Bill C-5 (Historical)

Species at Risk Act

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

Species at Risk Act

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

Madam Speaker, there are two processes governments can use to deal with problems in society. One way is to command or order a result. The former Soviet Union had a command system. In a command system the government orders people to do things and hopes it works out.

The other approach to good public policy is to manage situations so all stakeholders involved in the process co-operate. History and the study of public administration show the second method is far preferable to the first. However the Liberal government chooses the first. It is too much work to do it the other way. It is far easier to get bureaucrats to draw up legislation and regulations that command or order a result.

We pride ourselves on living in a free and democratic society. It would be wise for some of my colleagues across the House to sometimes stand back and ask what the ingredients are of a free and democratic society. One of the things that separates us from countries that are not free and democratic is that we do not convict people of serious offences without a guilty mind. That may be the way of other countries. I am certain the Taliban dealt harshly with a lot of people who did not do anything criminal in their minds.

It is offensive that people could be looking at five year jail sentences and $250,000 fines when they did not have guilty minds and did not intend to cause harm to endangered species. Maybe a lot of folks in Toronto would be guilty of this crime. I am sure the lifestyles of urban people in Toronto and Montreal have a far bigger impact on endangered species than those of farmers and landowners in Canada.

Another ingredient of a free and democratic society is respect for property rights and the freedom of the individual. Increasingly the government is showing a hostile attitude toward individual freedoms and property rights in our society. It is as if the government owned all the property and people had their property at the pleasure of the Liberal government.

There is another thing that bothers me, and we can look at the Booth case in the British system and so on. Free and democratic societies respect privacy. Free and democratic societies do not allow the state to charge into someone's home in the middle of the night to conduct a search and seizure. However the Liberal government allows it. Why does it allow it? It does not allow it with regard to dangerous sexual offenders, terrorists or people like that. It allows it with respect to people who own long guns. They are the people who break the law.

In many respects the name Liberal is becoming the antithesis of liberty and freedom. The Liberals should seriously look at changing their name because it no longer matches up with these concepts.

There are a whole host of examples where the government has an agenda of hostility to rural Canada. It is as if it hired Warren Kinsella to become the general of kicking butt in rural Canada.

There are some species that should be at risk in our society. We should be looking at that. We had the pleasure of having this individual aim his gun at us during the federal election. Now he is aiming the gun at some of his own people and they are starting to get a dose of their own medicine. I think we can all agree that maybe this person should become an endangered species.

I will go through some examples of the continual war on rural Canada the government keeps pushing through. It is shameful. It shows an ignorance of the realities of rural Canada but the government insists on going ahead with it.

A huge bureaucracy in the fisheries department goes around harassing farmers, landowners and local governments for doing such simple things as maintaining bridges and roads, removing hazards in their communities and doing minor ditching. The government imposes huge fines on people for doing things they have been doing for ages. The government is crippling organizations by asking them to do environmental impact studies on the most minor of things. These people do not have the money or resources to get into that sort of thing but the government has done that.

Let us look at the wheat board. Let us suppose an individual is trying to support a family of four. Bankers are knocking on his door, commodity prices are low and he finds a market for his product in the United States. He gets double what he can get in Canada by selling it to the United States. A lot of Liberals feel the U.S. is a great evil empire or dangerous concept, but he takes his grain across the border and sells it to the Americans.

What is the nexus of his crime? Is it selling drugs to youth? Is it violating someone's basic rights and so on? I cannot think of any rights being violated except the farmer's right to make a living. The government turns him into a criminal and puts him in jail for six months. It hauls him to court with irons on his legs as if he were a menace to society. The government targets him to send a message to other farmers that they do not have property rights. If they grow their grain and so on the government will decide who they sell it to, how they sell it and how much money they get. That is the Liberal way. It is not the Canadian way but it is the Liberal way.

Canada has all these livestock, poultry and pork producers who are trying to make a living and keep people fed. Along comes the fanatical animal rights movement and the Liberal government buys it hook, line and sinker. If that became law it would be as negative to the rural way of life as the endangered species legislation. We would have fanatics challenging longstanding agricultural practices, harassing law abiding citizens with unnecessary court proceedings and prosecutions, and putting people further into the hole.

The Liberals like putting people in holes. It is the Liberal way. When they get them in holes they have them under their control. Rather than giving them ladders to climb out they like to dig the holes deeper and impoverish Canadians.

We have the wheat board, the firearms registry, and the endangered species legislation which would have horrendous consequences for accidentally causing damage to endangered species. When we go down the list we wonder what the government is up to. Liberals pander to real criminals. They make sure someone serving 25 years with eligibility for parole has the right to vote in federal elections. That is important. The government does not register dangerous sexual offenders. That would be going too far. However it is perfectly okay to register all law abiding citizens in Canada who have long barrel rifles. The government brings in anti-terrorism legislation that seems to target regular Canadians more than the real threat of al-Qaeda and terrorist networks around the world that can move in and out of the country unimpaired. It is a strange thing.

I understood the Bloc would be supporting the bill but they tell me they are not. I am glad to hear that. Bill C-5 would be the culmination of the Trudeau way. It would transfer all the power to the enlightened, friendly dictatorship in Ottawa and let it manage and run everything in the country. A lot of people including those in the caucus are starting to realize it is a dictatorship but enlightened and friendly is perhaps not the correct terminology for it.

I think of people in certain female caucuses who found how enlightened and friendly the dictatorship is and what its dangers are. The country needs to realize that the transferring of more power to this centralized and unenlightened dictatorship must stop.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to reassure the House that my Canadian Alliance colleagues and I are very concerned about species at risk and fully support looking after them. I want to talk about Bill C-5 and the motions before us today that deal with jurisdiction and how extremely important they are. The federal government seems content to ride roughshod over existing policies and legislation.

In 1996 the provinces and the federal government agreed to the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. The accord was established to ensure that complementary legislation would exist among the federal and provincial levels of government. The key word is complementary. It was an agreement that worked toward the common goal of saving species at risk across Canada.

The provinces are fully aware of the specific species and habitat in the respective provinces and are capable of ensuring that these species and habitat are protected. They are also aware of the impact of legislation upon the citizens of those provinces. I am aware of 33 separate pieces of provincial habitat and species protection legislation. This is obviously an issue of great importance for the provinces. They hardly need reminding of the importance of species protection.

Likewise the property owners in the provinces are aware of the impact their actions have upon species and habitat on their land. Every election year in recent memory has seen the Liberals' red book promises outlining their intention to establish legislation to protect endangered species. I would hope that in an attempt to fulfill these longstanding promises the government would not ignore the invaluable co-operation of individual provinces.

There are concerns the government would use unilateral discretion in the application of the bill. While the provinces have their own unique legislation, this bill allows for the minister to use his own discretion in imposing federal legislation upon the provinces. By what standards would these decisions be made? Individual discretion is not something to be taken lightly. What would the influencing factors be in making these decisions? Leaving these decisions open ended is unfair to the provincial ministers and causes doubts and uncertainty among the citizens of the country.

Without delving too deeply into the issue of penalties and punishment, I must say I have concerns over the issue of jurisdiction. How are property owners going to know which rules apply? They may be in complete compliance with all provincial regulations but the federal minister can override those regulations. Suddenly these law-abiding citizens are guilty in the eyes of the federal government. This is hardly fair or equitable to either the provinces or the property owners.

The principle behind the 1996 accord was to ensure that the federal and provincial governments would work together in protecting species. Both levels of government have important roles to play. Leaving the federal minister with absolute discretion over these matters is in direct conflict with the spirit of the 1996 accord.

The antagonistic feelings between the two levels of government seem to be growing daily. Problems already exist over the Canadian health and social transfer. Feelings of alienation between the west and the federal government are growing. The way the bill is currently written will only lead to feelings of animosity between the provinces and the federal government over species at risk.

There is also an air of secrecy included in the legislation. It allows for the federal government to fly in and impose its rules but there is no provision made for involving the property owners in the process. The property owners and those with interests in the land have the right to know what the government's plans are for that land. After all, the property owners own the land and they make their livelihood from that land. Any decisions made in relation to that land would have an immediate effect on the property owners.

The legislation is set up to allow for consultation processes between other levels of government, wildlife organizations and such, but no mention is made of property owners. This will only serve to build feelings of fear, resentment and uncertainty among the property owners. Those with an interest in the land must be included in these talks and consultations. The co-operation of the property owners is vital if this legislation is to be effective in protecting species and habitat.

The consultation process and actions of the government cannot be secretive. The amendments brought forward by the Canadian Alliance provide for public notice being given by the minister. It also calls for consultation between the minister and the affected property owner.

I feel that this is critical. The government is often seen as an entity unto itself, existing far off with no real understanding of the common citizen. There must be an openness among the government, the provinces and property owners. Government should not be allowed to operate behind closed doors.

We live in a democracy. While I fully understand that rules and regulations must apply to all, the implementation of these rules and regulations must be a public process. The property owners and their interests in the land cannot be ignored. Any legislation must keep in mind the rights of the property owners. They must be allowed to be full participants in any action taken by this legislation. It is essential that property owners be included. Without their co-operation, there is little hope of this legislation helping any species at risk.

This legislation will not work if it is approached with a top down attitude. Conservation and species management starts with property owners, not with lawmakers and legislators. Farmers and ranchers are among the finest conservationists in the country. Most do all they can to treat both animals and habitat with respect.

Last fall at a meeting of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the RMs and their administrators and the landowners group spoke about the federal government's heavy handed fisheries department. They talked about how they cannot put in a culvert to drain a slough without a permit. It was taking up to six months to get a permit to build a road. They talked about how farmers had tried to drain sloughs and because the fisheries department was upset with them, they were fined. The farmers were charged for helping their livelihood and for helping their agricultural land.

The shoot, shovel and shut up policy will go on with this legislation. It happens to farmers and rural property owners across the country. We are conservationists in our own habitat and we will look after our environment.

If the federal government attempts a heavy handed approach, it is inevitable it will be challenged on it. Co-operation among all levels of government, interested groups and property owners is far more likely if these relationships are entered into with a feeling of respect. To override the efforts made by the provinces and the individual landowners is not respectful and will be met with challenges.

As a partner in a farming operation, I fully understand the importance of the land and its inhabitants. If we work against the land, it works against us. As landowners we see the importance of saving and protecting those species that exist on that land. The majority of Canadians feel that species and habitat need to be protected. Our environment is a great source of pride.

Canada has a diverse landscape and an amazing variety of wildlife. We need to protect these, but we must work together in order to ensure that full protection is offered to those species that are at risk.

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment, I took my task to review the government's proposed species at risk act very seriously. There are many different perspectives on this proposed legislation. As a committee we heard 96 witnesses and considered 82 submissions from individuals, non-government organizations, other governments and industries. Our task was certainly a challenging one.

After more than eight years of debate on this issue and two previous failed attempts at passing federal endangered species legislation, we as members of parliament were asked to give our views on what kind of approach would effectively protect species at risk and treat all Canadians fairly.

Support for national legislation to protect and recover endangered species is overwhelming, both in rural and urban constituencies. In my own constituency of Tobique--Mactaquac in New Brunswick, living with wildlife in our backyards is an important part of our lives. Our traditional economy is resource based. We work in the woods, on the waters and in the fields. The rich biodiversity in our region of the country is of great value to us and we are continuing to improve how we live with wildlife.

Understanding the needs of species is the key to improving how we live with them in our daily lives. Giving us the knowledge of where species live, what kinds of food they eat and what kinds of activities may threaten them allows us to modify our behaviour to ensure their survival. Our inclusion in recovery planning ensures that practical solutions to species protection are instigated.

As a member of the standing committee and the elected representative for Tobique--Mactaquac, I sought to find a way to balance the advice of scientists and the experience of landowners and resource users so that the legislation would work in real life situations. I know that the farmers in my riding want to know where endangered species live and what kinds of activities can harm them. I know that they want to be included in identifying how we can protect and recover these species. The fishermen want to know population estimates and the life cycle details of endangered stocks, and we need their advice to find the best ways to protect these stocks. Finally, private landowners are the people best placed to protect endangered species found on their lands because they will be there on a daily basis to look out for them.

Neither the farmer, the fisherman nor the private landowner want to be ordered by government, without consultation, on what they can and cannot do. No, they want to be part of the solution and I think we can all agree that their participation will make our solutions much more effective.

I support the government motion to separate the scientific listing process from the political decisions to protect a species and its habitat. Listing decisions lead to immediate prohibitions against killing and harming of species and destruction of residence as well as mandatory recovery planning. The prohibitions may have social and economic impacts on our local communities. For this reason it can only be elected officials who should make such decisions.

The people who live in Tobique--Mactaquac have a right to have their views considered before a decision is made to prohibit certain activities in order to save a species. The scientists also deserve to be able to provide scientific advice independent from social and economic considerations. We certainly do not want scientists being lobbied to consider non-scientific factors.

I do not support changes made to Bill C-5 by other standing committee members which are contrary to the principle that elected politicians should be held accountable for decisions that may have social and economic impacts and that scientists should be able to present independent advice. I support the government motion that restores government accountability for decisions to list species once all factors have been considered.

We should not put an arbitrary timeline on government decisions that may preclude meaningful consultations and considerations. At the same time I support the new amendment to Bill C-5 which would ensure that the Minister of the Environment would publicly respond to each and every COSEWIC assessment within 90 days and, to the extent possible, set out timelines for actions to protect the species. This ensures accountability to scientific advice while not restricting consultations with local communities.

Just as we should not set an arbitrary timeline on listing decisions, we should not set arbitrary timelines on action plans to protect and recover species. Each species will require a different approach depending on its needs and the circumstances of the region. The people who are best placed to find the approach that best fits the species' needs are those local people participating in recovery action, namely the landowners, resource users, scientific experts and local communities. One committee amendment put a timeline for completion of all action plans for all species. I support the government motion that will instead leave action plan timeline decisions in the hands of local recovery teams.

Fundamentally we need to find an approach that builds on everyone's strengths. The bill aims to put protection in the hands of those who live and work closest to the species. A key role of the government is to provide information and support to Canadians so that they can protect species.

For example, in New Brunswick the Government of Canada has many projects up and running that are helping landowners, resource users, local communities and visitors protect species at risk. There is the coastal guardian program for the Acadian peninsula, which protects nesting sites of the piping plover and other bird species by installing fencing and by educating beach visitors. In the Bay of Fundy the government is funding gill net modifications for fishermen so that we can reduce unintended entanglements of the North Atlantic right whale. As well, there is a demonstration project to restore Atlantic salmon habitat in the inner Bay of Fundy.

These projects are helping local residents, visitors, fishermen and communities protect species in a way that does not penalize them. These projects provide the support necessary to modify, not stop, activities so that both wildlife and human populations can thrive.

By providing Canadians with information about species and offering financial support for recovery teams, the government is building a co-operative, inclusive approach to species protection. This is better than an approach that relies on enforcement of laws to protect species and habitat.

The reporting requirements in this legislation make it one of the most transparent and accountable pieces of legislation ever drafted. Any Canadian will be able to track the government's record on species protection and governments will be forced to give attention to every single species at risk in Canada. Under Bill C-5, it will not just be the cute and charismatic species that receive protection.

We continue to learn that we cannot afford to treat any species as insignificant. Each species plays a role in the web of life and we should do all we can to prevent extinction of more species. Losing a species means further upsetting the balance of life.

There are currently 387 species at risk in Canada. I voted to approve the addition of all 235 species recently assessed by the independent scientific body, COSEWIC, for protection under Bill C-5. I also voted to maintain the government's “co-operation first” approach to habitat protection so that local communities can play the lead in species protection.

With the government's motions we will achieve the balance I sought to achieve by working on this legislation. By adopting the government motions to Bill C-5, I will be able to assure the people of Tobique--Mactaquac that endangered species will be protected and that my constituents will be full partners in this protection.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to my amendment to Bill C-5 in the Group No. 2 debate on the species at risk act. Specifically I will address Motions Nos. 97 and 94 which deal with jurisdiction between the federal government and the provinces. I will address concerns I have with the government's record on consultation as it too is an issue discussed in Group No. 2 and make reference to the problems both this bill and Bill C-10, the marine conservation areas act, have in common.

I believe jurisdictional issues in many ways are the easy issues to resolve in our country. All that is required is for the federal government to understand more clearly its role as an example setter and not a dictator. What is federal should stay federal and what is provincial should stay provincial. When an agreement is struck, particularly on finances, it should be upheld.

Creating legislation with jurisdictional concerns is nothing new for the government. I should like to compare this situation to a piece of legislation which is now in the other place, about to be reviewed by its committee. The other piece of legislation is known as Bill C-10, the Canada marine conservation areas act. The House dealt with that bill a few months ago and it too had some major problems with jurisdiction between what is rightfully federal and what is provincial.

My biggest concern with that bill surrounded its ability to create marine conservation areas in waters wherever the federal government wanted regardless of the economic potential hidden within that area. The bill tried to alleviate the concerns of fishermen by telling them that their livelihoods would be safeguarded. However reality was clear enough to them, that a marine park meant restrictions on gear types, catch sizes and even the creation of what are called no take zones.

Although in Bill C-10 the minister went to supposed great lengths to ensure that affected Canadians would be consulted, the bill lacked enough explanation and framework to allay those fears. Now that bill is in the other place and I sincerely hope it sees the huge jurisdictional problems it created with the provinces and works to fix this bill.

I cannot help but see the same thing happening with Bill C-5. Too often we see the federal government creep into areas where it has absolutely no constitutional right to be. With endangered species it is certainly the federal government's right to legislate against destruction on federal land, but to dictate measures to be taken on provincial land is completely out of its jurisdictional control.

I really do not understand why the federal government would even consider such drastic intrusions into provincial territory when eight out of ten provinces have endangered species type legislation already in place and the other two provinces are working on legislation.

As if that is not deterrent enough, what about the fact that the federal government signed with the provinces the 1996 national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada. This accord included a commitment to establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada.

In short, they agreed to work co-operatively to help save species at risk and now through sections like clause 61 of this bill the federal government is taking its own word back and stomping on the spirit of co-operation reached in that accord. Allow me to explain in detail using my suggested amendments to the bill. Motion No. 97 states:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 40 on page 34 and lines 1 to 15 on page 35 with the following:

“(3) The Minister may make a recommendation if a provincial or territorial minister has requested that the recommendation be made”.

My amendment would seek to delete much of the current subclauses 61(3) and 61(3.1) that give the minister the power to subject provinces and territories which he deems not to have effective protection of habitat of species at risk to the contents of this act. I have suggested that instead the minister should only have the power to recommend that provinces follow the federal act instead of forcing them to do so.

Furthermore, should the House reject this motion I would ask that instead of allowing the current bill to stand with clause 61 intact and failing my attempt to fix it, it be deleted altogether and replaced with the following details included in Motion No. 94:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 40 on page 34 and lines 1 to 40 on page 35 with the following:

“61. No person shall destroy any part of the critical habitat of an aquatic species or of a listed endangered species or a listed threatened species that is a species of migratory birds, protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, that is in a province or territory and is not on federal land”.

At first glance it may seem that I am advocating allowing the federal government to intrude on provincial jurisdiction. However it is the exact opposite. This change in the bill would ensure that only those species already deemed under federal jurisdiction such as migratory birds, regardless of where they make their home and what province they travel through, are subject to the act. This amendment also seeks to limit the federal government's role on provincial lands to one which is directly the management of those specific species and not any other species found on provincial lands.

By supporting this amendment the House would be agreeing that the federal government has no business forcing provinces to adhere to federal acts, most particular when, as I said earlier, eight out of ten provinces have legislation which protects to one extent or another species at risk.

We have seen with health care and other federal programs like Bill C-68 that the ever popular cookie cutter or one size fits all style of governance so fondly used by the federal Liberal government is not conducive to the very different needs of our provinces. The same goes for endangered species legislation. Therefore by eliminating clause 61 and replacing it with the content of Motion No. 94 the House would be agreeing to respect the jurisdictional realities of the country.

The bill is flawed in many other areas. Motion No. 39 in Group No. 2 amends clause 32. It has been presented by my Canadian Alliance colleague. It argues for the need to prove criminal intent to cause harm to either the critical habitat or the species at risk before prosecuting for offences under the act.

As it stands right now the act makes criminals out of unsuspecting landowners and land users. Bill C-5 makes it a criminal act to kill, harm or harass any one of the hundreds of endangered species or to interfere with their critical habitat. Fines are steep, up to $1 million for corporations and $250,000 for an individual. The act provides for imprisonment of up to five years for an indictable offence.

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

Is it fair to convict people of a serious criminal offence when they might have had no idea they were even in danger of committing one? It would seem to me that in order to protect themselves from breaking this law they would have to become experts at recognizing the sage grouse, the barn owl, the Aurora trout or many other species. They not only have to recognize them. They need to recognize their critical habitat too just in case they disturb it while they are out taking a stroll in their back 40.

What about snowmobilers? When we think of endangered species and such we often think about the implication for farmers or landowners in the spring, summer and fall seasons and forget about implications in the winter months. Like many other members of parliament I have concerned snowmobilers in my riding of Skeena. They are concerned and rightly so that the bill could adversely affect their growing recreational industry.

Canada and more particularly northern B.C. have trails and areas for snowmobilers taking them through both private and public lands. They are very concerned that the legislation could seriously limit the number of areas available for their use and could harm that industry.

I just came back from a 500 mile snowmobile trip throughout my riding and down into Wells, B.C., in Cariboo--Chilcotin east of mine. Not only is snowmobiling a growing recreational activity but these cross-country trips add much to the economies of the small towns along the way.

All of this to say that both the Canadian Alliance and I believe in effective and responsible endangered species legislation. Bill C-5 is neither effective nor responsible.

I mentioned earlier this week the need for compensation to be built into the bill and today I state my concerns over jurisdictional intrusions. I have talked about my concern that the legislation places the burden of proof on the accused as opposed to the need for the crown to prove criminal intent before prosecuting for offences under the act. Just now I have talked a bit about the bill's potential effect on tourism and the snowmobile industry in my riding and essentially all over Canada.

The bill has serious flaws. The government should go back to the drawing table and this time spend less time trying to please lobby groups and more time creating a fair, effective and responsible species at risk act. It would find that the Canadian Alliance would support that kind of legislation because we are in favour of protecting Canada's endangered species, but we will not support bad legislation and Bill C-5 is bad legislation.

The crux of my argument is that we have no problem with endangered species legislation nor with the marine conservation act. We support the concepts of these proposed acts, which would improve situations in Canada, especially for endangered species.

Our concern is with the fairness of the legislation, the possibility of this type of legislation which tends to come down with a very heavy hand on presumably innocent people. They may have no idea they have committed an act against an endangered species. To put them in the position of being criminals when they may not even know they have created a problem just is not acceptable.

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak to the motions in Group No. 2, on Bill C-5.

It gives me all the more pleasure because in committee, members from this side of the House, and Bloc Quebecois members in particular, made considerable efforts to make not only the government, but also some parties in this House, realize the importance of two things that are dealt with in the amendments before us today.

First, habitat is a provincial jurisdiction. Indeed, the purpose of the motion of the hon. member for Mercier, who suggested it herself after reading the bill, is to solemnly reaffirm that Quebec feels that critical habitat and its protection are provincial jurisdictions.

The other thing to which we object through the amendments moved by the hon. member for Mercier has to do with clauses 32 and 34 and with what the hon. member opposite called, and rightly so, the safety net.

In order to fully grasp the situation, we must understand what Quebec has done so far. About an hour ago, I was listening to the hon. member for Davenport, who said that, in his opinion, the provincial legislation, that is, the Quebec act on endangered species, which dates back to 1989, cannot not adequately protect these species in Quebec.

This claim by the hon. member for Davenport is somewhat peculiar, since the federal government is now proposing, 12 years after the national assembly passed an act to protect endangered species, a bill on the same object. For 12 years, Quebec has ensured the protection of those species on its territory, which is something the federal government did not do during those 12 years in its own jurisdictions, including in national parks.

The situation is rather the opposite of what the hon. member claimed. Quebec has been doing for 12 years something that the federal government has not done. Let us also not forget that the bill before us will not be passed today and there is currently no federal legislation protecting species and their habitat, while Quebec has its own act.

Let us talk about something else concerning habitat. Certain members opposite often tell us that Quebec has no intention of protecting habitat. As the member for Davenport said earlier, it is important to put things back into perspective. Some of the things said in this House are not always right. Some of the arguments made are specious.

I would remind the House that, since 1996, in other words well before there was any discussion of this federal bill to protect habitat, Quebec has had a strategy on biological diversity. This strategy set out the major objectives of developing protected areas. Under the bill now being proposed, there is currently not a single habitat that is protected, because the bill has not yet been passed, while Quebec adopted its strategy and created protected areas within its own borders back in 1996.

It takes some nerve to stand up and say that Quebec has not done its job, when it has had legislation since 1989 and the federal government still does not have any legislation concerning its own lands.

It takes some nerve to stand up and tell Quebec that it is not protecting its habitat when, since 1996, it has had a strategy to create protected areas within its territory. However, the bill before us today, which is supposed to protect habitat, fails to do so.

We are getting doublespeak from the government members. And we are also getting it—I say this in all friendship—from certain other members of the House who say that Quebec is not protecting its species.

I will give two examples. First, we are protecting species—we could make some improvements, and I admit this—because we have introduced a mechanism, a strategy on biological diversity, which makes it possible to create protected areas, and we have passed legislation.

I would remind the member for Davenport, who says that Quebec is not doing its job of protecting the areas within its territory that, on January 24, 2002, Quebec's minister of the environment announced $10 million in funding for nature conservancy in a partnership agreement signed with the community. The purpose of this agreement is to protect threatened areas and habitat.

Yet the federal government, I will remind hon. members, still has no legislation, while Quebec has had a strategy since 1996, with $10 million for habitat protection. Was that enough? Of course not, but we at least have mechanisms for protection of habitat. I would remind hon. members that the Government of Quebec has a strategy for increasing the protected areas within its territory.

Another reason we are strongly opposed to this bill—and I emphasize strongly because the amendments in Group No. 2 we are presenting today are the very essence of the entire Bloc Quebecois argument against this bill—is that the Government of Quebec in 1996 signed an accord on the conservation and protection of endangered species in Canada. This ensured the federal government and its partners that the Government of Quebec reiterated its intention, even though it had passed legislation in 1989, by signing this accord, to protect endangered species and to participate and co-operate with the federal government.

Among the objectives of the accord are two to which I will refer. It commits the governments to regulations and programs to guarantee that endangered species are protected throughout Canada and creates a council of ministers to determine the broad policies, report on progress and settle disputes. So, the Government of Quebec passed legislation in 1989, adopted a strategy on protected areas, and then signed the accord in 1996.

Today, what we are telling the federal government is that it must not take a policeman-like attitude toward Quebec and the provinces. We prefer co-operation, collaboration, concerted efforts, as the parliamentary secretary said this morning. We are in favour of joint efforts, because we signed the accord in question. We are not opposed to Canadian legislation on endangered species in Canada, but we call upon the federal government to have it protect only those habitats that fall under its jurisdiction.

Quebec has its legislation, and wants to see it applied on its territory. It does not need clauses like clause 34 of Bill C-5 to inform it at some point that if the federal government feels that the Quebec legislation is not protecting the species, then there must be a federal statute.

In closing, what we prefer is an approach aimed at concerted efforts, collaboration and co-operation, rather than having the federal government imposing a bill, and acting like a policeman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Group No. 2 motions. I am disappointed that Group No. 2 entitled, “Deadlines and Federal-Provincial Agreements”, contains motions amending a number of the most critical components of Bill C-5. They speak to the heart of the bill: the listing process; protection of critical habitat in areas of federal jurisdiction; and the safety nets and timelines for implementation of action plans. Each is worthy of debate, yet we are restricted to 10 minutes for the lot of them. It hardly serves the House well, nor Canadians.

I will speak first to Motion No. 35, a government motion that would reverse the committee's changes to section 27 which concerns how species are listed.

The original Bill C-5 provided that the decision whether to list a species would be left entirely up to cabinet without time lines based on recommendations of COSEWIC and the minister. The standing committee heard very little testimony that supported this method of listing. The majority of witnesses called for a science based listing system conducted by COSEWIC.

Whether a species is endangered or not is a scientific determination, not political. Under Bill C-5, every decision that takes place after a species is listed, including, and this is worth emphasizing, whether it is even feasible to recover a listed species, allows for socioeconomic considerations and other factors to be weighed by the Minister of the Environment and/or cabinet.

The bill is full of opportunities for such considerations but whether or not a species is at risk is for scientists to decide.

We could get around this dilemma by requiring that all cabinet minister be biologists, but the easier path would be to simply admit that the question of whether the leatherback turtle's very existence is at risk or not should be decided by science, not by cabinet.

However, as a compromise, the committee amended section 27 so that a species would become part of the legal list under Bill C-5 within six months of COSEWIC's recommendation unless, during this period, cabinet determined that the species should be listed. This reverse onus listing process upholds science based decisions with time limits while ultimately, and I underscore this, providing for political discretion.

The compromise approach enjoyed widespread support from over 1,300 scientists, many key conservation groups, the Mining Association of Canada, the Forest Products Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, among others.

Government Motion No. 35 guts this amendment and reverts the bill to straight political listing. Such a motion can only be viewed as strange when at the same time the government has decided to completely side step the cabinet process by automatically listing 233 of the species recently reassessed by COSEWIC. In doing so, the government hailed COSEWIC's work as important, detailed and meticulous.

One might ask, why then not continue the science based approach for future assessments? Why is it okay for these species but not for future listings?

The decision to list a species or not will often be an extinction decision. I ask my colleagues in this place to think about that. An extinction decision would mean that a species not listed would receive no protection under the act. Behind closed doors, when they get around to it, cabinet will point at a species with the finger of life or the finger of farewell. Canadians will never be told why a decision to not list a species was made.

It bears mentioning that straight political listing has failed miserably in those provinces that use such a system. Most recognize fewer than 35% of COSEWIC listed species, some as low as only 7%, that appear in their jurisdictions. How low will the federal figure be?

I will now move to the issue of critical habitat protection, one of the most contentious points in the original bill. Why? For the simple reason that without habitat protection a species at risk will not survive.

The committee heard from many stakeholders, including those cited earlier, that the key to having an effective piece of legislation was to require mandatory critical habitat protection under areas of undisputed federal jurisdiction. It is beyond a doubt the absolute least the government can do to demonstrate its sincerity about protecting species.

Again the committee compromised by only requiring legal protection for habitat in a tightly defined federal house. Under amended sections 58 and 74 the protection extends to federal lands, aquatic species and migratory birds covered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Within these parameters the committee agreed that the federal government must and should protect critical habitat after the action planning stage was completed, which meant not until two or three years after a species was listed. During this period there would be extensive consultation with landowners and other stakeholders, including the provinces, to properly account for public concerns, including socioeconomic issues.

Government Motion No. 84 and others that were not placed in debate Group No. 2 reversed these amendments by leaving it up to cabinet on a case by case basis to decide whether or not to bring in orders prohibiting activities that could destroy critical habitat.

Why? It has been explained as giving Canadians the first opportunity to protect habitat through stewardship. It has been said that such an approach builds co-operation.

Let us be clear, the committee fully supported the co-operation first principle. For this reason, it determined that habitat protection would not kick in until two or three years following listing, so that landowners, resource users and crown land lessees could first attempt to protect critical habitat on a voluntary basis through stewardship agreements.

In fact, the committee recognized that the lack of mandatory habitat protection would serve only to undermine the co-operative approach of Bill C-5. A forest company, for example, would be hard pressed to engage in a co-operative effort to protect the habitat of endangered species which could involve some cost, if they knew that some of their competitors could get away without having to do anything, and thereby gain an unfair advantage. Put simply, mandatory habitat protection not only deals with the bad actors but it also encourages co-operative efforts by the good actors.

Government Motion No. 84 seeks to protect critical habitat in national parks, marine protected areas, migratory bird sanctuaries and national wildlife areas. These extensions, while being sold as a compromise, are a big step back from the committee's amendments. I am sure most Canadians would be shocked to learn that without Bill C-5 it is open season on destroying habitat in protected areas of the country.

Failure to extend protection to include all of the federal house as identified by committee, will result in Bill C-5 being weaker than other federal laws, such as the Fisheries Act, four provincial endangered species laws, as well as the relevant United States and Mexican laws. In other words, when it comes to species protection in the NAFTA family, Canada will come last.

As I am almost out of time, I will address safety nets later.

In conclusion, this misnamed group of motions is a sad package that the government is delivering to the House, to Canadians and, most important, to the species we have promised to protect. They tear the heart out of the committee's work and transform Bill C-5 into one giant maybe.

Canadians expect a bill that will protect species. These motions ensure that we have failed to deliver on that promise, and I call on all members of the House to defeat these motions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the several amendments I have put forth which seek to remedy the glaring absence of mens rea in Bill C-5. Allow me to explain a bit about mens rea in Canadian criminal law.

Our criminal justice system is based upon several fundamental principles such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In order to be culpable of a criminal offence in Canada three criteria have to be met.

First, a criminal act must have been committed. In other words, harm must have been caused. There are a few exceptions to this rule, as in the case of conspiracy to commit an act. However, in such cases we have accepted as a society the idea that conspiracy itself is a criminal act.

Second, the culpable party must have been the one to commit the criminal offence. In other words, if we are trying to convict person x for a crime, then person x must have been the person to actually physically commit the crime.

Third, we have the principle of a guilty mind or as the lawyers call it in Latin, mens rea. This means that not only does a culpable person have to have physically committed the act in question, but the person must also have committed the act intentionally and willfully. This principle exists in our justice system to protect people from prosecution for acts that they committed unwittingly or unintentionally, provided that criminal negligence was not involved.

The mens rea principle is an ancient part of the British and Canadian legal systems.

When the great British constitutional scholar Albert Venn Dicey was trying to give an illustration to define the rule of law in his great book Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution , he gave the example of Voltaire, the great French writer. He was arrested and imprisoned in the Bastille for a poem that he did not write, that he had not circulated and the substance of which he had not agreed with.

That is the sort of thing the three principles are meant to stop. The bill in its unamended form unfortunately strips away at one of these fundamental pillars of the rule of law. Let me be more specific. Clause 32(1) of the bill states:

No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species--

No mention is made of knowledge or intent. Clause 32(2) states:

No person shall possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species--

Again, there is no mention of intent or knowledge. This means I could go to my local health food store, buy a natural product and have unknowingly in my possession contraband which according to the unamended wording of Bill C-5 would make me a criminal.

Clause 33 states:

No person shall damage or destroy the residence of...an endangered species--

Clause 36 and clause 60(1) reiterate the aforementioned offences and extend them to provincial lands. Clause 58(1) states:

No person shall destroy any part of the critical habitat of a listed endangered species--

It is likewise in clause 61(1). This means I could be walking in a forest, pluck a flower that itself is not an endangered species, yet because this common flower may be the food of an obscure species of which I have never even heard, I would be guilty of a criminal offence. This is much easier than one might think.

Under the schedules to the bill, there are listed as either extirpated or endangered species: 10 mammal species; 21 bird species; 4 amphibian species; 5 reptile species; 11 fish species; 8 species of molluscs; 6 species of lepidopterans; 51 species of plants; 1 lichen; and 1 moss. As well, the bill contemplates the inclusion of a reasonably extensive list of additional species that could by ministerial order be added to those lists.

I recognize at least one of those species as an endangered species in my constituency. I am sure there are many others, but there is one that I recognize.

That particular species, the loggerhead shrike, is found on the land of a farmer in my constituency who lost the use of his land because of provincial legislation protecting nesting sites of the species and any area within a 500 metre radius of a nesting site. That resulted in the loss of land.

Under the law as it is currently written without the amendments I am proposing, there would be the danger that this individual could have actually committed a criminal act because he did not know this species was endangered and did not know that it was even on his land until he was informed by the ministry of resources. There is the danger that this individual could become a criminal for unknowingly having done something to a species he did not know existed and if he had known it existed, he would not have known it was endangered. Clearly we need to change the system.

My point is that the mens rea convention exists in order to ensure that unintended consequences of normal human activity are not criminal. If my hon. colleagues in the House agree with me that plowing a field, buying tea, or picking a common flower should not be criminal acts, then my colleagues must also agree with me that these clauses must be amended as I have proposed to include the words “knowingly”, “wilfully” or “negligently”, or any other change that would bring these offences in line with our criminal code and with our legal traditions.

I would like to make one last point in order to prove that this glaring absence of mens rea is not an oversight by the drafters of this legislation. Clause 100 of Bill C-5 states:

Due diligence is a defence in a prosecution for an offence.

This may sound like a technical point but it is very significant. We have already reviewed the fact that the bill creates criminal acts which can be committed without intent or knowledge. Clause 100 states that in such cases, a defendant is allowed to plead ignorance or to try to demonstrate that it would have been unreasonable for him or her to have known the implications of his or her actions. This is what can be called reverse onus.

Normally in criminal proceedings the crown in order to prove that an offence was committed must prove that the defendant physically committed the offence and that the defendant did so knowingly and intentionally. With the reverse onus in the unamended wording of Bill C-5, all the crown would have to do would be to prove the defendant had physically committed the offence, full stop. It would then be incumbent upon the defendant to prove or to argue that he or she had acted innocently or unknowingly. With the bill in its unamended form, Canadians would be guilty until proven innocent.

I urge my colleagues to heed my warning and to consider the gravity of excluding the mens rea principle from the offences listed in Bill C-5. The consequences would be disastrous to our farmers, to our ranchers, to our land developers and even to our wildlife conservation officials who may be unwittingly harming wildlife or its habitat while actually attempting to do the opposite.

If the bill passes as currently drafted, every single person who has ever ventured out into nature would be in danger of committing a criminal offence. This is certainly not what the minister intended. It is certainly not in the best interests of Canadians or of the species that we wish to protect.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate in the House the co-operation we had in committee and how disappointing it is to see the reversal of so many things, particularly this group of amendments. We now have a bill we in my party are convinced would not work for Canadians or for landowners. The talk we heard about co-operation, consultation and so on was just words as are so many things in the House.

We in the Canadian Alliance will definitely not be supporting the bill because it would not work. Had we got the changes that were necessary the bill could have worked. We want it to work. We need species at risk legislation. However the gutted bill we are looking at today would not work.

I will talk about two major areas in Group No. 2. First, I will talk about the mens rea amendments, Nos. 39, 44, 80, 86, 90 and 122. Second, I will talk about the federal-provincial safety net in some of the amendments.

First, I will deal with the mens rea amendments. If we think farmers, ranchers and corporations would be unhappy because they would not get compensation or because it would be left to the discretion of the minister, let us think how unhappy they would be when they found out they could be fined $250,000 for harming something they did not even know was there. Corporations could be fined up to $1 million. That is the problem. The federal government has said it would be a criminal offence to in any way harm, harass or kill an endangered species.

I want to make it clear that people who traffic in endangered species, hunt illegally or these sorts of things should have the book thrown at them whatever the fine. The government should go after them. However we are not talking about those people. We are talking about the farmer, the rancher, the little guy who may inadvertently destroy a worm, snail or plant without knowing it was there. The bill has been gutted so the government would not have to tell people a species was there. That is even worse.

I will quote from the bill:

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--

Similarly, it says no person shall damage or destroy the residence of a species and so on.

Protecting species and their habitat is what should be done. That is what we are attempting to do. We want to catch dishonest people who destroy endangered species or their habitat.

How do we do that? The bill says even unknowingly harming species or habitat would be a criminal offence. How does a farmer know what a western spiderwort is, what a sand verbena is, what a tiny whatever the name is and so on? How are average Canadians to know about endangered species? Yet they could get criminal records because the burden is all on them. The burden is not on the government to tell them the species are there. It is on them to know they are there.

For a large corporation with an environmental impact study due diligence may be a possibility but it is not a possibility for the average landowner. The average landowner could be convicted of a serious offence for not showing due diligence.

What must happen? We must get information out to people so they know what endangered species are. What is the government's plan for doing this? It does not know. It has not budgeted for it. How will it inform people so they do not become criminals without knowing it?

Is there a solution? There is. The answer is to follow an old Roman piece of law that says they must have had a guilty mind: mens rea.

In other words, in order to commit a criminal act individuals would have to know they were doing something wrong. It has been a standard piece of law for all that time and yet all of a sudden we are putting in legislation that says individuals are guilty until proven innocent. It says they are guilty even if we did not tell them that that particular animal, bird, plant, snail or whatever was there. There is something wrong when we have a piece of legislation like that. It will not help endangered species.

The safety net is another part of Group No. 2. What about getting together with the ministers? There are a lot of worried provincial ministers. Our consultations with them have told us that they are concerned. They have put in endangered species legislation in their own governments and they are saying this is a piece of top down legislation where the federal government would impose its will on the provinces. The bill does not reflect co-operation and consensus building as we would expect it to. Instead it talks about how the federal government would impose its will on them if it decided they were not doing things right. Bill C-5 would give the federal government the power to impose its will on provincial lands with disregard for provincial rules or practices.

How would that possibly build co-operation between the provinces and the federal government? This concept of a safety net is largely a federal criminal law power and Bill C-5 would give it all to the minister. He would have absolute discretion and the right to decide whether a province provided effective protection. It would be up to the federal minister to decide. This is a top down approach which means the provinces who have the people to enforce this law would have to follow whatever the federal government says. They would lose control of their own provincial lands.

We must bring this point to the House and to Canadians. The federal government would be the judge and jury. It would enforce the legislation even though naturalists say five provinces have better legislation than the proposed federal legislation and three provinces have at least as good as what Bill C-5 would have. Eight provinces are as good or better than Bill C-5.

The federal government would take total power and control and the minister would have absolute discretion to determine if effective protection existed in that province. There is something wrong with that picture. There is something wrong when a federal government can ignore the provinces that way and try to put this legislation in.

What did we try to do? We introduced motions that would reverse this whole process and would say that the federal minister must consult, not may, with provincial governments to decide whether the species was being protected or not and to decide if in fact there was something the province could do to help save the species.

The government in Group No. 2 is reversing that whole thing and saying it wants all the power to tell the provinces what to do and it does not care about their particular species at risk legislation. That is a recipe for disaster and is the number two nail in the coffin of Bill C-5 to hurt endangered species in the country. We have a U.S. piece of legislation. It has not worked in 30 years and this one will not work either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say a few words in support of the government's motions as well as its approach to assessing and listing species at risk as set out in the proposed species at risk act, Bill C-5.

First, we need to make sure everyone understands. There has been confusion about this. I do not know if it was deliberate or otherwise. Scientists and scientists alone would make the decisions about the assessment of species and where they would be placed on the list of those at risk. This would be done through the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC. The organization has been legally recognized as part of the assessment and listing process. This is a huge step forward.

The legislation means the assessment of species at risk would be scientific, expert and independent. It would be done at arm's length from government and away from any of the pressures that come with considering the social and economic impacts of being listed.

Decisions and findings of COSEWIC would be published in the public registry. Anyone could see them at any time. Anyone could see the reasons for the scientific decisions.

The government's decision to add species to the legal list would put a number of elements of the law into motion. For instance, species at risk legislation contains automatic prohibitions against the killing or harming of individuals of the listed species and the harming of their residence or habitat. It also stipulates that mandatory plans would be put together with specific time frames for the recovery of the species from its dangerously low numbers. Just as importantly, the process under the law would allow the authority to take emergency action if necessary to protect habitat.

Many decisions about protecting species at risk and their habitat could involve a number of serious economic or social implications, particularly for those who live in rural areas and depend on fishing, farming and ranching. We were elected to the House of Commons to take responsibility for such implications. We, not the scientists, must bear the burden of the decisions. We, not the scientists, must face the political heat. The government has been clear on this point for years and rightly so. Socio-economic decisions made under the act would be made by those who are publicly accountable. This is our democratic process.

I will speak to several government motions that relate to critical habitat protection with the proposed species at risk act. The motions in general serve to strengthen the federal commitment to habitat protection. They also reinforce the co-operative approach that has been and continues to be a key component of the overall strategy of protecting species at risk in Canada.

The federal government must work with provinces and territories to protect species and habitats. Protecting species at risk is the shared responsibility of all governments. The overall strategy of the protection of species at risk is to ensure the federal portion of the responsibility is met. Bill C-5 is one element of that strategy. It would complement the work done by other levels of government, build on a partnership approach under the federal-provincial accord for the protection of species at risk, and reinforce the stewardship component of the strategy.

The issue of critical habitat is only one part of species protection. We must protect where they live or they simply cannot survive. It is as simple as that.

What is a bit more complicated and has preoccupied us for a number of years in formulating the legislation is how best to protect critical habitat. It must be done in the best interest of the species but must take into account Canada's constitutional structure. We must respect jurisdictions. We must add to that the impact critical habitat designation could have on the livelihood of those who work on the land or water. This is difficult to assess at the best of times. Throughout all these considerations we must make sure the provisions for protection are workable, effective and integrated with other Canadian laws and conventions.

To that end, in its deliberations the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development made several changes to the species at risk act in the area of critical habitat. Some of the changes strengthen its provisions. I am pleased to say the changes are not only welcome but important. The committee added aquatic species and migratory birds protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act to the critical habitat regime within federal jurisdiction. These are significant changes. They make critical habitat even stronger.

Building on the additions of the standing committee, the government is moving further to strengthen critical habitat protection. It is moving to provide automatic critical habitat protection in national parks, marine protected areas, migratory bird sanctuaries and national wildlife areas. These are all federal lands and the protection element is a crucial one.

For anywhere else in federal jurisdiction the government is moving to require the competent minister to recommend protection if critical habitat is not protected within 180 days of being identified in an approved recovery strategy or action plan.

The government motions regarding critical habitat are reinforced by a further motion that would require all federal ministers to consider possible impacts on identified critical habitats prior to issuing licences or permits for any activity.

By restoring governor in council discretion we would restore the preferred and necessary approach to protecting critical habitat: stewardship and co-operation first. We feel strongly that the standing committee's approach would be a disincentive for landowners to enter into agreements and an incentive for going straight to compensation.

As I said, our approach must be co-operative and workable. We must remember that most lands in Canada are under provincial and territorial management or private ownership. That is why the approach must be one of joint action and not heavy handed, top down law. The proposed species at risk act would provide protection for all species at risk in Canada wherever they may be. The comprehensive and co-operative approach is essential to the survival of our wildlife.

The policy intents of Bill C-5 were not arrived at overnight. They came from years of study, consultation, discussion and examination. Because it is already working we know the co-operative approach is the Canadian way. We must ensure the incentive is there to pursue stewardship and voluntary action as the first step in all cases for protecting critical habitat.

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

moved:

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-5, in Clause 100, be amended by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 57 with the following:

“100. A person is not guilty of an offence under this Act unless the person knowingly committed the act that is the subject of the offence.”

Debate arose on the motions in Group No. 2.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, for the Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-5, in Clause 65, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 36 with the following:

“65. If a wildlife species is listed as”

(b) deleting lines 1 to 6 on page 37.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-5, in Clause 68, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 11 on page 38 with the following:

“68. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the competent minister must include a proposed management plan in the public registry within three years after the wildlife species is listed as a species of special concern.

(2) With respect to a wildlife species that is set out in Schedule 1 as a species of special concern on the day section 27 comes into force, the competent minister must include a proposed management plan in the public registry within five years after that day.

(3) Within 60 days after the proposed management plan is included in the public registry, any person may file written comments with the competent minister.

(4) Within 30 days after the expiry of the period referred to in subsection (3), the competent minister must consider any comments received, make any changes to the proposed management plan that he or she considers appropriate and finalize the management plan by including a copy of it in the public registry.”.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-5, in Clause 61, be amended by deleting lines 38 to 40 on page 34.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-5, in Clause 61, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 5 on page 35.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-5, in Clause 61, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 8 on page 35.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-5, in Clause 61, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 11 on page 35.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-5, in Clause 61, be amended by deleting lines 12 to 15 on page 35.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-5, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 40 on page 34 and lines 1 to 15 on page 35 with the following:

“(3) The Minister may make a recommendation if a provincial or territorial minister has requested that the recommendation be made.”.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, for the Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-5, in Clause 61, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 28 to 40 on page 34 and lines 1 to 17 on page 35 with the following:

“respect of an aquatic species or a species of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994.

(2) Subsection (1) applies only to the portions of the critical habitat that the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, specify.

(3) The Minister may make a recommendation if

(a) a provincial minister or territorial minister has requested that the recommendation be made; or

(b) the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council has recommended that the recommendation be made.”

(b) replacing line 28 on page 35 with the following:

“not effectively protect the particular portion of the”.

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

moved:

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-5, in Clause 61, be amended by deleting lines 27 to 40 on page 34 and lines 1 to 40 on page 35.