Bill C-5 (Historical)

Species at Risk Act

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

Species at Risk Act

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-5, an act to protect species at risk. This has been a topic of debate and discussion in Canada for many years and it is still being debated.

I would like to use Motion No. 23 in this group of amendments as an example of one of the problems with the institution of the House of Commons and its committee work.

The bill was prepared by the government, tabled in the House and then sent to committee for study. The committee was made up of members, including the member for Davenport who is the chairman of the committee, the Canadian Alliance members for Red Deer and Souris--Moose Mountain and others from the Liberal side such as the member for Halton and the parliamentary secretary, the member for Kitchener Centre.

Witnesses appeared before the committee. Members heard all angles about what was right and wrong with the bill. The committee then proceeded to a clause by clause study of the bill and amendments were brought forward from all parties to make the bill better and to reflect what members had heard from witnesses. This is not always an easy thing to do. There was debate and discussion and negotiations. Being a committee of the House, I felt it worked in a good way to bring about the right end, to bring forward a bill amended to the point where it would become somewhat more acceptable to Canadians.

Unfortunately we did not get all of the amendments we wanted. Many of them were voted down. One we were unable to bring forward was the issue of compensation which is still a huge issue to us.

With respect to Motion No. 23, the committee agreed to pass this amendment to the bill. However when the bill came back to the House for discussion, the government brought in an amendment to counter the amendment to the bill, thereby bringing it back to where it had been.

When an amendment is passed by a committee of the House, the majority of whose members are Liberals, one would think the government would support that amendment. No, it brought an amendment forward to reverse the amendment. So around and around we go.

When the government reverses an amendment passed at committee, it shows a total lack of respect for the function of the committees of the House of Commons. To me it means that government members on the committee are split on this issue. Hopefully when the bill comes forward for a vote those members and other people on the government side who support their position, will continue to support that position and will not vote in favour of the bill which has been changed from the amended form they agreed to.

The motion deals with the operation of a stewardship action plan. The committee wanted to make sure that when the plan was put forward, the minister shall act, not may act; the minister would have to do something to put this into place. The committee agreed to that but the government has put forward an amendment making this aspect at the discretion of the minister who may or may not act at all. This takes the power away from the bill and puts it into the hands of one minister who may or may not do something. That is not good enough. We feel that the word “shall” should be included. The government needs to act on these issues when they are brought forward. Things like this should not be at the total discretion of one minister of the crown.

Motion No. 35 is another government amendment to establish the legal list of species at risk. The committee debated this issue at length. Members came to an agreement but again, after the bill was brought back to the House, the government brought forward amendments to reverse what was agreed to at committee.

Committees bring in witnesses from all across Canada. In many cases, the committees will travel to different areas of the country to get input from various individuals. This is how members can get a good sense from all sides of what needs to be looked at, strengthened or changed.

Certainly there is a lot of discussion because these positions are not always the same, but it is an opportunity at that level to make some change. The motion is a reversal of the approach taken by the standing committee toward the establishment of a legal list of species at risk. Like the original bill, it would mean that cabinet must actively choose to place species identified by the expert scientific panel, COSEWIC, on the legal list. If it does nothing, then COSEWIC recommendations will have no effect.

The committee had placed a reverse onus on the government. If cabinet did not act within six months, then the recommendations would be added to the legal list automatically. Many groups felt that would be the way to go because if the government did not move on it, then it automatically would be added. By putting that reverse onus on the government, some direction or action was guaranteed. However an amendment has been put in by the government to take that out.

If recommendations come forward from the scientific community in Canada that certain endangered species should be added to the list and there was no action by the government, then they would not be added. We are suggesting if the government does not act, they should be added.

This is just another case of where what was agreed to by the committee has been changed. We must always keep in mind that the committee has a majority of government members on it. Therefore if something was agreed to at committee, one would think that the government would be in support of it, but as is quite clear here, it is not.

Motion No. 39 which the Canadian Alliance has brought forward, and to which many members have spoken, deals with the issue of a person knowingly killing, harming or harassing an endangered species. There have been many examples. How do we educate every Canadian to know what every endangered species looks like, what their environments are in which they live, and which ones are in their areas?

We have heard a lot about the burrowing owl. We are pretty confident that most people would be able to identify it on their property and to take the necessary measures to protect the habitat. There are many people on the land, through farming and ranching and the resource sector, who have implemented their own programs for protecting species at risk. I have seen some of them myself, particularly regarding the burrowing owl. However when it is an obscure, probably water-borne species, how are we going to educate every Canadian so that people know that every time they perform an activity on their land or in their resource sector they are not disturbing the habitat? It would be an almost impossible thing to do.

There has to be the aspect in the bill whereby we have to prove that the person knew he or she was going to destroy. If the person still proceeded with that activity, then certainly the full weight of the bill should be brought to bear, but if the person was an average Canadian carrying out his or her duties, livelihood, or even a recreational activity, that person should not have the weight of the bill brought down upon him or her.

One is innocent until proven guilty, but the way the bill is structured, one is guilty until proven innocent. That goes against everything in which our justice system believes. It ignores the basic part of the western legal history that criminal penalties are given only for offences committed with a criminal mind, mens rea . That is an absolutely critical part of what we need to have placed back into the legislation.

We hope we can get respect and support from the government benches on this. We know there is support. Many government members have supported what we have put forward. When the bill comes to be voted on, I hope they realize and remember that a lot of the things they fought for at committee to have amended or placed in the bill have now been reversed by the government. I hope they do not pass a bill which would endanger Canadians just for carrying out their regular lives not knowing they are at risk.

I want to finish on the issue of the bill going to committee where witnesses, experts in their field, come forward with the understanding that what they say will be listened to, that the committee will weigh the pros and cons of each issue and then it will come up with a more balanced approach to move that forward. When that happens, when it is agreed to at committee, it comes back to the House and then the government introduces amendments to reverse a lot of what was done at committee, that is wrong.

I hope the members on the government side who do not support the legislation will vote against it when the time comes to vote.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the members who spoke before me on Bill C-5. I find the silence of the government members interesting. Perhaps they can find little to defend about the bill before us today. Their silence is suspicious to say the least.

Before looking at Bill C-5 more specifically, I would like to try to address the issues raised by this bill or the problems it is supposed to solve with respect to protecting biodiversity.

I believe that all members of this House agree fully on the increase in the rate of disappearance and on the seriousness of the situation concerning biodiversity, and the disappearance or the threat of disappearance of certain species.

We must ask ourselves some questions. Does Bill C-5 really provide additional protection that can be enforced? Will the bill really contribute to enhancing the protection of our ecosystems and the endangered species that make up these ecosystems? These are the two basic things that Bill C-5 should do: protect ecosystems and protect endangered species.

Since this third version of the bill was introduced, what we have heard leaves us with the impression that, strange as it may seem, the Minister of the Environment did not ask himself these two simple questions before introducing his bill.

Why is the Minister of the Environment introducing Bill C-5 on biodiversity? Not because the current Minister of the Environment woke up one morning and said to himself “It will do my image and my reputation good to introduce a bill on biodiversity and the protection of species at risk”. Rather, he was trying to pick up on a job started by his predecessors, Mr. Marchi and the current Minister of Canadian Heritage who had already, on two occasions, tried to make good a promise. The first one was made by the federal government at the Rio summit in 1992. At the time, the Progressive Conservatives were in power. It will be recalled that Mr. Mulroney was in Rio de Janeiro.

We can understand that some electors are skeptical about the role of members of parliament, the role of elected people, the role of ministers and premiers when we see these men and women—a nice family picture, arm in arm, a big smile of their face—telling us “Starting today, following the Rio summit, we will take biodiversity into consideration. Do not worry, we are considering this situation to be a priority”. I would be curious to identify the number of situations or concerns that the various governments have put forward. At a given time, everything was a priority during their mandate, depending on the community they were addressing.

At the Rio summit in 1992, presidents, first ministers, statesmen and stateswomen, arm in arm, with a big smile on their face, signed the Rio convention on biodiversity.

There is a problem. Once this has been signed, once the convention has been ratified, the respective states must pass some legislation. That was not done yet, but the conservatives said “We are going to do it”. Less than a year later, they were threatened. They were completely extinct, or almost.

I think they will support this bill on species at risk, but their situation has prevented them from being able to introduce legislative measures to meet their commitment.

That was not too serious, because the Liberals had made a promise in their 1993 red book to introduce a biodiversity bill. Indeed, in 1995, a little less than two years after the election, the present Minister of Heritage introduced an endangered species bill. At that time, it was the bill which led up to Bill C-65. The main thing that made the present heritage minister back up was that the bill addressed only zones protected by the federal government.

An unbelievable number of protests and criticisms ensued, particularly from environmental groups and others who closely monitor environmental problems. The criticism of that bill was that it was restricted solely to federal lands. Critics pointed out that only four provinces at that time, Quebec being one, had endangered species legislation.

According to the environmentalists and the opposition parties, this bill, which applied only to federal lands, was an unsatisfactory and incomplete response to the great promise of Rio de Janeiro.

So the bill introduced by the present heritage minister was just take one for the federal government; it was shelved around 1995.

In 1996, the present Canadian ambassador to the WHO in Geneva—whom I can name—Sergio Marchi, then Minister of the Environment, introduced Bill C-65, the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, which is in a way the ancestor of this bill being debated today.

The government was again criticized by the various stakeholder groups and, this time, the criticism was not merely from Quebec or the sovereignists, or the opposition parties, but also from the governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and the Yukon and Northwest Territories, all of which voiced major concerns about the concept of transborder species and the powers defined by the act. Many criticisms were directed at the Minister of the Environment of the day, and the bill was again judged unsatisfactory.

What did the Liberals do? In 1996, four years after the Rio summit and three years after being elected, they let Bill C-65, which they have now reintroduced, die on the order paper.

This bill on species at risk that we are discussing today is not the current Minister of the Environment's idea, nor is it an idea or a promise from the 2000 election campaign, it is something that Canadians have been waiting for more than 10 years.

When we see our heads of government strutting about New York talking about the rights of children or the status of women throughout the world, when there are big summits with heads of state and government leaders from around the world who sign agreements, then return to their own countries, try to introduce the necessary legislation and, ten years later, are still talking about this same legislation, it is no wonder that people are skeptical about provincial and federal politicians.

It seems to me that given the outcries in 1995 and 1996 that led to the two previous bills, a modicum of good faith and imagination would have encouraged the minister at that time, or the current Minister of the Environment, to meet with his provincial counterparts and put the issues out on the table, the fact that four provinces already had bills, including Quebec, to protect threatened or endangered species and their ecosystems.

In order to take into consideration this reality and the fact that the federal government already has legislation on threatened species with the Fisheries Act and other acts of Environment Canada and others, they could have looked at the areas that the different stakeholders in this area agreed on. They could also have invited environmental groups to discuss Bill C-5, and taken into consideration the main criticisms that would have provided for real and adequate environmental protection in the first, second, and let us hope that there will not be a third attempt at the legislation—this has still not been a part of discussions.

But the main problem with Bill C-5 is the fact that it does not answer the two simple and fundamental questions that it should answer, and the fact that the decisions to determine what is a threatened species and what is not will not be made by scientists. These decisions on the designation of species will be made by the minister and by cabinet, rather than by scientists themselves.

We are convinced that the minister will not wake up one morning and say “Now, in my opinion this species is becoming an endangered species”. He will take into consideration the research and the analyses done by scientists. But what we question, along with environmental groups and elected provincial representatives, is the very broad power the Minister of the Environment and cabinet are appropriating, when it comes to designating threatened species.

I will conclude by saying that, with a minimum of goodwill, openness and transparency, we should be able to co-operate and arrive at a good solution for everyone. We could fulfill a commitment made ten years ago, during the summit in Rio de Janeiro, where everyone unanimously agreed that the biodiversity of threatened species should be monitored by effective agreements and legislation in our respective countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the amendments to Bill C-5, the species at risk bill.

Once again I am disappointed in the government's approach to dealing with its citizens. Bill C-5 addresses some very serious issues concerning the survival of endangered species in Canada and the habitat that these species occupy.

I am certain that no Canadian in their right mind would care to wilfully endanger any of the numerous species that are endangered. In fact, I think if we were to ask Canadians what should happen to someone who knowingly and wilfully threatens an endangered species or their habitat, they would tell us that serious fine or jail time would be appropriate. I would suggest that most Canadians would be reasonably comfortable with the government's proposed fines of up to $250,000 for an individual and up to $1 million for a corporation with the possibility of a five year sentence. The operative words here are knowingly and wilfully.

That being said, I think Canadians would be appalled to learn that the government will make it a criminal act to kill, harm or harass any one of hundreds of endangered species or interfere with their critical habitat, even if the individual or corporation did not know that they were committing an offence. Yes, that is right, the government is proposing legislation that will put Canadians in the position of possibly committing a serious criminal offence without even knowing it.

The legislation does not require intent or even reckless behaviour. Rather, it places the burden of proof on the individual to prove that he or she was practising due diligence should harm come to an endangered species.

In order for Canadian landowners to protect themselves, they will have to become experts at recognizing hundreds of endangered or at risk species.

Again, who among us can readily identify, for example, a sage grouse or a Bicknell's thrush? How many members in this place could identify a five lined skink or a spring salamander? I am having trouble even pronouncing these things let alone identifying them. Moreover, how many Canadians could even begin to identify where any of these animals lived?

I do not want anyone to get me wrong. I believe it is very important to put in place legislation that is designed to protect these animals and the hundreds of others currently at risk in Canada. However, in the way the legislation is worded, not only must average Canadians be able to recognize the species but they will also need to identify their critical habitat in the event that they disturb a place where some of these animals spend part of their life cycle. This would also include places in which they used to live and might be reintroduced. According to the proposed law, if due diligence is not taken a person could face a very serious criminal prosecution resulting in fines, or jail time as I mentioned earlier. It is wrong for the government to go down this path.

Bill C-5 ignores one of the fundamental tenets of our legal history: criminal offences must be committed with a criminal mind. Mens rea is the Latin term for this.

The Canadian Alliance supports the goal of protecting endangered species but it cannot be done in such a heavy-handed manner. If the government wants to protect endangered species, it needs to put the emphasis on going after people or corporations that knowingly and willingly put endangered species at risk.

The approach in Bill C-5 is adversarial and provides no opportunity to landowners or corporations to co-operate with the government to preserve natural habitats or endangered species. The government will simply say “gotcha” and then all one can do is hope that the minister is reasonable in exercising discretion as outlined in the bill.

With 70 million hectares of agricultural lands and 25 million hectares of privately owned forest lands in Canada, how do farmers and operators exercise due diligence over such large areas, especially when many are small operations with very limited resources and with little or no familiarity with endangered species regulations?

The minister knows this is a problem. He said it himself, and I quote:

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

The minister said that in the standing committee meetings on October 3, 2001.

The minister's words are nice but the bill would make honest people into criminals.

The Canadian Alliance amendments attempt to restore the balance by requiring that the crown at least prove some measure of intent before somebody can be convicted.

Did someone wilfully harm an endangered species? Did they do so with intent? Was it done in a reckless manner? These amendments would go some way to ensuring that innocent people do not inadvertently commit a criminal offence,

I urge the government and other opposition parties to hear this argument and to vote in favour of Canadian Alliance Group No. 2 amendments.

At minimum, the federal government must work with the provinces to provide training for landowners and users who will be required to meet the due diligence standard but do not have the knowledge or information to identify lists of species or their critical habitat.

In closing I would like my colleagues to consider how many of their constituents own recreational vacation properties. We tend to think of this type of legislation in terms of commercial use of large tracts of land. What will a member say to a constituent who is facing criminal prosecution because in clearing land for a vacation cabin he unwittingly destroys the habitat of a species at risk that he did not even know was there? Some might say that is a bit of a stretch but I say that it is a very real possibility given the uncompromising zeal of some environmental advocates.

I urge all members to support the Canadian Alliance Group. No. 2 amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to wonder, after a year and a half in this House, if the Liberal government's motto is “If a job is worth doing it is worth doing poorly”. I came here with an interest in this job when the electors of Cypress Hills--Grasslands showed their wisdom by electing me. I came expecting that there would be serious debate in the House, that there would be a give and take of ideas, that there would be a merging and a rejection of those ideas and that decisions would be based on well-informed debate and well-informed bias. To be honest, I saw some of this happen in the Standing Committee on Environment ans Sustainable development when I was allowed to sit in on some of the sessions.

The minister, on the other hand, has destroyed this entire process. I believe that at some point he should be held accountable for disregard of the parliamentary process regarding this bill.

I have a great concern about a bill that goes through committee, where some people got what they wanted and others did not, and then have it hijacked by a minister who has his own special agenda. I am disappointed that I do not hear more government members speaking out about that as well. I know there are a great number of them who have a big concern about what has happened with the bill. I suggest that perhaps the minister's motto will be “I started out with nothing and I still have most of that left”.

I will speak today on the Group No. 2 motions and two issues of importance in those motions. First, it is that of the federal government taking upon itself the power to override provincial legislation and agreements.

The government has become a bully. We see that in several areas. We have seen it in the area of health. We are beginning to see it in the area of agriculture and its new farm plan. I believe that we will see it in the area of the environment. The government has been bullying provinces. It is beginning to bully rural municipalities. It is beginning as well to bully landowners.

Is it possible for us to cooperate? I will take a look at the history. We have heard a bit about the Department of Fisheries and Oceans today. It has moved in the last couple of years into the prairie provinces. There will to be a fair amount of money spent by DFO in the prairie provinces. The government is talking about putting in five fisheries centres with thirty biologists at each centre. Therefore Saskatchewan will have the privilege of having 60 fisheries biologists in its province which it has never had before even though the provincial environment ministry has been managing the fishery reasonably well.

How does it work with DFO coming in? We have heard the members from Selkirk--Interlake and Provencher talk about Manitoba and how there have been problems with drainage ditches. The RMs have ongoing concerns and regular confrontations with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have heard DFO costing RMs and cities up to $200,000 extra to construct flood dikes.

In Alberta DFO began to go after the drainage ditches that were built for irrigation until the Alberta government told it to go to wherever.

We heard from the member for Souris--Moose Mountain that DFO had been billing RMs in Saskatchewan for studies that they did not even know were being done. Therefore we have an ongoing problem with DFO

Perhaps there is something more than just a grab for control. We know Alberta has done very well with one of its natural resources, namely oil. It has been able to become a powerhouse within Canada. A couple of weeks ago one of the senior bureaucrats declared that Newfoundland would not be allowed to become another Alberta.

Another resource that is at stake, and which is just as important as oil, is water. I am starting to wonder if this whole environmental issue focused around Bill C-5 and some of the DFO activity is less a concern about environmentalism than a concern about control over waters that are within provincial boundaries which are supposed to be under provincial jurisdiction.

The bullying, coercion and a lack of co-operation that we see will just lead us to one place. As far as the provinces are concerned it will be in court. We will see the federal government in court against the provincial governments, the provincial governments taking the federal government to court and at the bottom of the pile both levels of government hammering the landowner with his own tax money. That lack of co-operation is unacceptable and the bill will not work.

My second concern in the Group No. 2 amendments is in the area of criminal liability.

I want to paint a bit of a picture of farmers in my area. We have burrowing owls in my area. People go out in the spring with machinery and have a 50:50 chance of seeding their land. We have lots of gophers when the crop begins to come up. Gophers start digging their holes in the crop land. Badgers come along and they are only too happy to chase the gophers down the holes. Later the burrowing owls come to nest in the holes in our area of the world.

At harvest time we come along with the combines and cut the crop off the top, take our crops and people go home. The question that has to be asked is if this disturbs the owl's habitat. If it does, I guess the farmer can expect that the feds will show up at some point at his door and conceivably he could be charged.

The should have known principle in the bill is something that is new after hundreds of years of criminal law. What are the consequences of breaking the should have known law? In the bill the penalties are $250,000 and up to five years in jail. That is enough to destroy virtually any landowner or any farmer and put him completely out of business. If he cannot prove due diligence, he can be charged and fined.

The bill basically ignores one of the tenets of western legal history and that is that criminal penalties are only given for offences committed with a criminal mind. It is known as mens rea; that is a person knowing he or she is breaking the law. That is why one can be charged and held accountable.

It is interesting that the minister actually had a concern about this. In his presentation of October 3, 2001, he said:

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

It is interesting that when the bill came back to the House, the minister declined to give people that protection.

The burrowing owl is fairly well known. Farmers can work with that. There are some other species I would like to ask members about. Have they heard of slender mouse-ear-cress? No, I did not think so. How about the hairy prairie-clover? The burrowing owl we are all familiar with. The sand verbena might be a plant that is new to everyone. I am sure members know of the western spiderwort and the tiny cryptanthe.

The piping plover may be one we are a little more familiar. These are all species that in my riding have been declared as threatened or endangered. Interestingly enough, all of them are already covered by section 5 of the Wildlife Act. Everyone of them is already protected.

This legislation is wrong. It punishes rural Canadians in particular. It cannot succeed if the government will not work with rural people.

We all acknowledge that the government's main role is to provide security and protection for its citizens. Why does the government continue to punish rural Canada?

I have a little story with which I will finish. An agricultural salesman showed up at a farmer's farm yard one day. He saw that the farmer had a pet pig, but the pig had one wooden leg. The farmer said the pig went everywhere with him and the salesman asked “What happened to the pig?” The farmer said “Let me tell you what a hero the pig is”. He said that he was working near the edge of the road by a muddy slew and one day his tractor slipped off the road. It tipped over and pinned him underneath. He could not do anything so he told the pig to go get a board, to bring it over, balance it on a rock, slide it under the tire and to sit on the end of it. When the pig sat on the end of it, the tractor lifted up enough and he was able to get out. The pig saved his life. The salesman asked how the pig got the wooden leg.

The farmer said he would tell him another story. The pig slept in the living room. One night he smelled smoke. Sure enough, the house was on fire. The pig ran upstairs, woke him and his wife up, and they and the four kids got out before the house burned down. Again, he saved his life as well as the lives of the rest of his family. The agricultural salesman said that the pig certainly was a hero but he still wanted to know how he got his wooden leg. The farmer said “Well, with a pig like that you don't want to eat it all at once”.

That is what the government is doing to rural Canada. It is slowly killing it off, one leg at a time.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand and speak to Bill C-5.

It is important for us to understand that we come to the House to debate the issues and laws of the land as aggressively and positively as possible. Out of every piece of legislation there are winners and losers. Every once in a while we get a bill that is a win win situation where everyone wins. Seldom do we get a bill that is a lose lose situation where everyone loses, both the people for whom it is intended and those who would be impacted by it. Bill C-5 is a lose lose bill.

First, I will speak on behalf of my constituents of Yellowhead. I will explain how Bill C-5 would impact each and every one of them in a variety of ways.

My constituency runs from Edmonton in Alberta to the B.C. border through Jasper National Park. We have a national park in our riding. That is pertinent to species at risk legislation. Species reside within the park, but to get to the park one must go through farmland. There are farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods would be impacted in a dramatic way by this piece of legislation. They are struggling and having a tough time as it is dealing with grasshoppers and finding enough water to grow their crops let alone protecting habitat and endangered species on their property. Bill C-5 would require them to do that.

The oil and gas industry takes up a considerable amount of my riding. The industry harvests a tremendous number of trees. In some areas of the province it harvests more trees than the forest companies. Because it uses pipelines that take down trees and builds roads to its lease sites and well sites, it disturbs a considerable amount of habitat. This piece of legislation would impact its ability to continue to harvest resources in a considerable way.

Bill C-5 would also impact the forest industry. In my riding there are a tremendous number of companies that harvest and farm the forest. It is an 80 year cycle. They farm the forest for 80 years to grow a tree in my constituency. The forest industry is in the midst of changing the habitat as it does block cuts where it has trees growing at different levels and ages all through the riding. Bill C-5 would impact the forest industry in my riding in a considerable way because it talks about habitat of endangered species.

The coal industry would also be impacted because of the water used in coal plants as well as the pollution that perhaps comes out of them. There is concern about what Bill C-5 would mean to the coal industry.

The tourist area of my riding is Jasper National Park, one of the largest national parks in Canada. Bill C-5 would not have a considerable impact within the park because it is protected under the Parks Act. However snowmobiling, the use of ATVs, fishing and all tourist activities in our constituency would be impacted in a significant way.

Bill C-5 would have a much different impact on my riding than on ridings in downtown Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal. The species at risk bill would not impact the livelihoods of people in those ridings. Those ridings are considerably different and their constituents look at the legislation in a different way.

If we fail to harness the support of those closest to the land, the habitat and the species we are trying to protect, Bill C-5 will fail because it would put species at risk.

One of the things we must ask ourselves regarding any piece of legislation is how much it would cost. What would be its social impacts? We asked the minister how much Bill C-5 would cost. He does not know. The estimates are $45 million a year and perhaps much more. No study has been done. We do not know what the impacts would be. We do not know how much it would cost the government or those affected by it.

The other thing we ask ourselves is who will determine which species are endangered. Will it be science or legislators? COSEWIC, which is the science, is pitted against the minister and the cabinet. Under this legislation it will not necessarily be scientists because they can be trumped by the minister and cabinet. The same is true with the national standards.

National standards have to be looked at not only from the federal perspective but also from provincial jurisdictions because provinces have species at risk legislation as well. In this case we cannot pit the federal jurisdiction against the provincial jurisdiction without some kind of problem. The government is saying that it will collaborate and listen to the provinces, but then it will trump whatever the provinces do as far as national standards. It is very similar to what we have seen perhaps with the Canada Health Act, which I am even more familiar with, and some of the disruption between the provincial and federal government jurisdictions.

Another one the is the reproductive technology bill, which we are hopeful will be in the House by May 10, as the minister has said. It also has the same provincial and federal jurisdictional problems. If an attempt is not made to overcome those problems by collaboration rather than a big stick, then we will have problems.

This is a piece of legislation that goes against every piece of law that we have in the country in the sense that it is a law where people are guilty before proven innocent. People have to prove they are innocent of the guilt. That really becomes a problem. We can take different approaches to any piece of legislation whether it is a carrot or a stick. In this case, to take the stick and say that they are guilty unless they prove themselves innocent, is counterproductive. What we need is a carrot. We need to engage those who are closest to the species and closest to the habitat. Once we do that, we then make them not a part of the problem but a part of the solution. This legislation fails to do that.

I would like to give a few examples of our neighbours to the south who have been working with endangered species legislation since 1973.

One example that comes to mind is the case of the northern spotted owl which affected most of the forest area of Washington, Oregon and northern California in the 1990s. There were over 2,000 acres of land restricted from logging and tens of thousands of loggers lost their jobs because of that legislation.

There was another piece of legislation only last year in Oregon concerning a short nosed sucker and a lost river sucker. These are two bottom feeding fish in the Klamath basin in Oregon. Thousands of farmers and landowners lost irrigation water because of them. The estimated damage to their crops and livestock was $300 million U.S. to $400 million U.S. because of these fish.

Then there is the illustration of the lynx hair, which was actually sabotage. A group of scientists took the lynx hair and planted it in a national forest in Washington state so the park could not be used. This case will go to a congressional hearing on February 28. The park had to be fenced and there was a halting of all economic, recreational or human use, including no logging, hiking or snowmobiles. This would have happened they had not been caught. Hopefully the perpetrators will be taken to task for this.

Every piece of legislation, as I said, has winners and losers. This piece of legislation has no winners, especially the endangered species. The farmers, the oil and gas people, the forest companies, the coal workers and the tourist industry are the losers.

To give an example of what some people think of the legislation, so members do not think it is just me saying this, Mr. Pope, a director on the stock growers association, said that if someone had to set out to deliberately create a law that would harm wildlife, destroy habitat and discourage private landowners from protecting wildlife on their land, it would be difficult to surpass a law like this one in its current state.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. First, while we obviously agree with the principle of protecting endangered species, a principle which has the Bloc Quebecois' full support, we are opposed to the bill.

Bill C-5, we are told, is a response to a problem which we identified, the protection of endangered species. The problem lies in the fact that Bill C-5 is not the right response to the challenge, for two main reasons.

First, the bill itself does nothing to improve the protection of endangered species. The work done by environmental groups has made this abundantly clear. This is a bill which some people feel does not go far enough and which fails completely to protect endangered species.

Bill C-5 has also been criticized for taking a piecemeal approach and lacking an overall vision. Nor does it look ahead, as my colleague reminded the House earlier in connection with compensation for landowners.

Finally, what I find the most objectionable about this bill is the discretionary power the Minister of the Environment has grabbed.

Clause 27 allows the cabinet, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, to establish the list of wildlife species at risk and to amend it if necessary, by regulations.

One wonders what the Minister of the Environment has to do with establishing this list—particularly when one knows anything about how the Liberal government operates—which may well turn out to be more of a political list than a scientific one.

The list should first be established by a group of scientists and then approved by cabinet. But instead, clause 27 turns this into a political issue. That is the first point. This bill fails utterly to meet its basic objective, which is to protect endangered species.

The second reason we object is that not only is this bill useless, but it constitutes a direct interference into provincial jurisdiction, into Quebec's jurisdiction in particular. There is overlap—my colleague reminded us of this earlier—with legislation that already exists in Quebec and that has been in place for years.

For example, Quebec has the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species, which was passed in 1989; there is also the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife; and there is a whole series of regulations that allow the government of Quebec to fulfill its obligations and responsibilities towards wildlife species that are at risk. Given this context, we do not see the use of this federal government initiative, this intrusion into an area of responsibility that is already well served by Quebec's legislation.

I would like to delve further into the content of Bill C-5 as regards this federal meddling into provincial areas of responsibility, Quebec's area of responsibility in particular.

Clause 10, for example, sets out that the minister “may... enter into an agreement... with respect to the administration of any provision of this Act”; therefore, “he may enter into an agreement”. More specifically, in the section dealing with general prohibitions, clause 34(2) clearly states that:

The Governor in Council shall , on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, provide that sections 32 and 33... apply in lands in a province that are not federal lands—

Furthermore, section 34.(3) states that “The Minister must recommend that the order be made if the Minister is of the opinion that the laws of the province do not effectively protect the species or the residences of its individuals”.

This shows that the federal government, through the Minister of the Environment, is claiming the right to intervene as it pleases in this shared area of responsibility.

Subclauses (4) ( a ) of sections 34 and 35 state that:

(4) Before recommending that the Governor in Council make an order under subsection (2), the Minister must consult

(a) the appropriate provincial minister;

However, Bill C-5 only refers only to consultations, and if there are agreements, obviously, it would be the federal minister's perspective that would take precedence. This is completely unacceptable.

Clause 39 reads as follows:

39(1) To the extent possible, the recovery strategy must be prepared in cooperation with

(a) the appropriate provincial and territorial minister for each province and territory—

Once again, the federal government and the Minister of the Environment are grabbing the power to impose their vision concerning recovery programs.

This is also the case for the action plans addressed by clauses 47 and 48. In all cases it is stated that co-operation is desired “to the extent possible”. Bill C-5 clearly indicates a federal government view I would describe as centralizing. I would also qualify it as paternalistic. It is not only Bill C-5 that is involved. It considers the provinces to be minors upon whom supervision must be imposed if they are to meet their responsibilities. This centralizing and paternalistic vision is one we reject and condemn.

The minister's power is a discretionary one. This we have seen in the list of endangered species. The bill does not respect the division of jurisdictions, as set out in the Constitution and interpreted over the years.

We are well aware that a comprehensive approach is needed to protect endangered species. We criticized Bill C-5 earlier for its piecemeal vision of the protection of endangered species. All stakeholders should co-operate. Quebec has all the tools that are needed, and it is quite capable of getting this co-operation.

The federal government could not care less about the existing legislation. It takes upon itself the right to impose its own vision of the protection of endangered species and, doing so, it undermines all forms of co-operation between stakeholders.

As I said earlier, we cannot accept this centralist and big brother vision. But there is more. We know that Quebec has all the tools to take action. It could be in charge of this great mission which is the protection of endangered species.

The obsession with visibility that has been the trademark of the federal government in the last few years and, strangely enough, since the 1995 referendum, leads me to think that this bill is just one more means among the many others that have been developed lately to have federal visibility in areas where it does not belong.

I would draw an important parallel between Bill C-5 and the social union framework, which Quebec refused to sign, and rightly so, while the other provinces accepted this big brother vision of the federal government. Both this framework and the bill are part of a vision of nation building which negates the existence of a Quebec nation. It denies the distinctiveness of Quebecers. All of this shows how urgent it is for Quebecers to make the choice of a sovereign Quebec as quickly as possible for political, economic, social, and environmental reasons.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favour of the amendments put forward by my colleagues on the issues of federal-provincial jurisdiction and criminal intent. The hon. member for Lanark--Carleton, the hon. member for Lethbridge and the hon. member for Red Deer have moved amendments to address these issues.

I want to continue the theme raised by the member for Souris--Moose Mountain. If the past record of the federal government and its environmental efforts are any indication, this bill is a disaster waiting to happen.

When I was first elected in my riding, constituent after constituent and municipality after municipality in southeast Manitoba told me that the biggest threat to agriculture in that area was the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I could not believe it. Fisheries and oceans is destroying drainage. Agricultural land is being destroyed. Costs are being added to the municipalities.

The reeve of the RM of Morris told me about the construction of the dyke around the town of Rosenort, a very progressive, hard working community in the flood plain in the Red River Valley. Doing an environmental assessment and looking at fish habitat in the middle of the plain added an extra $200,000 to the study. I thought it was an isolated example. Constituent after constituent and municipality after municipality tell of the heavy-handed approach of the federal government in working with the province and the municipalities.

Last weekend I was in Kola, Manitoba which is in the Brandon--Souris constituency. It borders my colleague's riding of Souris--Moose Mountain. One can imagine how dry it is in these areas. Again I was told by constituents in the Kola area that the biggest threat to agriculture is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There is no co-operation with local authorities. It is destroying agriculture.

Along with the heavy-handed unco-operative approach of the department and the federal government in general, now there is this endangered species bill, and what do we see? We see a clear rejection in the bill of one of the most important legal principles in a just and democratic society. That is the requirement that there be mens rea or a guilty mind before one can be convicted of a criminal offence. Not only should the culpable person have to have physically committed the act, but there must have been an appropriate degree of criminal intent. That is fundamental to our system of justice.

Bill C-5 as it stands today provides for various offences in which there is a very low level of mens rea, certainly not the level of mens rea necessary or consistent with a free and democratic society. This makes many of the landowners and farmers in my riding very nervous.

There are hundreds of species at risk and it is not always easy to recognize them. Not only do farmers and landowners bear the financial burden of expropriation without compensation as the bill now allows, but they could face expensive, cumbersome criminal prosecutions. Indeed they could even be put at risk to private prosecutions. Farmers and landowners are having a very difficult time. They do not need this kind of heavy-handed legislation to address what is admittedly a serious and significant problem.

The bill makes criminals out of very inadvertent acts. We want to prohibit the possession of certain species, the destruction of certain species, the selling or trading of certain species. However, there should be no criminal consequence for individuals who were inadvertently involved.

If someone were to buy tea in a health food store and that tea contained an ingredient on the list, he or she could be liable under the bill for a criminal charge. The mens rea convention exists in order to ensure that unintended consequences of normal human activity are not made criminal. If my colleagues agree with me that plowing or buying tea or picking a common flower should not be criminal acts unless there is the appropriate criminal intent, then all of us agree that these clauses should be amended to include words such as “knowingly” or “wilfully”.

Consider the lack of mens rea required and the sentences available. Courts may impose fines up to $250,000 for an individual and $1 million for a corporation. Many of these corporations are family farms so the money always comes out of the same pocket.

We as the Parliament of Canada must seriously contemplate the wording of the legislation before imposing this type of harsh, punitive legislation on the people of Canada.

I would also like to briefly comment on the jurisdictional matters in respect to Bill C-5. I have alluded to the very apparent lack of co-operation by the federal government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in particular with municipal and provincial authorities.

As it stands today, where a province does not have endangered species legislation or does not have adequate legislation according to the federal government, the bill provides the federal environment minister with the power to impose this law on that province. It is important to remember that whether or not provincial laws are inadequate is a unilateral determination by the environment minister.

The environment is a shared constitutional responsibility. This heavy-handed approach to relations will not protect endangered species. It will hasten the destruction of these species by continued legal wrangling.

It is for this reason my colleagues have recommended deleting the provisions that assign this unilateral power to the minister. We have added an amendment which provides that the minister may make a recommendation to apply the federal law to the province or the territory if a territorial or provincial minister has requested that the recommendation be made. These amendments remove the unilateral power to impose federal law onto provincial jurisdiction. The federal endangered species act would still apply to federal lands and to aquatic species or migratory birds.

I cannot stress enough the co-operation that is necessary with landowners, resource owners and municipal and provincial governments. Imposing federal laws on provinces that will only create legal and other battles is not in the best interests of endangered species. Unless we work together, this legislation will fail. If the government decides to work with the provinces and property owners, not only will property owners and resource users benefit, but it will be in the best interests of endangered species.

I urge all members to support these amendments so we can move ahead on this matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-5, the species at risk bill. We know it is a flawed bill that will require amendments. There are some 80 amendments right now.

I will begin by emphasizing that I, along with my Canadian Alliance colleagues, fully support increasing protection for endangered species and habitat. However as speakers from the government side have mentioned, the majority of this protection would be happening across the prairies and it would disregard the fact that houses and condominiums are being built across a lot of habitat in southern Ontario.

Does the government not understand that the bill should be applied across Canada? It had better look at some of the urban planning issues in regard to habitat for our wildlife and forget about applying it strictly to what it perceives as marginal prairie land that is the home for many Canadians.

Will the species at risk legislation as it is currently written give Canada's endangered species the support that they need to survive and flourish? Will Canadians who use the land get the necessary backing they need to protect our fragile environment? I do not think so and because of this both people and species at risk are threatened.

The main reason why the bill will fail to achieve its goal is the refusal of the federal Minister of the Environment to create an atmosphere where all stakeholders will work together to protect endangered species. There is a good example of this presently on the Canadian prairies where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is enforcing what it believes to be fish habitat under section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act.

Years ago there was a man-made drain built to take excess water from some farmland. That drain eventually ended up connecting into Lake Manitoba. There are some minnow type fish species that are on the edge of this man-made drain and that drain cannot be cleaned out because DFO now says this is fish habitat. There is a limited amount of fish spawning in that waterway. DFO is applying this rule because it happens to have water in it for part of the year.

If DFO is an indication of the kind of co-operation between the government and local farmers and producers that is envisioned in the bill it is showing that this co-operation and assistance will not be forthcoming. DFO is now causing a massive resentment on the prairies by municipal officials who are fighting with tough budgets and trying to ensure a viable environment for economic activities of our farmers and ranchers. Ranchers are having massive problems with DFO.

This is the whole point of the legislation and debate. There should be a co-operative effort between landowners and land users. Where there is a necessity of enhancing habitat or taking land out of production, 100% full compensation should be paid to that land user or landowner.

There is a lack of cooperation with individuals and municipal governments and the federal government is also failing to co-operate with the provinces.

The Minister of the Environment claims that his legislation is vastly different from the endangered species law in the United States. This is the U.S. law that prompted the shoot, shovel and shut-up response from many who found endangered species on their property. The U.S. law resulted in great hostility from both landowners infuriated with the loss of their lands and environmentalists exasperated at the slow progress of recovering species. It is an example of what will happen if teamwork is not achieved.

The new Canadian law would suffer from the same failure because the federal government is only paying lip service to ideas of co-operation and compensation.

For example, the fish catches of our inland fishery on Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg have been excellent over the years as a result of the management by Manitoba's natural resources and conservation ministries. DFO is coming in and we have a legitimate reason to be seriously concerned that the great work done with the fish species, their numbers and viability, could well be ruined by action taken by the federal government.

The government has told Canadians it would develop guidelines for compensation after the bill becomes law. The government says to just trust it. Because of many past decisions by Liberal governments that abused farmers and ranchers, they do not trust the government. We must have it in writing in the legislation to ensure that it is clear to everyone including the courts.

Rural Canadians feel as if the Liberal government has painted a target on their backs. The failed Liberal gun control is turning ordinary law abiding Canadians into criminals. The cruelty to animals bill before the House would threaten farmers and ranchers with costly harassment in the courts. The government's rush to support the Kyoto agreement threatens to dramatically push up costs to farmers. These attacks on the rural way of life are combined with the Liberal government's failure to protect farmers who are fighting against foreign subsidies and an ongoing national drought. They are virtually on their own with limited support from the federal government.

The list does not stop. Minister after minister in the government is putting policies and legislation in place that attack rural Canadians. The Liberals do not consider the needs of our agriculture sector and rural Canada when they draft legislation or regulations. For example, did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans consider the cost to producers when he chose to enforce the habitat regulations on the prairies that protect fish-like common suckers that are breeding in man-made ditches? No he did not.

Last Monday in Stonewall, Manitoba, Mr. Bill Ridgeway told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food that he lost approximately 25% of his crop for the last three years due to inadequate drainage that was caused by the fisheries regulations. In my own area, where my ranch is, we have lost close to 10,000 acres to flooded land that was farmed, grazed and had hay cut off it for the last 30-40 years. A simple ditch out to Lake Manitoba is all that is required. What is the problem? We cannot get approval or the money.

That is the other thing with this fisheries and oceans business. The problem is that when fisheries and oceans talks about having biologists doing studies and enhancing fish or protecting fish habitats it brings zero dollars. It does not bring one penny to the table. It is left up to the municipalities and the provincial government to do that. There has to be a financial commitment from the federal government if we are going to actually protect species as they should be protected. It cannot be left up to those who are unable to pay.

The federal government is asking a small group of strong Canadians but financially vulnerable Canadians to bear the burden of protecting species at risk. If the development of a fair system of compensation is not guaranteed I am concerned that these environmental frontline soldiers, once friends of nature, will be forced to back away from the species protection bill.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in the debate however briefly.

I will address in a few words the concerns that my friend across the way has expressed about intent, painting a situation that is not real. The difficulty with which I would like to challenge him is this. If we were to introduce the kind of clause that he would like in the bill, we would find ourselves unable to prosecute virtually anything that takes place. There is a discretionary aspect. I am sure if my friend runs over a burrowing owl with a mower or a peregrine falcon with his car, there will be no chance of him being charged. He can rest easy with that.

I want to ensure that the landowners of Canada, rural Canadians are not forgotten in this debate. A lot of debate that takes place is at the urgings of well meaning urban Canada. Somehow rural Canada is in danger of getting the short end, so I want to speak for the country people in this land. These are the people I have had in mind throughout the entire deliberations of the standing committee. As a committee member I voted against several of the amendments that ultimately passed because I knew they jeopardized our good relations and working partnerships with rural Canadians.

Rural Canadians are the people who are already living the story behind the proposed act. These are the people, when all is said and done, who will make the act work. Critical habitat is often on the land of rural Canadians and we must never forget that. We should not forget that the co-operative approach, especially for rural Canadians, has already yielded success. Their stewardship actions for generations are living proof of their commitment. If we want to stop the destruction and degradation of habitat, we must do it together, not with the heavy hand of the law.

The bill is about co-operation among provinces, territories, private landowners, conservationists, local authorities, aboriginal people, farmers, fishermen, ranchers and voluntary organizations. I supported the standing committee amendment to include the protection of the critical habitat of extirpated species, species that still exist but whose natural habitat is gone, and in addition, aquatic species and migratory birds, protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the critical habitat regime within federal jurisdiction.

The federal government is best placed to offer this protection as it already does this kind of work under the Fisheries Act and Migratory Birds Convention Act. Canadians expect this to be the level of government that helps them protect these species. However I had to vote against other amendments that significantly undermined how we deliver this protection. I voted against the amendment that would require any person to obtain a permit or licence to engage in an activity that may adversely affect any part of the critical habitat of listed species under federal jurisdiction as soon as habitat is identified by scientists in action plans.

The new general prohibition runs contrary to everything for which Bill C-5 stands. It removes government accountability for decisions that may have social and economic impact. It removes the opportunity for Canadians to first try to protect habitat through voluntary stewardship action. It tries to coerce Canadians into compliance and relies on enforcement to protect species. It makes the legislation much more difficult for Canadians to understand because adversely affected critical habitat is a lot less obvious than destroying critical habitat.

In essence, it would destroy the co-operative and accountable approach of the bill and replace it with a coercive approach. In the long run this will not work. Laws will not protect species; people will. We must do all we can to help people protect species. We must remember that prohibitions are important as the backbone of legislation.

The first opportunity for all of us to succeed at protecting species and habitat is to work together as active stewards. Let us think outside the box of doing it because the law says so. Species and Canadians deserve our co-operation.

The bill is the third manifestation of legislation that has been in the works off and on for about eight years. On the positive side it has given us the opportunity to look at other legislation. We have found that command and control does not work.

The American legislation is nicely worded, but it has resulted in litigation to such an extent that I am sure the minister is asking himself where he wants to spend his budget. Does he want to spend it on litigation or on programs and recovery processes that will help to restore endangered species?

This is a new direction that the government has taken. I want to reassure those who are bound and determined to follow a command and control approach that there is a five year review clause in the bill that would allow us to look at the legislation and ask: what did we do right and what did we do wrong? How can we clean it up and make it work? Surely, that is a more progressive approach than simply coming down with a hammer on Canadians.

Maybe in five years we could show what Ducks Unlimited have done, what prairie farmers have done and what people in rural Canada have done. Perhaps by that time urban Canada will understand that the majority of endangered species are in the water and not on land. In that respect I want to tell everybody in urban Canada that every time they flush a toilet and every time industrial waste goes into the Great Lakes or water bodies of any kind, they have to bear equal responsibility. We want them to come along with us too.

We should get over the command and control idea and move into a co-operative spirit that will result in a positive future for endangered species.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister is gutting out key improvements made to Bill C-5 by the environment committee that were supported by landowners and provinces. Worse still, the Government of Canada shamelessly ignored a consensus reached in advance by environmentalists and industry.

It is unbelievable that the bill does not provide for mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands, in the government's own backyard. Yet the bill permits the minister to arbitrarily intervene on private and provincial lands. The reality is that the environment minister never did his homework. The provinces were never on side on clauses 34, 35 and 61 before Bill C-5 was tabled. Now the minister is gutting committee amendments that the provinces support.

For example, Minister John Snobelen of Ontario said, “I appreciate the standing committee's suggestions for criteria regarding the application of the federal safety net.”

Why is it that we had to wait eight years for a bill that is so weak and void of mandatory protection of critical habitat, scientific listing, clear compensation and provisions to--

Species at Risk Act

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

Madam Speaker, as we debate Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation, I want to speak to the Group No. 2 amendments before us.

I continue to be amazed that even with this third attempt by the government the minister continues to upset so many different groups of people including the standing committee members, the agricultural community and those who would describe themselves as active environmentalists. That certainly takes some kind of special talent to anger so many groups at once. Unfortunately it is a skill that I do not have nor do I desire to have it.

However as we look at these amendments I would like to take a few minutes to look at them in greater detail. Motion No. 2 states that the preamble be amended by adding the phrase “the protection of habitats and species on provincial lands is entirely under provincial jurisdiction”. While my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have long advocated the full recognition and differentiation between federal and provincial jurisdiction, the amendment is simply not true. For example, certain migratory birds are already protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994.

We strongly oppose Bill C-5 in part because it would permit the minister, entirely at his own discretion and without any criteria, negotiation or accountability, to impose federal law on provincial jurisdiction. This is wrong, confrontational and in the end really unworkable. However we do not agree that jurisdiction must be entirely provincial. There are some cases where the federal government by way of its criminal law power, as set out in section 91 of the constitution, can legitimately be involved in protecting endangered species on provincial lands.

I believe that Motion No. 23 is a key part of what we are debating today. The amendment would give the minister far too much power under the act. While the standing committee gave this issue full and fair debate, making recommendations to the minister, he has now turned around and usurped his own committee's recommendations. What a shame that is and what a slur it is on the democratic process.

The motion would give the minister the discretionary authority to develop, in consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council, a stewardship action plan under Bill C-5 but it would not require him to do so.

If the basis of the act is supposed to be voluntary stewardship programs, then it is entirely reasonable to expect that the minister would set out a plan for accomplishing this. Further, this plan must spell out the incentives and measures which would be used to support stewardship action plans. The minister should be required to do this and not allowed to simply ask to be trusted. Unfortunately Canadians have seen too many bad examples of the government asking people to trust it without really knowing all of the facts.

Under Motion No. 35 the minister has again ignored the standing committee's debate and recommendations. The amendment, like the original bill, would mean that the cabinet must actively choose to place species identified by the expert scientific panel on the legal list. If it does nothing, the panel's recommendation has no effect.

The committee placed a reverse onus on the government. If cabinet did not act within six months then the COSEWIC recommendations would automatically be added to the legal list. It is necessary to maintain a balance between giving unelected and unaccountable scientists full power to determine the list, as some of the environmental groups wish, and giving cabinet the power to ignore objective scientific recommendations.

Placing species on the list of endangered species would trigger the provisions of the act with serious criminal sanctions and potentially heavy economic costs for landowners and resources users. Because of these implications the process must be transparent and the people affected must have the ability to argue their case. It is inappropriate for scientists to exercise political discretion in having to balance these competing social and economic policy directions; indeed, few of them really want that job.

The committee struck this balance properly by giving the cabinet the final say on the list but required it to act in a timely fashion. The government amendment would tip the balance too far back toward cabinet discretion and potentially would undermine the expert work of the scientific panel.

Motion No. 48 would delete clause 34(1) which would open the door for the minister to recommend that a governor in council order apply the federal act on provincial lands.

I cannot accept the position of my hon. colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois that the federal law should never apply in a province. We believe that the federal minister and cabinet should not have sole discretionary power. Therefore until the government commits to negotiating with the province to establish criteria for the application of federal law to provincial lands, complete with a timeframe and provisions for compensating property owners for losses, we will oppose the current provisions. In short we need to have some restrictions on the ministerial discretion.

Motion No. 53, if deleted in its entirety, would reduce or possibly even eliminate public input. I believe that the criteria developed by federal and provincial ministers for the application of the act on provincial lands should be made available for public comment. This would be a vital step in the development of a national program to protect endangered species that has the support of all governments and stakeholders.

My colleagues and I will be supporting Motion No. 54 which would eliminate the provision that the act would be applied on provincial land should the minister and the provincial ministers not reach an agreement within six months. We have no objection to the application of the act if it is done with the agreement and involvement of the provincial governments.

Many motions introduced by the government overrule the work that was done by the standing committee therefore usurping the role and the power of the committee. What a sad statement on democracy as we see it in the House today, perhaps even sadder than the amendments themselves. For this and many reasons we will be opposing the bill and supporting some of these amendments.

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

Madam Speaker, the issue before us is critical, certainly for people in my riding. I come from central Manitoba which is predominantly a farm area. However we are blessed with a number of other natural features in our riding. The world's second largest waterfowl staging area is in our riding as well. It is not agricultural land of course, but there are private landowners. Any legislation that is not perceived to be fair to landowners will not work.

We could go back to many examples, but the one that comes to mind was during the 1970s in Africa. There was serious concern about the depletion of the elephant population. Different jurisdictions tried different approaches. In some jurisdictions they tried heavy penalties. They tried criminal law consequence. They tried to impose those kinds of things as a deterrent to the excessive loss of the elephant population, and they failed miserably.

However, other jurisdictions used different approaches. They gave landowners the right to harvest the tusks of those elephants that passed away of old age. In essence, those landowners became stewards of the environment because they were given the right to protect and the reward for protecting a species that would be depleted in the absence of some government regulation. The intelligent approach was one that rewarded landowners, not one that punished them. The intelligent approach is the one that works.

In this case as my colleague just said, the government is trying to inflict the obligations on the landowner without the presence of any kind of potential reward apart from the great feeling that all of our countrymen get when they protect a species that is endangered. That is a wonderful feeling and we all share that goal.

The best conservationists I ever met are farmers. My dad backed up the swather a lot of time in the fall when he was harvesting just to protect the nests of birds. He would relocate them in the bush. I watched him do this many times.

Farmers are like that. Farmers are in touch with nature. They are close to nature. They understand the cycles of nature. They understand birth and death and they understand the partnership they have, not just with their livestock if they are in that industry, but with the natural creatures that are around them. They see that, they feel it and they live it.

I remember watching my dad many times in the spring when the frost was coming out of the ground, smelling the earth, feeling in touch with it and sensing it as a man does who depends upon that earth for his life and for his family's life and security.

What concerns me with this legislation is that it will not work because it is unfair and it punishes the very people who it should be encouraging, rewarding and respecting. That is why it will not work.

I want to talk about the criminal intent aspects of Bill C-5. It creates a criminal act and subjects landowners potentially to penalties of up to $1 million. The key problem is that people could commit such an offence without even knowing they were committing such an offence. The bill does not require intent. It does not even require reckless behaviour. It places the burden of proof solely on the individual to prove he or she was exercising due diligence. The problem with that should be pretty obvious. That is a double standard. There is a term in law that people refer to called mens rea, which means a person has to be of a criminal mind if the person is to be found guilty of a criminal charge.

I will use an example of the Minister of National Defence. The Minister of National Defence is using as his defence against charges of wrongdoing that he is ignorant. He is saying that ignorance and confusion mean that he cannot possibly be guilty of being devious in any way, shape or form because he was just puzzled. If the Minister of National Defence on the government frontbench can use ignorance as a defence, why can landowners not use it? It does not make sense to me. Ignorance is no excuse for farmers, but it is a heck of a good and convenient excuse for a minister of the government. That does not make sense to me.

The government does not require competence of its ministers. I use again the example of the Minister of National Defence. He is a member who was not sure when the JTF2 troops were going over. He was not sure when they left or when they got there. He was not sure what they were wearing or what anyone else was wearing. He was not sure how they should be clothed. A man who was not really sure about every important aspect of our involvement in Afghanistan has clearly built a case for incompetence relative to the charges he faces right now.

That matter is before committee at the present time so I do not want to refer to it specifically, but rather in a general sense only. I refer to it because I see it as a tremendous contradiction. This is a government that will allow a minister to plead ignorance to legitimate concerns expressed regarding his conduct, but will not allow a landowner to be unaware of all the incredible detail about the biota and flora and fauna that exists on their farm.

As this government knows, its policies have led to the growth in the size of family farms, corporate farms, et cetera. They are getting bigger and bigger all the time. I grew up on a half section of land and we knew every square foot of that land. Nowadays, farmers farm 5,000 acres.

Not only are farmers expected to take the risk of producing what they grow, research and understand crop selection, herbicides, pesticides and marketing, but the government now expects them to understand botany, biology and all the other aspects commensurate with understanding species at risk. That is incredible. The onus that the government is putting on farmers and their families under this legislation and the potential for criminal wrongdoing and significant fines are remarkable.

I ask members to consider this. Is it fair to convict people of serious criminal offences when they might have had no idea they were in danger of committing one? They not only have to recognize and understand in detail the species at risk, but they are expected to recognize their critical habitat in case they disturb a place where some of these animals spent part of their lifecycle, or where they used to live or where they might be reintroduced.

Let us think about migrating waterfowl. I will not give a specific species, but just suppose there was one species of migrating waterfowl that was in danger. Every spring and every fall just about every acre in my riding is used by migrating waterfowl. The flocks are enormous. In some cases those species would not be a problem. The problem would be the species that was near extinction, the species that was at risk. What would we do to protect them?

Of the 17,000 square kilometers of mainly farmland in my riding, which acres would be potentially used by these migrating waterfowl as habitat for part of their lifecycle? I would submit that this potentially puts a serious burden on landowners in a very dangerous way. I am concerned about it. It is particularly significant at a time when our family farms are under attack. That is something all of us should pay more attention to.

A case could be made for rural Canada becoming an outpost or a second class part of the country with respect to some of the legislation the government has brought forward, whether it be the lack of initiative in agriculture, the depletion of the agricultural budget or the reduction in agriculture research. The gun control legislation is a prime example. I suppose most urban Canadians would assume that a .22 was a weapon, but we in rural Manitoba and in rural Canada see a .22 as a tool. People who live in rural communities have a different perspective on things than people who live in urban ones.

In my riding farmers have led the way in soil management. Conservation districts have been established. I think of the Delta agricultural conservation co-op. I think of the work, as mentioned by the member for Peace River, of Ducks Unlimited. Throughout my riding, farmers have given of their time and sacrificed their efforts and dollars to preserve the environment. They are capable, diverse and knowledgeable people, and they are under stress.

I believe the legislation disrespects them and places them under even greater stress. The number one concern I have is that we should have legislation that works. This would provide a perverse incentive because what it would do is make it less likely that the environment and the species that we would like to protect would be so protected.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-5. We have seen quite a few versions of this bill in the last several years. I have been in the House nine years and I am not exactly sure when the bill was introduced. It seems like a lifetime ago and it has not really gone anywhere. There is a huge debate in the country, not about whether we should have endangered species legislation or co-operation but about what is the best way to carry that out to get the result we all want.

Some people on the other side of the House seem to indicate that people in rural areas, farmers, ranchers, oil companies and forest companies, do not have any concern about endangered species or their habitat. That is a sad statement from the Liberal side of the House because it simply is not true.

My wife and I and our children have a 2,000 acre grain farm in Alberta. We enjoy the wildlife and habitat as much as anyone else but we feel it is pretty unfair that 30 million Canadians share the view that we want to be able to build up our numbers of endangered species.

I can think back to the 1950s when a fellow in the Grande Prairie area single-handedly took on the task of renewing the trumpeter swan population. The numbers were pretty low at that time. He had co-operation from landowners and he was able to bring that about. There was no heavy-handed legislation which said $250,000 for this and $500,000 for that. That is not to suggest that it cannot work but I do not think it would have worked in that case. Co-operation is a far better method.

It is a little ironic that a lot of people in cities and members who represent city ridings seem to be suggesting that we want to keep these endangered species and habitat but we want landowners to pay the full price for doing that. That is not a workable solution. It never has been and never will be. We know that in the United States it was not. If there is no co-operation from the people who are going to be directly affected in trying to maintain the habitat and species, it simply will not work.

I agree with the Liberal government that this is a laudable goal. I do not think there is a person in the House that would not agree with that. No one wants to see a species become extinct. I cannot think of one person I know who would want that to happen. But what is the best method of achieving our goal? By all means it is not a heavy-handed approach.

As I have said, we have seen the example in the United States. If landowners are not compensated, are they expected to bear the burden for 30 million Canadians? In western Canada there are about 200,000 grain farmers. Are they expected to bear the brunt of all of this? It would appear so. It is an unworkable solution.

In my riding of Peace River there are 10 million acres of agricultural land alone. That does not include the forestry and oil and gas operations which include much more land in terms of size. How can this be policed? It cannot be.

There has to be co-operation from the user groups to make it effective. It seems that common sense has flown out the window on the Liberal side by not including co-operation and compensation. It is simply not workable. We must be a little more enlightened about this. We must come to a better solution.

How many species of flora and fauna do we see in our major cities? I would suggest not many. It is hypocritical in the extreme that members representing urban ridings are trying to tell the rest of us in rural Canada, which takes up 99% of the land base, that we should do this on our own because they have wrecked theirs. There are not too many endangered species in downtown Toronto. A lot of them are gone. That is not their habitat. Their habitat is largely in rural areas.

We have a lot of moose, deer and wildlife in my rural area. People who live in the cities have to take a more enlightened approach to this. We all have the same goal in mind but they had better start paying their share of the cost.

I will use an example of what in my view is a good solution. It is a practical solution that has been used for quite a number of years. I refer to the Ducks Unlimited program. Ducks Unlimited expanded across the country. It is very successful in saving habitat for waterfowl. It started with the ducks and geese and has a pretty enlightened approach. It pays landowners to allow ducks and geese to stay in their natural state so they have an area to nest.

I was a grain farmer for 25 years and participated in the Ducks Unlimited program before coming to the House of Commons. I saw it as being beneficial and was willing to do my part, but I could not afford to do it all on my own. The Ducks Unlimited program paid us to leave our fields in ground cover so the ducks could hatch. It was successful, and its program has been expanded across the country. We now see more ducks and geese than we used to.

I am familiar with the program of the Alberta government which has feeding stations at harvest time. Grain is bought from grain farmers. It is spread out in certain areas so that ducks and geese have something to eat without raiding the crops of people and destroying their livelihoods. It is a very successful program.

Why would the government ignore a successful program like Ducks Unlimited and instead use a heavy-handed approach of legislation that has huge fines? It will not be successful. It is as simple as that.

We talk about criminal intent in Group No. 2. I suggest that if this is not a reasonable law that people feel they can comply with, there will be criminal intent. We saw it happen in the United States. Species were destroyed, which was the exact opposite of what the powers that put that policy in place expected and wanted. We have seen it happen before.

Farmers and ranchers cannot carry the burden of this for society. They are already struggling with very serious financial conditions, and we have a government that seems to be telling these people that for the good of the country they have to provide the habitat for endangered species. It will not work. It will have the opposite effect of the intent. It is criminal in the extreme to be putting forward programs like this that will actually cause, in my view, more endangered species to become fewer in number as a result of public policy.

After seven or eight years of discussing the issue, has the government not learned anything? Did it not learn anything from talking to people in the United States that had the heavy-handed approach with fines? I suspect not because it just keeps blundering on and pushing this forward.

I have outlined what I think is a workable solution. If we have the same goal in mind between rural and urban people, why not share the cost of protecting habitat for endangered species? It is a laudable goal and it is something we need to work on together.

I wonder about people in Montreal or Toronto who have residences with nice lush lawns. What if all of a sudden earthworms in their lawns became endangered species and the people were not able to fertilize their lawns, spray them with organic chemicals or others? What if they were told that their lawns had to be three feet high to protect the habitat. It simply would not work because there needs to be an incentive for people to do that.

I am calling for a better understanding by urban people as to the threat. The threat is that we will completely go down the wrong road on this in spite of examples that have taken place in other parts of the world, such as the United States. The goals will not be achieved.

After listening to debate on this for five or six years, it seems to me that any government that has not really heard this message is not listening. The government is holding hearings but it is not listening. It is not hearing what will take place and it is doomed to failure. I suggest this policy should be withdrawn and the minister should put forward a more co-operative approach that will be successful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to take part in the report stage debate on the Group No. 2 amendments to Bill C-5.

About 35 amendments in this group mainly deal with issues relating to jurisdiction such as ministerial power or discretion to pass judgment on provincial laws; federal or provincial co-operation; and the role of the federal government in protecting our wildlife on provincial lands. Issues such as criminal intent are also raised among others such as public input, consultation and public notice; timelines; negotiations with landowners; criteria for effective legislation; mens rea offences. There are also technical or housekeeping changes.

The government has not yet developed more detailed policy or regulations. There are some verbal promises but nothing has been put on paper in black and white. This trust us attitude is totally unacceptable. “Trust me” or “read my lips” is just not good enough.

We strongly oppose Bill C-5 because it lacks fair and reasonable compensation. The other important reason is it permits the minister entirely at his own discretion and without any criteria, negotiation or accountability to impose federal law on provincial jurisdiction. This is wrong. It is confrontational and unworkable.

This does not mean we believe that jurisdiction must be entirely provincial. The federal government via its criminal law power can be legitimately involved in protecting endangered species on provincial lands. We require a balance between the two extreme views, a balance that encourages co-operation and negotiation.

I will now deal with some of the amendments in Group No. 2 in the limited time that I have.

Motion No. 2 intends to place the protection of habitats and species on provincial lands entirely in the hands of the provinces.

Motion No. 33 gives the minister the discretionary authority to develop, in consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council, a stewardship action plan under Bill C-5. However, it does not require that the minister do so.

If the basis of the bill is supposed to be voluntary stewardship programs, then it is entirely reasonable to expect that the minister will set out a plan for accomplishing this. Further, this plan must spell out the incentives and measures which will be used to support stewardship action plans. The minister should be required to do this and should not be allowed to simply say “trust me”. Therefore we must oppose this motion also.

Motion No. 35, which was put forward by the Liberals, is a complete reversal of the approach taken by the standing committee toward the establishment of the legal list of species at risk. The committee had placed a reverse onus on the government that if cabinet did not act within six months, then COSEWIC recommendations would automatically be added to the legal list. This is dangerous since it is necessary to maintain a balance between giving unaccountable scientists full power to determine the list and giving cabinet the power to ignore objective scientific recommendations.

Instead, we believe that the final say must rest with the elected cabinet. After all, placing a species on the list of endangered species triggers the provisions of the act with serious criminal sanctions and potentially heavy economic costs for landowners and resource users.

The process must be transparent. The people affected must have the ability to argue their case. It is inappropriate for scientists to exercise political discretion in having to balance these competing social and economic policy objectives.

The committee struck this balance properly by giving the cabinet the final say on the list but requiring it to act in a timely fashion. This amendment tips the balance back toward cabinet discretion too far and potentially undermines the expert work of the scientific panel.

Motions No. 39 and 44 on the other hand require that to be found guilty of a criminal offence under the act, a person would have to have knowingly done harm to endangered species.

Bill C-5 would make it a criminal offence to kill, harm or harass endangered species or to endanger their habitat. Fines would be up to $1 million for corporations and $250,000 for individuals, and even up to five years for an indictable offence. The bill ignores one of the fundamental tenets of western legal history called mens rea. This Latin phrase means that criminal penalties are only given for offences committed with a criminal mind. It is very clear.

We support the goal of protecting endangered species. It is a laudable goal and a responsibility we take very seriously, but it cannot be done in a heavy-handed way.

How are oil and gas companies supposed to show due diligence over operations covering millions of hectares of land with very limited resources? Moreover they have no familiarity with endangered species or the regulations. The minister knows this is a serious problem. The bill would make many honest people into criminals.

The bill is part of a pattern of the government's dealings with rural Canada. Its heavy-handed approach to registering long guns utterly fails to consider everyday living in rural and northern Canada. The Kyoto accord potentially will add heavy costs to agricultural producers across Canada. Now the endangered species legislation threatens to criminalize farmers and property owners who may have every intention of helping endangered species. These people are supposed to be our allies in protecting endangered species. How can we declare them criminals?

Until the government commits to negotiate with the provinces to establish criteria for the application of federal law to provincial lands complete with a timeframe and provisions for compensating property owners for losses, we are forced to oppose the current legislation. It is bad enough for the federal government to assume the right to intrude in provincial jurisdiction. It is even worse that this intrusion will be completely discretionary and therefore increase uncertainty for the provinces, for landowners and for users across the country. Since there is too much discretion for the minister and not enough public input, we must oppose that motion.

My Canadian Alliance colleagues support effective endangered species legislation. While politicians should have the final say on legally listing species, the public must be able to review and comment on the government's reasons not to include a scientifically listed species. To ensure co-operation, criminal liability must be changed from strict liability to reckless offences. People should not be scared of prosecution for accidently killing species or disrupting habitat. The provinces must be consulted and agree to application of the federal law to provincial lands and species. The endangered species roundtable must be representative of all stakeholders. The species at risk act must apply equally to natives and non-natives irrespective of race and ethnicity.

Protecting endangered species is both an urban and a rural issue. Endangered species legislation in other jurisdictions, for example the United States, has not been successful primarily due to a lack of emphasis on co-operation and voluntary initiatives and incentives. Therefore we will not support this legislation and we cannot support the amendments I have mentioned until they are changed.