Bill C-5 (Historical)

Species at Risk Act

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

Species at Risk Act

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

moved:

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-5, in Clause 58, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 42 on page 32 and lines 1 to 7 on page 33 with the following:

“species or of a listed threatened species—or of a listed extirpated species if a recovery strategy has recommended the reintroduction of the species into the wild in Canada—

(a) if the critical habitat is on federal lands, in the exclusive economic zone of Canada or on the continental shelf of Canada;

(b) if the listed species is an aquatic species; or

(c) if the listed species is a species of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994.

(2) If a portion of the critical habitat is in a national park, a marine protected area under the Oceans Act, a migratory bird sanctuary under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 or a national wildlife area under the Canada Wildlife Act, the competent Minister must, within 90 days after the recovery strategy or action plan that identified the critical habitat is included in the public registry, publish in the Canada Gazette a description of the portion of the critical habitat that is in that park, area or sanctuary.

(3) If subsection (2) applies, subsection (1) applies to the portion of the critical habitat described in the Canada Gazette under subsection (2) 90 days after the description is published in the Canada Gazette.

(4) With respect to any of the following, subsection (1) applies only to the portions of the critical habitat that the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the competent minister, after consultation with every other competent minister, by order, specify:

(a) federal lands that are not in a park, area or sanctuary referred to in subsection (2);

(b) the exclusive economic zone of Canada;

(c) the continental shelf of Canada;

(d) aquatic species; and

(e) species of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994.

(5) The competent minister must, within 180 days after the recovery strategy or action plan that identified the critical habitat is included in the public registry, make the recommendation if he or she is of the opinion that there are no provisions in, or other measures under, this or any other Act of Parliament that protect the particular portion of the critical habitat, including agreements under section 11.

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

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

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

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

moved:

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-5, in Clause 58, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 31 with the following:

“58. (1) No person shall knowingly destroy any part of”.

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

moved:

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-5, in Clause 53, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 30 with the following:

“53. (1) The competent minister must,”

(b) deleting lines 29 to 32 on page 30.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-5, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 23 with the following:

“39. (1) The recovery”.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-5, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 27 with the following:

“48. (1) An action plan”.

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

moved:

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-5, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 22 with the following:

“territorial minister, no person shall knowingly”.

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

moved:

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-5, in Clause 35, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 22 to 26 on page 21 with the following:

“35. (1) Sections 32 and 33 apply in each of the territories in respect of a listed wildlife species only to the extent that the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, makes an order providing that they, or any of them, apply.”

(b) replacing line 37 on page 21 with the following:

“protect the species or the residences of its individuals.”

(c) deleting lines 38 to 44 on page 21 and lines 1 to 13 on page 22;

(d) replacing lines 17 to 24 on page 22 with the following:

“ter; and

(b) if the species is found in an area in respect of which a wildlife management board is authorized by a land claims agreement to perform functions in respect of wildlife species, consult the wildlife management board.”

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-5, in Clause 34, be amended by deleting lines 25 to 33 on page 20.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-5, in Clause 34, be amended by deleting lines 34 to 38 on page 20.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-5, in Clause 34, be amended by deleting lines 39 to 45 on page 20.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-5, in Clause 34, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 4 on page 21.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-5, in Clause 34, be amended by deleting lines 5 to 7 on page 21.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-5, in Clause 34, be amended by deleting lines 8 to 21 on page 21.

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

moved:

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-5, in Clause 34, be amended by

(a) replacing line 25 on page 20 with the following:

“(2) The Governor in Council may, on the”

(b) deleting lines 39 to 45 on page 20 and lines 1 to 10 on page 21;

(c) replacing lines 14 to 21 on page 21 with the following:

“(a) the appropriate provincial minister; and

(b) if the species is found in an area in respect of which a wildlife management board is authorized by a land claims agreement to perform functions in respect of wildlife species, the wildlife management board.”.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-5, in Clause 34, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 24 on page 20.

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

moved:

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-5, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 19 with the following:

“32. (1) No person shall knowingly kill, harm, harass,”.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-5, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 20 with the following:

“33. No person shall knowingly damage or destroy the”

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

moved:

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-5, in Clause 10.1, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 6 on page 10 with the following:

“10.1 The Minister, after consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council, may establish a stewardship action plan that creates”

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-5, in Clause 27, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 6 to 34 on page 17 with the following:

“27. (1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend the List by adding a wildlife species, by reclassifying a listed wildlife species or by removing a listed wildlife species.”

(b) deleting lines 5 to 13 on page 18.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-5, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 2 the following:

“the protection of habitats and species on provincial lands is entirely under provincial jurisdiction,”.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 7 with the following:

“living organisms on federal lands or under the continental”.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to rise to speak to Bill C-5, the species at risk act. Let me assure the House and all those who may be interested, the Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and our endangered species.

We have an obligation and responsibility to preservation because we have been blessed with a nation that has such a wide diversity of terrain, species and the great wonders of nature. People come from all over the world to see this beautiful land. It is certainly up to us to ensure that we are good stewards of our total environment.

We are concerned about preserving the water, air and land for those who will follow us. We also need to be concerned about preserving the species that reside in the water, air and on the land. We are talking about the act that would impact upon some of those different species that live in all those environments.

I will mention at least four of the major areas of concern that I have noticed in the bill and then probably spend more time addressing the first one, which is the fair and reasonable compensation that must be guaranteed for property owners and resource workers who might suffer loss because of the expense incurred in protecting an endangered species.

Second, we need to be aware that any criminal liability resulting from the legislation must require intent; that it not simply an accidental act that may occur, which is entirely possible under the legislation. We would not want to see someone prosecuted for an accident they had not intended.

Third, there must be co-operation with the provinces for success. It would be unworkable for the federal government to impose legislation without ensuring the provincial governments are in place or without having agreements for administration and enforcement.

The gun control act is a good illustration of how the federal government sometimes fails to bring on the support of the provinces. It was even sued over that act because it was so unnecessary, unusable and ill-applied in some of our rural areas, especially in the prairie provinces. We noted recently that we allowed $200 million for the war against terrorism but we spent $700 million for the war against duck hunters and farmers in the registration of guns.

Fourth, there needs to be an acceptance of at least some advice and suggestions that the voices of the opposition bring. Those who sit on this side of the House are representatives of the people, the same as those who sit over there. Our voices need to be heard and it needs to be more than just giving lip service in committee where committee work can have an impact on the legislation being made.

Hundreds of changes have been proposed over the years to this type of legislation and very little has been received. It is interesting to note how the government comes along, lets the committee go through all its work and then steps back in and even reverses the work of the committee. That is a terrible thing to have happen to those who have worked so diligently.

The government has failed repeatedly to enact the will of the majority of Canadians on many occasions and the autocratic actions of the government have happened on a daily basis.

It is really hard to understand why the government is so set against making obvious improvements to legislation. We in many committees make good suggestions. There have been dozens of them to this bill that would simply improve it, make it better and safer for the people. It would protect a few people as well as a few endangered species, yet we see a government that has ignored the voices from the other side simply because the opposition has accepted it.

I suggest that it would be a lot better if we could see some of this legislation changed in committee and changed in the House rather than just let it go through as was written by some government employee.

There are several categories that are affected by this endangered species act. In Saskatchewan there are birds, mammals and fish that will be affected and in particular, the swift fox, the sage grouse, the burrowing owl, the piping plover, the mountain plover, the sage thrasher, the prairie chicken and a number of others.

Full compensation should be outlined in this legislation by elected members and not left to regulations and discretionary actions of bureaucrats later on or left to the pressures of special interest groups that may later on push through their agenda. It needs to be specified clearly that landowners and resource users will be protected from over zealous ploys.

The phrase “may apply for compensation” is not good enough. The legislation should read they shall be compensated. The phrase “opportunity to sue” is not good enough. Why is it that the little guys, the individuals, are always told they have the right to sue for compensation? Why do we have to leave it to the little guys to sue? Why can we not just say that they have the right and it will be given? Why do we have to demand that these people go through a long legal process to receive what is perceived to be a normal ordinary right?

As my colleague has already mentioned, in the rural areas there is the kill and bury principle. There is another name for it. I do not want to categorize all landowners or all farmers in this, but I have actually heard this said in the rural area of Saskatchewan. It is the SSS movement. That stands for shoot, shovel and shut up.

If we truly want to protect the endangered species, we have to have the landowner on side. We have to have him convinced that he does not need to shoot, shovel and shut up. We need to have him convinced that he will be protected as well as the endangered species and therefore he can lend his co-operation fully to protecting these endangered species rather than having some fear that somebody will swoop in and overtake a part of his land.

Sometimes these landowners may even go as far as to make their land unattractive to these endangered species. They may go so far as removing them from their land. This act may in fact go the opposite way of what it is meant to do.

The regulations are such that they may mean, for example, that farmers may have to adapt practices that accommodate nesting birds or in logging they may have to go around areas where certain species exist. They may lose a part of their land. Just recently in Saskatchewan a number of farmers lost hundreds of acres because of a couple of successive winters and springs of extra water in a particular area which flooded their land. They were unable to drain it because of some regulation under the oceans and fisheries act to protect fish. That was in the middle of Saskatchewan.

The family impact can be high, income can be decreased, the value of farmland can decrease and whole families can sometimes be displaced. That is a hardship that we do not need to place on our rural people. There is no reason why the frontline soldiers in a battle should be expected to bear the cost of the war. That is what we are trying to do with those landowners and those workers in this area.

Respect for the rights of property owners is what we are talking about. Endangered species, yes, protect them, but let us also protect the rights of the individual landowners.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when we finished up the opposition was lambasting the government because of its failure to bring forward a useful species at risk bill, its failure to recognize private property rights and its failure to give some sort of standard by which a landowner could judge the value of the property that would be confiscated by the Liberal government in its vain attempt to protect species at risk.

As many of us pointed out, the experience in the United States is that failure to compensate landowners who have their land confiscated simply results in a kill and bury policy whereby people who find these endangered species simply kill them and bury them because of the risks involved.

I do have an apology to make to the Liberals, though. Yesterday I was lambasting them for their $115 million waste of money on the Trudeau humanities research foundation. I have discovered that it is $125 million they are wasting.

This is a complete waste of money on a humanities research council if it does the same thing as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, for which I can give some examples: $2,267,350 of hard earned taxpayer dollars spent on the history of the book in Canada; $100,000 for the first intermediate period settlement and burial patterns at Mendes; $62,000 for an investigation of the motivations underlying undergraduates' alcohol consumption behaviour; $50,900 for cabarets, nightclubs and burlesque in Vancouver; and $35,200 for figure skating and representation of gender and sexuality in sport. What a waste of money, and they are going to blow $125 million more. This is another example of their lack of thought and their inconsideration for the taxpayers of Canada.

Bill C-5 is just another example of this. We should be voting it down.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will recap in simple terms the nature of Bill C-5 for my constituents who might be listening back home.

The government has decided it will pander but the question is, pander to whom? It is not listening to the environmentalists. It is not listening to the farmers and corporations that will be affected by this bill. It is not listening to any of the people who will be losing jobs. I do not know exactly to whom it is paying attention. I think the Liberals are doing a bit of navel gazing with regard to the bill. I cannot find the group they are supposedly paying attention to with regard to the bill.

The gist of the bill is to impute criminal intent on people who may harm a species on their private land and to not fairly compensate them in terms of the protection of those species.

I would like to rename the bill. I do not think it actually has anything to do with species at risk. I think it has everything to do with property at risk. It should be called the property at risk act.

Think of the fundamental things this legislature does. We are supposed to protect property. We are supposed to protect people's individual freedoms and their liberties. That is what I understand part of our job to be. This bill is directly opposed to that.

I will mention somebody south of the border because the Liberals are borrowing on American experiences in the American endangered species act, the ESA, as they put forward this bill.

My favourite president of the United States is Thomas Jefferson. He was the third president of the United States. Instead of having the words life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the American constitution, he wanted to have protection not only for property, but what was absolutely crucial was that he wanted protection for private property. He recognized that there was a substantial difference between what some would construe to be public property and what would be properly termed as private property. Jefferson believed that respecting people's private property rights was absolutely fundamental in having a just society.

The stamp act to levy taxes upon American colonists was one of the reasons they had a revolutionary war. The government did not respect people's private property rights. It did not take into account that it had taxation without representation.

The bill before us goes against all the fundamental ideas. It goes against very Canadian ideas. One of the rationales for even having the other place, the Senate, in the first place was that it would serve as a protection for property. This House would serve the commoners and the Senate in a sense would be for the property owners. The Senate's job was to make sure those people were not overrun by mob rule. That was a basic understanding of the protection of private property rights.

Bill C-5 goes against that because it does not guarantee fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. That is absurd. The government will be able to shut people out of livelihoods and jobs without any type of fair compensation. People should not be forced to do so at the expense of their livelihoods.

This reminds me of another issue that is famously tied to the government. It has to do with the Canadian Wheat Board. Andy McMechan, a farmer who grew his own grain, wanted to sell it outside the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. He was jailed for that. This farmer was put in shackles over that very issue. He was not allowed to dispose of his private property as he saw fit due to the regulation and the meddling.

What a perverse turnover of the whole idea of liberal democracy and the very term liberal when we think of where the Liberal Party started off at the turn of the century. The Liberals in Laurier's day stood for free trade. They did not stand for protectionism. They stood for the freedom of individuals. Yet 100 years later, almost Orwellian, Nineteen Eighty-Four in terms of the doublespeak, the Liberals are actually adamantly opposed to those things now. They are coming out against personal liberties and personal freedoms and are going after grabbing private property and not giving it due respect. It is such a perverse topsy-turvy relationship they have had with this issue.

There is a criminal liability aspect to this. Criminal liability requires that there actually be some form of intent. As I understand it, and this goes back to the Romans and Latin terms, there has to be an actus reus, being the action that is performed, and in this case for example it would be harming a species, but there also has to be mens rea. That is the difference between manslaughter and murder. There has to be mens rea, the mental intent, to have intended to do that harm.

In this case the government has totally ignored these traditions that have been established for 1,000 years.