Bill C-5 (Historical)

Species at Risk Act

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

Species at Risk Act

[Bob Nault, Liberal, for Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-5, in Clause 74, be amended by

(b) deleting lines 30 to 36 on page 40.

(c) replacing lines 3 to 6 on page 41 with the following:

“74. (1) The competent minister may enter into an agreement with a person, or issue a permit to a person, authorizing the person to engage in an activity affecting a listed wildlife species, any part of its critical habitat”

“have been considered and the best solution has been adopted;”

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-5, in Clause 75, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 31 on page 42 with the following:

“75. An agreement, permit, licence, order or other similar document authorizing a person or organization to engage in an activity affecting a listed wildlife species, any part of its critical habitat or the residences of its individuals that is entered into, issued or made by the competent minister under another Act of Parliament has the same effect as an agreement or permit under subsection 74(1) if

(a) before it is entered into, issued or made, the competent minister is of the opinion that the requirements of subsections 74(2) to (6) and (9) are met; and

(b) after it is entered into, issued or made, the competent minister complies with the requirements of subsection 74(7).”

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-5 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 43 the following new clause:

“77.1 (1) Despite any other Act of Parliament, any person or body, other than a competent minister, authorized under any Act of Parliament, other than this Act, to issue or approve a licence, a permit or any other authorization that authorizes an activity that may result in the destruction of any part of the critical habitat of a listed wildlife species may enter into, issue, approve or make the authorization only if the person or body has consulted with the competent minister, has considered the impact on the species' critical habitat and is of the opinion that

(a) all reasonable alternatives to the activity that would reduce the impact on the species' critical habitat have been considered and the best solution has been adopted; and

(b) all feasible measures will be taken to minimize the impact of the activity on the species' critical habitat.

(2) For greater certainty, section 58 applies even though a licence, a permit or any other authorization has been issued in accordance with subsection (1).”

[Bob Nault, Liberal, for Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-5, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 30 on page 15 with the following:

“20. The Minister must provide COSEWIC with any professional, technical, secretarial, clerical and other assistance, and any facilities and supplies, that, in his or her opinion, are necessary to carry out its”

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-5, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 19 with the following:

“apply to any order that is made under subsection 27(1) on the basis of that recommendation, and the order is exempt from”

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-5, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 25 on page 19 with the following:

“30. (1) As soon as possible after an order is made on the basis of a recommendation referred to in subsection 29(1), COSEWIC must have a status report on the wildlife species prepared and, within one year after the making of the order, COSEWIC must, in a report in writing to the Minister,

(a) confirm the classification of the species;

(b) recommend to the Minister that the species be reclassified; or

(c) recommend to the Minister that the species be removed from the List.

(2) Within 30 days after the report is received by the Minister, a copy of the report must be included in the public registry.”

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-5, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 36 on page 19 with the following:

“an endangered species or a threatened species.”

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-5, in Clause 49, be amended by

(b) replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 28 with the following:

(c) replacing lines 3 to 5 on page 29 with the following:

“(b) a statement of the measures that are proposed to be”

“protected;”

“be derived from its implementation; and”

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-5, in Clause 59, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 40 on page 33 and lines 1 to 8 on page 34 with the following:

“59. (1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the competent minister after consultation with every other competent minister, make regulations to protect critical habitat on federal lands.

(2) The competent minister must make the recommendation if the recovery strategy or an action plan identifies a portion of the critical habitat as being unprotected and the competent minister is of the opinion that the portion requires protection.

(3) The regulations may include provisions requiring the doing of things that protect the critical habitat and provisions prohibiting activities that may adversely affect the critical habitat.

(4) If the competent minister is of the opinion that a regulation would affect land in a territory that is not under the authority of the Minister or the Parks Canada Agency, he or she must consult the territorial minister before recommending the making of the regulation.

(5) If the competent minister is of the opinion that a regulation would affect a reserve or any other lands that are set apart for the use and benefit of a band under the Indian Act, he or she must consult the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the band before recommending the making of the regulation.

(6) If the competent minister is of the opinion that a regulation would affect an area in respect of which a wildlife management board is authorized by a land claims agreement to perform functions in respect of wildlife species, he or she must consult the wildlife management board before recommending the making of the regulation.”

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-5, in Clause 15, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 9 on page 14.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, for Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-5, in Clause 11, be amended by

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 10 on page 11 with the following:

(c) deleting lines 24 to 29 on page 11.

“to do so, enter into a conservation agreement with any government in Canada, organization or person to benefit a species at risk or enhance its survival in the wild.”

“(2) The agreement must provide for the”

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-5, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 39 to 43 on page 9 with the following:

“10. (1) The competent minister may, after consultation with every other competent minister, enter into an agreement with

(a) any other federal government Minister;

(b) a provincial, territorial, municipal or aboriginal government;

(c) a wildlife management board, for any lands specified in a land claims agreement for which the wildlife management board has authorization to perform functions as specified in the agreement;

(d) a landowner, authorized resource user or other person whom the competent minister considers to be directly affected by the administration of this Act; or

(e) any other person or organization that the competent minister considers to be appropriate for the administration of this Act.

(2) Any agreement that the competent minister may enter into under subsection (1) shall be with respect to the administration”

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-5, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 9 on page 11 with the following:

“11. (1) A competent minister may, after consultation with every other competent minister, enter into an agreement to provide for the conservation of a species at risk with

(a) any other minister of the Crown;

(b) any provincial, territorial, municipal or aboriginal government;

(c) a wildlife management board, in respect of any lands specified in a land claims agreement in respect of which the board has authorization to perform the functions specified in the land claims agreement;

(d) any landowner or authorized resource user, or any other person considered by the competent minister to be directly affected by the administration of the Act; or

(e) any other person if the competent minister considers that it is appropriate for the administration of this Act to enter into an agreement with that person.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-5, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 39 to 45 on page 9 and lines 1 to 3 on page 10 with the following:

“10. (1) A competent minister may, after consultation with every other competent minister, enter into an agreement in respect of the administration of this Act with

(a) any other minister of the Crown;

(b) any provincial, territorial, municipal or aboriginal government;

(c) a wildlife management board, in respect of any lands specified in a land claims agreement in respect of which the board has authorization to perform the functions specified in the land claims agreement;

(d) any landowner or authorized resource user, or any other person considered by the competent minister to be directly affected by the administration of the Act; or

(e) any other person if the competent minister considers that it is appropriate for the administration of this Act to enter into an agreement with that person.

(2) Before entering into an agreement referred to in subsection (1), the competent minister shall

(a) publish the proposed agreement in the public registry for a period of thirty days; and

(b) after the expiry of that period, consult with all persons who it is reasonable to believe may be affected by the agreement.”

[Bob Nault, Liberal, for Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-5, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 9 with the following:

“two ministers, delegate to any minister of the Crown in right of Canada or of a province or to any person who is employed by the Government of Canada, the government of a province or any other government in Canada any of that Minister's powers or”

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Of course I refer to the national energy policy of the 1980s. I hear some hon. members saying they remember.

The national energy policy, which, I will add, was supported by the Prime Minister, was disastrous. It failed to consider the possibility for capital flight or a drop in the world petroleum price index. It failed to anticipate American responses to the nationalization of the petroleum industry or a unilaterally imposed federal restriction of oil exports. It also failed to consider the profoundly negative impact the NEP had on federalism in Canada, nor did it foresee the consequent feelings of alienation and resentment that still abound and are harboured by some and linger in the west as a result of such poor policy.

No piece of legislation is perfect. Therefore, the power to periodically review legislation is a significant responsibility. Reviews and evaluations are not just a good idea: They should be a fundamental principle of governing. However, Motion No. 130 from the government will remove the standing committee amendment calling for mandatory reviews.

Apparently, despite the lessons learned, the government is not practising any degree of due diligence. The government feels that reviewing legislation for Bill C-5 is unnecessary. Perhaps it feels that the democratic spirit of reviews are nuisance clauses and are consequently easily dismissed, or perhaps it feels that Bill C-5 possesses perfect design and requires no mandatory review. Such is surely not the case.

During earlier debates of Bill C-5 we identified several gaps in the proposed legislation which may indeed have some profound and unanticipated impacts on Canadians. Two that immediately come to memory are criminal liability without intent and lack of compensation for financial losses. I will go into detail only briefly since we have already had these discussions at length.

First, the act will not work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. Farmers, ranchers and other property owners want to protect endangered species, but should not be forced to do it at the expense of their livelihoods.

Second, criminal liability must require intent. The act will make criminals out of people who may inadvertently or unknowingly harm endangered species or their habitat. This is unnecessarily confrontational and makes endangered species a threat to property owners.

These are very serious and in fact, I would say, negligent omissions. It therefore becomes all the more necessary to ensure that periodic reviews of Bill C-5 are drafted into the legislation. I am hopeful that common sense will prevail and the government will accept the amendments that will make Bill C-5 workable. The power to review must be present, the necessity to consult should be evident, and the importance of adequate compensation is paramount to successful legislation.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

As well, I should mention that while I respect the spirit and the tenor of the government's objectives with regard to protecting species at risk, I cannot support the methods it proposes to achieve its goals, as demonstrated today, in fact, when it is even closing down debate on this important subject.

As for the Group No. 4 amendments to Bill C-5, Motion No. 127 specifically, which is supported by my party, demands that the government liaise with Canadians to gather feedback before invoking such sweeping legislation. Policy conceived by one party or catering to one set of interests is counterproductive and risks alienating Canadians. This risks failure by denying the necessary flexibility to deal with unanticipated economic and social changes. The government should know better. It should understand that consultation with all parties is an important part of the policy process. On this, Bill C-5 has failed. That is why this amendment is so fundamentally necessary.

In 1996 the federal government released its findings on modern comptrollership, a report entitled “Strengthening Our Policy Capacity”. The task force charged with the report identified six mandatory prerequisites for policy engineering. The theme that was repeated throughout these recommendations was collaboration, not just among bureaucrats and across departments but, most important, with the citizens and non-governmental organizations most affected. The silos of government and administrative effectiveness may be continually thwarted by narrow organizational and policy self-interest. Catering solely to one opinion or failing to consult with all parties is almost certain to cause more harm than good.

Within the Group No. 4 amendments to Bill C-5 we have identified several areas where legislation does not respect the principles of horizontality, collaboration, transparency and accountability.

Issues concerning public consultation and discussion are important, as I touched on a moment ago. The government, according to its own treasury board guidelines, pledged to pursue an open and transparent approach to service that incorporates a multitude of policy partners across a spectrum of interests. At least that is what was written in treasury board's “Results for Canadians”. However, given the opportunity to apply these concepts in Bill C-5, the government has failed to heed its own advice. There is a fundamental importance, even an obligation, to make consultations as wide as possible, thereby ensuring that consultations have a legitimate impact on the administration of the species at risk legislation.

Sound policy, effective consultation and responsible governance need to have built in mechanisms for review. Initially the bill called for parliamentary review of Bill C-5 after a period of five years. The standing committee contributed to this theme by stating that subsequent reviews would occur at five year intervals. It should be noted that mandatory reviews of legislation are not as rigid as sunset clauses, but they are, nevertheless, identifiable junctures and opportunities to examine how well the bill is functioning. They allow for a review of the questions that must be asked and are an important part of the policy process.

Periodic reviews ask implicit and vital questions. What was the intent of the legislation? What were its goals and objectives? Furthermore, a review demands to know if the implementation strategy of the legislation is achieving its mandated goals. Finally, is it achieving these goals within the allocated budgetary resources? Periodic reviews of legislation ensure that legislation remains evergreen and robust. Unanticipated events and unforeseen changes in the future can profoundly affect legislation and render it impotent or, worse, damaging.

I want to illustrate the consequences that can occur when there are no tools for reviewing legislation that is ill-conceived. I am sure that many of my colleagues in the House recall that failure to anticipate events played a key role in inflicting massive damage to the oil and gas sector in western Canada.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I believe that Nanaimo--Alberni has the distinction of being the only riding with two UNESCO biospheres. UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. We have Clayoquot Sound on the west coast of Vancouver Island, which includes Tofino and the beautiful Pacific Rim National Park, and the Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Reserve, recently proclaimed, right where I live, from the summit of Mount Arrowsmith right down to the 300 foot depths of the Strait of Georgia.

Respect for the environment and wildlife is very much a part of the social consciousness of my constituents. Not only are ecotourism, sustaining a healthy environment and protection of species at risk important to our local economy, they are a few of the kaleidoscope of factors that make Vancouver Island such a desirable place to live and to vacation.

It is a reality that the human presence in paradise does affect the environment profoundly. I am aware of and also concerned about the impact man has on our neighbours, large and small, the flora and fauna, the organisms we share this planet with.

My background is in the biological sciences. My personal pursuit of knowledge at the undergraduate level led me to a major in zoology and a minor in chemistry. I continued my education by studying these fabulous human bodies that we have each been given. The more we know about life, the more amazing the trip through life can be. If we have eyes to seek it, there is an amazing array of activity around us. We should check it out: under a rock, under a log, in the tide pool and along the riparian zone that straddles our streams. We can break the surface of our coastal waters and enter a whole new universe of activity.

That is what this subject, species at risk, is all about, but what about Bill C-5? Will it deliver what we hope to achieve? What about the Group No. 4 amendments? What are we hoping to achieve here?

Residents in my riding and indeed the majority of Canadians share my concern and believe in protecting and enhancing the health of our ecosystems. However, what is quite startling is that the proposed legislation was developed in virtual isolation. There was no consultation initiated by government with the various vested interests and stakeholders.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, colleagues. I wonder if we might have the co-operation of the House so we can pursue the debate on Bill C-5. If there are discussions, I wonder if they might take place in the respective lobbies so that we can continue the business of the House with some decorum.

The hon. member for Nanaimo--Alberni.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-5 and the Group No. 4 amendments to the proposed species at risk legislation.

As the member of parliament for Nanaimo--Alberni, I think most residents of and visitors to my riding would agree that it is truly one of the most beautiful places in Canada. I have travelled a lot internationally and it is no exaggeration to say Vancouver Island is one of the most picturesque places in the world.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Alliance should get off the idea that time allocation is being used today without any background or because we simply dreamed it up.

Let us look at what the Alliance has done. On April 17 the Leader of the Opposition made a two and a half hour speech to table a defence committee report. He took up the entire time allocated to government orders which was Bill C-5. On April 18 the Canadian Alliance member for Yellowhead used the same trick to drag out the tabling of a committee report until the government called a vote to bring the House to government orders. As these people appear to have forgotten what they did in April and many other months I will cite a quote from the Hill Times in which the assistant to the Alliance Party's then leader said:

We gathered as much information...and we basically culled them together in one document so that [the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast] can fill the two hours and then try to ad lib as much as possible in between the various different things that we've written for him.

That is what Alliance members are saying about their own filibuster. Now they are blaming us for putting in time allocation.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister again. My friend from the Bloc has raised this in a peripheral way. I want to go at it directly.

Does the Department of the Environment have a legal opinion or a confirmation that Bill C-5 will meet the international commitments that we have made with regard to protecting endangered species, protecting the environment and specifically enhancing biodiversity? There are a number of opinions out there that the bill does not in fact do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we look out on the street we will see vehicles designed for different purposes: boats, aircraft. This bill is designed for confrontation, not co-operation. Those words are important. The key players, the cabinet, cannot even agree among themselves.

Bill C-5 would give the federal government the power to impose its laws on provincial lands. Will the minister guarantee to the House, to his department and to other departments that co-operation will be the key between the provinces and the property owners rather than creating an atmosphere that is built into the bill of distrust and uncertainty that would deter Canadians from ensuring species at risk receive the protection that is needed?