Bill C-5 (Historical)

Species at Risk Act

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

Species at Risk Act

[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.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I come from Saskatchewan. In the history of Saskatchewan we have dealt with a lot of problems by using co-operation and respect for one another's rights. We have solved a lot using that approach.

Very seldom does government compulsion work. Governments, particularly the Liberal government, pay little or no attention to the consequences of their policies. The Liberal government demands that other people do expensive studies on the most minor of things to determine the impacts of its policies but does not do it itself.

A conference sponsored by 12 nations was held in Stockholm recently. It was called the Stockholm Progressive Summit. Members of the conference tried to figure out strategies to counter the dangerous trend developing in the world whereby people have been choosing right of centre and free market solutions to their problems. Conference members tried to plot a strategy to deal with the problems. It was quite a list. Thirty years ago they were called socialists. Twenty years ago they were called social democrats. Today they are called progressives.

The conference was called the Stockholm Progressive Summit. Can members guess who one of the 12 sponsors of the convention was? Canada was one of the sponsors. Can members guess who one of the chief speakers at the conference was? It was our Prime Minister. Now I know why the government that rules our country chose the colour of its party. It is clear to me today.

This type of conference leads to this sort of legislation. It is the same mentality. If anything is clear from history it is that socialism is a failed experiment, not an instrument of innovation. The government talks about an innovation agenda. When has the government ever innovated on anything? Some people say the only thing government ever created that was innovative was welfare.

I am not sure what long list of innovation governments have, especially this government. I know one thing. Socialism has created declining economies. It has created poverty. It has destroyed and undermined individual freedoms and property rights. It has undermined the rule of law. Where it has taken root and has strength we see declining countries.

The market system works well when governments create the proper environment. That environment consists of the rule of law, certainty, predictability, simplicity in the law so everyone understands the rules, stable monetary policy, national and personal security at home and abroad, and respect for the rights of the individual including liberty and property rights. This is very important.

There are a number of difficulties with the bill. Chief among them is that there has been no meaningful dialogue with the stakeholders involved, especially at the front end. The government is trying to carry on a dialogue after the decision is made. To me that is a public relations exercise. If we want good policy built on a solid foundation we need to have a dialogue at the front end. That has not been done with this legislation.

Another criticism I have of the government and its environmental policies is that they ignore the human element. We are part of the planet as well. Too many of the government's policies ignore the human element and the economy that must function in our society. If we want first class social services and a strong environment we need a first class economy.

An individual died in 1993 who was known as the equivalent to management circles that Einstein was to physics. His name was Dr. Deming. He was a critic of the way government policy is created. He said governments dictated results and created regulations and laws in a vacuum. He said such laws were totally unworkable and based on a lack of understanding of their impact on the economy.

Dr. Deming was preoccupied with creating quality services and goods and having an economy that produced these things. Any world class organization today that is well managed knows who Dr. Deming was. The Liberal government failed to involve stakeholders in developing its species at risk policy. It went back to its socialistic roots of trying to dictate results using government compulsion.

The government does not have a clue about the economic impact the species at risk legislation would have. The minister does not. He threw out a figure of $45 million at one point but was not sure about it. It sounds like the Kyoto accord. He does not have a clue what the economic impact would be. Before the government shoves compulsory legislation like this down our throats it is high time we had a meaningful economic impact study.

President Reagan once described the Liberal approach to economic problems. He said if the thing is alive, moving and healthy, tax it. If that does not slow it down, regulate it into the ground. When the thing is almost dead, start subsidizing. That is Liberal policy.

Do members know what is missing for rural Canada? It is the third part. The government has been good regarding the first part. It has taxed and regulated rural Canada into the ground. It has been weak regarding the subsidizing part. Rural Canada is dying because of the government's policies.

Using President Reagan's model we must ask what Bill C-5 would do. Landowners would become slave labour to the state. They would have to be the state's stewards and carry out the responsibilities of the act. They would have to give up property rights without proper compensation and due process. It is a typical Liberal approach. I am sure the government learned it at the Stockholm conference. That is the way it does things.

Confiscating a citizen's property is a dangerous concept. Turning people into slave labour without compensation is another problem. What takes the cake about Bill C-5 is that if the slave labourers accidently did something to an endangered species the government would turn them into criminals. One of the principles of the rule of law is that we do not make our citizens criminals without a guilty mind. The government probably learned its approach at the Stockholm conference. It is the sort of thing they teach at those conferences. It is the socialistic or progressive way of doing things.

Maybe people in rural Canada should turn their land over to one of the companies in central Canada the government likes to support. The regulation thing would be resolved. The taxation thing would be resolved. The people would get money from the government. It would not be taxing them. The subsidies would pour in and they would be healthy. Maybe that is what they should do. They should voluntarily turn over their land.

I can name a whole slew of companies that seem to have a direct pipeline to our enlightened leader and dictatorship in Ottawa. Forestry, agriculture and rural industries are not part of that family compact arrangement. They are shut out. The government has a hostile agenda toward them.

In summary, we in my party cannot support Bill C-5 for a whole host of reasons. The bill has little or no regard for the impact it would have on the rural economy and people's livelihoods. It reveals an arrogance and contempt for citizens and property rights. It undermines a simple principle of the rule of law in a democratic society: we do not make criminals out of citizens without a guilty mind.

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

Madam Speaker, we are involved in one of those debates in the House of Commons that is important to a large section of our society in Canada.

This is not a new debate. The legislation was introduced several years ago and it has kind of stumbled along under the directorship of the Liberal government. From time to time we see a few bright spots in it but then it kind of regresses again. The government has a good objective in mind, protection of endangered species, but, like so much of its legislation, its plan to get there is totally misdirected. It is no different with Bill C-5, the bill to protect endangered species.

When I spoke in the House the other day I asked who in Canada would go against that basic principle. We all want to see the endangered species protected. The only endangered species I see are those on the other side of the House, and we even have some sympathy for them.

All Canadians I know want to see endangered species protected. They do not want to see species become at risk but the method of protecting them is the matter in question.

I made the comment before about the socioeconomic impact of the legislation, meaning that it would fall to the user groups, the people who live and make their livings in rural Canada, to protect these species by themselves.

I also made the case, in terms of agriculture, which represents a large portion of the land base, that there are something like 250,000 landowners in western Canada who will be expected to bear the cost for all Canadians of protecting endangered species. I do not think that is a reasonable approach.

Some 30 million Canadians benefit from having flora and fauna, and birds and animals protected so they do not become extinct. Why should 250,000 landowners in western Canada, a few forestry companies and oil companies, have to bear the total cost of that? It does not make any sense.

Rural Canada is still an important part of the equation. Rural Canada is where these endangered species largely exist, even in their limited numbers. We do not see them in downtown Toronto. Why is that? It is pretty hard for a burrowing owl to dig a hole in the pavement on Yonge Street.

The people who live in the concrete jungles and who have these high objectives, great on them, but they have wrecked their own environment and now they want to put the burden of protecting endangered species on all people in rural Canada. It simply will not work. It will not work from a practical point of view of policing. It will not work from a practical point of co-operation.

We have seen what happened in jurisdictions in other countries. Many of us spoke about what happened in the United States when it had the silly legislation that said that it would use heavy fines and jail terms to beat up on people who do not protect endangered species.

We do know there are better solutions, even in Canada. Ducks Unlimited has had a very creative program for protecting waterfowl in the country and has been very effectual in building up the numbers of ducks and geese in Canada by asking landowners for co-operation, the very people who live their lives in tune with nature and who want to see these species protected. It is not that they do not want to protect these species. It is just that they cannot be expected to bear the full brunt of the cost. They will pay their share but they simply cannot afford to pay it all.

We saw a recent survey showing the number of landowners, in terms of western agriculture, that have disappeared in the last five years alone. It is down by about 25%. There is a huge problem in terms of people being able to make their living off the land. There is a huge social disruption just in people, let alone the number of endangered species that are talked about in terms of birds and wildlife.

I suggest that we need to look for a more creative approach. Britain has a lot of private trusts. Ducks Unlimited is one model. The model in the United States, which goes back 20 years, was the heavy-handed approach but that did not work. Why does the Liberal government not learn from examples of the past? Surely that is what this is all about. Society has a series of building blocks from which we learn and if we do not learn I think we would have to be classified as pretty stupid.

I will talk for a moment about what has worked in the past. When I was growing up in the Grande Prairie area of Alberta we were starting to lose an important species of waterfowl. The trumpeter swan was down to very low numbers. There were less than 50 in the entire world at the time.

A local conservationist named Dr. Bernard Hamm single-handedly undertook to restore the numbers. How did he do it? He did not ask the government to put in heavy handed legislation that would impose severe fines on people for restricting habitat. He went to the people involved. He went to the farmers and ranchers. He went to community groups. He spoke in the schools about the need to build up the numbers of this important species.

Those of us who have had the opportunity to watch trumpeter swans, even the few that existed at the time, know what a magnificent species they are. They fly. They teach their young to fly. They fly with an adult in front, an adult at the back and four young ones in between. They make their circuits, build up their wings and get ready for the big flight they take to Florida and south Texas. They fly 100 feet high. We can hear their trumpet. They are called trumpeter swans. It is a very true sound. All of us have benefited from Dr. Bernard Hamm's approach.

The approach the government is suggesting is much like the approach taken by the United States a few years ago. It would backfire. In the United States landowners were forced to protect habitat and endangered species with no compensation. Many of them got rid of endangered species so they would not have to deal with them or pay the fines. The government of the day was trying to protect species but its legislation had the opposite effect.

Which would be the better approach, that of Bernard Hamm or the current Liberal government? Bernard Hamm single-handedly convinced others to get involved in a co-operative approach to build up the trumpeter swan species so that today there are literally tens of thousands of them and we can all enjoy them.

The Liberal government seems intent on pushing through a heavy handed approach in the House after six years of knowing it would not work. Why does the government not listen to the people? Why does it not take a co-operative approach with landowners, farmers, ranchers, oil companies and lumber people?

The member for Sault Ste. Marie must understand this. He lives in Kenora--Rainy River or one of those ridings. Why does he not convince his counterpart he is bent on a path that would hurt endangered species instead of helping them? It does not make any sense. We need a co-operative approach.

Ducks Unlimited is a perfect model. It pays landowners to keep their fields in stubble and not put them in crop during the year. Baby ducks are hatched there. The numbers have been built up under this successful program. Surely we must learn something from the processes others have used. Otherwise what is society coming to?

I implore the Liberal government not to take the heavy-handed approach of fines and jail terms for landowners who enjoy endangered species and are intent on protecting them the best they can with their limited resources. If we asked landowners for a co-operative approach they would say yes, we would be happy to put our land into habitat to allow endangered species to grow. I have done it myself as a landowner. My family has 2,000 acres in Alberta. We have used the Ducks Unlimited approach. It has asked us to keep stubble in place and not seed certain fields. We have seen a tremendous buildup in waterfowl as a result.

Let us use that model. I implore the government not to use the heavy handed approach. It would not work. The government should learn something from what has happened in the United States. Farmers cannot afford to do it themselves. We need all Canadians to be involved. We need the government to pay compensation to help save the endangered species we all value.

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

Madam Speaker, I would think the member, who seems to be concerned about rural development, would be interested in hearing about this but perhaps he is not.

Yesterday the Prime Minister actually had the arrogance to suggest that United States senators were afraid of our agriculture minister and that was why he was sending him down instead of going himself. We will see from the results exactly how terrified they are of us.

One of the main concerns I have about the government is that I see so many Liberal members who have lost their spirit and are whipped on legislation like this. We have seen a lot work go into the legislation over the last few months. It came to the House, the government gutted it and the minister presented what he wants as his membership. We have heard from very few government members who have the guts to stand up and say what they actually think about the legislation. We know there are dozens of them who are concerned about it. I would call upon them to step forward, take their places at the plate and call this legislation what it is, which is bad legislation.

As always, we know that the government's reason for being is to expand wherever it possibly can. It certainly is doing so through this legislation. In the past, bureaucracies have used issues like multiculturalism and national issues to stir people up and expand the bureaucracy. We have seen that through the CRTC over the years in many of the broadcasting regulations and fiascos there.

Normally what the government does is it takes the flavour of the day, mixes in a slug of bureaucracy, stirs it with some regulations and it usually ends up with a bad odour that permeates all of Canadian society. We see that once again here using environmentalism. It is taking environmental issues, wrapping them up in urgency, and then wrestling control from the local people who understand the issues and are the ones who could solve the problems, and giving it to people 2,000 miles away. It takes control away from people who need to have it.

Not only is the government without direction but Bill C-5 is definitely without direction as well. As the member for Yellowhead so accurately pointed out yesterday, rarely do we get legislation that is lose-lose. It is a loss for those who are affected by the legislation and it is also a loss for those who will be trying to administer it.

I want to give some suggestions this afternoon as to why the legislation is such a failure.

First, no one has faith in it. How many times have we seen this legislation come forward in the last seven years? We have seen it three or four times and it has failed completely. When it was brought in this time it went to committee. I understand 127 witnesses addressed the committee and 300-plus amendments were presented. The committee worked its way through the whole bill only to have it come back to the House where the minister took it apart and presented what he wanted in the first place.

Why do we bother? Why make such a mockery of the process? Why not just introduce it that way in the beginning and ram it through, as the government seems so set on doing? Who can treat the bill seriously with the minister treating it the way he has chosen to?

I would suggest that one of the other reasons the bill will fail is that there are no fundamentals to it that would make it a success. First, we deal with the assumption that the government knows best. I know it is not very popular in the House but there are some of us who believe that government is probably more of the problem than it is the solution to many of these issues. I would suggest that in this issue it is true.

The second assumption that the legislation makes, which is appalling, is that rural people are either a negative or an evil influence on the environment in which they live. I find that an insult. It is hard to comprehend. Many of us live in areas where our families have lived for a hundred years. The areas are no worse off. In fact they are far better off now than they were years ago.

The bill also makes the assumption that local people should not have a say. This puzzled me the most when I looked through the legislation. What is the government afraid of from the local people who are affected by the legislation?

Strangely, the cost to local people is not considered at all in the legislation. This is the area I want to address. The basis of legislation we make is usually to know how it will affect the people it is intended to affect. It is reasonable to expect that we would address the socioeconomic aspect and impact in the legislation. Surprisingly, the bill does not do that until right at the final process of looking at recovery plans.

The CA introduced an amendment to ensure that would take place and the committee, in its wisdom, agreed to the amendment. However, the government has now taken it out.

Why did the government do such a thing? I will read quotes from the minister that will explain why it chose to do this. The main reason is that it has absolutely no idea what the socioeconomic implications of the legislation will be. I will read from the minister's information supplement of October 2001:

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

What are the people who are affected supposed to do for those several years?

At the standing committee on October 3 he was quoted as saying:

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.

My question is: Does that include the administration of the act, as well as dealing with the compensation issues for which people will have to be compensated?

The legislation will also be very expensive.

I would like to point out that the legislation could have had a positive socioeconomic impact, although the government has not considered that. Many other places, such as the United States, Africa, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines, all have private conservation programs. We have a tremendous opportunity for co-operation and for private conservation programs that we have not taken.

In conclusion I suggest that the bill has no future. It is based on coercion. We already have one example of a bill that was based on coercion, Bill C-68, which is now costing us nearly a billion dollars and has not accomplished anything that it was set out to do.

I ask once again why the bill targets rural Canadians. The blizzard in Cypress Hills eventually ended and we were able to travel, but I would suggest that if the government does not withdraw this legislation the storm is only beginning.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the Group No. 3 amendments to a bill that needs to be defeated, the species at risk act.

I am sure the government would like us to relent and allow the bill a quick passage through the House but the government does not realize, appreciate or respect how adamant we are about protecting the interests of our constituents. We will not stand by and allow the government to criminalize the hard working and law-abiding farmers and ranchers. We will not stand by and allow the government to trample on the property rights of landowners, nor will we stand by and watch the government run roughshod as it intrudes into provincial jurisdiction.

The official opposition will do whatever it takes to prevent the bill from passing in its present form. Members need to look at the amendments that are being brought forward and ask how they can make the bill better. Then we can ensure that we will move forward with the bill because we want to protect endangered species.

As the legislation is now, it will not protect endangered species. It will not protect species at risk. It will not work because the approach is not one of balance. Balance has not been struck between the rights of property owners on one hand and the endangered species that are inhabiting their land on the other hand.

We need legislation that is based on fostering co-operation and mutual respect. We need legislation that minimizes the socio-economic impact of those who work and earn a living off the land.

The government does not yet know the cost. What is the cost to this bill? What is the cost to implement and maintain these new laws? The government does not know, despite saying that governments should not pass legislation which is open ended in terms of funding. The government would say we need to be sure that legislation is not open ended but then it tries to implement a bill that is.

The Minister of the Environment has estimated that the cost of the bill could be $45 million a year. In the past however, when governments have estimated the costs of bills, such as Bill C-68, a cost of $60 million to $80 million has ended up being close to $700 million. The government also does not understand the socioeconomic implications of the species at risk act. It is totally irresponsible for the government not to know what the exact cost or the socioeconomic implications are, yet it decides to forge ahead.

We are proposing a technical amendment to have cabinet, before developing the legal list, consider and explain the socio-economic implications. It has to consider what the costs will be to the farmers, ranchers and landowners.

We have spent numerous hours already debating the bill and the derogatory effect it will have on landowners. I do not recall any mention in this place, although it may have been mentioned at committee, about presentations that were made to the standing committee by some organizations, specifically the snowmobile organization.

I have received many cards, letters and e-mails from snowmobilers in my riding stating their concerns regarding Bill C-5. Last Friday I received an e-mail message from Mr. Herb Whitten of Stettler in which he wrote:

I and thousands of other snowmobilers like me, are very passionate about our sport. We are also concerned about both our environment and any potential loss of trails or riding areas. As a member of a primary winter recreation group, I request your active support in ensuring that snowmobiling and its social, recreational and economic benefits receive consideration--

I have assured Mr. Whitten that we are attempting to protect the interests of this particular organization while also protecting the endangered species and their habitat. It is balance.

As stated earlier, we think it is extremely important that that same balance be struck. The interests of all those who are concerned or impacted by this legislation must be given equal and thoughtful consideration.

Most important however, very careful consideration must be given to the landowners who earn a living off the land producing the high quality of food we have come to take for granted in this country. So many challenges face our food producers these days. We keep hearing back home to please not increase the challenges by Ottawa made challenges.

As I stated in the House this week, Canadian farmers already face extremely adverse conditions. Some are so insurmountable that our food producers and suppliers are barely surviving and our food supply is being jeopardized.

Last month the Western Producer stated that the minister of agriculture was downplaying the significance of his department's projections that net farm income will fall sharply in 2002 largely because of lower program payments. When the minister of agriculture downplays farmers' net incomes falling off sharply, it has to be of great concern. Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Bob Friesen has said “Just looking at projections and the reality out there, there will be some thinning of farm numbers this year”.

When individuals talk about the thinning of farm numbers, they are talking about farmers going broke, farmers selling out, communities being hurt. Not only are they first and second generation farmers, but many times they are third and fourth generation farmers. Mr. Friesen also stated that 2002 will be a much worse year for farmers due to a number of contributing factors and that farmers will need more help this year than programs will provide.

Last year livestock producers were forced to sell cattle because of the lack of affordable feed and the lack of water. That still occurs now. According to the Western Producer , this year cattle producers are being negatively affected by the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. We watch our cattle go across the border. Sometimes we say that because of the low dollar they are taking our cattle. However, the fact is that the dollar has been devalued and we are receiving less value for our cattle than we were receiving a number of years ago.

Despite the hardships many rural Canadians are facing, hope remains that communities can band together to look for tools and ideas to revitalize their towns. We have seen it with marketing clubs in local communities and in other ways to help the farm situation.

Farmers across the country are also counting on each other to improve and preserve rural life, including the preservation of some species whose populations are dwindling.

I appreciated that the member for Selkirk--Interlake talked about the piping plover. Farmers gathered together through volunteering to see that this particular species made it on to the list as an endangered species.

A project to transfer ring-necked pheasants to Ontario from Saskatchewan is also talked about in the Western Producer . Not only is this saving the wild pheasant whose population has dwindled to a remnant of what it once was, but it is also building friendships between rural residents of Saskatchewan and farmers and like-minded people from Ontario.

According to the article, ring-necked pheasants are not native to North America. They were introduced from Europe in the early 1900s or late 1800s. Some quickly adapted to their new environment but in Ontario only a small remnant of the early wild population remains. It is hoped that the 200 birds from Saskatchewan will increase the numbers in Ontario.

Shelter areas were created by farmers and those who were working to save these naturalized species. Food was distributed before these pheasants were released into several hundred acres of former pastures in Ontario. Why were they doing this? They were doing this because they had concerns about that particular bird and that it be preserved. They were volunteering and making sure that it was looked after.

That is a prime example of farmers across the country who are working together with wildlife federations to create habitat, encourage breeding and protect disappearing species.

The government should attempt to work with and not against farmers and ranchers. This means implementing legislation that encourages co-operation and voluntary compliance.

I therefore encourage all members on all sides of the House to vote in favour of these amendments, and if these amendments do not satisfy the legitimate concerns of all members in the House, I say that we vote against Bill C-5 and bring forward a piece of legislation that will have a positive impact on the preserving of these species at risk.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I speak to the amendments in Group No. 3 I would like to dispel a couple of myths about the committee's work on the bill.

First, is the myth that the standing committee's changes would make Bill C-5 more coercive. This word is being applied to any change to the bill agreed to by the committee that is contrary to the government's position.

As I noted the last time I spoke the committee fully supported the co-operation first principle. It was foremost in virtually every discussion we had in the many months of our study. The committee sought to inject clarity and predictability into the bill. Most Canadians would believe this is a good thing but we are being told such things are coercive.

Even the committee's version of Bill C-5 is heavily laden with discretion. Every consultation mechanism and opportunity for private stewardship would remain in the bill. They were in fact strengthened by the committee and are available in black and white for anyone to read. I challenge those who claim that the reported version of the bill would be coercive to stand in the House and point to those sections of the amended bill that would support this thesis.

Second, is the myth that 80% of the committee's amendments have been accepted. I do not know what system of accounting produced this figure, but I suggest that the parties involved in this calculation have a brilliant future ahead of them with Enron. A precursory examination of the government's motions clearly indicates that little of the substantive work of the committee has been accepted, including virtually every amendment the committee made to the core issues of the bill.

Furthermore, there are numerous government motions entitled technical motions that are in fact reversing motions. In case after case they change every committee amendment to a particular clause, save for one minor syntactical change. Yet these are described as supporting the intent of the committee and called technical amendments.

As someone who sat on the committee for the duration of the study I am well placed to tell the House what its intent was. The intent of the committee was to improve the bill to reflect the input of the witnesses we heard, to reflect the diversity of views around the committee table, and to improve the biological basis of the legislation. Many of the government motions in no way support this intent.

I will speak to the motions at hand. Government Motion No. 9 and Motion No. 10 would delete the words geographically or genetically distinct from the definition of wildlife species. The committee inserted the language to make the definition consistent with COSEWIC's practice. The original version of Bill C-65, the precursor to Bill C-5, defined species to include geographically distinct populations. This was the government's language. The government changed its mind in Bill C-5. It deleted the reference to geographically distinct populations and replaced it with biologically distinct, which is self-evident, narrower and certainly far more confusing.

Dr. Geoffrey Scudder, former president of the Canadian Society of Zoologists and fellow of the royal society testified before the committee as follows:

The term “biologically distinct population” is vague. It does not make any sense at all to me as a biologist.

There are good reasons for protecting geographically distinct populations. Geographically distinct populations are typically genetically distinct as well and preserving genetic diversity is a key objective of the convention on biological diversity, a convention to which is Canada is a signatory.

On the current reassessed COSEWIC list a number of species, as we heard last night are geographically or genetically distinct populations. They are identified as such on the list. With the rollover of the list we have a contradiction between these subspecies on the COSEWIC list and what the government wants to do to the definition of species.

The government's definition is inconsistent with COSEWIC's definition and its longstanding practice which has been to list geographically distinct populations of a species, for example, the St. Lawrence beluga whale, the eastern cougar, et cetera. One might ask, is this just the committee's opinion? No. COSEWIC itself disagrees with the government on this definition and wrote in its brief to the committee:

The geographic, as well as biological, distinction of populations is a key criterion in the recognition by COSEWIC of an evolutionarily significant unit.

It is not just the standing committee and the broader scientific community the government is ignoring, but it is ignoring COSEWIC itself, as it has on numerous key issues in Bill C-5, including the listing process. This is the same COSEWIC that the government tells us it will listen to with great attention.

I turn now to government Motion No. 66. This motion guts the committee changes to clause 37 which pertains to recovery strategies. The committee agreed to insert language granting the minister discretionary authority, and I stress discretionary authority, to take interim habitat conservation measures for a species between the time it is listed and the time the decision is made whether or not to protect its habitat, a period that could last for a year or more.

The government has said that this power already exists in the bill in the form of emergency orders. Yet this is available only if there is an emergency that threatens a species' survival, a very rare situation and one requiring cabinet approval.

There will likely be many situations of threats to a species or its habitat that are serious but that do not necessarily threaten the survival or recovery of the whole species. For this reason, the government's arguments ring hollow. It clearly does not understand its own bill.

Without interim conservation authority, Bill C-5 will create a perverse incentive. If a logging company, for example, knows that a species has been listed and its habitat may, and that is only may, eventually be protected, it will have an economic motivation to accelerate logging of that habitat in order to avoid legal restrictions if the bill's habitat protection measures kick in. To avoid this, authority to create effective interim measures is required.

The committee agreed, yet the government has decided to gut this. It argues that this contradicts the bill's principles of transparency and accountability. In numerous other clauses of the bill, the government is gutting committee amendments that insert criteria, that insert public consultation, that insert reporting mechanisms. Yet in this case, it claims that the committee is blurring these lines.

Government Motion No. 120 removes permitting from the penalties section. I remind the House that there is no mandatory habitat protection of any kind in the bill, either within areas of federal jurisdiction or without. It is all discretionary. It is perfectly possible that a species could go from the beginning to the end of the process that the bill lays out and never have its habitat protected. This is a critical failure of Bill C-5 and the reason it cannot be said to have a biological foundation.

The committee agreed that the government should be required to protect habitat in federal jurisdiction. One way to do this would be via the permitting section.

In the original Bill C-5, the competent minister has the authority to enter into an agreement or issue a permit to people authorizing them to affect a listed species, its residence or its critical habitat. If the terms of such an agreement or permit are not met, or if the permit or agreement is never obtained, what are the repercussions under the original Bill C-5 vis-à-vis habitat protection? There is little or none.

The committee agreed that this should not be the case. In the context of changes to clause 74, which will be debated in Group No. 5, the committee agreed that there should be repercussions. For this reason it amended the list of penalties in clause 97 to include the failure to obtain or comply with an agreement or permit under amended clause 74(1). Government Motion No. 120 eliminates this as a penalty.

It disproves the suggestion that Bill C-5 is heavy on volunteer initiatives at the front end backed up with solid legal protection in the event that those initiatives fail. There is nothing solid about this motion and its intent. There is no penalty if a person does not get a permit and if a person does get a permit, there is no penalty if it is not complied with.

I call on all members of the House to defeat these motions.

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

Madam Speaker, once again we are debating the species at risk act, Bill C-5. I would like to make an initial comment about yesterday when the Speaker was reading the list of endangered species. It was quite a benefit for members of the House to hear and be forced to recognize that there is a long proposed list of endangered species. That is what the debate is all about. The problem up to this point is that it has not been brought home personally to individual MPs. I think the effort initiated by the Canadian Alliance yesterday had a beneficial effect even though some doubted the sincerity of the effort.

I would like to talk about my personal area of Manitoba for a moment. In Manitoba we have the eastern loggerhead shrike. This bird is considered to be endangered, as the Speaker mentioned yesterday. The Manitoba Cattle Producers Association is working with local ranchers and farmers and environmental groups to take care of and improve the habitat for that endangered species. I mentioned that because the idea of co-operation as opposed to the big stick of government is what will make it work for the birds, animals, flowers and for the human component, and also the socioeconomic impact that bad legislation can have.

All of us on the opposition side are trying to bring in amendments that will improve and make the legislation work.

In my area, where my ranch is, we have the piping plover. I was aware of this one and did not need the Speaker to tell me. However we have a funny situation with it. We have a place called North Shoal Lake. My ranch is on the edge of that. I made the effort and fenced off the shoreline of that lake area, as did many of my neighbours.

At the north end of the lake, in the swamp area, Ducks Unlimited has put in a large project called the Vestfold project. I assume it is designed to have several cells that will hold large amounts of water for the benefit of ducks. The fact is that I do not think there are very many ducks that nest there anymore. I think they still mostly nest along our fencelines and in other small potholes.

Ducks Unlimited wants to keep that full of water. The RMs have been more than happy to oblige. They have dug big drainage ditches which have put a lot of water into the project.

When we get more rain and it is not managed properly, the excess water overflows the weirs out of the Vestfold project into Shoal Lake. The habitat of the piping plover, which is an endangered species, is being flooded by excessive water. There is no outlet for Shoal Lake but right now they are considering digging a drainage ditch.

While saying it is environmentally good, mankind is ruining the habitat of the piping plover endangered species because the water levels are so high in Shoal Lake. Piping plovers require a lot of beach and sand to properly nest or have what is described in the bill as a residence. I find that term strange. However the nesting area is being ruined.

We have one environmental group, Ducks Unlimited, on one side and the legislation, which is to protect the piping plover, on the other side. What should be done? The only solution is to have a decent drainage ditch from North Shoal Lake into Lake Manitoba with a control structure that would allow the lake to be at a lower level.

What is the problem and why have we not done that? For the simple fact that the government has not put up two cents worth of infrastructure money. None has flowed significantly outside of the big cities like Winnipeg to the countryside to allow us to do drainage work. We have managed to get a few town water supply projects out of it, but there has been massive underfunding. That is our problem with the piping plover.

These endangered species are not just an easy thing to figure out. We have to be careful that the one hand does not ruin what the other hand is trying to do in government. I see a lack of co-operation between government departments in this whole area.

This brings up the other point of lack of co-operation. I spoke of this the other day so I will not go into any great detail on it.

We have the Department of Fisheries and Oceans protecting fish habitat. While it is protecting fish habitat, it has said that we cannot dig the drains because there are little grass minnows and such in that area. If a drain is dug, it wants us to do a big environmental study with biologists involved. It is holding up the protection of the very habitat of these piping plovers because those water levels should be lower.

If the farmers and ranchers in my area, myself included, had our druthers we would like to see everything the way it was before Ducks Unlimited came in and let nature take care of the ups and downs of the water in that lake. That way the species would be much better off.

Another example of mankind is the provincial government of Manitoba. The water levels are being kept so high in the big lakes such as Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba that it is ruining the habitat in the delta marshes. At the south end of Lake Manitoba is a big delta marsh which is internationally renowned as a habitat for many water species. These species include birds, plants, animals, crustaceans and all kinds of species which live in the mud. Due to massive hydro projects in Manitoba, the water levels are constantly being kept at such a high level that it is ruining the marsh. This is a major issue in Manitoba. Therefore, by not using co-ordinated and well thought out plans, governments right now are in fact probably creating more endangered species which will have to be added to these lists.

I mention these things because I do not think that members of the House realize that this act is impacting on average Canadians like myself and my neighbours. In fact, every family across the country will be impacted.

I was in Kamloops, British Columbia the other day. While I was there, a local rancher told me that a local environmental group had an idea to reintroduce the badger. The group managed to get some badgers from the prairies, where there are a lot, brought them back and put them on crown lands. The dumb old badgers did not know any better and the first thing they did was migrate from government lands to private lands. Now the farmers and ranchers have badgers digging great big holes on their lands. I do not know if members have seen badger holes but they are quite large. However they now have to protect that habitat for the badgers. They cannot just tell the badgers to head back on to crown lands because they do not seem to understand English very well.

I am making light of it, but the fact of the matter is the protection of habitat and the idea of reintroducing species has to be kept in the context of the socioeconomic impact of the area. While we hate to see any particular species become extinct, it seems as though the act is suggesting the following. A species might be doing pretty good in western or southern Ontario, which is its main habitat area, but the fringe of the area is in Manitoba. However the fringe area is an area where the habitat has never been particularly good for these birds or animals. The government can tell us that there was a particular endangered species there 500 years or 100 years ago and that it wants to reintroduce it. Now the habitat has to be saved. Some common sense and reason has be used in the legislation.

When it comes to the costs, I have a real concern. Material has been given to me by my chief critic, the member for Red Deer. I note that on the whole socioeconomic interest area, the environment minister was questioned about the costs. It really makes me worry a little about who will incur the costs and pay the bill. Right now, with no explicit compensation in the act for farmers, ranchers, land users, it looks like those very people could end up carrying the majority of costs as opposed to society as a whole. Obviously that is dead wrong. I cannot believe that the government is not putting in full compensation for economic loss due to protection of endangered species.

Here is what the minister had to say in October, 2001, and it may have changed by now. He said that Environment Canada was aware that compensation for restriction on the use of land was a complex issue. He went on to say “We then got deeper and deeper into this and it became more and more of a proverbial swamp”. With that comment, the government is demonstrating once again that it is only capable of developing the proverbial swamp.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address the proposed amendments to Bill C-5 that are part of Group No. 3.

It is of course the third time that I rise in the House, following the various stages that the bill went through. As members of the Standing Committee on the Environment, we had ample opportunity to discuss this bill.

I would like to point out a number of reasons why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this federal legislation, which will inevitably, through some of its clauses, apply to Quebec.

Let me say from the outset that we are not opposed to legislation to protect threatened species. Why? Because a commitment was made at the Rio earth summit, in 1992. As we know, in a few months, that is in early September, the international community will meet at the Johannesburg summit. It is important to remember what decisions were made ten years ago in order to see if Canada has achieved its objectives regarding the protection of species.

At the 1992 Rio summit, Canada signed the convention on biodiversity. What did the convention have to say about threatened species? Let me quote an excerpt:

Each Contracting Party shall develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations.

So, in 1992, Canada pledged to adopt legislative provisions, to pass an act to protect threatened species. It is rather paradoxical to see, just a few months before the Johannesburg summit, Canada come up with a bill, as if its objective were simply to be able to show up at this summit with an act to protect species.

Quebec did not take long to ensure that the protection of species on its territory became and remained a priority. In 1989, even before the earth summit and the Rio summit, Quebec passed an act on threatened species, regulations on fisheries and an act on wildlife conservation to protect threatened or vulnerable species on its territory. Even before the international community came to an agreement in 1992, Quebec had been proactive and had passed its own legislation.

Now, the federal government has come up with a bill which we feel should, in principle, apply only to federal jurisdictions, including federal territory and, at the most, migratory birds, but should certainly not jeopardize a bill which was passed by the national assembly under the government of Robert Bourassa.

This bill was sponsored by the federal member for Lac-Saint-Louis, then Quebec's minister of the environment. Now, he is part of the government team, whose goal it is to have the House approve amendments and clauses in this bill which will, for all practical purposes, destroy the work done by his own province.

This is ironic, because Quebec passed its own legislation in 1989, the earth summit was held in 1992, and in 1996 Quebec signed the accord to protect endangered species on its territory.

I mention this because we now expect the federal government to make an effort at co-operation. We do not want the Government of Canada to play a policing role. I use the word policing because in the bill the government makes provision for federal enforcement officers, who will duplicate the work being done by our wildlife enforcement officers.

We want a government that works co-operatively, not a policing body. We feel that the government should respect the spirit and the principle of the national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada, signed in Charlottetown in 1996.

What did this accord do? It established a mechanism for co-operation among the federal, provincial and territorial governments. One feature of the accord was that it committed governments to complementary legislation and programs to ensure that endangered species are protected throughout Canada. The idea was to have complementary, not overlapping, programs, which is what we see in the spirit of the bill before us.

Why have a bill that will create overlap with what Quebec is doing? For let us not forget that while the federal bill provides for recovery plans for endangered species, so does Quebec's 1989 legislation.

Whereas the government of Quebec has put a system in place for law enforcement by its wildlife officers, under the Quebec wildlife conservation legislation, with this bill, the federal government and its own officers will be duplicating the work done by ours. This is duplication; here we have a government policing and refusing to co-operate or collaborate. What is more, the legislation sets out offences, as of course the Quebec law did already.

In my opinion, this bill is contrary to the first principle of the national accord for the protection of species at risk. I would remind hon. members of one of the objectives on which the federal government had made a commitment, which is that the governments are to enact regulations and complementary programs to guarantee protection of endangered species everywhere in Canada.

What is more, a council of ministers was created to establish the directions to be taken, report on progress and resolve disputes. That was the second aspect of the accord.

This leads me to set out the reasons behind our decision to introduce an amendment, the one moved my colleague from Mercier, which is found in Group No. 3 and amends clause 57 of the bill, which reads as follows:

1. The competent minister may, after consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council and any person whom he or she considers appropriate, establish codes of practice, national standards or guidelines with respect to the protection of critical habitat.

So we have the competent minister establishing national standards for species protection, when the second statement of the accord signed in 1996 stated that the minister will establish “a Council of Ministers that will provide direction, report on progress and resolve disputes”.

In my opinion, clause 57 is contrary to the second principle contained in the national accord. In addition, I believe that clause 34, which creates a safety net for species protection, is in direct contravention of the first principle set out in the 1996 accord.

There is a high likelihood that I will be speaking again on Group No. 4.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, now that we are on orders of the day we will speak to Bill C-5. I would rather be speaking to the 15th report of the public accounts committee but that is perhaps for another day.

Bill C-5 is the species at risk act. Today we are dealing with its socioeconomic impacts. The previous speaker said the science was indisputable and the government wanted to do the right thing. Those are wonderful words but we wonder how much they mean. In many cases when it comes to the Liberal government words are empty commitments, promises and rhetoric. They are made only when it suits the Liberals. When it suits them otherwise they stand and absolutely insist things be done their way.

Clause 32(1) of Bill C-5 states:

No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species, except in accordance with an agreement, permit, licence, order or document referred to in section 74 or 75.

On page A-11 of today's National Post there is an article about beluga whales dying of cancer at an alarming rate. The article talks about a drug whose full name I will not worry about trying to pronounce. It is called PAH, a carcinogenic compound that appears to be causing cancers in the beluga whales.

We are not sure, but according to my hon. colleague the science is indisputable. It either is or it is not. I have a great concern about ensuring we protect the beluga whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The point is that the science is not indisputable.

The article may be absolutely correct in pointing to PAH as the chemical that is killing the whales. Clause 32 of Bill C-5 says no person shall kill, harm, harass or capture an endangered species. The aluminum plants in the Saguenay are putting effluent into the water and the water may be causing cancer among the beluga whales. That is what they think. If it is true, and I am not saying it is not, we had better shut down the aluminum smelters because no person shall kill, harm or harass the beluga whales.

Apparently we have been spewing out about 200 tonnes of the substance. Through management it has been reduced to 70 tonnes but it exists in the sediments at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the whales continue to die of cancer.

I agree that the issue is serious. We should do what we can to protect the beluga whales. It is interesting that while the article says the issue is serious and appears quite confident in its diagnosis, it goes on to talk about people in the area who also happen to be dying of cancer. The article says:

According to Dr. Martineau, humans in the area are exposed to the same contaminants as whales, although no direct link can be drawn between carcinogen levels in belugas and any possible risk to people.

I am at a bit of a loss. They say PAH is killing the belugas. People in the Saguenay are exposed to the same dangerous and carcinogenic chemical so there should be a higher risk of cancer among people in the area. However no direct link can be drawn between carcinogen levels in belugas and any possible risk to people.

What about the science? If PAH kills beluga whales it should kill us too. Do hon. members not think so? Maybe we should get ourselves included in the act as an endangered species. If we keep consuming PAH we may soon go the way of the beluga whale.

I am not trying to make fun of the beluga whale. The point is that the act is draconian. It would shut down the mills. Putting 70 tonnes of the substance into the Gulf of St. Lawrence every year would be a contravention of the act. It is fairly simple stuff. Will we shut down the mills? I do not know. We will have to wait and see.

Clause 32(1) of Bill C-5 talks about an exception:

--except in accordance with an agreement, permit, licence, order or document referred to in section 74 or 75.

Clauses 74 and 75 say permits could be issued. Subclause 74 (2) states:

The agreement may be entered into, or the permit issued, only if the competent minister is of the opinion that

(a) the activity is scientific research relating to the conservation of the species and conducted by qualified persons;

(b) the activity benefits the species or is required to enhance its chance of survival in the wild; or

(c) affecting the species is incidental to the carrying out of the activity.

Aluminum smelters do not meet any of these criteria. No permit could be granted to aluminum plants or smelters in the Saguenay. If we passed the bill we would shut them down.

I do not see any exception or grandfather clause in the legislation that says the stuff should not have been put into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It has already been reduced from 200 tonnes to 70 tonnes. I hope plans are in place to eliminate it entirely but I do not know if it is possible. I am not here to debate the science. According to the previous member's statement the science is indisputable.

What would we do? Would we thumb our noses at a law we passed in this place, or would we shut places down because we wanted to protect people as well as beluga whales? We are pretty sure what is killing the whales but do not know what is killing the people even though they are exposed to the same substance. The science can be disputed. They are saying one thing but not the other because one seems logical and the other illogical. This is the type of stuff we are seeing.

I mentioned another thing yesterday that gets me upset. There is a federal jurisdiction and a provincial jurisdiction. There is a federal sovereignty and a provincial sovereignty. It has been pretty well cast in stone since 1867.

If the minister deemed that a province was not doing its job properly he would have six months to say forget all the provincial laws, we will impose our law in place of provincial law. There would be no mechanism to come back to the House to debate an issue. There would be no place for a province to appeal. The minister would be given dictatorial powers.

We are seeing this more and more in the House every day. The government has dictatorial powers. Its members can stand and move that we go to orders of the day rather than listen and debate concurrence motions about issues concerning crown corporations that suggest the government is less than perfect. It shows that members over there are incompetent. They do not want to hear about it. They want to say it is their way or the highway. That is no way to do business.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard much in the last two weeks about the importance of basing the decisions about establishing lists of species at risk to which the act will apply on the best available science. We have heard from some who would want us to believe that the government will refuse to act on the advice of the recommendations of COSEWIC. I think it is important to look at what is actually being done rather than to speculate endlessly about what might happen.

The protection of endangered or threatened species is a responsibility the government takes seriously. We agree that COSEWIC's species assessments must be addressed in a timely manner and the government is taking steps to do just that. The government supports the amendment made by the standing committee to add to the bill a new schedule 1 that contains 198 species at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I must compliment you on providing us a reading of that list yesterday, and not only in both official languages but in Latin. Indeed, the motion to add 198 species to the legal list was proposed by our Minister of Environment during the standing committee review of the bill. This means that the statutory obligations would immediately apply to these species as soon as the act is proclaimed.

However, the government is going even further. COSEWIC has continued its work while Bill C-5 has been making its way through the legislative process. Assessments and reassessments of species with the new and improved criteria have been done and have yielded some very important results.

I wish to speak in favour of the government's motions to add another 35 species to that initial list. This is the list to which the statutory obligations automatically apply when the act is proclaimed. This brings the initial list to 233 species. Every species that COSEWIC has assessed against the new criteria, every single one, not just the cute, furry, fuzzy ones but the lichen, the fish and the slugs, has been reassessed. This is very significant and is an indication that the federal government is committed to species at risk.

Adding all 233 species to the legal list under species at risk legislation clearly demonstrates how seriously the government takes COSEWIC's advice. It demonstrates further our commitment to acting on that advice. The assessment and the listing of species is a perfect partnership. The scientists with the expertise will determine the threats as well as the status, and the elected members of parliament will move forward on actions that address the threats and the status. It is a partnership that will work very well.

We must give both the scientists and the government what they need to get this important job done. As an example, I support the proposed amendments that restore a more workable definition of the term wildlife species. We need to give COSEWIC a definition that can be interpreted and put to good use rather than one that narrowly restricts its work, as the proposed wording from the standing committee would have done.

While I am speaking about definitions I would also like to express my support for the proposed change to the definition of residence. While it may seem like a small change, it is an important one that will re-establish the concept of the residence as a clearly defined place associated with an individual or individuals of the species in question and it will not extend the definition to the broader concept of critical habitat which is covered extensively in other parts of this act.

This is important, as prohibitions against the destruction of the residence of a threatened or endangered species will apply automatically upon listing. Canadians deserve to be able to understand the concept and to identify those residences with some clarity. It is also important for a listed species because it enables the protection of the automatic prohibition against the destruction of a residence to come into play quickly and unambiguously.

The government motions are also intended to delete the new, broad, open ended authority added by the standing committee for the minister to take any interim measures to protect species from the time of listing to the finalization of recovery strategies. This contradicts the transparent and accountable nature of the bill.

It is important that we state as clearly as possible that there is no need to wait for recovery strategies and action plans. The species at risk legislation would contain emergency provisions to give the minister authority to take interim measures between the time of listing and the time of recovery. Moreover, the minister could at any time enter into stewardship agreements to protect species and critical habitat.

Speaking of stewardship, at the farm gate in Saskatchewan there are signs that proudly announce the recovery of the burrowing owl. Woodlot owners across Ontario and Quebec proudly display membership in conservation organizations and talk about such matters when they get together. Fishers in Atlantic Canada invest in different kinds of nets to avoid trapping sea turtles and whales. Ranchers in Ontario and Alberta assist in recovery efforts for the loggerhead shrike. Landowners in the southern Okanagan take time out of their busy lives to participate in the development and implementation of projects to protect habitat and help species.

These people and thousands like them are stewards. They are Canadians who are protecting species at risk. They are people who want to do the right thing and whose actions speak far louder than words. This is a land with an ethic of farmers, an ethic of protecting woodlands, prairies, and waters where fishers have worked for generations. That is stewardship. It is what we know will work as a first step in protecting critical habitat.

I will address the government's position on socioeconomic matters and how they relate to the proposed act.

Bill C-5 is designed to protect and recover species at risk. It is the whole reason we have the legislation before us. Assessments of species are prepared by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. They are based on the best available information about the biological status of species. It is the only information that influences species assessment. Social and economic factors do not, nor would they under the proposed act.

Equally clear is the recovery part of the act. Its objectives have everything to do with biology and nothing to do with social or economic factors. It is important to read the amendments and the act instead of the interpretations of others, interpretations that have not changed while we have listened, adjusted and listened some more. The act says clearly that there would be no interference with science. There would be none.

When would we take economic and social impacts into account? When would we determine how to respond to them? Consideration must be given to social and economic factors. At this phase the process is still truly open and transparent.

We have stated over and over that science is an untouchable piece of the proposed act. We would not allow undue influence over scientists. We have emphasized and continue to emphasize that the people of the land and the waters in Canada are doing the right thing and want to continue to do the right thing. We should not insult them any further by saying they would deliberately avoid doing the right thing. We should read what is proposed in the act and the motions, avoid the spin, and move on with passage of Bill C-5.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, for the Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-5, in Schedule 2, be amended by replacing page 87 to 89 with the following:

SCHEDULE 2

(Section 130)

PART 1

ENDANGERED SPECIES

MAMMALS

Caribou, Peary (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) Banks Island population

Caribou de Peary population de l'île Banks

Caribou, Peary (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) High Arctic population

Caribou de Peary population du haut Arctique

Whale, Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) St. Lawrence River population

Béluga population du fleuve St-Laurent

Whale, Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) Ungava Bay population

Béluga population de la baie d'Ungava

Whale, Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) Southeast Baffin Island--Cumberland Sound population

Béluga population du sud-est de l'île de Baffin et de la baie Cumberland

Whale, Bowhead (Balaena mysticetus) Eastern Arctic population

Baleine boréale population de l'Arctique de l'Est

Whale, Bowhead (Balaena mysticetus) Western Arctic population

Baleine boréale population de l'Arctique de l'Ouest

Whale, Right (Eubalaena glacialis)

Baleine noire

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Eastern population

Carcajou population de l'Est

BIRDS

Bobwhite, Northern (Colinus virginianus)

Colin de Virginie

REPTILES

Racer, Blue (Coluber constrictor foxii)

Couleuvre agile bleue

Snake, Lake Erie Water (Nerodia sipedon insularum)

Couleuvre d'eau du lac Érié

FISH

Sucker, Salish (Catostomus sp.)

Meunier de Salish

PART 2

THREATENED SPECIES

MAMMALS

Caribou, Peary (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) Low Arctic population

Caribou de Peary population du bas Arctique

Mole, Townsend's (Scapanus townsendii)

Taupe de Townsend

Porpoise, Harbour (Phocoena phocoena) Northwest Atlantic population

Marsouin commun population du Nord-Ouest de l'Atlantique

Whale, Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) Eastern Hudson Bay population

Béluga population de l'est de la baie d'Hudson

Whale, Humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) North Pacific population

Rorqual à bosse population du Pacifique Nord

BIRDS

Shrike, Prairie Loggerhead (Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides)

Pie-grièche migratrice des Prairies

REPTILES

Rattlesnake, Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)

Crotale Massasauga de l'Est

Turtle, Blanding's (Emydoidea blandingi) Nova Scotia population

Tortue mouchetée population de la Nouvelle-Écosse

Turtle, Spiny Softshell (Apalone spinifera)

Tortue molle à épines

FISH

Cisco, Blackfin (Coregonus nigripinnis)

Cisco à nageoires noires

Cisco, Shortjaw (Coregonus zenithicus)

Cisco à mâchoires égales

Cisco, Shortnose (Coregonus reighardi)

Cisco à museau court

Darter, Channel (Percina copelandi)

Fouille-rodie gris

Madtom, Margined (Noturus insignis)

Chat-fou liséré

Redhorse, Black (Moxostoma duquesnei)

Chevalier noir

Redhorse, Copper (Moxostoma hubbsi)

Chevalier cuivré

Sculpin, Deepwater (Myoxocephalus thompsoni) Great Lakes population

Chabot de profondeur des Grands Lacs populations des Grands Lacs

Sticklebacks, Enos Lake (Gasterosteus spp.)

Épinoches du lac Enos

Whitefish, Lake (Coregonus clupeaformis) Lake Simcoe population

Grand corégone population du lac Simcoe

PLANTS

Aster, White Wood (Eurybia divaricatas)

Aster divariqué

Chestnut, American (Castanea dentata)

Châtaignier d'Amérique

Jacob's Ladder, van Brunt's (Polemonium van-bruntiae)

Polémoine de van Brunt

Lipocarpha, Small-flowered (Lipocarpha micrantha)

Lipocarphe à petites fleurs

Spiderwort, Western (Tradescantia occidentalis)

Tradescantie de l'Ouest

Verbena, Sand (Abronia micrantha)

Abronie à petites fleurs

Violet, Bird's-foot (Viola pedata)

Violette pédalée

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-5, in Schedule 2.1, be amended by replacing page 90 to 96 with the following:

SCHEDULE 3

(Section 130)

SPECIAL CONCERN

MAMMALS

Bat, Fringed (Myotis thysanodes)

Chauve-souris à queue frangée

Bat, Keen's Long-eared (Myotis keenii)

Chauve-souris de Keen

Bat, Spotted (Euderma maculatum)

Oreillard maculé

Bear, Grizzly (Ursus arctos)

Ours grizzli

Bear, Polar (Ursus maritimus)

Ours polaire

Cottontail, Nuttall's (Sylvilagus nuttallii nuttallii) British Columbia population

Lapin de Nuttall population de la Colombie-Britannique

Fox, Grey (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)

Renard gris

Kangaroo Rat, Ord's (Dipodomys ordii)

Rat kangourou d'Ord

Mouse, Western Harvest (Reithrodontomys megalotis megalotis) British Columbia population

Souris des moissons population de la Colombie-Britannique

Seal, Harbour (Phoca vitulina mellonae) Lacs des Loups Marins landlocked population

Phoque commun population confinée aux lacs des Loups Marins

Shrew, Gaspé (Sorex gaspensis)

Musaraigne de Gaspé

Squirrel, Southern Flying (Glaucomys volans)

Petit polatouche

Whale, Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) Eastern High Arctic/Baffin Bay population

Béluga population de l'Est du haut Arctique et de la baie de Baffin

Whale, Blue (Balaenoptera musculus)

Rorqual bleu

Whale, Fin (Balaenoptera physalus)

Rorqual commun

Whale, Humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) Western North Atlantic population

Rorqual à bosse population du Nord-Ouest de l'Atlantique

Whale, Northern Bottlenose (Hyperoodon ampullatus) Gully population

Baleine à bec commune population du ravin océanique

Whale, Sowerby's Beaked (Mesoplodon bidens)

Baleine à bec de Sowerby

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Western population

Carcajou population de l'Ouest

BIRDS

Curlew, Long-billed (Numenius americanus)

Courlis à long bec

Falcon, Tundra Peregrine (Falco peregrinus tundrius)

Faucon pèlerin, toundra

Hawk, Ferruginous (Buteo regalis)

Buse rouilleuse

Hawk, Red-shouldered (Buteo lineatus)

Buse à épaulettes

Heron, Pacific Great Blue (Ardea herodias fannini)

Grand héron Population de la côte du Pacifique

Murrelet, Ancient (Synthliboramphus antiquus)

Guillemot à cou blanc

Owl, Short-eared (Asio flammeus)

Hibou des marais

Thrush, Bicknell's (Catharus bicknelli)

Grive de Bicknell

Warbler, Cerulean (Dendroica cerulea)

Paruline azurée

Waterthrush, Louisiana (Seiurus motacilla)

Paruline hochequeue

Woodpecker, Red-headed (Melanerpes erythrocephalus)

Pic à tête rouge

AMPHIBIANS

Frog, Northern Leopard (Rana pipiens) Prairie population

Grenouille léopard population des Prairies

Frog, Northern Red-legged (Rana aurora)

Grenouille du Nord à pattes rouges

Salamander, Smallmouth (Ambystoma texanum)

Salamandre à nez court

Salamander, Spring (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus)

Salamandre pourpre

Toad, Great Plains (Bufo cognatus)

Crapaud des steppes

REPTILES

Lizard, Eastern Short-horned (Phrynosoma douglassii brevirostre)

Phrynosome de Douglas de l'Est

Racer, Eastern Yellow-bellied (Coluber constrictor flaviventris)

Couleuvre agile à ventre jaune de l'Est

Skink, Five-lined (Eumeces fasciatus)

Scinque pentaligne

Skink, Northern Prairie (Eumeces septentrionalis septentrionalis)

Scinque des Prairies

Turtle, Spotted (Clemmys guttata)

Tortue ponctuée

Turtle, Wood (Clemmys insculpta)

Tortue des bois

FISH

Buffalo, Bigmouth (Ictiobus cyprinellus)

Buffalo à grande bouche

Buffalo, Black (Ictiobus niger)

Buffalo noir

Cisco, Spring (Coregonus sp.)

Cisco de printemps

Cod, Atlantic (Gadus morhua)

Morue franche

Dace, Redside (Clinostomus elongatus)

Méné long

Dace, Speckled (Rhinichthys osculus)

Naseux moucheté

Dace, Umatilla (Rhinichthys umatilla)

Naseux d'Umatilla

Darter, Greenside (Etheostoma blennioides)

Dard vert

Killifish, Banded (Fundulus diaphanus) Newfoundland population

Fondule barré population de Terre-Neuve

Kiyi (Coregonus kiyi)

Kiyi

Lamprey, Chestnut (Ichthyomyzon castaneus)

Lamproie brune

Lamprey, Northern Brook (Ichthyomyzon fossor)

Lamproie du Nord

Madtom, Northern (Noturus stigmosus)

Chat-fou du Nord

Prickleback, Pighead (Acantholumpenus mackayi)

Terrassier à six lignes

Redhorse, River (Moxostoma carinatum)

Chevalier de rivière

Sardine, Pacific (Sardinops sagax)

Sardine du Pacifique

Sculpin, Fourhorn (Myoxocephalus quadricornis) Freshwater form

Chaboisseau à quatre cornes forme d'eau douce

Shiner, Bigmouth (Notropis dorsalis)

Méné à grande bouche

Shiner, Pugnose (Notropis anogenus)

Méné camus

Shiner, Silver (Notropis photogenis)

Méné miroir

Sticklebacks, Charlotte Unarmoured (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

Épinoche lisse des îles de la Reine-Charlotte

Stickleback, Giant (Gasterosteus sp.)

Épinoche géante

Sturgeon, Green (Acipenser medirostris)

Esturgeon vert

Sturgeon, Shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum)

Esturgeon à museau court

Sturgeon, White (Acipenser transmontanus)

Esturgeon blanc

Sunfish, Orangespotted (Lepomis humilis)

Crapet menu

Sunfish, Redbreast (Lepomis auritus)

Crapet rouge

Whitefish, Squanga (Coregonus sp.)

Corégone du Squanga

Wolffish, Bering (Anarhichas orientalis)

Loup de Bering

PLANTS

Aster, Bathurst (Symphyotrichum subulatum) Bathurst population

Aster subulé population de Bathurst

Aster, Crooked-stemmed (Symphyotrichum prenanthoides)

Aster fausse-prenanthe

Aster, Gulf of St. Lawrence (Symphyotrichum laurentianum)

Aster du Golfe St-Laurent

Aster, Willow (Symphyotrichum praealtum)

Aster très élevé

Bartonia, Branched (Bartonia paniculata ssp. paniculata)

Bartonie paniculé

Bulrush, Long's (Scirpus longii)

Scirpe de Long

Columbo, American (Frasera caroliniensis)

Frasère de Caroline

Fern, Broad Beech (Phegopteris hexagonoptera)

Phégoptéride à hexagones

Fleabane, Provancher's (Erigeron philadelphicus ssp. provancheri)

Vergerette de Provancher

Gentian, Victorin's (Gentianopsis victorinii)

Gentiane de Victorin

Goosefoot, Smooth (Chenopodium subglabrum)

Chénopode glabre

Green Dragon (Arisaema dracontium)

Arisème dragon

Hackberry, Dwarf (Celtis tenuifolia)

Micocoulier rabougri

Helleborine, Giant (Epipactis gigantea)

Épipactis géant

Hop-tree, Common (Ptelea trifoliata)

Ptéléa trifolié

Hyacinth, Wild (Camassia scilloides)

Camassie faux-scille

Indian-plantain, Tuberous (Arnoglossum plantagineum)

Arnoglosse plantain

Lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis chinensis)

Liléopsis de l'Est

Locoweed, Hare-footed (Oxytropis lagopus)

Oxytrope patte-de-lièvre

Meadowfoam, Macoun's (Limnanthes macounii)

Limnanthe de Macoun

Oak, Shumard (Quercus shumardii)

Chêne de Shumard

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed (Platanthera leucophaea)

Platanthère blanchâtre de l'Est

Pondweed, Hill's (Potamogeton hillii)

Potamot de Hill

Quillwort, Bolander's (Isoëtes bolanderi)

Isoète de Bolander

Rose, Climbing Prairie (Rosa setigera)

Rosier sétigère

Rose-mallow, Swamp (Hibiscus moscheutos)

Ketmie des marais

Rue-anemone, False (Enemion biternatum)

Isopyre à feuilles biternées

Rush, New Jersey (Juncus caesariensis)

Jonc du New Jersey

Thrift, Athabasca (Armeria maritima ssp. interior)

Armeria de l'Athabasca

Water-hemlock, Victorin's (Cicuta maculata var. victorinii)

Cicutaire de Victorin

LICHENS

Cryptic Paw (Nephroma occultum)

Lichen cryptique

Oldgrowth Specklebelly (Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis)

Pseudocyphellie des forêts surannées

Seaside Bone (Hypogymnia heterophylla)

Hypogymnie maritime

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, for the Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-5, in Schedule 1, be amended by replacing page 76 to 86 with the following:

SCHEDULE 1

(Subsections 2(1), 42(2) and 68(2))

LIST OF WILDLIFE SPECIES AT RISK

PART 1

EXTIRPATED SPECIES

MAMMALS

Bear, Grizzly (Ursus arctos) Prairie population

Ours grizzli population des Prairies

Ferret, Black-footed (Mustela nigripes)

Putois d'Amérique

Walrus, Atlantic (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) Northwest Atlantic population

Morse de l'Atlantique population de l'Atlantique Nord-Ouest

Whale, Grey (Eschrichtius robustus) Atlantic population

Baleine grise de Californie population de l'Atlantique

BIRDS

Grouse, Sage (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios) British Columbia population

Tétras des armoises population de la Colombie-Britannique

Prairie-Chicken, Greater (Tympanuchus cupido)

Tétras des prairies

AMPHIBIANS

Salamander, Tiger (Ambystoma tigrinum) Great Lakes population

Salamandre tigrée population des Grands Lacs

REPTILES

Lizard, Pygmy Short-horned (Phrynosoma douglassii douglassii) British Columbia population

Iguane pygmée à cornes courtes population de la Colombie-Britannique

Rattlesnake, Timber (Crotalus horridus)

Crotale des bois

FISH

Chub, Gravel (Erimystax x-punctatus)

Gravelier

Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula)

Spatulaire

MOLLUSCS

Wedgemussel, Dwarf (Alasmidonta heterodon)

Alasmidonte naine

LEPIDOPTERANS

Elfin, Frosted (Callophrys irus, Incisalia irus)

Lutin givré

Marble, Island (Euchloe ausonides)

Marbré insulaire

Blue, Karner (Lycaeides melissa samuelis)

Mélissa bleu

PLANTS

Mary, Spring Blue-eyed (Collinsia verna)

Collinsie printanière

Tick-trefoil, Illinois (Desmodium illinoense)

Desmodie d'Illinois

PART 2

ENDANGERED SPECIES

MAMMALS

Badger jacksoni subspecies, American (Taxidea taxus jacksoni)

Blaireau d'Amérique, jacksoni

Badger jeffersonii subspecies, American (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii)

Blaireau d'Amérique, jeffersonii

Caribou, Woodland (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Atlantic--Gaspésie population

Caribou des bois population de la Gaspésie--Atlantique

Fox, Swift (Vulpes velox)

Renard véloce

Marmot, Vancouver Island (Marmota vancouverensis)

Marmotte de l'île Vancouver

Marten, American (Martes americana atrata) Newfoundland population

Martre d'Amérique population de Terre-Neuve

Whale, Killer (Orcinus orca) Northeast Pacific southern resident population

Épaulard population résidente du Sud du Pacifique Nord-Est

BIRDS

Chat, Western Yellow-breasted (Icteria virens auricollis) British Columbia population

Paruline polyglotte de l'Ouest population de la Colombie-Britannique

Crane, Whooping (Grus americana)

Grue blanche

Curlew, Eskimo (Numenius borealis)

Courlis esquimau

Flycatcher, Acadian (Empidonax virescens)

Moucherolle vert

Grouse, Sage (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) Prairie population

Tétras des armoises population des Prairies

Owl, Barn (Tyto alba) Eastern population

Effraie des clochers population de l'Est

Owl, Burrowing (Speotyto cunicularia)

Chevêche des terriers

Owl, Northern Spotted (Strix occidentalis caurina)

Chouette tachetée du Nord

Plover, Mountain (Charadrius montanus)

Pluvier montagnard

Plover circumcinctus subspecies, Piping (Charadrius melodus circumcinctus)

Pluvier siffleur, circumcinctus

Plover melodus subspecies, Piping (Charadrius melodus melodus)

Pluvier siffleur, melodus

Rail, King (Rallus elegans)

Râle élégant

Shrike, Eastern Loggerhead (Lanius ludovicianus migrans)

Pie-grièche migratrice de l'Est

Sparrow, Henslow's (Ammodramus henslowii)

Bruant de Henslow

Tern, Roseate (Sterna dougallii)

Sterne de Dougall

Thrasher, Sage (Oreoscoptes montanus)

Moqueur des armoises

Warbler, Kirtland's (Dendroica kirtlandii)

Paruline de Kirtland

Warbler, Prothonotary (Protonotaria citrea)

Paruline orangée

Woodpecker, White-headed (Picoides albolarvatus)

Pic à tête blanche

AMPHIBIANS

Frog, Northern Cricket (Acris crepitans)

Rainette grillon

Frog, Northern Leopard (Rana pipiens) Southern Mountain population

Grenouille léopard population des montagnes du Sud

Frog, Oregon Spotted (Rana pretiosa)

Grenouille maculée de l'Oregon

Frog, Rocky Mountain Tailed (Ascaphus montanus)

Grenouille-à-queue des Rocheuses

Salamander, Tiger (Ambystoma tigrinum) Southern Mountain population

Salamandre tigrée population des montagnes du Sud

REPTILES

Snake, Sharp-tailed (Contia tenuis)

Couleuvre à queue fine

Turtle, Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

Tortue luth

Snake, Night (Hypsiglena torquata)

Couleuvre nocturne

FISH

Dace, Nooksack (Rhinichthys sp.)

Naseux de Nooksack

Lamprey, Morrison Creek (Lampetra richardsoni)

Lamproie du ruisseau Morrison

Salmon, Atlantic (Salmo salar)

Saumon d'Atlantique Populations de l'intérieur de la baie de Fundy

Stickleback, Benthic Paxton Lake (Gasterosteus sp.)

Épinoche benthique du lac Paxton

Stickleback, Benthic Vananda Creek (Gasterosteus sp.)

Épinoche benthique du ruisseau Vananda

Stickleback, Limnetic Paxton Lake (Gasterosteus sp.)

Épinoche limnétique du lac Paxton

Stickleback, Limnetic Vananda Creek (Gasterosteus sp.)

Épinoche limnétique du ruisseau Vananda

Trout, Aurora (Salvelinus fontinalis timagamiensis)

Omble Aurora

Whitefish, Atlantic (Coregonus huntsmani)

Corégone de l'Atlantique

MOLLUSCS

Bean, Rayed (Villosa fabalis)

Villeuse haricot

Lampmussel, Wavy-rayed (Lampsilis fasciola)

Lampsile fasciolée

Mussel, Mudpuppy (Simpsonais ambigua)

Mulette du Necturus

Physa, Hotwater (Physella wrighti)

Physe d'eau chaude

Riffleshell, Northern (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana)

Dysnomie ventrue jaune

Snail, Banff Springs (Physella johnsoni)

Physe des fontaines de Banff

Snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra)

Epioblasme tricorn

LEPIDOPTERANS

Ringlet, Maritime (Coenonympha tullia nipisiquit)

Satyre fauve des Maritimes

Blue, Island (Plebejus saepiolus insulanus)

Bleu insulaire

Checkerspot, Taylor's (Euphydryas editha taylori)

Damier de Taylor

PLANTS

Agalinis, Gattinger's (Agalinis gattingeri)

Gérardie de Gattinger

Agalinis, Skinner's (Agalinis skinneriana)

Gérardie de Skinner

Ammania, Scarlet (Ammannia robusta)

Ammannie robuste

Avens, Eastern Mountain (Geum peckii)

Benoîte de Peck

Balsamroot, Deltoid (Balsamorhiza deltoidea)

Balsamorhize à feuilles deltoïdes

Bulrush, Bashful (Trichophorum planifolium)

Scirpe timide

Bluehearts (Buchnera americana)

Buchnera d'Amérique

Braya, Long's (Braya longii)

Braya de Long

Bugbane, Tall (Cimicifuga elata)

Cimicaire élevée

Bush-Clover, Slender (Lespedeza virginica)

Lespédèze de Virginie

Buttercup, Water-plantain (Ranunculus alismaefolius var. alismaefolius)

Renoncule à feuilles d'alisme

Cactus, Eastern Prickly Pear (Opuntia humifusa)

Oponce de l'Est

Coreopsis, Pink (Coreopsis rosea)

Coréopsis rose

Cryptanthe, Tiny (Cryptantha minima)

Cryptanthe minuscule

Fern, Southern Maidenhair (Adiantum capillus-veneris)

Adiante cheveux-de-Vénus

Gentian, White Prairie (Gentiana alba)

Gentiane blanche

Ginseng, American (Panax quinquefolium)

Ginseng à cinq folioles

Virginia Goat's-rue (Tephrosia virginiana)

Téphrosie de Virginie

Goldenrod, Showy (Solidago speciosa var. rigidiuscula)

Verge d'or voyante

Lady's-slipper, Small White (Cypripedium candidum)

Cypripède blanc

Lotus, Seaside Birds-foot (Lotus formosissimus)

Lotier splendide

Lousewort, Furbish's (Pedicularis furbishiae)

Pédiculaire de Furbish

Lupine, Prairie (Lupinus lepidus var. lepidus)

Lupin élégant

Milkwort, Pink (Polygala incarnata)

Polygale incarnat

Mountain-Mint, Hoary (Pycnanthemum incanum)

Pycnanthème gris

Mulberry, Red (Morus rubra)

Mûrier rouge

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed (Platanthera praeclara)

Platanthère blanchâtre de l'Ouest

Owl-Clover, Bearded (Triphysaria versicolor ssp. versicolor)

Triphysaire versicolore

Paintbrush, Golden (Castilleja levisecta)

Castilléjie dorée

Plantain, Heart-leaved (Plantago cordata)

Plantain à feuilles cordées

Pogonia, Large Whorled (Isotria verticillata)

Isotrie verticillée

Pogonia, Nodding (Triphora trianthophora)

Triphore penché

Pogonia, Small Whorled (Isotria medeoloides)

Isotrie fausse-médéole

Quillwort, Engelmann's (Isoëtes engelmannii)

Isoète d'Engelmann

Sanicle, Bear's-foot (Sanicula arctopoides)

Sanicle patte-d'ours

Sedge, False Hop (Carex lupuliformis)

Carex faux-lupulina

Sedge, Juniper (Carex juniperorum)

Carex des Genévriers

Spike-rush, Horsetail (Eleocharis equisetoides)

Éléocharide fausse-prêle

Sundew, Thread-leaved (Drosera filiformis)

Droséra filiforme

Thistle, Pitcher's (Cirsium pitcheri)

Chardon de Pitcher

Toothcup (Rotala ramosior)

Rotala rameux

Tree, Cucumber (Magnolia acuminata)

Magnolia acuminé

Trillium, Drooping (Trillium flexipes)

Trille à pédoncule incliné

Twayblade, Purple (Liparis liliifolia)

Liparis à feuilles de lis

Willow, Barrens (Salix jejuna)

Saule des landes

Wintergreen, Spotted (Chimaphila maculata)

Chimaphile maculé

Woolly-heads, Tall (Psilocarphus elatior)(Pacific population)

Psilocarphe élevé (Population du Pacifique)

Wood-Poppy (Stylophorum diphyllum)

Stylophore à deux feuilles

Woodsia, Blunt-lobed (Woodsia obtusa)

Woodsie obtuse

LICHENS

Seaside Centipede (Heterodermia sitchensis)

Hétérodermie maritime

MOSSES

Moss, Poor Pocket (Fissidens pauperculus)

Fissident appauvri

Moss, Rigid Apple (Bartramia stricta)

Bartramie à feuilles dressées

PART 3

THREATENED SPECIES

MAMMALS

Bat, Pallid (Antrozous pallidus)

Chauve-souris blonde

Bison, Wood (Bison bison athabascae)

Bison des bois

Caribou, Woodland (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Boreal population

Caribou des bois population boréale

Caribou, Woodland (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Southern Mountain population

Caribou des bois population des montagnes du Sud

Ermine haidarum subspecies (Mustela erminea haidarum)

Hermine, haidarum

Otter, Sea (Enhydra lutris)

Loutre de mer

Shrew, Pacific Water (Sorex bendirii)

Musaraigne de Bendire

Whale, Killer (Orcinus orca) Northeast Pacific northern resident population

Épaulard population résidente du Nord du Pacifique Nord-Est

Whale, Killer (Orcinus orca) Northeast Pacific transient population

Épaulard population migratrice du Pacifique Nord-Est

BIRDS

Bittern, Least (Ixobrychus exilis)

Petit Blongios

Falcon, Anatum Peregrine (Falco peregrinus anatum)

Faucon pèlerin, anatum

Goshawk, Queen Charlotte (Accipiter gentilis laingi)

Autour des palombes des îles de la Reine-Charlotte

Gull, Ross's (Rhodostethia rosea)

Mouette rosée

Murrelet, Marbled (Brachyramphus marmoratus)

Guillemot marbré

Pipit, Sprague's (Anthus spragueii)

Pipit de Sprague

Warbler, Hooded (Wilsonia citrina)

Paruline à capuchon

AMPHIBIANS

Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana)

Crapaud du Grand Bassin

Salamander, Allegheny Mountain Dusky (Desmognathus ochrophaeus)

Salamandre sombre des montagnes

Salamander, Jefferson (Ambystoma jeffersonianum)

Salamandre de Jefferson

Salamander, Pacific Giant (Dicamptodon tenebrosus)

Grande salamandre

Toad, Fowler's (Bufo fowleri)

Crapaud de Fowler

REPTILES

Gartersnake, Butler's (Thamnophis butleri)

Couleuvre à petite tête

Snake, Black Rat (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta)

Couleuvre obscure

Snake, Eastern Fox (Elaphe vulpina gloydi)

Couleuvre fauve de l'Est

Snake, Eastern Hog-nosed (Heterodon platirhinos)

Couleuvre à nez plat

Snake, Queen (Regina septemvittata)

Couleuvre royale

FISH

Chubsucker, Lake (Erimyzon sucetta)

Sucet de lac

Darter, Eastern Sand (Ammocrypta pellucida)

Dard de sable

Gar, Spotted (Lepisosteus oculatus)

Lépisosté tacheté

Lamprey, Cowichan Lake (Lampetra macrostoma)

Lamproie du lac Cowichan

Minnow, Western Silvery (Hybognathus argyritis)

Méné d'argent de l'Ouest

Sculpin, Cultus Pygmy (Cottus sp.)

Chabot pygmé

Sculpin, Shorthead (Cottus confusus)

Chabot à tête courte

Shiner, Rosyface (Notropis rubellus) Eastern population

Tête rose population de l'Est

Smelt, Lake Utopia Dwarf (Osmerussp.)

Éperlan nain du lac Utopia

Wolffish, Northern (Anarhichas denticulatus)

Loup à tête large

Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor)

Loup tacheté

MOLLUSCS

Abalone, Northern (Haliotis kamtschatkana)

Haliotide pie

LEPIDOPTERANS

Hairstreak, Behr's (Columbia) (Satyrium behrii columbia)

Porte-queue de Colombie-Britannique

Skipper, Dun (Euphyes vestris) Western population

Hespérie rurale population de l'Ouest

PLANTS

Aster, Anticosti (Symphyotrichum anticostense)

Aster d'Anticosti

Aster, Western Silver-leaved (Symphyotrichum sericeum)

Aster soyeux

Aster, White-top (Sericocarpus rigidus)

Aster rigide

Blue-Flag, Western (Iris missouriensis)

Iris du Missouri

Braya, Fernald's (Braya fernaldii)

Braya de Fernald

Buffalograss (Buchloë dactyloides)

Buchloé faux-dactyle

Coffee-tree, Kentucky (Gymnocladus dioicus)

Chicot févier

Colicroot (Aletris farinosa)

Aletris farineux

Corydalis, Scouler's (Corydalis scouleri)

Corydale de Scouler

Deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum)

Airelle à longues étamines

Fern, Mexican Mosquito (Azolla mexicana)

Azolle du Mexique

Gentian, Plymouth (Sabatia kennedyana)

Sabatie de Kennedy

Golden Crest (Lophiola aurea)

Lophiolie dorée

Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis)

Hydraste du Canada

Greenbrier, Round-leaved (Smilax rotundifolia) Great Lakes Plains population

Smilax à feuilles rondes (Population des plaines des Grands Lacs)

Lily, Lyall's Mariposa (Calochortus lyallii)

Calochorte de Lyall

Mouse-ear-cress, Slender (Halimolobos virgata)

Halimolobos mince

Orchid, Phantom (Cephalanthera austiniae)

Cephalanthère d'Austin

Prairie-clover, Hairy (Dalea villosa var. villosa)

Dalée velue

Redroot (Lachnanthes caroliana)

Lachnanthe de Caroline

Sanicle, Purple (Sanicula bipinnatifida)

Sanicle bipinnatifide

Soapweed (Yucca glauca)

Yucca glauque

Spike-rush, Tubercled (Eleocharis tuberculosa)

Éléocharide tuberculée

Star, Dense Blazing (Liatris spicata)

Liatris à épi

Violet, Yellow Montane (Viola praemorsa ssp. praemorsa)

Violette jaune des monts

Water-pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata)

Hydrocotyle à ombelle

Water-willow, American (Justicia americana)

Carmantine d'Amérique

MOSSES

Moss, Haller's Apple (Bartramia halleriana)

Bartramie de Haller

PART 4

SPECIAL CONCERN

MAMMALS

Beaver, Mountain (Aplodontia rufa)

Castor de montagne

Prairie Dog, Black-tailed (Cynomys ludovicianus)

Chien de prairie

Mole, Eastern (Scalopus aquaticus)

Taupe à queue glabre

Vole, Woodland (Microtus pinetorum)

Campagnol sylvestre

Whale, Killer (Orcinus orca) Northeast Pacific offshore population

Épaulard population au large du Pacifique Nord-Est

Wolf, Eastern (Canis lupus lycaon)

Loup de l'Est

BIRDS

Chat, Eastern Yellow-breasted (Icteria virens virens)

Paruline polyglotte de l'Est

Duck, Harlequin (Histrionicus histrionicus) Eastern population

Arlequin plongeur (Population de l'Est)

Falcon, Peale's Peregrine (Falco peregrinus pealei)

Faucon pèlerin, pealei

Goldeneye, Barrow's (Bucephala islandica) Eastern population

Garrot d'Islande population de l'Est

Gull, Ivory (Pagophila eburnea)

Mouette blanche

Owl, Barn (Tyto alba) Western population

Effraie des clochers population de l'Ouest

Owl, Flammulated (Otus flammeolus)

Petit-duc nain

Rail, Yellow (Coturnicops noveboracensis)

Râle jaune

Sparrow, "Ipswich" Savannah (Passerculus sandwichensis princeps)

Bruant des prés, princeps

Woodpecker, Lewis's (Melanerpes lewis)

Pic de Lewis

AMPHIBIANS

Frog, Coast Tailed (Ascaphus truei)

Grenouille-à-queue côtière

Salamander, Coeur d'Alène (Plethodon idahoensis)

Salamandre Coeur d'Alène

FISH

Chub, Silver (Macrhybopsis storeriana)

Méné à grandes écailles

Minnow, Pugnose (Opsopoeodus emiliae)

Petit-bec

Sculpin, Columbia Mottled (Cottus bairdi hubbsi)

Chabot tacheté de Columbia

Shiner, Bridle (Notropis bifrenatus)

Méné d'herbe

Sucker, Spotted (Minytrema melanops)

Meunier tacheté

Topminnow, Blackstripe (Fundulus notatus)

Fondule rayé

Warmouth (Lepomis gulosus)

Crapet sac-à-lait

Wolffish, Atlantic (Anarhichas lupus)

Loup Atlantique

MOLLUSCS

Oyster, Olympia (Ostrea conchaphila)

Huître plate du Pacifique

LEPIDOPTERANS

Admiral, Weidemeyer's (Limenitis weidemeyerii)

Amiral de Weidemeyer

Monarch (Danaux plexippus)

Monarque

PLANTS

Ash, Blue (Fraxinus quadrangulata)

Frêne bleu

Beggarticks, Vancouver Island (Bidens amplissima)

Grand bident

Fern, American Hart's-tongue (Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum)

Scolopendre d'Amérique

Fern, Coastal Wood (Dryopteris arguta)

Dryoptéride côtière

Goldenrod, Riddell's (Solidago riddellii)

Verge d'or de Riddell

Hairgrass, Mackenzie (Deschampsia mackenzieana)

Deschampsie du bassin du Mackenzie

Milk-vetch, Fernald's (Astragalus robbinsii var. fernaldii)

Astragale de Fernald

Pepperbush, Sweet (Clethra alnifolia)

Clèthre è feuilles d'aulne

Tansy, Floccose (Tanacetum huronense var. floccosum)

Tanaisie floconneuse

Willow, Felt-leaf (Salix silicicola)

Saule silicicole

Willow, Sand-dune Short-capsuled (Salix brachycarpa var. psammophila)

Saule psammophile

Willow, Turnor's (Salix turnorii)

Saule de Turnor

Woolly-heads, Tall (Psilocarphus elatior) Prairie population

Psilocarphe élevé (Population des Prairies)

Yarrow, Large-headed Woolly (Achillea millefolium var. megacephalum)

Achillée à gros capitules

[Editor's Note: Chair read text of Motion No. 136 to the House]

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, for the Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-5, in Clause 73, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 43 on page 39 with the following:

“and in every subsequent five year period, until its objectives have been achieved. The report must be included in the public registry.”.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-5, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 47 with the following:

“(b) it is used by an aboriginal person for ceremonial or medicinal”.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-5, in Clause 97, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 55 with the following:

“36(1), 58(1), 60(1) or 61(1) or section”.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-5 be amended by adding after line 33 on page 75 the following new clause:

“141.1 If Bill C-10, introduced in the 1st Session of the 37th Parliament and entitled the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, receives royal assent, then, on the later of the coming into force of subsection 34(2) of that Act and the definition “competent minister” in subsection 2(1) of this Act, paragraph (a) of the definition “competent minister” in subsection 2(1) of this Act is replaced by the following:

(a) the Minister of Canadian Heritage with respect to individuals in or on federal lands that are administered by that Minister and that are national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation areas or other protected heritage areas as those expressions are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Parks Canada Agency Act;”.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-5, in Clause 142, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 75 with the following:

“142. Except for section 141.1, the provisions of this Act come into”.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, for Ms. Francine Lalonde]

moved:

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-5 be amended by deleting Clause 57.