Bill C-5 (Historical)

Species at Risk Act

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

Species at Risk Act

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the Group No. 3 motions concerning Bill C-5, an act to protect endangered species. I had the chance to work quite intimately on the bill when I was environment critic for our caucus.

We in the opposition have serious concerns regarding the last few groups of motions. A number of my colleagues have spoken quite diligently to all the motions in Group No. 3. I commend the last speaker who spoke to all the motions. He knows the issue quite technically and has followed it closely. The government is wise to listen to the things he has to say. I congratulate him for his intervention today.

For the public who loves to tune in and listen to what we do and talk about in this place the technicality of the motions can be somewhat confusing. I wanted to put the motions in a general category so people at home could follow the themes we may be concerned about with respect to the bill on endangered species.

As I have mentioned in the past, it is clear that Canadians across the nation believe we need endangered species legislation. More than 90% of Canadians want effective legislation when it comes to endangered species. However they have concerns as well. They are concerned that property rights should be protected; criminal intent should be clearly defined; and the various interests of landowners, environmentalists and all stakeholders should be brought together. This is a concern many of my colleagues have raised. It not been dealt with by the government.

The prior groups of motions dealt specifically with compensation. This is an issue about which landowners who are the volunteer stewards of the land have a great concern. The question has not yet been answered with a clear equation. It is not clear how compensation would dealt with if land were confiscated because an endangered species was found on it.

The Group No. 2 motions deal with jurisdictional and criminal intent issues. There are concerns about whether the legislation would affect the jurisdictions of provinces. Would we need a national accord to streamline the environmental policies of provinces in relation to the federal government? Concerning criminal intent, if someone accidentally destroyed habitat on their private land they would be guilty until proven innocent. Even if it was an accident it would be difficult to prove in some cases.

In the Group No. 3 motions some of the main themes concern socio-economic interests. There is also the issue of COSEWIC and how the process of listing species would be determined. Motions Nos. 30, 32, 36, 68, 136, 137 and 138 deal with COSEWIC in some form or another. How we would set national standards ties into the provincial jurisdiction issue. Motion No. 79 deals with the issue. There may be a few others.

We spoke about criminal offences in Group No. 2 but Motion No. 120 makes reference to changes when it comes to punishments and penalties. Public consultation is an important issue to all members of the House if not all Canadians. They should all be able to have input on the bill. Motions Nos. 4, 7, 19 and 36 all deal with the idea of public consultation.

Instead of speaking to the specific motions I have identified I will address the general themes I spoke about and the concerns we in the opposition have with the bill.

Mr. Speaker, you are no stranger to this place. You know the importance the official opposition puts on fiscal responsibility. It is one of our biggest concerns and we have raised it over and over again.

Some of my colleagues spoke about this earlier today. As I tuned in to some of the riveting debate, I heard some of my colleagues say that they were not concerned about the costs associated with the bill. One of my colleagues talked about the gun registration bill and the fact that the government told us one amount that it would cost for gun registration when in fact the actual cost of administering that bill was outrageously overbudget.

Are we going down the same road with this bill? We do want endangered species to be protected and we do want effective legislation but we need to be honest about the cost. We hear different numbers right across the board from provinces and from the federal government which say that it could be more than $45 million a year, but we need to know how much it will really cost. When it comes to the socioeconomic interests of all Canadians, this is something that we fundamentally need to address.

There is another area that has caused a number of concerns for environmentalists. I touched on the motions pertaining to COSEWIC, for which environmentalists definitely have a concern, but it does directly affect this place. The concern is about how we will put together the list when it comes to establishing what constitutes an endangered species and what does not.

While dealing with this particular part of the bill, I remember there was much debate on how science should be left to the scientists and it should be removed out of this place completely. Politics should not be involved in the listing process nor in the actual recovery plans associated with deciding what constitutes an endangered species and what does not.

If I am not mistaken, one of the motions put forward by the official opposition tried to come up with a balance to this problem. This is exactly what we had proposed when we said that we should leave science to the scientists. They could put together a list of endangered species that this place could look over and evaluate, and especially cabinet because ultimately it should have the final say in evaluating the resources attributed to going through the whole recovery plan when it comes to dealing with protecting endangered species.

It would be great for all of us to list the endangered species but the reality is that we need the resources to have an effective recovery plan to protect those endangered species. Cabinet has a role to review the potential list of endangered species but it should not be a political game.

We see a lot of political games from the other side of the House which may be why some environmentalists get concerned about this process. We need a list that is produced scientifically. We need cabinet to review that list and to put together a recovery plan cost analysis on which endangered species can be covered right away and which need some obvious time.

The long term effect is to protect as many endangered species as possible but we cannot do that with the resources we have. We need to be diligent about it.

I would argue that cabinet does have a final role but it should be strictly a resource based role and not a science role. We should not question that. COSEWIC's job is to put together people for that committee or group who can evaluate endangered species.

In the motions I mentioned, we proposed an amendment to find that balance between protecting endangered species and realizing the costs associated with that.

I get quite passionate about endangered species but we need to make the right decisions. Sometimes it is difficult to make decisions in this place that will achieve the best results.

I want to quickly touch on the national standards issue, one that is so important when it comes to how we in this place can effectively produce legislation that does not duplicate what is currently happening in provinces but instead works together with provincial governments to achieve the goals that all Canadians feel are so important.

I hope the government will be encouraged to heed some of these suggestions today because that is the only way we will bring all stakeholders together on this very important bill, which hopefully will achieve the goal of protecting endangered species and not the divide and conquer mentality that the government has.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the Group No. 3 round of amendments but before I do so it would be completely inappropriate if I did not compliment you on the extraordinary Latin you advanced in the House yesterday evening.

We in my party have a problem with four principal planks of Bill C-5. First, the compensatory regime lacks clarity. If the government had its act together it would simultaneously table the regulations.

Second, the bill would not provide for mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands. How does the government have the moral suasion to deal with private and provincial lands when the minister is of the opinion that it should not look after its own backyard?

Third, transboundary species such as migratory birds are not included in the bill. That is a serious mistake.

Fourth, leading to your latin lesson of yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I find it odd that we are debating whether the list of species at risk should be determined by science or politics. Social and economic implications should come into play in the recovery plan but we should not hide behind the list. Is it not ironic that the some 233 species listed yesterday are being accepted automatically by the Government of Canada but it will not have scientific listing in the future? If it was good for 233 species at one pop why would it not be good on an ongoing basis? The government has contradicted itself 233 times in the bill.

I will speak to the motions we have in play in this group. I will start with Motion No. 5, a motion proposed by the Canadian Alliance. It aims to remove the capacity of the federal government to protect aquatic species. That should be maintained under the purview of the federal government, so Motion No. 5 is not worthy of support.

The Progressive Conservative Party and our DR cousins will support Motions Nos. 7 and 8, the government technical amendments. We have no problem in that regard.

We wholeheartedly have a problem with government Motions Nos. 9 and 10. The government is trying to gut a provision the committee made that would have protected a subspecies of the endangered species community. The amendment would have used a more biologically accepted term by adding the words variety or genetically distinct. This is the language utilized by COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which thought it was a step in the right direction.

Certain species have evolved over time and through natural selection into different species, whether different communities of wolves or the ponies that live on Sable Island. These animals have developed into genetically distinct species in their own right and their biodiversity should be maintained. The Government of Canada is removing an amendment the New Democrats, the Progressive Conservatives and a myriad of learned Liberal MPs supported. It has chosen to capitulate, gut a good provision and insult the good work of the committee.

Motion No. 14 is an amendment we have a problem with in the same regard. We will therefore not be supporting Motion No. 14.

We will not be supporting Motion No. 15. The hon. member is advocating that the phrase take social and economic implications into account. This speaks to the purpose of the act which is quite clear: to protect endangered species. We should be talking about the bill's socio-economic implications and recovery plans but we should not distract from its primary purpose.

We are on board with the government's technical amendment in Motion No. 19 which would clear up some language.

Motion No. 30 is a technical amendment which we support. We also support Motion No. 32, Motion No. 34 which is a government amendment, and Motion No. 36.

We have a serious problem with Motion No. 35. It would take back one of the principal benchmarks of the Government of Canada with respect to the listing provision that says the government must comment on whether or not species would be added within a six month time frame.

It is quite shameful that the government is gutting this amendment that was passed by members of the committee including New Democrats and Liberals. A compromise amendment was supported by the Canadian Alliance although I may want to check my facts. The government is gutting a provision it could have kept instead of capitulating to backroom bureaucrats who thought for some reason that gutting it was a better way to go. It is an insult to the democratically elected individuals who spent a lot of time at the committee level reviewing those aspects of the bill.

Motion No. 66 is the one we have a major problem with. It would change a clause that deals with enabling legislation to give the competent minister the capacity to make interim measures. It would enable the minister to make interim calls about whether or not a species was at risk. It would give ministers the capacity to protect habitat on an emergency basis. It would enable them to do these things but does not say they would have to. The government has said no, we do not want any responsibility whatsoever so we will take out the provision.

There are other amendments in the group but we in my party think Motion No. 66 is the greatest problem. The provision it proposes to change was supported in committee by members on both sides of the Chamber. It is quite sad that the government has decided to gut it.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Bill C-5 with a number of concerns. I do not think there is anyone in the House let alone in Canada who does not have concerns in regard to a species that becomes endangered and how to help rectify that if it is possible. Bill C-5 goes far beyond that. If we are to look at this issue in a reasonable way, surely we have to look at the socioeconomic impact.

I am not that old. I am only 56. I was brought up to believe that there was such a thing as private property rights in Canada. A person could go out and spend their hard-earned money, their life savings, or maybe an inheritance that had been left to them by their mother, father, or grandparents, on a piece of property where they could raise their family or perhaps start a small woodlot. That property was theirs. As the old saying goes, that person was a king in his home. As long as the person did not infringe on his neighbour's well-being, everything seemed to be fine.

Then something like Bill C-5 comes forward which does not seem to take into account at all what the social impact will be. This piece of legislation will allow the government to deem a species on a person's property to be endangered and therefore the landowner will be held responsible for the upkeep and well-being of that species for the rest of his existence on that piece of property. Right away would a landowner in a free society that believes there is such a thing as private property rights not think that the government would help offset the cost or look after it itself? Naturally he would. However not in Canada. Not under this legislation. We have to look at the absolute stupidity of this whole philosophy.

I am very proud to be from British Columbia. Forestry is a major industry not only in British Columbia but right across Canada. Let us say we have a large section of forest in British Columbia, 90 square miles. In that industry in that one section perhaps 3,000 people as a rough average are employed. All of a sudden someone comes along and says that there is a little bug that lives in the forest and the whole forest has to be shut down. All of those people will be out of work which will impact on all their families and there will be no compensation.

Let us take that one step further. If a company had invested in that forest, had made its bid, paid its penalties and fees to the government and then was shut down, what would happen? There is no compensation from the government. It could go bankrupt, whether it was a big company or a small company. There are a lot of small companies in the forest industry. Under this legislation, the way it is written, that is exactly what could happen.

Even when the committee looked at it and put forward well over 140 amendments to the government to address some of these concerns, the government turned a deaf ear. What is happening?

It does not matter where people live. It will impact upon them, even if they live in the city. If there is an endangered species in the city, it will impact upon people in the city too. They will be held responsible. If people have a summer home or cottage on one of the lakes in Ontario, this bill could impact upon them. Their neighbour or somebody could decide that a species should be looked at because it could be endangered and the landowner could be held responsible for it.

Will a young person growing up in Canada invest in this great country when there is this type of hammer over his or her head? I could spend $500,000 on a piece of property and two days later somebody could decide there is an endangered species on my property. It would drop the value of my property from $500,000 down to where nobody would want to touch it because they would be responsible for the endangered species.

It becomes a major question with regard to what is going on. We cannot, point blank, pass a piece of legislation like this without looking at the consequences. What will the government do to our farmers, the people who supply our food? What will the government do if it decides there is a species of plant life that has to be saved at all costs? Will it shut down all the farms with no compensation?

I have heard that the government in some countries totally controls everything and no one is allowed to make a living unless the government says they may do so. Is this where we are going? Is this really where the government wants to take us?

Government members can shake their heads all they want. You never addressed one of the amendments put forward by all parties in the House. Not one have you tried to address.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-5, the species at risk act. This is the third or fourth try by the government to bring the legislation to the floor. It seems to create more controversy than substance in a lot of these situations.

Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of Greenpeace, was speaking at the Saskatchewan Cattle Feeders Association meeting in February. He said:

I made the transition from the politics of confrontation to the politics of building consensus.

That is a tremendous quote. That is exactly what the government should be doing with legislation like this. It needs to build consensus with the provinces, landowners, land users and so on in order to make this type of legislation palatable.

Mr. Moore is a native of Vancouver Island. He went on to say that the federal government's proposed species at risk act should be a positive program that should reward not punish farmers for living near these species. He is absolutely right. That is at the crux of the debate. He stated that costs for such programs should be borne equally by both urban and rural people. We all want to protect these species at risk.

This fellow has the right idea on this legislation. He has seen situations where people on Vancouver Island spent huge amounts of time and energy saving eagles. They did it; it worked out very well. They were able to bring back that population of eagles. It is just tremendous to watch them flying around.

The unintended consequence was that the eagles started feeding en masse on blue heron nests. The blue heron was of course an endangered species. They corrected one problem and the eagles started redirecting their feeding habits on to the blue herons so that now they have another problem on their hands. It looks like mother nature is more than able to take care of a lot of this on her own and when people get involved we have these unintended consequences.

I woke up the other morning to the radio and the announcer was talking about flocks of up to 4,000 crows around the city. Everybody knows that a crow is a bit of a pest. They do not just wake us up early. These birds are predators that feed on songbirds. They feed on the nests and the young. We have saved the crows. We are not allowed to shoot them any more or use poisons. Now we have these huge flocks of crows feeding on songbirds, the very birds we want to entertain and bring into the city. When we start to muddle with things there can be unintended consequences.

SARM, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, is having its annual meeting coming up between March 4 and March 6. There are a number of resolutions that have come forward that speak to these unintended consequences.

I know that my counterpart from Selkirk--Interlake this morning talked about a Ducks Unlimited project that was having an adverse effect on areas of his land. He has less hay land to farm. He has plovers that are now endangered because their habitat is being flooded.

We see loons in Saskatchewan being moved off Lake Diefenbaker where the water rises and lowers so much because of the dam at the head of it that there is not a loon population there any more. We have seen adverse effects and unintended consequences.

The RM of Rodgers submitted one resolution. It claimed that some municipalities were concerned about the risk of prairie fires that non-grazed or uncut long grasses presented, and neither the RM Act nor the Prairie Forest Fire Act gave the RM specific authority to direct owners of such land to create or maintain satisfactory fire guards to prevent the spread of fires. They wanted the act to be changed so that the RM would have some intent or some excuse to go in and look after that.

That is directed at some of the areas that are going back to habitat, that species can then carry on in.

There was a resolution submitted by the RM of Three Lakes. It claimed that the best use for arable land in Saskatchewan was for agricultural purposes. Much of the land owned by Ducks Unlimited and the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation had uncontrolled weed growth, and non-arable land was much better suited for the purpose of Ducks Unlimited and the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation. They wanted some laws or some sort of regulatory body to control where Ducks Unlimited and the wildlife federation could expand.

We are having problems with weed growth in some of these untended areas where the seeds are blowing out across the rest of the arable land and creating a problem. The species at risk bill does cover grasses and weeds as well so there are unintended consequences there.

The last resolution came from the RM of Langenburg and the RMs of Spy Hill and Churchbridge. They claimed that the municipal land tax base was gradually being eroded by the conversion of agricultural land to wildlife habitat whereas the North American waterfowl management plan, and that is what the member for Selkirk--Interlake was talking about, identified five million acres of land in western Canada that was to be returned to wildlife habitat. That is not all bad. We do have an excess of crop grown in our country.

A lot of people have talked about taking arable land out of production and putting it back into grasses and so on. Perhaps there is something good there. They are also saying that this North American waterfowl management plan has budgeted $2.7 billion Canadian for this task. No one can bid against these folks. They have only spent 21% of the money that is allocated to secure 46% of their target. With a 60 cent dollar, that land is very accessible and very easy to buy out. No one can bid against them.

The work is being done by local and international conservation groups such as Ducks Unlimited, the largest single landowner in the province of Saskatchewan. Farmers and the provinces are making the changes without threat or punishment from the federal government.

Statistics Canada reports an excess of $6 billion benefit to the economy from wildlife and related activities. That has been harmed a little with the long gun registry. The hunters are not out there the way they used to be. It is great to create all these habitat and wildlife areas, but unless there are actual hunters out there, we end up with an excess.

There is a huge problem in Saskatchewan at this time. The chronic wasting disease, CWD, which infiltrated our domestic elk herds has now shown up in wild deer. Hunters and wildlife federation officers are eradicating whole herds of deer. When we start to mess with mother nature, these unintended consequences start to boil over.

We saw that with the government deregulating the use of strychnine to control pocket gophers. There was a huge resurgence of gophers. A family of these little guys will clear off a tonne an acre of forage. We talked about that issue here. We passed a motion to reinstate the use of strychnine to control gophers. I hope the government will follow through on that on the spring seeding. We are looking at another drought in western Canada and gophers are going to be a huge problem again. We will have to have unlimited access to that strychnine in order to get on top of the problem.

There are some unintended consequences when we start to play with poisons. There was a huge hue and cry which actually shut it down the first time. Eagles, hawks, swift foxes and ground owls were feeding on the same poisons. It is very hard to prove that was actually happening.

Studies have been done. A lot of them were done by Senator Herb Sparrow who is a known environmentalist. He has won awards. He has done studies which say that a hawk would have to eat seven to eight gophers at one sitting in order to be harmed by that amount of poison. It is physically impossible. They just cannot digest that great a number. A fox or a coyote would have to eat 35 or 40 gophers. The bulk of them die in the hole so they would not be accessible to begin with.

We have regulated a huge problem in western Canada with respect to the gopher by taking away strychnine because some people said it was poisoning carcasses and that coyotes and the odd eagle were dying. If that is happening, then go after the bad guys. Hit them with every law on the books that can be thrown at them, but please do not throw the baby out with the bath water and regulate us all.

That is what Bill C-5 seeks to do when we do not talk about proper compensation and when we talk about criminal liability and that people are guilty before they have a chance to prove themselves innocent. It is a huge problem.

Years ago I had a lumberyard and I had a truckload of lumber coming from the west coast to my lumberyard. While going through Banff National Park, an elk bull jumped out in front of the truck. The last thing the truck driver wanted at two o'clock in the morning was to have an accident but it happened. Who was at fault? He was on the highway and the elk jumped out of the ditch. It took out the radiator, the front tire and the bumper of my truck. They are expensive repairs when it is a Kenworth truck. The driver spent more time filling out paperwork for the elk that committed suicide than it took for me to get the truck parts from Calgary, bring them out and put the truck back on the road.

The elk is not an endangered species. It just happened to be in the park. That type of thing happens.

The criminal intent outlined in the bill is that a person is guilty until the person can prove that he or she is innocent. We see no compensation and the usage of land is being taken out from underneath the farmer, the rancher, the woodlot owner, the miner, the oil patch and so on.

We really have to look at some of the amendments that have come forward and which are rightfully placed. They are non-partisan in nature. Let us get the government back on track with the right purpose here, to protect endangered species, some of which are farmers out in western Canada.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on this group of amendments before the House dealing with Bill C-5. I want to take up where the Alliance member left off and that is the question of how much the government has moved toward a totalitarian regime which is so evident in regard to Bill C-5.

I take umbrage with the member's suggestion when he likens what is happening here to Cuba. Cuba is a pinnacle of light and a bastion of democracy when we compare that country's operations with the actions of the government.

What we are seeing today is an unequivocal and unparalleled attack on democracy. No wonder Canadians are cynical about politics today. No wonder they feel that governments do not represent them and politicians are not doing their jobs when this kind of deliberate manipulation of the democratic process takes place.

We are not talking about a few amendments that the committee presented and that the government then vetoed. We are talking about 125 amendments that came from a committee of the House that worked long and hard for weeks and months. We can go back years on this issue of protecting wildlife species at risk in Canada. This was a committee that was actually working. It was doing the job we all expected committees to do when we were first elected.

It is something I cannot imagine because I am used to a committee system where the minister responsible tells the committee what to do so that we become mere puppets and we are managed and manipulated by the government of the day. I am speaking of the health committee. I do not need to tell members how much that committee has been managed by the former minister of health, I cannot speak for the present one but certainly the former minister of health. We have not been able to contribute to the issues of the day because of that kind of manipulation. My perspective is certainly coloured by the experience I have had for the last five years on the health committee. I hope we can correct that.

It is mind-boggling to think that when we finally have a committee that works, where all parties come together and bring forward a unanimous report to the House, the government of the day can turn around and say forget it. It said to never mind all the hard work, never mind the fact that the committee dealt with some very difficult divisive issues and came together, compromised and made recommendations. We are talking about a committee that looked at 330 amendments. It took a lot of time and effort and then returned with a report with 125 amendments to the present bill that we are dealing with.

That was the result of hard work on the part of the committee members. This was years and years of work by expert groups and concerned citizens across the country who were pressuring, pulling, prodding and pushing the government to finally do something on this vital of area of species at risk, an issue that was long overdue for action.

We can talk about a decade of stalling and dithering by the government of the day on something as fundamental as environmental protection and ensuring that species at risk do not become extinct. We are talking about something very fundamental and basic to our society today and our notion of being a civilized nation. What is more reflective of a civilized nation than what we do in terms of species that are at risk of becoming absolutely extinct?

It is absolutely harmful to the democratic process for this to happen. It is harmful to the whole process involving citizen participation. That is one issue we have to come to grips with in this place.

Let us once and for all deal with this matter in this place. Let us stop the games, the charades, the manipulation of parliamentarians and committees. Let us start to value and treasure the work that we do as parliamentarians, especially at those rare moments when we can come together with one voice and impress upon the government that there are suggestions that can be pursued that were overlooked. There are constructive propositions that are worthwhile and ought to be considered. That is one very important issue.

The other is what this means in terms of the task at hand. The real test of the bill is to protect Canadian indigenous species, subspecies and distinct populations of wildlife from becoming extirpated or extinct. Does Bill C-5 do the job? Does the bill help us as Canadians to ensure that species do not become extirpated or extinct?

By all accounts the bill does not because the government has watered down the bill, ignored the recommendations and bypassed the good work of the committee. What we have before us today is a government that has decided to scrap the work of the committee, scrap the good recommendations and go back to a watered down bill that does not do the job. The bill does not do what is required. It does not do the bare minimum to ensure that species at risk are protected and we as a country do not face the extinction of rare and valuable species.

We can look at a number of aspects of this group of amendments as they pertain to the ability of the bill to protect wildlife species. I will focus on one particular amendment that is covered in the group we have before us today. This has to do with the question of extra protection for the preservation of habitat where wildlife is threatened.

It is very interesting to note that the committee recommended an amendment to Bill C-5 which would provide for broad discretionary interim measures so that the government would have the ability to protect species that were in immediate danger. This is a provision that gives the government some wherewithal, a mechanism to take immediate steps should information be made available and some development occur requiring that kind of immediate intervention to protect the species.

My colleague from Windsor--St. Clair has worked long and hard on this whole process, like others around the House from all sides. He tells me that the government chose to come back with Bill C-5 scrapping entirely this amendment. The government is stripping the bill completely of this provision in order to ensure that the minister and a competent minister would be able to take those steps if necessary.

Why in the world would government, any government, do that? Why would the government give up that ability? It is not something that would be used on a random basis or a whim or at will, but it would be there in the event that immediate action was necessary to protect a species on the verge of becoming extinct.

One can only assume that the government is bent and determined on catering to the demands of industry, landowners, or big developers. We do not know who. The government is catering to someone out there who is putting pressure on it to water down and weaken the bill. It is inexplicable and makes no sense.

What is required of us today is to do two things. First, we must stand up for democracy. That means sending a message to the government that it is absolutely unacceptable for it to veto, bypass, scrap or diminish the work of a committee of the House when it has arrived at a decision that is based on unanimous consent and based on months of hard work.

Second, we must stand up for strong legislation and at least force the government to put back in place those amendments recommended by the committee because they toughen Bill C-5 and ensure that we have got some framework to deal with a serious and growing problem.

The only way we can do both is to oppose this group of amendments, to oppose Bill C-5 as amended by the government, and have returned to us a much tougher, more meaningful bill as recommended by the committee of the House.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today in speaking to the endangered species act, Bill C-5, I intend to make the case that the government has not taken into account the socioeconomic impact that the bill would have on Canadians.

It is particularly pertinent to note that the minister refers to this as getting into the proverbial swamp and states that they have been given $45 million a year to run this process, yet they do not know for sure if $45 million a year is sufficient to do that or not.

What I contend is that it will cost a whole lot more than $45 million a year and the rest of the money is to come from the very people whose lands house these endangered species. It is sort of a double jeopardy and a double burden on persons who actually own the land when a law is passed that says they must protect the species on the land, but, if land is taken out of production, they will not be compensated for it. Further it says that they have to do this at their own expense. Basically they are being taxed to provide money to put into these government programs, yet if the government program runs short, then the individual landowner can be expected to pick up the slack.

My contention is that the government needs those taxpayers. It has to be a symbiotic relationship. The taxpayer has to make a living to pay taxes. If the bill is going to be so onerous and so restrictive that they will be hampered to the point where they cannot make a living, the government has to look very closely and earnestly at the possibility that the taxpayers will just throw up their hands and say they cannot make a living. If companies or people cannot use their land for which it was intended, for which they bought or leased it, whether it is for farming, ranching, mining, harvesting forestry products or whatever, then they simply will go out of business and the government will lose more taxpayers.

The government cannot afford to lose taxpayers. When it is paying $40 billion a year in interest rates to maintain the interest on our national debt, the government needs every dollar it can drag out of its taxpayers.

I do not think that the government has taken into account the socioeconomic impact that the bill will have. That can be stated over and over again. I hope the government is listening and taking these things into consideration, but I am afraid it has not because we have put forth all kinds of amendments. I understand that my colleagues were able to get agreement on several amendments in committee, yet that was all washed out once the hierarchy got ahold of it.

Here again we have a committee process that is a sham. It looks good on the outside but when we actually look at the workings of it we discover that the Prime Minister and cabinet dictate what the outcome of the committee shall be.

While it is absolutely desirable to maintain our species at risk, to have them flourish, propagate and multiply in a friendly environment, it is also extremely important that the economic stability of the country be allowed to do just exactly the same; to prosper, to expand, to put people to work so they can make some profit and pay their shareholders and their taxes. If they cannot do that, all the good intentions in the world will be for naught because we simply will not be able to maintain our endangered species and we will have an even worse problem. We would not be able to maintain our industries.

I have said this before in the House that, as a farmer, I have grave concerns that the intention of the bill, as laudable as it is, will not be realized under the parameters as written today. It simply has to be amended to take into account that the people who are paying the bills have to have an opportunity to grow and to thrive or else they simply will stop paying the bills. Then what will happen to our endangered species? There will be no one left to protect them. It is important for someone to speak up to protect the people who are actually paying the bills.

Some of my colleagues have spoken previously about the punitive aspects of the bill as well. In British common law it is tradition that we will be innocent until we are proven guilty. In this bill it appears that that is not the case. It appears that there will be a provision in it that whether a person has acted maliciously, recklessly or with criminal intent will not be taken into the situation at all if it is discovered damage has been done to environment which would impose hardship on endangered species; in other words to ruin the environment of endangered species.

By not having to prove that, the crown should have to prove that people either acted recklessly, maliciously or with criminal intent for those charges to stick. If people cannot defend themselves against that, what possibly could be put up for a defence? Could we say, we did not know that the species was endangered? No, that cannot be said because that is no longer a defence. We cannot say we were not aware that the species was living on our lands because that is no longer a defence.

It could be a total accident. I tried to make this point yesterday. If someone were to hit a whooping crane with a car, which is an unlikely possibility, would that person then be guilty under this act of destroying an endangered species? I do not think there is a person in Canada who would not recognize that a whooping crane is one of the endangered species. It is more or less the poster animal for endangered species. However, if someone were to accidentally bump into it, and more likely run into it with an airplane, would he or she be guilty under this act? From my reading of it, I believe the person would be. That is simply not right.

This is setting a tremendously dangerous precedent. We have to allow people charged with things an opportunity to defend themselves. If they do not have an opportunity to defend themselves, then that shows me that we are headed toward a totalitarian regime. I have been to Castro's Cuba and I have seen that the people there do not have an opportunity to defend themselves. If they are charged with something, they go straight to jail. They have no way of defending themselves.

I would say, as I said yesterday, that the bill will not accomplish the very things that it should and could accomplish if it were written correctly, and it is to the peril of endangered species in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage of Bill C-5. Enforcement penalties of the bill are of great concern to me and my Canadian Alliance colleagues. I am speaking about government Motion No. 120, clause 97. The government seems to be continuing a trend of making criminals out of law-abiding citizens and turning its back on Canadian agriculture.

First, we have gun registration. That program has out of control costs and no realistic benefits. A farmer owning a shotgun is now a criminal.

Next, the government's cruelty to animals legislation is another example of turning farmers into criminals. Through the definitions outlined in that legislation, farmers and ranchers are at risk of prosecution over necessary and ordinary farming practices.

Now we have Bill C-5, yet again the ordinary Canadian has the opportunity to become a criminal. Due to the language of the bill, the crown does not need to prove intent or even reckless behaviour. Instead, it is up to the accused to prove that he or she has acted with due diligence.

Bill C-5 makes it a criminal act to kill species at risk or damage their habitats. In theory this is a worthy goal. It is the practising of the theory that has me concerned. There is a definite need for protection of these animals and species.

Species at risk legislation is something with which we agree, however there needs to be a balanced approach in the conviction and sentencing of offenders.

According to the bill as it currently stands, one would be required to be an expert in recognizing all species on the list of those that are at risk. It is not the average Canadian citizen who is aware of every one of these animals, let alone who has the ability to identify them and their habitats. To not be aware of every one of these animals and their particular habitats leaves one open for prosecution. I am not saying that ignorance is a defence. What I am saying is that accidents happen.

The enforcement and penalties within the bill must be based on one's reckless behaviour. To make criminals out of innocent people is not the place to start if we truly desire species and their habitats to be saved and protected. However, we do have the government's assurance that the minister will use his own discretion in laying charges. Again, we are asked to trust the minister. To leave the laying of criminal charges to the minister's discretion is not acceptable.

Being charged with a criminal offence is not something that any one of us would take lightly. The bill must contain reasonable guidelines, enforcement and penalties. It is not reasonable to pass a bill like C-5 that has holes and gaps in it. The government would have Canadians be content with the trust me attitude, that the gaps will be filled in by the minister at some later date. This is not acceptable.

If charges are to be laid fairly, the very least that should be provided is basic education and training for property owners and users. They should be entitled to know what their responsibilities are. A basic education plan for property owners would provide them with additional tools in the protection of species and habitats. This would be a benefit to all involved. To leave them in the dark and then charge them later with a crime they do not know they committed is horrific.

The penalties outlined in the bill are severe. There is a fine of up to $250,000 or up to five years in jail for an individual. These are very harsh punishments. Let us say, for example, that a farmer is out in the field and in the course of working the land ploughs under nests belonging to birds listed under the legislation. Is this an indictable offence? Is the farmer truly guilty? What were his or her intentions? Were his or her actions reckless? I do not think this farmer intended to destroy this animal's habitat. Is it worthy of criminal charges? I hardly think so. The farmers and ranchers I know are not about to plough up a bird's nest without thinking.

The legislation must be examined with some common sense. Making criminals out of innocent citizens is not the way to enact this legislation. If the government desires the willing participation of property owners in Canada, the threat of hefty fines and jail time is not the way to involve them. Co-operation is the key to this legislation being effective. Co-operation is possible when all parties involved are viewed as equal. Taking a heavy-handed approach will not work, like this bill.

Farmers and ranchers are among some of this country's finest conservationists. Most of these people understand the necessity of saving endangered species. They understand how fragile our ecosystems are. It would be to the benefit of species at risk to keep farmers, ranchers and landowners as partners in the plan for species protection. Enforcement and penalties need to be included in this legislation, but they need to be applied to those whose behaviour is reckless, whose actions are negligent and whose destruction of species and habitat is intentional.

For example, an individual is driving his or her car through a school zone. The driver is obeying the speed limit and is aware and alert, but suddenly a child darts into the street to retrieve a soccer ball. The driver slams on the brakes but is unable to avoid hitting that child. Is that person viewed as being as guilty as the individual who is driving drunk and at a speed well over the posted limit in that same school zone? Should the punishment for the alert, sober driver be the same as that for the intoxicated speeding driver? A civilized society would say no, that the second driver's behaviour was reckless and showed no concern for the welfare of others.

The bill rejects the thinking of a civilized society. The penalties in the bill must be applied with reason. Assurances of the minister's discretion are not good enough. Penalties must be adequately addressed in Bill C-5 before it is passed.

To have the responsibility of proving one's innocence, and in this case due diligence, flies in the face of western law practices. The onus of proving guilt has always been on the crown. We expect to enter into legal confrontations being innocent until proven guilty. The federal government is now changing those basic practices. A Canadian citizen must now prove due diligence in the face of allegations. This is an awkward approach. The mentality behind it will alienate the participation of the very people needed to help implement this legislation: the property owners.

The enforcement of the bill is also in question. A document released by Environment Canada suggests a need for additional personnel and resources. This request is being made without the bill having been implemented. What will the requests be once it is? As enforcement capabilities by Environment Canada are limited already, what actions will be taken once the bill is passed? This government is notorious for not being able to estimate the costs of its own programs.

The federal gun registry was to have a minimal start-up cost and be self-sustaining afterward. It has now cost the Canadian taxpayers over $700 million. Will RCMP officers now be committed to enforcing environment legislation? The government has cut resources to the RCMP drastically. How can it be expected to enforce this bill?

The majority of property owners in my riding are also farmers. They are good, law-abiding citizens. To think that any one of them could be thrown in jail for inadvertently killing an endangered animal or damaging their habitat frightens me. Farmers and ranchers in the country continue to face hardships. We have seen their determination in the face of challenges such as drought conditions and low commodity prices in recent years. These individuals do not have the financial resources to fight changes that could occur through this present legislation.

The rights of property owners cannot be ignored or overshadowed by the legislation. We must make sure that penalties and fines are applied where necessary. I maintain that there must be the element of reckless behaviour or intent present. Accidents happen and mistakes can be made.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

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

First of all, this bill reminds me of the early 1980s, when I was the mayor of a small municipality of about 4,000 inhabitants. When plans were made to create a national park in an area containing endangered species, our municipality had to invest considerable money in attaining its objectives, with the help of Parks Canada, of course.

The municipality had to clean up its water, because used water was being discharged into the St. Lawrence River at the proposed site of the park. At the time, I, as the mayor, and the council members were seen almost as cranks, people who were going to squander the taxpayers' money to save threatened bird species.

Twenty or so years ago, the environment was perhaps not the important concern for most people that it has become over the years. The bill before us today, which has a very specific objective—to protect species at risk—has undoubtedly been requested by taxpayers. Unfortunately, we cannot support this bill because, once again, the federal government is interfering extensively in provincial jurisdictions.

However, we should perhaps keep in mind the impact this bill may have on endangered species in our societies. We should perhaps also recall how the planet has evolved, how our environment has evolved since there was first life on earth. In fact, the situation today is the result of 4.5 billion years of evolution.

Man, humankind, is undoubtedly the creature which appeared last, but which has had the greatest impact. Over the years, man, by acting as he has done on this planet, is perhaps the being that has contributed the most to the destruction of his environment. Let us not forget that the evolutionary process has provided the human beings on this planet with a large selection of living organisms and natural environments.

We have only to look around us here. Leaving this House, we can go out to parks, along the Ottawa River, into Gatineau Park, and everwhere are surrounded by natural environments we often neglect to pay any attention to.

A decrease or degradation of biodiversity affects us all, and can have unexpected consequences for all human beings, for our living environments, and for our health in particular.

In Canada, as elsewhere, attempts have been made for some years to control the phenomenon of environmental destruction. Since the 1970s international conventions have been signed in order to control the trade in certain animal and plant species, in order to protect them from extinction.

Again this week, television news reports have shown us how certain species are disappearing, in Africa in particular, where people are engaged in trade involving endangered species. At the Rio summit in 1992, a number of countries in the international community, Canada included, signed the Convention on Biodiversity and made the commitment to initiate or maintain the existing legislative and regulatory provisions necessary to protect threatened species and populations.

Not long after, moreover, the government made the promise in its red book to commit to long term protection of the species that populate our planet. In that same vein in 1995, the Minister of Environment of the day introduced a first bill.

This provoked an incredible number of protests and criticisms—from environmental groups in particular, and others—that the environment had not yet really entered into our collective mores.

One of the main criticisms regarding this bill was that it was limited to federal lands. Environmental groups reproached the federal government for only intervening on lands that it owned, when it should have been intervening on all lands that required it. Once again, I repeat, such interventions would have to be done with the agreement of the provincial governments, including Quebec, which already had major legislation in place that protected species at risk to a great extent.

It is important to remember that at the time, only four provinces had laws to protect endangered species. Environmentalists pointed out that it was important for the government to act across the country. Once again, it is important to note that there were only four provinces, including Quebec, that were equipped with legislation to protect endangered species. As usual in the Canadian federation, Quebec was ahead of the others. This is nothing new, this is the case in a host of areas.

In 1996, the federal government proposed a Canada-wide agreement to the provincial and territorial ministers of the environment. This lead to the bill now before us. That agreement was the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk.

In October 1996, the ministers responsible for wildlife gave their agreement in principle, which means that they finally accepted the principle of the bill and came to an agreement. At the time, Quebec environment minister David Cliche signed the accord, but he did not agree with, among other things, the federal government's interventions, which did not take into account provincial laws and regulations on the protection of threatened species.

In fact, our position and that of Quebec are the same as the one that the Minister of the Environment, Paul Bégin, stated as soon as his federal counterpart's bill was tabled, namely that this legislation was mere duplication. This is why we will vote against the bill.

Again, we agree in principle with the objectives of the bill, but we cannot accept it, since it creates duplication in provincial jurisdictions. In our opinion, this bill is not very useful to Quebec, considering that we already have regulations and laws protecting threatened species.

When the bill was introduced by the federal government, the Quebec minister indicated that this legislation sought not only to create a safety net for the protection of threatened species and their habitat on federal sites, but also on the whole Quebec territory. And we cannot agree with such a measure. We agree that the federal government must be able to take action to protect threatened species. It must do so, but by agreeing with the provinces, by accepting Quebec's jurisdictions, by accepting that Quebec is already ahead in this area, and by working with provincial governments.

The main criticism that we have regarding this bill is that it creates duplication, in that the federal government is once again duplicating regulations that already exist in Quebec. Instead of co-ordinating its efforts, of investing with the province to protect threatened species, the federal government is duplicating, it is creating a new structure and it is adding a new army of public servants to protect threatened species, while Quebec already has the necessary instruments.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do not know what the project would cost any more than we knew what the gun registry would cost. The expert told us it would cost $85 million. That is hogwash. The expert does not know what he is talking about. Even the Minister of the Environment has said he has no idea what the cost would be. He says it could be this much or that much.

We know one thing. Putting Bill C-5 into place would not necessarily look after the needs of the people expected to administer it and look after endangered species. We would not worry about them. We would see what kinds of punishments the government would bring upon landowners if they failed to meet their commitment to the legislation. It would not even be their commitment. It would be forced down on them from the great mighty towers of Ottawa telling them to do it or else. That is the attitude on that side of the room.

The government says there is no connection between what the legislation would do and the suffering that goes on in the agricultural community. That is false. We would be bringing things down on people who do their utmost not only to produce good products from the land but to protect the very endangered species the government is talking about in the legislation. They have done so for years without any legislation or top down enforcement. They have been doing a good job.

The government should give producers credit for what they have done. It should work out co-operative measures to encourage them to continue to do good work and do it even better without penalizing them. However the Liberal government is incapable of doing so. Bill C-5 absolutely shows that.

Our amendments are coming in loud and clear. The government had better start taking care of the people whom it expects to take care of endangered species. When it cannot recognize the problems they are going through because it does not give a darn, what can it expect?

I am fed up with a government that does not care about the people who pay the bills for this place. They are the ones who foot the bill. I have seen producers raise their machines over areas and let crops grow wild because there are nests of endangered species they want to protect. They do not bother trying to get more crops off the land. They do their job. Why can the government not work in a co-operative manner with these people? Why can it not encourage them to continue doing what they have done in the past rather than order them to do so in such a draconian fashion? I say welcome to Canada, the dictatorship of the world.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the hon. member is so impatient because that was my next comment.

The impatience of the Liberal government is nothing new. The government was impatient to bring in a gun registration program that would only cost $85 million. The government is impatient to bring in legislation to protect endangered species when it does not even know what it would cost. It cares even less because it would pass the costs on to the landowners and users of the affected areas. These people are doing their best to make a living and provide a commodity the country needs desperately. This in turn provides jobs to many Canadians.

The lack of a complete study of the socio-economic impact Bill C-5 would have on the agricultural industry is a disgraceful way to treat taxpayers and citizens of this land. It is absolutely disgraceful. It ignores the fact that most landowners work hard to produce commodities that are necessary in Canada. The government has never set agriculture as a priority. It never has and never will. It does not believe it is important because there are not enough votes in it.

One day the government will wake up and realize how important the agricultural industry is. In the meantime it hinders it with legislation that does not provide answers in terms of what it would cost and the impact it would have on farmers' lives and livelihood. The reason is that the government does not give a darn.

The minister for gun registration is saying give it to them. I know what he is thinking. He was thinking the same thing when he went to the public and asked whether they believed in gun control. Everyone believed in gun control and we therefore had to have legislation called registration which no one in these areas supported. Some 82% of the population supported gun control but did not support registration.

When the government came to this legislation--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I think the hon. member was on his way to attaching the comments he has made to the bill we are debating at the moment, Bill C-5. We are anxiously awaiting his statements.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the bill with respect to Motion No. 3 which includes a number of amendments regarding exactly how the program would be paid for, who would pay for it, how much it would cost, what the effects would be, et cetera.

Last week I had the opportunity to go across the prairie province of Alberta to visit a number of farmers in areas such as Grande Prairie in the north and a small town called Vulcan in the south. A number of farmers, landowners and different types of agricultural people were present to speak to the committee about the difficulties they face in their professions.

I heard comments regarding the situation in a number of areas where people are having a difficult time with the price and control of their products. They are often unable to transport them because of the costs. An area that comprises part of my riding of Wild Rose and extends into other parts of southern Alberta is suffering a great deal of drought. Many farmers are quite concerned that as we move into a third year of drought there is a good probability many of them will have to close up shop and discontinue growing crops and providing much needed commodities in the land. They are quite concerned about all these things.

Behind all these major concerns was Bill C-5. One farmer commented that it was as if they did not have enough headaches and problems in their business already. These people live on the land, are in charge of being good stewards of the land, and use arable land to produce commodities that are needed not only in our own country but in countries around the world. The almighty ivory towers of Ottawa have once again put together a piece of legislation that indicates what the government thinks of these people. They are having shoved down their throats--

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this group of amendments that deal with the socioeconomic impact of the species at risk bill. I want to address my remarks specifically to a couple of those proposed amendments that as we well know will not be a part of the law but to indicate something of what we thought should be a part of the law.

We support the idea of protecting the species at risk. We understand that we are stewards of our environment, our nation, our wildlife and resources. We are not against protecting these kinds of things. We believe in the people of the land and how they need to be protected as well.

Motion No. 15 is a Canadian Alliance amendment. It states:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 8 the following:

“(2) The purposes of this Act, outlined in subsection (1), shall be pursued and accomplished in a manner consistent with the goals of sustainable development.”

That has to do with the economic impact. The endangered species act would give tremendous discretion to the minister to intervene to defend specific species at risk. It does not give any guidance as to what the minister might do to balance that with other considerations, such as, how it would impact the landowners, the land workers and those who are directly involved with that area of the species at risk. We believe that is a tremendous amount of power without proper balance.

The species at risk working group or SARWG had representatives from a broad range of environmental and industrial groups including: the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Sierra Club of Canada, Canadian Nature Federation, Mining Association of Canada. The group proposed this amendment:

The purposes of this Act shall be pursued to the extent possible while taking into account social and economic interests of Canadians.

That of course is not a part of what we expect in the legislation. We are speaking to that and insisting that we remember the impact. It is one thing to be environmentally friendly, to protect the species at risk, but it is entirely another thing to forget those farmers and landowners who must bear the brunt of this. We feel that we must say these things on behalf of our constituents who are expected to bear the brunt of the cost.

COSEWIC, which is an independent scientific panel called the committee for the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, is responsible for maintaining the list of species at risk. It will take into consideration scientific evidence. This is all well and good and as it should be. We would want those species to be named by those who have knowledge of such matters, that it would be from a scientific point of view and not just simply someone's opinion. We applaud that. However it must be balanced against the real live concerns of property owners, industry and the economic well-being of Canadians.

I will take a few moments to tell a story. Some years ago my wife and I purchased a small farm from her aunt and uncle who were retiring. Not long after we purchased the farm a decision was made by the government of that place to run a four lane highway past the front of the farm. The government issued an order to us that it was going to purchase a strip of land which included the house, garden, parking area, garage and the barn. It wiped out the homestead. Every building on the farm was taken away by the decision to put a road in front of the property.

Let me mention another thing that happened to the same farm later. It was discovered that the land was erodible. It did not stand up to the hard rains. It would wash away and it needed conservation practices.

We found out that the crops being produced on that particular land were being overproduced and there needed to be a way of reducing production of that particular crop. We found out that wildlife in the area needed some way of being protected and conserved, that their habitat was being eroded. We also found out there was natural prairie grass in that area that was disappearing from the landscape and would be gone if not protected.

That piece of property went largely to the highway and to the conservation project. As a landowner am I happy about it? Yes, I am happy. Why? Because there was adequate and fair compensation. That does not sound like Canada does it? That was the program in place that enabled the conservation to take place and that is why we are so adamant about believing that it needs to happen in this case.

The government must do more for property owners, farmers and others who gain their livelihoods from the land and whose prosperity could be affected other than simply saying to trust it. It must stipulate that the commitment to protecting endangered species would be cost effective and respect the economic interests of Canadians.

Motion No. 14 is another amendment put forward by the Canadian Alliance. It reads:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 12 on page 8 with the following:

“becoming extinct as a result of human activity, to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity and to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened as a result of human activity.”

The bill would provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity. That is a laudable goal. However we feel that it also needs to be a part of choosing and deciding what would be protected, that is, is it a result of human activity?

We believe that all categories should be qualified by the phrase “as a result of human activity”, not just the recovery of those species. We would like to identify and minimize harmful human impact and not necessarily interfere with the natural evolutionary trends that work on species independent of human influence.

Species of special concern should, like the extirpated, endangered or threatened species, be mentioned in the clause and be protected against becoming endangered or threatened as a result of human activity that is in our control.

I was always taught to accurately count the cost before undertaking a major project. What is the cost to the real rural economy? What will be the cost to rural families? What will be the cost to the taxpayer? We have no way of knowing. Is it perhaps something like the cost of registering the farmer's duck and gopher guns? Will it forever rise in exponential numbers? Will it too oppress the already depressed farmer? Has the cost really been counted?

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have been listening with interest for the past number of days to the rationale and excuses being put forward by members of the government to explain why this flawed legislation has once again come to the House for debate. I find it incredible particularly in light of a cross-Canada media survey released on the weekend to determine who Canadians trust. It is no surprise that nurses and doctors were at the top of the list but it was also no surprise that politicians were right at the very bottom of the list, even below journalists

Now the government comes to the House and the majority of its members' comments boil down to a couple of phrases, those being “trust us, we will do what is right” and “because we say so”. Truthfully the whole issue calls to mind another environmental issue that the government is currently trying to address, that being the Kyoto accord. I will address those similarities in a moment.

This group of amendments primarily deals with socioeconomic interests and the need for public consultation. These are two of the key issues within not only this piece of legislation but any piece of legislation. After all, as it has often done, the government can push through any legislation or action the Liberals in their own characteristic style deem necessary in spite of public opinion. We have seen the government do this so many times. Whether the issue is hep C compensation, disposal of nuclear waste or as is becoming apparent, the Kyoto accord, the government just does what it does and if Canadians agree, well that is convenient but it is really not necessary.

Before I begin my comments directly pertaining to this set of amendments, I would like to point out as so many of our caucus colleagues have already done, that the Canadian Alliance supports sustainable development and protection of endangered species. In fact, these very principles are embedded within our party foundation stating that we are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species and to sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations. However, we also believe that for any endangered species legislation to be effective, it must respect the fundamental rights of property owners.

The truth is this legislation fails on all counts to protect the rights of property owners. When we consider the connection between the rights of property owners and the protection of endangered species, it really does not make much sense to sacrifice one for the other. After all, without the support of private property owners, species simply cannot be protected. It is as simple as that. Yet the government is proceeding in a fashion that seems to pit property owners against environmental causes thereby guaranteeing eventual failure on all counts.

It is not difficult to empathize with the difficulties faced by landowners when they are told that their family farm which has provided the entire income for the family and has been in the family for generations actually shares space with rare listed creatures. Suddenly the farmers find themselves in the situation of losing income, property and family history all in one fell swoop. Unless the transparency of this legislation improves, that same farmer may not even be totally sure of how it happened.

When it comes to such critical subjects such as family income, support and structure, the government has a responsibility to do everything possible to ensure transparency of process and to give people the opportunity to be involved in the decision making process.

I particularly noted the comments of the member for Davenport this morning when he suggested we should put aside economic and social concerns in the case of protection of endangered species because we will never get anything done if we do not. I dare say that the member certainly did not stay in this House for some 34 years by not taking into consideration what impact a piece of legislation would have on the social and economic well-being of his constituents. I think that goes without saying.

Having said that, people must have the chance to make their case before decisions are made. The system must be responsive to their needs. There must be a process the people have access to.

We all know that the government does not traditionally follow the approach of think first and act later. In fact the government prefers to go with the highly complicated approach of act first and hope that no one notices later. For some reason Canadians have allowed their government this latitude for many years. It has had dramatic impacts on all elements of Canadian life.

I have a feeling that when farmers, fishermen, loggers, ranchers and oil and gas developers come to the realization that the right to their old way of doing things has suddenly disappeared, and disappeared I might add with little or no compensation, discussion or due process, they may be less forgiving of the government's lackadaisical approach to planning.

When it comes to an issue such as the protection of endangered species, we cannot afford simply to hope for the best. When we consider what is at stake here, it is literally the existence and survival of entire species that hang in the balance. Loose legislation and planning simply will not do.

It should be pointed out that the government has a record of loose planning when it comes to critical environmental issues. All we need to do is look at the recent events surrounding Canada's role in the Kyoto accord. All along the government has been committed to signing the accord. While it keeps promising Canadians a plan, we have yet to see anything that actually resembles a thoughtful, methodical, consistent plan.

Again the government seems to think that the philosophy of “just trust us” is good enough. I am here to say that it is not. How can we expect to just trust the government when ministers are contradicting each other, premiers are breaking ranks and refusing to sign on, the industry is voicing extremely strong reservations regarding the economic viability of signing the accord, and to top it all off, we still do not have a real plan of action.

Regardless of its characteristic arrogant ways, the government still plods on. It is amazing really, the connection between these two issues. Perhaps the lessons we have learned so far from the government's approach to Kyoto should serve as a fair warning on Bill C-5.

For example, the Minister of the Environment has admitted that he does not know what the total cost of compensating landowners will be. He is so unsure of the numbers that the government refuses to guarantee compensation. He has indicated that he believes the costs will be more than $45 million a year but just does not have a firm number to be able to make a real statement or commitment to compensation.

Now let us look at Kyoto. The Minister of the Environment has stated that he believes the total cost of Kyoto to the Canadian economy to be around $500 million per year. However Canadian industry has done its independent studies which state the cost of Kyoto to be anywhere between $25 billion and $40 billion a year. We cannot help but wonder if his estimations of compensation costs for Bill C-5 are equally as skewed. Not that it really matters to the government. After all, since the government refuses to commit to compensation, in the end it will be Canadian property owners who have to face the bill.

Another example of where the government's handling of the legislation parallels that of the Kyoto issue is the area of establishing national standards. In its current form, Bill C-5 would allow the federal government to establish national standards without any consultation required with the provinces. We have already seen how the government is prone to go ahead and act without consulting or considering the provinces. Just look at health care spending.

Certainly the division between the provinces and the federal government was never more clear than when many of the premiers declared their opposition to signing the Kyoto accord. Had there been more consultation and awareness, the government would have known the provinces' position and used the information to promote consultations and compromises. Then again, perhaps the government did know and just chose to ignore it as it has done so many times in the past.

The government has a well documented history of being heavy handed and autocratic when it comes to passing legislation. Regardless of how worthwhile the amendment is, if it comes from the opposition side of the House, the government simply will not consider it. It seems to me that legislation that is critical should be beyond political manoeuvring. Many good ideas were suggested at committee yet the government stubbornly refused to make the needed changes.

The truth is that the protection of endangered species is a worthwhile and necessary endeavour and the Canadian Alliance supports the effort. However the key element missing in this legislation is balance, balance between socio-economic concerns and the protection of species, and the balance between private rights and public protection. Clearly the legislation has not become any more balanced in the seven years that have passed while the Liberals have tried to enact endangered species legislation. Should this bill go ahead without any further changes, all Canada will have is an unbalanced act from an unbalanced government.

Those changes must be made to ensure that we have endangered species legislation that will actually protect wildlife and the rights of landowners. I would suggest that a businessman would be foolish to enter into a contract without knowing what the costs of that contract would be. On behalf of my constituents and all Canadians, Canadians are smart enough not to enter into a contract on this endangered species bill without knowing the costs to Canadians and to the Canadian economy.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again in the House at the report stage of Bill C-5, the species at risk act, and to speak to my amendment in Group No. 3.

Interestingly, as opposed to some of the other groupings of amendments at report stage of the bill, quite a range of topics have been covered in Group No. 3. Of course the main discussion area in this grouping deals with the need to consider the socioeconomic implications of the legislation or, for that matter, of any action plans or recovery plans as a result of placing a species on the legal list. Some of the amendments also deal with the composition of COSEWIC and its determination of a legal list of species at risk.

Motion No. 79 would amend how the minister deals with national standards, and his counterparts of the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. Motion No. 120 deals with criminal offences. Several other motions in this grouping deal with public consultation.

Of these five very distinct topics within this one grouping, I will begin by commenting on the need for socioeconomic interests to be taken into account when determining the action plans needed to recover a species and its habitat.

More specifically, I would like to address my amendment, Motion No. 15, which seeks to adjust the purpose of the act to reflect what I believe should be the necessary goal of any endangered species legislation, that is to strike a balance between fostering sustainable development while ensuring the creation of a safe environment for those species at risk.

Specifically my Motion No. 15 states:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 8 the following:

“(2) The purposes of this Act, outlined in subsection (1), shall be pursued and accomplished in a manner consistent with the goals of sustainable development.”

I believe this is not only an important amendment to the bill, one which I would encourage all my colleagues in the House to support, but I believe it reflects the spirit of the discussions in the House of Commons environmental committee meetings.

In my opinion, Motion No. 15 strives to strike the balance that we all want in the legislation, the balance between the interests of industry and those of the environmentalists. The amendment would require that a balance be struck between the environmental goals of the bill and the needs of taxpayers whose dollars would go to the fund the environmental work mandated by the bill. I believe that without considering sustainable development, environmental laws would quickly kill the goose that lays the golden egg, as they say.

It is my opinion that worrying about endangered species is something only prosperous economies can afford to do because, quite frankly, someone has to pay for it. Economic depression is no friend to species at risk. One just has to look at some of the environmental problems prevalent in second and third world countries. It is certainly no coincidence.

I believe it is essential that we know the cost on industry and property users, as well as the cost on government in terms of enforcement resources before the government introduces legislation with such vast implications as Bill C-5. In particular, we need to know how the legislation would affect farmers, fishermen, miners, loggers, ranchers, and the list goes on. We need to understand what the socioeconomic costs will be of such legislation before we agree to it. Without this essential information, how can landowners or land users plan?

I believe the reason the government has not made these costs public is that it does not know what the socioeconomic implications of the legislation will be.

I would like to read a quote from the minister's information supplement of October 2001 which explains how little the government and the minister know of the cost of the legislation. In particular, the quote refers to the costs of compensation, which I believe is a necessary part of any legislation that plans to adversely affect the market value of a property. It states:

Environment Canada is aware that compensation for restrictions on the use of land is a complex issue that requires careful consideration and innovative thinking. We will need several years of practical experience in implementing the stewardship and recovery provisions of the Species at Risk Act...before we can be precise in prescribing eligibility and thresholds for compensation.

I would like to read another quote, this time by the Minister of the Environment who was answering questions posed to him by members of the standing committee on environment on October 3, 2001. The committee members wanted the minister to explain why he could not guarantee compensation in Bill C-5.

The quote reads:

We then got deeper and deeper into this and it became more and more the proverbial swamp, more and more difficult to do, partly because governments...should not, pass legislation that is open-ended in terms of funding. We have fiscal responsibilities that, as you can well imagine, are fairly strict on us—$45 million a year is what we've been given to run the process. That's what we can expect, and that's it.

I know the quote is long but the minister has essentially said that he does not know how much the implication of this bill will cost but he knows that it cannot cost more than $45 million because that is all he has. This is absolutely ridiculous. By admitting that he does not know the cost, the minister is admitting that he does not know the implications of his own legislation. If a minister does not know the bill's implications, then how can he expect landowners and land users to plan for the future? Has the minister done studies? Can he give any idea of the cost? What about socioeconomic impact assessments for protecting or recovering certain species?

Furthermore, the minister said that he did not want to undertake open-ended spending commitments but that as far as he knew Bill C-5 was open-ended in terms of its implications for Canadian property owners. The minister said that he would not pay for the costs of his legislation but that he had no problem forcing others to absorb those costs.

Although the bill was probably well-intentioned, it certainly has some very major flaws. Only if the government decides to fix them will I support the bill. I and my party, the Canadian Alliance, support the need to protect endangered species but we believe that compensation and socioeconomic impact assessments of recovery plans are essential to preserving a species and essential to good endangered species legislation. This is not good legislation.

I would urge members to support the Canadian Alliance motions on compensation and, in particular, my Motion No. 15 from this grouping which would ensure that the purpose of the legislation, which is to protect species at risk, is accomplished in a manner that is consistent with sustainable development.

I truly believe we cannot have one without the other. To illustrate this point, I would like to tell the House about my home of Skeena, B.C., where I have several large national and provincial parks.

One example I can think of is the Tatshenshini UNESCO world heritage site in the northwest corner of Skeena riding. It is a place of towering mountains, wild rivers and strong and vibrant wildlife. This area was a national park and now, through the United Nations world heritage site program, it is a chunk of land that will forever be set aside for wildlife. Does this not sound like a beautiful success story? What I have not mentioned is that within the boundaries of that site was one of the largest mineral deposits ever found in the world. It had enough ore to put British Columbia back on the map with billions of dollars worth of copper, cobalt and gold.

In the late 1990s, I believe during the 35th parliament, a mining company with legal rights to that area was in the planning stage of developing a mine when the then NDP provincial government and the current federal Liberal government did everything in their power to stop all development in the Tatshenshini in its tracks. Gone were the promises of hundreds of long term, well paying jobs. Gone were the taxes that could have been generated in the form of royalties to the government. The government said that we should not despair as the northwest was protected once again, but at what cost?

The picture I am trying to paint here is not one of perpetual naturalistic bliss but a one-sided victory for the environmental lobby groups that make their homes and live their lives in the grey cement and black asphalt of downtown urban cities like Vancouver, Toronto and New York. Yes, the Tatshenshini is now protected forever, but life goes on in unemployment ridden northwestern British Columbia which would have thrived if only the development of the mine had been allowed. Thirty years of employment was lost in that one mine alone, let alone all the spinoff jobs, as was the potential development of numerous other mining properties.

What I am getting at is the need for balance. Yes, we should have parks and we should do what is needed to protect species at risk from being endangered or extirpated, but we need to do so with balance in mind or it just will not work.

Governments get the money they need to put into place recovery plans and to pay for ecologists, biologists and other scientists to help these species recover. Money is needed to rebuild habitats and to monitor success rates.

Without industry paying taxes, without people working and paying taxes, without goods being sold, being bought and being taxed, we just do not have the ability to protect what is in need of protecting.

In closing, this is why of all the topics Group No. 3 covers, I have chosen to bring to the attention of the House the need for sustainable development. As such, I mean that we need to bring balance to this legislation by including mandatory compensation for landowners and by ensuring the overriding goal of this legislation as set out in its purposes section reflects the need to respect sustainable development. Without it, the economic realities are that as a country we will not be able to afford to protect our wildlife and endangered species.