Bill C-5 (Historical)

Species at Risk Act

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

Criminal Code

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-292.

Bill C-292 is the proposed legislation to deal with the selling of wildlife and wildlife parts. I would like to say to the member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley that her motivation behind the bill is admirable.

However, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation and on behalf of the government, I want to express the government's views as well as my own views because I have read the bill quite carefully and have researched the criminal code to see what actually exists in it.

As the government we fully support, as I do personally, ensuring that wildlife is preserved and protected in the best possible way, and that preservation and protection certainly has to extend to species at risk.

In fact there are many years of conservation actions behind us in Canada, and there are a number of statutes that are already on the books that accomplish the goal that the member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley seeks to address with Bill C-292.

Let me speak about the tools that this particular private member's bill would create. The proposed legislation would create three indictable offences under the criminal code for selling wildlife or wildlife parts or for killing, capturing or possessing wildlife or wildlife parts for the purpose of selling them.

Under the proposal there would be exemptions from prosecutions for people who sell wildlife in accordance with a licence permit or an exemption order. The bill also says that the sale of threatened or endangered species would mean high penalties and that all offences would be subject to the money laundering provisions of the criminal code.

As the House may have noted at the outset of my remarks, these are admirable objectives and I commend the member for her bill. I cannot deny it. I do not think anyone else would deny that these objectives are in fact admirable.

I applaud, and I am sure that my colleagues would probably be unanimous in applauding, the notion behind these objectives. However we want to make sure that there is a good fit with other legislation in place or pending. This is very important.

I am a lawyer by training and I have had the privilege of practising in the area of administrative law. I know firsthand the difficulties that can happen at times when drafters of one piece of legislation have not done complete and adequate research of all the legislation that could impact on or have some bearing to a particular area or jurisdiction and we end up with anomalies.

That is one of the reasons even the government, either through the Senate or by its own bill, brings in bills to clean up, clarify or correct errors in past legislation that has already been adopted.

Looking at Bill C-292 and looking at the provisions that already exist under the criminal code for example, as well as other legislation, clearly Bill C-292 is not a good fit with the legislation that is already in place. I am not even talking about legislation that may be pending before the House at this time.

Therefore I would like to point out that in the Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994 and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, known as WAPPRIITA, there are dual procedure offences. These are also found in the Canada Wildlife Act.

Dual procedure offences mean that they can begin with a summary conviction or with an indictment. The maximum prison term set out for proceeding by indictment in both statutes do not exceed five years.

Let us also consider a piece of legislation that is currently pending, the government sponsored Bill C-5, the species at risk act. That bill as I mentioned, currently pending, is at report stage in the House of Commons.

One of the offences created in Bill C-5 is the prohibition on the killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking of a wildlife species that is listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened. Bill C-5 also includes a prohibition on the possession, collecting, buying, selling or trading of a wildlife species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened.

There is some overlap between this offence and the ones outlined in existing legislation, as well as the offences set out in the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-292.

Bill C-292 provides only indictable offences. The maximum prison terms vary from two years to eight years, depending on whether the offence is a first or subsequent one and whether the wildlife involved is an endangered species.

The question here is not that we need to do this. The question here is whether it is already being done and, if it is already being done, is it being done in a better way.

Is Bill C-292 the best way to accomplish the goal? Are the provisions about prohibiting behaviour that is traditionally associated with parliament's exercise of its criminal law power. Or perhaps we should say that Bill C-292 is describing a public welfare offence traditionally associated with regulatory matters in a civil context.

That is why I believe this approach is inconsistent with the classification of offences elsewhere in the criminal code.

The sale of wildlife, as I have previously mentioned and hope I have demonstrated, is well covered in existing legislation. Therefore Bill C-292 is a duplication and in my view is not necessary. I also submit that in many cases we would be using the heavy hand of the criminal code for some sales that would be considered quite minor, such as the sale of a few muskrat pelts or of one skin. I truly believe we do not need such a heavy approach.

Let me explain further. The offence of sexual assault is classified as a dual procedure offence, which means that the crown may elect to proceed by summary conviction or by indictment. From a policy point of view, it would appear inconsistent to classify the selling of wildlife as an indictable offence when other offences considered much more serious by Canadian society are classified as dual procedure offences.

I will not get into the cost implications to the provinces and territories if they were straight indictable offences, but I do call on the members of the House to remember that under the Canadian system provincial governments are those with the constitutional powers to regulate the use and protection of wildlife on provincial land.

I will not be supporting the bill but I do commend the member for White Rock--South Surrey--Langley for her good intentions with this.

Government Contracts

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, amendments are necessary to further improve the bill. We are reviewing some of those amendments now.

I hope that by the meeting of Tuesday where all House leaders meet that I will be able to indicate to my colleagues across the way from all parties when we will be able to resume consideration of the report stage of Bill C-5.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The government House leader neglected to say what the government's plans were with respect to Bill C-5, the species at risk bill. I know it is a bit unorthodox but could he tell us what the government's disposition is with respect to that bill?

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand this morning and speak to this important piece of legislation, Bill C-56.

Unfortunately, time after time in the House legislation comes in with little foundation, public support or acceptance. We have seen this with Bill C-68 which turned into such a fiasco for the government. We have seen it with Bill C-5, the species at risk act which the government apparently thinks is a good bill because everyone is angry about it. We have seen it with Bill C-15B which is being pushed by animal rights special interest groups who feel the government owes them something from the last election. We have seen it with Bill C-55, the security legislation which is a power grab that would extend the government's power and particularly the power of ministers. Why do we see so much legislation coming to the House in this way? The main reason is that the government is adrift.

Yesterday we heard the government's talking points on corruption. It continually tries to convince us that only government members know what it is like to respect this institution. Today we are dealing with a bill that has had absolutely no respect from the government and its leaders. The bill was sent to committee. The committee did a massive amount of interesting and good work. The minister took the committee's work, threw it all out and brought a different presentation to the House. This is yet another bill that has been introduced almost in a vacuum.

One reason for this is the government's desire to avoid the discussion we need. There are issues beyond this legislation that have not been adequately discussed. If we passed Bill C-56 much of the responsibility that should be parliament's would be passed on to one more bureaucracy that would be created by the bureaucracy. This would remove any opportunity for parliament to control or discuss what goes on in the field.

I will take a few minutes this morning to speak to a crucial issue and ask a couple of questions. First, what is human life and how do we treat it? How do we deal with human life? There are people who say we have talked about this enough and do not need to talk about it any more. There are others who think it is foolish to speak about it. However we need to have a discussion in Canada about what human life is and how to treat it and deal with it.

There are a number of places we can go for the discussion. Ethicists deal with these issues on a daily basis. It is their life's work. There are scientists who are deal with the issues. We need to talk with them. We need to go to historians to look back in history and see what has happened with issues of life and death. It is legitimate to talk with the different faith communities of our country because their focus is on issues of life and death. We should not cut them off from the discussion.

We need to involve political leaders. We were sent here for a reason, and that is to have this discussion. We need to go to regular people and get their opinions as my hon. colleague from Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke did so well. In the last few minutes she read a number of the comments she got from her survey. We also need to go to business participants because there is a business component to the legislation that needs to be discussed.

Bill C-56 comments on what human life is and how we should treat it. I will go through a couple of the bill's definitions. Under Bill C-56 an embryo:

--means a human organism during the first 56 days of its development--

Interestingly, a fetus under the bill:

--means a human organism during the period of its development beginning on the fifty-seventh day following fertilization or creation...and ending at birth.

The definitions in the bill indicate that the government is willing to consider the embryo and the fetus as human organisms. I will continue the definition along its logical path: Perhaps a baby means a human organism during the period of development from birth to two or three years; a child means a human organism during the period of development from three years to 18 years; and an adult means a human organism during the period of development from 18 years to natural death. All we are talking about are different stages of development of the same human organism.

Does the human organism consist only of biological material that we can deal with as we choose, or is there something unique about it? Scientists and sociologists can take us apart and show us piece by piece that we are similar to animals. We have physical systems that function similarly. Because of that, research is done on animals that we can apply and use when dealing with human situations and illnesses.

Many throughout history have argued and understood that the total of what constitutes a human organism is far more than the sum of its individual parts. Most successful cultures and civilizations have believed men and women to be unique. Many religious systems have been predicated on the assumption. Many scientific discoveries have come from the hypothesis.

We need to have a discussion about the issue because we are not only setting the stage for a bill. We are talking about legislating attitudes toward human beings in our society. The conclusion we reach in the House about the issue will have great consequences for Canadian society and culture.

Throughout the last century we saw what happened when governments decided individual human beings were not unique and were only basic economic units. In university I was bombarded for three years with Mr. Marx's political theory which states that all events can be analyzed from an economic perspective and that human beings fit into the same analysis.

We have seen Marx's theory lived out under socialist governments throughout the last century and in this century. There has been more brutality under such systems than under any other. Let us look at Mr. Stalin. To gain control of a segment of his economic society he completely destroyed the middle class agricultural community by starving it to death. The individuals in that society were worth nothing to him because he needed to achieve an economic goal.

We have seen this in China which continues to persecute people and deny human rights. The individual means nothing under China's system as it tries to keep its economic structure moving along. We have see it in Sudan where war is being waged against individuals for the sake of profit. When weak positions are taken regarding human uniqueness, individuality and creativity there is a loss of compassion for other people.

We are not immune to this. The Liberal government has refused to deal with a number of issues involving the value of human life. About six weeks ago several MPs had the privilege of meeting with a number of police officers, customs officials and others who deal with the issue of child pornography. These people are fed up with the government's attitude and its refusal to deal with the issue. Anyone who has seen such material and understands what is going on in the lives of those children knows something needs to be done immediately. Yet the government insists on doing nothing. It has failed to move. Child pornography is repugnant and abhorrent. The Liberal government's failure to deal with the issue touches the heart of how it views its citizens.

There are a couple of other questions we need to deal with and talk about. We need to look at the idea of when human life begins. Our present law says human life begins at birth. This is nonsense. It is ridiculous from a number of perspectives, particularly a scientific perspective. The beginning of human life is at conception when the union of genetic material occurs and completion of the DNA package takes place.

Science has thrown a red herring into the whole discussion by arbitrarily choosing a number, day 14, as the point where the embryo becomes something more than it was on day 13. They want to be able to continue experimentation during the first 13 days so they suggest something happens on the 14th day that makes the embryo a different being. That is not the case.

Scientists have failed to address the issue of when life begins. They run the risk of disqualifying themselves by not dealing honestly with the issue. As we heard earlier this morning, for many of them the issue has become an opportunity to make a quick buck. It has become an economic decision rather than a scientific or ethical one.

My time is winding down. We will be addressing a number of other issues when the bill comes back to parliament. I will talk later about what human life is worth. We talked a bit about whether it is unique and when it begins. However what is it worth? Parliament needs to look at what we consider to be the value of human beings in our culture.

There are two interesting and ironic business realities in the legislation. Under Bill C-56 surrogate mothers would be paid absolutely nothing. They would not be allowed to make money from their commitment to surrogacy. On the other hand, companies in Canada would be allowed to make millions of dollars from research.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, we shall continue this afternoon with the debate on the opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will return to Bill C-56, respecting reproductive technologies, followed by Bill C-55, the public safety bill, and Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments. On Monday, we will continue consideration of these bills.

Tuesday will be an allotted day. In the evening on Tuesday, as the House already knows, we will sit in committee of the whole pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a) to consider the estimates of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

On Wednesday, if necessary, we will return to any of the bills I have previously mentioned that may not already been completed, subject to arrangements we may make to deal with the Senate amendments to Bill C-23, the competition legislation, Bill S-34, dealing with royal assent, and perhaps Bill C-5 concerning species at risk. We are also hopeful that Bill C-54, the sports bill, and Bill C-53, the pest control bill, will be reported from committee in the very near future, so that we may take up report stage and third reading of those particular items.

Finally, we are also looking forward to reports from committees of the House on two other bills that have been in committee for what would appear to be an inordinate length of time, namely, Bill C-48 dealing with copyright, which has been before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for more than three months now, and Bill C-19, the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is fast approaching its first anniversary before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am sure the House is anxiously awaiting the reports of those committees so that legislation can be proceeded with through its final stages.

Criminal Code

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into the debate on this important topic and a pleasure to have been able to second my colleague's bill. My colleague from South Surrey--White Rock--Langley has worked long and hard on this issue. As she indicated in her speech, she began back in 1996 with this topic. Her issue predates the government's bringing in of Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation, which obviously gives us some reasons to rebut some of the things that the member for Northumberland mentioned as to how parts of the bill may not be congruent with Bill C-5. That is because this bill came forward first. My colleague saw an important issue, one worthy of consideration.

What the representative of the government has told us tonight is basically that if members of the Liberal governing party are to stay with what he said, then the government is going to vote to allow poachers to continue to take threatened and endangered species and to buy, possess and trade in those body parts, and it is going to vote against saving wildlife.

Time and time again we have seen the government members in this place stand up and vote as they are told on private members' bills. In fact the member said that his is the government position on a private member's bill. The member from the New Democratic Party mentioned that he supports the bill but individuals from his party will determine whether they are going to support the bill or not. They will have a free vote. What a novel idea. We are obviously in agreement on that issue of having a free vote. Obviously there is support from our colleagues in the Conservative Party as well. The Bloc will also have to defend its position of voting to allow poaching to continue and against saving animals.

I do not see how that is a justifiable position on this topic. The government has told us tonight about all the reasons why it cannot do something, why it cannot support the bill, instead of actually moving forward and doing something positive, instead of voting to protect wildlife, endangered species and threatened species, and to stop poachers in their place.

It is by their actions that government members will be held accountable. They will have to defend that position when they stand in their places and they vote against saving wildlife at the same time that they are bringing in a bill called the species at risk bill. They are arguing on one side to protect endangered species, and we support that notion, but then they are going to vote against saving wildlife by voting against this bill.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage will not allow wardens in our national parks to be armed with sidearms. How does that relate to the bill? It relates to the bill in this way: that in our national parks and other parts of the country this is a well organized trade, a criminal activity, in which poachers are taking animals out of our national parks illegally. If those who are there to enforce the law are unable to have the appropriate tools to defend themselves and to seek out those who would break the law in this illegal trade of body parts of animals, how can it be stopped?

It is just unbelievable. RCMP officers patrol the national parks and are limited in their ability to go into the back country. Of course they have the ability to stay close to the paved roads, but not a lot of poachers are hanging around in the parking lots in the national parks, or at the rest stops, or at the signboards at the entrances to the parks. They are in the back country. The wardens know where these things are happening and many times they are helpless to be able to stop those kinds of illegal activities because they are not properly equipped.

I want to rebut another claim made by the government in debate. My colleague from Calgary East touched on it and I want to highlight it again because the member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley clearly indicated it in her speech. It is contained in the substance of the bill that the provinces still have the ability to seek some re-conviction or make this an indictable offence. That is completely inaccurate. My colleague from Dauphin--Swan River mentioned it as well.

Let us be clear about what is in the legislation. It is a piece of legislation that would help to protect threatened and endangered species. It does move forward in a positive way to protect wildlife. It is incumbent upon the government, as the ruling party in the country, to come up with solutions to problems and to demonstrate through its actions that it is able to address issues in the country.

I mentioned yesterday in debate on Bill C-5, the endangered species bill, that the government promised in 1993 that it would move on this topic. Here it is 2002, almost 10 years later, and there is not a piece of legislation in place to protect species at risk or endangered species. That is unbelievable.

My colleague started six years ago on this topic, even longer ago than that, and has brought this to the House. We know how hard it is for a member to bring a private member's bill through the system, to get it to the point of not only getting her name drawn and getting it debated in the House, but also getting it votable. It is quite a task and I congratulate my colleague for her forbearance in going through that long and winding road to get this piece of legislation here.

It may be swept away by the backhand of the government in one fell swoop because it did not quite live up to its standards, or it was not quite good enough, or it was not the idea of a Liberal, or it was not drafted by Liberal people. I heard a colleague say that the government is so negative. I would agree in many ways. The Liberals are simply listing over and over again why they cannot support a good piece of legislation that has an effective means to stop poaching. That is basically what the member said. He gave us all the reasons they cannot support the bill.

Let me clearly state that Alliance members are supportive of Bill C-292. We know that we have support from some of the NDP and Conservative members, and no support at all from the government in any way on this issue. That is sad because what the government is saying to Canadians, and all the lobby groups that have been trying to get the government to move on this topic for 10 years, is that it has an opportunity to protect threatened and endangered species here but it will not do it. The government will vote to allow poachers to continue and it will vote against protecting endangered species and threatened wildlife.

Why? I do not know. The government has not articulated that clearly. It has given out a list of negative excuses as to why it cannot do it and it is a shame that we must end on that note today with the negativity of the government not moving forward to support a positive idea and bill that would protect wildlife.

It is a good bill that should be passed. We implore our colleagues on the government side to change their minds and the private members to stand in their place and support this excellent piece of legislation.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the provisions in Bill C-292, which is an act to amend the criminal code dealing with the sale of wildlife. If passed, the bill would create a new part in the criminal code, that is part XI.1, and would create three new offences relating to the selling of wildlife. These offences would apply despite the provisions of other federal acts of parliament. However, the bill expressly states that the section setting out offences does not alter the application of any existing aboriginal or treaty rights.

The offences proposed in Bill C-292 would address three activities: the selling of wildlife in whole or in part; the killing or capturing of wildlife for the purpose of selling that wildlife in whole or in part; and finally, possessing wildlife for the purpose of selling wildlife in whole or in part. It is worth noting at the outset that in contrast to the penalty provisions found in the Canada Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act and Bill C-5, which is a bill respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada which is currently before the House, the offences in Bill C-292 are considered to be so serious that they must be proceeded with by way of indictment.

This approach is inconsistent with the classification of offences elsewhere within the criminal code. For example, the offence of sexual assault is classified as a dual procedural offence, which means that the crown may elect to proceed by summary conviction or by indictment. It would appear to be inconsistent from a policy point of view to classify the selling of wildlife as an indictable offence when other offences considered more serious by society are classified as dual procedure offences.

Also, there would be a cost implication to the provinces and territories if straight indictable offences were created. All persons charged with any offences under the act would have the choice of a trial, including the possibility of a jury trial. The maximum penalties available in Bill C-292 range from two years to eight years depending upon whether the offence is a first or subsequent offence and also depending upon whether the wildlife involved is a threatened or endangered species. As an indictable offence, there is no limit to the amount of the fine that may be imposed.

Most members in the House would agree that the goal of discouraging the selling of wildlife and wildlife parts, particularly wildlife which is threatened or endangered, is a laudable one. The question though is whether or not this particular bill is the best way to achieve this goal. This in turn raises a larger question. Are the provisions of Bill C-292 in their essence about the prohibition of morally blameworthy behaviour which is traditionally associated with parliament's exercise of its criminal law power? Alternatively, is Bill C-292 more accurately characterized as a public welfare offence, which is traditionally associated with regulatory offences in a civil context?

It is the position of the government that from a constitutional perspective, Bill C-292 in its pith and substance is concerned with the regulation of wildlife rather than with prohibiting morally blameworthy behaviour. As such, the proposed amendments to the criminal code cannot be supported.

I would like to take this opportunity to briefly outline some of the features of the bill that are traditionally associated with the creation of offences in the regulatory context rather than with criminal code offences.

One important feature of the bill is that it does not apply equally to all Canadians. It expressly exempts from application any person who is authorized pursuant to a federal or provincial permit or licence to commit the acts which otherwise would qualify as an offence, as long as the wildlife involved is not a threatened or endangered species. Exemptions of this nature are extremely rare in the context of the criminal code.

Bill C-292 also permits the Minister of the Environment to exempt from the application of the act “any person or class of persons” in respect of a threatened or endangered species where “in the opinion of the Minister”, and I will underline the word opinion, “the exemption is necessary or in the public interest”. A provision of this nature is at risk of being declared unconstitutional on the basis that the criteria are so subjective and general that they do not provide any real limits on the behaviour to be exempted.

Another feature of the bill, which is not normally found in the criminal code, is that the Minister of the Environment is given the power to designate by regulation an animal as wildlife for the purposes of the act. Another provision would permit the Minister of the Environment to designate a species of wildlife as either an endangered species or a threatened species, provided that the minister had consulted with the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Again, these provisions are more consistent with legislation aimed at the protection and regulation of wildlife than they are with provisions found in the criminal code.

As noted by constitutional law expert Professor Peter Hogg, “A criminal law ordinarily consists of a prohibition which is to be self-applied by the persons to whom it is addressed. There is not normally any intervention by an administrative agency or official prior to the application of the law”.

A final feature of the bill I would like to note is that in the criminal code context, search and seizure powers given to peace officers and public officers are very carefully crafted. This is in keeping with the principle that the state powers of intrusion on the privacy of individuals should be used with restraint. The search and seizure provisions in the bill are not entirely consistent with those elsewhere in the criminal code. I think there has to be a very clear policy reason for diverging from provisions used in respect of all criminal code offences, including the most serious offences.

Finally, I think the interests of justice are served by a consistent and co-ordinated approach to the subject areas within the legislative competence of the federal government. Some of the provisions of Bill C-292 overlap those in the current wildlife legislation and also those in Bill C-5. This is problematic to the extent that discrepancies exist between these various pieces of legislation.

In view of the constitutional competence of the provincial governments to regulate the use of wildlife on provincial lands, I would urge those jurisdictions that are experiencing problems with the sale of wildlife or wildlife parts to work with their respective governments to address this problem in a regulatory context. This approach is preferable to that in Bill C-292, which incorporates into the criminal code mechanisms that are more often seen in regulatory offences.

In conclusion, the provisions of Bill C-292 cannot be supported because they are potentially in conflict with other federal legislation and are inconsistent with other provisions of the criminal code.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the House on the progress that was made earlier today with respect to one very important piece of legislation, Bill C-55. I hope that progress can continue through all stages of that legislation when the House returns to it.

This afternoon and tomorrow, we will continue with Bill C-47, the excise bill, Bill S-40, respecting clearing houses, and Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments.

Next week is a scheduled constituency week and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows the rather elaborate procedure that must be gone through to change that process. It is not an easy thing to do. However next week members will be at work in their constituencies.

When we return on May 21, I would expect then to return to Bill C-47, if it is not already completed. We then would turn our consideration to the very important legislation introduced earlier today with respect to reproductive technologies, that bill introduced by the Minister of Health. I would also in that week that we are back hope to make further and better progress on Bill C-5 concerning species at risk.

I would confirm the earlier commitment that I made to the Leader of the Opposition that Thursday, May 23 will be an allotted day.

Health Care Spending

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out something that is important in the species at risk legislation. It does respond to the needs of rural Canadians. The bill was formed with rural input. There were over 155 consultation sessions. The majority of these involved rural Canadians in many different parts of Canada. They talked, we listened. We adjusted our policy then we talked and listened some more.

I refuse to accept any criticism that Bill C-5 is not rural friendly legislation because it simply is not true. The key to effective species at risk legislation is the support and the co-operation of those Canadians who depend on the land for their livelihood. There is an overwhelming consensus across the country, especially by rural Canadians, that the government should pass the bill because it puts the co-operative principle first. Legislation will not protect species unless Canadians act on it.

We have the appropriate balance. It is built on co-operation not coercion. The bill is based on building trust not looking tough. The bill and the overall strategy itself is an opportunity for rural Canadians.

Species at Risk Act

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I think that it has become clear for all of us here in the House over the course of this debate at report stage, that the majority of the members, regardless of their party affiliation, share the same goal: to improve the protection of species at risk in Canada. I think that everyone agrees that this is a noble goal, and I am happy to share this goal with my colleagues.

However, it is important to note that after nine years of studies, consultations, drafting of documents and fine-tuning, after having seen what works and what does not by assessing results that are already being seen in the field, the time has now come to act, instead of talking about goals.

This bill before us has been very carefully prepared and it is very balanced. It must now be adopted in order to produce good results for Canadians and for our cultural heritage.

We sought the help of countless individuals and groups to arrive at what we have been able to achieve as far as Bill C-5 is concerned.

Allow me to take a few moments to highlight the important contributions made by so many Canadians. For more than eight years we have been working to shape the Species at Risk Act. We have worked closely with many people, our provincial and territorial partners, and individuals who may be personally affected by the legislation, such as aboriginal peoples, rural landowners, resource users and other interested parties.

We must realize that the protection of species at risk has become an issue that concerns people across the country. However no one person can respond to this issue alone, because it is an issue to which all of society must respond.

The fact that species at risk have survived on private lands speaks to the good sense of stewardship that Canadians have. I am thinking in particular of the river banks at Sainte-Rose, in my riding of Laval West, only a few kilometers from intense urban development, where there is a park that remains in a wild state. One can see ducks and white heron when walking the banks of the Mille-Îles River, thanks to the Government of Canada's program.

Therefore, it is important to continue to enjoy the support of those who live and work on the land, in the forest and on the water. We all want the protection of species to be ensured by those who live near them: farmers, ranchers, fishers, landowners and land users. Much more than mere wishes, this is the best solution, because this major piece of legislation is predicated on a co-operative approach. And this approach works, we know it does.

In fact, individual Canadians working on their own or through conservation agencies, industries or governments are already co-operating on a daily basis to protect the species at risk. Initiatives to recover more than a hundred endangered or threatened species are currently under way. These will make all the difference.

I would like to remind the House once again that the provinces and territories, aboriginal people and many other stakeholders were involved in the drafting of Bill C-5. Their efforts must be encouraged.

In closing, I know I do not have much time left, but I want to reiterate that Bill C-5 was made possible thanks to the co-operation of all the stakeholders, Canadians working on their own or through organizations.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

It is absolutely unbelievable that could happen. The Minister of Health says that the opposition is holding it up. Her own colleague was on a radio talk show in British Columbia this past weekend saying the reason it was held up was because of the rural caucus and its great, triumphant entry into the process. He said it was the Liberal government rural caucus that saved the day and did not allow Bill C-5 to go forward. That is what the member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey said.

The fact of the matter is that the government is divided on this issue. Even though it has a big majority it has not been able to put forward this piece of legislation and bring it into law for 10 years. It is being held up because it is not a good piece of legislation. Some of the Liberal members are asking some serious questions about it. We appreciate that they are doing that. The opposition has been doing that for a long time by pointing out inadequacies with the legislation. That is the political framework for the bill.

The government does not want reports made public. It would cut that right out. It would inhibit some of the accountability that the committee sought to move into the bill and cuts it out. It is gone. It is just off the record altogether.

My colleague from Surrey Central touched on the amendment having to do with documents in the public registry. What has been struck from this section is a clause that would say that all ministerial reports, including listing decisions, would be made public. The government amendment would remove that. It takes it right out of play. Why is that? We are not certain. We would think that accountability and transparency would be items that the government would want to include in its legislation not remove them.

The government, if it were to reveal information and be open with the public, would receive more support not less support. Yet for some reason in this amendment it has removed that public aspect of listing information. I would like to give the Liberals some advice. If they were to release more information and were more open they would actually receive more support.

Instead we have seen over the ten years that they have been here that it has not been a credo they work toward. In other words they are less open and less transparent. This creates more perception in people's minds that something must be going on. They wonder how they can trust the government.

All of the other situations that the government has been involved in are well documented. The auditor general has pointed out some difficulties in all kinds of areas, whether it be public works or defence spending.

There is another government amendment which would remove the five year review of the bill. In other words, the bill would move from being less open and less transparent. It is moving in the wrong direction.

The government has been here for almost 10 years. It is quite clear that after 10 years the government has not been able to put in a piece of legislation on endangered species. It is divided on the issue. The legislation has gutted some of the good amendments brought forward by the environment committee. It is another example of how the Liberal government has mismanaged an important topic and broken an election promise going back to 1993.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech on Bill C-5 by setting the political framework for where we are at with the bill. I will then talk about the unintended consequences as a result of the bill and focus on some of the specific motions. My colleagues highlighted many of them today. I will touch on one of them and then focus on some others.

First, the political framework for where we are at with the bill. We had some potential votes last Monday. We came to the House for those votes and surprise, they did not happen. There was some disruption among the government members as to whether they were going to support some of these motions and amendments. It is important to remind people of what is going on within the political framework.

The environment committee worked hard on the bill for a long period of time and a number of amendments brought forward, some even by government members, have been gutted by their own people: the minister and the department.

One of our Liberal colleagues mentioned earlier in debate that it was time to do something. The government has been in power for almost 10 years and on this topic it has accomplished absolutely nothing. There is no legislation, 0 for 10. It has been 10 years and no legislation. If the minister wants to take great delight in that, that is fine.

I believe that if the government were to move quickly on an election promise made in 1993 perhaps we would have seen some legislation in place already. The flip side of that argument is the government telling us that it has consulted, looked at every side of the issue forward, backward and upside down and that is why it has taken so long. However after 10 years the government is not at a point where it has the support of its own members on this piece of legislation.

The Liberal government approach is to appear to do something while actually doing nothing. The government wants to appear to be doing something to people out there but actually not change anything. That seems to be the model of how the government is operating, not just with this piece of legislation but with others as well.

The unintended consequences of the legislation have some dramatic impacts. Yes, the government wants to bring forward changes. It wants to protect the natural environment and endangered species. The opposition wants to do the same thing through a good piece of legislation, unlike the one we have before us.

Has the government in its 10 years of dealing with this issue taken a look at some of the economic impact that would happen as a result of this legislation? Has it done an actual analysis? Some of the government members mentioned earlier, how will the bill impact tourism or other areas of the economy? What about compensation for individuals whose property could be taken if an endangered species were found on it? That question has still not been adequately addressed after 10 years.

The government once again, by its words not through its actions, has demonstrated an inability to achieve its intended goal. It promised something in 1993. It is now 2002. It has been almost 10 years and there is still no legislation in place.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill for the first time. My colleague from Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île d'Orléans never misses an opportunity to inform us on significant realities. I hope that he is not against this bill because of its reference to species at risk. It may remind him of his party's situation. At the rate his colleagues are leaving for Quebec City, I get the impression that the Bloc Quebecois could be listed as a species at risk.

They do, however, have a somewhat contradictory attitude. They are prepared to adopt and defend all causes, but when the government develops and implements programs that enable us to attain the objectives they share with us—I am thinking for example of the infrastructure program and the highways in Quebec—when the government introduces a bill with $2 billion in funding, like the one currently being examined by the Senate, they vote against it, instead of being consistent with their own principles. If there are programs that open the door to extremely important initiatives in medical or industrial research, they will vote against the budget measures for them.

All in all, it is hard to see much consistency between their theoretical demands and their concrete actions here in the House sometimes, and it is hard to see them opposing measures of great help to all regions of the country, particularly the resource regions. I could go on about this at great length.

As far as Bill C-5 is concerned, it is not true that the federal government pushes everybody around. From 1984 to 1997, that is 13 years, I have had the opportunity—and I am pleased to pay tribute to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in this connection—to work with numerous federal and provincial ministers on what is now called the Saguenay—St. Lawrence National Marine Park. It was created after many, many consultations. Its creation in 1997 will enable us to take steps relating to the whole issue of protecting nature and wildlife, which are very important. This federal government initiative, undertaken in conjunction with the government of Quebec, which as we know does not share our ultimate objectives, was carried out in very close collaboration. After only a few years, the results are extremely positive.

Today the fjord of Saguenay is on the list of Canadian parks. For my part I wanted to make sure that one of the most beautiful natural sites in Canada and in the world be made a national park. It was time to stop arguing.

This evening, I want to congratulate the Minister of Canadian Heritage and her parliamentary secretary, who has been following this issue very closely. I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak to the bill.

Of course, one is always striving for perfection. Some say the bill goes too far, others that it does not go far enough. For my part, I believe that in real life when one waits for perfection to go forward one can wait a long time. History is not made by people who strive for perfection every day. One must forge ahead, step by step. In the end, it is the best way to make history, I believe.

In my opinion, this bill strikes not a perfect balance but an interesting one. It is the result of several years of consultation. Obviously, some groups are still opposed to it. However, most people are in favour of a bill that will help the conservation of species at risk.

It will not be done haphazardly, but with the help of scientific groups that will make recommendations to the government. The government will have to act quickly to save these species at risk. This will not be done without very down-to-earth consultations with local people, and on the basis of proven scientific data. The government will have to respond to these recommendations.

The interesting point regarding the recommendations made by COSEWIC is that they will eventually be adopted by the government. The final decision will not be made without considering social and economic factors.

When I go to the Saguenay--St. Lawrence marine park I can see species preservation in action. I can observe species and contemplate the beauty of the fauna and flora of our lovely region. The marine park was developed in close consultation with the local population.

The success of this park is an example of people working together. It was extremely difficult. Negotiating with the Government of Quebec is not easy. We have many examples of this in connection with infrastructure programs, research, and the homeless. By the way, I wish to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Labour, who is also responsible for co-ordinating programs for the homeless.

It takes time. It is complicated. I assure you that we are not going overboard on visibility. What the Government of Quebec wants above all is transfers of money, with no strings attached. But we represent all Canadians. We represent the Canadian government. There is nothing wrong with that. Canadians need to know that their government can do things which are in their best interests.

We demonstrate this daily. The important thing is that as soon as this bill is passed, hundreds of species will have the good fortune to be declared species at risk for the purposes of protection and rehabilitation. It is time we got to work in this sector.

It is wrong to say that the Canadian government is not doing its job properly. Because of some our initiatives in establishing parks, we are considered a model in the world. However, this is something that is not said often enough.

So, this evening I am obviously pleased to have an opportunity to speak and to say that I will be voting in favour of the bill. Obviously, the creation of the Saguenay--St. Lawrence marine park, in co-operation with the Government of Quebec, is one of the reasons that I will be doing so. Furthermore, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, has had an opportunity to work as Quebec's minister of the environment.

All in all, this is a bill which will allow us to define those species truly at risk, and to do so with grassroots organizations. The government will have to respond quickly to the recommendations of scientists and community groups. These recommendations will not be made at random. They will be made on the basis of very objective criteria.

What is also interesting is that we will have the financial means, if necessary, to provide compensation. Orders will be used to confirm that compensation is necessary for a species at risk.

There is already a stewardship program in place, with a budget of $45 to $50 million. This program allows us to manage objectively, by considering the fact that people may, to some degree, be adversely affected by the protection provided. However, fair and legitimate compensation will be provided in such cases. This is an interesting thing about the bill.

As for the protection of species at risk, it is not true that the federal government will throw its weight around. Quite the contrary. I sometimes find that the federal government is extremely polite and respectful in its initiatives. I had the opportunity to witness this with the national marine park in the Saguenay fjord, and with the creation of a Canadian research centre for the processing of aluminum, the construction of which will begin next month. We respected Quebec's jurisdiction, and worked in co-operation with existing organizations.

I am convinced that Bill C-5 will be passed without interfering with provincial jurisdictions. The only thing is that, ultimately, if the necessary work to protect and preserve species at risk is not done, the federal government will have the privilege and the right to assume its responsibilities. But I am 99% if not 100% sure that this bill, which is under the responsibility of my very competent colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, will be implemented in the full respect of the jurisdictions of all the territorial and provincial governments, including the Quebec government.

I am pleased to have used the Saguenay--St. Lawrence National Marine Park to support this bill which, I am sure, will respect all the other jurisdictions.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

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

Let me say, first of all, that the Bloc Quebecois cannot support that bill for various reasons, which I will try to explain. If we must oppose this bill, it is not just for the sake of opposing it. The subject matter is important and critical.

In my riding, Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, at this time of the year, the end of April and the beginning of May, we can observe the migration of snow geese, or Canada geese, all along the St. Lawrence River, in Beauport Bay, along the Beaupré Shore, in Cap Tourmente and on the shores of Île d'Orléans.

The Bloc Quebecois recognizes that it is important to protect the ecosystems of Canada. However, this must be done in a context of respect for the jurisdictions of both levels of governments.

Before going further and giving the reasons why our party opposes this bill, I want to say that, if I set the record straight by specifying that we agree with the principle, it is simply to keep the government majority from coming back later with totally demagogical statements such as “Since the Bloc Quebecois voted against the species at risk bill, it is against the preservation of the species at risk”.

We heard this no later than this afternoon, during question period. Indeed, we heard the Minister of Human Resources Development explain why the Bloc Quebecois had voted against the cosmetic amendments to the employment insurance reform. These amendments allowed the government to continue to take money from the employment insurance surpluses. This is why we voted against the amendments. This does not mean that we were against everything in the bill.

Liberals are experts in putting up smoke screens, in lulling people by saying “Since that party voted against the bill, it is against any change”. This was totally false in the case of the employment insurance reform, even though we recognize that improvements are needed.

We voted against the amendments because the government keeps claiming the power to take money out of the employment insurance fund.

It is the same thing with this bill. It does not mean that we are against protecting some species at risk. We are against the way the government goes about it.

We are aware that environment is a shared federal-provincial jurisdiction. It is becoming more and more obvious that the federal government is ignoring this reality and moving away from true harmonization with all government orders on environmental issues.

Instead of properly carrying out its own major responsibilities, the federal government keeps trying to take over jurisdictions other than its own.

Instead of trying to better control and assess toxic substances, such as pest control products, to assess the impact of GMO on ecosystems or to deal with transboundary pollution and migrating species, it introduces legislation that goes well beyond its own jurisdiction and that could lead to unnecessary duplication in areas dealt with by the provinces with regard to their own territory and their resources.

Although Canada was one of the first industrialized country to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity, need I remind the House that it was for a long time among the five countries refusing to sign the Protocol on Biosafety, which is a direct result of the convention.

The federal government's position on genetically modified organisms does not reflect the position that it wants to defend with this bill. Moreover, we feel that what the federal government calls a double safety net—that is two levels of government operating in the same jurisdiction—waters down the accountability of both and seriously complicates the assignment of responsibilities.

The Liberal government's claims regarding the importance of a national approach to protecting species go against the spirit of true environmental harmonization and ignore the provincial legislation already in effect as well as the significant progress made by some provinces.

This bill will only create duplication, at a time when resources are limited and it is important to maximize efforts in this area and channel them properly.

We believe that the government should take into consideration the opinion of certain groups which are voicing concerns. We have noticed that even environmental groups are opposed to this legislation. Even groups that should naturally be inclined to support this bill are opposing it. The government should ask itself whether there is enough public support for this bill.

I am also tempted to put my Liberal friends on the spot by asking them if there is enough support for this bill among government members. There appears to be serious dissent among Liberal members. I am anxious to see if they will behave like puppets on a string. I am anxious to see what Liberal members will do when the time comes to vote. I hope that those who, in all honesty and conscience, are saying that this bill does not make sense, will rise and continue to put pressure on their caucus and tell the government that this bill does not work.

I could talk about groups that came to meet us, elected officials and members of parliament. I could mention the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. I worked for 14 years in that industry, with the Abitibi Price company. I could talk about the concerns of the mining industry.

Just recently, last week in fact, I received representatives from the Quebec real estate board, which has certain concerns. We cannot turn a deaf ear to these concerns. It is true that, sometimes, they may be based on competing interests and, in this case, interests that are different from those of environmental groups. We must recognize that fact. However, a government cannot turn a deaf ear to protests from within its own ranks as well as from civil society groups.

In a democracy, when is compliance with an act more likely? When there is a social consensus that is strong enough. My understanding of our role as parliamentarians is to pass legislation on which a consensus can easily be reached. Instead of that, because they form the government and because they have a majority of seats, the members opposite think that they can ram legislation through no matter what the public thinks of it. A government must be responsive to the needs and concerns expressed by the people.

Often, when we attend social activities in our ridings on weekends, we can see that if there is one thing that people do not like about governments at all levels—this certainly does not help the credibility of politicians—it is the fact that they do not listen, that they are not responsive to their concerns.

In conclusion, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, recognize the need to improve the protection of our ecosystems, and the endangered plant and animal species that constitute them, but we do not believe Bill C-5 is the way to go. For these reasons, we oppose this bill.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Madam Speaker, I knew we had a quorum. We always have a quorum. Members are working busily in the lobby behind me making phone calls to constituents, following up on very important files in support of issues in their ridings and issues across the country. I am very pleased that they are monitoring this debate from the lobby and I hope we will not have any more interruptions such as we have just seen.

Back to the point of compensation, as I said, Bill C-5 will provide for fair and reasonable compensation that can be paid for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact when it is necessary to prohibit destruction of critical habitat. Funding is already available through the Government of Canada's habitat stewardship program to help landowners and resource users modify their activities so as not to harm species and habitat.

I should add that this legislation would be complementary to existing provincial and territorial legislation. In fact I would like to touch on the issue of co-operation with our provinces and territories. Under the accord for the protection of species at risk, we joined our provincial and territorial partners in making a series of commitments. We are working to live up to those commitments. We should understand that many provinces and territories have in many ways already lived up to theirs. Certainly we do not want to lag behind nor do we wish to compromise the efforts of our provincial and territorial partners.

As we have, the provinces have struggled with policies in relation to this issue as well. I would like to single out Nova Scotia and Newfoundland for the efforts they have made already in this regard. We have all repeatedly endorsed the spirit of the accord for the protection of species at risk. We have repeatedly pointed to our joint commitments to protecting species and their habitats and to bringing in legislation that enshrines these practices in law.

For decades the federal, provincial and territorial governments have been working together on wildlife management. We have many success stories as a result of this co-operation. The provinces, territories and the federal government have worked side by side on recovery, stewardship, critical policy questions and process. The Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council has met in good faith on a number of occasions and has simply pressed on with this very important work because we made a commitment and we are all determined to honour the bargains we have made. That is why the co-operative approach has to fit. That is why we need to fulfill the federal obligation for legislation on species at risk.

The public wants us to move forward on this. They want us to be mindful of the important concerns of our farming community, our tourism industry and our forest industry. Yes, these are important elements in our economy, and there is no intent here to compromise our ability to create and sustain jobs, to help build the economy, such as we have been doing since 1993. We plan to continue as long as the public will honour us with their support.

I would like add, too, that in a certain legal sense the issue of strict liability is something that deserves mention here. I do not want to lecture the House on what all of this means, but it is very important that interpretations of strict liability be consistent with other government legislation. Almost all federal environmental legislation and provincial wildlife legislation have strict liability offences. Anyone accused under this legislation would have the possible defence, however, of due diligence. Many witnesses who spoke before the standing committee told members that protecting endangered and threatened species represents the emergency room of wildlife conservation.

As I wind up my remarks, let me say that the public likes to see different levels of government working together and co-operating. They expect us to do together the things that make life better for our communities and their citizens, so that in fact when we imagine this country 500 or 1,000 years from now, if we indeed can, we imagine a country that is better than the one in which we live right now.