Bill C-5 (Historical)

Species at Risk Act

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

Species at Risk Act

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to continue. If the hon. member had heard my entire speech, he would have realized the relevancy of what I am talking about when we have a heavy handed government, a government that has been quite willing to put agriculture and property rights on the slippery slope. We support the goal of protecting endangered species. It is a goal worth protecting, but this government, with its heavy handed, gotcha approach, seems to feel it can invade property rights at any opportunity, so the relevancy is very clear.

I will close by saying that during several stages in relation to a changing society we have stood by and watched the government erode our rights. Bill C-5 erodes the rights of landowners. It erodes the rights of the farmers. Parliament has a total lack of respect for rural Canadians. Many farmers and ranchers have abandoned their way of life in the last few decades because they could no longer survive. They certainly do not need another nail in their coffins. The government has the hammer and it has the nail. Is this the nail that will close the coffin for good? Maybe not for every farmer, but it is another nail being put into their coffins, something that we see far too often.

We in the Canadian Alliance will continue to oppose the legislation until the government brings back a bill and gets it right. Looking at Bill C-5 and the amendments, the government does not have it right.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin speaking to the bill, I would like to mention that we heard the government time after time today ask why the opposition was putting forward so many speakers to the bill. Is it that there are that many farmers concerned? The question is not how many farmers are concerned but how many less farmers there will be if legislation like this is implemented. There is a huge outcry from farmers and all those involved in agriculture, but the big reason we put this many members up is that we see in Bill C-5 an intrusion into the rights of enjoyment of property. We see an intrusion into property rights as a whole. It is not only a pleasure to rise to speak to the bill but I believe it is my responsibility.

Although this legislation has been around for some time, I have anxiously been awaiting the opportunity to speak to the endangered species bill. The first opportunity I had to speak to the bill came earlier this week, on Monday afternoon, and now again I get the chance to register my constituents' complete opposition to the various provisions of this proposed legislation.

Last week while the House of Commons was in recess I had the opportunity to travel throughout my riding. I attended over 27 meetings. I met with police services boards, the RCMP, a number of town councils, chambers of commerce, learning and sexual assault centres, senior groups, military officers from the Wainwright Training Centre, a number of business persons and public and high school students.

At each one of these stops, particularly at the schools and the chambers of commerce, I provided an overview of what was happening in parliament. I gave a brief account of the anti-terrorism legislation that we put through last fall at breakneck speed, which all members of the House worked together to pass, a bill that responded to the threat of terrorism in our country. I also explained my role to them as a member of parliament, my role as their federal representative and how, whenever and wherever possible, I represented their views, the views of the farmers, those involved in agriculture, those living in Crowfoot and those living here in Ottawa. I used both Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B to exemplify my point and to show how, with certain pieces of federal legislation, the opinions of my constituents vary greatly with the opinions of the government and of the government members' constituents, particularly, I may add, those members who represent urban areas.

Time and again we have witnessed legislation that has been brought forward in the House that has pitted rural Canadians against urban Canadians. This is particularly true with Bill C-5.

Farmers and ranchers represent the rural population in Canada. When I consider the riding of Crowfoot and I think of the huge number of farmers and ranchers who live in Crowfoot and those who are retiring to other communities, they certainly represent the majority of my riding. Ranchers and farmers in Crowfoot farm on average perhaps 1,500 to 2,000 acres of land. Many ranches are 5,000 acres of land or larger. Some farms are smaller. Some have 160 acres and some have 320 acres.

I own a small business and I also own a farm. I am the fourth generation on that farm. I say this to make it very clear in this place that the people of Crowfoot respect the land. They are good stewards of the land. They all have been extremely proud landowners for generations and have looked after their land.

Under the proposed legislation that is before us today, the proud landowners of Crowfoot and other places in western Canada could lose their land if bureaucrats, who are far removed from the situation and from the prairies, designate it as a critical habitat for an endangered species. Nothing in the bill compels Ottawa to fully compensate landowners at fair market value for the loss of their property.

I cannot begin to explain to members of the House who do not represent rural ridings the devastation that has been experienced in farming over the last few years. Parts of my riding of Crowfoot such as Castor, Hanna, Oyen, Consort, Coronation, and Provost to a certain degree, have never been drier than they are right now because they have been affected by the drought. As I travelled through my riding last week, one farmer said to me that if the drought does not finish him off this year the grasshoppers will. This is a very serious problem in Crowfoot.

Farmers do not need made in Ottawa laws such as Bill C-5 to drive them any further into the ground. Many of my constituents are struggling to survive. They are struggling to keep their farms viable so they do not lose their land. Any part of the land, any loss, any number of acres that might be taken out of production can completely drive them under and make their farming unprofitable.

As their representative, I am not willing to stand back. I will not stand by complacently and watch the demise of the family farm in this country happen any faster than it is already. I will do everything in my power to see that farmers of Crowfoot, of Alberta and of all of western Canada survive, and that means voting against the bill in its present form. That means taking a look at bills like Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals bill. That means looking at other bills that come into this place from the perspective of their effect on the riding of Crowfoot. How will they affect Camrose, Wainwright and other centres and the individuals living there?

As stated earlier, there have been far too many instances where this Liberal government has brought in legislation that pits rural Canadians against urban Canadians. This was particularly evident with Bill C-68, the firearms legislation.

Last week when I explained Bill C-5 to students and explained the fact that their parents could have land confiscated or taken out of production without adequate compensation, for many it was reminiscent of 1995 when the government first introduced the firearms legislation banning a number of commonly owned guns and requiring registration of all long guns in Canada for the very first time.

A senior justice official once said to the committee reviewing previous firearms legislation:

A look at the history of gun control in Canada shows that it developed through several stages in relation--

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

Yes, I do have one more. The province of Alberta does not really care for this particular act at all. The clauses it hates the most are clauses 34, 35 and 61.

We thought our idea of interjecting criteria was a good one, as did Mike Cardinal, the minister who serves as the minister for resource development, who said:

Although your suggestion provides some further clarity in terms of the conduct of the federal Minister in exercising his authority, they do not alleviate provincial concerns respecting the overall intent of these sections.

He has said that he does not like the bill and, in particular, these clauses, but that what the committee did does provide at least further clarity. The sort of dislike radar is actually decreased in that regard. We have Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta and Prince Edward Island all saying the same thing.

With respect to listing, I would like to quote one particular section from the province of New Brunswick regarding scientific listing. Minister Volpé, the minister of natural resources, one of the strongest ministers in that great government of Bernard Lord, actually takes a national approach, meaning the federal government's approach to species at risk conservation, and says:

--to decouple the scientific determination of whether a species was at risk from the recovery or response actions.

The scientific determination on the status of a species should be based solely on science and the best available information. That is the job for scientists. The subsequent actions to respond to the status of species must weigh social and economic consequences against recommended recovery/ response actions. This is the job of elected officials. Bill C-5 as written and amended is not consistent with either of these two underlying premises of the national species at risk program.

Shame on the Government of Canada for not embracing scientific listing and not having the same kind of stewardship that the province of New Brunswick has.

I have heard, and I have to admit that it is only hearsay, that the Minister of the Environment has been saying that the provinces are mad about the committee's amendments. I have just demonstrated in the Chamber that the provinces do support what the committee has done and that the government is reversing amendments that the provinces categorically support.

I say shame on the Government of Canada for the amendments it has in Group No. 2, and shame on the Government of Canada for not respecting the stewardship that the provinces have and for not respecting what the national accord on protection of biodiversity was in 1966.

I was glad to share these letters with my colleagues in this room. This may have been their first chance to hear them so I will be very interested to hear what their responses will be at first blush.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to represent my constituents of Saanich--Gulf Islands in British Columbia and speak to Bill C-5. I spoke on another section of the bill yesterday and I want to repeat something I said which I think is really important.

There are a lot of people who say we are opposing Bill C-5 and in doing so we are demonstrating our lack of respect for biodiversity in Canada and in the world. Some will say that we do not care about protecting endangered species in the country. I want to set the record straight. That is absolutely false. In fact the contrary is true. We care about the environment and we do so in a realistic and responsible manner. We recognize that legislation like Bill C-5 will fail, and fail badly, if it does not recognize some basic truths.

A lot of the debate today talked about the mens rea element, the mental element of committing a criminal offence, one of the hallmarks of our criminal justice system. Yet the government, in its wisdom, has brought forward legislation which it suggests would protect endangered species. However it would create a system where people who commit an offence may not even know they have, would be subject to very large fines and possibly jail terms, and the burden of proof would be reversed.

Typically in our criminal justice system the burden of proof is always on the crown to prove that someone is guilty. There is a reverse onus here where individuals who are alleged to have committed an offence would have to prove to the crown that they were actually exercising due diligence that no harm could come to an endangered species. It even goes further with respect to their habitats.

I want to throw a different angle on what we are doing here. We would be setting up numerous court challenges like we have seen so many times before in the House. We have spent millions of dollars on court challenges because the government in its wisdom has passed legislation that did not even recognize the very hallmarks of our justice system.

If the legislation goes through without being amended, if the government does not listen to what some of the opposition members are saying as well as members from the other parties, if it does not look at the mens rea element which is the Latin term for mental intent of committing a crime, and if charges are laid we could end up with numerous court challenges all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada costing the Government of Canada millions of dollars defending this. I absolutely cannot believe that the government is proceeding on this one facet of the bill alone.

What will happen? Individual Canadians, farmers who are struggling with large sections and acres of property, who possibly may not even be aware that there could be habitats of endangered species on their land, would be forced to fight these challenges if they could afford it. I would argue that many of them are in dire straits now. They would have to make appeals and who will be on the other side. They would have to pay through their tax dollars for the government lawyers who would be prepared to spend millions of dollars to challenge them. It is fundamentally wrong. I have huge concerns.

Some members opposite are trying to spin this that we are opposed to protecting endangered species. That is the furthest thing from the truth. We are saying to bring in legislation that will do the job and make it more effective.

I must admit that I have a huge concern with this one facet of the bill. We have reversed the burden of proof onto individuals to demonstrate and prove that in fact they did the necessary due diligence. How can we possibly expect the general public to even be aware of some of the species and their habitats? This will be up to the experts.

We should have some species at risk legislation. I do not believe it should be what is coming in Bill C-5. There are a number of NGOs who came before the committee and said exactly the same thing. The species at risk working group on due diligence said before the environment committee in September 2000:

We believe that proving due diligence is potentially very cumbersome and difficult for many resource users and landowners. We therefore recommend that the prohibitions, particularly with respect to their application on critical habitat, be made mens rea offences, shifting the onus to the crown to demonstrate that violations were clearly intentional.

We have no indication from the government that it is even willing to consider this. It did not come from opposition members; it came from the industry, people in the communities and groups that came forward to make these presentations to the committee. The government once again blatantly said, no. I do not know how many examples we must have in the House before it figures out that maybe it should be listening.

One of my Alliance colleagues from Saskatchewan worked on the firearms long gun registry and gave similar arguments to the ones I am making now, namely that the legislation would not work and needs to be amended. Here we are years later with a firearms bill that was supposed to cost no more than $100 million that is now $660 million and growing rapidly. It has failed miserably. It has not done what it was intended to do. It has caused an incredible burden on law abiding citizens. I do not know how many criminals have registered their guns but I would suggest not very many.

The government is once again refusing to listen. Some would ask why the opposition is putting up so many speakers on species at risk when we have things like terrorism and other important issues like immigration. I am not trying to minimize this but there are other issues.

The government puts the agenda forward. It is the one that puts legislation before the House. We cannot do anything about that. We see a bill that is as flawed. It would cost taxpayers millions of dollars and court challenges in the years to come. We see burdens placed upon Canadians. It goes against the very hallmarks of our justice system by shifting the burden of proof.

The last time I checked a parking ticket was where one did not have to have intent. There we can accept that there should not be a mens rea element. However in Bill C-5 fines are being suggested, years in jail, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and it is even suggested that there be no mens rea or intent to commit the crime.

It goes beyond the ridiculous that the government would even put the legislation forward. I ask members opposite to pressure their cabinet minister, the Minister of the Environment, and say the opposition may have a point and that they look at making some amendments to the legislation to make it more realistic so it does not end up in the courts.

I would plead with the government to do that. Hopefully, after days of listening to this debate, the government will understand that if the legislation goes through it will fail and fail badly unless substantial amendments are brought forward. Time will be the test and time will prove that we are right.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say from the outset that I take a great interest in this issue because, as you surely know, I was the Bloc Quebecois critic on the environment for several years. I also want to stress the work done by the hon. member for Davenport, who has long been a champion for the environment. It is important to have people like the hon. member for Davenport in every government.

This being said, when we draft laws, we have to ensure that they will be easy to enforce and that they will be harmonized with the existing laws of other governments. This is not the case with this bill.

I want to give the background of this legislation, because I myself went through it at the time, in 1995 and 1996, when the bill was introduced. That was a long time ago, since we are now in 2002. This bill was introduced in the House and, at the time, the Standing Committee on the Environment reviewed it for practically a whole year.

We heard all kinds of witnesses, including business people, environmentalists, legislative experts and lawyers. We asked questions to every one of them. The Bloc Quebecois and myself moved a very large number of amendments to this bill, because we felt that it would be very dangerous to present and enforce it in its original form.

What happened to this bill? It died on the order paper because the government had other priorities. We went through another election, the bill was brought back and it died once again on the order paper.

Today, it is the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie who is taking an interest in this issue. I congratulate him, because he too is working very hard. He moved significant amendments to this bill, to make it enforceable.

Let me be clear. Quebec has had since 1989 legislation to protect the habitat of endangered species. We cannot have a situation where the provincial government protects the habitat of species, while the federal government wants to interfere and says “I will protect species and you will protect their habitat”. All this does not make sense.

We asked the government whether it was possible to have certain agreements, certain memorandums of agreement, between us, because the environment is something that goes beyond Quebec. Animals move from province to province, from country to country. There are certain transborder situations, such as lakes between two provinces, or even between two countries, between us and the U.S. Is it possible to have MOAs on certain specific areas, so that environmental regulations can be applied that will meet with everyone's agreement?

We all want to protect the environment, as I think Quebec has demonstrated for a very long time. One need only think of the Kyoto protocol, the work we have done on greenhouse gas emissions, in reducing those emissions. We have been an example to the rest of Canada. We do not want any lectures from the rest of Canada; they have not done their homework.

We in Quebec have done ours, and for a long time. We are in a lead position in this area. What we are asking of the government is that it follow in the footsteps of Quebec. In this and many other areas, Quebec is very much on the leading edge. We are ten years ahead in some areas. The feds could learn a lot from us.

That said, the bill we have before us at this time will not be effective. I cannot understand why they are trying to get it passed regardless. Just looking at the amendments moved by the Canadian Alliance, a huge quantity of them, we know that they will all get rejected here in the House. My colleague has done the same thing, and has made sure that his amendments would create a degree of harmony, to ensure that this bill becomes a piece of logical and workable legislation.

What will happen if we vote in favour of this bill as it now stands? The result, I think, will be wrangling that will drag on for goodness knows how long between the federal government, the provinces and the territories, but long enough so that, in the end, the species will disappear. This is what may happen, and it is not desirable. In any case, it is not what I wish to see.

I am very concerned about the environment. My riding is an environmental one—the riding of Laurentides—where, as one might imagine, lakes must be protected. I am therefore very close to the environment. However, I am also familiar with the whole issue of jurisdictions. When lawyers get involved in this, it will drag on forever.

As for the question of the various departments, there are departments such as Fisheries and Oceans or others which have already developed rules and there will be overlap. There will be wrangling between departments and claims that one party's legislation takes precedence over another's. There will be no end to it.

I find it unfortunate that in all the time we have been talking about Bill C-5, we have been unable to agree on a solid foundation and say “Yes, we are doing something but, at the same time, we respect what is being done already”. The result will be that two departments and two ministers will argue back and forth over whose fish are whose.

This government has not even been able to agree on the necessary amendments—which I think are critical—in order for this legislation to be effective.

Unfortunately, that is how it is with this government. That is what we are up against here in the House. It is as though the ideas we suggest and what we are doing in Quebec are not recognized. Often, Quebec is also penalized in certain situations by bills introduced in this House. It is a one size fits all approach. No account is taken of what is being done elsewhere. No account is taken of the progress we have made. It is all ignored. Only those who are doing nothing right get the attention, and all the rest are punished. This will have to stop at some point, because it cannot be allowed to continue. People have to be able to find solutions that work.

I am not against legislation. Nor are my colleagues. On the contrary, we agree that there needs to be something, harmonization policies with the provinces, and that there be some sort of an agreement.

However, we do not agree when the government says to us, “well, children, you are not doing your job”. That does not work anymore. I believe that in Quebec, we have done our job. It is important to keep working, to agree on things, to keep protecting habitat and to keep protecting our environment because it is indeed being threatened.

We are aware of this. This is why we need to develop environmental policies, and not just at the federal or international levels. We are making international commitments that we are not even respecting. We cannot be asked to trust a government that does not even respect its own agreements that it signed, agreements such as the Kyoto protocol.

In Quebec, we decided that we would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We decided that we would try to produce clean energy. We conducted research on electric cars. We did research on this, and have made so much progress that the mayor of Saint-Jérôme drives around in an electric car. This research was carried out at the CEVEQ, the centre for research on electric vehicles.

We are on the right track, headed in the right direction. But we most certainly do not need the federal government or the Minister of the Environment to hatch laws for us and throw a wrench in our works. We are doing just fine.

I am asking the government to look at this bill. I understand that my colleagues from the other parties are also opposed to the bill. I am asking the government to go back to the drawing board. Even environmental groups do not support it. The Liberals need to start over again. If, in the end, they come up with something that is consistent with what we are already doing, we will be the first to support them.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

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

The people of Atlantic Canada understand what can happen to fish and wildlife. Many have lived through the dwindling cod stocks and the devastating economic and social costs this represented for many small communities in my region. We have adapted our practices to limit unintentional bycatch of vulnerable species. We have also adapted our land practices so as not to unintentionally harm wildlife.

For example, fishermen from the east coast, with the help of the federal government, are modifying their gill nets to avoid unintentionally entangling right whales and leatherback turtles. Citizens in New Brunswick are volunteering their time and energy to raise awareness about nesting sites of piping plovers on our many beaches.

We are committed to being active stewards of our natural legacy. We want to help find ways to not jeopardize species already at risk. We understand that this contributes to our quality of life and it is the responsible approach to take. Playing the role of stewards of our fish stocks, our wildlife and the lands and waters where they exist is important to Atlantic Canadians. It is essential to preserve many of the natural resources on which we depend for our economic future.

This is why I am speaking today in favour of the motions on the species at risk act that ensure there is a solid, science based process to listing species at risk. I am also speaking in favour of government accountability for the decisions to protect these species.

The scientific listing process ensures two very basic things that are important to me. First, it is scientists who will determine the status of species through a transparent and thorough assessment process. They are the ones best placed to do it. They are the ones with the expertise and the knowledge. I have no doubt that they will do this well.

The assessment process will be at arm's length from government, as COSEWIC maintains an impartial, scientific and expert judgment. These assessments are then presented to the Minister of the Environment and the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. The COSEWIC list will also be placed on the public registry. The minister will use these scientific assessments as the basis for recommendations to cabinet to add species to the list for legal protection.

If an endangered or threatened species is listed under Bill C-5, then things start to happen. There are automatic prohibitions, for example, against killing or harming residences like nests and dens. If this occurs, mandatory recovery planning proceeds. The government gains the authority to take emergency action to protect habitat.

However, there could be significant social and economic impacts resulting from this protection. I feel strongly that scientists should not make socioeconomic decisions. They are specialists in science and their contribution to this process must be highly valued, but if protection affects people's lives and livelihoods, then elected ministers need to be accountable. That is how the democratic process works and we should not accept legislation that alters this fundamental principle.

For that reason the government must have the ultimate responsibility for making decisions on which species to add to the legal list should the situation arise where there would be serious economic or social implications.

It is not because the government does not want scientists to make decisions. It is because the government has a different role to play. It is responsible to Canadians for its decisions.

I know that the residents of Beauséjour--Petitcodiac want me, as their elected member of parliament, to raise their perspectives on listing decisions. This is the job they sent me to Ottawa to do and I think it would be unwise to hide behind unelected scientific panels. I also know that we should not rush or delay these decisions to fit into an arbitrary timetable. Each species is different and affects different interests. We need to ensure that our decision making process does not restrict unnecessarily our flexibility to make timely decisions but also the right decisions.

I support the government motion that removes the artificial six month timeline on cabinet decisions. In my view, cabinet decisions need to be made in whatever time is necessary to consider all the relevant factors, including science, and the social and economic consequences as well. The new requirement for the minister to respond to each and every COSEWIC assessment within 90 days provides, I believe, the required accountability for the scientific recommendations.

The scientists have their job to do and we, as elected members of parliament, have our jobs to do. Scientists must be responsible for scientific evidence and be accountable to their peer review, but elected ministers must be responsible to Canadians for decisions that could affect their social and economic well-being. That is exactly the balance that this bill achieves.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say it is a pleasure to address the amendments that are before us on Bill C-5, but it is definitely not. I have not felt so vehemently opposed to a bill in a very long time.

It should be obvious to the government that virtually all the members we have heard speak today have objected vehemently to the bill, including a government cabinet minister and many Liberal MPs. It behooves the government to take a second look at this legislation and put it on hold. Definitely there are some serious flaws with it. I am going to draw attention to some of them. Before doing that I want to comment on the process.

We do not have nearly enough time to debate this issue. I have quite a number of concerns on this group of amendments alone and it would take much longer than 10 minutes to address them. We should put this bill on hold if for no other reason than to allow us to properly address all the issues that have arisen in this group of amendments.

We have put forward some very good amendments. One of the process objections I have is that when we put forward these amendments very often they are not seriously considered. Rarely does the government accept what we have suggested as a good, positive contribution to a bill. That is something else we should look at in the House. Many members on this side of the House represent Canadians in a way that is a very constructive and helpful in improving legislation. Very often the amendments we work so hard at drafting to improve the legislation are dismissed. That is not right.

For example, I worked on the gun control legislation. We put forward some very constructive suggestions and amendments to the bill. The government completely ignored them and $685 million later, the Liberals realized we were right. They are going to plow how many more hundreds of millions into a system that was supposed to cost less than $100 million originally, because the government does not listen to the opposition.

Hopefully the comments I have made will cause the government to pause and take a second look. I will now address the amendments.

Some aspects of the bill are contrary to 800 years of civil and criminal law tradition which we inherited from Great Britain and our ancestors. That in itself should cause us to take a serious second look at this bill. Let me explain. The amendment we propose would try to correct the flaw in that the bill makes it a criminal offence with a serious penalty to unwittingly do something, to unknowingly commit a crime. That has not been the case in law and the tradition we have had for 800 years. Our amendment says that no person shall knowingly kill, harm or harass. One key word needs to be added to the bill.

As the bill now stands, it is a criminal act to kill, harm or harass any one of the hundreds of endangered species or to interfere with their critical habitat. The fines are steep. The fines are up to $1 million for a corporation and a quarter of a million dollars for an individual. The bill provides for imprisonment for up to five years for an indictable offence. We are talking about something very serious.

I referred to another bill that I have a lot of experience with, the gun control bill. Again the Liberals put into criminal law the same kind of reverse onus. A person could accidentally make a mistake on a form that has to be filled out and could end up in jail for five to ten years. A person has to prove his or her innocence.

It used to be that someone had to be proven guilty and intended to break the law. The same problem exists with this bill. There is a reverse onus and that is not right.

Someone could commit an offence without knowing it and the bill does not require intent or even reckless behaviour to be a factor. Rather it places the burden of proof on the individual to prove that he or she was exercising due diligence should harm come to any endangered species. In this way the bill ignores one of the fundamental tenets of our western legal history: that criminal penalties are only given for offences committed with a criminal mind. The term in Latin is mens rea .

Is it fair to convict a person of a serious criminal offence when the person might have had no idea he or she was in danger of committing one? In order to protect themselves from breaking the law, people would have to become experts at recognizing many different species, such as the sage grouse, the barn owl, the aurora trout, the Atlantic salmon, the prairie lupine, or the American water willow. People would not only have to recognize them but would have to recognize their critical habitat in case they disturbed a place where some of these animals spend part of their lifecycle. If we know anything about our natural environment, we know that is almost impossible to do. Even if animals used to live in an area or might be reintroduced into an area, people could be charged. There are some serious problems with this aspect.

In my last address to the House I spoke about what would happen if we passed the bill as it is. I mentioned the shoot, shovel and shut up principle which we would end up having because of this kind of law. People who discover an endangered species on their land will shoot, shovel and bury it, and then shut up and not tell anybody because of the way the bill is structured.

What is the alternative? It is simply to have incentives built into the bill for people to want to preserve endangered species rather than being made criminals if they accidentally do something or cover up something. That is a flaw with the bill. There is not adequate compensation for those people who have endangered species on their land or come across endangered species on their land.

We support the goal of protecting endangered species. It is a laudable goal. It is a responsibility we take seriously. However it cannot be done in a heavy handed way as it is in the bill. People want to co-operate but this “got you” approach from the government is adversarial and does nothing to encourage co-operation. People might not know they are harming an endangered species but the government says “we got you”. All people can do is hope that the minister is reasonable in exercising his discretion. This trust me principle is not good enough.

How are companies, for example those involved with mineral or oil and gas exploration, supposed to demonstrate due diligence over operations covering hundreds of thousands of hectares when they do not even control all the external factors involved? It is totally unreasonable to expect that. That is why we suggest proper incentives should be put in the bill. That would be much more effective in meeting the goals of the bill.

There are 70 million hectares of agricultural land, that is over 150 million acres, and 25 million hectares of privately owned forest lands in Canada. How do farmers and operators exercise due diligence over these areas, especially when many are small operations with limited resources and no familiarity with endangered species regulations?

The minister knows this is a problem. At the standing committee on October 3, 2001, in response to a question from the member for Red Deer, the minister 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.

The minister's fine words really do not cut it. His bill would make such an honest person a criminal. We need some protection.

I wanted to address some other concerns and at this time I simply do not have the time to do it. We need to respect provincial jurisdiction and I wanted to speak out on that. I wanted to also talk a bit about the severe penalties and the whole mens rea intention of this bill. I am hoping that the government will put this off so that I have more opportunity at a later date to express a lot more of the concerns I have, just with this group of amendments.

[Hélène Scherrer, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House as a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and as a member who has taken part in the debates on Bill C-5 over the past three months. I will start by saying that I do not completely agree with the colleague who spoke before me.

I wish to speak about the need to work with the provinces and the territories in order to protect the species at risk in Canada.

Our constitutional structure means that we must constantly work together with the governments of the provinces and territories regarding any important policy. This situation exists for a good reason, which most members here would describe as fair, practical and, above all, typically Canadian.

The development of the strategy for the protection of species at risk is one of the best examples of how well this system works. The success of this strategy is due to the collaboration between governments, which began a good number of years ago.

I would also like to recognize the joint projects on the protection of species and habitat, in which the federal government and the province of Quebec took part.

A good approach based on co-operation has been in place for a number of years. The province of Quebec attaches great importance to its role in the protection of species and habitat. It plays an active role in the evaluation and designation of wildlife species. The fact is that, last year anyway, the province stepped up its designation process and officially designated a dozen species under the provincial legislation.

The federal departments worked closely with their counterparts in Quebec. A federal-provincial committee on species at risk was set up and includes representatives from Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Parks Canada, who are working with the provincial representatives. Every year, more progress is made in delivering an effective program based on co-operation.

This situation is the same throughout Canada. For decades, the federal, provincial and territorial governments have worked together to manage wildlife species, not just to the benefit of species at risk but to the benefit of all species.

Through the North American waterfowl management plan, the provinces and territories are working with the federal government and their counterparts in the United States to conserve hundreds of hectares of wetlands and protect many waterfowl species.

We have helped each other and we have worked side by side to protect the piping plover eggs laid in the sand. We have met in board rooms to seek the support of corporations and resource-based industries in order to get them to create model forests and protected zones. We have worked together to create thousands of hectares of parks and game reserves.

It is obvious that we are all aware that the issue of endangered species is a national concern, and no single entity can do it all.

We must continue to work together. We must be able to readily cross over the demarcation line between the federal government, the provinces and the territories, a line that makes us good neighbours and good partners.

As a government, we have committed to certain laws and programs. We have made that commitment official in a number of ways including legislation.

It is time for the federal government to make its commitments official within the context of the proposed legislation.

The provinces and territories have worked along with us in drafting Bill C-5. For some three months, we heard from numerous witnesses. This bill reflects their contributions. The success of this initiative absolutely depends on their support.

It is clear that we will not be able to put the endangered species legislation in place without provincial and territorial co-operation. We cannot protect these species without the co-operation of the provinces and territories. They are the ones who administer the land and activities which have an impact on these species and their vital habitat. They are the ones responsible for land management policies, the ones responsible for the delivery of so many programs.

A large part of the lands that many species depend on comes under provincial or territorial jurisdiction. The provinces and the territories have a large part of the resources required to improve habitat and protect wetlands and parks.

Together—and I do mean together—we have laid the foundation to ensure the protection of all species and essential habitat across Canada. That is the reason that we developed the national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada.

Much has been done in a short time. Quebecers have worked with official representatives from the province and the federal government as well as conservation agencies and other stakeholders.

The habitat stewardship program has developed a preliminary habitat conservation plan for species at risk in the Magdalen Islands and elsewhere. As a part of its conservation strategy for the Sutton mountains, the Ruiter Valley Land Trust has developed a plan recognizing the habitat of species at risk. These are a few examples of co-operation. These examples all contain a significant provincial component, and we cannot compromise this approach.

However, some of the amendments proposed by the standing committee undermine the agreement's underlying principles and compromise commitments that have already been confirmed: specifically, the fact that the committee would unilaterally determine the criteria to trigger the mechanisms for the safety net for essential habitat outlined in Bill C-5 and transfer significant territorial responsibilities to the federal government regarding species and habitat.

Under the agreement, all levels of government made a clear commitment to fulfilling the objective of the changes proposed by the committee. The government's motions eliminate the imposition of criteria that are decided upon unilaterally and re-establish territorial responsibility regarding wildlife species that come under their jurisdiction in order to allow provincial and territorial governments to remain full partners in the protection of species in Canada.

The federal, provincial and territorial governments are currently working on developing bilateral agreements and a policy to determine efficient protection under the agreement. By developing these agreements together, we are ensuring that each government understands its own responsibilities and has the means to trigger the safety net.

This is why the government is proposing amendments to re-establish an approach that is based on co-operation. This is why we must support these amendments.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in the debate on this bill with other colleagues from my party. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, on the work that he has done as the Bloc Quebecois critic on the environment.

First, the Bloc Quebecois recognizes the importance of this matter, as indeed, some species are at risk, to the point where some are close to extinction, which makes the situation very serious, if not critical.

This being said, we need to consider Bill C-5 from two different perspectives. First, we must ask ourselves whether or not Bill C-5 really provides additional protection that can be enforced. Second, we must ask ourselves if it will really contribute to enhancing the protection of our ecosystems and the endangered species that make up these ecosystems.

We believe that the answer to these two questions is no. I would like to use the time provided for me to specify why this bill does not constitute an effective means to act.

First, we must point out that Quebec has already acted in this area over the years, and acted in a very decisive way in the late 1980s. Indeed, Quebec passed the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species in 1989. It also passed the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, and fishing regulations.

These three legal supports provide Quebec with all the tools required in order to identify species at risk, to legally designate them as threatened or at risk, to protect their habitat and to develop implementation plans that are tailor made to restore and provide sufficient protection for species and habitat that are in a precarious situation.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Quebecois completely supports the underlying principle of providing additional protection for species. We heard answers from the Minister of the Environment and member for Victoria, in British Columbia, given to questions asked by the Bloc Quebecois regarding the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. He stated that the Bloc Quebecois was opposed to the protection of endangered species, that the Bloc Quebecois does not care about them.

I will forewarn you that he will use what I would term malicious tactics to try to interpret my words as indicative of the Bloc Quebecois position. I will deprive him right away of any chance of doing so—let him listen carefully, I repeat—the Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to the principle of enhanced protection for endangered species. Is that clear?

We do not, however, believe that Bill C-5 can make it possible to protect endangered species any better.

In fact, we are opposed to this bill because we consider this, once again, an intrusion into areas that are wholly under the jurisdiction of Quebec. There is a direct overlap with the Quebec legislation, which has been in place since 1989.

My colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, has made a public commitment to the Canadian Nature Federation to speak to the Quebec Minister of the Environment on the need to review the 1989 legislation with a view to improving it and bringing it up to date. We acknowledge that between 1989 and 2002, with the changes occurring in ecosystems, with new elements such as acid rain and all manner of climate changes, there is a need for updating the legislation. This is a commitment my colleague from Rosemont--Petite-Patrie has made to the public. He has therefore made a commitment to ask the Quebec environment minister to improve the 1989 statute and to bring it up to speed as far as the serious situation of endangered species is concerned.

We believe that this bill is liable to create more red tape rather than to make it possible for the limited resources to be properly channeled where they can do the most good. We in the Bloc Quebecois are of the opinion that the Government of Quebec is already legislating in the areas addressed by Bill C-5. While acknowledging the urgency of improving the implementation of these statutes, we do not believe that Bill C-5 will make it possible to achieve the results it is claimed to be able to achieve.

While we recognize that the environment is a responsibility shared by the federal government and the provinces, it is increasingly clear to us that the federal government is ignoring this fact by going completely against a true environmental harmonization between the various levels of government. Indeed, instead of assuming as it should its major responsibilities—among other things, implementation of the Kyoto protocol comes to mind—the federal government stubbornly keeps taking over jurisdictions that do not belong to it.

Instead of trying to act effectively where it should, it prefers to invade areas in which the provinces are already doing an adequate job—I did not say perfect, I said adequate—even though there may be room for improvement. This is in fact why the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie is making representations to the Quebec minister of the environment.

Moreover, what the federal government calls a double safety net—that is two levels of government operating in the same jurisdiction—waters down the accountability of both and seriously complicates the assignment of responsibilities. Both levels can say “I feel that I am not doing the right thing, but it is the other one's fault”. This is what happens when the government wants to overmanage and overgovern. It is always easier to shift responsibility to someone else by involving a number of stakeholders.

In conclusion, Bill C-5 will only create duplication, at a time when resources are limited and it is important to maximize efforts in this area and channel them properly. We recognize the need to improve the protection of our ecosystems and the endangered plant and animal species that constitute them, but we do not believe Bill C-5 is the way to go.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes the principle of Bill C-5 today.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-5. In Canada's north there is a very close relationship between the people and the wildlife. We know from what has been handed down from generation to generation about the different kinds of species in the north, how they live and thrive and where they live. We depend on wildlife in many ways. They are an important part of our heritage.

In Canada's north we are made up of territories and not provinces. In the overall federal strategy to protect species at risk and in the species at risk act itself we are treated as equal partners. Our heritage and connection to the environment and wildlife are well recognized. What is also recognized in this proposed act is the co-operation based approach we take on many issues affecting the north.

By glancing down the list of these motions one might get the impression that there is a move afoot to undo the work of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

This is not the case at all. In fact the standing committee has made over 100 amendments to Bill C-5, many of which provide additional clarity to the intent of the proposed act. The government supports most of these amendments, although in some cases the text will have to be cleaned up. Approximately 30 government motions deal with what we can call housekeeping matters to ensure consistency in wording throughout the bill while maintaining the intent of the standing committee amendments.

There are however some significant amendments from the standing committee that change the fundamental approach of the legislation, an approach that we have worked on long and hard with provinces and territories in Canada.

I am not here to provide a lecture on federal-provincial-territorial relations. Nor am I planning on instructing my colleagues on the Canadian constitution, however tempting that might be. However members will see, as I discuss several key government motions, that the urge to deliver both lectures is fairly tempting. I am here to speak in favour of the government motions that restore the co-operative approach with provinces and territories.

Unfortunately, standing committee amendments eliminate the incentives for the territories to complete the development of their own species at risk legislation to meet their commitments under the accord. The standing committee's approach, whereby the safety net is only available in the territories for game species, does not fit at all with the way things are done now. It also contradicts ongoing devolution of federal responsibilities to territorial governments.

Under the standing committee's approach, we end up being hypocrites. Here we are devolving authorities to the territories and doing such things as engaging in self-government talks. We promote the empowerment of people so they can sustain themselves economically, politically, socially and otherwise. However, what do we do? We hamstring them with legislation. We are devolving these authorities but we would be taking them away through the species at risk act. I am sure members will agree this does not work and it is not how we want to act.

We all agree that governments have a responsibility to protect species and their critical habitats in their jurisdictions. That is why the government signed the accord for the protection of species at risk with provinces and territories in 1996.

Canada is a large country and we must work together to protect species and habitats. The accord is key to maintaining good relations with other jurisdictions and it is working. Since it was agreed to, most provinces and territories have introduced or amended their legislation to meet their commitments in the accord.

Bill C-5 is intended to be a key component of the government's efforts to meet its commitments under the accord. If the intent of the bill is contrary to the accord, we are certainly not doing our part. More important, we would be seriously jeopardizing relationships that are critical to wildlife management in Canada.

I was born in the north. I have lived in the north in a largely harvesting conservation family for more than one generation. We have lived with the wildlife species in my area and still harvest after generations the same species because we probably have inherited the gift of knowing how important that wildlife isto us.

We did not need legislation to do that. I am not saying we should not have legislation, but we should remember when we empower those people, governments and districts and give them the levels of authority, then we should respect our agreements.

Changes that diminish the incentive for other jurisdictions to strengthen their legislative base consistent with the accord for the protection of species at risk will not work. Nor should the proposed species at risk act contradict our approach to devolution in the territories.

The standing committee amendments fail to recognize that territorial laws cover more than game species. The government agrees with the standing committee that protection should be effective, however we cannot support amendments that make it a legal requirement to reach federal-provincial-territorial agreement on what this constitutes within six months.

Work is ongoing among federal, provincial and territorial governments to develop bilateral agreements and a policy for determining effective protection under the accord.

The tight timeline of six months on such an important matter is impractical and raises serious concerns. It derides the whole issue of consensus building and getting people to buy into the process and understand it fully. The government motions ensure that the policy is developed in a timely and inclusive manner. It would be more effective over the long term to have all governments sign on together to an agreement that outlines commitments for species and habitat protection than it would be for the federal government to try to unilaterally impose criteria on the provinces and territories.

Our relationship with the federal, provincial and territorial governments is a very tricky dance. It is a very delicate and sensitive issue. We must respect that and guard the progress we have made with them.

It is necessary for the governor in council to have the discretion to make decisions related to intergovernmental issues. That is the way it works in Canada. The governor in council also does not want to be put in a position where a province or territory or the endangered species conservation council dictates that action be taken, action such as applying the safety net, that may have a considerable impact on resources.

Think of what it could mean in a case where compensation might be applied. These are important motions. In no way do they negate or discredit the work of the standing committee. However, within the context of many years of federal-provincial-territorial co-operation on species and habitat, we know otherwise and must make these motions for governor in council discretion on the safety net. Legislation cannot guarantee the protection of species at risk and their critical habitat.

A co-operative approach backed by broad authorities to step in when necessary comes as close as we can to ensuring we achieve the stated purposes of the bill. We have an excellent bill that is the result of much hard work, many years of study, of steady consultation, good will on the part of provinces and territories and a made in Canada approach.

These motions are in keeping with such an approach, and I urge all members of the House to support them.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to endangered species and to my support for the general concept of a federal species at risk bill. Over 80% of Canadians are concerned about species at risk and support efforts to prevent species from becoming extinct.

I am part of that 80%. My home province of Saskatchewan signed on to the concept of federal species at risk legislation several years ago. The plan it signed on to was a complementary and co-operative process with the provinces. However today I stand before the House as a concerned member of parliament. I represent a concerned province and concerned constituents.

The proposed legislation goes far beyond the intent of the accord signed by the provinces and the federal government in the late 1990s. Saskatchewan like many other provinces has serious concerns about the direction in which this species at risk legislation is headed.

I hope that through talking about Saskatchewan's experience with this type of legislation it would be clear to all members of the House how important co-operation is. This legislation cannot be effective without co-operation.

I strongly oppose the clause in Bill C-5 that allows the minister entirely, at his own discretion and without any criteria, negotiation or accountability, to impose federal law on provincial jurisdiction. This will not facilitate the co-operation about which I have spoken extensively. That is wrong. It will bring confrontation and will ultimately be unworkable. The species at risk in my province and my country deserve better than a piece of ineffective legislation.

I understand the necessity of the federal species at risk legislation. We have seen the importance of it when the federal government passed the Migratory Birds Convention Act in 1994, but we need to have a balance between federal and provincial jurisdictions to meet the two extremes of each power. There needs to be negotiation with the provinces.

I strongly encourage the government to look at Bill C-5 on the aspect of jurisdiction. The bill should not be passed until this key aspect has been considered.

I spoke briefly about this topic when I was in the House yesterday and today I need to reiterate what I said then. The way in which Bill C-5 would delegate jurisdiction between the federal and provincial levels encourages confrontation rather than co-operation with the provinces.

Bill C-5 would give the federal government's Minister of the Environment the power to impose its laws on provincial lands completely at the discretion of the minister. However it may be necessary to give the federal government some measure of power to impose its laws on provinces that are not behaving with an adequate respect for these species, but using discretion as a measure of power given to the federal minister is hopelessly vague. It is unfair to leave decisions falling into the realm of jurisdiction up to the discretion of one person.

In our criminal justice system the decision on whether or not to convict someone of a criminal offence lies in the hands and discretion of twelve people and not one. When a decision such as this one is left up to discretion we open the door to one's moral, ethical and even religious dispositions to come into the mix. This is something sure to spark endless debate.

We need strict guidelines on when the federal government can impose its laws on the provinces so that the provinces and the landowners know what to expect in terms of interference from the federal level.

Since Bill C-5 leaves the power of the federal government completely at the discretion of the minister responsible, landowners do not know if or when the federal government can or will impose its laws on provincial lands. Instead of working together with the provinces and property owners the federal government is introducing uncertainty, resentment and distrust.

The federal government must be responsible for ensuring that it consult and co-operate with the provinces when making these considerations.

Somewhat ironically, in a 1999 independent study commissioned by the federal government, a review of national accord gap analysis, nine out of the twelve provinces and territories scored higher than the federal government regarding wildlife conservation. In fact, the federal government scored 44% on the test whereas all of the prairie provinces scored in the top five with marks ranging from 64% in British Columbia to 85% in Alberta.

How can one not see the irony in this? Under these conditions which are found in a study commissioned by the federal government itself, it still insists that federal wildlife officials be allowed to peer over the shoulder of its provincial counterparts to ensure that they are doing their jobs. The provinces are obviously doing a better job of wildlife conservation than the federal government.

Why does Bill C-5 not recognize the federal government's own shortcomings in this area? Rather, it adopts an arrogant attitude ensuring a dominating and coercive attitude toward the provinces. Each province and territory of Canada is different in regard to the species that inhabit their boundaries. This is why legislation protecting endangered species, such as Bill C-5, should encourage feedback and co-operation with the provinces.

Similarly, officials from the government of Saskatchewan expressed concerns in a number of areas covered in Bill C-5.

First, they are of the impression that it does not adequately allow for provinces to take an ecosystem approach. What is good for one species in the grasslands may not be good for another species inhabiting the same environment. Bill C-5 is fairly narrow-minded. It does not adequately allow for the provinces to take a diverse and open-minded perspective toward wildlife conservation.

Second, the government of Saskatchewan is worried that it does not have the adequate resources or the timeframe to meet all of the provincial requirements outlined in the bill.

Moreover, Bill C-5 is diverging from the spirit of the national accord for the protection of species at risk signed in 1996 by most provincial and territorial ministers responsible for wildlife and by the federal government. The accord lays out a variety of commitments to protect species at risk. By its terms, the governments recognize that intergovernmental co-operation is crucial to the conservation and protection of species at risk, that the governments must play a leadership role in complementary federal, provincial and territorial legislation, regulations, policies and programs.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with report stage debate of Bill C-5 respecting species at risk.

Tomorrow we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-30, the courts administration legislation, and return to third reading of Bill C-27 respecting nuclear safety. Bill C-48, the copyright bill, will be our backup work for tomorrow afternoon if we have time.

Next week, we will return to Bill C-5. We are now in the third day of the report stage of that bill and I should think that the House would want to complete consideration of this bill without much further delay. As early as we can, depending on when Bill C-49, the Budget Implementation Act, 2001, is reported from committee, we will want to try to deal with it at the report and third reading stages.

Thursday of next week, February 28, will be an allotted day.

Species at Risk Act

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I know first-hand the need for effective species at risk legislation. I am a resident of Saskatchewan, a province that has been converted from a rich grassland ecosystem with an abundance and diversity of wildlife species to one of the most modified landscapes in North America.

Saskatchewan has suffered the loss of more than 40 million acres of natural landscape. The statistics are beyond alarming. Some 75% of native grasslands are gone; 80% of the aspen parkland is lost; 50% of wetlands are gone; and 20% of our native plants are listed as rare and are disappearing at an alarming rate.

Progress in alleviating the problem has been the result of a joint effort between legislators and landowners. Local communities such as Wadena and Chaplin have capitalized on tourism opportunities promoting the importance of local wetlands.

The key to this is the people of Saskatchewan who took enough pride in their environment to protect and promote it. For the species at risk act to be effective we therefore need co-operation with the provinces. The bill before us would give the federal government power to impose its laws on provincial lands. To make matters worse, the process would be left to the minister's discretion. That is too much uncertainty for landowners.

There are landowners and farmers in my community who have resentment and distrust for the government regarding Bill C-5. The government is not getting off on the right foot when these are the initial reactions to its legislation.

Saskatchewan has an endangered species legislation. It is based on co-operation and the premise that endangered species exist on private land because of landowners and not in spite of them.

Landowners appreciate wildlife and make a point of preserving habitat on their land. They often do this at their own expense. Saskatchewan's legislation was an entirely co-operative effort with the agricultural community. It was designed to assist and reward landowners with species at risk on their land. Co-operation and compensation are key elements.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, here we go again. In the last parliament it was Bill C-33, the species at risk act. Did the government pass it? No it did not. We have come full circle to Bill C-5. The public should know the government fully intends not to make it work. This is a bill the government understands is clearly unworkable.

That is why my party and all of the opposition parties have introduced 136 amendments. Why? We want to make sure the bill is workable and that we have a bill that will protect endangered species.

The public would also be interested to know that the government has violated its own members. Many members on the committee from all sides, including the government side, proffered good, constructive solutions that if listened to would make the bill strong, workable and ensure that endangered species are protected. However the government has not done that. I read that the Prime Minister's Office and the minister's office have chosen to introduce amendments and changes that would emasculate the bill, so we will have a bill that cannot work.

I was appalled when I went up to the environment committee once and took a look at the bill which is about 3 cm thick. This is a 3 cm thick bill that is so unworkable that it begs for legal problems that will only tie up the courts and will not in the end protect endangered species. There are three areas that we want to focus on in the bill: mandatory compensation, penalties for the intentional destruction of habitats and jurisdiction.

On the issue of mandatory compensation many of us have been proffering that this is the way to go and yet the government has not done that. It has left it up to the jurisdiction of the minister. We cannot save species without enabling mandatory compensation. What has worked in many other parts of the world is they have sat down with the different stakeholders. In fact in Saskatchewan, with respect to the black footed ferret, the provincial government has done an outstanding job by working with farmers and ranchers to set up methods of compensation to ensure farmers would not be done hard by and that critical habitat would be protected. That is a model the federal government should be looking at because it works.

The second issue is one of jurisdiction. We have a bill here that would deal with federal lands which is a small percentage of our total landmass. Endangered species do not know jurisdictions. A bird, a plant, or an animal will go where it wants to with no care of jurisdictions. We have a bill that will not protect endangered species at all.

Why is this important? We have 198 species that are at risk. Those numbers are not going down they are going up. If we rolled back time 50 years we would see the variety of species, the biodiversity of animals and plants that we had then. We are in the worst possible time in the history of the planet. Species are going extinct at a rate that is astronomical. The species we have today will be very different from what we will have in our children's or grandchildren's lives. They will be far more restricted and constricted.

How do we deal with this? First we must list species and habitat on the basis of scientific evidence not on the basis of political expediency. The way to do that is to deal with COSEWIC, committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. This is a group of esteemed scientists who have put forth an articulate, scientifically based analysis of the species that are at risk. That is what the species at risk should be based on.

There is the issue of protection. The government should work with the provinces and municipalities to protect critical habitat. In that way we protect all of the habitat not a small sliver, which the bill attempts to do but fails in doing. As I explained earlier we should look at the example of Saskatchewan in regard to compensation.

I wish to talk about CITES, the convention on the international trade in endangered species. The public would be shocked to know that the trafficking of endangered species is the second largest trafficking product in the world behind drugs. It is a multibillion dollar industry. Canada is one of the top three centres for trafficking in endangered species in the world. This has been known for years, yet in my eight years of being here I have not once heard from the government any effort to make sure that our obligations as a signatory to CITES would be upheld. In fact, we are known as a country that is completely violating our obligations under this important convention.

The last part deals penalties. A person recently was found trafficking in one of the largest consignments of ivory ever found and received a $10,000 fine. That is absolutely pathetic. We need penalties that are strong, tough and apply to those individuals who wilfully cut the gallbladders out of black bears, destroy herds of endangered ungulates and damage, destroy and pick plants of medicinal value that are threatened or becoming extinct. Heavy penalties must be applied because the profits from the trafficking of these species is huge.

I have two private member's bills that deal with all of these issues. The government needs to look at them and I hope adopt those bills. They would enable us to accomplish good, strong endangered species legislation.

There are two last points on which I wish to speak. First is our international obligation. We have to ensure that Canadian companies working abroad are not wilfully destroying the environment.

There is a situation right now in Belize where a Canadian company, Fortis, is involved in building the Chalillo dam on the Macal River. This dam would destroy the largest area of pristine habitat in Central America. This is being done by a Canadian company through environmental studies that were sponsored by CIDA. When we try to get an answer from CIDA, it twists every which way like a pretzel to not allow the House to have information as to where taxpayers' money was or will be spent regarding environmental studies on this particular project.

The public would be appalled to think that the government is wilfully ignoring evidence that this dam would destroy critical habitat for jaguars, tapirs and numerous tropical birds in Central America. Why should taxpayers fund studies that would not be released but may show evidence that a Canadian company is destroying the largest undisturbed habitat in Central America? Canadians would be shocked if they knew that. Yet the government obfuscates and obstructs any kind of effort to find out that information.

The last area deals with balancing off the interests of the public in terms of endangered species. During my time working in Africa I spent a lot of time in the African bush looking at ways in which the environment could be protected. After my 17 trips there and hundreds of hours in the bush, the best evidence that I have ever seen comes from a place in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Officials married up private interests with habitat protection. They came to the conclusion that animals, plants and habitat must pay for themselves if they are to survive. Wanting these things to survive will not work because these areas need value, and indeed this can be done. Funds can be generated from habitat through culling for protein, hunting for game, and charging large amounts of money as a certain number of game is actually taken out. This can also be done for medicinal plants which can be grown to generate money.

The money generated from this as well as from ecotourism and other opportunities must be shared by two areas. First, some of that money has to go back into the environment, to the game wardens and the parks people that are there to protect the environment. Second, it has to be shared by the people in the surrounding areas. If the people in the surrounding areas do not see value in a particular reserve or park, that reserve or park will be destroyed.

There is a model that I would like to see the government use when it is at the G-8 summit. It is part of the new plan for African development that it is working on. By linking up the Johannesburg summit, the Rio summit and the G-8 summit, and by triangulating those three things we would be able to involve poverty reduction, primary education along with the protection of endangered species and critical habitat.

If we are able to do that we will accomplish the objective of the bill which is to protect endangered species in Canada.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is absolutely essential that we get a law in place to protect species at risk. We have waited far too long, seven years. We cannot fail Canada's species, the world's species, by failing to enact a law.

Much has been made of the proposed species at risk act: Is it too strong? Is it too weak? Does it protect enough? Does it prohibit enough?

My remarks will centre on the need to remember that Canada's territories must be treated as full partners in the approach to the protection of species at risk. I would also like to use my time to address the importance of the co-operative approach and of the national aboriginal committee.

There is a significant amount of federal land in the territories, but the territories, under the proposed legislation, are not treated like little brothers and sisters, they are treated as equals. We must continue to ensure that this full partnership is not undermined in any way. That is why the approach must be one of joint actions, not a heavy-handed, top down law. A balance is what we must strive for. This is certainty.

In Canada, the federal government must work with the provinces and the territories as part of its constitutional structure. This applies as well to the protection of species and habitats. Protecting species at risk is a shared responsibility of all governments, that includes Nunavut, Yukon and Northwest Territories.

The overall strategy for protection of species at risk is ensuring that the federal portion of this responsibility is met. The bill is one element of the strategy and it complements the work done by other levels of government. It also builds on the partnership approach under the federal-provincial-territorial accord for the protection of species at risk. It also, of course, reinforces the stewardship component of the strategy.

The accord is one of Canada's commitments to protect species. We also have commitments to international and domestic agreements, such as the United Nations convention on biological diversity and the migratory birds convention.

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

The standing committee's approach, whereby the safety net is only available in the territories for game species, is not consistent with current practices and contradicts ongoing devolution of federal responsibilities to territorial governments.

Bill C-39, the new Yukon act, was introduced into the House of Commons in October. The purpose of the bill is to transfer responsibilities for federal land and resource management in Yukon to the government of Yukon.

Yukon's responsibilities will include “conservation of wildlife and its habitat, other than a federal conservation area”. This means all wildlife, not just game. If we were to accept the standing committee's approach, we would be contradicting ourselves.

While the federal government is devolving authority to the territories, the federal government would also be taking away this authority through the species at risk act.

Let me also note that the formation of the proposed legislation has involved wildlife management boards under land claims agreements and aboriginal peoples in a variety of ways. They have been at the table for many rounds of discussions. They have provided a very significant advisory capacity by helping us to fully understand the issues, needs and capacities to protect species at risk.

For the first time ever, in any piece of federal conservation or environmental legislation, we are entrenching the role and importance of aboriginal traditional knowledge. These are the people whose traditions tell us about the habits and patterns of birds and animals. These are the people who know, because they have been told by their parents and the parents of their parents, that certain plants can survive in certain places.

This knowledge will help us protect species and it will further help us plan effective recovery. In fact, we are incorporating aboriginal traditional knowledge into our assessment and recovery process in a formal way. This is quite unique.

It is absolutely essential that the first nations of Canada have mandatory consultation on species at risk and when they are being protected. A lot of the species live on their lands or lands that will be their lands after a treaty. It is absolutely essential that they have the chance to be consulted as we proceed in these initiatives.

I would also like to speak in support of the motions for a national aboriginal body or committee on species at risk. This is an enormous step forward. We are recognizing and putting into law the importance of the relationship with aboriginal peoples to the land and to wildlife. With this committee, with this legislation and with the incorporation of aboriginal traditional knowledge into the assessment and recovery of species, we are moving forward.

I also support the overall co-operative and inclusive approach of the legislation. Bill C-5 is flexible enough to make room for all Canadians to get involved with species protection recovery: from the fisherman to the trapper, to the territorial governments, to the aboriginal organizations, to wildlife management boards, to biologists, to mining companies and everyone else. Bill C-5 also has teeth, but what is most important is it does not bare them in a threatening way. They are there if necessary.

The emphasis is on co-operation, building partnerships with the people on the ground. This will work.

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

Let us pass the bill so we can get on with the more important task of actually protecting and recovering our species at risk.