members to make proper decisions at committee level. It is when the government pulls stunts like this that I find it very hard to believe it is remotely serious about democratizing parliament.

Let us move on to summarizing each government amendment. The first four government amendments, namely Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20, all seek in one way or another to delete reference to national aboriginal council and replace it with an aboriginal committee. I believe there is no real reason for the government to make these changes. The government wording will have largely the same results as the committee's proposal, except for the name change from council to committee. These changes fail to respect the wisdom of the all party Standing Committee on the Environment.

Even though these changes are minor, it still does not justify reversing the work of the committee. These changes were, after all, initiated by the Liberal members of committee. Why make the changes now? These amendments show the government's contempt for the work of parliamentary committees and for its own MPs.

Motion No. 24 seeks to amend clause 10.1 which deals with the stewardship action plan. Believe it or not, this amendment would ensure that a copy of the stewardship action plan is included in a public registry for all to read. I just cannot believe the government is making the stewardship agreement transparent. There must be a catch because this Liberal government is not known for being transparent.

Of course when we read Motion No. 25 it all becomes clear. The minister was not so much looking for transparency in his decision on stewardship in Motion No. 24 because in Motion No. 25 the minister, in a rather sneaky move, makes developing action plans discretionary and not mandatory, as was the case before the amendment. Allow me to explain. This motion extensively modifies the amendments of the standing committee that introduced the idea of stewardship action plans in Bill C-5. This amendment, Motion No. 25, reinforces government amendment Motion No. 24 in that it makes the development of an action plan discretionary and not mandatory.

Although when a minister does in fact choose to develop an action plan, some of the original points of clause 10.2 are left intact, those which expressly dictate which elements must be included in such an action plan.

As if this amendment was not bad enough, it also seeks to remove any mention of compensation. Although the committee did not agree to mandate compensation, it did at least require the minister to commit to regularly examine tax treatment and subsidies and to eliminate disincentives for people to protect species at risk. Motion No. 25 removes any recognition that the tax system might be used to provide incentives for property owners, as well as any recognition that property owners face disincentives to protecting endangered species. This amendment fails to recognize the financial burden that the act potentially places on landowners.

Furthermore, it removes the committee's amendment which required a commitment to provide technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities. Instead, the government commits to providing information. With this amendment, landowners can expect a far lower level of support from the government. The Liberal government through this bill is asking landowners to not only assume significant responsibilities but they are being threatened with criminal sanctions for inadvertent errors. Yet the minister still refuses to offer them tangible assistance. If it is not the old “damned if you do and damned if you don't” scenario, I do not know what it is. It is shameful how the government treats landowners.

If the House will kindly take a look at government Motion No. 29, it is once again a modification of amendments carried in committee, quite freely I might add, by the government's own Liberal members on the environment committee. Motion No. 29 deals with clause 13(1), a section dealing again with stewardship agreements and, most particular, the publication of those agreements in the public registry. The committee had agreed that in the interests of transparency and in the spirit of public consultation all draft contribution agreements be made available to the public through the public registry for comment prior to these agreements becoming permanent.

These agreements, as stated in clause 13(1), are for “payment of contributions toward the costs of programs and measures for the conservation of wildlife species”. This clause allows the minister to enter into these agreements with other governments, organizations or a person. Since stewardship agreements can affect not only the landowner but neighbouring lands as well, the committee in its wisdom thought it best to make the draft agreements subject to public scrutiny before signing on the dotted line, and the government is reversing its decision on this amendment.

This is unacceptable. I can think of any number of reasons why proposed stewardship agreements should be made public. One that comes to mind is quite clear. For example, take the reintroduction of wolves back into an ecosystem. Depending on the area in question, these wolves might not only affect the ecosystem of the national park as intended but might also adversely affect the ranchers in that area. This is a specific case that I can think of right off the top where those ranchers should be allowed public input into that stewardship agreement. Motion No. 29 allows the minister to remove that consultation requirement altogether. I believe that is unacceptable.

I will move along to government Motion No. 72 which affects clause 45(1). This motion deals with changes to the recovery strategy and is consequential to government Motion No. 76 and clause 50, which would remove the timelines for action plans. These timelines were specifically imposed by the standing committee to ensure the government could not drag its heels on developing recovery strategies or action plans for species at risk. These motions remove the mandatory timelines set by the standing committee that required action plans to be completed within one year of the completion of its recovery strategy if it were an endangered species and within two years if it were a threatened or extirpated species.

The Canadian Alliance supports the requirement for mandatory timelines on the development of action plans. The Liberal government has been in no hurry to pass endangered species legislation. It made promises in the 1993 red book and since then legislation after legislation has died on the order paper because of two premature elections. It has shown no urgency in protecting species at risk. Timelines would certainly guarantee some progress on protecting endangered species and prevent the government from simply dragging its heels whenever it wishes.

The preparation of action plans is essential to protecting endangered species. To do so requires much study and would, for example, mean collecting data on the socioeconomic impact of those action plans. The government readily admits that it has little or no data on the socioeconomic implications of the bill and yet the minister, through his amendment, is still seeking to remove those mandatory timelines. What about those species at risk? How long can they wait?

Motion No. 126 is a further example of how the minister and the Liberal government is reducing the transparency of the bill. The motion once again removes the amendment made by the standing committee which required that all ministerial reports, including decisions, be listed in the public registry. What is the government afraid of? The amendment significantly reduces transparency and public access to important documents showing the process for how the list of endangered species is developed. Of course the Canadian Alliance will be voting against this motion.

Government Motion No. 130 reduces a review of the proposed act from every five years to only once on the five year anniversary of its coming into force. A mandatory review every five years of the effectiveness of the legislation would not only hold the government accountable for its inaction but would make it clear where the act needed more work.

I will quickly say a few words on Motion No. 127 which currently allows the minister to:

--restrict the release of any information required to be included in the public registry if that information relates to the location of a wildlife species or its habitat and restricting its release would be in the best interests of the species.

It is nice of the minister to look after the best interests of the species but this must be balanced with other interests. My amendment would restrict the public release of that information only and therefore guarantee that the minister must advise the affected landowner of the presence of the species.

How can the government on one hand prosecute landowners for contravening the act and on the other hand withhold knowledge of the presence of the species? I find it outrageous.

I urge all members to support Motion No. 127

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to again have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-5, the species at risk bill.

We are looking at the motions in Group No. 4. These motions, of course, propose amendments to this bill, but when one takes the trouble to read each amendment—and there are plenty of government amendments—it quickly becomes obvious that these government amendments modify the bulk of the work done in committee. I am pleased that my colleague has already pointed out what examplary work the committee has done, in many ways, by reaching a consensus that was not always an obvious one, but which came after much work. Some of the motions presented by the government change what was done in committee.

I would again remind the House that this bill comes nearly 10 years after the 1992 earth summit and on the eve of Rio plus 10, which will be held in Johannesburg in late August and early September. Today we have a great deal of to-do over a bill that could have had almost unanimous support in this House.

The opportunity was there and was shunted aside. It would have enabled us to turn up in Johannesburg with a bill on which there was consensus. Now we have to admit we have a bill that has managed to create division everywhere. There is opposition from the environmentalists and the opposition—but the government would say that is what the role of the opposition is—but this bill has even led to division within the party in power, within the government.

This bill is totally unacceptable for Quebec. Not that endangered species legislation is unacceptable in itself but rather that the federal government is introducing a bill which includes certain clauses to be applied to Quebec lands, provincial lands. If this were only a federal bill affecting federal jurisdictions, and more precisely crown lands only, for example, those of us on this side of the House would most certainly have voted in favour of the bill, but there are certain clauses that on the contrary apply to Quebec lands.

It must be remembered that in 1989 Quebec passed its own endangered species legislation. The irony is that the sponsor of that legislation is now sitting on the government benches. Now, a mere 12 years later, the federal government is getting ready to pass a bill, when one of its members had a similar bill passed in Quebec that will be overridden by this federal legislation. Yet, it was one of the members opposite who sponsored the Quebec legislation in 1989. And he is not the only one.

Other members from Quebec sitting in this House were also members of the Robert Bourassa government. Today they are getting ready to legitimize the government's plan to override Quebec's legislation. Democratically speaking, this is paradoxical. It is all very fine and well for the members to live with their paradoxes today, but it is important for the people of Quebec know that is what they are doing, and we are here to remind them.

Quebec's legislation also dealt with aspects covered by the federal bill now before us with respect to the identification of species, and the necessary recovery plan, which Quebec's legislation also included as a priority. There is the whole issue of enforcement. We know Quebec's 1989 legislation provided for wildlife enforcement officers.

In Quebec, we know what wildlife enforcement officers are. However, people should know that this bill will create federal officers who will basically be at complete odds with Quebec's wildlife enforcement officers as they attempt to enforce Quebec's legislation. The creation of these federal officers as provided for in the bill is therefore duplication of legislation, enforcement and duties.

Quebec made efforts even before the international consensus of 1992. Even before the Rio summit, Quebec passed its own legislation and always felt that co-operation was necessary when it came to the protection of species. Quebec is in favour of co-operation and partnership with the federal government.

This is why, in 1996, Quebec signed the federal accord on the protection of endangered species. I need hardly remind those listening that at the time, six years ago, when he signed this agreement, Quebec's minister of the environment warned that there was a risk, because it left the federal government free to introduce more powerful legislation interfering directly in Quebec's jurisdictions. On October 2, 1996, Quebec's then minister of the environment, David Cliche, said:

We cannot remain indifferent to the fact that this agreement opens the door to overlap between the future federal legislation and the act that has been in force since 1989, an act that works well and has already proven useful. We risk creating more red tape instead of dedicating ourselves to what really matters to us: the fate of endangered species.

That was October of 1996, when the national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada was signed. There was good reason to be concerned. The minister at the time feared that the federal government would introduce legislation that would interfere in provincial jurisdiction. When we see the bill before us today, we see that he was indeed right.

We cannot remain indifferent. Quebec has not remained indifferent when it comes to protecting species, and it was also proactive in terms of protecting their habitat.

I remember that in 1996, the same year the national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada was signed, that the Government of Quebec implemented a strategy to protect vulnerable areas. These are the protected areas of Quebec.

This strategy had three objectives. First, it was designed to increase the ecological knowledge necessary for the creation of a network to maintain quality and for the protection of vulnerable or threatened components of natural biological diversity. The strategy's second objective was to establish and maintain a comprehensive and representative network of protected areas to preserve biological diversity, and finally, to strengthen the network of managed conservation areas so as to ensure the protection of biological diversity over a greater area.

Why am I going on about Quebec's strategy for protected areas? To demonstrate that with Quebec's 1989 legislation, with the fishing regulations and the act respecting the conservation of wildlife, in addition to the 1996 strategy for protected areas, Quebec has the tools it needs to protect species and their habitat.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, saving species at risk is important to both myself and my party. While we believe that legislation must be in place to secure the future of our wildlife and their habitat, we also believe that serious amendments to the current bill must be made.

The theme throughout these debates has been co-operation. Without the full support and co-operation of property owners and users, there is little hope of the bill being as effective as it should be or could be. Property owners and users must be made partners with various levels of government. They should not be viewed as obstacles to the saving of species, but helpers.

An area that should be discussed is stewardship. Effective stewardship programs need to be established. The punishment and penalties outlined in the bill seem to indicate that compliance is based on the fear of reprisal. This is not the attitude to be taken if we want this legislation to have full effect. Incentives for good stewardship would make better sense. Instead of complying to avoid punishment, property owners should be rewarded for their active participation. These incentives can be more than simple cash payments. Tax incentives are an option.

Stewardship plans should also be made part of the public record. As these plans have the possibility of affecting not only the initiating property owner, but also neighbouring landowners, public access to these plans is necessary. There needs to be an opportunity for public consultation, including all involved stakeholders.

Knowledge and information are key for these stewardship programs to be effective. The government should make every effort to keep property owners, land users and average citizens informed on which species are included, their habitat and plans to protect both of these.

The Liberal motion would see the removal of an amendment that would require a commitment to provide technical and scientific support to persons involved in stewardship activities. This is like giving someone a brand new car but not giving them the keys. Without the proper information, property owners are on their own to figure out the program. The punishment for violating this legislation currently applies equally to the person who deliberately and maliciously endangers species and to the one who inadvertently endangers species.

With no distinction being given to the deliberate actions of the criminal mind and the innocent mind, the government could at the very least offer as much information as possible to enable the non-criminal the opportunity to avoid making these mistakes. Not providing the best information possible only sets the stage for failure and the further endangering of species and their habitat.

There must be real assistance provided by the government to property owners. Mailing information pamphlets will not do. There needs to be an open sharing of information and data to assist property owners in their choices and land use practices.

The public deserves to have access to documentation. The information provided to them is vital in their efforts to help save endangered species. The government would like to exclude all ministerial reports, including listing decisions, from being listed in the public registry. This reduction of transparency by eliminating public access goes against Canadian ideals. We believe ourselves to be living in a free and open democracy, yet the government would see basic information limited.

Canadian citizens should not be burdened with having to submit access to information requests. This is not some top secret military expedition. We are trying to save animals and their habitat. Why the fear of open access to information on the part of the government? I do not know.

The government would see the public held accountable for their actions without having provided them with the information necessary to make wise choices. The penalties are too harsh to not give property owners every opportunity to make wise choices. To not offer all relevant information to property owners and land users in light of the penalties involved would be negligent. If true stewardship is to be promoted then all available resources must be offered to property owners. The government must do its part if it expects the property owners to do theirs.

Along with public participation comes public consultation. The property owners are the grassroots folks in the plan to save endangered species. To exclude their input on how this legislation is working is to exclude a vital component of the plan.

The government seems to thrive on secrecy. What Canada needs is transparency and accountability. To ensure accountability, there needs to be scheduled reviews of this act, a review process that would allow for the active participation and involvement of the public. Legislators would have the opportunity to hear from those with firsthand knowledge on if and how the program is working. Who better to offer ideas on what is or is not working and any changes that are necessary than property owners who are directly affected by this bill?

Asking for five year scheduled reviews is not unreasonable. The government again would see us simply trusting it in that if it deemed a review necessary only then would one be called. This is not acceptable. If left to its own discretion, we can all be assured that no review would ever be called, at least not one with any public input or government accountability.

If this bill is to be truly effective, it must ensure openness and accountability. As I said, the inadvertent actions of an individual carry enormous penalties. The decisions affecting such a person cannot be made behind closed doors. The property owners and resource users are on the frontlines in the protection of species at risk. Their ongoing co-operation is expected. They should be able to expect co-operation from their government as well.

The government seems to be content in snubbing the committee process when it comes to Bill C-5. It also seems content to treat the public in the same way by snubbing the possibility of its input. This attitude is arrogant and unacceptable. The government cannot legislate and then flee the scene. Ongoing public involvement is necessary. This bill will not succeed with the direct involvement and support of the public. It must be included in any consultation processes and deserve to be provided with the best information possible.

Legislators cannot save species and their habitats without the co-operation of property owners and resource users. To think otherwise is arrogant. The majority of Canadians feel it is necessary to help endangered species. Let us ensure that the government works with them, not against them.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, in this group of amendments a number of items need to be addressed.

The member for Red Deer did his job in condemning a certain approach. I would like to remind him that the mens rea issue was discussed at length and in depth at committee. The conclusion we arrived at after very careful and thoughtful deliberation was that there is a justification for that approach in certain extreme cases but not definitely in cases for which he understandably expressed some concern.

I would like to address an item in this group of motions that concerns aboriginal people. A motion was made in committee to facilitate and provide a broader basis for consultation with aboriginal people across the country. It was a matter that our colleague, the member for Churchill, espoused quite eloquently in committee. It resulted in an amendment that was made which we all thought was reasonable and desirable but which became the object of a motion by the government which in a sense in Group No. 4 unravels the consensus reached so carefully in committee.

I noticed with some sense of alarm the press release issued yesterday by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami president. The changes made by the government at report stage are the object of the press release. The president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami said the changes--

--do not currently reflect the constitutionally protected relationship between Inuit and the federal government. More specifically, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami feels the federal government has undermined the integrity of the Species at Risk legislation through its report stage motions.

The Inuit Tapiriit president put his finger on an issue we also raised, namely the unfortunate intervention by the government by way of motions. They are undoing the careful work made by way of consensus, intensive negotiations, co-operation and initiatives taken in particular by the member for Red Deer and the member for Simcoe North and others, to arrive at an all party consensus which resulted in the report from our committee.

Coming back to yesterday's press release by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the last paragraph reads:

Due to these recent events, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, along with other Aboriginal groups, have no choice but to withdraw their support from the Species at Risk Act. ITK will only support Bill C-5 if the federal government reverts wording concerning NACOSAR [National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk] back to the Standing Committee version, or an honourable compromise can be reached between Aboriginal groups and the federal government.

I hope a solution can be found by way of an honourable compromise and by way of an amendment perhaps later on in this debate.

Too many of the motions, too many of the discrepancies and divergences of opinions that have been expressed during the debate rest on the federal-provincial accord arrived at in 1992 in Charlottetown. These were federal and provincial ministers who were responsible for wildlife and the environment.

What is the Charlottetown accord to which so much undue importance is attributed? It is simply a piece of paper. Those who signed it had no mandate by parliament or legislatures to do so. Since then they have had time to bring that accord back to their respective legislatures and parliament for a good discussion. They have not done so. It is a document that has no parliamentary foundation.

In addition there has been no public consultation on that accord. No parliamentary hearings have taken place. No debates in the House, or to the best of my knowledge in any legislature, have taken place on the Charlottetown accord.

What it has produced is very hard to measure. It is an understanding on loose concepts which has no real significance in the achievement of the goal, namely the protection of endangered species. It is a meaningless document which nevertheless is invoked frequently despite its insignificance.

I am bringing this into the discussion today because it seems to me that rather than being guided by the 1992 Charlottetown so-called accord which has no parliamentary or legislative basis at all, we should instead concentrate on the federal role, the federal responsibility for the protection of endangered species. We should give strong leadership because we have a constitutional base for the promotion of the protection of endangered species. Just with water alone and the species that move in water, we have a tremendous responsibility and constitutional mandate.

The federal government also has the moral authority to take a leadership role. Canadians and the public at large expect the federal government to take a leadership role. This is what should be guiding us in these deliberations.

Industries, specifically the mining industry and the forestry industry, and a number of environmental groups support the key changes the committee made to the bill regarding listing and habitat. This type of coalition is unprecedented. We must also keep in mind that 1,300 scientists have supported a strong bill and have said that the bill should go even further than it does in the protection of endangered species.

Never before have we seen such a broad industry-environment consensus on a major environmental bill. It is extremely unfortunate the government will not go as far as industry is willing to go in the protection of endangered species.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the motions in Group No. 4.

We in our party are in favour of protecting species at risk. However Bill C-5 would do that. It is not a workable piece of legislation. That is why we are opposing it. It should be clear by now that not only our party opposes Bill C-5. All the opposition parties and a great many Liberal members are opposing it. That should tell the government something. It should tell the Minister of the Environment the legislation is not good enough. It would not save species at risk.

The committee met. It brought in witness after witness. We on the committee put forward more than 300 amendments. More than 100 of them were from government members. We listened. We consulted. We talked to experts. We talked to many Canadians. We all talked to people at length in our ridings. We learned a lot about species at risk and what the legislation should be about.

In putting forward our amendments we took into consideration things like compensation in Group No. 1. We talked about mens rea versus due diligence in Group No. 2. We talked about provincial safety nets, sustainable development and socio-economic impacts in Group No. 3. We are now into Group No. 4. We want to talk about the process of creating an action plan and how the government intends to do it.

Everyone worked hard and co-operated to make legislation that would protect species at risk. It was frustrating to come back at report stage to find all the good work we as a group had spent nine months on was changed back by the government. We have a stillborn bill because of what the government has done to it.

The government says it does not want to review the bill in five years. It has eliminated the five year review. I do not know what it is afraid of. I cannot imagine the reason any government could have for not reviewing how well a piece of legislation is working.

I will talk primarily today about our party's Motion No. 127. It is probably one of the major issues in the section. A number of amendments are technical and we agree with some of them. However this issue is the most upsetting to all of us.

Because there are no members here to listen I will walk our viewers through the process and how it might work. Endangered species would be listed. This would be done scientifically by COSEWIC. We trust it would do its job adequately. The list would then go to the political masters. However now that they have amended the bill from what the committee proposed they would not consider the socio-economic impacts. They would not consider the legalities.

Who would then identify endangered species? Let us say the DFO police would do it. It is interesting. In Alberta we have over 20 new Department of Fisheries and Oceans officers. Why are there so many new DFO officers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C.? The fisheries department has done such a poor job there are no fish. They had to send the officers somewhere where there were still fish. That is the only reason I can think of.

How these people do their investigations is most interesting. Some minnows were found in a provincial jurisdiction in Alberta and fisheries officers arrived to investigate. They arrived with flak jackets on. They were armed with guns which were drawn. They broke down the door to enter a provincial office. They wore flak jackets, their guns were drawn and they broke down the door because some minnows were found.

Is that the kind of action there will be for our endangered species? That happened. It is not a story. Ask the Alberta environment minister about that. The poor secretaries were shocked when those guys broke down the door and entered the office to seize the files. That is the way DFO may handle the endangered species. I hope not.

To continue, the minister is advised by the officers, whoever they are, that there is an endangered species or some endangered habitat. Remember if a person is found guilty of hurting that endangered species or changing that habitat, it is a punishable criminal offence. The person could go to jail.

Motion No. 127 says that the landowner has to be advised that he has endangered habitat or an endangered species. The way the bill reads now, the minister may decide to not release the information to the public. I can understand that because tourists and all the bird watchers in North America might come to see a piece of property and break down the fences. They might damage the endangered species habitat, so I can understand not making it public. However I cannot understand why the onus should not be on the minister to tell the landowner that there is an endangered species on the land.

When one of the DFO police has decided that is the case, what would be so onerous about telling the landowner that there is an endangered species on the land? I do not understand how we can have a piece of legislation that does not demand that the government advise people that they have an endangered habitat or an endangered species on their land. It defies all imagination. That is why we fought so hard for a mens rea clause. It is why we felt that due diligence was not fair. The farmer cannot do an environmental impact study, cannot know that an endangered species is on his land.

I have gone through the list which includes tiny cryptanthe, a slender mouse-ear-cress, a hairy prairie-clover, a burrowing owl, a sand verbena. How does a farmer or rancher know what a sand verbena is? It is an endangered species in Saskatchewan. I do not know how the farmer will know. The government will not tell him. What kind of legislation is that?

We have to change the bill. We have to defeat some of the amendments and we have to pass some of the amendments we are putting forward if we have any hope of the proposed legislation working.

The making of an action plan is now discretionary for the minister. He may not have to come up with an action plan. He may not have to tell the public about it. He may not have to tell the landowner about it.

The legislation just will not work. Like the other three groups of amendments, some of the Group No. 4 amendments are just technical ones. However we have to change some of the amendments to allow for informing landowners across the country.