Bill C-5 (Historical)

Species at Risk Act

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

Species at Risk Act

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-5, the species at risk act, at report stage. The bill would have grave consequences for the riding of Dauphin--Swan River. The bill ostensibly aims to prevent wild species in Canada from becoming extinct or lost from the wilds, to secure their recovery and to prevent others from becoming extinct. Unfortunately these goals are unattainable with the bill. Report stage has seen the introduction of Liberal amendments to reverse dozens of key committee amendments made to the species at risk bill. Opposition parties, backbench Liberals, environmental groups, the provinces and even landowners are critical of the minister's move.

It took three attempts for the Liberal government to finally put through legislation to protect species at risk. Two previous attempts died on the order paper. This is the first significant piece of environmental legislation introduced by the Liberal government in three terms.

With these reversals, the bill effectively does not require the government to do anything to protect species at risk or to support landowners who are integral to the process of saving endangered species. If the bill would have been allowed to pass as it was after the intensive committee process, it would have been one of the weakest endangered species laws in the industrialized world.

The bill is devoid of the elements considered critical by both the Tories and the species at risk working group, composed of major environmental and industry groups: elements such as critical habitat protection, a specific scientific listing, a compensatory regime, landowner notification and stewardship.

In the Group No. 4 amendments the government has introduced a series of amendments to reverse the consensus of the committee with respect to having an inclusive consultation process that would include aboriginal peoples. I note Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20. The committee set up an aboriginal council composed of aboriginal representatives and ministers of the crown to advise and make recommendations to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. The government now wants to remove the ministers from participation on the council. The council was changed to a committee, its establishment was made entirely discretionary and its mandate severely limited. As the Inuit association of Canada wrote in a letter recently, this reversal effectively inhibits the voice of Inuit and aboriginal peoples in the conservation of wildlife in the country.

We support the amendments put forth by a Liberal MP that are a compromise in regard to these reversal motions of the government. The member's motions are a compromise that address the major concerns of aboriginal and Inuit organizations and preserve the essence of what was achieved in the original language unanimously agreed to by the standing committee.

The government has put forth Motion No. 76 to reverse committee consensus on timelines for the completion of parts of the act. The government is gutting the committee's consensus to have the act specify time limits for completion of action plans. Without time limits the development of crucial action plans could be delayed indefinitely. Bill C-65, which was the precursor to Bill C-5 and died on the order paper, did set out specific time limits for completion of all recovery plans, but the government apparently has no interest in maintaining that crucial component of the bill.

In Motion No. 114, the government also seeks to gut the specific reference in the bill to the minister having to consult with provinces and territories as well as aboriginal organizations with reference to proposed management plans. Wildlife preservation is a collaborative project that requires consultation with all stakeholders, especially the provinces and territories.

In Motion No. 130, the government is gutting a committee amendment to conduct a parliamentary review of the act every five years. During committee review at clause by clause, the government actually said that in certain cases it would take years to know if an action plan were successful. By the same rationale, it could take years to know if the act itself is working. We must have regular five year reviews of the act.

We support a science based approach to listing species at risk. Scientists, not politicians, should decide which species are at risk of extinction. This was also a consensus recommendation of the species at risk working group, which included environmental groups and industry groups such as the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. Bill C-5 would leave the decision to list species at risk in the hands of cabinet, although it is a matter of scientific fact, not political choice. Social and economic implications must also be taken into account, but this should be done in the recovery plan stage, not with regard to listing. Government motions at report stage aim to further weaken the listing process. There is no timeline for cabinet to make a listing decision and respond to scientists' assessments.

The federal government must protect the species at risk in its own backyard, on federal lands or within federal jurisdiction. Bill C-5 would provide no guaranteed habitat protection on federal lands. In other words, protection would be discretionary on a case by case basis. It is wrong and ironic for the bill to have provisions allowing for federal interference on private and provincial lands without specifically containing mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands. Scientists have firmly established that habitat protection is central to protecting endangered species.

Bill C-5 does not provide enough clarity for addressing the concerns of affected landowners and land users. The minister's bill is devoid of a clear compensatory regime. Regulations pertaining to compensation should have been brought in and tabled simultaneously with Bill C-5.

I will conclude by saying that no one supports the bill. The Government of Canada has failed to do its homework. It has foolishly ignored the consensus of the species at risk working group and of major stakeholders. It is now further gutting an already weak bill not supported by environmental groups, industry and the provinces. A broad coalition of major environmental groups, together with the Mining Association of Canada and the Forest Products Association of Canada, agrees that at the very least a scientific listing process and habitat protection in federal jurisdiction should be in the species at risk act. Let me conclude by saying that the bill may do the opposite to the intent of the legislation and that Bill C-5 itself would be a danger to those species it is trying to protect.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first address a basic premise relating to this legislation, and that is a genuine concern for the proper preservation of the environment and its species and a genuine concern for a proper preservation of property rights. These concerns are not mutually exclusive. Not only should they go hand in hand, they must go hand in hand. Without proper respect for property rights, we will see a degradation of the environment.

It is a fact that a vigorous defence of property rights is essential to the health of any local, national or global ecosystem. However it is just as obvious that a vigorous defence of property rights is essential to the health of local, national and global economies.

The history of the last century is very clear on this point, painfully clear as a matter of fact. Jurisdictions which had little or no respect for the rights of private property were the jurisdictions and in fact the countries that suffered the greatest degradation to their environments and to the species that inhabited those environments. The two are absolutely and clearly linked. The federal government's cavalier approach to property rights, to the notion of private property, its total lack of understanding of basic economic and environmental issues and how the two are linked will put at greater risk the very species that we are all concerned about.

Government members who are really concerned about this bill and about the species would want to take the time to visit the constituency I represent or the constituencies represented by my colleagues. I invite them to come out to the Okanagan--Coquihalla and visit. Whether they talk to orchardists in the Okanagan area, or farmers in the Keremeos and Hope areas, or ranchers around Merritt or miners or foresters, they will see a common thread woven throughout not just the conversation but in fact the practices of those groups of people. That common thread is a genuine concern for the health and vitality of the environment of which their property is made up and the species which inhabit those environments.

History proves that it is those private property interests which will best serve to protect the environment, its health and the species that go with it. It is their land. They understand that properly caring for the land and its inhabitants, animal or human, is the secret of seeing the land itself to yield year after year, cycle after cycle and to continue to return the produce or products that humans need to exist on this planet.

However this reality, this link between a proper respect of property rights and preservation of the environment continually seems to escape the minister and the federal Liberal government. This paternalistic, centralized, all knowing approach toward either environmental or economic issues continues to prove disastrous.

I focus on the area of a proper appreciation of property rights because it is the core of the issue. If the bill moves ahead without the reasoned amendments of the Canadian Alliance, in effect what we will have is an undermining effect on the farmers, the ranchers, the orchardists, the foresters and the miners not just in my constituency but across the country. It will undermine their usual strong motivation to be good stewards of the land because it will undermine stewardship itself.

I look at what the minister is proposing, for instance, in the area of expropriation. If dealt with at all, it will be left to regulation. The very fact that compensation will not be included as mandatory upon expropriation, goes beyond words. How can that notion of disregard for the rights of private property even be entertained? That is what we will see if the bill is left uncorrected by the amendments proposed by the Canadian Alliance.

There can be no secret agreements entered into by the minister. He has indicated that there could be agreements, but they must not be entered into in secret.

Every year representatives of the Real Estate Association of Canada attend to this House. They meet with MPs and they talk about and press for the constitutionality of property rights and how those should be enshrined because they are so important.

Every year the government members of parliament and the ministers involved nod their heads, giving an appearance of assent to this most basic of freedoms and recognition of values. Then the hardworking representatives of the Real Estate Association go back to their jobs, yet nothing is done to preserve the constitutionality or enshrine the constitutionality of property rights. As a matter of fact they are not only left alone, those very rights are also eroded with approaches like we see in Bill C-5.

We have to address these very basic issues. There has to be a change in the bill where the minister recognizes that there will be consultation and that it will not be left to regulation. This must be discussed here in the House. The issue of compensation upon expropriation cannot be left at a whim; it must be stated as mandatory.

Further, the minister talks about delegation of responsibilities but the bill only contemplates delegating those responsibilities to other so-called competent federal ministers. There is a total disregard for provincial jurisdiction as reflected in the constitution.

We have to address these items. The Canadian Alliance is not opposing these things just for the sake of being in opposition. We are opposing the eroding of some very basic rights which are fundamental to the preservation of our economy and our environment. We are also offering some suggestions as to how these terrible wrongs can be righted. We will stick with those points and see this through.

[David Price, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, parliamentarians have dedicated many hours and days to the consideration of federal species at risk legislation. In this process members of the House have heard from Canadians from all across the country. We will continue to listen, monitor progress, watch implementation, and we will do our jobs as parliamentarians in overseeing the legislation of the land.

Our work at this stage of forming the legislation is over. We can debate, delay, and listen to the same positions over and over again. While we do that we have no law. I do not think that is what any of us want. It is time to move on and get the proposed species at risk act into place. We have a science based process that is already at work. Let us get it verified in law.

We have discussed that science based process at great length. We must remember that under the proposed act the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada would be recognized in federal legislation for the first time. COSEWIC would provide for rigorous independent and scientific advice regarding the status of species at risk. It is already doing so. It would continue to do so but this time with the full weight of the law that would recognize the importance of its role.

The assessment process would continue at an arm's length relationship from the government. This was and never would be in doubt. COSEWIC would keep its impartial scientific and expert judgment. Our approach depends on it. This law would verify it. Species and habitat would benefit from it.

Members will recall how the assessment works. First, COSEWIC would determine whether a species is eligible for assessment by asking specific questions. These include determining if the species is native to Canada. Second, a subcommittee of specialists would develop a list of species to be considered for assessment. Third, when a decision has been made to assess a species a status report is commissioned. These are very detailed reports that can take many months to prepare.

COSEWIC would use the status report to assign the species to one of seven categories: extinct; extirpated, which means the species is no longer present in the wilds in Canada; endangered; threatened, special concern; species not at risk; or data deficient.

The COSEWIC assessments are at the core of Bill C-5. Everything in the bill depends on what it says. That is why we have ensured it would be done using the best scientific advice we can find. COSEWIC would present its completed assessment to the Minister of the Environment and the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. The COSEWIC assessment would also be placed in the public registry established under the legislation. Anyone can see them at any time.

The minister would use these scientific assessments as a basis for recommendations to the governor in council to add a species to the schedule attached to the law. In keeping with this process we have debated at great length the importance of accountability. When a species is added to the legal schedule things start to happen. There are automatic prohibitions, mandatory recovery planning and the authority to take emergency action to protect the habitat.

For that reason our democratic process demands that the government 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.

The decisions made under the proposed species at risk act could affect the livelihoods of Canadians, for example, hunters and trappers. All aspects of the listing must be considered and we want to ensure the job gets done right, not just done fast.

Such decisions could affect the way in which these people make their living. With all due respect, they should not be made by scientists. They must be made by the people who can be held accountable for their implications and that is us, here in the House, the ones elected by the people of Canada, the ones accountable to the people of Canada.

Let me also address the issue of critical habitat. This is one of the most complex parts of the policy and has preoccupied us for years.

This protection must be applied in a manner that is in the best interests of the species. It must take into account Canada's constitutional structure. We must respect jurisdictions, and of course throughout all of these considerations we must ensure that the provisions for protection are workable, efficient and integrated with other Canadian law and conventions.

Not only would the bill protect the critical habitat of endangered and threatened species, it would also protect the critical habitat of extirpated species. These are species that exist elsewhere but are gone from the wild of Canada. Should an extirpated species be reintroduced in the wild in Canada, the provisions in the bill would give authority to protect its critical habitat if needed.

Part of the government's approach involves a proposal for automatic critical habitat protection in national parks, marine protected areas, migratory bird sanctuaries and national wildlife areas. Surely we must all agree that federal lands warrant such a measure.

The government has also proposed to require the competent minister to recommend protection of critical habitat anywhere else in federal jurisdiction that is not protected, within 180 days of being identified, in an approved recovery strategy or action plan. In this way we ensure nothing falls through the cracks.

These measures on critical habitat are reinforced by a further motion that requires all federal ministers to consider the possible impacts on identified critical habitat prior to issuing any licence or permit for any activity.

These measures are for every eventuality. Many of these may never arise but they are provided for in the bill. However all this has to be done in a way that makes partners of those involved, not criminals. It has to be done in a way that works on the ground and works quickly, not that grinds its way through the already overburdened court systems.

Coercion is not here. It is not our way. Stewardship and co-operation come first. That is the Canadian way. That is the way it works. Strong measures in case the co-operative approach fails are of course in the bill.

I summarize by saying that the legislation would ensure that there would be a rigorous and independent scientific process to assess species, operating at arm's length from the federal government. It would also create mechanisms and powers to do something about those assessments by mandating plans to help species recover. It is strong, it fosters co-operation and it begins the premise that Canadians will do the right thing. It is time to put it to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not my pleasure to engage in this debate today. This is the fourth time I have risen and the message has been almost the same each time. The government does not seem to be listening. I wonder if the debate is worth the time and effort we are putting into it. We need a government that, as the previous member just said, not only consults but also listens to the people who have given input and has legislation reflecting what those people have said.

The NDP member who spoke previously said we need legislation that strongly protects species. I agree with that member and that is what our amendments are trying to do. Our proposed amendments would strengthen the legislation so that the aim it purports to have would be realized, and that is to protect endangered species.

I find it unconscionable that the government would not tell landowners who have endangered species on their land that is the case and get their co-operation to preserve that species. Our amendment would attempt to do that and I cannot understand why the government would not accept it. Why remove a requirement to review legislation that was in there? In fact I would say that all legislation passed in the House should be reviewed every five years. That only makes sense.

I have had a lot of experience with the Firearms Act. If that piece of legislation were properly reviewed every five years, a lot of money could be saved and resources could be directed into areas that would truly improve public safety. The same is true of this particular bill we are debating today. If we were to review this and ensure that the resources being put toward this were effective, it would make our taxpayers' money and legislation that we pass in the House much more effective.

The government is showing contempt for parliament far beyond the touching of the Mace by ignoring opposition views and refusing to improve legislation. My hon. colleague opposite from Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot said that it is necessary that this legislation be political and discretionary. That will absolutely not work. He said that common sense would prevail and that people would realize their mistake. It is absurd to think that is actually going to work. Incentives matter. We must have proper mechanisms within the legislation that would provide incentives for people to preserve species at risk.

Politicians are too slow in reacting when problems arise. They are out of touch with reality and subject to lobby groups. Many of those lobby groups have the exact opposite effect that they intend in some of the lobbying they do. A species may be long gone before anyone knows what is happening. Having the approach of making it political and discretionary is absurd. It would be like Kyoto. We need a science based approach. When we present a position or put legislation in place, it must be politically sound.

One of the key messages I want to send to the government is that the legislation as it now stands would foster civil disobedience, just like the Firearms Act has fostered a lot of civil disobedience. A non-co-operative approach would do exactly the same thing with trying to preserve species.

We must search out ways that would effectively work given the society and culture we live in today. It is absolutely essential that incentives be there. If not, we will end up with a lot of civil disobedience with people discovering endangered species on their land, not being properly compensated and not letting anyone know about it.

It would have the exact opposite effect to that intended if the amendments we proposed we re not accepted. I feel the government is out of touch with reality and would endanger species if we do not accept these amendments.

I listened to my hon. colleague from the Yukon a short time ago and he said that there is compensation in the bill. That is a misleading statement. For government members to say that is in the bill is totally misleading. Yes, those words may be in the bill but the way it is worded in the legislation is not effective. There is no proper compensation.

The property values for people who have endangered species on their land are not properly protected in the legislation. Therefore that is a completely misleading statement, and the government should come clean on that when it tells the public that somehow there is compensation in the bill. As it is presently worded it is not adequate and will not serve the needs necessary to preserve species.

I also heard the previous member claim the government consulted with the public. Why then does the bill not reflect that? It is not in there. The amendments we are proposing reflect some of those things and some of the consultation that was done. Unless they are made, as we are proposing in these amendments, the bill will be seriously flawed.

Most of the amendments are of a technical nature but there is the fact that they pose a serious concern. Motion No. 109 from the government side would eliminate the requirement to develop regulations for compensation. This strikes at the heart of the message I am delivering today. The motion would wipe out an amendment made by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development asking that regulations be set up for compensating landowners. The environment committee said that if the government were to compensate then there would have to be regulations in regard to claims and procedures. Motion No. 109 of the government would reverse this and should be defeated.

Compensation would revert back to the minister's discretion, but even worse he would not be required to make necessary regulations. Talk about a government that is acting like a third world dictatorship. Compensation is not an extra available option. It is essential in order to support the framework for protecting endangered species. Compensation shows that the government understands the fears of landowners and the need to take their interests into account. If this motion were to pass, it would make compensation not a requirement but something that the minister would do when he feels like it. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Let me stress that property owners, resource users and others, with a direct on the ground interest in the administration of the endangered species act, should be involved in every step of the process. Voluntary agreements, recovery strategies action and management plans for the preservation of endangered species and habitat are important, and we support this objective in Bill C-5.

Incentives matter. The bill would allow the minister to enter into agreements with other governments or with environmental groups but does not specify the possibility of entering into agreements with landowners. Our amendments correct this. More money would be spent on litigation than would ever be spent on compensation to preserve the species if the bill were to go forward as it is. Just like in the Firearms Act, the money that is being spent is grossly misplaced. We must put money into preserving species and we must decide what is most cost effective. It is not cost effective to pass a bill that would lead to a lot of litigation and the actual further endangerment of species.

Our Motions Nos. 21, 22 and 26 would make this an explicit option for the minister. I ask all government members opposite to take a serious look at the overall effect that the legislation would have and support our amendments. They are there to strengthen the bill and ensure that the species that are at risk would be properly looked after.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-5.

Over the eight years plus that we have worked to bring forward species at risk legislation we have asked for a great deal of assistance. Many people have provided input. Many people have told us things that were invaluable in the development of the policy.

It must be very clear to everyone here that the aboriginal people of Canada have been helpful and insightful. They have provided us with information and we have listened. As a result we have parts of the proposed species at risk act that are unusual in the annals of Canadian law making and we are very proud of that. The aboriginal people of Canada should also be proud of that same fact.

During the development of the legislation and even as we speak, the aboriginal working group on species at risk has been there to advise and to guide. It has helped us to understand the issues, needs and capacities of aboriginal people and to help them in the protection of species at risk. The knowledge of Canada's first people will help us protect the species at risk and to further plan effective recoveries. In fact we are incorporating aboriginal traditional knowledge into our assessment and recovery process in a formal way and that is certainly unique.

The government supports the establishment of a national aboriginal council on species at risk that advises the minister on the administration of the species at risk act and advises the Canadian endangered species conservation council on its very important role. This council is in keeping with the kinds of discussion and advice that went into the making of the legislation. It is consistent with the ongoing commitment by the Government of Canada to make its relationship with aboriginal people stronger. Recognition, acknowledgement, a partnership entrenched in law; we are all very proud of this.

I would like to turn my attention in my remaining time to talk about stewardship, a logical transition from the aboriginal questions as they are certainly Canada's first stewards and a key example for all of us. We have emphasized from day one that stewardship is essential to effective action. In fact, while we have researched, debated, revised and begun again for the past eight and a half years, others have been working hard on the lands and the waters of Canada to protect species and their habitat. It is a good thing that they have.

Stewardship is the cornerstone of the co-operative approach. It is the approach we must have in Canada. It is the essence of our constitution and of our way of life. A nest box for a blue bird; a special fishing net; a different planting regime; a scouting troop or a seniors group; farmers; ranchers; fishers; miners; foresters; there are thousands of stories all over Canada of small and large actions that all do something for species. We cannot say these efforts mean nothing. We cannot say thanks for everything, now here is a law with a forceful approach. We need a law instead that says to keep up the good work and here is help to do more.

We have backed up the commitment to this approach with the establishment of the habitat stewardship program. Under this program $45 million over five years has been targeted for stewardship activities. Entering its third year, the program has established partnerships with first nations, landowners, resource users, nature trusts, provinces, the natural resources sector, community based wildlife societies, educational institutions and conservation organizations. On the ground things are happening and we certainly have consulted with everyone.

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

I am speaking today in favour of the stewardship component of the strategy and also in favour of the government motions on the development of stewardship plans in Bill C-5 itself. We accept in principle the proposal to develop a stewardship action plan introduced into Bill C-5 by the standing committee. In fact work is already under way on the development of a Canada-wide stewardship action plan with our provincial and territorial colleagues. We must not however, make future resources commitments for programs in law. This is simply good government.

We want to ensure sufficient time to develop a plan in co-operation with others, including landowners, resource users and lessees. That is why government motions would remove the one year deadline and provide the minister with discretionary authority to develop, in consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council, a stewardship action plan.

I also speak in favour of the government motion that would remove requirements, imposed by the standing committee, on the minister to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on draft contribution agreements and to publish them when complete. This would serve as a disincentive for voluntary actions.

Let us continue to make stewardship an easy thing to do. It is what works; it is already working. Canadians are the ones who are delivering. They must be encouraged, and these motions would assist in that encouragement.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5 and the group of amendments before us.

I want to begin by referring to a poll that appeared in the Vancouver Sun today. It makes it clear that more than three-quarters of Canadians support mandatory protection of the habitat of endangered plants and animals as well as of the plants and animals themselves. The story included a photograph of the Vancouver Island marmot which is one of 112 species that are at risk in British Columbia. It is part of 388 species that have been identified as very much at risk.

The poll was very interesting because it reflects significantly the outpouring of concern that has taken place right across the country in urban and rural areas. Canadians understand the importance of having legislation that will have a real impact in saving endangered species. The feedback I have had in my community is that people are not going to be satisfied with a piece of legislation that glosses over the fundamental issues that are at risk in terms of species at risk.

The poll in today's Vancouver Sun very much echoes a town hall meeting which I held in my riding a while ago on this bill. We heard from a number of speakers, including Jamie Woods of Defenders of Wildlife; Jacqueline Pruner, of Western Canada Wilderness Committee; and David Cadman of the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation. I held the meeting because I had had so much feedback from people who expressed their concern about how the government's attempt the second time around, not even the third time around, was still significantly weak. In that meeting it became very clear that people believed if we enacted legislation that allowed political interference in making decisions about what was deemed to be at risk and if it was not based on science then we would have a piece of legislation that was gutless.

The most significant concern from my riding is that unless the bill can adequately lay out protection of the habitat where these various species live then again it will be a gutless piece of legislation. True enough, one of the major criticisms of the bill is that it does not adequately protect habitat.

In terms of the Group No. 4 amendments, the member for Windsor--St. Clair, our environment critic, along with other members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development have worked incredibly hard to counter the intransigence of the government in thwarting the will of the Canadian public in dealing with this legislation. It has gone back and forth. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has done a good job in trying to develop a consensus and come up with amendments to make the bill significantly stronger, to make it reflect what Canadians are telling us they want in terms of protection of habitat and consultation and the involvement of first nations communities.

We have some difficulty with the amendments before us today. This reflects a process of how the Minister of the Environment and the government have sought to weaken the committee's report and have sought to undermine the work that has been done to strengthen the bill. We find it very difficult to accept some of these amendments. Some of them are a modest improvement over what was originally proposed. Nevertheless they undermine and weaken what has been worked at for so long and so hard by the committee.

The NDP position on SARA, the species at risk act, has been consistent from day one. We believe very strongly that the identification and listing of species at risk should be done by an independent committee of scientists wherein scientific evidence and not political interpretation of data is the primary consideration.

On that point it is very interesting because the government has taken the other position. On Thursday, April 25 in question period the Minister of Canadian Heritage responded to a question from the Alliance about the rate of TB in elk herds in Canada's parks. She was being criticized for the fact that TB cases were increasing. The minister in reply to the member said:

Mr. Speaker, the reason we asked scientists to carry on this very important work is precisely because it should not be left in the hands of politicians.

We could not have said it better ourselves. That is exactly the position the NDP put forward. It is ironic that it is now coming from a Liberal cabinet minister. It really contradicts the position that has been put forward by the environment minister. This is despite all the criticism and scientific evidence that it is important there be an independent committee made up of scientists, and its objective and primary consideration be factual work rather than a political interpretation.

The NDP has also made it very clear there should be comprehensive nationwide natural habitat protection, including protection for species that range or migrate over Canada's domestic and international borders. As someone who comes from British Columbia, this is especially important. Many of our wildlife areas are very close to a geopolitical boundary.

Habitat does not know about the boundary; it does not know about the 49th parallel. A very fundamental point is that nationwide natural habitat protection that includes cross-boundary measures should be front and centre in the bill. Unfortunately it is not.

The NDP believes there should be inclusion of stakeholders in the development of species recovery plans. This is something that the committee grappled with. In the back and forth between the committee and the government and the point we are at now, these positions have been significantly undermined. This is regrettable.

In many respects the people who watch the debate see it as a test of how legislation passes through the House. They also see it as how public feedback is incorporated or not incorporated, how the wishes of the people actually become part of the legislation.

I can think of many pieces of legislation that have come through the House. Consistently, significant concerns have been expressed from all over the country in terms of the bill being much too weak.

We in the NDP have concerns about the amendments before us today. We certainly have voiced our opposition to the bill as a whole based on the current status of the amendments. It is unfortunate the government did not listen to the wisdom of the committee and seek to strengthen the bill.

Many people will be watching the debate and the vote. We should take heed of the fact that three-quarters of the Canadian population want to see national habitat protection.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, conservation of the environment is a difficult issue. Some of the issues raised by my hon. colleague across the way demonstrate the difficulties.

I think it is safe to say we are all in favour of conservation as long as the responsibility is on someone else's shoulders. I heard it said here or elsewhere that the definition of an environmentalist is someone who already has a cottage in the forest. We are all strong on environmental issues when we already have a piece of property. However as there is more and more interaction among people living in urban, rural and protected areas we must come up with a solution to address the tension.

One point is clear from the American experience of adopting legislation without a rock solid guarantee of compensation: Inadequate or no compensation would fuel the destruction of the environment. We must place the burden equally on everyone and not just on landowners like farmers, ranchers and cottage owners. We must be prepared to compensate these individuals.

If we believe our environment and endangered species are important we need to compensate landowners. Failing to do so would put the onus on a small segment of our society and encourage it to destroy endangered species. As pointed out in the example of the hon. member, if we forced landowners out, restricted their activities and did not give them compensation some of these individuals would destroy species before we could act to protect them. The issue of compensation is fundamental to preserving our environment.

This is the context in which I address Bill C-5 and the amendments. I will speak in favour of the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague from Skeena. I will also speak to the flaws in the government amendments, many of which would reverse months of painstaking work by the environment committee.

The arrogance and cynicism displayed by the minister is nothing new to us in the opposition but it is beginning to grate on upperbenchers on the Liberal side of the House. The real concern here should not be politics. It should be to make the legislation work.

During report stage debate my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance and other opposition parties proposed a number of amendments to Bill C-5. The grouping of amendments we are addressing stresses the fundamental importance of making public consultations for the act as broadly based as possible. The changes my colleagues and I are proposing are intended to ensure public consultations have a real and substantive impact on the act and on any further action by the government to protect endangered species.

The requirement for a basic level of public consultation lies in the need to make the process as transparent as possible. It also ties in to the issue of compensation for stakeholders. As we have argued, there must be a clear and open process to ensure the compliance and co-operation of stakeholders. However as with the issue of compensation, the government's amendments with respect to public consultation do not come at all close to ensuring we meet the important goals of co-operation and compliance.

Although some government amendments are a move in the right direction, even the positive ones are technical and do not go as far as they should. Many are counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve. They would reverse the work done at committee without giving any justification to parliamentarians or Canadians.

Initially Bill C-5 provided for a parliamentary review of the act after it became law within a period of five years. The committee added a provision to the effect that the bill would be reviewed at five year intervals. Government Motion No. 130 would revoke the committee amendment entirely. This displays a blatant disregard for the decisions and integrity of the committee and its members.

With respect to the legal listing of endangered species, we agree that the final list must be subject to government approval because ultimately the government and cabinet must take responsibility for the decisions. However the listing should be as scientific as possible. It must ensure transparency and accountability. To achieve these goals the committee urged that the government, as soon as possible and to the extent known, must notify all landowners affected by the listing.

However we have before us government Motion No. 126 which would remove the requirement for ministerial reports to be entered into the public registry, reports that include decisions with respect to the listing of species. The government's refusal to provide listings of species to the public absolutely defies common sense. It would reduce transparency in governance and create a far more cumbersome process for ordinary citizens to obtain information regarding endangered species. Failure to provide reasons for including or not including certain species on the list would make it impossible to ensure accountability and the co-operation of the public.

My colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have done a thorough and comprehensive job of trying to counter the senseless tactics of the government. The hon. member for Skeena introduced Motion No. 127 which would ensure that if the minister decided to restrict information relating to a species or habitat he would be required to advise the affected landowner. One would think this would be common sense but there is no such requirement at present. Despite the reasonable arguments of the opposition I have little hope any of our amendments will be accepted.

Not only has the government failed to calculate the long term cost of Bill C-5 to every taxpayer. Not only has it miserably failed to estimate or even consider the burden it may place on landowners and farmers. It has totally ignored the need of members of the public to be informed and consulted on matters their way of life depends on. This serves not only to foster mistrust of the federal government. It ultimately renders the bill less effective because it does not further a spirit of co-operation.

This is a heavy-handed, top down, government knows best approach. Co-operation with landowners and resource users is critical to the success of Bill C-5. I cannot stress that enough. Unilaterally imposing federal laws on the provinces and imposing harsh penalties and strict liabilities on property owners and farmers does not demonstrate good faith on the part of the federal government. It destroys co-operative federalism.

This legislation demonstrates that the federal government is not interested in making federalism work. The governments wants to see decisions made unilaterally from downtown Ottawa. It wants to tell people in the various regions of the country what is best for them. That is the wrong approach. It is the approach reflected in Bill C-5.

Without the amendments we have proposed Bill C-5 would have disastrous results for the government, landowners, resource owners and, most importantly, the endangered species we mean to protect.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to speak today in the debate on the amendments to Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation, is indeed a privilege. It is a very important piece of legislation and if passed would have many repercussions for the property rights of our landowners and indeed for the species that it would try to protect.

As I have said before, we all want to protect endangered species. Unfortunately this piece of legislation would have a devastating effect on the landowners, the economy and the animals it would actually be trying to protect. Bill C-5 would have the greatest impact on those who live in rural Canada who already have a difficult time. Some are Canadian farmers or loggers who would bear the brunt of the financial responsibility for protecting our endangered species, an unfair burden on industries already neglected by the government. Urban, SUV-driving environmentalists must realize that their Starbucks and their mini malls are built on what once was natural habitat. We need legislation that will be effective on the ground. A confrontational approach to landowners in protecting at risk animals only will lead to a more rapid decline of those animals. If landowners do not buy into the process, the process and the bill will surely fail.

The Group No. 4 amendments of which we are speaking today highlight the arrogance the government has shown toward parliament and all Canadians. They show the arrogance of a government that does not listen and that goes ahead without understanding the repercussions of a piece of legislation. They show contempt for the hard work the standing committee has done, including that done by its own MPs and Liberal backbenchers.

I will deal specifically with Motions No. 6, 16, 17 and 30, which deal with aspects of the national aboriginal committee. The idea of the aboriginal committee is reasonable. In many places, especially in the north, clearly natives have a close knowledge of the land. Consultation with the aboriginal communities, as well as with the stakeholders such as property owners and resource users, will be necessary if we are to protect endangered species. For the government to change the name from council to committee reverses the standing committee's work with absolutely no justification. The government seems to have ignored the necessity for landowners to be partners in the process of protecting endangered species.

Motion No. 25 eliminates any recognition that a tax system might be used to provide incentives for property owners as well as any recognition that property owners face disincentives in protecting endangered species. This fails to recognize the financial burden that this bill potentially places on landowners. Simply removing disincentives would be far more effective in protecting endangered species than punitive measures alone.

My main concern with Bill C-5 is the lack of respect for property rights. What is needed in the legislation is fair compensation for landowners for the costs of achieving biodiversity. The majority of Canadians believes that owners of private property should be free to use it as they see fit. It is only fair and reasonable for a government to compensate landowners financially if they are restricted from using their land if it is the home of an endangered species. Expropriation of farms and forest lands cannot go uncompensated.

Protection of endangered species is big business. From the resource industry side, legislation that does not fairly compensate landowners for loss of their land will have a devastating effect on the Canadian economy. Farmers and loggers cannot afford to face another burden on their bottom line. No fair compensation will cast a chilling effect on the investment in resource based industries. Over 200,000 Canadians are directly employed in the logging, forestry, mining and oil well industries, and the mishandling of the softwood lumber dispute has already sent many to the unemployment lines.

Protecting the environment does not exclude commercial activities. Farmers, logging companies and oil companies have active voluntary participants to ensure a sustainable environment. The reality is the companies that are economically strong will be able to contribute more resources to protecting endangered species.

Without a legislated commitment for fair compensation, a chilling effect on investment and resource based industries will occur. I am sure the logging, forestry, mining and oil companies that directly employ the 200,000 Canadians will not have environmental stewardship as a top priority in an economic downturn.

Farmers and loggers cannot afford to face any further hits to their bottom line. They have already been casualties of this government's gross mishandling of the softwood lumber agreement and unwillingness to fight foreign agricultural subsidies. Government, industry and environmental organizations must work together to protect endangered species.

I would like to speak to Motion No. 127 put forward by my hon. colleague from Skeena dealing with the release of information and if it is in the best interests of the species. I support the amendment which changes the wording to public release of information. As has been pointed out, under certain circumstances it is understandable that landowners might not want the general public informed of the presence of endangered species on their property. The possible damage from trespassers or harassment would not be good for the landowner or the at risk species.

However, given the harsh criminal sanctions contained in the act, it is completely unacceptable for the minister to have information about the presence of a listed species and not share it with landowners. It is only fair that they be informed because they will be guilty of a criminal offence even if they unknowingly harm the species or its habitat.

I am also concerned with the removal of the clause requiring the review of the act every five years. If the government feels so strongly that the legislation is good today, for what reasons does it not think it will not pass a review in 10 or 15 years? Mandatory review of any legislation to determine if it is working is only good government.

The Canadian Alliance and the majority of Canadians are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species. We all agree that those who wilfully endanger habitat should be punished. The reality is that those people are few and far between. Most property owners and resource users are responsible citizens who wish to protect species at risk.

I cannot support a bill that puts the responsibility of protecting endangered species solely on the shoulders of landowners. The act will not work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation for those who suffer loss. Farmers, ranchers and other property owners want to protect endangered species, but should not be forced to do so at the expense of their livelihoods. If endangered species become a liability, farmers and other landowners who are already facing economic crunches will be tempted to eliminate the liability.

Overall I believe that the government has once again shown its contempt for parliament by its flagrant rejection of the recommendations of the standing committee and the unnecessary confrontational approach to dealing with landowners.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak in this debate. I was glad the previous speaker mentioned that the stewardship action plans are good because that is what I will primarily address.

One of the previous speakers from the Alliance said that we all agree with the aim of the bill, which is to protect species at risk, and I think everyone in the House does agree with that. After 7 to 10 years of working with various groups across the country to come up with this solution, I think it is high time to get it into place soon. It was a bit disconcerting when the previous speaker appeared to be speaking against it and it is disconcerting that his party might actually vote against this bill that would help start the process of protecting species at risk. There are compensation provisions in the bill, in case people are worried about that, and there are provisions for the protection of habitat.

It was also interesting that the previous speaker talked about the fact that species do not respect boundaries in the sense there is an important role for the federal government to play in things that are national. Many other members of his party are constantly pushing for more provincial autonomy, more provincial control and more of a role for the provinces, which we have actually allowed in the bill. We have allowed them the first chance to protect species right across this country. Once again, it seems a bit incongruous.

It also appeared a bit incongruous that he talked about us giving up some parliamentary control and responsibility in one of the amendments to the bill after he spent last week seemingly wanting more parliamentary control and more parliamentary input into issues. He has now given a speech in which he wants to abrogate that.

What was most disappointing to me were his comments against an aboriginal committee, one that would put its wise and traditional knowledge into the process. If it is valuable it will help make better provisions, but of course it would be advice and people would look at it. I do not think anyone could claim that aboriginal peoples do not have things to add, based on their history, their culture and knowledge from having lived for centuries in the area where these species live. I do not think anyone would claim that they could not add some information that would be helpful in the debate. To bring up one incident of aboriginal people inappropriately killing a bear is, first, not related to the bill at all and, second, we do have a tremendous problem with people poaching bears in Canada. I do not imagine that most of the people prosecuted for that are aboriginal people. Bears are constantly killed and just their paws or their gallbladders are taken. This is a serious problem in our country and is of course dealt with in other bills. I think that would be much more appropriate for comment.

We have talked about stewardship a great deal in this debate. We have heard that the government considers this a key part of the overall strategy to protect species at risk. I want to take a minute to talk about what this really means.

We can legislate and we can debate. We can consult and we can research. We can listen to the constant letters and articles in the media and we can look at laws in other countries. This is what we have done for a very long time, for nearly a decade in fact, yet during this time species in Canada have not been abandoned. Who has carried on while we have talked, debated, researched and postured? The people of Canada. They have put in hedgerows between fields so that the birds have nesting spots. They have helped protect nests of turtles and built special crossings under highways. They have left fields to lie quiet during nesting and they have proudly displayed their actions on the ranch fence, on the farm gatepost, on the fishing boat and on the logger's truck.

In Yukon we have a site on the Yukon River near Marsh Lake. It is called Swan Haven. Every year, just before this time of year normally, the ice opens up and the swans stop there on their migration north. Yukoners come to the site to appreciate them and they appreciate that the swans have to be protected in their environment; they stay a good distance back. Through school trips, the children learn about the life cycles of these swans.

We owe all Canadians great thanks for protecting species at risk through all these years while we have been working to get legislation in place, so we cannot turn around now and say that their co-operative efforts, their partnerships and their hard work mean nothing. No, we have to make sure that everything that has been done is recognized and that we have measures in place to do even more to assist them.

The habitat stewardship program has been on the ground for two years out of the five set aside, with $45 million to assist in stewardship activities. It has helped foster partnerships among first nations, landowners, resource users, nature trusts, provinces, territories, the natural resource sector, community based wildlife societies, educational institutions and conservation organizations. Through the ecogifts program we are providing a more favourable tax treatment for the contribution of ecologically sensitive lands. Over 20,000 hectares have already been donated as ecological gifts.

I am speaking today in favour of the government motions on the development of the stewardship action plans in Bill C-5 itself. The principle of the proposal to develop a stewardship action plan introduced to Bill C-5 by the standing committee is well accepted by the government. Work is already underway on the development of a Canada-wide stewardship action plan.

I also speak in favour of government motions to remove the arbitrary timelines for completion of action plans. Legislated deadlines could unnecessarily limit the number of action plans and their scope, as well as consultation in their development. Action plans must be completed in a timely manner. At the same time, action plans must be developed with the participation of landowners, resource users, aboriginal peoples and others who may be impacted. Action plans must also satisfy a range of requirements if they are to be effective. The time to fulfil these requirements will vary just as the threats faced by the species vary. The decision for timelines is best left to scientists and practitioners. To this end, the bill requires recovery strategies to include a statement of when action plans will be completed.

Now let me turn my attention to the original stewards of the land, those who have led the way for us, Canada's aboriginal peoples. They are the people of the land, with vast and rich stores of history and knowledge. They have been at the table for many discussions on the legislation. Their advice and input cannot be stressed too much. We simply could not have done this without them. We do not want that input and process to end, so we are entrenching the role and importance of traditional aboriginal knowledge.

We all share in the responsibility for protecting wildlife. Canada's aboriginal peoples have shown us how and why. We are proposing to recognize that contribution through the national aboriginal committee on species at risk. The committee is consistent with the Government of Canada's commitment to strengthen its relationship with aboriginal peoples. One reason among many that I want to have as much input as possible for aboriginal peoples is that one-quarter of my riding is made up of aboriginal people of the great first nations, the Tlingit, the Northern and Southern Tutchone, the Han, the Gwich'in and the Kaska.

Of course recently we had the experience of a great problem with a species, the Porcupine caribou herd, and its migration to the ANWAR coast. We are delighted that over the years the efforts of Canada, the Canadian embassy in Washington, our Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Environment and Foreign Affairs to protect this herd have led to success so far. With that great vote in the United States senate last week, which was 56 to 44 against drilling in ANWAR, once again a species that is important for rural people in various parts of Canada will be protected. Hopefully we can go on protecting these species.

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

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

The species at risk act has been much anticipated by parliament. The last time it was introduced it died on the order paper because it was an atrocious bill and utterly unworkable. The government which drafted it knew it was unworkable and yet still introduced it. Thankfully, it died.

This bill, in many cases, is no different. For reasons unfathomable to people on both sides of the House, the government has introduced a bill to protect endangered species that it knows full well is unworkable. It is a bill rife with problems. It is a bill that will be destroyed in the courts. Furthermore, it is a bill that will not protect endangered species.

What a sad thing for the House to see members from across party lines working hard to craft a bill that will work for the protection of the most vulnerable species in our country and find that the government, out of contempt for the committee and for the MPs, introduces motions that simply override and destroy the good work that committee members attempted to do.

Why did the government choose to do that? I will give some examples as we go through some of the amendments in Group No. 4.

Before I do that, let us talk a bit about the problem. The most important thing we can do to protect endangered species is to protect their habitat. Critical habitat loss is a primary driver in the extinction of endangered or threatened species, regardless of where we are in the entire world. That, above all else, is the major reason that species are disappearing from the face of this planet, and our country is no different. This bill was an attempt to correct that. Yet the bill only protects a small fraction of land within Canada, a small fraction of that critical habitat that is essential to protect endangered species.

Furthermore, the bill does not reflect the fact that species of animals do not respect borders. They do not know when they come to the border between Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They do not know when they come to the border between Manitoba and Ontario. Species move and as a result we have a situation where there is little or no control in the protection of the critical habitat.

Species are disappearing at an ever increasing rate. All we need to do is look at the increasing numbers of species that are being added to the threatened, endangered and extinct lists each year, not only within our own country but around the world.

We have proposed that a few fundamental things need to happen. First, the determination of what species have become extinct or are endangered has to be done on scientific grounds. COSEWIC, a group of scientists who are objective and apolitical, is the best group to do that and there is bipartisan support for that notion.

Second, we absolutely must have a compensation mechanism when we appropriate land that is critical for habitat. The best thing would be to work with landowners and the provinces to accomplish that goal. If we did that we would find that in the vast majority of cases private landowners and the provinces would be apt to work with the feds to save the habitat.

Innovative things could be done along those lines. We could have financial compensation or even tax breaks. Tax breaks would work well for the landowners if only for the critical habitat and the loss therein.

We must also identify those potentially endangered species. COSEWIC can do that, as well as identify the critical habitat that I mentioned before. We do not see that in the legislation and we feel that is a serious problem.

One of the amendments in Group No. 4 calls for having a national aboriginal committee. This basically means having different laws for different people based on race. We have always argued that we need colour blind laws in this country. I will give an example.

Where I work as a physician in northern British Columbia some of my colleagues like to fish. In one of the areas there is a beautiful river where a large, beautiful female grizzly bear frequently brought her two cubs. It was her favourite fishing hole. Many people also fish there. One day a couple of aboriginal men came out of the bush and saw the bear and her two cubs. Although they knew she and her cubs had visited that river over a long period of time, they killed them. When the horrified fishermen who were there saw this, they asked them why they had killed the bears. The aboriginal men laughed and said that it was because they could and then they walked away. They did not use the meat nor the hides. They merely shot the female and her two cubs dead because they could.

I told that story not to impugn aboriginal people because many aboriginal people follow the laws and are superb stewards of the land. All I am saying is that the law should be applied to all people regardless of their race. One of the things these two aboriginal men said to the fishermen was that they shot the bears because they could get away with it and that nobody would prosecute them.

When the fishermen brought this killing to the attention of the fish and wildlife people in the area they were told that the aboriginals could not be touched because they were aboriginals.

I think that case would horrify law-abiding aboriginal people as it would horrify law-abiding non-aboriginal people. Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people would like to see laws that protect endangered species, regardless of their circumstances, and to ensure that everybody follows the law. The bill does not do that.

We encourage the government to implement laws that are colour blind, racially blind and laws that uphold the principles of the law for the benefit of endangered species.

One good thing in the bill is the notion of a stewardship of action plans, and that means working with people, not above them. Unfortunately the government has a habit of pushing things through without proper consultation and without acting in the best interests of what it has heard.

One example of that is in the public consultation amendments in Group 4. Government members and opposition members met and decided that a five year mandatory review would be reasonable to have in the bill. The bill would then be workable because the act could be reassessed to ensure that it was working in the best interests of endangered species and the public. That was a good motion.

However, the government's motion, Motion No. 130, removes that amendment, that viable and effective suggestion on the part of members from all sides.

Why would the Prime Minister's office, or the minister in that case, choose to put a motion that runs roughshod over the hearings and the deliberations of members from all parties? It shows an utter contempt for the work of the individuals on the committee and of the witnesses they heard. I strongly encourage the government to review the situation and listen to what committee members from all parties have said in terms of the amendment.

I only have a few moments and I want to draw attention to a couple of other issues that ought to be in the bill. In the end the bill must be a workable bill and one that is largely immune from challenges within the courts. It must be a bill for which we can all be proud. It must be workable and it must protect endangered species.

Unfortunately time is not on our side. As time moves inextricably forward we know that more and more critical habitat will be destroyed and it will never come back again. As a result, more and more endangered and threatened species will become extinct. That march has not changed for many years. Not only does it continue but it continues with increasing rapidity.

It is up to the members of the House to listen to the best solutions that we have heard from members and from the public, earnest and effective solutions that have been put forth by many different groups that know these issues far better than any of us.

The committee has done good work in crafting a bill that can work. The government has intervened and run roughshod over those good solutions. While we still have a little time on the bill I encourage the government to sit down with members of the committee and implement the solutions that they have.

I first ask the government, for heaven's sake, not to run roughshod over the solutions that they have put forward, and second, if they have better ones, I ask the government to work with them to craft a bill that will work for the benefit of all of us, because in the end endangered species are a legacy not only for ourselves but for our children.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to the bill today and to the Group No. 4 amendments. This is the first time I have spoken to the species at risk act.

All of us support the overall goals of the act: to protect species that are genuinely at risk; to use scientific evidence and data to identify such creatures whether they be two, four, six or eight legged; and to make sure the ones truly at risk are protected. In some ways doing this is not rocket science. First, we must identify the species. Second, we must see what steps can be taken to mitigate whatever is putting the species at risk. Third, we must make sure there is enough land base and a proper stewardship plan to make looking after the creatures viable and sustainable in the long term.

It is no good to take a species at risk such as a marmot and save it by putting it in a zoo somewhere. That is not a long term, viable and sustainable project. We must protect not only the creature but the environment in which it lives. We must make sure that in the long run these creatures are viable in the wild and not behind glass somewhere in a zoo.

While we in the Canadian Alliance are committed to protecting and preserving our natural environment and endangered species, we have consistently said there are problems with the act. We have heard in committee and across the country that Bill C-5 would not do the job it sets out to do. With respect to the Group No. 4 amendments, we are concerned about some of the things that have been proposed by the government in the creation of the stewardship action plans.

It is interesting that the extensive work done in committee would be undone by the government's own amendments. The amendments would undo the work of the committee and backbench MPs who spent an enormous amount of time listening to, consulting and talking to stakeholders and experts across the country before putting forward proposals only to find the government wants to undo them.

For example, the standing committee had proposed that the stewardship action plans include a commitment to regularly examine tax treatments and subsidies and eliminate disincentives that would put species at risk. The government wants to delete that language but the standing committee put it in for good reason. It demonstrates that compensation would not just be a cash payment but could involve other things like tax treatments. It would also see if there were cash disincentives that kept landowners and others from properly protecting species identified as at risk in their locales. The government wants to delete this portion, make it less specific and take out the work the standing committee put in place. That is wrong. The government should revert to the original language.

The government wants to delete the standing committee's requirement that the stewardship action plans provide technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities. Instead the government wants to send out pamphlets to Canadians saying it is important for scientific reasons that certain species be protected. If people asked for scientific and technical support to make it possible to protect species on their land be they burrowing owls, marmots, salamanders or frogs, the government would tell them to get on the Internet and figure it out themselves.

If we are to obligate landowners and others to help with the stewardship of resources or species at risk, and even if they want to help, we had best give them the resources and technical and scientific data to make it possible. There is no sense in telling landowners there is an animal on their property we would like them to protect but that it is up to them to figure out how. The best of intentions will not save a species unless landowners have the help to make it possible.

It is interesting that a growing number of people who want a strong species at risk legislation are saying that the types of amendments in Group No. 4 and others are either making the bill ineffective or are just not doing the job of protecting the rights of landowners. Landowners want to do the right thing but they are finding it impossible to accomplish that goal.

This is where the phrase shoot and shovel came up. People are so frustrated with the idea of having an endangered species on their property that they feel that maybe they should just shoot it, get a shovel and bury it because dealing with the government on this is impossible. It is so difficult that even if they have the best intentions of looking after a species at risk in their area, they cannot get the help, the compensation, the resources or the moral support from the government to make it possible. They are increasingly left to rely on the government to some day bring in legislation to help landowners make it possible; that is, if it happens to be the right minister at the right time with the right budgetary surplus. That is not the way to draft legislation.

I have noticed that while the Canadian Real Estate Association supports the species at risk legislation, it is absolutely worried about the future of real estate values and its clientele who are trying to either buy, sell or maintain their properties. The Canadian Real Estate Association says that it supports the purpose of the bill but that when landowners are deprived of the use of their property while protecting an endangered species, then before the bill is passed it should state for sure what kind of compensation landowners can expect.

As an example, I live up on a hillside in an area just outside Chilliwack. Some new development is going on in the area and there is a concern about a particular species of west coast salamander which is somewhat rare and may exist in the creeks of this hillside area. I say may because no one has actually ever caught one of the little suckers. It is there in theory because it is painted onto the map as the area where the west coast salamander may live. However, people who happen to have a creek running through their property are left with the conundrum of dealing with the reality that there may be a salamander somewhere, although no one can find it, but if they are there huge restrictions have been put on what can be done on that property. The landowners say that whatever they can do to protect it they will do it but that they need the scientific data and they must be shown where its habitat is. They actually have to find one so that they know they have something to protect. They want parameters to work within.

As this hillside receives lots of rain, some landowners who own 10 acre parcels will have two or three creeks coming together somewhere on their property. When the federal government says that it wants a 100 foot setback on either side of the creek, times three creeks going through the property, plus no roads, landowners will be lucky to have an area the size of a city lot to work with let alone their 10 acres. The whole thing is protected with no compensation to the landowners who are trying to do their best but who are frustrated with the legislation and with the sorts of ambiguities in Group No. 4 that make it impossible to do the job.

The problem with the amendments and the bill in general is that while we all want to protect species at risk, we want to do it based on supportable scientific data and, when possible, based on compensation for landowners who are involved in this protection process. The bill does not do it and the amendments do not do it which is why they are not to be supported.

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

Madam Speaker, I regret to report to the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.

Accordingly, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose, at the next sitting of the House, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages of that bill.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue debate on third reading of Bill C-50, the WTO legislation. When that is concluded we will take up report stage and third reading of Bill C-47 dealing with excise.

On Monday and Tuesday of next week we expect to return to Bill C-5 which deals with species at risk. I would then hope that on Wednesday we could commence debate on the new public safety legislation which I expect to be introduced on Monday.

In response to the Leader of the Opposition on the matter of private members' business, I commend the hon. member for Peterborough who is the chair of the committee on procedure and House affairs. He has taken the initiative to organize under the auspices of the committee a roundtable discussion among members about better alternatives for dealing with private members' business.

As all House leaders know, finding the right way to manage private members' business, particularly the question of votability, is a topic that has bedeviled not just this parliament but previous parliaments. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested everything be votable. That is the rule that applies to government business. If we could come to a consensus about the time that applies to private members' business perhaps we could apply some of the same rules we apply to government business.

As I said during question period, we need creative thinking on the issue. We need a solid co-operative approach. I am perfectly happy to set aside the rhetoric and find ways that will work for all members of parliament.

Privilege

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

There is no respect for western Canadians or their ideas. That is why frustration builds and these things happen.

In the last parliament a number of MPs criticized the Speaker and their criticism was reported in the media. The issue was with regard to the small Canadian flags the Speaker ordered off the desks of the members. As members may recall, the hon. member for Elk Island led the charge. He insisted he be allowed to keep his flag on his desk after the Speaker ruled the flag to be a prop. The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The members accused of contempt apologized, the committee accepted their apologies and no punishment was doled out.

The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has already apologized for his conduct but for some reason the government is refusing to call off the dogs. It is pursuing the matter in an unprecedented way. It is difficult to find cases where a member has been punished unless we consider the Louis Riel case. Riel was expelled from the House twice because the House believed him to be an outlaw and a felon. I do not think the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca is an outlaw.

How about the Fred Rose case of 1946? He was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison for conspiring to commit various offences under the Official Secrets Act. Since he was in jail and could not participate in the proceedings of the House, the House vacated his seat. The crime of the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca hardly stacks to those of Mr. Rose.

However the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca does serve time. In the summer and other times he volunteers in hospitals and helps the poor and underprivileged for no pay. This gives us an understanding of how out of character what he did last week was. He only did so because of the frustration he has experienced in the House at the actions of the government across the way.

I will sum up. Punishment is not necessary when ministers mislead parliament, when they leak the contents of bills before they are tabled in the House, or even when a member attempts to get the military to defect. These acts are not worthy of punishment by the Liberal government. Yet it thinks grabbing the Mace deserves a penalty. I will let the public judge the government and its House leader on that one.

Let us visit other behaviours the government considers acceptable in comparison to what the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca did. No one on that side of the House, except maybe the Prime Minister, felt insulted when the chief government whip attacked our democratic traditions by forcing her members and threatening opposition members on the finance committee to vote for a chairman no one wanted.

What about how the Minister of the Environment respected the work of the environment committee on Bill C-5? The bill was changed all around. The committee worked together, got it done and it came back to the House a totally different bill.

Do members remember when we raised the issue of Mr. Gagliano having told the House he did not interfere with the operation of crown corporations when he in fact interfered with the awarding of contracts at Canada Lands when he was minister? Members on that side of the House could care less about that. Ethical behaviour by ministers means absolutely nothing to them.

It is a tradition of the House that members give truthful information to parliament. Does the government care about that? Obviously it does not. In case members do not believe me, I direct the House to a report of the procedure and house affairs committee dealing with the misleading statements of the Minister of National Defence.

As members will recall, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre when she was minister announced that crosses were burning on the lawns of Prince George. Did we entertain a motion like the one we are entertaining today? Does anyone think the people of Prince George are more insulted by what the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca did with the Mace than what the member for Vancouver Centre did in the House? I doubt it very much.

What about when the hon. member for Thornhill accused the hon. member for New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby of treason? That might be considered a disrespectful comment levelled at a member of parliament. The same member called members of my party things I could not even mention in the House because they are so out of line they are unparliamentary.

Did the government House leader draft a motion of contempt to condemn the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest who told a veteran he would not receive any help because he did not vote Liberal? We never saw a motion on that one, yet it was one of the largest affronts to parliament I have ever seen. There was never a motion on the issue. We accepted his apology and let it alone.

Should we have called government members before the bar to explain why they tried to suppress the auditor general's report before the last election, why they threatened the information commissioner's staff, or why they threatened the fire chief and Deputy Chief of Defence Staff? If we did I missed it.

Do members think that the soldiers in Afghanistan care more about the mace or do they care more about having the proper uniforms and safer helicopters?

Do members think the unemployed softwood lumber workers worry about this issue or do they want to resolve a trade dispute?

My party has a motion on the order paper for tomorrow that calls on the government to introduce legislation to protect children from sexual predators. We should be discussing how to protect our children and punish predators, not considering a motion to punish one of our members who in a moment of anger hoisted the Mace above his head.

The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca was wrong. He apologized. The issue should be closed.

I suggest that the government's preoccupation with the symbolism of the Mace should best be referred to the followers of Freud. Perhaps they can offer a better explanation as to why the government members are so excited over there today.

I would like to move an amendment to this motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after “That” with the following:

“the actions of the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca are found to be in disregard of the authority of the Chair and a contempt of the House and in keeping with tradition, and since the member has made a proper apology, no further action is necessary.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise with respect to the issue.

I remind members in the House that in the fall all opposition parties agreed to pass Bill C-15A as quickly as possible if the justice minister would agree to split the omnibus Bill C-15 into two parts. That did occur. Bill C-15 became Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B so we could move ahead as quickly as possible on Bill C-15A as a whole. However in view not only of the comments raised today but of other issues, events have overtaken the legislation. In particular, the decision of the British Columbia supreme court in the Sharpe case has raised new and troubling concerns hon. members will need to address.

Bill C-15A would create the offence of luring a child by means of a computer system. Under this offence a child would be defined by the ages already set out in the criminal code. Accordingly, it would be a crime with a maximum punishment of five years to use the Internet to lure a person under the age of 18 for purposes of prostitution, child pornography, sexual assault, incest or, where the accused is in a position of trust, sexual touching. It would prohibit the use of the Internet for luring persons under the age of 16 for abduction from his or her parents and for luring persons under the age of 14 for sexual interference.

Under Bill C-15A transmitting, making available or exporting child pornography through a computer system would be an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years. The bill would prohibit persons from intentionally accessing child pornography on the Internet. The maximum penalty would be five years and the material could be liable to forfeiture.

A motion has been brought forward to ask that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House disagrees with the amendment. I too have concerns about the clause. Generally speaking we support the intent of the Senate to protect innocent third parties from prosecution without an appropriate level of mens rea. I will not get into the legal discussion because the parliamentary secretary has gone into it in some detail. I agree with many of the parliamentary secretary's comments in that respect.

I will address the concern of mens rea. The government's concern that the protection is too broad and may exempt some offenders is valid. There should be an amendment to require criminal intent or state that there must be a clear expression of criminal intent. I noted with interest the government's position with respect to mens rea. It indicated there is some clarity but has not proceeded in the same fashion with respect to Bill C-5, which has been the subject of substantive and fruitful debate with respect to a number of issues.

Lately it has been more about the protection of property rights. The government should not have the ability to take away people's property without fair and reasonable compensation being determined by the courts or some other objective tribunal. Compensation should never be left solely in the hands of the government. Property is far too important an instrument in our society to be left at the free disposal of government.

Not only did we in my party have concerns with respect to property rights in Bill C-5. We were concerned the bill would not accept one of the most important legal principles in a just and democratic society: that where one is charged with a criminal offence there be an appropriate level of mens rea. We must examine this statute closely to ensure it is there. We do not want to see innocent third parties, whether Internet providers, couriers, truck drivers or anyone, prosecuted for a criminal offence where there is no appropriate level of mens rea.

While the Senate amendment was a valid concern, the response the Senate has provided to the House is not satisfactory in ensuring that while innocent people would be safe from prosecution the guilty would be appropriately convicted where an appropriate level of mens rea was demonstrated in the context of the prosecution.

The second issue I will deal with is much more troubling. The amendment would replace subsections 163.1(6) and (7) of the act with:

(6) Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3), (4), or (4.1), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

I emphasize the words artistic merit.

The amendment would apply existing defences for child pornography to child pornography on the Internet to ensure consistency. This must be carefully considered in light of the March 26, 2002 B.C. supreme court decision on the child pornography case involving Mr. Sharpe. It was ruled that he could not be convicted for his violent writings because they had artistic merit despite being sadomasochistic in nature and glorifying these types of acts by adults in relation to children.

Members on this side of the House and we in the Canadian Alliance believe the decision does not properly reflect society's interest in protecting children from sexual predators. In protecting Mr. Sharpe's violent writings which target vulnerable children the court's interpretation of artistic merit has been too broad.

We urge the British Columbia attorney general to review the case carefully. He has the power to do so. In British Columbia if the attorney general instructs an appeal he must set it out in writing. Whatever the mechanism, whether he personally instructs the appeal or whether it is done by crown prosecutors acting on his behalf, I urge the B.C attorney general to appeal the Sharpe case.

There are a number of other concerns. I will take time to examine a proposal and give credit to the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge. Yes, he is on the other side of the House but I commend him for taking a proactive role in bringing together members of the House with members of the police and other communities to deal with the troubling decision of the B.C. supreme court.

On Tuesday, April 16 almost 30 members of parliament met with police officials, psychiatrists and others related to this important issue who work with the police in prosecuting these matters. We had a profitable discussion. The hon. member for Calgary Southeast was there and contributed in a positive way to the discussion. We saw things that absolutely horrified members of parliament. We heard the anxiety of police and other professionals regarding the problematic issue of child pornography.

The police showed us pictures. They were run of the mill pictures in the context of this horrible activity which showed physical and sexual assaults on children. I am not a good estimator of age but they were very young children. The police told us children as young as six months or younger are subjected to this kind of abuse in Canada and pictures and other materials depicting the abuse are circulated on the Internet or through written documentation.

I can only imagine what it must be like to be a police officer on the front lines trying to protect our society against this filth. They have to examine it on a daily basis to present cases to court and achieve convictions. It is a difficult situation. In one case police seized 400,000 pictures. Can we even imagine 400,000 pictures? The police must go through each and every picture and categorize it to present a brief to defence counsel for the purposes of the defence. One case in Toronto has virtually overwhelmed the unit in charge of these investigations.

The police need our assistance. The children of Canada need our assistance. I examined the provisions of the criminal code this morning. I looked at the defences available with respect to advocating genocide and hate literature. I did not see anything in the criminal code that said people were allowed to advocate the killing of another human being and have an exception of artistic merit.

Can members imagine me standing and arguing in the House that butchers who advocate hate and the murder of human beings should have the defence of artistic merit? It is inconceivable. Yet for some reason parliament has said this when talking about the sexual and violent abuse of children as young as six months and even younger.

There were some horrifying things that were taught to us that evening, sexual assault on children where the umbilical cord was still present. I cannot even imagine it.

When I was a prosecutor I prosecuted pornography cases. I was involved on behalf of the government of Manitoba in the Butler case. This involved so-called adult pornography. I was horrified by some of things I saw. The deterioration of the ability of our law not only to protect adult human beings but now children is very troubling.

In the Butler case the supreme court clearly said that the combination of harm and sexual exploitation was not acceptable. It is sufficient for parliament to prohibit that. We have clear direction from the supreme court in the Butler case that says the combination of those two, the exploitation of sex in conjunction with violence, is wrong and parliament has the legal and moral right to pass laws that prohibit that in respect of adults.

What do we say about children? We say that, yes, we can abuse or depict pictures of children as young as six months old being violently abused. Yet we are worried about the defence of artistic merit. How can there possibly be, in a free, just and democratic society, an ability to ever tolerate that kind of abuse of children? How can the weighing of the interests of freedom of expression against that kind of harm ever come out to that conclusion? Then that kind of material must be banned.

I was troubled by a number of supreme court decisions. I took a position on behalf of the government of Manitoba against it, to see the expansion of freedom of expression to include things beyond our traditional British and Canadian understanding of free expression as relating to the exchange of political ideas and other types of ideas. That was certainly the understanding that most had when we enacted the charter.

I appeared before the supreme court on behalf of the government of Manitoba in the reference to subsection 193.1(1)(c) of the criminal code relating to the communication of prostitution or prostitution-related messages. The Supreme Court of Canada said the communication for sexual purposes on a public street corner was protected by free speech.

It upheld the legislation itself, the prohibition against that, on the basis of subsection 1. As a result the prohibition stood in that case. In the Butler case, it said that pornographic materials fell within subsection 2(b) of the charter of freedom of expression. As a result it upheld the prohibition on the basis of subsection 1. Given the result we wanted, we won the case.

If we look at the reasoning of that decision, there is the genesis of the result we see in the Sharpe decision, the breaking down of the abhorrence of this kind of activity.

The issue that is before us today is much more significant than it would have been even a month ago. When the first Sharpe decision came out members on this side said to use the notwithstanding clause. They said to get rid of that decision because it was wrong, it was perverse. We wanted the government to appeal the decision using the notwithstanding clause right away to stem the tide of this filth.

What was said by ministers on the other side, but not all members on the other side I might add, was that they had faith in the British Columbia court of appeal to do the right thing. The British Columbia court of appeal did not do the right thing. It absolutely did the wrong thing.

As politicians we should not be afraid to say that a court has made a mistake. The courts enter the political arena and make decisions on political bases, no less than members of the House do. The only difference is that if I were to stand in the House and say that freedom of expression should include the sexual exploitation of children, I would be expelled from this House, and rightly so.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we do not have the same kind of control over the judiciary because it is independent. Independence does not mean that it cannot be held accountable. Ultimately it is this House that must hold it accountable if it comes out with perverse decisions.

That is the purpose of the notwithstanding clause, to correct the serious mistakes that have been made that damage the fabric of our nation and destroy the broader societal values that hold our country together. The kind of decisions that were made by Justice Duncan Shaw tears apart the moral fabric of our nation.

We not only have the right but the obligation to move in that direction. When the British Columbia court of appeal failed to do the right thing this House should have done the right thing by passing the notwithstanding clause and appealing that court's decision in the Supreme Court of Canada. The notwithstanding clause is a five year term. It is a temporary override but we should have used it and we should not apologize for it.

Our political agenda is different than the political agenda of the courts. The political agenda of the courts is primarily to defend the individual rights of Canadians. Our responsibility is to look at that decision, weigh it and to say that through the use of the notwithstanding clause the individual rights of a child pornographer to glorify the violent sexual exploitation of children should be subject to the wishes of the people of Canada in preventing that type of activity from occurring.

I want to get back to what the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge said. He prepared an important paper for our discussion on child protection issues and options. He just presented this paper to me and I have had occasion to read some it. The ideas are good ones. They come as a result of the committee meeting that he chaired. True to his word he said he would work quickly on this issue to get something before us so we could consider this at our next meeting.

It is important for us to consider this at our next meeting. The member deserves to be commended. However it is not just the meeting of that group of 30 MPs who need to consider the recommendations that flow out of the discussions that all of us had on Tuesday, April 16.

There are numerous decisions and recommendations made in this paper. In view of the Senate motion, the Sharpe decision, and the work that has been done on this paper we need to think very clearly about what we should be doing as a House.

There are all kinds of amendments. One of the amendments that must be made which is not set out specifically in the member's paper, but which was raised by the police and other members at that meeting, is the keeping of information by Internet providers. It was stressed at the meeting of April 16 that police, in investigating these serious crimes, were met with the challenge that there was no obligation on the part of Internet providers to store information.

One might think that is a huge challenge but it is not. Other countries have laws where they require the retention and storage of this information for six months, a year or otherwise. It can be done. It is done in other countries and it can be done here. We must bear that in mind.

The recommendations, the issues identified and the options set out in this paper must not be considered by only members on this side of the House, backbench members or frontbench members across the way. The Minister of Justice must read this document. This is good work. It is the expression of the careful thought of the people present at that meeting and the expression of the hard work of the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, and it should not be discarded.

Parliamentarians and ministers stand up, throw their hands up and say what will we do about this? There is a good start here. It is not just because it corresponds with my thoughts on many of the issues. Perhaps it was a happy coincidence but this comes from years of reflection by the member on this issue and by other members on this issue.

There are issues and I want to deal with some of them because they are important. I want the record to show that there are solutions to these problems. It is not sufficient for us to say that the courts have decided and we would like to help the people of Canada but we cannot. To shrug our shoulders is an avoidance of our responsibility.

Parliamentarians, government policy advisers and government lawyers look at the charter as a barrier to social progress and programs that need to be implemented. Instead of looking at what the problem is and setting out a solution that works, often these policy advisers look at the charter, anticipate what the reaction of judges is going to be and then create the policy in that context. The result is a solution that does not work.

We have seen it in the context of the organized crime law. I can tell the House, not because I am a prophet but because I know, that legislation will fail. It will fail because the excuse that was offered consistently in refusing to follow recommendations that would have ensured effective legislation was “our charter does not allow us to do that kind of thing”.

Rather than setting it out in the legislation and addressing the problem, they concerned themselves with what the reaction of the judges would be. We should not do that. We should create solutions that address the problems and then prepare the legal arguments that justify our position. That is the nature of the political debate, or it should be the nature of political debate between the House and the judiciary in the Supreme Court of Canada.

We should not make an apology that we have genuine political differences and genuine differences of interest. We do not think consistently on all occasions. We share general principles to which we want to adhere and see enacted to strengthen our country.

The point I am getting to is the options paper that was written. This paper in a thoughtful way, mindful of constitutional parameters in a general way, suggests solutions that work and presents us with options. There are options that may affect an appropriate result. For example, issue two on page two of the options paper gets right to the Senate amendment and that is why this discussion is relevant. The member has written:

The defence of artistic merit 163.1(6) as currently expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada and interpreted by Justice Shaw exempts child pornography clearly harmful to children as the subject of criminal prosecution.

He brings forward four options, some not necessarily exclusive of each other but options that we should be considering.

The first one is to eliminate the defence of artistic merit to child pornography by repealing section 163.1(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada. People ask how we can repeal the defence of artistic merit when in the judgment of the supreme court there is a reference to artistic merit. Have we constitutionalized the defence of artistic merit in respect of child pornography? We have not done it in respect of hate literature or the advocacy of genocide. Why should children be the subject of abuse, of violent sexual attacks, and allow these sexual predators to rely on artistic merit?

If we amend the legislation to delete artistic merit completely, I want to hear the Supreme Court of Canada say “There is artistic merit in the sexual abuse and the depiction of that sexual abuse of six month old children”. If that is what the court is going to say, then the House has another responsibility and we have alternatives, but let us not anticipate what the court is going to say.

Personally I do not believe that Mr. Justice Shaw got it right. I think he got it wrong. The judiciary should be given a chance. We need to appeal this matter, but in the meantime let us look at the option of eliminating the artistic merit defence. In this respect, I have a serious problem with the motion.

The second option is to amend section 163.1(6) to apply a community standards test similar to the Butler decision. What a wonderful opportunity we have here. If in the context of adult pornography where there is a combination of violence and sex that can be prohibited on the basis of community standards, why would the same defence not be available in the context of child pornography and the abuse of children? Eliminate artistic merit and bring in the community standards test specifically. I am surprised that there is not already implicit in that offence the understanding that somehow the community cannot tolerate this kind of activity.

The third option is directly relevant to some of the comments I have been making. The member has identified the option to include the definition of child pornography as part of the hate crimes section 319, which has a different and more restrictive exemption. Again this is a very different type of exemption. There are exemptions but they are not of the nature that we have seen that allow the child pornographers to do what they do to our children and our grandchildren.

The last option under issue two is to amend section 163.1(6) to exclude material of which a prominent characteristic is not the description of a legal sexual activity involving children or which is not intended for sexual gratification. It is a little more technical but it is an option.

To the minister who might be tempted to throw up his hands and shrug his shoulders, although I have not seen him do that yet and he has not commented on the decision, I would ask him to read this paper before he does that. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to the minister to read the paper and consider our options. Let us not apologize for standing up to protect children from sexual, violent abuse.

In summary, I feel that these are issues which needed to be said. I again thank the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge for the paper. True to his word, he delivered in record time. On behalf of all the members who are in the House or were at the meeting on April 16, I thank the hon. member. This is a good start and we can conclude on a positive note if the minister and the cabinet consider these options and recommendations very seriously.