Mr. Speaker, as assistant critic for the environment and sustainable development, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-23.
This bill seeks to modernize and update a law dating back to 1917. To understand it better, I think that we have to go back a little into our history and look at the situation at the turn of the century. In the early 1900s, there was considerable exploitation of migratory birds and trade in them. As a result, their numbers dropped drastically. The need to intervene to end this illicit trade and to protect the species was increasingly urgent.
In 1916, Canada and the United States signed the Migratory Birds Convention. The next year, in 1917, Parliament passed the Migratory Birds Convention Act. The provisions of this Act seek to regulate the hunting of migratory birds and to prevent traffic and trade in them.
Through permits, this law controls the use made of migratory birds. Several aspects of the 1917 law are obsolete today. For example, the penalties provided in the Act are no longer what society is entitled to expect. Fines from $10 to $300 are provided for infractions. Bill C-23 as presented today increases these penalties very significantly.
Amounts of up to $5,000 and even $25,000 provided in clause 13(1) will deter poachers, we hope. The evolution of our society and the example of penalties alone show the importance of updating and modernizing this law, of strengthening the enforcement rules and clarifying the procedures.
For us in the Bloc Quebecois, several aspects of this law are of great interest. As I said in the introduction to my speech, it was very necessary to update the legislation. In particular, we hope to add that not only birds, their eggs and nests are protected but also their embryos and tissue cultures.
We think that this provision is essential; given the evolution of biotechnology and the amazing possibilities that exist or will exist in this regard, this provision is most desirable. Clearly, however, such a scientific achievement was unimaginable in 1917 and the law could not include such a clause.
According to various environmental groups, millions of wild birds are illegally captured, poisoned or driven from their nests throughout the world. Therefore it is appropriate for us to legislate in this way in view of this phenomenon.
We learned in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix last January and in La Presse that 1,000 of 9,600 bird species were in danger of extinction; that is, more than 10 per cent of our birds could disappear very soon. We agree that the situation is urgent.
An article in the March 24 issue of La Presse contained some comments on the seriousness of the situation. The author showed that 70 per cent of existing species in the world are in decline. According to one study he quotes, the illegal trade in wild birds is a growing threat to the species, especially in Southeast Asia. World Watch , an American magazine, gives some of the reasons why the number of birds is decreasing in Canada and throughout the world, and I quote: ``Most bird species are in decline because the natural balance is upset by the global expansion of mankind''.
Of course, the problems caused by deforestation due to farmland expansion or urban spread, industrial and domestic pollution are but a few of the factors contributing to the declining number of birds in Canada and throughout the world. In North America alone, deforestation may have caused the alarming reduction in bird population in 250 species breeding on its territory.
As I said earlier, we must speak up on the illegal trade in birds. According to a study by the World Wide Fund for Nature, this lucrative trade is growing by leaps and bounds. In the last 20 years, 2,600 species have been identified among those traded. This commercial activity is flourishing in Southeast Asia. To the
five million birds traded each year must be added an estimated three million in China.
We are in a position to realize that this kind of trade affects much more than our two countries. We are legislating on a bilateral Canada-U.S. solution but we must also see the problem as a whole.
Serious allegations have led us to consider this problem from an international standpoint. Some airlines will not transport wild birds. That is fine. However, the article from the WWF goes on to say: "Singapore proclaimed itself the hub of this trade for the whole region". Because of loopholes in the legislation, wild birds illegally exported from Indonesia, Thailand or Malaysia become legal goods when they go through Singapore.
You might say we are a long way from our bill on migratory birds in Canada and in the United States, but we are not. Environmental problems such as acid rain, the ozone layer, dangerous goods and many others know no boundaries. And the impact here of these various problems require us to take a stand.
Clearly, Bill C-23 is a positive measure in this context. We cannot oppose a good initiative. However, the international scope of the problem probably requires a worldwide approach as well.
It is because problems related to the ozone layer have such an international dimension that the Montreal Protocol was signed with several countries. The issue of importing and exporting dangerous goods could not be solved with a national piece of legislation. Again, several sovereign states had to agree on regulations concerning the exchange and transportation of such goods. Canada could be the leader in this field and set, through an international convention, standards which would provide some protection to this species.
I will conclude by reaffirming my support to Bill C-23, but I also want to remind you of some proposed legal principles for environmental protection and sustainable development, which are approved by Canada.
Article two of these principles provides that: "States shall conserve and use the environment and natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations". Article three says: "States shall maintain ecosystems and ecological processes essential for the functioning of the biosphere, shall preserve biological diversity, and shall observe the principle of optimum sustainable yield in the use of living natural resources and ecosystems".
In article 8, we see that the States shall co-operate in good faith with other States in implementing the preceding rights and obligations.
These are only 3 of the 22 principles for environmental protection, as found in the Brundtland report entitled Our Common Future .
I would urge the Canadian government to look forward when it deals with environmental protection and sustainable development, but to keep in mind all the agreements already signed. In this case, we have no other choice but to protect the migratory birds. However, we should be careful in doing so not to impinge on other jurisdictions. Too often, our legislation grants too much discretionary power to the minister, who can choose to enforce only parts of the law. We do not think this is the case with this bill. That is why my party and I want the bill to be referred to a committee who will seek to improve it.
Together, let us protect the endangered species.